It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The right to offend and the right to be offended

page: 8
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Deaf Alien




I think I understand where you are coming from. Like the German people had a choice to listen and act on Hitler's words.
And yes Godwin's Law wins once again.


Don't underestimate how much censorship had an effect on the results of Nazi Germany. No contrary opinion was allowed. No criticism allowed. In fact, Germany had hate-speech laws by modern standards, and the Nazis still gained power. Laws against speech do not work.

And in a lot of cases , contribute to the rise of evil dictators.




posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
You can call me anything you like , just dont call me "late for dinner"
Or politically correct
I hate it when either of those happen



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
There is a difference between being forthright, calling a spade a spade and deliberately phrasing your words to cause hurt.

Trouble is, some folks just cant see that distinction and thus we have this idiotic pc culture that abhors truth.


This...and what AboveBoard said, above, leads me to conclude that we as a social media-based society have, indeed, become 'desensitized' to empathy from both ends of the communication equation.

Lack of, or severe reduction of, face-to-face direct human communication, has caused our empathy skills to atrophy and mutate.

ETA: THIS causes us to miscalculate and operate like a bull in a china shop with our comments to others....causing more retarded personal sensitivity buffers and greater opportunity for the causing of offense.

ETA2: Case in point...Just look at how many ridiculous FB altercations and misunderstandings are occurring, frequently, between families and friends...often over actions which would never have had the same result if the same people were communicating face to face.



edit on 10-4-2017 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2017 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2017 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: HeathenJessie

OK, I'm talking about picking on the fat kid like they do in the book Blubber by Judy Blume. Surely if you are near to my age, you must have read it growing up if you are a girl.

The narrator is barely hanging on to the "in crowd" which decides to go after one girl who is moderately chubby, and the narrator goes along until the game goes too far and she resists. Then suddenly she's on the outs and the chubby chick is "in" and the narrator learns how quickly the worm can turn and who her real friends are.

None of it has to do with simply giving health advice to the fat kid, but these days, even that is considered bullying and hateful -- fat shaming.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I think it's the anonymous nature of medium. When you aren't actually communicating directly face-to-face, it lets you do things you couldn't normally do.

For a lot people, that's a scary thing. They just spew out garbage.

I know 90% of the stuff I say here I could never say to another person openly except a very few people I am very close to because I am very shy, introverted person. I can interact with people normally, but there are very few I really open up with in person.

Most of you get more of my inner thoughts than a lot of people who have been seeing me in person and interacting with me for years. At the same time, I never forget there are people out there behind the keyboards, or at least I try not to.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: IAMTAT

I think it's the anonymous nature of medium. When you aren't actually communicating directly face-to-face, it lets you do things you couldn't normally do.

For a lot people, that's a scary thing. They just spew out garbage.

I know 90% of the stuff I say here I could never say to another person openly except a very few people I am very close to because I am very shy, introverted person. I can interact with people normally, but there are very few I really open up with in person.

Most of you get more of my inner thoughts than a lot of people who have been seeing me in person and interacting with me for years. At the same time, I never forget there are people out there behind the keyboards, or at least I try not to.


It's like that old scientific psychology study that shows people are willing to more frequently remotely shock test subjects in another room, when they can't see them.

Social media is exactly like that.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: SprocketUK
There is a difference between being forthright, calling a spade a spade and deliberately phrasing your words to cause hurt.

Trouble is, some folks just cant see that distinction and thus we have this idiotic pc culture that abhors truth.


This...and what AboveBoard said, above, leads me to conclude that we as a social media-based society have, indeed, become 'desensitized' to empathy from both ends of the communication equation.

Lack of, or severe reduction of, face-to-face direct human communication, has caused our empathy skills to atrophy and mutate.

ETA: THIS causes us to miscalculate and operate like a bull in a china shop with our comments to others....causing more retarded personal sensitivity buffers and greater opportunity for the causing of offense.

ETA2: Case in point...Just look at how many ridiculous FB altercations and misunderstandings are occurring, frequently, between families and friends...often over actions which would never have had the same result if the same people were communicating face to face.





The advent of social media has placed even more importance on free speech because it has become much more vulnerable.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
The psychological dynamics of internet chat environments lends it self to depersonalization and fantasy.
I know some people from ATS on a personal level and inperson they are completely different than their online persona.

In fact they are bullys on line but pathetic cowards in a real confrontation. The converse is also true but infrequent. Anonymity breeds deception.
edit on 10-4-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: SprocketUK
There is a difference between being forthright, calling a spade a spade and deliberately phrasing your words to cause hurt.

Trouble is, some folks just cant see that distinction and thus we have this idiotic pc culture that abhors truth.


This...and what AboveBoard said, above, leads me to conclude that we as a social media-based society have, indeed, become 'desensitized' to empathy from both ends of the communication equation.

Lack of, or severe reduction of, face-to-face direct human communication, has caused our empathy skills to atrophy and mutate.

ETA: THIS causes us to miscalculate and operate like a bull in a china shop with our comments to others....causing more retarded personal sensitivity buffers and greater opportunity for the causing of offense.

ETA2: Case in point...Just look at how many ridiculous FB altercations and misunderstandings are occurring, frequently, between families and friends...often over actions which would never have had the same result if the same people were communicating face to face.





The advent of social media has placed even more importance on free speech because it has become much more vulnerable.


Yes.
...as the understanding of our age-old concept of speech,itself, is currently being transformed...or mutated.

The 'Tower of Babel' story suddenly comes to mind.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It certainly is something passed down from parent to child, teacher to student, friends to friends. We all listen to others as we grow up and determine some things acceptable and others not. However nothing is unacceptable, by words. People should have the right to say as they wish and we do have that ability in some parts of the world. Those places should take hold of that right before its taken because yes I agree. People are loosing touch.

I continue to vent my views, I never give the edited version either. People deserve to hear what they hear and also deserve to be offended.

It my be worth to give this comedian a listen to, puts it bluntly.

3:20 is where is begins with the part you may enjoy


edit on 10-4-2017 by BlackProject because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: odzeandennz




physical harm is one thing. physiologically, every human on this planet is susceptible to hurtful language.


Pseudoscience.


I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said here, with the exception of this.

Its the basis behind everything from marketing to political correctness itself.

However, it has very, very little place in a discussion of this sort. Not only does it involve constant, prolonged exposure, but it would go right past any and all barriers erected to control speech. It can be, and frequently is, accomplished with the most flowery, benign language possible.

Now, to be clear, the poster you were responding to didn't really seem to be going in the direction I'm speaking about, but the excerpt is applicable. In bringing it up in a conversation about "freedom of speech," it also tends to carry the insinuation that we do not, in the end, have responsibility or control over our actions due to words.. Which is a problematic concept.

An individual, or group of individuals, can have their behavior and perspective influenced and "controlled" with language with great consistency and to a shocking degree. But, that fact does not ever absolve personal responsibility no matter how much some would like it to be so.

Getting someone to deny that responsibility is an ironic first step in gaining a mental foothold. Something which has been leveraged with great success in many social movements troubling us today.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

There's a couple of exceptions I take to this post. First, all of the hypothetical quotes are obnoxious, rude, etc., but all are protected by free speech. None rises to the level of a crime. They are insensitive for sure, and societal norms would dictate how those about him should respond. None of those statements are limited by our limited rights.

Assuming you wished that they were unprotected, then what is the remedy? A criminal conviction? A fine? How would such a statute be worded? Would there be limited number of words or sayings that are are going to be included? Its unworkable even if it weren't protected. What if I were to call a young man a "wizened old bitch", would that still be illegal? You see my point.

Even if such a statute were workable and constitutional, who is to decide which phrases, words, sentiments are included? I certainly wouldn't trust the Congress to properly draft such a law.

If someone says something mean, it's absolutely correct to feel bad about it. However, as the saying goes, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
edit on 10-4-2017 by TobyFlenderson because: typo



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

This whole issue of intentions is wrongheaded. The OP is about free speech. Intentions don't come in to play. If we are talking about morals or societal disapprobation then intention does count. Free speech does not have to do with morals or community ethos, in fact, speech against morals and ethos are specifically protected by the case law. A post last month was about the burning of the US flag. This is an act intended to offend and is also protected.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I HATE Your Wuessy Avatar Cowboy , I Really Do . Are You Offended by that ? I am Betting you are Above that . Here's a Better One that Fits You to a Tee.......LOL......)




edit on 10-4-2017 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The right to offend

Anyone can take offense at anything.
You need no permission to run your mouth to offer 'offense'.
Getting a fist in the mouth, or a bullet to the head, can well be a feature of deliberately (and even not deliberately) giving offense/disrespect!


and the right to be offended

'Offence' is your own feelings, you always have 'right' to feel them.
No one 'makes' you feel anything!
Taking offense is on you.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

It is problematic, but so are many inconvenient truths. The biology, the physics and the history do not match up with the superstition that people are affected by another's language.

The contempt, the stress, or whatever the emotion that accompanies hearing or reading language is entirely self-generated. Once the language is in a person's domain, like any stimulus, the understanding, his subsequent reaction and the degree to which he can control it is his and his alone.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You can call it superstition if you like but a Trump supporter in an antifa riot or an African american surrounded by racists being told that they will get a beating are not just being superstitious.

One step further, a person from a group finding out that they will be loosing rights because a government spokesperson informs the populace that laws will be changing isn't just being superstitious either
edit on 11-4-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Hmm. Makes sense.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I appreciate your reply and understand where you're coming from. You're not the first to argue that 'everything is politics' or 'the personal is political.'

Freedom of speech can be politicised and has been, yes. When you bring out the old 'political correctness' to chastise my comments, you've opted to politicise what I've said and reduce them to silliness. You brought the 'big guns' out and killed any meaningful conversation.

Of course, I salute and celebrate your right to do so!


a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Hello TF, no worries. My earlier post had already asked the question about who gets to decide? The one before that had already pointed out the problems between abusing freedom of speech and defending it.

The extreme comments were a response to MOMof3's point that we can say whatever we like and the other person shouldn't be offended. There are cases in the UK were comments similar to mine have led to manslaughters, murders and suicides. Consequences of our actions etc. If it's freedom of speech to insult an old woman, does the protection extend to insulting her each day? All day? What if a group of people want to insult her each day?

There's been a good deal of argumentum ad absurdum in here whereas the real argument is freedom of speech can be complicated. My position in this thread has not been anti-freedom of speech. The OP understood this as did several other members.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join