The right to offend and the right to be offended

a reply to: daskakik

I don't get the analogy you're putting forward here.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm just pointing out that words can indicate actions to be taken and people reacting to them are not just being superstitious, as you claim.

Anyone in the first two examples are justified in feeling fear, stress or whatever.

Anyone who is part of a group to which the second example may apply is also justified in feeling whatever they feel and have a right to fight against the measures that those words announce.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The right to offend and the right to be offended. There are some things everyone has to learna about this crap.

All this stuff about politiclly correct speech has nothing to do with reaceism, it has everything to do with suppressing free speech. its simply the TPTBB slowly creating a culture that existed in the USSR in the big bad red commies under the baed crap when Russians dare to not say anyithing critical of the regime.

to address the issue raised in this post specificallywe need to consider this. What law says I cannot say something that offends others.

What law says I cannot comment on another persons religion, body shape, hair colour hair do, eyebrowes etc? Why should there be any law that prevents me from doing so?

What law says I cannot say something that offends others? Do I have to agree with every persons throughts about releigion, politics, sport, food preference, trade or profession, sexual preference, their car, their dog, thier hose and the painting they have on their kitchen wall, and 10,001 other things. Why should any law exist that prevents me from doing so.

Why do goverments use legsialtion as the firstr and the most preferred tool to prevent one ignorant, stupid immature, insenstive person who has no tact or diplomacy, or respect for others, from saying something hurtfull, offensive insensritive, lack common deceny and respect for other people.

Why does the goverment consider legsialtion to be the sole remedy when education has been the preferred remedy since the 1960s up till 5-6 years or so ago?

There is only answer to this that is because legsiatiing against people saying hurtfull things is just the start, the door has been unlocked. In the fullness of time, the door will get opended more and more unitl its completly flung open.

The powers that were very critical of the big bad commie reds but by christ they studies their methods very closely.

a reply to: daskakik

They would be scared even if they were deaf, or didn't understand the language. Besides, I meant that the belief that words can effect others is superstitious, not getting scared when people become threatening.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That seems to be a Buddhist's position. Nothing bothers you until you decide it does.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But words can affect others. Even if it is of their making an affect is caused.

Even if we set those instances aside, you use the same argument even when people are not just reacting to the words but to the actions that follow them. For example, Trump's travel ban, they were just words when he first mentioned it but it was followed up by an action. People who reacted to the words, given the source, were justified in feeling that it would affect them. They were not just being superstitious.

This discussion has recently been doing the rounds over in Australia as the Turnbull Government wanted to change the Racial Discrimination Act by replacing the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' with 'harass'.

I thought it was quite a sensible proposal but unfortunately it seems us Aussie's have become too thin-skinned and there has been a huge push against it happening.

I do self censor because I don't want to offend others or hurt their feelings. Plus I can do without arguments and embarrassment.

But I am mightily offended when others presume to tell me what I can or cannot say. How dare they think that I won't be polite enough to judge for myself what is acceptable and what is not.

So what's to be done about my offendedness? Why do I have to be the one who's butt sore with no redress?

Hellooo? Everybody else got spared being offended because I got offended first.

Being offended doesn't kill us but the punishments and censure for offending people far outweigh the crime especially when the 'injured party' can use practically the whole internet to publicise the incident.

So many 'storms in a teacup' are blown out of all proportion by silly people who can't or won't understand that publicising their offendedness so widely will ultimately kill everyone's freedom to speak freely.

Instead of shrieking off to Facebook they could just tell the offender to bog off, but that would involve a one on one confrontation. Much easier to go online and muster the troops to bully some poor sap who lacked the good graces to ignore your muffin tops.

There's a saying that even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being fallen over. I remember that if anyone says anything a bit questionable in front of me. It works well enough.

The really dark side to all this is that before long we'll all be afraid to speak to each other at all. We'll get more and more isolated, perhaps only feeling comfortable communicating with others like ourselves. How then can we build bridges with others unlike ourselves if we're eternally fearful of putting our foot in it?

a reply to: DBCowboy

MODS! Please ban this thread! I cannot believe that this type of hate speech is allowed on ATS!

Can the usual defenders of social justice please notify the OP that this is racist hate speech?

Take your hate facts somewhere else you damn Nazi!!!

Everyone do your duty, and kick some Nazi booty!

a reply to: Winstonian

Have you seen the size of that Nazi booty?

There's not enough of us...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
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.

Just wanted to point out it sounds like you're thinking of the Milgram Experiment, which had nothing to do with being in the other room, because they could both see and hear the screaming victim. It was a test about appeal to authority.

But you are correct that the lack of empathy largely stems from anonymity and people unwilling to humanize someone face to face. It's easier to hate when people generalise.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But words can affect others. Even if it is of their making an affect is caused.

Even if we set those instances aside, you use the same argument even when people are not just reacting to the words but to the actions that follow them. For example, Trump's travel ban, they were just words when he first mentioned it but it was followed up by an action. People who reacted to the words, given the source, were justified in feeling that it would affect them. They were not just being superstitious.

You don't understand. I'm not calling them superstitious, but you for believing it is the words making them do it.

a reply to: eletheia

Not allowing themselves to become victims will eventually deter the

bully (no reaction >no victim >no satisfaction?) and in the process ....

thicker skin and self esteem is developed!

How ridiculous! No. Ummm. I'm so offended right now...

Must...not...agree...with...Elethia...

I wholeheartedly agree with you and thicker skin can be a bonus

Dammit! I thought we'd never agree on anything and feel like you've somehow broken a streak.

I think people should ask themselves, if they aren't defending all free speech, then what speech are they defending?

a reply to: DBCowboy
You need to stop this nonsensical thinking right now...it's going to retard the production of safe spaces.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You don't understand. I'm not calling them superstitious, but you for believing it is the words making them do it.

I'm not superstitious because I don't believe it is the words making them do it, it is the whole situation.

Thinking that words don't/can't play a part is incorrect.

You seem to have a straw man on your hands.

a reply to: berenike

The really dark side to all this is that before long we'll all be afraid to speak to each other at all. We'll get more and more isolated, perhaps only feeling comfortable communicating with others like ourselves.

Thats already the case. Its gotten so bad that at the Universities in the US they grade on the basis of participation and particularly in the PC classes against white people. Read yesterday that a Florida Universty is considering mandating all incoming first year students take a PC indoctrination course about how to combat white privilege and a big grading component will be participation.

The obvious downsde of that of course is that rather than actually engaging people, these tactics quickly teach people how to parrot the Instructor to get through the course as quickly and easily as possible. Minds arent changed, they are only challenged about how to game the system. My guess is that it also hardens and widens racial tribal fault lines and ends up discouraging exchange of information. I actually saw that at my last job where a team of the PC demographic would lead a meeting about a project and how to accomplish the goal. None of us who knew the process wouldnt work spoke up, we just huddled together after the meeting and discussed our alternatives. Mosty we just dropped out and of course nothing came together so we quietly suggested they hire an outside consultant to do the job.

I see no resolution to the problem at this point, but its obviously taking a toll on the productivity numbers as reported by the economists.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Not one of them but I would guess that they are defending civil speech.

Remember when a parent would correct a child (usually physically) for saying something out of line? The lesson there was "you can't just go around saying anything you want".

Seems to be the same thing just from a different source.

a reply to: daskakik

So free speech is bad, but civil speech is good.

The problem arises when someone gets to define civil speech, I suppose.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not superstitious because I don't believe it is the words making them do it, it is the whole situation.

Thinking that words don't/can't play a part is incorrect.

You seem to have a straw man on your hands.

If it is not the words making them do it, what do your examples have to do with anything I am talking about?

Thinking that words don't play a part is incorrect how? I never said words do not play a part, Mr. Strawman.