Society/Culture I support free speech, unless it offends me

[TheMightyEagles]

The Spectator published a well timed article earlier this week:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...ys-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/.

Read it if you have the time, but his general point is that people are more and more concerned these days about being comfortable in their groupthink than upholding free speech. He relies on two personal examples:

1. He and another journalist were recently banned from debating abortion at Christ Church, Oxford because they weren't women. A group of students protested against the debate on the grounds that the debators ‘do not have uteruses’ and it would threaten the "mental safety" of Oxford students.
2. He participated in a debate at Cambridge on religious schools. However he was shouted down because he had the audacity to suggest that 'lad culture’ will not turn men into rapists.

As he later points out, "I ... spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal". This reminded me of a recent spate of articles about where RedFoo was publicly harrassed by the PC crew for apparently calling somebody a **** in a song (shock horror), after which he ended up issuing a public apology. Obviously these people never grew up listening to gangster rap.

Whinging about other's opinions and demanding censorship of them used to be domain of old bored conservative curmudgeons. Now, however, I'm concerned that the silencing of debate seems to be becoming a more widespread tactic used in society to push an agenda. I open the floor to you.

 

[clogged]

I always wonder what the reaction would be if Jimi Hendrix was around today and released 'Hey Joe' as his first single. Would he even make it to a second single?

 

[The Coup]

The problem with what the right call "freedom" is that its a freedom to be stupid.

Everyone's idiocy is equally valid in this vein of freedom. So morons can feel persecuted because nobody takes their moronic opinions seriously, whilst academics, scientists and professionals are ignored because they "are just one opinion". This is "libertarian" freedom which the likes of Murdoch and the IPA love.

Keep the discussions stupidly narrow (Really? Abortion? Like that issue wasn't solved 40+ years ago) and pretend there's a giant schism between the stupid and the non stupid, whilst ignoring real issues like poverty, war, police, capitalism etc.

Real freedom comes from conflict, and resolving conflict. Whinging because someone won't listen to you is just... whinging.

 

[medusala]

The problem with what the right call "freedom" is that its a freedom to be stupid.

Everyone's idiocy is equally valid in this vein of freedom. So morons can feel persecuted because nobody takes their moronic opinions seriously, whilst academics, scientists and professionals are ignored because they "are just one opinion". This is "libertarian" freedom which the likes of Murdoch and the IPA love.

Appeal to authority fail.

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

 

[The Coup]

Appeal to authority fail.

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

Actually its not an appeal to authority.

Its an appeal to conflict, where all sides have it out openly in the search for actual verifiable truth.

This faux libertarian bullshit merely allows both sides of any argument to feel offended and play the victim card, without resolving anything because, as an example: "Look, they're idiots, but they have a right to be idiots, and that right is equally as valid as all this scientifically proven fact even if it ****s with the planet"

 

[fleabitten]

Actually its not an appeal to authority.

Its an appeal to conflict, where all sides have it out openly in the search for actual verifiable truth.

This faux libertarian bullshit merely allows both sides of any argument to feel offended and play the victim card, without resolving anything because, as an example: "Look, they're idiots, but they have a right to be idiots, and that right is equally as valid as all this scientifically proven fact even if it ****s with the planet"

I agree with you when it comes to issue that have mountains of evidence and informed opinion on one side and nothing of substance on the other (creationism vs evolution for example), but some issues are purely opinions and unpopular opinions should be free to be voiced. Although I'm firmly pro-choice, anti-abortion speakers should have the right to be heard. There's no hard scientific evidence to say that abortion is moral. That said, just because they are free to speak against it, doesn't mean they should be able to enforce their beliefs on others.

 

[The Coup]

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but you should a view to actual resolution too.

There is a thing called scientific method, it can apply to opinion too. It's one of the key planks of left wing politics.

 

[medusala]

This faux libertarian bullshit merely allows both sides of any argument to feel offended and play the victim card, without resolving anything because, as an example: "Look, they're idiots, but they have a right to be idiots, and that right is equally as valid as all this scientifically proven fact even if it ****s with the planet"

Again appeal to authority. As if somehow Tim Flannery has something to offer. Its a pathetic argument. Just because you have no qualms in allowing others to think for you, don't attempt to convince yourself that everyone else is a merino. Scientifically proven facts are all too often nothing of the sort.

Next thing you will be telling me to listen to Krugman because he has a Phd and a Nobel Prize.

 

[The Coup]

You say appeal to authority, I point out why that's inaccurate, you ignore what I said and repeat the same thing.

You are actually demonstrating my point. Your "freedom" exists only to protect your ego, you have no interest in free speech for a purpose. You want free speech so that nothing happens, to maintain the status quo.

 

[medusala]

Nonsense, you are attempting to argue that non scientist opinions re AGW are invalid. A ridiculous argument on a number of levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

 

[The Coup]

So, deflection now? Pretty gutless.

Thanks for outright proving my point.

 

[medusala]

Run along and play with Maljazeera, you aren't up to this.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Nonsense, you are attempting to argue that non scientist opinions re AGW are invalid. A ridiculous argument on a number of levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

lol no, that's not how the fallacy works. do you get anything right?

 

[The Coup]

Run along and play with Maljazeera, you aren't up to this.

You're paranoid.

It is hardly a specific argument to climate change. It goes for a plethora of stupidly narrow domestic arguments foisted on us by the media to create fake discord (again, abortion is a great example and so is gay marriage).

We can see logically that there is no reason to stop people of the same gender getting married, and that not allowing them to get married is discriminatory and legitimises the views of those who would persecute gay people. This leads to increased pressure on young gay people and contributes to the higher rates of suicide in gay people.

But because some ignorant people just simply don't like the idea of it, and this opinion is apparently equally valid - we deny the people it actually affects from having freedom.

 

[Richard Pryor]

It seems so ridiculous now that the moral police of the 1950's were appalled by the thought of having a man and a woman sleeping in the same bed on TV. The very people who found that ridiculous seem to support enforcing standards in the same manner.

 

[The Coup]

Free Speech is exactly that. There is no reason to block comments because someone might get upset by them. Debate the comments on their merits and not simply censor someone because they have a different view to you. It is funny how quickly those from organisations like the greens are willing to censor comments and support this being enacted into law despite apparently being a progressive and radical organisation.

I don't think anyone has a problem with idiots saying idiotic things.

Its when those idiots hold back the smart people that we have a problem.

 

[Doss]

<Quote from banned account>

Stick to your main account next time.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Free Speech is exactly that.

that's what's a bit perplexing about this thread though. "free speech" is typically a freedom from government infringing on our right to express ourselves. it doesn't entail a right to do so in all private situations (ie a right to speak at an oxford debate for example). civil restrictions as per slander or libel laws are an obvious examples of private punishment for speech. this idea that free speech means people can say whatever they like without consequence is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[benchwarmer5]

A group of scientist landed a rocket on a commit the other week and most of the media coverage was taken up by one of the scientist involved wearing a " sexist " shirt.....crazy!

 

[SwampCreature]

Commit

 

[The Coup]

A group of scientist landed a rocket on a commit the other week and most of the media coverage was taken up by one of the scientist involved wearing a " sexist " shirt.....crazy!

Exactly.

the media have framed the achievement into one of their pet "issues of the now that were actually solved about 50 years ago" public arguments where he hear the same stupid arguments from idiots on both sides and shut out all the educated moderate voices.

Drugs, abortion, feminism, gay rights. Its ok to talk about this stuff (to an extent).

Space exploration, War, Famine, Economics. These items are off limits.

 

[SpuriousPea]

He and another journalist were recently banned from debating abortion at Christ Church, Oxford because they weren't women. A group of students protested against the debate on the grounds that the debators ‘do not have uteruses’ and it would threaten the "mental safety" of Oxford students.

Oh, man, ahhahahaha... My sides were not prepared for that.

 

[Power Raid]

The Spectator published a well timed article earlier this week:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...ys-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/.

Read it if you have the time, but his general point is that people are more and more concerned these days about being comfortable in their groupthink than upholding free speech. He relies on two personal examples:

1. He and another journalist were recently banned from debating abortion at Christ Church, Oxford because they weren't women. A group of students protested against the debate on the grounds that the debators ‘do not have uteruses’ and it would threaten the "mental safety" of Oxford students.
2. He participated in a debate at Cambridge on religious schools. However he was shouted down because he had the audacity to suggest that 'lad culture’ will not turn men into rapists.

As he later points out, "I ... spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal". This reminded me of a recent spate of articles about where RedFoo was publicly harrassed by the PC crew for apparently calling somebody a **** in a song (shock horror), after which he ended up issuing a public apology. Obviously these people never grew up listening to gangster rap.

Whinging about other's opinions and demanding censorship of them used to be domain of old bored conservative curmudgeons. Now, however, I'm concerned that the silencing of debate seems to be becoming a more widespread tactic used in society to push an agenda. I open the floor to you.

The right to free speech is often shouted down by those who can least afford it. I often wonder whether if it is because they think with emotions rather than logic.

 

[Scotland]

I'm anti-abortion. so I won't have one.

If you are pro-abortion you are welcome to have one, biology permitting.

If everyone just adopted my approach the issue (which should have already gone away) would go away.

 

[kfc1]

I'm anti-abortion. so I won't have one.

If you are pro-abortion you are welcome to have one, biology permitting.

If everyone just adopted my approach the issue (which should have already gone away) would go away.

I agree choice is a no-brainer.
The bigger elephant in the room is giving choice to the father, i.e. equal weight to the father's choice, not having him decide solely