-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious Political Correctness and Free Speech
- Thread starter sunny004
- Start date
oh, is that why you were attempting to troll this thread with your first post? i dunno if i would say that trolling traverses the divide between languages so if your point was to decry this thread then i'm not sure you got your point across quite clear enough. maybe you don't feel like this is a worthwhile discussion topic but I think people and I personally feel that this is a worthwhile discussion. sorry if you don't
I think your defense is pretty weak actually and honestly I'm sort of confused as to why you felt the need to justify anything at all lol. No one was crying about insults except maybe you once you posted bro. Maybe you're just trolling here too (sunny wasn't the only one confused by what you said so if you are trolling my b for trying to engage in a discussion) but sunny wasn't even really calling anyone out? and even if he was, who cares? like it's perfectly valid that party a dislikes something that party b says and thinks that there's no point in a discussion and is just like "you're a <insult here> bro" and just moves on. Like if someone feels that way, that's fine, I do that with people I know irl and since it's the internet as you rightly point out who really cares?? If someone feels that can't get across to a person, by all means don't participate or engage in the convo. It's not a big deal I really don't think. I mean, you can't be serious in thinking that the point of that post was to "communicate information" lmao.
To tie in your definition of a safe space to real life, I'm sure most would consider college campuses to be safe spaces. I'm wondering what is the point where you begin to infringe on free speech and become unreasonable? I totally understand your definition and I agree, but I don't think a keynote speaker speaking for the campus political group that has an opinion that some consider unsafe is "exploiting" anyone. Otherwise, I agree with you. In general, a campus should be safe for everyone, but I don't see the problem in having designated spaces and times where people can open up and talk about divisive issues that people might be offended by. I think there's room for both, where everyone's wishes can be respected while still encouraging dialogue about such topics.
your last point doesn't make any sense to me. insulting people might accomplish something because you can't actually become violent over the internet? uhhh you're going to have to give me a breakdown on exactly how that one works, since i've always thought that insulting someone actually makes them less likely to listen/learn from you? u gotta help me out there friend
That's not really a limitation of free speech because they're threatening you or causing public distress and not about speaking your mind at all
I think a lot of the time what people mean when they scream "freedom of speech!!!" is "I want it to be socially acceptable to hold and express bigoted opinions. Any type of backlash i get for doing so is victimizing me". My view is that bigots and fascists don't deserve a platform to promote their ideologies. They should be shamed and hated. They should be afraid of losing their jobs for their bigotry. This may offend many pseudo-leftist liberals and right wingers alike but its my opinion on the matter. I think I've already made my position on slurs clear from the lgbt thread (lol.....) but I dont think they should ever be used against someone without their express permission. Im not sure why people feel this great need to use slurs. Its easy enough to just pick another word like "asshole" rather than a word with a history of oppression behind it if you really want a strong word to fling at someone. I don't really police this if its obvious their intent wasn't bad or they're joking or something but I don't do it myself and I wouldn't advocate for others to do it either.
All that being said, the "political correctness has gone too far" rhetoric is a tired old trope used to shame marginalized people for wanting to be treated with kindness; it needs to die.
All that being said, the "political correctness has gone too far" rhetoric is a tired old trope used to shame marginalized people for wanting to be treated with kindness; it needs to die.
Did I miss some deleted posts or something where someone called me mean things?
EDIT:
Yeah, that's fine and all. It's when you have "Insert Race/Gender of Choice" Only spaces is what grinds my gears. That is segregation plain and simple.
EDIT:
Yeah, that's fine and all. It's when you have "Insert Race/Gender of Choice" Only spaces is what grinds my gears. That is segregation plain and simple.
Last edited:
Valkries called you a nimwit or something and internet censored it.
Are you talking about clubs and stuff? I mean, yeah by the literal definition it is segregation I guess, but you have to admit, there's a difference between a group of people creating a space where they can celebrate who they are and feel safe about doing so, and telling a group of people that they can't drink from a water fountain because their skin is a different color.
Also, why do you care so much? I mean would you even go if you were "allowed"? lol This reminds me of the SNL skit "The Day Beyonce Turned Black"
There's not really a difference between a "Color folk only water fountain" and a "POC Only club" It also doesn't really matter if I'd go in if I were allowed or not.
EDIT:
Is that all? I mean, that wouldn't have bothered me any.
But it seemed to bother sunny. I guess everyone takes offense to different things.
Last edited:
It didn't bother you but caused you to worry.
ho boi
1. "'color' folk only water fountains" did not exist. there were facilities for white folk and 'color' folk, but white people using colored facilities was never met with violence or backlash from people of color. regardless, white people never used the colored facilities because they were objectively inferior anyway.
2. i don't even know why i have to argue against reverse racism logic anymore [because that's exactly what this is], but there is a fundamental difference between an oppressed class of people creating a space for only oppressed people and a highly privileged class of people creating a space that bans all other people. POC only spaces are designed to allow POC to succeed and learn without facing prejudice and a disparity in privilege due to race from white people. They lead to far higher rates of success / graduation / hiring / wages and are important institutions in a country that still suffers from institutional and systemic racism. POC only spaces are not public spaces - there are no "POC only deluxe bathrooms" or "POC only recreation rooms", they are spaces directly intended for discourse surrounding issues that POC face.
also, you're straight fooling yourself if you think real, actual segregation died in the 60s. much like racism itself, it simply hid itself in the shadows a little more and manifested itself in phenomenons like white flight and the housing divide, drastically reduced hiring rates for people with "non-white traits", and continued segregation in private institutions, either bluntly stated or subtly maintained through "holistic" admission
sorry to x2post but responding to the actual premise of the thread
the vast majority of people whom the right tries to paint as "trying to destroy free speech" are not trying to prevent people from saying things, simply to hold people accountable for the things they say. when someone complains about political correctness, they're just complaining about the fact that they can't say fucked up shit without facing consequences for it.
for instance, if someone says "wow that concert was so gay" and i say "hey it's kinda fucked up that you're equating homosexuality with inferiority", that doesn't mean I think that he should be criminalized for saying it. he's allowed to say that things are gay, but he is not cleared of the consequences of me telling him why i dislike him saying that and requesting him to change the way he does.
although it is certainly a more extreme reaction, the exact same thing applies to people being fired for saying bigoted shit or people being kicked out of college for saying bigoted shit. people and institutions have the right to enact consequences on actions, and speech is an action. if an institution or person feels like your presence is not conducive to safe and respectful discourse, they are allowed to take action to remove you. that's not a violation of free speech, it's just a consequence of you saying bigoted shit.
the vast majority of people whom the right tries to paint as "trying to destroy free speech" are not trying to prevent people from saying things, simply to hold people accountable for the things they say. when someone complains about political correctness, they're just complaining about the fact that they can't say fucked up shit without facing consequences for it.
for instance, if someone says "wow that concert was so gay" and i say "hey it's kinda fucked up that you're equating homosexuality with inferiority", that doesn't mean I think that he should be criminalized for saying it. he's allowed to say that things are gay, but he is not cleared of the consequences of me telling him why i dislike him saying that and requesting him to change the way he does.
although it is certainly a more extreme reaction, the exact same thing applies to people being fired for saying bigoted shit or people being kicked out of college for saying bigoted shit. people and institutions have the right to enact consequences on actions, and speech is an action. if an institution or person feels like your presence is not conducive to safe and respectful discourse, they are allowed to take action to remove you. that's not a violation of free speech, it's just a consequence of you saying bigoted shit.
The notion that my whiteness in an environment naturally emits prejudice like some sort of privilege smog is highly prejudicial. I don't even know why I have to argue what is racism and what is segregation anymore. Unless you want to claim that their very definitions are racist. Which you probably would since I assume that you think only white people can be racist while I think anyone is capable of it.
And I don't think segregation died in the 60s either. It's alive and well. Along with the things you listed, POC Only places are an example of it as well. It's just "acceptable" self-segregation apparently.
In regards to your second post, I'm totally cool with people getting in trouble for saying dumb shit. But "dumb shit" needs to be clarified and established as a norm. Cause what one person might think is VERY dumb shit, another thinks is just dumb. Then you have one person saying VERY dumb shit, not getting in trouble; while someone who says something simply dumb gets railroaded.
historical opponents of 'pc' gallery:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAc...edias_cultural_marxism_article_now_redirects/ <- the present. this could be you, watch out what u put in ur brains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory <- origins of 'political correctness'
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/12/sxsw-gamergate-harassment-summit-bullying-panel <- free speech means you dont have to listen to any women speak
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ing-loner-facebook-ali-sonboly-bullied-killer
i wanted to dig up more links to school/mass shooters who claim to love 'free speech' and hate 'political correctness', but ill spare myself. is there some bizarre logic in shooting up schools if there is a mass delusion against a 'political correctness' conspiracy (i.e reality) becoming taken as an existential threat?
scary thread.
similar to some of what kitten milk already said:
it's ugly how much effort is being put in into justifying tolerating bullshit, what about speaking the truth? or even better, listening to it. people are really bad at listening, I def am, and that is more worrying to me.
The institutions that historically articulated support for free speech were rarely good practicers of it. in america, many of them also participated in slavery. anything can become a dogma, including an unbounded conception of free speech. such a conception remains to be taken up by anyone, and so it is important to critically examine how speech acts about 'free speech' come up in a context.
Lastly I wanted to get to this idea that college students are censoring anyone, which is simply hilarious.
https://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/
"
The idea that students have become a problem because they are too sensitive relates to a wider public discourse that renders offendability as such a form of moral weakness (and as being what restricts “our” freedom of speech). Much contemporary racism works by positioning the others as too easily offendable, which is how some come to assert their right to occupy space by being offensive. And yes: so much gets “swept away,” by the charge of being too sensitive. A recent example would be how protests against the Human Zoo in the Barbican, about how racism is disguised as art or education, are swept up as a symptom of being “over-sensitive. According to this discourse, anti-racists end up censoring even themselves because they are “thin skinned.”
So much violence is justified and repeated by how those who refuse to participate in violence are judged. We need to make a translation. The idea that being over-sensitive is what stops us from addressing difficult issues can be translated as: we can’t be racist because you are too sensitive to racism.
Well then: we need to be too sensitive if we are to challenge what is not being addressed.
We might still need to ask: what is meant by addressing difficult issues? It is worth me noting that I have been met with considerable resistance from critical academics when trying to discuss issues of racism, power and sexism on campus. Some academics seem comfortable talking about these issues when they are safely designated as residing over there. Is this “there” what allows “difficult issues” not to be addressed here? In fact, it seems to me that it is often students who are leading discussions of “difficult issues” on campus. But when students lead these discussions they are then dismissed as behaving as consumers or as being censoring. How quickly another figure comes up, when one figure is exposed as fantasy. If not over-sensitive, then censoring; if not censoring, then consuming. And so on, and so forth."
I'd add that this "over there" might also be an 'in the past', and it may not exist/happened, as described, at all.
"
Indeed the instances of apparent censorship (translate: student protests) seemed to generate more discourse and discussion rather than preventing discourse or discussion. When students who protest against such-and-such speaker become censors, those who wrote and signed the letter become the ones who are silenced, whose freedoms are under threat. So much speech and writing is generated by those who claim they are silenced!
But we can still ask: what is the figure of the censoring student doing. By hearing student critique as censorship the content of that critique is pushed aside. When you hear a challenge as an attempt at censorship you do not have to engage with the challenge. You do not even have to say anything of substance because you assume the challenge as without substance.
"
im irl cackling rn tho.
tl;dr any laws/institutions that hang around too long are susp as hell.
itt people exhibit their constitutional/dispositional inability to listen.
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAc...edias_cultural_marxism_article_now_redirects/ <- the present. this could be you, watch out what u put in ur brains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory <- origins of 'political correctness'
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/12/sxsw-gamergate-harassment-summit-bullying-panel <- free speech means you dont have to listen to any women speak
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ing-loner-facebook-ali-sonboly-bullied-killer
i wanted to dig up more links to school/mass shooters who claim to love 'free speech' and hate 'political correctness', but ill spare myself. is there some bizarre logic in shooting up schools if there is a mass delusion against a 'political correctness' conspiracy (i.e reality) becoming taken as an existential threat?
scary thread.
similar to some of what kitten milk already said:
it's ugly how much effort is being put in into justifying tolerating bullshit, what about speaking the truth? or even better, listening to it. people are really bad at listening, I def am, and that is more worrying to me.
The institutions that historically articulated support for free speech were rarely good practicers of it. in america, many of them also participated in slavery. anything can become a dogma, including an unbounded conception of free speech. such a conception remains to be taken up by anyone, and so it is important to critically examine how speech acts about 'free speech' come up in a context.
Lastly I wanted to get to this idea that college students are censoring anyone, which is simply hilarious.
https://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/
"
The idea that students have become a problem because they are too sensitive relates to a wider public discourse that renders offendability as such a form of moral weakness (and as being what restricts “our” freedom of speech). Much contemporary racism works by positioning the others as too easily offendable, which is how some come to assert their right to occupy space by being offensive. And yes: so much gets “swept away,” by the charge of being too sensitive. A recent example would be how protests against the Human Zoo in the Barbican, about how racism is disguised as art or education, are swept up as a symptom of being “over-sensitive. According to this discourse, anti-racists end up censoring even themselves because they are “thin skinned.”
So much violence is justified and repeated by how those who refuse to participate in violence are judged. We need to make a translation. The idea that being over-sensitive is what stops us from addressing difficult issues can be translated as: we can’t be racist because you are too sensitive to racism.
Well then: we need to be too sensitive if we are to challenge what is not being addressed.
We might still need to ask: what is meant by addressing difficult issues? It is worth me noting that I have been met with considerable resistance from critical academics when trying to discuss issues of racism, power and sexism on campus. Some academics seem comfortable talking about these issues when they are safely designated as residing over there. Is this “there” what allows “difficult issues” not to be addressed here? In fact, it seems to me that it is often students who are leading discussions of “difficult issues” on campus. But when students lead these discussions they are then dismissed as behaving as consumers or as being censoring. How quickly another figure comes up, when one figure is exposed as fantasy. If not over-sensitive, then censoring; if not censoring, then consuming. And so on, and so forth."
I'd add that this "over there" might also be an 'in the past', and it may not exist/happened, as described, at all.
"
Indeed the instances of apparent censorship (translate: student protests) seemed to generate more discourse and discussion rather than preventing discourse or discussion. When students who protest against such-and-such speaker become censors, those who wrote and signed the letter become the ones who are silenced, whose freedoms are under threat. So much speech and writing is generated by those who claim they are silenced!
But we can still ask: what is the figure of the censoring student doing. By hearing student critique as censorship the content of that critique is pushed aside. When you hear a challenge as an attempt at censorship you do not have to engage with the challenge. You do not even have to say anything of substance because you assume the challenge as without substance.
"
im irl cackling rn tho.
tl;dr any laws/institutions that hang around too long are susp as hell.
itt people exhibit their constitutional/dispositional inability to listen.
legit the best part of these threads is TheValkyries incredulity and Myzozoa's extremely interesting seemingly stream-of-consciousness huge ass posts
Also Kitten Milk , the fight for certain people to get other certain people to recognize that institutional or corporate punishments for words / actions (not that words aren't actions) have nothing to do with legislative rights or "free speech" and all that jazz has existed in the mass populace's court since the advent of the commercial internet and (obviously much sooner too but that's different)....and nothing has happened
you'll still have A TON of people hating that Donald Sterling's "free speech was hindered" by the NBA for being forced to sell the Clippers, that a government employee getting fired for refusing to reward gay marriage licenses had her "freedom of religion infringed upon", that saying bigoted things in non "official" areas somehow grants you the right to avoid non governmental action against you elsewhere...
if it was just a few people, no biggie, but the amount of people that earnestly believe this crap is amazing...
Also Kitten Milk , the fight for certain people to get other certain people to recognize that institutional or corporate punishments for words / actions (not that words aren't actions) have nothing to do with legislative rights or "free speech" and all that jazz has existed in the mass populace's court since the advent of the commercial internet and (obviously much sooner too but that's different)....and nothing has happened
you'll still have A TON of people hating that Donald Sterling's "free speech was hindered" by the NBA for being forced to sell the Clippers, that a government employee getting fired for refusing to reward gay marriage licenses had her "freedom of religion infringed upon", that saying bigoted things in non "official" areas somehow grants you the right to avoid non governmental action against you elsewhere...
if it was just a few people, no biggie, but the amount of people that earnestly believe this crap is amazing...
While people who say racist/bigoted things are bad and they really shouldn't be saying them, It seems a bit ridiculous to me that it should be illegal and they should face legal punishment for their actions. Once you remove the absolution of free speech, I think that governments can determine and censor what they feel is "offensive" speech. Also, what would you define as "offensive" speech? Does one group matter more than another?
Although I still feel like people don't really need the protection of the government and can deal with the crazy people themselves.
Although I still feel like people don't really need the protection of the government and can deal with the crazy people themselves.
That article is terrible, I wonder if anyone who believes in that, also believes in...
You can't justify hate speech with claims of persecution.
Last edited:
I think we need MORE hate speech, not less hate speech.
No really, hear me out here. Let's say you have an extremely hateful, bigoted, ass-backwards group of people with horrible regressive opinions that threaten to undermine the basic fabric of society (WBC comes to mind, as do certain radical elements of modern political and religious groups). What's objectively the best way to expose these people for what they are without any risk of misinformation or use of weasel tactics to squirm their way out of criticism?
Why, of course, the best way is to give them a platform. Give them the rope and let them hang themselves. If their ideas are truly as horrible as you think they are, exposing them to the public eye is surely the best way to beat them. Attempting to silence groups like this opens the door to accusations of misrepresentation, lying, and censorship. Allowing them to do the speaking in a public debate format, and then bringing the data and statistics to show that they are wrong and how they are wrong is the best way to push these groups into irrelevancy. If you simply try to silence these ideas, they're not going to go anywhere. If you expose them to the harsh review of public discussion, you may change minds.
So I fully advocate for bigots and regressives to be given public platforms, as long as they do not threaten or advocate for violence (neither of which are protected by the first amendment). These ideas need to be exposed to the scrutiny of the public, as that is the only way that they may eventually be defeated.
I am also against criminalisation of "hate speech" for other reasons as well, notably that there isn't a single person or group of people I deem responsible enough to police what I am and am not allowed to hear or say. Nobody on the face of the planet should have the power to decide what does and doesn't constitute forbidden language, least of all the radical fringes of upper left-wing political groups.
No really, hear me out here. Let's say you have an extremely hateful, bigoted, ass-backwards group of people with horrible regressive opinions that threaten to undermine the basic fabric of society (WBC comes to mind, as do certain radical elements of modern political and religious groups). What's objectively the best way to expose these people for what they are without any risk of misinformation or use of weasel tactics to squirm their way out of criticism?
Why, of course, the best way is to give them a platform. Give them the rope and let them hang themselves. If their ideas are truly as horrible as you think they are, exposing them to the public eye is surely the best way to beat them. Attempting to silence groups like this opens the door to accusations of misrepresentation, lying, and censorship. Allowing them to do the speaking in a public debate format, and then bringing the data and statistics to show that they are wrong and how they are wrong is the best way to push these groups into irrelevancy. If you simply try to silence these ideas, they're not going to go anywhere. If you expose them to the harsh review of public discussion, you may change minds.
So I fully advocate for bigots and regressives to be given public platforms, as long as they do not threaten or advocate for violence (neither of which are protected by the first amendment). These ideas need to be exposed to the scrutiny of the public, as that is the only way that they may eventually be defeated.
I am also against criminalisation of "hate speech" for other reasons as well, notably that there isn't a single person or group of people I deem responsible enough to police what I am and am not allowed to hear or say. Nobody on the face of the planet should have the power to decide what does and doesn't constitute forbidden language, least of all the radical fringes of upper left-wing political groups.
Waiting for livelihoods to be destroyed by racist and bigoted ideology taking root, spreading and taking power is horrendously irresponsible, reckless, naïve and negligent.
The freedom of speech does protect the freedom to advocate policies and politics that actively threaten the lives of those. That's where being politically correct comes from. It's not about silly shit it's about making sure a persons politics don't speak hatred and do harm against others. Being politically incorrect has results that range from minor to severely damaging to others and advocating for it is short-sighted and foolish.
The freedom of speech does protect the freedom to advocate policies and politics that actively threaten the lives of those. That's where being politically correct comes from. It's not about silly shit it's about making sure a persons politics don't speak hatred and do harm against others. Being politically incorrect has results that range from minor to severely damaging to others and advocating for it is short-sighted and foolish.
And who defines what politics "speak hatred", or directly threaten to harm others? As far as I'm concerned if you're not saying "I'm going to hurt/kill/maim/etc you", you're not threatening someone's safety. Is that where we're going to draw the line? If so, congratulations, threatening people has been illegal for a long time, and "political correctness" is therefore useless. If that's not where you want to draw the line, where DO you want to place it? What do you want to qualify as hate speech?
"Dangerous speech" is notoriously difficult to measure (it in fact may be impossible to measure outside of blatantly obvious examples, such as direct threats of violence or incitement to violence). I don't trust any one person or group of people to be able to make that judgment without allowing their personal agendas to sway that decision.
In general, being politically incorrect without threats or calls to violence does NOT harm others in any meaningful way. Is it in poor taste? Certainly. Is it dangerous? Only a fool would think so. Offense is always taken, not given. The obvious solution is to simply refuse to take it.
If you decry the poor as being lazy and bottom feeders who suck on the teat of government welfare and want to slash their lazy dependence on the middle classes pockets you are directly advocating the way for many poor families to support themselves and their children while fundamentally misunderstanding how hard it is to be poor.
If you (unfoundedly) speak about the hostile inclinations of a certain race you increase the "violent" perception of them leading law enforcement to think of them as threats even if unarmed.
If you are making judgements about a group of people solely based on a demographic they are a part of you are contributing to harmful stereotypes that have real life effects.
So basically what I'm saying is "if people say you're wrong about them then fucking listen and stop hiding behind free speech."
If you (unfoundedly) speak about the hostile inclinations of a certain race you increase the "violent" perception of them leading law enforcement to think of them as threats even if unarmed.
If you are making judgements about a group of people solely based on a demographic they are a part of you are contributing to harmful stereotypes that have real life effects.
So basically what I'm saying is "if people say you're wrong about them then fucking listen and stop hiding behind free speech."
Should be obvious, but saying that someone is not worthy of personhood using hate speech is basically saying that hurting/killing/maiming/etc that person doesn't carry the same weight. It creates an unsafe environment and culture, or threatens to, to the point where sufficiently public displays of that speech should be clearly illegal.
Context is always important when it comes to being PC but the more general your audience the more conservative you have to be in respecting possible context.
And here we get to the second issue; do you seriously believe that stopping people from saying that certain demographics are not worthy of personhood is going to suppress or remove those sentiments? Do you think these people will hate those demographics any less, or be any less likely to act violently towards them? No.
On the other hand, if you let them spout their nonsense on a public forum, not only will they not convince anyone who doesn't already have racist or bigoted tendencies (no reasonable person ever attended a KKK rally with a neutral mindset and left hating black people), but their ideas will be exposed to the criticism of the public at large. If you have the entirety of public opinion telling you what you're saying is wrong and reprehensible, and providing stats and data to back that up, then most people might take a second look at their beliefs, which might result in change.
This is why I see censorship (and by extention political correctness) as counterproductive even to its own goals. It's the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. You might feel like you're doing something but you're actually not helping the underlying issues at all.
"Well it should be obvious" is the problem. It's not quantifiable and it's so prone to selective enforcement and slippery slope and all that stuff.