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'tthere are opinions, sure, and everyone is entitled to their own, which they can love and caress like a puppy, but some opinions are not opinions but are actually false facts, yes, and these you are not entitled to, not everyone gets their own facts, despite how very unfortunate and sad this might seem. and it is usually not fine or ok but tolerable, and tolerable because of a belief in the right of everyone to free speech and some voltaire-type stuff about everyone sharing an "opinion" and the chance to do so. but when the false fact opinions are planted, purposefully created by racists to defend racist ideals, and then SUPERCHARGED by the speaker's obvious personal racism, you're either figuratively speaking a different language (if you have different facts) or literally speaking a different language (if you have different values creating those facts), and, mmhmm, insults traverse the divide between languages - if i called someone who didnt speak english a motherfucking asshole, he would probably "get" what i was, um saying. so why wouldnt it be applicable here, when a user TheValkyries is speaking to user Outlaw - it's the only thing they'll both understand the same, and communicate more than the body of their respective posts would, to eachother, the point of writing the posts then to be to communicate information to those on the same side.
also liking the irony behind crying about insults in a thread meant to at least criticize a little "safe spaces", when the point of safe spaces is to shield from insults, but in real life insults usually have force behind them in the fact insulted people are usually less advantaged and thus there to be exploited, while on this forum, it's a real safe space: if i (for example) called outlaw a tremendous piece of shit who should be retroactively aborted (i didnt mean that), theres nothing to that, as i cant go back in time and retroactively abort him. contrast that to real life, where if racial insults are hurled, theres usually the chance to back that up with actual violence, physical or otherwise. just something to think about ig
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 allSide note two free speech obviously has and has had its limits, you can't really threaten people nor scream "FIRE!" for no reason in a crowded area lol
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.Wanting privacy from those who are hostile towards you is not segregation.
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.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.
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.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"
Is that all? I mean, that wouldn't have bothered me any.Valkries called you a nimwit or something and internet censored it.
ho boiThere'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.
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.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
That article is terrible, I wonder if anyone who believes in that, also believes in...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
You can't justify hate speech with claims of persecution.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.