Serious Political Correctness and Free Speech

[TheValkyries]

It's not censorship it's literally "you say these things and we're going to tell you explicitly that it is harmful and wrong." It actively sets the example that those thoughts result in actually quantifiable actions. Shit like the hyper sexist dude in California or the Racist guy in South Carolina spewed that caustic ideology before going out and actually murdering people for it. And no not every encounter ends with murder but the violence and intimidation of that speech is cumulative and abusive and its a serious disease that needs to be attacked not sponsored and endorsed under the unparalleled foolish belief that words being unreproachable is some god given axiom of the universe and that they can never ever lead to harm. The belief that the only way to convince people that certain ideas are toxic and bilious is by exposing them to it and sticking their faces in it like dogs or something? These ideas form early and often in many people and need to be engaged and dealt with whenever they surface. It is pure fiction that those ideologies don't spread or grow organically. Often you hear that it will "die out" and we merely have to wait when some of the most vocal people on these fronts speaking sexist rhetoric speaking racist rhetoric etc etc are young people. People talking about identity politics and what is politically correct is a way to combat that growth organically to spread the counter to that ideology and obfuscating its aims as censorship undermines all attempts to quell the growth of hatred and is tantamount to endorsing hatreds growth and condoning it.

 

[Poison Heart]

It's not censorship it's literally "you say these things and we're going to tell you explicitly that it is harmful and wrong."

Then we're on the same side here. I'm not sure where the disagreement is coming from. You're doing exactly what I just advocated for, which is to criticize and attack these ideas instead of trying to silence them.

Forcing "political correctness" does not attempt to attack these ideas. It simply tries to push them under the rug in the hopes that they will go away on their own, which you seem to agree they will not. You can talk all day long about what is or isn't politically correct, but it doesn't do a damn thing to challenge toxic or dogmatic ideologies. You know what does? Actually challenging them.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't have the right to challenge or reproach ideas you find harmful, as that would be in and of itself censorship.

 

[TheValkyries]

The disagreement is what I said above in that you are obfuscating the goals of those who speak on identity politics and what is politically correct as censorship of free speech. When it is the opposite. The disagreement is that your defense of the free speech of others to openly and brazenly spew hatred will lead to direct harm and encouraging that rhetoric into the open so that we can challenge it to mortal combat or something is not what will defeat it. Ideas don't fight like gladiators in the public eye, ideas are conclusions formed on a persons given information and heuristics. Letting hatred spew misinformation in the open infects the populous. It is not healthy to advocate for bigotry to be given a clearer fuller voice to not be attacked and quelled and put out and denied a platform.

I mean you lead with the example of the WBC. And yet they still exist. They still arrived at the funeral services of the Orlando attack and told the families of those people that they deserved to be shot dead. That God hated their guts and they would suffer in the afterlife for all eternity. And yet this is their right to abuse and harass the people in deep mourning of what happened. To inflict harm and damage to the psyche of the friends and loved ones.

Fuck that shit man. That's gross and disgusting and shouldn't be defended with bullshit like "well you know it's a slippery slope." Assault is legal in this country so long as it's only spoken. Shits fucked.

 

[sunny004]

The disagreement is what I said above in that you are obfuscating the goals of those who speak on identity politics and what is politically correct as censorship of free speech. When it is the opposite. The disagreement is that your defense of the free speech of others to openly and brazenly spew hatred will lead to direct harm and encouraging that rhetoric into the open so that we can challenge it to mortal combat or something is not what will defeat it. Ideas don't fight like gladiators in the public eye, ideas are conclusions formed on a persons given information and heuristics. Letting hatred spew misinformation in the open infects the populous. It is not healthy to advocate for bigotry to be given a clearer fuller voice to not be attacked and quelled and put out and denied a platform.

I mean you lead with the example of the WBC. And yet they still exist. They still arrived at the funeral services of the Orlando attack and told the families of those people that they deserved to be shot dead. That God hated their guts and they would suffer in the afterlife for all eternity. And yet this is their right to abuse and harass the people in deep mourning of what happened. To inflict harm and damage to the psyche of the friends and loved ones.

Fuck that shit man. That's gross and disgusting and shouldn't be defended with bullshit like "well you know it's a slippery slope." Assault is legal in this country so long as it's only spoken. Shits fucked.

But even though you're trying to defend against so-called "verbal assault", you're really only defending people from what you view as "offensive"

While you may think speech from hate groups like the KKK and other ultra conservative groups are offensive, other people may find language from radical feminists/LGBT people, or from groups like Black Lives Matter offensive. Should we ban that kind of speech too? You may not find it offensive, but then again those people took no offense to the first mentioned groups.

Let's also talk about the "mental psyche" point you made. Don't you think that calling someone a racist, mysoginistic homophobe would mess their mental psyche?

And before you start crying about "well they're not a minority, therefore their arguments are invalid", remember that answering injustice with injustice is wrong, and as you aren't the only person/group in the United States you don't have absolute power on what is "offensive or hurtful". Did former slaves make major pushes for enslaving their former masters? No. Did women take away men's voting rights when they got suffrage? No. Did gay/lesbian people revoke marriage rights for heterosexual people? No.

TLDR: People have different opinions on what is "offensive" and so if you ban what seems to be hate speech to you, you would also have to ban speech that others thought was offensive, even if you think otherwise.

 

[billymills]

I mean you lead with the example of the WBC. And yet they still exist. They still arrived at the funeral services of the Orlando attack and told the families of those people that they deserved to be shot dead. That God hated their guts and they would suffer in the afterlife for all eternity. And yet this is their right to abuse and harass the people in deep mourning of what happened. To inflict harm and damage to the psyche of the friends and loved ones.

I see no issue with this. They are going to think it regardless of if they're allowed to say it or not. It is perfectly easy to ignore them. Complain about the media making them out to be bigger than they are. Don't start asking for them to be imprisoned (by likening it to assault), this attitude is what really disgusts me.

 

[Poison Heart]

The disagreement is what I said above in that you are obfuscating the goals of those who speak on identity politics and what is politically correct as censorship of free speech. When it is the opposite. The disagreement is that your defense of the free speech of others to openly and brazenly spew hatred will lead to direct harm and encouraging that rhetoric into the open so that we can challenge it to mortal combat or something is not what will defeat it. Ideas don't fight like gladiators in the public eye, ideas are conclusions formed on a persons given information and heuristics. Letting hatred spew misinformation in the open infects the populous. It is not healthy to advocate for bigotry to be given a clearer fuller voice to not be attacked and quelled and put out and denied a platform.

I mean you lead with the example of the WBC. And yet they still exist. They still arrived at the funeral services of the Orlando attack and told the families of those people that they deserved to be shot dead. That God hated their guts and they would suffer in the afterlife for all eternity. And yet this is their right to abuse and harass the people in deep mourning of what happened. To inflict harm and damage to the psyche of the friends and loved ones.

Fuck that shit man. That's gross and disgusting and shouldn't be defended with bullshit like "well you know it's a slippery slope." Assault is legal in this country so long as it's only spoken. Shits fucked.

See, everything you just said is completely subjective and can be applied to ANY group of people so long as another group finds them to be deplorable or offensive. Christian fundamentalists are often offended by people being openly gay. Should we ban homosexuality? Radical Islamists are often offended by criticisms of their religion. Should we implement blasphemy laws to prevent this? Radical elements of modern intersectional feminism are offended by words like "mankind" and "spokesman". Should we ban these things as well?

No, you only seek to defend groups you see as "right" in some moral sense. I may agree with you, and I may ally myself with many of these groups, but as sunny004 said, we are not the only people in the country. Your opinions are just that, opinions. If you want to claim some objective superiority over the people you claim to deplore, you had better be willing to bring some hard evidence to support you.

Honestly, I tried to be nice about it, but I'm just going to be blunt. I don't give a damn if people get offended or "emotionally wounded" or whatever you want to call it. If no physical harm was done, then I don't care. Being offended by words, no matter how vile and hateful they may be, has killed exactly 0 people in the history of humanity.

Actually, I take that back. Many people have died because of OTHER people being offended by words. This dehumanization of people who use "politically incorrect" language as hateful racist misogynist scum bags who need to "die off" has the exact same effect as the dehumanization of other demographics by the sort of hateful bigots you claim to stand against. It is the reason religious fanatics can shoot up cartoonists and get applauded for it by a good portion of the online community. It is the reason insane radicals can shoot cops and receive outpourings of support from radical elements of popular political movements. It is the reason why hashtags like "#KillAllMen" and "#KillAllWhites" can trend and nobody bats an eyelid, but as soon as someone satirically tries to start a "#KillAllWomen" they're branded a sexist misogynist pig who needs to be jailed for the rest of his life. This is the sort of mentality you and people like you promote, and it is deplorable. You are proudly leading the charge straight into a future that would leave Orwell rolling in his grave. You are no better than the monsters you fight. You have stared into the abyss too long, and now it stares back into you.

 

[vonFiedler]

Do words kill or don't they Poison Heart? You're awful quick to flip-flop on your whole thesis when it comes to defending "hateful racist misogynist scum bags". I wonder why.

 

[Outlaw]

You don't agree with me; therefor you are a hateful, racist misogynistic scum bag.

 

[vonFiedler]

His words. I agree with billymills in this topic more than anyone. But you can't come in here with a straight face and tell me that Poison Heart wasn't transparent from the get-go. Racists should have big platforms so they'll be properly ridiculed? I think this presidential election has been concrete enough proof that idea is fucking stupid as all hell. But if he believes it, the least he could do is stick to his guns and not completely switch sides specifically when it comes to the "not politically correct". As if one group of people should be able to say hate speech AND be protected from criticism. What the actual fuck! Isn't the subjectiveness of what constitutes incorrect speech exactly one of his points against Valk? Oops

 

[Outlaw]

Looked like simple venting to me about the hypocrisy of the PC crowd at the end there.

It is a problem however, how quickly and eagerly people are jump to "You don't agree with me; therefor you are a hateful, racist misogynistic scum bag." You can disagree with someone, and even defend someones right to say "hateful, racist misogynistic" shit without subscribing to that train of thought. So many people aren't seeing that though and would rather follow the "Not with me, you're against me" mantra which just breeds more of the same sentiment.

 

[billymills]

As far as I can tell there's a lot of hypocrisy everywhere on this issue.

The election is obvious enough: Republicans are complaining about political correctness yet support a candidate in favour of libel laws.

I mentioned in my first post there are circumstances where I feel hypocritical discussing freedom of speech.

I do feel there is hypocrisy in the PC crowd as you put it too.

I don't feel there's an easy answer here. I think everyone needs to be regularly reminded of the benefits of freedom of speech and creating a welcoming environment. Not just the obvious benefits, but the subtleties as well.

 

[jumpluff]

I feel that the very concept of freedom of speech is hypocritical and a balancing act, so it's weird to talk about it as an absolute divorced from the environment; this is, after all, what we talk about when we refer to a 'chilling effect', or someone having a platform, or being silenced, or being unable to speak about something without experiencing repercussions (legal or otherwise). Most 'freedoms to' infringe upon somebody's 'freedom from', but both are vital freedoms that must be measured in magnitude (this is why, for example, harassment is ostensibly banned, but a lot of things that I consider harassment are allowed under freedom of speech as long as they aren't targeted against private individuals in small situations)

I understand a lot of people here are concerned about legal protections for freedom of speech, but I would argue that that is not nearly sufficient enough for freedom of expression as it protects the hegemony that accompanies the legal system mostly, and there can't ever be impartiality enough to protect the purity of freedom of speech as people typically care about it

Discourse matters a lot to me; I care a lot about freedom of speech (I'm a leftist, McCarthyism bothers me more than you probably); I also care about the safeties of the subjects as well as the speakers, and freedom of speech is not a moral judgment, which I often do think is missing from this discussion. 'Slippery slope' doesn't matter to me because pretty much everything in society is based off moral norms and highly subjective anyway, including freedom of speech as it is now (for example, you are not allowed to explicitly incite violence -- there are plenty of times I think people should be able to 'incite violence' as far as the law is enforced and plenty of times I think people are not prevented from inciting violence through rhetoric etc. so..) To me it's a layer of abstraction used to disregard actual situations and the fact that norms do change over time and if that's a slippery slope then that's what you've lived your entire life with, but this comes out only over censorship (which is not the antonym of freedom of speech)?

For what it's worth I think people are legally able to get away with a remarkable amount on some topics in the USA and not nearly enough on others, and that is a reflection of moral standards in the USA more than anything, and the things people complain about reflect their own moral standards

The difficulty of speaking and ignoring also fluctuate with the person, the society, and the subject, so it's weird to say people can just 'ignore' really invasive acts and speeches like the WBC picketing funerals and psychically cancel any harm incurred by the speech thereby

Some things are harder to say than they are to ignore, and vice versa (and I would say this has a close correlation with hegemonic values)

 

[billymills]

The difficulty of speaking and ignoring also fluctuate with the person, the society, and the subject, so it's weird to say people can just 'ignore' really invasive acts and speeches like the WBC picketing funerals and psychically cancel any harm incurred by the speech thereby

When I talk about ignoring the WBC, I'm probably being too naive. I tend to think they are down the street and around the corner, rather than being invasive. Too invasive? I'm not really sure where to draw the line, but I think that is the question to ask: "How close can they be," rather than "Which events should be protestable?"

There's a part of me that's talking directly to the people complaining about WBC. That we should not be speculating about some fringe group crying out for attention, but what we make of them here should not impact the legality of their actions. As much as I want observers to ignore them, there are still people who are immediately impacted by their actions.

 

[ButteredToast]

The root of this issue of this political correctness bullshit is the wall that you guys are hitting with this Westboro Baptist Church discussion.

Billy is right in that in an ideal world, your message shouldn't matter as much as how you give your message. If you are not harassing people, crossing boundaries and lines to get your message across, and operate with complacence to the law regarding having permits to protest or gather, you should be able to do whatever. The legality of what you say or do shouldn't be judged by the message, but rather the method in which it is done. That's what hits the Voltaire and John Stuart Mill argument.

But that's not how our modern society works. For whatever reason, we as a culture have a hard time divorcing opinions and morality from legality. We think that it should go hand in hand, when it shouldn't. When people see an group or an issue that they feel is morally wrong, they judge them in a different light than groups and issues that they deem as being morally right. People would take issue to the Westboro Baptist Church going into an gay nightclub and obstructing their business with a protest. That is deemed morally wrong by many, and this should be legally wrong and the law should do something. But yet, if a group of civil rights activists go into a restaurant and obstruct business with a protest, that's celebrated because it's deemed morally right.

That's one of the biggest issues with "political correctness." Just because a plurality of people deem an issue to be moralistic doesn't mean it gets special privileges and those that have a conflicting view get their privileges taken away or limited somehow. You can't say that anyone who belongs to a peaceful and law respecting group that centers around racism, bigotry, or what have you should be a crime inherently because what they believe is wrong and immoral. You can't have the government choose sides and make moralistic judgement on issues. That's not what government is supposed to be about.

But that's what we made it about and that's what it is right now. Our society and our government sees things too much in the the terms of right and wrong, good and bad, moralistic and immoral. With major things such as slavery, racism and segregation, sexuality and gender issues...

We've fallen into a rabbit hole. Idealism doesn't line up with reality. And the more you go down the rabbit hole, the more you realize how following the idealism doesn't solve major issues and societal schisms and how political correctness doesn't fix the problem but increases the divide and represses people in a whole new way.

 

[jumpluff]

When I talk about ignoring the WBC, I'm probably being too naive. I tend to think they are down the street and around the corner, rather than being invasive. Too invasive? I'm not really sure where to draw the line, but I think that is the question to ask: "How close can they be," rather than "Which events should be protestable?"

There's a part of me that's talking directly to the people complaining about WBC. That we should not be speculating about some fringe group crying out for attention, but what we make of them here should not impact the legality of their actions. As much as I want observers to ignore them, there are still people who are immediately impacted by their actions.

You're thinking physical proximity only, but it also matters to a lot of people that they're attending a funeral. I don't really even want to get into the WBC argument but I'd point out that even though people try their hardest to deny them a platform, you sort of can't ignore them because they draw a lot of attention to themselves through other means than just physical proximity. So, which events should be protestable is definitely something that matters to a lot of others. And I don't see why an arbitrary distance is any better than a qualitative ruling on speech or context. I mean I guess I think the WBC is sort of picking at details but serve as a useful illustration for conduct that is specifically calculated to be legal (the WBC is full of lawyers) and as harmful as possible, exposing potential flaws in the law if the WBC shouldn't be acceptable. After all the law is living; I don't particularly care for it as it is but it doesn't reflect what should be but instead what is currently the case

ButteredToast your post is really idealistic though? And I quote, 'that's not what government is supposed to be about'; 'that's not how our modern society works'; 'it shouldn't'. It has nothing to do with material reality. You can't divorce the law from morality because that's what currently informs it, as well as the interests of dominant classes. I feel like a lot of people in this thread overestimate the amount of people who are even left-leaning in the USA (since that's what most of you are talking about) and what type of speech is actually curbed and why it is curbed at all. A really easy example of this is: look at who is classified as a terrorist in various countries, and look at what repressive state movements against speech have actually pursued and their context with regard to the government at the time. Take a materialist view of it and look at different classes and social strata and how their speech is tolerated differently both by other strata and by the state, and what that fundamentally represents.

You're also failing to propose an alternative viewpoint entirely other than 'morals are bad'; it is not particularly radical to say 'there is no such thing as objectivity' in this case, or at all. (I'm not sure what slavery has to do with this and I really definitely don't want to know, I think? Could you clarify?) What then should the state be for? How can the state possibly be divorced from moral norms and culture? And how exactly are people repressed by political correctness -- could you elaborate on that claim?

I maintain that the most important thing is thought; I care neither for people who focus on words as anything but a reflection of their underlying beliefs and perspective nor for people who believe that their words do not reflect their minds, histories, and beliefs. I believe speech that is kind and inclusive to others spawns from a respect from others that is willing to learn, proactively empathise, and critically examine its own biases; that spawns from slurs to dehumanising rhetoric. And I think both sides excessively focus on words as some kind of idealistic notion of 'objective' over critical analysis of speech and ideas to the detriment of literally everyone, but particularly those who are not favoured by the status quo (see: dogwhistle)

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

We really have a lack of leadership in this issue, as far as people who are held responsible for their speech! People in positions of leadership can say almost anything and not be held responsible! This not only sets a BAD example but also encourages hate speech!

I think this is one point that has been overlooked for quite awhile and needs to be addressed. Take Hillary who thinks "what difference does it make" when her neglect had a hand in the casualties of American soldiers. Take Trump who can say literally anything at this point without losing momentum. If we are talking about free speech, then let's be real.

Our leaders set a huge example for citizens; and the things they get away with saying and doing, range from atrocious to zealous. We must hold people in positions of power responsible IMO.

 

[billymills]

You're thinking physical proximity only, but it also matters to a lot of people that they're attending a funeral. I don't really even want to get into the WBC argument but I'd point out that even though people try their hardest to deny them a platform, you sort of can't ignore them because they draw a lot of attention to themselves through other means than just physical proximity. So, which events should be protestable is definitely something that matters to a lot of others. And I don't see why an arbitrary distance is any better than a qualitative ruling on speech or context. I mean I guess I think the WBC is sort of picking at details but serve as a useful illustration for conduct that is specifically calculated to be legal (the WBC is full of lawyers) and as harmful as possible, exposing potential flaws in the law if the WBC shouldn't be acceptable. After all the law is living; I don't particularly care for it as it is but it doesn't reflect what should be but instead what is currently the case

I maintain that the most important thing is thought; I care neither for people who focus on words as anything but a reflection of their underlying beliefs and perspective nor for people who believe that their words do not reflect their minds, histories, and beliefs. I believe speech that is kind and inclusive to others spawns from a respect from others that is willing to learn, proactively empathise, and critically examine its own biases; that spawns from slurs to dehumanising rhetoric. And I think both sides excessively focus on words as some kind of idealistic notion of 'objective' over critical analysis of speech and ideas to the detriment of literally everyone, but particularly those who are not favoured by the status quo (see: dogwhistle)

When I talk about physical proximity, it's because I'm still putting high emphasis on the freedom to protest. It's only when it crosses from protesting to harassing that I draw the line. I still think anything can and should be criticized, but I can draw some reservations on how those protests go down.

I don't think this last paragraph is directed at me, because I fundamentally agree. However when I talk about the freedom to use words (circumvent censors), I feel I might not be clear. I believe words reflect minds, histories and beliefs. I believe words also reflect cultural histories and historical beliefs. Words can be analysed, to review the cultural and historical context. I do not believe words are ideal (on the contrary I believe they are mutable, some moreso than others), but I do believe that in analyzing and discussing slurs in particular, we aught to be able to write them out. Outside these contexts, the ability to type out slurs is irrelevant, as derogatory comments that would or would not use them should be warned/deleted regardless, and, though I might be wrong, the sentiment behind them would be unchanged.

Do you think there is a difference between knowing someone's thoughts and hearing them say it? How context dependent is this. Is it distance dependent, or observer dependent?

 

[Gerudo Flygon]

While I feel people should at the very least try to not be offensive so as to be polite, I don't think offensive speech should be censored/stopped in any way.

 

[Bughouse]

The (few) limits on freedom of speech depend not only on the content but also the forum. That's how you solve the "your rights end where my rights begin" debate.

Can you generally try to speak to and persuade(/intimidate) women who are trying to get an abortion? Yes. Can you do so immediately outside the clinic? No.

Can you yell FIRE in a mostly empty park at 11 AM? Yes. Can you yell FIRE in a crowded nightclub? No.

Can you put a Confederate flag bumper sticker on your car? Yes. Can you get a government-issued vanity license plate with a Confederate flag design? No.

Can you make hateful, false statements about someone to one person, or even to a group of people, or even to a whole crowd by megaphone? Yes. Can you publish this in a newspaper? No.

 

[billymills]

Thank you for your comment.

 

[Ununhexium]

You can't yell fire in a crowded nightclub because that's dangerous and capable of causing mass panic. It's not really a limitation of freedom of speech and more of a safety and common sense issue

 

[Bughouse]

I don't think you know what a limitation on freedom of speech is. That's literally the most common one people cite as an example of how not all speech in all places should be legally allowed, even in an ostensibly free society. It dates back to a supreme court case from almost 100 years ago.

I mean clearly you get /why/ it's not allowed. But the fact that you say it's not a limitation on free speech is just... totally wrong?