Author Topic: How does free speech work?  (Read 229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3724
  • Darwins +362/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
How does free speech work?
« on: April 28, 2016, 03:55:37 AM »
My framework for asking this question, is that right wingers complain that politically correct people are shutting down conversations, and they get politically correct mantras thrown at them.

Here's an example
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

What this basically means, is that the right winger has lost power, and finds that those in power have the right to talk over him. Free speech also seems to be the right to be bullied.

The latest big idea that it's OK to hurt others feelings, which essentially means STFU, because I have the free speech.

Now, this is all very well, when you're white and right about everything. Why should we listen to idiotic bigots?

During this era of "free speech", blacks have been lynched and killed by cops, for holding shiny objects, or having suspicious names.

I can only conclude that we currently live in an era of free speech, so this could happen to another group, if the power changed.

Let's say Muslims are now in control, and they have the free speech to lynch or expel anyone with non-Muslim names.

Right wingers tell me how the Muslims are going to get in power, but they don't seem worried enough about that eventuality, to push for constitutional change that stops a group in power, bullying other groups. This suggests that right wingers are interested in using free speech to eradicate people and dissent completely, rather than admitting that we might have to live in a plural society of some kind, and that we need safe constitutional legislation to deal with it. (By safe, I mean something that can't be changed by some politicians in a night time sitting, because they had the freedom of speech that week.)

How would you do it?
If people are stupid enough to vote for Donald Trump, they are stupid enough to believe the Bible - Anonymous Philosopher.

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +382/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2016, 07:11:33 AM »
I dont really believe in democracy, freedom and free speech per se.

Too many dumb people around for that.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8251
  • Darwins +855/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2016, 10:19:28 AM »
Why should we listen to idiotic bigots?
We should listen to everyone and come to a conclusion on the facts plus a balance of self-interest and the public good.

I deplore the shouting down of anyone. The case in point is unfortunately too typical and it wouldn't matter if the writer had been "pro-life". There is no harm in free public speaking.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online The Gawd

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1433
  • Darwins +131/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2016, 06:43:41 PM »
Agree with the thread. Like when Drumpf decided to shut down his Chicago klan rally and the right whined and cried about it being an attack on free speech. They did not want to recognize the free speech of the protesters. It seems that to the right free speech is a one way street.

I am all for free speech, but it seems people need to know that it also comes with consequences.

Offline wright

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2836
  • Darwins +144/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2016, 07:08:59 PM »
^^^That last line is what seems to catch many folks by surprise.

Offhand I don't know of any societies where free speech is both permitted and consequence-free. Particularly now, when one person's casual or not-so-casual remarks can be easily heard or read by millions within seconds. When you have a potential audience that big, it's unsurprising a few of them are going to disagree with you.

And they can be voicing that disagreement to you and those same millions a few moments later.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
  • Darwins +26/-6
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2016, 11:04:46 PM »
My framework for asking this question, is that right wingers complain that politically correct people are shutting down conversations, and they get politically correct mantras thrown at them.

Here's an example
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

Allow me to be the devil's advocate again. The right are as hypocritical as hypocritical can come, but yet, what they have mentioned here is especially True. Political correctness is shutting down conversations and ideas.

What this basically means, is that the right winger has lost power, and finds that those in power have the right to talk over him. Free speech also seems to be the right to be bullied.

The latest big idea that it's OK to hurt others feelings, which essentially means STFU, because I have the free speech.

Wrong. What it means is that we are no longer able to be honest about each other and tell each other the truth or our opinions. What it means is we no longer have the right to express ourselves. It means that we are no longer allowed to look at what makes us different. It means that we are now living in a fantasy world just like religion.

Now, this is all very well, when you're white and right about everything. Why should we listen to idiotic bigots?

I know right, because whites are the only idiotic bigots in the world? Blacks, latinos, asians, arabs can't possibly be idiotic bigots? Just more of the left's war on whites.

You listen because you are supposed to have the ability of empathy, to be able to place yourself in one's shoes and try to understand why they are, as you said, idiotic bigots. Then once you realize their "idiotic bigotry", you try to converse with them as to why you understand them, yet disagree with them.

During this era of "free speech", blacks have been lynched and killed by cops, for holding shiny objects, or having suspicious names.

So have whites, latinos, asians, and arabs. Why are you race baiting?

I can only conclude that we currently live in an era of free speech, so this could happen to another group, if the power changed.

Let's say Muslims are now in control, and they have the free speech to lynch or expel anyone with non-Muslim names.

Right wingers tell me how the Muslims are going to get in power, but they don't seem worried enough about that eventuality, to push for constitutional change that stops a group in power, bullying other groups. This suggests that right wingers are interested in using free speech to eradicate people and dissent completely, rather than admitting that we might have to live in a plural society of some kind, and that we need safe constitutional legislation to deal with it. (By safe, I mean something that can't be changed by some politicians in a night time sitting, because they had the freedom of speech that week.)

How would you do it?

You have it all mixed up. Unlike liberals, conservatives are at least willing to have a conversation with you over subjects they don't agree with you. Yes, it will go nowhere, but they at least give you a hand to reach out to for discussion.

Liberals however, it's you agree with me or you shut up. You can say whatever you wish to say, but only if I agree with it. I would really argue if anybody is trying to start eradicating people and dissenting completely in the context of free speech, this is definitely a liberal ideology.

Here is how I view free speech: I may not like you, nor care about you, nor love you, nor respect you. I may hate you, I may think you are a lower form of animal, and I may think I'm wasting my time with you. I may not like what you have to say about me, feel about me, or about anything. Whether I agree or disagree with you, like you or hate you, I will lay down my life and my freedom to defend what you have to say and your right to say it. I care not if anybody is offended by it.

The late, great George Carlin gave a great message about political correctness/silencing free speech and how it is fascism disguised as manners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhUivqzWv0

And since race baiting is brought up again, let's check out some colorful language by the same late, great George Carlin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdtHZ_6oz9Q

And here is George Carlin on Euphamisms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc

Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipwMa5uT5es

I understand that we want to be socially acceptable by using socially acceptable language, but it is in all honesty destroying the ability for any form of community or communication.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3724
  • Darwins +362/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2016, 04:10:16 PM »
You may not have read my question.

Right wingers fear that free speech is being shut down by people who cannot understand free speech, namely Muslims and politically correct people who enable Muslims. This means that a right winger perceives free speech as something that is fragile and can be lost.

The question is, why does he do nothing about it, by pushing for some type of constitutional reform that will help in the eventuality that this occurs?

The only thing they seem to do, is ask for more guns, to shoot Muslims and immigrants.

Never mind Voltaire quotes, free speech is just the right to speak to cockroaches in your basement. Noble of you to fight for me to speak to cockroaches. The free speech idea never said that you have the right to get educational facilities to supply you a microphone and an attentive audience of students. Free speech does not facilitate me going on Fox news every day, to debate my POV with intellectuals.

There is a ranking system. Some people's speech is more listened to than others, due to prevailing norms. If the prevailing norm is that religious right wingers can speak to the cockroaches, then that is their current rank, and they should expect little else.

If the prevailing norm, is that my white race is drunk dishonest and unemployable, and should only speak to cockroaches, then that's what I get for 200 years, until some politically correct Muslims speak up for me, and facilitate my backward ideas potentially undermining their paradise.
If people are stupid enough to vote for Donald Trump, they are stupid enough to believe the Bible - Anonymous Philosopher.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7233
  • Darwins +953/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2016, 04:46:01 PM »
All that freedom of speech really means is that you have the right to say what you want without fearing you'll be punished by the government, or those in power, merely for daring to speak.  If I say something, nobody else is obligated to listen, or to give me so much as the time of day.  And there's no guarantee that other people won't shout me down or drown me out if they don't like what I'm saying.

For that matter, if I say something that offends a million people, why should they then be obligated to treat me reasonably in other ways?  If I'm selling a product, and I say something stupid, what incentive do they have to consider buying my product?  And so on, and so forth.

If I say something politically incorrect, why should other people put up with it?  And if someone else says something politically incorrect, and I chastise them, why should they listen to me?  I could go on and on if I wanted, but I believe I've made my point about the true nature of free speech.
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2860
  • Darwins +355/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2016, 05:36:37 PM »
Free speech = the government can not stop you from voicing an opinion, in a nutshell. There are laws that limit certain aspects of speech (fraud, defamation, etc), and as mentioned, there are consequences to free speech. Go ahead and yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater - but you're financially responsible for damages, and headed for prison if anyone dies.

Free speech means you have the freedom to say it. Others have the freedom to listen, or not.

A sample of one - the campus I recently departed bears no resemblance to the one describe in the linked article. In the States, a public university is supposed to be treated as a free speech safe zone, more or less (there's an actual term that I can' recall at the moment), so on my campus, any d!psh!t who wanted to talk was permitted to do so. Hate speech was not permitted, and on rare occasions, someone had to be removed. Students did sometimes stage protests on certain issues that coincided with speakers or events, but there was never any obstructions or efforts to prohibit anyone from having the opportunity to speak.

There was a local guy who called himself Superman. He dressed in a Superman costume, drove round town yelling out the window, stood on street corners yelling at drivers, and drove around campus freaking people out. He mostly drove and hung out downtown, he only showed up on campus a few times a year, for a few days at random times. He's a nasty racist most of the time, but on campus, he didn't usually say anything at all. What he did might have actually been worse - he would find one or two students of color who were walking by themselves, and drive directly behind them, with his window down, blaring music and staring at them. Wouldn't say anything, just stayed right behind them in his car, blaring music and staring. Once they went into a building, he would slowly drive away, then speed up and go looking for more people to follow around, doing nothing but creeping them right the hell out. And there was nothing legally binding that could be done to stop him - what could they charge him with? It's not illegal to be a racist, or a creep. And the campus was really kind of trapped - not only is it a public university, the two main streets actually belong to the city, not the college. He always gets chased off eventually, but there's no mechanism in place to force him to stop altogether.

I find it unsettling that there seems to be a significant segment of a generation here that does fit the linked article. I was often surprised by how unclear the concept of free speech actually was to a lot of younger students, by how willing they were to relinquish certain rights, and by how much they misunderstood other ones. For some, it was literally the first time they had ever been exposed to the idea that citizenship comes with responsibilities, even for citizens who were born here - yes, that happened.  :(

 I know a couple of people (adults, with cars, jobs, and drivers licenses) who have never been outside the seven county metro area of Minneapolis. I know adults from rural Minnesota who have never been in a city with a population bigger than 75,000 people. I know many adults who have never left the state, and many who have never been further away than the next state over - Wisconsin, North or South Dakota, or Iowa. That's it, that's all the larger their world experience extends. When your world is that small, your frame of reference doesn't have room for much. Potential discomfort must be nearly everywhere.

It's contradictory - we "value" individualism, but enforce conformity. That ends up having all kinds of weird free speech consequences.
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger (4 BC - 65 AD)

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
  • Darwins +26/-6
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2016, 08:02:51 PM »
You may not have read my question.

Right wingers fear that free speech is being shut down by people who cannot understand free speech, namely Muslims and politically correct people who enable Muslims. This means that a right winger perceives free speech as something that is fragile and can be lost.

The question is, why does he do nothing about it, by pushing for some type of constitutional reform that will help in the eventuality that this occurs?

The only thing they seem to do, is ask for more guns, to shoot Muslims and immigrants.

Never mind Voltaire quotes, free speech is just the right to speak to cockroaches in your basement. Noble of you to fight for me to speak to cockroaches. The free speech idea never said that you have the right to get educational facilities to supply you a microphone and an attentive audience of students. Free speech does not facilitate me going on Fox news every day, to debate my POV with intellectuals.

There is a ranking system. Some people's speech is more listened to than others, due to prevailing norms. If the prevailing norm is that religious right wingers can speak to the cockroaches, then that is their current rank, and they should expect little else.

If the prevailing norm, is that my white race is drunk dishonest and unemployable, and should only speak to cockroaches, then that's what I get for 200 years, until some politically correct Muslims speak up for me, and facilitate my backward ideas potentially undermining their paradise.

Honestly, the right wingers are doing it to pander to their audience. They like keeping their audience in a state of fear and panic.

The problem with the right is that they already have a constitutional reform to guarantee what they wish to come true called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. The problem is that they don't like the fact that the very same constitutional amendment that protects them from this happening is the same constitutional amendment that is the reason they can not enforce a Christian theocracy. What they are saying is they want to suppress Muslims while forcing them to conform to Christian ideologies. Their protection is also their downfall sort to speak.

As for the guns, I'm pretty sure they would stop supporting guns the second the NRA stops purchasing the party as an advertisement.

For the right wingers thinking that free speech is something that is fragile and can be lost, that specific line I agree with. This is a huge reason why I reject politically correct language (and why I posted all those videos), and what is going on in those college campuses. All it takes is one wrong thing to say and you can go to jail for it.

The USA is one of the most relaxed free speech law countries on the planet. Of all the things that are wrong with the USA, this is one of the most fundamentally and legitimately free things we have left that the USA has done a good job on. We can still do better, but overall, this is one thing that I can be patriotic about the USA on, until the SJW's try to do away with it.

Don't get me wrong, we are talking about opinion speech and freedom of expression speech. As jag mentioned, we don't interpret speech as fraud, defamation etc.

We still need to thicken the skin of our society however because quite frankly, I don't want comedians to go the way of the dodo bird because people no longer know how to take a joke or a jab.

Online Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Darwins +218/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • Call me JAFO
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2016, 10:06:40 PM »
Right wingers fear that free speech is being shut down by people who cannot understand free speech, namely Muslims and politically correct people who enable Muslims. This means that a right winger perceives free speech as something that is fragile and can be lost.

Two questions. For clarification.

1. Who are the right wingers?
2. Who are the politically correct?

Quote
The question is, why does he do nothing about it, by pushing for some type of constitutional reform that will help in the eventuality that this occurs?

What sort of constitutional reform would prevent Muslims and their politically correct sympathizers from changing the rules of the 1st Amendment?

Quote
The only thing they seem to do, is ask for more guns, to shoot Muslims and immigrants.

Hyperbolic hokum.

Quote
Never mind Voltaire quotes

Ok

Quote
free speech is just the right to speak to cockroaches in your basement.

That suggests that I do not have the same right to speak to the cockroaches in YOUR basement though, doesn't it?

Quote
...The free speech idea never said that you have the right to get educational facilities to supply you a microphone and an attentive audience of students. Free speech does not facilitate me going on Fox news every day, to debate my POV with intellectuals.

You have a point with this line of argument. The second amendment never said that Jane or John Doe, who have never served in the military or police force or security service or militia, have the right to carry a gun with them everywhere they go. The right to privacy idea never said that celebrities must have their privacy rights subjugated by the tabloids and mass media because the 1st amendment trumps their individual, personal privacy. Indeed, the idea of individual privacy has been thoroughly subverted.  There's nothing in the constitution which guarantees that your individual vote will actually count in any sort of meaningful way. We have shown ourselves willing and able to completely disregard and reinterpret original intent in an effort to subvert the dominant paradigm. Antiquated Constitutional Rights be damned....we have a new nation to build and some of  these cute little notions called "Rights" are impeding progress.

Quote
There is a ranking system.

Yup. And using the current rules, the ranking system is being changed.

Quote
Some people's speech is more listened to than others, due to prevailing norms. If the prevailing norm is that religious right wingers can speak to the cockroaches, then that is their current rank, and they should expect little else.

If the prevailing norm, is that my white race is drunk dishonest and unemployable, and should only speak to cockroaches, then that's what I get for 200 years, until some politically correct Muslims speak up for me, and facilitate my backward ideas potentially undermining their paradise.

Why should you be made to suffer for the sins of your predecessors?
Death, like Life, is bound to happen sooner or later. Either way, we have little choice in the matter.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8251
  • Darwins +855/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2016, 11:06:00 AM »
Why should you be made to suffer for the sins of your predecessors?
I have no idea. Perhaps it is to emphasise that it (whatever it was) should not happen again. I think it is worthwhile remembering history, but see no point in all these “apologies” – “We are really very sorry for wiping out all those nice Neanderthals and will give £5,000 to anyone who feels they are of Neanderthal descent and might have been disadvantaged by events 10,000 years ago.”

But moving on…

Right-wingers are characterised by being reactive - they oppose change that they subjectively think is damaging or unnecessary.
Left-wingers are revolutionary - they insist on change that they subjectively think is damaging someone else.

Both sides are dogmatic.

The truth lies between and can only be judged on the merits of each individual case. However, the system is set up so that one size fits all.

A case by way of illustration:

A right-winger will be opposed to immigration but may demand that his South African brother-in-law, who entered illegally but is now employing 20 people, be allowed to stay.

The left-winger who loses his job when it is outsourced to India may want it back and care nothing for those who are really struggling to make any sort of a living.

The left and right may band together to oppose a minority action, e.g. opposition to the kosher/halal slaughter of animals: the right because it proves Jews and Muslims are savages who have gone too far, and the left as it is cruel to animals and unnecessary.

From the point of view of an "oppressed" minority, government must be careful to strike a balance between protecting them and their customs and indicating to them that they are victims of some sort who deserved not only "rights" but compensation for having lived whilst not having those rights. This is particularly difficult, as government has to have time to allow the adjustment of the mindset of the majority. Yet a minority can make quite a noise whilst this process is happening, which makes persuading the majority that a concession is in order all the more difficult as polarisation starts to occur.

Some minorities have among them right/left wingers who realise this is the case and purposely find a good cause (e.g. segregation) and then behave more than provocatively on the back of that cause – using it for their own agenda.

Like all things, free speech is about what you do with it when you have got it: you do not use it to cause harm and you do not use it to criticise what a person can do nothing about. Otherwise, you may use it in all cases of opinion – yours or theirs and I do believe that nobody has a right not to be insulted.

« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 11:07:33 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
  • Darwins +26/-6
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2016, 01:55:54 PM »
I agree with you graybeard!

One thing you didn't address that I would like your opinion on is on the flip side, the oppressed majority. It's quite funny though when we look at it. We always talk about minorities who always get oppressed, but on the subject of gun control, the minority has the law in their hands. I remembered that statistic where 93% of USA (both left and right wingers) supported openly gun control and background check laws, yet, the 7% get to tell 100% of the country how their gun laws shall be enacted.

That is just one example, but I do wonder about an oppressed majority on the subject of free speech.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8251
  • Darwins +855/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2016, 05:31:20 PM »
I agree with you graybeard!

One thing you didn't address that I would like your opinion on is on the flip side, the oppressed majority. It's quite funny though when we look at it. We always talk about minorities who always get oppressed, but on the subject of gun control, the minority has the law in their hands. I remembered that statistic where 93% of USA (both left and right wingers) supported openly gun control and background check laws, yet, the 7% get to tell 100% of the country how their gun laws shall be enacted.

That is just one example, but I do wonder about an oppressed majority on the subject of free speech.
This has little to do with free speech – free speech is just that: it does not mean that anyone will listen to you. However, in the West we like to think that governments respond to demands in proportion to the number of people expressing that opinion.

Well, that is the delusion. One day every 4 years a few people[1] get to choose the people who say they will do something that approximates to what they want done but, in reality, they are constrained by economics and a desire to get elected next time and, at the same time, do as little as they think they can, as cheaply as they can, and get to get away with – all the time having to put up with natural disasters and lunatics abroad doing things nobody likes.

As much as I disliked him, Mitt Romney was perfectly correct when he said that he didn’t care about the 47% who are never going to vote Republican[2] – truth is, he was probably not much bothered about the 47% who were going to vote Republican – he was interested in the 6% in the middle who might vote Republican if the right things were said. These were the only people for whom democracy worked in some way.

The subject of gun control is the poison chalice: all politicians just wish it would go away but failing to do anything is not oppression. If the majority are now in position A and a year later they are in position A then there is no oppression; if, a year later they are in A minus, then they are oppressed. If they are in A+ they have simply been raised to a position from which A will appear to be oppression.

The oppression of the majority occurs when adverse laws are passed against the majority and in favour of a minority -> 10% extra task on people whose homes are less than 10,000 square foot -> thus causing the drop from A to A minus. They are not oppressed by “No tax if you earn over $1 million/p.a.” as their circumstances remain “A” nor are they oppressed by laws that confirm the rights of a minority (gays may marry) as their circumstances remain “A” or enable a minority to live more efficiently (free medicine for terminally ill patients; free appliances for the disabled.)

Your example of only 7% being opposed to gun control is simple corruption. If a government knows the will of the people, as long as that will is reasonable, then they should, regardless of who is filling their coffers, comply with the wishes of the people. The failure of a government to act makes them subservient to a non-democratic minority who have power without responsibility.
 1. See the next paragraph for the 6% who are listened to
 2. “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Darwins +218/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • Call me JAFO
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2016, 08:07:52 PM »
A right-winger will be opposed to immigration...

Every single "professional" right winger has espoused strong support for immigration. They merely oppose "illegal" immigration or amnesty for those who have already crossed our borders through unofficial channels. 

Quote
The left-winger who loses his job when it is outsourced to India may want it back and care nothing for those who are really struggling to make any sort of a living.

Sounds like a right wing complaint to me but I can see how a liberal would still be miffed if they lost their job to outsourcing.

Quote
The left and right may band together to oppose a minority action, e.g. opposition to the kosher/halal slaughter of animals: the right because it proves Jews and Muslims are savages who have gone too far, and the left as it is cruel to animals and unnecessary.

I am not familiar with this debate but it does bring up a question regarding religious freedom and weddings. Could a Jewish couple sue a catering company if they refused to cater their wedding because the owners refused to provide kosher food based on their own personal religious bias? What if a Muslim wants a Jewish owned catering company to provide a halal menu for their religious ceremony? This is just a tangential question. It just crossed my mind.

Quote
From the point of view of an "oppressed" minority, government must be careful to strike a balance between protecting them and their customs and indicating to them that they are victims of some sort who deserved not only "rights" but compensation for having lived whilst not having those rights. This is particularly difficult, as government has to have time to allow the adjustment of the mindset of the majority. Yet a minority can make quite a noise whilst this process is happening, which makes persuading the majority that a concession is in order all the more difficult as polarisation starts to occur.

That is the problem in a nutshell. I'm guessing that it's easier to walk a tight rope across Niagara Falls during a thunder storm than it is for a government to balance the equation of human happiness and suffering. You can't please everyone...it is a fools errand.

Quote
Some minorities have among them right/left wingers who realise this is the case and purposely find a good cause (e.g. segregation) and then behave more than provocatively on the back of that cause – using it for their own agenda.

I would love to understand what they think the world will look like once they have accomplished all their goals. Sometimes it seems to me that the "progressive" agenda has no finish line...no goal...it's just an eternal struggle to change whatever is happening at the time....which is constantly changing. I mean, is there a point where the progressives will sit back and say to each other, "We have finally accomplished our vision, cheers to a job well done!"? What do they become then? Conservatives? Because, you know, they would want to conserve what they think is just the absolute best way for everyone to live.

Quote
Like all things, free speech is about what you do with it when you have got it: you do not use it to cause harm and you do not use it to criticise what a person can do nothing about. Otherwise, you may use it in all cases of opinion – yours or theirs and I do believe that nobody has a right not to be insulted.

Agreed.
Death, like Life, is bound to happen sooner or later. Either way, we have little choice in the matter.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8251
  • Darwins +855/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: How does free speech work?
« Reply #15 on: Today at 10:24:45 AM »
I mean, is there a point where the progressives will sit back and say to each other, "We have finally accomplished our vision, cheers to a job well done!"? What do they become then? Conservatives? Because, you know, they would want to conserve what they think is just the absolute best way for everyone to live.
This sounds as if you have been asked to count backwards from 100, but keep stopping at 10.

Change occurs all the time - in fact "change" links to the definition of time.

What we see is our reaction to a changing world. We are in a boat on the ocean - we wish to sail in a straight line, but the wind, waves and currents are against us; important crew members get sick and die and take their skills with them, occasionally they mutiny or desert, etc.

All this requires change - it is how the captain reacts to this and how he anticipates trouble and how he motivates us that is the parallel to how we address change. Some needs to be opposed, some does not go far enough - but whatever else, change will happened. There can be no "stable state" of civilisation.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”