-
Still on this Gary...Your writing was given to a company who agreed to publish work that abided by rules clearly outlined. You broke said rules, repeatedly, ergo loss of earnings. Exactly the same if I work for a bank/shop/hotel/school... etc and call a customer a faggot, I lose my job and earnings. It's not like you were merely talking to the air, and if you were subject to criminal prosecution for such an action I would agree that is wrong and unjust.75% Voted for by petethemeat, Weydon, Ns243cxcvi, zga, NoeL-. (6 total)
Now if we take your example away from the mix, and refer to hate speech in a public sphere, not within a privately controlled corporation that requires its employees or associates to behave in a certain manner, then we have a different, more valid debate.
I personally feel there should be no criminal sanction against 'hate speech' as I feel the issue is too small to warrant encroaching on freedom of speech. The only circumstance I feel freedom of speech should not protect is direct threats of violence.
Edit: Gary in case you get confused again, I haven't used my god-like moderator abilities to put my post at the top of the page - it is called voting, and this at time of writing has the most votes... Understood? -
Is Hate Speech That Which Political Opposition Does Not Like?The slippery slope of associating hate speech with crimes and hate speech without crimes in Internet writing seems to have been summited-Hate speech or speech offensive to others is a basic Internet posting cause for deletion of accounts so how is free thought to develop?Voted for by GaryCGibson.
-
Not again...This has been established in another post of yours: you used foul language in an essay, language that violated the Terms of Use on the website on which you were posting your essays, and subsequently had your account terminated. Your fault, your fault, your fault. You were paid, then you were, for all intents and purposes, fired. You were not "enslaved" as you would like to impress upon us; you were working for money and had your ersatz "employment" terminated upon failing to uphold the standards established by your employers.Voted for by Xelgaroth.
Moving on, however, from that. I do have a problem with this "hate speech" business. If bigots such as yourself would like to mouth off nonsense about homosexuals, that is your prerogative and you should not be arrested, detained, fined, or face any legal action for this. You are perfectly free to say whatever rubbish you like. I, conversely, am free to argue with you, discuss with you, or just roll my eyes and ignore you; that's how free speech works. If, however, such speech escalates into threats of physical violence, explicit or implied, I do believe that the authorities ought to step in. In and of itself, however, I see no problem in simply saying whatever you like as long as it is in an appropriate environ (for example, while you have the "free speech" to do so, I do not think it appropriate to shout down a politician, for instance, unless what he is saying is absolutely outlandish).
To that end, I would tentatively agree with you that this concept of "hate speech" is primarily an American left-wing attempt to keep the opposing viewpoint quiet. It is NOT, however, some vast conspiracy hellbent on silencing dissent. I would simply concur that it is a method designed to keep people from asserting politically incorrect ideas-- i.e., ideas that do not agree with their own. Nevertheless, the provisions for "hate speech" legislation have been smashed to pieces every time they are proposed, and I am unconcerned about them.
If you are going to compare what happened to you on Helium.com to facing any kind of legal action for "hate speech", think again, Gary. You were neither detained nor fined; you faced no legal action whatsoever. Helium reserved the right to terminate your account at any time, and you submitted yourself to their right to do so. To that extent, your "right to free speech" was in no wise violated. The right to free speech refers to the constitutional provision whereby Congress is prohibited from arresting, detaining, fining, or otherwise legally actin upon you based on something that you said; you are free to say whatever you like as far as the government is concerned. However, when you step into the private realm, there are no such provisions; a private website, for example Helium.com, owes you no "right" to free speech.
Furthermore, you did not merely use language that was "politically incorrect"-- you used foul, unecessary, and inappropriate language. You referred to a group of people with offensive and obscene language, explicitly forbidden under Helium.com's terms of use BEFORE you wrote your essay, which you could have examined at any time, and thus had your account terminated. Ignorance of their rules is no excuse; it was your responsibility to know what is and is not allowed, and to know what is and is not offensive. The word "faggot" is an offensive and obscene word, you used it, thus violating their rules, and they kicked you out, sir.Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
"If, however, such speech escalates into threats of physical violence, explicit or implied, I do believe that the authorities ought to step in"
Umm... that's exactly what hate speech is. So really you don't have a problem with hate speech laws.
Hate speech laws don't prevent people from being bigots. People are still legally allowed to say that asians suck balls. They're free to express their distaste for any particular denomination. They are NOT free, however, to stand before a group of people and advocate the obliteration of asians. They can't rally people to grab their shotguns and go hunt some slant-eyes, or do any such act that would violate the rights of asians.
Sometimes you need to censor the rights of some to protect the rights of others, and I think the right to live outweighs the right to speak. Like they say, your right to extend your arm ends where my face begins. -
-
"Umm... that's exactly what hate speech is. So really you don't have a problem with hate speech laws."
It may vary from country to country. Here, "hate speech" is generally associated with any form of offensive speech directed at a partcular race, whether that has any explicit or implied threat or not. It is a measure generally proposed by the more left-wing among liberal congressmen here. Every once in awhile, a bill in some form will try to squeeze itself into being passed, and never succeeds because everyone thinks it's ridiculous. Still, they try.
Here, there typically is made a distinction between "threatening speech" and "hate speech". "Hate" speech would involve actually targeting a specific group of people out of hate for them and using racist or sexist language. The presence of a threat would be irrelevant to its being defined as "hate speech", at least in its usual form. Different levels of ridiculousness can crop up depending on who is proposing it to congress. It rarely makes it past the house, and has never been approved by the Senate. Lately, they've tried other avenues like the Fairness Doctrine and so forth.
I don't know, however, how it is in Australia. There may be a different interpretation of the expression "hate speech". Under your interpretation, I completely agree with you. Any form of speech that involves making a threat of physical violence is and should be forbidden under legal penalty and/or imprisonment. So it sounds like we are in complete agreement here on the matter. -
-
Just looking up hate speech laws on Wiki and seems I might be wrong. In Australia it's illegal to "incite hatred" based on race, and depending on the state also colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. It's illegal to call a black guy a nigger.
In 2002 a holocaust denial website was shut down because it was ruled a violation of this act. I wonder what the content was, because if it was just a denial of the holocaust and no slander of Jews it shouldn't be illegal. Maybe those Creationist websites can be removed for being hate speech against the Evolutionist religion
-
-
Yeah, that's what I figured it was; that's what it is here. Thankfully, as far as I know, such legislation hasn't been passed in the U.S.-- yet. Other things are still trying to be passed like the Fairness doctrine, which essentially would try to keep all radio stations "balanced" by requiring, for example, conservative radio to have a certain amount of time allotted for the liberal point of view, and for liberal channels to have a certain amount of conservative time, et cetera (incidentally, it's mostly liberals proposing it; conservative talk radio is a thorn in their sides).
As far as I'm concerned, you should be allowed to say whatever you like to someone without fear of being detained by the government, provided that such speech does not contain implicit or explicit threats of physical violence or damage to property. But that's as far as the government is concerned. If Helium.com wants to restrict people from using offensive language against another group of people, that's their prerogative; Gary isn't owed any right to free speech by them.
"Maybe those Creationist websites can be removed for being hate speech against the Evolutionist religion."
XD Totally. And those awful, blasphemous atheists can at last be silenced from the web for their vicious hate speech against Christianity.
-
-
I think the laws do have merit, but it's a balancing act between free speech and a productive society. It's kinda like school, and the teachers are required to break up fights and mediate conflict because without it the school would fall to shit, the weaker/minority students would be constantly victimised, and there would be a severe defecit in the quality of person that would come from such an institution. I see these laws in a similar vein, and it really is best for everyone that these people that make deliberate efforts to propagate and distil hatred against members of the society be silenced. It all depends on how much free speech you want to limit to reduce the destructive impact it has when used to promote hatred.
-
-
"I see these laws in a similar vein, and it really is best for everyone that these people that make deliberate efforts to propagate and distil hatred against members of the society be silenced. It all depends on how much free speech you want to limit to reduce the destructive impact it has when used to promote hatred."
I just would feel too wary of any law that would involve determining how hatefully I am and am not allowed to talk. I hear what you're saying about social productivity, but I think a better (and safer) approach would be to instigate counter-education techniques that expose these hateful morons for the bigoted idiots that they are. This is precisely the approach that you have been proposing for ultimately eliminating religion: educate people until the vast majority of people are so convinced of its ridiculousness that people who even suggest it are immediately chastised by society (not the government).
Rather than cap what people can and can't say, which as far as I can tell just puts a lid on the problem and doesn't really solve it, I'd try for a proactive approach involving removing ignorance. Teach people that there is absolutely no qualitative difference between black and white-skinned human beings, and point out the absurdity of applying arbitrary values of "superiority" and "inferiority" upon other human beings, and you will have a society with educated people who know not to behave that way, and those who continue to behave that way will just... fade into obscurity. Will bigotry still exist? Of course. But it will be so unpopular that people who do harbour such views will be silenced. This, to me, would ultimately remove bigotry without the government stepping in and telling people to shut up.
Personally, I can tolerate a few sexist idiots running around in the meantime; they won't be here forever. There's a pretty vast social climate in the U.S. right now whereby sexists are viewed by nearly everyone as morons. Consequently, following generations have been steadily less sexist. Is there a long way to go? Of course there is. But comparing this generation to, say, 1950's United States, popular culture alone has done a spectacular job of stamping out patriarchal sexism. Government's job, in my opinion, is to secure my actual rights to life nad property; I have a right to these things, and no one should take them from me, and the government's job is to keep me from actually facing physical harm or damage to my property. As for passing idiots who find some reason to be bigoted (like Gary), I don't see why the government should get involve. Give it time; they will be swept away by society's natural progress anyhow.
Of course, I might just be biased, since I'm a White American Protestant Male; I'm anything but a minority. I fit the bill for being your average post-sexist sexist, closet racist, fat cat. Unfortunately, (White) American males fit for a lot of stereotypes that associate people like me with being any of the above; white American protestant males have an all-too-long history of being bigots (even worse, bigots in charge), so I may have absolutely no place in a discussion on the matter. But from my biased perspective, I say if you're gonna run around and spew idiotic racist nonsense, fine; if you're not actually harming me, my family, other people, or anybody else's property, or threatening to do so, you can say what you like.
-
-
I think implementing these laws would catalyse this natural progression. I don't think it's unreasonable to limit people's ability to harass undeserving groups of people. For a lot of people on the receiving end it IS damaging to their life to have constant abuse hurled at them, and in the same way I wouldn't leave it to "society's natural progress" to stamp out murder I don't think it would be a bad thing to criminalise malicious speech. It has no benefit to society and it encroaches on the rights of others.
-
-
" I don't think it's unreasonable to limit people's ability to harass undeserving groups of people."
I think of "harassment" and "insults" to be two different things. As I define them, harassment would involve me dogging you, calling you names and not leaving you alone. That, in the U.S., at least in most towns and states, would constitute disturbance of the peace, among other things. In any case, if someone kept following me around and throwing offensive and/or racist language at me (I'm hardly, as I say, a target for racism, but if I were), yeah, I'd actually call that threatening; if some dude is following you around and calling you awful, racist words, I'd say there's definitely an implied threat in there.
However, if I'm walking by and some guy just shouts some racist comment, I'd just roll my eyes and move on with my life. He can't make me feel any worse about myself unless I let him. Or look at Gary. Now, Gary is a bigot; you and I agree on this. But Gary, in my opinion, can write whatever bigoted nonsense he likes whenever he likes and as much as he likes; he is free to do this. I, as well, am free to just ignore him, or even write information contrary to what he says, if I so choose. The point is that he is free to be a moron if he likes. He's entitled to his opinion, even if it is wrong.
Now, I grant that there is a difference between "An incorrect opinion" and "a racist opinion". Racism involves hatred, not just a view contrary to mine own. Even so, in my book, as long as he is not physically harming me or threatening to do so, or damaging my property or anyone else's, he can say what he likes. "I disagree with everything you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire.
On the other hand, is there a difference between "free political speech" and "free general speech"? As far as I can tell, they go hand in hand. If I can't say racist things on the private level, how can I say democratic things in public? If I can't say sexist things in the private world, how can I say republican things in the public world? To me, to have freedom in one is to have freedom in the other, and any cap on speech in one is a cap on the other.
Look, for instance, at the issue right now in the states with Sarah Palin and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Now, Emmanuel was recorded in a meeting to have called proposal fellow liberals "fucking retarded". Upon the recordings' release, Palin went on a tirade for Emmanuel's resignation due to his use of "demeaning, offensive, and derogatory speech". In my opinion, however, this is simply ridiculous. Emmanuel can say what he likes; what the chief of staff says reflects on the man who delegated him to his position, and may or may not affect how I vote in 2012, and if I have a problem with Emmanuel, I'll take it up in the ballot box, but I will not demand he resign. That's not how it works.
" For a lot of people on the receiving end it IS damaging to their life to have constant abuse hurled at them, and in the same way I wouldn't leave it to "society's natural progress" to stamp out murder I don't think it would be a bad thing to criminalise malicious speech."
I think I'd need to see some substantial evidence that people's lives can be severely damaged by words. I understand that people can have their feelings hurt, but that's why I say there should be a counter-education measure to show that what those idiots say is completely IRRELEVANT, and therefore they should not feel hurt by anything they have to say at all. I understand that, for instance, if you tell a child they're worthless, they'll grow up in that paradigm of self-image. But we're not talking about children; we're talking about grown adult persons, who should, at that stage in life, be capable of brushing off a mean comment and moving on with their life. Unless you can produce some seriously damning evidence suggesting that mean words can really have a severe impact on an adult individual's life, I don't see any reason to implement laws that would restrict offensive speech. To that end, the comparison to murder just seems like overkill; I can demonstrate the obvious harm murder does to people; but do you have evidence to support the claim that insults really do that kind of damage to people?
"It has no benefit to society and it encroaches on the rights of others."
Which right in particular? Is there a "right to not be called names?" I'm not being flippant, I'm just curious which particular right you feel is being encroached?
I am a libertarian with a mild lean to the right. I am wary of anything that would involve an expansion of governmental power in any arena, economic, social, political, whatever. To instigate litigation for offensive or demeaning language would involve an expansion of power. To convince me that it is reasonable, I'd need to see strong evidence to show that such an expansion is necessary, and furthermroe showing how this expansion would be kept under control; government has a natural tendency to take power where it can. How could you guarantee that this power would not be abused? The power to silence people's speech seems like a dangerous road to go down, even if it is intended originally to only limit demeaning speech. -
-
"if some dude is following you around and calling you awful, racist words, I'd say there's definitely an implied threat in there.
However, if I'm walking by and some guy just shouts some racist comment, I'd just roll my eyes and move on with my life."
If a group of people stood outside a gay bar shouting obscenities at the patrons because of their sexual preference, would that count as harrassment with implied threats, or just people saying offensive things to people that walk past?
"But Gary, in my opinion, can write whatever bigoted nonsense he likes whenever he likes and as much as he likes; he is free to do this."
I think he should be free to voice his opinion, but shouldn't be allowed to do so with the express intent to offend. He should be free to write or say "I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry", but not "I don't think those queero butt-fucking faggots should be allowed to marry". See the difference?
"Even so, in my book, as long as he is not physically harming me or threatening to do so, or damaging my property or anyone else's, he can say what he likes."
I would argue that deliberately offensive language IS harmful and/or threatening. If you were say, a homosexual, walking through a heavily fundamentalist Christian town, and everyone glared at you and called you a faggot and told you you'd burn in Hell, would you not feel threatened by such a thing? Should free speech laws allow people to behave in such a way?
"I think I'd need to see some substantial evidence that people's lives can be severely damaged by words."
Wow are you kidding me? I would have thought that one was pretty self evident.
"But we're not talking about children; we're talking about grown adult persons, who should, at that stage in life, be capable of brushing off a mean comment and moving on with their life."
How many mean comments could you brush off before they started to affect you?
"Which right in particular? Is there a "right to not be called names?" I'm not being flippant, I'm just curious which particular right you feel is being encroached?"
Their right to live free of fear? (I don't know my rights XD) I wouldn't know which one in particular, but you shouldn't have to put up with people that deliberately try to incite hatred between you and them based on sex, skin colour, race, sexual preference, religion, etc - attributes that you either cannot change or are within your rights to keep.
"I am wary of anything that would involve an expansion of governmental power in any arena, economic, social, political, whatever. To instigate litigation for offensive or demeaning language would involve an expansion of power."
Don't all laws do this? Isn't criminalising theft an expansion of government power? I don't see how limiting offensive language is taking away anything from the people, other than their ability to be jerks to others (which is a criminal offense in every other area). Tell me what people would lose, other than their ability to hurt others, should these laws be implemented? -
-
"If a group of people stood outside a gay bar shouting obscenities at the patrons because of their sexual preference, would that count as harrassment with implied threats, or just people saying offensive things to people that walk past?"
To begin, standing outside of a business establishment and shouting is considered "Disturbing the peace" and the owner of the bar can call the police and have them disperse those morons. However, barring that, yes, I would say there is an implied threat, to the extent that these idiots are actually standing outside of the place and harranguing individuals as they make their way in and out. Yeah, that's harassment. But if, for instance, I'm a homosexual and some dude on the street as he passes says "Faggot!" I, personally, could move on with my life. This, of couse, might just be because I have a very snobbish personality and often just ignore things that stupid people have to say, and quite simply DO NOT CARE at all about what they're saying. Perhaps this is not the case for other people.
"I think he should be free to voice his opinion, but shouldn't be allowed to do so with the express intent to offend. He should be free to write or say "I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry", but not "I don't think those queero butt-fucking faggots should be allowed to marry". See the difference?"
Yeah, I see the difference, but as far as I'm concerned if anyone actually uttered something that stupid they would simply lose all credibility or intellectual relevance, and to that end, they are easily ignorable.
"I would argue that deliberately offensive language IS harmful and/or threatening. If you were say, a homosexual, walking through a heavily fundamentalist Christian town, and everyone glared at you and called you a faggot and told you you'd burn in Hell, would you not feel threatened by such a thing? Should free speech laws allow people to behave in such a way?"
Well... yes. I know that sounds awful. But any town that behaves that way is going to lose business-- no one wants to do business in a town full of bigots. If they're not physically harming me or damaging my property, they can say what they like. As I say, I might just be biased. I'm not advocating such bigotry, please don't get that impression. But even so, I can't say that I'd feel threatened by that. Would you? As a hardline atheist, if some Christian tells you you're gonna burn in hell, so what? They might as well tell you that you're going to burn in færieland. To me, if I walked into a town with people who yammered such inane nonsense at me, I'd be more inclined to laugh at them than to cry at their insults.
"How many mean comments could you brush off before they started to affect you?"
Probably all of them. As I say, I'm an incorrigibly arrogant snob. People who hurl moronic and unfounded insults at me are just... not worth listening to. It's hardly a Christian attitude, I know, but it's sort of a natural mechanism to avoid being affected by such insults that I just consider people who behave that way to be irrelevant human beings whose every word is not worth listening to. Unless something like that came from a close, loved one, whose opinion I value, it would not affect me in the slightest.
"Their right to live free of fear? (I don't know my rights XD) I wouldn't know which one in particular, but you shouldn't have to put up with people that deliberately try to incite hatred between you and them based on sex, skin colour, race, sexual preference, religion, etc - attributes that you either cannot change or are within your rights to keep."
Again, I just don't see how merely being insulted is reason to feel fear. People say mean crap sometimes; that's how human beings are. Now, if my actual right to life or property is being endangered, that's one thing. But if someone's just being an idiotic jerk, I can move on with my life and be completely unaffected by his irrelevant commentary. Such bigotry is nothing but mere drivel to me, insignificant fodder in a sea of mediocrity. Is there a right to not having your feelings hurt? Look, if you feel legitimate fear of injury or property damage, absolutely: call the authorities. But to just run tattle-tail to the police because Mr. Moron called me a name just seems ridiculous.
"Don't all laws do this? Isn't criminalising theft an expansion of government power? I don't see how limiting offensive language is taking away anything from the people, other than their ability to be jerks to others (which is a criminal offense in every other area). Tell me what people would lose, other than their ability to hurt others, should these laws be implemented?"
Yes, criminalizing theft is an expansion of power. But read what I said again. Two conditions must be met for me to support it:
1. It must be proven necessary.
2. It must be shown how such an expansion could be kept under control.
The reasons why theft should be criminalized are obvious; people have a right to their own property, and no one has the right to take it. Therefore, measures should be taken to prevent it. This involves an expansion of government power. This expansion is kept in check by a rigorous rule of law system, as well as (in the U.S.) a division of federal, state, and local power, whereby crime X is criminalised under court Y depending on its intensity. There's also a distinct difference between "theft" and "non-theft", except in rare circumstances.
But "hate speech" is more subjective; what one man calls "hate speech" is just another man's "being a jerk". Who would determine what was and was not hate speech? It may seem obvious, but to me, it just sounds like a dangerous road to go down. It sounds like something that would or could be very easily abused by those in power. The power to shut certain individuals up would be a very enticing thing. All you have to do is label it "hate speech" and boom, he is silenced. I might just be paranoid, though. I'm just leery of government's ability to tell me what I can say and what I can't say. -
-
""Should free speech laws allow people to behave in such a way?"
Well... yes. I know that sounds awful"
Well I think that's disgusting, and we'll have to agree to disagree. I have nothing more to say here. -
-
Wow... Relax, NoeL. Argue back rather than just say you're disgusted. That sounds like the attitude I'd get from a fundie Christian, just getting disgusted.
I'm not saying that that makes it morally okay to be an asshole. To have the right to do something does not mean to do something is right. It's not right to cheat on your partner, but it's legally permissible. It hurts people's feelings, it's not nice-- it's flat out a dick move. But there aren't any laws against it. You can't protect people from every mean thing. People can just be mean sometimes.
What I'm asking for is experimental information that would suggest that adult persons can really be deeply harmed by mean words. Harassment is one thing; but just mean words is another. Helium.com does and SHOULD have strict rules regarding hateful speech in essays people write. Companies and firms do and SHOULD have policies in which racism and sexism are strongly prohibited and can be punished with instant firing by some employers. This is good and right. I have no problem with these, I ENCOURAGE this! I am NOT proposing that people should just go around and be verbal jerks to other people. What I AM suspicious of is a governmental movement whereby a government official can make me be quiet on the grounds that what I said was offensive. To me, such a provision seems like something that could be very easily abused. THAT is why I asked for evidence showing that such a provision is necessary, and rather than supply such evidence, you just got disgusted.
Is it right that people like Gary go about using the word "faggot" to describe homosexuals? NO! Of course not! It's a foul, evil, cruel word used to demean and belittle other human beings who are not doing anything harmful to you. I despise the word, and never use it. I get angry when people use such words, or use idiotic expressions like "gay" to mean "stupid". It's foul, and it's wrong. Do NOT mistake my intent. Where we differ, NoeL, is in our approach for eliminating such a word from society. In my opinion, a healthier and safer approach is to educate society about the evils (and stupidity) of such words and the people who use them. If all you do is shut racists up, racism doesn't go away; you have to eliminate it from society.
What right is being violated by merely being offensive? I'm not talking about freaking harassment here; there IS a difference. If someone's following me around or standing outside a business establishment or stalking me or writing me cruel letters, ALL of these are harassment. But because someone used the word "faggot" in an essay should NOT bring the law down on him! It's an evil word! But look at what happened to Gary for using it! He was booted from his site and was reduced to whining about his frivolous plight on another website. Helium was right, absolutely right. Gary violated their policy by using a foul and offensive word, and I say good for them! But despite all this, I simply have yet to be presented with evidence suggesting that people have a "right" to be protected by the government from such language, and I asked for such evidence, but you just got disgusted at me. -
-
"Wow... Relax, NoeL."
I am relaxed You certainly got fired up though!
But really, there's nothing more I can say. You asked for evidence, but you clearly understand that it exists based on your response to my hypothetical. You know that being subject to hatred is damaging to self-esteem.
Sure if you're a straight white protestant male you can shrug off insults that target those things because they're so few and far between. When you're constatly being targetted because you have black skin or something - and these aren't people even attempting to make legitimate arguments about your worth, they're just spewing insults in order to hurt you - surely you can imagine that that would be very damaging, and if you require evidence to realise this you must have an embarrassingly sheltered view of the world.
The fact that you already know this, and you are happy to let this legally happen, just shows that there's nothing more I can say to convince you. You are happy to let this happen, I am not. You already have all the evidence I do, it's just a matter of opinion. -
-
"But really, there's nothing more I can say. You asked for evidence, but you clearly understand that it exists based on your response to my hypothetical. You know that being subject to hatred is damaging to self-esteem."
Yes, sure it's damaging to self-esteem, if you take it to heart. If you actually are under the impression that anything that the people in that town full of bigots has to say is in any way valuable, then sure, you're gonna feel hurt by their words. To this end, however, I would suggest that the people be educated to understand that such words and such individuals do not and should not have any effect on how they view themselves as persons.
"Sure if you're a straight white protestant male you can shrug off insults that target those things because they're so few and far between. When you're constatly being targetted because you have black skin or something - and these aren't people even attempting to make legitimate arguments about your worth, they're just spewing insults in order to hurt you - surely you can imagine that that would be very damaging, and if you require evidence to realise this you must have an embarrassingly sheltered view of the world."
Perhaps I am sheltered. Perhaps I am biased. I said that before. I am a walking stereotype, a white, straight, protestant, American male. I sit on top of the freaking world. I'm not saying that's right, but unfortunately, it is currently the reality, one that must be worked on. I walk outside every morning and go to school and the worst thing I have to deal with is getting my diploma so I can go to college. I have life handed to me on a bloody silver platter. Comparatively speaking, I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, I'm lower middle class, but nevertheless, life's easy enough.
I have a tendency to take on a sort of... detached, attitude toward what other people think of me. On the rare occasions that people do behave that way toward me, I have no difficulty isolating their words as not something that should actually be considered as valuable information and "shrugging it off", as you say. Perhaps you are right, and grown human beings really can actually feel hurt by what irrelevant idiots have to say about them. Unfortunately, I suppose I'd just have to BE them in order to get that. To me, all you have to do is roll your eyes and move on with life.
I just don't see how the bigoted opinion of a gun-totin', flag-wavin', plaid-wearin' racist redneck, who probably doesn't know how to spell his own name, has ANY value whatsoever. If it has no value, how can it damage you? If he's following you around, that's one thing. But if he wrote a (heavily misspelled) essay and posted it on the internet in which he voiced his worthless opinion, to me, who cares? He's an idiot! No one cares about what he has to say! How can he be damaging? He's like a fly smashing into the windshield of a car travelling down the highway; completely ineffectual.
If, however, people actually do, for whatever reason, actually think that anything they say is worth listening to, or can't feel independent enough as a person to stand above their words, and could actually experience lasting harm, not just a momentary emotional sting, but real, lasting, severe harm that could affect their life, I would like to see it. I get that people can feel hurt by mean words; everyone knows that. Even in my happy sheltered-land people can be dicks sometimes. Human beings are obviously capable of wonderful, beautiful things, but they are also very capable, all of them, of being absolutely awful to each other from time to time, no matter where you live. But what I don't see is how this same harm from words can really translate, in grown, ostensibly mature and independent people, to severe personal harm, so severe that the government ought to be called in to criminalise people being offensive. To that end, I would like to see evidence for it.
A government with the power to make certain invididuals shut up just sounds dangerous, in my opinion. Which is more evil? People using racist language? Or a government that can silence people at will? Which is the lesser of the two evils? A move like this could start as a way of preventing "hate speech", sure, but what would stop it from just expanding and metastasizing into something much more grotesque than it was ever intended to be? It just seems to open up a dangerous door, one that would require a strong effort to shut again. So I would need to weigh the two to each other: racist language or government that can make me shut up? Which would I rather have to deal with? It sounds utilitarian, I know, but that's why I asked for evidence: if the problem of people using racist language really is that drastically severe, then obviously you would go with the governmental provision instead. -
-
"Yes, sure it's damaging to self-esteem, if you take it to heart. If you actually are under the impression that anything that the people in that town full of bigots has to say is in any way valuable, then sure, you're gonna feel hurt by their words."
You're completely missing the point. It's not about taking mean words to heart, it's about feeling victimised, threatened and isolated because everyone hates you and isn't shy about expressing it.
"To this end, however, I would suggest that the people be educated to understand that such words and such individuals do not and should not have any effect on how they view themselves as persons."
That's not enough. These people have to live together, and the haters are making it harder than it needs to be, and TRYING to make you do something regretable.
"Perhaps you are right, and grown human beings really can actually feel hurt by what irrelevant idiots have to say about them. Unfortunately, I suppose I'd just have to BE them in order to get that. To me, all you have to do is roll your eyes and move on with life."
It's that these idiots aren't always "irrelevant". It can be people that you depend on, like a grocer or something. If you can only feasibly go to this one store, and the keeper has no reservations about telling you how big a piece of shit you and your kind are, it makes a necessary job needlessly unpleasant. Knowing they don't like you is one thing, but having to put up with a slew of insults every time you want some fucking food would drive me insane, and I would like to think I could legally do something to make the cunt shut up.
"I just don't see how the bigoted opinion of a gun-totin', flag-wavin', plaid-wearin' racist redneck, who probably doesn't know how to spell his own name, has ANY value whatsoever."
In a town full of gun-totin', flag-wavin', plaid-wearin' racist rednecks he could be the fucking mayor, who's opinion DOES weild a lot of value. And while you might not take notice of his words, others will, and the hatred will spread. Reluctantly invoking Godwin's law here, but if Hitler couldn't have said the things he said, and incited hatred of Jews among the German population, the holocaust would not have happened.
"I get that people can feel hurt by mean words; everyone knows that."
You're grossly underappreciating the scope here.
"But what I don't see is how this same harm from words can really translate, in grown, ostensibly mature and independent people, to severe personal harm, so severe that the government ought to be called in to criminalise people being offensive. To that end, I would like to see evidence for it."
Since you seem oblivious I tried to do some digging. I found one article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118911227/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
I can only read the abstract, but it states:
"Results indicate that hate speech directed at ethnic targets deserves more severe punishment than other forms of offensive speech and petty theft. Hate speech also results in more extreme emotional responses and, in the case of an Asian target, has a depressing influence on collective self-esteem."
I'd post more, but it's hard to find studies examining the psychological effects of hate speech.
"A government with the power to make certain invididuals shut up just sounds dangerous, in my opinion. Which is more evil? People using racist language? Or a government that can silence people at will?"
They CAN'T silence people at will - only those promoting hatred. And in my opinion the person inciting hatred is more evil than the person telling him to be polite or STFU.
"A move like this could start as a way of preventing "hate speech", sure, but what would stop it from just expanding and metastasizing into something much more grotesque than it was ever intended to be?"
Well given that the rest of the world has implemented these laws and are doing fine, I don't see it as being likely. I know America is ass-backwards compared to the rest of the civilised world but I doubt they're inherantly evil.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LOL Seriously. What if this was his real job and not just an extra 100 bucks or so a month? Do you think he'd be going on an equal tirade for getting fired just because he called his gay co-worker a faggot, and those that defended this guy "liberal homo-symps"? I feel like this is straight out of a farce movie. I just picture him shrugging his hands wide in the air, "WHAT I DO?!"
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!