He means saying “that’s racist!” isn’t censorship. Which is true.
But the goal is censorship, speech control, then mind control.
Evil masquerading as political correctness…
I’m not so sure about that. I get your point, but imagine a discussion on college-age boys having sex with girls from 16 to 18 and every statement was met with "“Well, that’s the pedophile’s position”. How long do you think that would remain a debate?
And while pedophile is probably the worst thing you can call someone—directly or indirectly—in today’s society in the U.S., “racist” is pretty close.
Probably not long. Still not censorship.
Weird example though.
No it’s not.
And even if it is, let us know when that happens. Until then, it’s just a discussion.
If it makes bringing up those points taboo, it is censorship. It’s not official state- or board-sanctioned censorship, but censorship just the same. A social form. Which is the game that iiandyiii and others are playing. The point is that GD exists to facilitate actual debate, not to be a duplicate of The Pit.
It doesn’t make those points taboo. They’re still freely made, and just as freely refuted. Accurately characterizing them is neither censoring them nor quashing them nor anything similar. Even inaccurately characterizing them wouldn’t do this – the only thing that does is “you can’t say that” backed by force.
I think people should be free to make racist assertions, and people should be free to call those assertions racist. That’s currently the rules here, by the way – posts can be characterized as racist, but not posters (unless I’m missing something).
That’s insane. The goal is actually to make all conservatives, under pain of death by torture, dress as Bozo the Clown in all months ending in a “y.” Didn’t you know?
(Two can play at the “inane conspiracy theory game,” you know.)
That’s also ridiculous. If someone used your ridiculous “pedophile’s position” argument, I’d ask them to justify their statements, and if they couldn’t do so, I’d argue them into the ground.
The irony is that you’re wanting to make any discussion of racism taboo. I, of course, am responding to that by arguing you into the ground :).
No.
One chooses not to bring something up. At best, that’s social pressure. Not censorship.
Granted, there are weaklings who bow easily to such pressure, and that’s unfortunate.
Check your Post 364. You agree that language that is insulting and demeaning will end the debate in not too long a time. You agree that language has a chilling effect. So, first you’re left only with those with the thickest skin. Using that logic, we needn’t have anything out of bounds in GD. And if you do that, that makes GD the same as The Pit. And anyone who doesn’t think it’s worth it, is, in your words, a weakling.
It seems that most people, me for one, and the management of SDMB for another, see value on having one forum for actual debate and another one for people to vent and argue back and forth with insults thrown around liberally.
It’s funny you would actually make a post like that knowing full well that the tactics employed are not merely speech counter to the “offending speech.” Left wing thought and language policing is condemned by groups such as ACLU Speech on Campus | American Civil Liberties Union. Would the ACLU even put forth the effort to right something like that if there was not de-facto censorship?
And where did I ever say negative speech and compulsory censorship are equivalent? I don’t think I have. Are you just making things up or is that something I wrote?
Right here:
You equate “censoring speech” with “demonizing speech.” That last phrase is pretty poorly written–are people claiming that words are demons?–so I interpreted it as meaning “speaking harshly to condemn others’ speech.” If that’s an incorrect interpretation of the phrase, please clarify what you meant.
In any case, notice the verb you used: “is.” In other words, you treated censoring speech and demonizing speech as a single entity.
Unless you meant something very different by “demonizing speech”, you absolutely treated the two as equivalent.
Condemning, demonizing—making it clear that certain kinds of speech are not socially acceptable and may carry consequences—is exactly what we should do.
Certain kinds of racist speech are tools of oppression, very effective ones. It always has been. If you want a society that continues to move in the direction of being more fair, civil, egalitarian, democratic, peaceful, prosperous, productive, creative, healthy, and other things, then it’s a tool that must be made socially unacceptable.
You are correct. My writing did lack clarity. Most speech I’m fine with. Threats of violence because one is “offended” should not be legitimate tools even if they are classified as “speech.” That is censorship. The government is not the only source of power in the real world.
If you are in a hostile area and you have to shut up, even if you are offensive, because you have legitimate fear for your safety than those advocating the so-called Heckler’s Veto as legitimate or mob violence as legitimate counters to even offensive speech than those advocating that ARE engaging in a form of censorship that is harmful to free society.
There is no point in having a right if it can not be exercised. The ACLU link I posted answers it far more eloquently than I can.
[Quote=The ACLU]
Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
That’s the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.
How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That’s the constitutional mandate.
Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech – not less – is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.
College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: “Verbal purity is not social change.” Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter
[/quote]
Consequences? Violent ones? Specify your threat because if violent, radical Islam would agree. Stalin would agree. That’s fine company. Mike Tyson would not agree. It’s funny when Mike Tyson is more reasonable than so-called educated people on the left when it comes to fundamental liberties. Again when individuals advocate violent “consequences” for free speech they ARE censoring.
Pretty sure that the consequences he alludes to are social ones – social disapproval, shaming, etc. All this already happens – if someone advocates publicly that the Jews should be put into camps, they will be socially shamed and may very well lose their jobs (especially if the job has any public visibility whatsoever). This isn’t government action – this is the collective response of society. There are certain things that society disapproves of, and there are social consequences for advocating for them. This is entirely consistent with free speech, and even actually is a necessary part of free speech, since individuals within society must be free to express disapproval through speech, including criticism of other’s speech and even criticism of a company that chooses to employ someone who says something other individuals find beyond the pale.
Are you sure they are all non-violent?
So I could fire someone for agreeing with the violent parts of the Bible or the Koran? That’d be legit? Or do people who have critical mass in group labeled “religion” get special treatment? If someone could be fired for disagreeing with same sex marriage can I fire someone for agreeing with same sex marriage? Because if there are differences the government is indeed censoring.
Furthermore, you must have skipped the part about public universities and speech codes that result in sanctions including expulsion for free speech. Yet the same sort of offensive free speech from a professor is just fine.
Pretty sure you can’t legally fire someone for religious beliefs, but you can legally fire someone if they do something publicly that hurts business. If your salesman publicly says “infidels must be stoned”, you can fire them, I’m pretty sure.
I agree with the ACLU, in general, on this policy.
But I didn’t, and wouldn’t, call it “censorship.”
But the problem is that this is abused widely to attack legitimate speech simply because one doesn’t agree with it or doesn’t want to consider it.
Yes, and that goes both ways. Those who wish to criticize socially unacceptable speech should not use that to oppress in turn.
Who has been oppressed, in your view?