I am really starting to get sick of people who insist that they should go through life without being offended by other peoples ideas. I have the right to hold whatever beliefs I want and to debate them as a member of a free society. No matter how repulsive or misdirected it may be. Remember that Copernicus (sp?) was roundly critcised and ostracized for his outlandish ideas and for teying to corrupt society. But he turns out to be right!
Sign me up!
I doubt you’re going to find anyone who disagrees with you…
Your Quadell
Well, I do!
Ok, I really don’t. But this is the BBQ pit–we need some flames here!
“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei
Its nice to know there are so many people out there that believe that a free exchange of ideas, no matter how repulsive, must be allowed in a free society.
Thank you all for bolstering my beliefs in a great society.
Many people here would disagree with you. Some would like to silence hate groups, others would have South Carolina prohibited from flying its flag. The NAACP is on a campaign to extort anyone who “offends” them. And there are some here who support them.
I agree with you. If you want to get people to argue, just throw in some context.
Well, heck, what’s a one-sided post in the Pit?
I disagree, to this extent: I firmly believe that the free exchange of ideas and any attempt to productively debate necessitates the observation of a certan minimum level of civility. Otherwise, you’re not debating, you’re hurling insults and pissing people off. If I say potato and you say potahto and I say you’re full of shit, what have we accomplished?
I’m happy to argue any idea, no matter how morally repugnant I find it, within the parameters of basic civility. I treat others, and expect to be treated, with a minimum degree of respect, because I don’t believe we can have any productive discourse without it. I also believe that certain subjects, due to their inflammatory nature or peoples’ deep feelings about them, have to be handled very sensitively. This does not mean they should not be discussed, however; I’m no fan of censorship.
Wasn’t this the topic of the Tom Lykus radio show about 2 days ago?
To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.
Well, even here, on the sacred SDMB, you can only proselyze in one forum, for concern of “offending” people, and one of our board moderators was bounced for speaking her mind and being “offensive.”
Quadell said there was doubt anyone would disagree with the O.P’s premise, but apparently our “Board Gods” and “Goddesses” do, at least to some extent.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
Frankie said:
I am really starting to get sick of people who insist that they should go through life without being offended by other peoples ideas. I have the right to hold whatever beliefs I want and to debate them as a member of a free society. No matter how repulsive or misdirected it may be. Remember that Copernicus (sp?) was roundly critcised and ostracized for his outlandish ideas and for teying to corrupt society. But he turns out to be right!
By and large, I’m with you, Frankie. However, I’m ALSO getting sick of people who insist they should be able to go through life insulting the intelligence and offending both the physical and psychological space of others. Whether it’s smokers who blather about having the non-existent ‘right’ to not only pollute their own bodies and air supply, but those of everyone around them; or creationists who never cease in their attempts to foist their superstitions upon the rest of us in the name of science, there’s is, as Jules Pfeiffer once put it, only one thing wrong with having an open mind – sooner or later someone comes along and tries to fill it with garbage. If an idea offends me, I ignore it. If some idiot comes up and insists on his right to make me pay attention, I reach for a club.
Mr. Zambezi said:Many people here would disagree with you. Some would like to silence hate groups, others would have South Carolina prohibited from flying its flag. The NAACP is on a campaign to extort anyone who “offends” them. And there are some here who support them.
First of all, try getting you facts straight. The problem in South Carolina is NOT the flag of South Carolina, it is the Confederate Battle Flag, which has no official role anywhere. It’s flying was voted into existence by a clearly racist state legislature in the 60’s as an act of defiance against the entire idea of civil rights enforcement. Thirty years later, that is still its primary function, and it is still a clear insult and warning to all non-white people in the state to remember their prescribed ‘place’ in the local society. As for whether the NAACP is trying ‘extort’ anyone they find offensive – extort what, and from whom,exactly? The only thing I’ve heard or read about them is that they are trying to organize a boycott of South Carolina, which is clearly within the limits of civil behavior.
One can only wonder what the reaction would be if white supremacists managed to take over some small county in Idaho and voted to fly a Nazi flag on the same pole with the stars and stripes. Would you expect any Jews who happened to live in the area to just swallow hard and go on? Piss on that!
There is already a debate on the flag on another thread. And you are right, I was thinking of the Georgia Flag. I lived there during that debate.
Dif said “it is still a clear insult and warning to all non-white people in the state to remember their prescribed ‘place’ in the local society.”
Now lets get your facts straight. This is your opinion. it is not a fact. You are not the ultimate source on the meaning of the flag.
The nazi flag stood for the the Nazi party and it’s policies. The Confederate flag stood for the confederate navy and is now assumed to stand for the southern states. The two are not analagous. Should I compare Jesse Jackson with Hitler becase he called NY city “Hymietown”?
And the NAACP is trying to extort action out of the networks by threatening a boycott if they do not stick some black actors in this fall’s sitcoms. They are trying to extort gun manufacturers into changing their policies by filing a frivolous lawsuit.
When someone says “do what I say or I will hurt you” I call it extortion Whether they are holding a bat or threatening to bankrupt me matters very little.
But I suppose if they are offended by something, well heck. that;s good enough for me. Lets change everything that offends anyone. What a wonderful world that would be.
“Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail” --Lao Tzu
Soxfan:[[Well, even here, on the sacred SDMB, you can only proselyze in one forum, for concern of “offending” people, and one of our board moderators was bounced for speaking her mind and being “offensive.”]]
No.
When any government . . . undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
- Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On…
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
- Justice Anthony Kennedy
You can’t crush ideas by suppressing them. You can only crush them by ignoring them.
- Ursula K. LeGuin
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
- John Stuart Mill
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
- Thomas Paine
With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
- Captain Jean-Luc Picard, “The Drumhead,” Star Trek: The Next Generation
A free society is a place where it’s safe to be unpopular.
- Adlai Stevenson
Frankly, I’m a big activist fag, and I think it’s great that freedom of speech laws protect Fred Phelps. That way he can go on national TV, and we can all see what a pathetic twerp he is.
I’ve said it elsewhere but it bears repeating:
A great quote from a mediocre musical (1776):
“I’ve never heard of anything so dangerous we can’t even TALK about it!”
Zabezi said: Now lets get your facts straight. This is your opinion. it is not a fact. You are not the ultimate source on the meaning of the flag.
Let’s try not to get into a “yes-it-is/no-it-isn’t/etc.” kind of go-round, all right? Your opinion that my ‘fact’ is just my opinion is just YOUR opinion. Since you’re not the ultimate source on the meaning of the flag, either, it comes down to who can support their contention most clearly.
Z:The nazi flag stood for the the Nazi party and it’s policies. The Confederate flag stood for the confederate navy and is now assumed to stand for the southern states. The two are not analagous. Should I compare Jesse Jackson with Hitler becase he called NY city “Hymietown”?
The two ARE analogous. The Confederate Battle flag (“Stars & Bars”) has come to stand for the entirety of the Confederacy “and for its policies” – including the infliction of slavery on blacks. Don’t ask me to defend Jackson when he makes asinine ethnic slurs and I won’t ask YOU to defend Lester Maddox. You can compare Jesse Jackson to Hitler if you want – it would only point up the absurdity of your position to do so, of course.
Z:And the NAACP is trying to extort action out of the networks by threatening a boycott if they do not stick some black actors in this fall’s sitcoms.
That’s economic coercion, not ‘extortion’. The difference is one of action vs. inaction, omission vs. commission. What, should blacks be compelled to watch shows they don’t like because there’s nothing about the show that ‘connects’ with their own lives? Furthermore, the networks are only able to operate profitably because their affiliates all use the airwaves – a public resource – with the understanding that they will operate in the public interest; effectively ignoring a large minority of the public violates that covenant.
They are trying to extort gun manufacturers into changing their policies by filing a frivolous lawsuit.
=============================================Well – there are SOME things we agree about. Filing a frivolous lawsuit that seeks monetary compensation IS extortion, albeit legal. I’ve covered this pretty much on the ‘gun control’ thread, so I’ll skip it here. Anyway, this topic is supposed to be about being offended, not about creating a pretext for gun control. However, even though I am someone who is steadfast against what some people call ‘gun control’, I’m willing to look at the NAACP’s arguments that the gun industry may be using marketing practices that have an undue impact on black society, as long as they don’t try to deny that most black victims of gun violence are victimized by their own race.
Z: When someone says “do what I say or I will hurt you” I call it extortion Whether they are holding a bat or threatening to bankrupt me matters very little.
Which only points out your need for a good dictionary and a refresher course in the meaning of words. If you’re a shopkeeper and I come into your place and tell you, "Buy insurance from me or bad things will happen to your windows’ – that’s extortion. If I come into your place and I say,“Buy my insurance or I’ll organize a boycott of your business” – I’m inclined to consider that extortion, too. But if I come into your place and say, “Would it be okay to put this poster for the African-American Heritage Festival in your window” (seeing as you operate in a well-integrated neighborhood), and you replied, “No, I think blacks should forget their heritage and just concentrate on being good Americans” and I responded by organizing a boycott of your business THEN, that would be coercion. And entirely legal.
And moral.
Z: But I suppose if they are offended by something, well heck. that;s good enough for me. Lets change everything that offends anyone. What a wonderful world that would be.
Yeah, if only. But if you want to reduce the debate to an absurd level, you go there alone.
DIF, I am not going to respond to the flag stuff here because there is another thread on this.
Dif Said: "Which only points out your need for a good dictionary and a refresher course in the meaning of words. If you’re a shopkeeper and I come into your place and tell you, “Buy insurance from me or bad things will happen to your windows’ – that’s extortion. If I come into your place and I say,“Buy my insurance or I’ll organize a boycott of your business” – I’m inclined to consider that extortion, too. But if I come into your place and say, “Would it be okay to put this poster for the African-American Heritage Festival in your window” (seeing as you operate in a well-integrated neighborhood), and you replied, “No, I think blacks should forget their heritage and just concentrate on being good Americans” and I responded by organizing a boycott of your business THEN, that would be coercion. And entirely legal.”
Well DIF, that is a bit catty. But since this is the pit…you need a refresher course on analogy. The NAACP is saying “do Xor we will make sure you suffer economically.” All the BS you added about forgetting black heritage and such is superfluous. They are not trying to argue their point and sway the target of their anger. They are threatening to damage them. Boycotts surely are legal, and are not as odious as threats of physical violence. But a boycott can be as damaging as a fire.
If Blacks do not like network shows, they can do what I do. Don’t watch them. When they organize and threaten to get sponsors to drop them, they cross the line from voting with their dollars to threat. I think it is wrong.
DIF also said "But if you want to reduce the debate to an absurd level, you go there alone. "
In every single debate regarding ethnicity or race, the argument ad absurdium is usually evidenced by a reference to Hitler. Saddam was another “Hitler.” Slobodan was a “Hitler” and those who fly the rebel flag are basically flying a Nazi flag. The two are very, very different. The use of the term “Nazi” is used to take the argument to an absurd level and make it emotional. You are as guilty as I.
I think our argument boils down to this. YOu believe that racism exists and needs to be expurged. WHen the NAACP or some other minority group says “we are offended” you think that we should be sensitive to their feelings. (I am sure you will correct me if I misread your philosophy on this.) I do not feel that racism exists. I think that when a group complains that something makes its members “feel bad” they have to prove actual concrete damage before a change is made. If we do, we should listen to all groups who feel bad and race around trying to eliminate the offending symbols, words, acts and utterances.
I doubt that we are going to come to an agreement unless we confine our debate to a very specific topic. I am open to suggestion on how to focus this discussion. Perhaps: is being offended enough grounds to force others to change?
“Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail” --Lao Tzu
Guys, I’m gonna make my first petty comment in this whole thing. I’m really sorry about it, but it involves an attack on my husband made by the moderator in the About this Message Board forum, and it bugs me. My husband, who goes by the name “Highlander” here, made a post in the “Where’d Melin Go?” thread. The moderator jumped his case, telling him that “in the interests of full disclosure” he should have identified himself as my husband in his post.
So . . . we have the above one word post by Terey, quoting Soxfan:
Shouldn’t Terey be required, “in the interests of full disclosure,” to state in her posts on this topic that she is SD Staff?
We return to your regularly scheduled discussion, still in progress.
-Melin
[[I do not feel that racism exists. ]] MrZambesi
Is this a typo? Can you possibly be serious? If so, can you possibly think you deserve to be taken seriously?
[[I think that when a group complains that something makes its members “feel bad” they have to prove actual concrete damage before a change is made. ]]
Fortunately, a majority of society has a greater sense of ethics than you.
[[I doubt that we are going to come to an agreement unless we confine our debate to a very specific topic. I am open to suggestion on how to focus this discussion. Perhaps: is being offended enough grounds to force others to change?]]
Sometimes, clearly.
Meanwhile, I can’t help but notice that many of those who complain about how thin-skinned everyone is are in fact exhibiting the very same characteristic whenever someone has the temerity to speak their mind and let their feelings be known. Taking offense, in other words, at some people’s just taking of offense.
It’s comments like these of Mr Zambesi that thoroughly justify the sort of things Jill said (the things that started the whole brouhaha).
Back to Frankie’s ORIGINAL post , No you don’t, I have made up my mind about that,I don’t want to hear any thing more about it,so keep quiet. In fact you can’t even think that way . So there ,discusion over.