welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2014-03-26: Sexy Pain
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vector010



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Rune wrote:
Oh, hey, look, an anthill!

Okay, the baseball bat thing, and saying that's on one side of the line because of an observable physical impact, and one's words are on the other side because it's not? That's just bad argument. Your words are still impacting someone else and having a severe effect on them.

You watch your triggery topics in public for the exact same reason you don't go around swinging a baseball bat in a crowded room. Even though you're not out to hit anyone deliberately, odds are high that you will by accident. Continuing to do so once you know what a hazard you're making of yourself, and saying that everyone at "bat height" should just stay away from you and other careless bat-swingers means you're being an effing douche canoe who feels like you're entitled to more public space then everyone else.



Actually, the physical impact from the baseball bat does exactly that, place the action on a clearly delineated line across from what you describe as emotional distress inflicted by a douche.

In those examples with two different people, one has committed a battery, potentially a felon. The other was rudely exercising their civil rights.

Perfoemance art, for example. Some of that is offensive by design. Some of them are douches. None of them have hit anyone with a baseball bat.

The point being made that you missed was one person claiming correctly that you have the right of autonomy and privacy on and in your body [the foundation of Roe v. Wade, btw], and aanother saying that right is ridiculous because it means he could spin around a baseball bat and hit people.

His misconstrued example was being set right.


Just FYI, you can wildly swing a bat around in a crowded public area, not hit anyone, and still be charged with a crime. Reckless Endangerment does not require that any harm actually comes to someone, just that the actions taken are of a reckless nature which have a high likelihood of causing serious physical injury to another person. It can also, in some cases, be a felony. The law actually takes into account the likelihood of causing harm to another person or intruding on their own civil rights. Failure to account for the possible consequences of your actions is actionable.

I don't think anyone is clamoring to revoke free speech here, but instead pointing out that you should at least be aware of your speech in the same way the law requires you to be aware of your actions. At least make a real effort to try to avoid harming others with what you say and not just recklessly endanger the mental health of others. And really, it takes exceptionally little effort to do this. People generally moderate their expression for a given setting anyway, they generally talk differently at work than they would at home or in a bar. My personal rule of thumb is to talk in open public settings the same way that I would in an office setting, at least until I have become familiar enough with the majority of the people that frequent that area to get a general base line of acceptable topics.
_________________
My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

I'm gonna sing the doom song now. Doom dee doom doom doom...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vector010 wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Rune wrote:
Oh, hey, look, an anthill!

Okay, the baseball bat thing, and saying that's on one side of the line because of an observable physical impact, and one's words are on the other side because it's not? That's just bad argument. Your words are still impacting someone else and having a severe effect on them.

You watch your triggery topics in public for the exact same reason you don't go around swinging a baseball bat in a crowded room. Even though you're not out to hit anyone deliberately, odds are high that you will by accident. Continuing to do so once you know what a hazard you're making of yourself, and saying that everyone at "bat height" should just stay away from you and other careless bat-swingers means you're being an effing douche canoe who feels like you're entitled to more public space then everyone else.



Actually, the physical impact from the baseball bat does exactly that, place the action on a clearly delineated line across from what you describe as emotional distress inflicted by a douche.

In those examples with two different people, one has committed a battery, potentially a felon. The other was rudely exercising their civil rights.

Performance art, for example. Some of that is offensive by design. Some of them are douches. None of them have hit anyone with a baseball bat.

The point being made that you missed was one person claiming correctly that you have the right of autonomy and privacy on and in your body [the foundation of Roe v. Wade, btw], and aanother saying that right is ridiculous because it means he could spin around a baseball bat and hit people.

His misconstrued example was being set right.


Just FYI, you can wildly swing a bat around in a crowded public area, not hit anyone, and still be charged with a crime. Reckless Endangerment does not require that any harm actually comes to someone, just that the actions taken are of a reckless nature which have a high likelihood of causing serious physical injury to another person. It can also, in some cases, be a felony. The law actually takes into account the likelihood of causing harm to another person or intruding on their own civil rights. Failure to account for the possible consequences of your actions is actionable.

I don't think anyone is clamoring to revoke free speech here, but instead pointing out that you should at least be aware of your speech in the same way the law requires you to be aware of your actions. At least make a real effort to try to avoid harming others with what you say and not just recklessly endanger the mental health of others. And really, it takes exceptionally little effort to do this. People generally moderate their expression for a given setting anyway, they generally talk differently at work than they would at home or in a bar. My personal rule of thumb is to talk in open public settings the same way that I would in an office setting, at least until I have become familiar enough with the majority of the people that frequent that area to get a general base line of acceptable topics.


To be fair, I thought the baseball bat example was not great. It was someone else's example and I was just demonstrating where it was probably incorrect.

We can go over the specifics of how it can also be illegal for a long while. I could say that if someone was swinging it without malice, spinning in a circle going "wheeeee" and accidentally hitting someone, they'd not be likely to be charged with a crime, but would probably get a civil complaint for the injury. Whatever. It was not a great example.

As far as watching topics, yes, I would agree with that to an extent. It's an obvious truth that everyone will have a subjective slider for what is and isn't an appropriate public topic. That being said, I think there are other sides of the coin here for what we're discussing. There is the risk of harm to the individual for hearing something, and there is the risk of harm to the society or the "group" for not discussing it.

There are a lot of topics that have been at one point or another "taboo" and that a person could make an argument for being a trigger to a panic attack or other problem. Some of them have been mentioned already. I'm sure we could take a few posts and try to brain storm them, but it would probably be easier to acknowledge the existence of the group as real and just use "x" instead.

When "x" is the topic, the risk of harm to the individual gets balanced against the harm to society for it being taken out of the public discussion. You can fit BDSM into the lower end of this spectrum. I wouldn't consider it the kind of harm to a society that's going to unravel it, but the truth is that there are people who do it, people who consider it as much a part of their life as others who just like to go home to a snuggle and a movie and a little vanilla with their partner.

If we are trying to wrap this topic back around the twists it has taken and bring it back around to the original aspect, the ultimate answer for me has to be that BDSM is a legally acceptable aspect of sexuality that people are permitted to explore in their relationships. For that to be a topic where extreme concern has to be undertaken when discussing it outside the confines of your house would be to push it back into the taboo area, and that would cause harm to many of the people who practice it.

I don't advocate going around Starbucks yelling out that you like a bit of ropeplay and your safeword is Buckaroo Banzai, but let's be honest, some people are extroverts and that sort of conversation is going to come out, especially if you live in certain towns. I can assure you that if you live in Madison, San Francisco, New York, or New Orleans and you are out at a slam poetry session or a bar or someone's house party or another place where you're in a mixed session with people who aren't stuck in "work mode", you're likely to run into something like this. When it does, it may seem like proof of douchebaggery to you, but it may be nothing more than a person trying to discuss their life, to be open about who they are.

I'm not comfortable with a concept that takes that person and puts them on a scale lower than the individual who had a bad experience, or in some cases just has a bad interpretation of that lifestyle, and is affected by it psychologically.

I acknowledge that it's unfortunate. I have a great deal of empathy for them. However, I can't extend that to have a great deal of sympathy for their position that it shouldn't have to occur. A lot of people are throwing around the word empathy when they're really meaning sympathy.

The reasons we have the protections in speech that we do and the reason unpleasant topics are protected strongly is that there is a slippery slope, especially in the 21st century when you can't take two steps without bumping into a special interest. That slippery slope is pretty steep and you start sliding down it when you begin to scrub topics off the chalk board of "acceptable public conversation."




Darqcyde wrote:


Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can scar forever. Words are physical harm.


It's a good platitude, and it works great for kids when you're trying to articulate morality and respect for others to them, but it's not legally supportable in the adult world.

Until someone shows me a federal Circuit Court case, a state Supreme Court case or a U.S. Supreme court case, or a UK House of Lords/Supreme Court case, I can't accept that.

Words can be harm, yes. There are supportable positions for this, like hate speech and utterances of threats, etc. Those situation are covered by law, perhaps inadequately, but there you go.

However, until such time as this or other Western societies extend that principle of harmful speech to things like uncomfortable topics, what you just said is incorrect.



If we can take the example of BDSM and say, someone who was the victim of sexual assault, I'm versed enough to discuss the legal distinctions of where there would be harm and wouldn't be harm, or at least the potential.


If I'm in a conversation with someone and I am calmly and quietly discussing how I tied up my girlfriend at her request and did "x" to her until she used the safeword because it started to hurt, and you overheard it and had a panic attack from the time you were restrained as a child and abused, there is no harm. In that circumstance, there's probably no moral question either. It was a conversation in public that didn't ostensibly involve you, but that you overheard accidentally.

If you take the same topic, but we're talking loudly about it because I and my friend both happen to be supporters of BDSM and we're trying to stretch the public acceptance of it by essentially shouting "we exist" as we carry on the conversation, full knowledge that everyone else in the room can hear us, we may be jackasses, but we've broken no law. Your panic attack from the restraint as a child is unfortunate, but would not be considered harm.

Before we go to the third example, let's be clear that harm in the sense I'm using it is the legal definition of harm, which in cases of things like speech would necessitate an element of intent and almost certainly an element of malice.

In the third example, my friend and I are aware that you were sexually abused as a child, and we pick the seat next to you and I gleefully describe the situation with my girlfriend last night and her need to rely on the safeword because of the pain she experienced. I choose a volume level that is guaranteed to bring you into the conversation against your will. In that situation, I may be considered to have caused harm.

Even in that third situation, it's unlikely that there would exist a civil or criminal charge. We could consider that the very bottom end of the spectrum for a charge. What would likely be required is multiple actions of this type by us, and/or some back history of conflict between us.


Anyway, when discussing societal proscriptions against a thing, or attempting to block X for the protection of Y, we've always got to institute a scale. Things do not happen sociologically in a vacuum, and if you make certain topics taboo, if you proscribe their discussion in public, you must evaluate the harm of that action.

All of that is a very long winded way of saying what I originally said a bit cavalierly. If you find yourself in a position to experience psychological trauma from legally acceptable and even arguably morally acceptable conversations other people are having in public, you should take significant and immediate steps to deal with the situation, because it would not be appropriate to reshape the rules of the society in order to extend further protections to you. To do so would inflict a much greater amount of harm on a greater percentage of people.

Hence the legal "reasonable person" principle.


Last edited by OklahomanSun on Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:39 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10567
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So much wrong with what was posted and you're being dismissive. Yep, this talk is over.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1103
Location: Hel

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you have read this far in this unfortunate mess of a conversation, you deserve a brief and relaxing interlude.
_________________
Greetings, fool mortals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6508

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it's counted as a win if you just write something so long nobody is going to read it.

Instacow: I don't even read homestuck and I sat and listened to that for slightly embarrassing amount of time. It was actually kind of soothing?!
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
I don't think it's counted as a win if you just write something so long nobody is going to read it.

Instacow: I don't even read homestuck and I sat and listened to that for slightly embarrassing amount of time. It was actually kind of soothing?!



It's only 1400 words. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read, and it's roughly the same size, give or take a few words, as vector's posts earlier.

In any case, it communicated my understanding and position on the topic in question so far. Considering this is the seventh page and there has been a lot of expansion on the topic, I wanted to be thorough.

I wasn't going for a win, just for an effective communication. If people don't want to read it, that's their choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10567
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Samsally wrote:
I don't think it's counted as a win if you just write something so long nobody is going to read it.

Instacow: I don't even read homestuck and I sat and listened to that for slightly embarrassing amount of time. It was actually kind of soothing?!



It's only 1400 words. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read, and it's roughly the same size, give or take a few words, as vector's posts earlier.

In any case, it communicated my understanding and position on the topic in question so far. Considering this is the seventh page and there has been a lot of expansion on the topic, I wanted to be thorough.

I wasn't going for a win, just for an effective communication. If people don't want to read it, that's their choice.

Anyone see a sweeping generalization?
Quote:
All of that is a very long winded way of saying what I originally said a bit cavalierly. If you find yourself in a position to experience psychological trauma from legally acceptable and even arguably morally acceptable conversations other people are having in public, you should take significant and immediate steps to deal with the situation, because it would not be appropriate to reshape the rules of the society in order to extend further protections to you. To do so would inflict a much greater amount of harm on a greater percentage of people.

So hey folks, there was no reason to stop calling black people niggers 'cuz hey, society. That is what your logic is saying. We can keep calling mentally handicap people retards and idiots and morons because society.

And that's only one bad point you make. The above also demonstrates that you also have issues understanding how empathy actually works. It's a severely unempathetic statement.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Samsally wrote:
I don't think it's counted as a win if you just write something so long nobody is going to read it.

Instacow: I don't even read homestuck and I sat and listened to that for slightly embarrassing amount of time. It was actually kind of soothing?!



It's only 1400 words. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read, and it's roughly the same size, give or take a few words, as vector's posts earlier.

In any case, it communicated my understanding and position on the topic in question so far. Considering this is the seventh page and there has been a lot of expansion on the topic, I wanted to be thorough.

I wasn't going for a win, just for an effective communication. If people don't want to read it, that's their choice.

Anyone see a sweeping generalization?
Quote:
All of that is a very long winded way of saying what I originally said a bit cavalierly. If you find yourself in a position to experience psychological trauma from legally acceptable and even arguably morally acceptable conversations other people are having in public, you should take significant and immediate steps to deal with the situation, because it would not be appropriate to reshape the rules of the society in order to extend further protections to you. To do so would inflict a much greater amount of harm on a greater percentage of people.

So hey folks, there was no reason to stop calling black people niggers 'cuz hey, society. That is what your logic is saying. We can keep calling mentally handicap people retards and idiots and morons because society.

And that's only one bad point you make.


I'm sorry, I thought you were dismissing my dismissive post earlier. Can you please explain to me what part of "It's 1400 words, I wrote it to communicate my position as fully as I can, people can read it at their choice or not" is a sweeping generalisation? Please articulate that, because no, I don't see a sweeping generalisation there. I see an explanation of a post that was previously made, and that's all.


As for calling people retards and niggers and other things, if you had bothered to read the post you called dismissive, I mentioned specifically in the third example that speech specifically targeted and designed for harm is where the line gets breached between free speech and comments directed with malice and intent.


Mentioned.

Specifically.


This is one of those things you can pick up on if you're not being dismissive of something you call being dismissive.

Speech directed at a person or a group with no purpose other than malice and intent to do harm can be considered illegal. However, let's be clear. The courts still recognise free speech even in disgusting situations. Were a person to walk around following someone calling them "nigger", they would likely be stopped and charged with harassment. If the KKK or another organisation were to put on a rally and have a speech wherein the word was used prolifically to describe the black community, it would be protected speech, just like the Westboro Baptist Church gets to go around saying horrendous things at funerals and in picket lines.




For someone who sweeps in with claims of logical fallacies in people's comments, you're definitely a common user of them yourself. At multiple points I discuss the difference between the moral issue and the legal issue of reprehensible speech, and I disagree completely with your claim that "my logic" would say there is no reason to stop people calling blacks niggers. You can't provide an example where my logic would accept that, because it's a ridiculous and deliberate misconstruing of my points. With your example, I wonder what it is that you are saying? Obviously there is a moral concern with a person insulting another based on race, but what suggestion would you make? I suggested that people who find themselves shutting down from legally acceptable dialogue need to take significant steps to find a way to function in society, because that's an honest fact.

You're dragging this argument from "I was abused and two people were talking about BDSM which triggered a panic attack" and my position that we can't ban certain things because some people find themselves put in a situation to experience anxiety or other psychological trauma, to let's just let people stand on the street and scream nigger at all the black people.

That's ridiculous. There are already laws in the US and the UK that restrict the use of such hateful speech when not used with any valid purpose. If used for malice aforethought and intent to do harm, that speech loses its protected status.


Oh, and last comment. If that's only one bad point I make, why not mention them all, instead of your little ploy to try (ineffectively) to punch holes in one, and then by implication in your last sentence say that you've got an answer for all of them.

Go be dismissive of my dismissive post. It's easier to act pretentious and supercilious than to actually engage on a topic anyway.


Last edited by OklahomanSun on Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oxford on Empathy -- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empathy?q=empathy




Oxford on Sympathy -- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sympathy



No, I think I'm pretty clear on the difference between empathy and sympathy. Empathy is the ability to understand, to appreciate the feelings and situation of a person. A person can empathise with someone without agreeing with their position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10800
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
We can go over the specifics of how it can also be illegal for a long while.

Right, on the last page it was pointed out that "legal" and "moral" are not synonymous. You seem to be the one invested in defending the legal right, but to me it's irrelevant, because, well... no shit. You can talk about your sex life in public legally. I know people are arguing this with you, but it's really the most remote of remote topics with regard to harming the people around you. Most harm we do in our lives is totally legal. The question is 100% moral, and whether it's right to do so in all circumstances, or more right to take into account the people around you when discussing things.

The real problem is that it's hard to discuss the morality of hurting people. Discussing what's legal is easy. That's why these discussions so often devolve into a "but it's legal!" when that's essentially irrelevant (because no one who thinks about it at length would disagree).

Quote:
There is the risk of harm to the individual for hearing something, and there is the risk of harm to the society or the "group" for not discussing it.

There are a lot of topics that have been at one point or another "taboo" and that a person could make an argument for being a trigger to a panic attack or other problem. Some of them have been mentioned already. I'm sure we could take a few posts and try to brain storm them, but it would probably be easier to acknowledge the existence of the group as real and just use "x" instead.

When "x" is the topic, the risk of harm to the individual gets balanced against the harm to society for it being taken out of the public discussion. You can fit BDSM into the lower end of this spectrum. I wouldn't consider it the kind of harm to a society that's going to unravel it, but the truth is that there are people who do it, people who consider it as much a part of their life as others who just like to go home to a snuggle and a movie and a little vanilla with their partner.

Good choice! Mainly because several people who are arguing against you (me, vector010, Samsally, though I don't think she's involved anymore) have explicitly said that kink should never be off the table as a topic of discussion and specifically used BDSM as an example. When we talked about it it was in the other direction - that people should be able to critically analyze kink - but it works both ways. Never off the table. I think vector010 and I both used that exact phrasing.

Quote:
If we are trying to wrap this topic back around the twists it has taken and bring it back around to the original aspect, the ultimate answer for me has to be that BDSM is a legally acceptable aspect of sexuality that people are permitted to explore in their relationships. For that to be a topic where extreme concern has to be undertaken when discussing it outside the confines of your house would be to push it back into the taboo area, and that would cause harm to many of the people who practice it.

But this standard is already used all the time by everyone. Not "don't talk about it outside of your house," but few people would think it kind to crack jokes about crazy people at a NAMI meeting, or jokes about suicide at a suicide survivors support group. And the few that might would be considered assholes. We call it "decency." Now, you might say, "but I wouldn't be discussing my sex life at a meeting about abuse survivors, just out and about," and I'll say that's great, the point is that we modulate our behavior and our topics of discussion all day everyday to fit the context and potential audience (at work, in front of grandma, on the train, at our kid's school). I don't see why talking about your sex life - whatever you do with it - is any different.

Quote:
The reasons we have the protections in speech that we do and the reason unpleasant topics are protected strongly is that there is a slippery slope, especially in the 21st century when you can't take two steps without bumping into a special interest. That slippery slope is pretty steep and you start sliding down it when you begin to scrub topics off the chalk board of "acceptable public conversation."

Which is why no one is trying to ban anyone from talking about their sex life, only saying they should be conscious of the audience (and, in my case, the context).
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10567
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
As for calling people retards and niggers and other things, if you had bothered to read the post you called dismissive, I mentioned specifically in the third example that speech specifically targeted and designed for harm is where the line gets breached between free speech and comments directed with malice and intent.

Nigger wasn't initially pejorative, and idiot, retard, and moron were medical terms.

Quote:
. . . it would not be appropriate to reshape the rules of the society in order to extend further protections to you. To do so would inflict a much greater amount of harm on a greater percentage of people.


Society changing is what made those words insults, and we are better for it, not worse.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun, do you honestly think that every utterance of those racial slurs was always a direct and mindful attempt to deliberately hurt someone?

That's absurd. A lot of people, a LOT of people, picked up the slurs out of habit without giving much thought to exactly what it was saying, or to whom, or to why they should even think about it being harmful. The intentions of a particular action or statement are not always directly correlated to the impact, and with speech, social context matters a lot. If you learn that something that you were not intending to be harmful really is harmful anyway, you learn something from that new information, and you adapt your approach. Otherwise you are prioritizing your own laziness of habit and feeling of entitlement to the space in question over the harm you are doing, and that IS a shitty thing to do.

The lines of distinction you are drawing are arbitrary when they're not based on decisions that other people already made about these sorts of matters with these sorts of conversations, which you are now taking for granted as obvious. That is why the moral arguments you are using would also argue in favor of justifying racial slurs. Because the distinctions between those and other forms of verbal harm that you have thus far presented are ill-thought-out and invalid. The only solid line you have is what is legal and what is not, and you do not seem to have anything meaningful to say on the matter of why that's how things are. It's just something someone else decided, and that you're taking for granted. And even that isn't completely true, because there are absolutely places where sexual harassment laws and policies WOULD protect a rape survivor from a hostile environment created by such speech in a space or venue that they would otherwise have access to.

Are there meaningful differences between the two kinds of harmful speech worth discussing? Yes, and they have everything to do with the type of harm experienced by those who are harmed by it, and why. Those discussions are valuable for acknowledging and validating the experiences of those who have experienced that harm. They are instructive in navigating how and where certain speech may be used without doing more harm.

But there is no hard moral line, like you are trying to establish, that says that while one is obviously bad always don't do it ever, the other is on the other side and free speech trumps all, baby! No consequences! You can't tell ME I'm being shitty, because FREE SPEECH!

No, you're being shitty with your free speech. And enough people realizing how shitty that sort of thing is might eventually solidify a new legal decision about where your right to vocal pollution is infringing on another person's right to access public spaces safely, and defend their right as having priority. Because being able to walk about freely, go to the grocery store, work, and participate broadly in society without being re-traumatized after a violating event is a leeeeeetle bit more vital than someone else being able to wax on about their latest sexual adventure absolutely whenever and wherever they please if they want to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey. Hey OklahomanSun. That thing you just said about something affecting more people being more important?

That's Tyranny of the Majority, jackass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6508

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey! <3
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 7 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group