Freedom of Expression or Sensitivity?

[Yollam]

In general, I tend to favor...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. I Went With Choice Three.

Definitely a huge grey area as to what would technically be legitimately offensive though, but common sense and logic would probably make it easier to determine.

[Kutjara]

2. I don't think common sense and logic...

...are playing much of a role in current American discourse.

My feeling is that if you create the mechanism for restricting free speech on any grounds (no matter how laudable), free speech itself will vanish overnight.

[Yollam]

3. This is probably my biggest disagreement with the DU mainstream.

I tend to favor choice number 1. Although I agree that everyone in a civil society should try to be respectful of others, regardless whether you are talking about race, religion, creed, whatever, I think it should be a matter of personal etiquette, not a set of rules enforced by any authority. I simply don't believe that people's "feelings" deserve any protection at all. The line is crossed when a person uses threatening language or incites violence.

A person should be able to say what they want, regardless of whom it might offend. And that person should be prepared to deal with any negative consequences that expression might produce.

[Kutjara]

4. I second that (n/t)

[Yollam]

5. I should add, however...

That I veer into choice #2 territory where it concerns the workplace or classroom.

Expression that distracts from productivity in the workplace or disrupts a lesson to an unreasonable degree is inappropriate. But censorship seems to get out of hand quite easily. Authorities should be free to handle any perceived offenses in a subjective, case-by-case, common-sense manner.

[omega minimo]

23. Now this is interesting

Your comment seems to suggest that it is UP TO the "DU mainstream."

While on DU, if we "agree that everyone in a civil society should try to be respectful of others" we are also aware that there IS "a set of rules enforced by (DU) authority."

On DU, the DU Rules "based on respect" cover "I simply don't believe that people's "feelings" deserve any protection at all."

On a Forum with established guidelines-- "A person should be able to say what they want, regardless of whom it might offend....and be prepared to deal with any negative consequences that expression might produce" -- that person is the one who is incorrect.

[Yollam]

28. I'm not suggesting that at all.

I'm aware of the guidelines, and I do my best to respect them, and respect other posters. However, I do believe that there are a lot of posters here who would like to see MORE restrictions on expression here (even though this is one of the most heavily moderated boards there is) and in the public arena than there already are. The rules are what they are, and will no doubt continue to be. If you think I'm trying to change something at DU, you are mistaken.

That being said, this poll is not about freedom of expression on DU, but in a general sense. My subsequent comment about "the DU mainstream" stands independent of the poll. I'm actually a bit pleased to see more votes on the 'freedom of expression' side than I had expected. Shows how little I know.

[omega minimo]

30. "Freedom of Expression or Sensitivity" is a false dichotomy

:hi:

[hexola]

38. personal etiquette = morality...?

That's where we get into trouble...who's morality...?

I actually agree with you - I think we should rely on morals more than laws. Laws weaken morals...after all, once its a law, who needs the moral?

Part of the the problem are religions that think they have an exclusive on morality...

[Yollam]

39. Personal etiquette, consideration, whatever, is different from morality.

For instance, I believe in the golden rule, and a general secular humanist philosophy along those lines. Those are my morals. To me, religion tends to make people behave in ways that are contrary to the golden rule.

I personally believe that religions have a negative net effect on the human spirit and overall quality off life on earth. That's a part of my moral values.

But it's my sense of etiquette that keeps me from bluntly saying so to the few religious people I spend any time with.

[baldguy]

6. Choice three

Why do some reptards get such glee out of being "politically incorrect"? They go out of their way to ensure they offend another human being - for no other reason than to offend.

Its like dealing with a spoiled child.

[porphyrian]

31. Not that I care, but your using the word "reptards" is kind of ironic.

Think about it.

[Fountain79]

7. Not being offended is not a right...

I would be the first in line to defend a White Nationalist group's right to spew their hate.

[hyphenate]

8. Really none of the above

I guess. If someone I know is of the polar opposite when I begin to discuss some things, like with my friend Barb, I try, for her sake, to not get too nasty. But when it comes to online, I forget completely any personal considerations and rant on. If we lose our ability to dissent, then we are no better than some of the worse dictatorships in the history of the world.

[Lars39]

10. But if in ranting we lose sight that there are humans on the other end,

what have we lost or gained?

[hyphenate]

11. I don't consider many of those on the radical right

to be "humans." They have no humanity, and they are part of the reason--nay, a LOT of the reason--we are in the shit we are in today. And that means those on the radical political right, as well as those on the radical religious right.

[Lars39]

13. I was thinking of DUers, aside from the trolls.

[nonconformist]

9. I voted for choice #1, but I fall more in between 1 and 2

However, I don't think anything should be "restricted", I just think that people should use common sense.

But overall, I don't think that free speech should EVER be restricted, EVER. Even if your intentions are good, it's a bad mindset.

[omega minimo]

12. AWwwwwwwwwwww--------- FUCK THIS SHIT!1!!!!

:evilgrin:













Here's the thing:

If ya wanna fart around and mouth off online (within the guidelines of the forum), that's one thing.


If you want to learn to communicate effectively, for political, activist, community reasons, then that takes a little more effort, discipline and consideration.

The attack on (and the term) "Political Correctness" is Reich Wing mindfucking.

If taking the time to express respect is too much bother, maybe someone isn't as "left" as they might like to think.

:hi:

[porphyrian]

32. I don't think you're correct in making this a left or right argument.

While we can generalize and say that right-wingers tend to be selfish bastards and that left-wingers care about people to a fault, those are just generalizations and a false dichotomy regarding freedom of expression. Liberal, by its definition, should support total freedom of expression, not censorship. Conservatives are the ones who should be all up in arms about controlling what everyone says and does. How did this get flipped here?

[omega minimo]

35. Well since I didn't, I guess that worked out then!

Please read carefully, as the comment is specific to the origins of "Political Correctness."

Those other generalizations your drawing are another discussion with someone else, not me.

:hi:

[porphyrian]

36. How do you separate the two? Simply in language?

What do you think the term "politcally correct" applies to?

[Duncan Grant]

14. Faggot. Dyke. Tranny. "it". Need I go on?

I assume among political allies joined in a community like DU that this is a no-brainer.

However, there are those here who would alienate their friends and supporters by doggedly clinging to the right to ridicule Ann Coulter at the expense of transgendered people (also our allies).

Perhaps if people would consider replacing the disparaging gender identity remarks with an ethnic or sexual orientation slur -- their civility might improve significantly.

[donco6]

16. There's a certain population upon which

good advice such as this falls on deaf ears. I'll never understand it.

[Duncan Grant]

24. I don't get it either, donco6.

:hi:

[Yollam]

17. The Coulter remarks have been enlightening to me.

If it hadn't been for reading the posts by transgendered people (on other boards, actually), it never would have occurred to me that anyone might have been hurt by the "Mann Coulter" jokes. After some thought, I personally decided to make a point of no longer using a person's effeminate or masculine qualities as a way of disparaging them (unless those qualities can be used to underscore that person's hypocrisy, as in Bush's phony macho cowboy swagger in light of his own cowardice and his past as a swishy cheerleader at New England prep school)

The Coulter stuff really underlines how unfamiliar most people are with TG issues in general, but if the Coulter Jokes were automatically deleted and their posters banned, it might never have occurred to me to think about the issue at all. After all, I don't personally know any TG people, but have enjoyed good discussions with quite a few online - yet another case where I think erring on the side of freedom of expression is better.

But when someone is just posting or saying derisive crap about TGs or whoever, just for the sake of offending, they deserve the boot, IMO.

[Duncan Grant]

26. The enlightenment will only be effective if we confront the ignorance.

I appreciate your remarks Yollam. The observations about civility, manners and friendship in this thread really resonate with my values.

[donco6]

40. Now, if we could just . . .

get people to realize that using gay sex as a deraugatory reference (Yeah, I bet Cheney is really giving it to Bush. He probably can't sit for a week . . blah blah) is offensive as well.

But that's probably asking too much.

[AlienGirl]

20. Arguing for TG inclusivity on DU is like emptying the ocean with a spoon

More and more, I come to regard what I do here as a sisyphian, futile task.

Tucker

[Duncan Grant]

22. Amen to that. And it's an exercise in "Kill the Leader", too.

God forbid that anyone should have the nerve to disturb the "fun".

With my spoon and your spoon and other spoons - change will come. :)

[Lars39]

25. It should really come from the top on down thru the ranks.

But I'm not holding my breath. :)

[spacelady]

27. Do the people who use this sort of language get a free pass here?

I doubt it, in fact, I see it roundly discouraged, so in effect we are educating those who should know better.

[porphyrian]

33. The problem is really in our binary definition of gender.

We aren't just male or female. Sexuality occurs in a spectrum with male and female on opposite ends and most people falling somewhere in the middle. In the case of TS/TG people, this just happens to be more physically apparent. The fact that most of society won't recognize this, coupled with human fear of things different and the antiquated meme that male is somehow "better," has created an environment where anything but manly-man is bad, with all the attendant language and social programming.

It's not fair, but I think it's better to protect everyone's freedom to express themselves (assuming it doesn't hinder anyone else's rights) than to start down the slippery slope of legislating manners.

[AlienGirl]

15. MANNERS...

The essence of good manners is making sure your friends are comfortable around you. If you are in the habit of saying something offensive*, and your friend asks you not to say that because it hurts their feelings, and you *continue* to say it *knowing* you are hurting your friend...you are saying you do not value that person's friendship. You are then being rude.

Hope that helps! :hi:

Tucker

(*and it isn't a Tourette's tic, which is actually involuntary)

[genie_weenie]

18. Well, I think the question

By freedom of expression do you mean insulting people to their face for no reason? For example: walking down the street and yelling <Bleep>.

Or what if I write a historical work on the How the Conquistadors misused the philosophical work of Thomas Aquinas to justify murder and conquest or the Military exploits of Muhammad. what about a scientific study which investigates differences in the Radical Theory of G (intelligence) in Men and Women.

Can I claim the Holocaust (The Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Turks) never happened? Do I need historical documentation to make my claim or can I just shoot my mouth off?

Is commenting about someone's religion, ethnic background, belief system, type of government, political affiliation, musical or artistic preferences, geographic location, hair color off limits?

Are there any untouchables? And why are they untouchables?

[cynatnite]

19. Freedom of expression. Period.

People should use their common sense to be tactful, polite and respectful. That can't be regulated.

[spacelady]

21. Yes, I think polite discourse mandates self regulation with regard

to offensive language. Nobody will listen if it sounds ignorant no matter how valid the point.

[porphyrian]

29. I'd rather know who the people are that I find offensive...

...than to have them hide behind some arbitrary etiquette. I also don't take kindly to being told what to do, even if it's in my best interest.

[Catrina]

34. That's how I feel ~

[Neil Lisst]

37. There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended.

Thank God.

The right to silence expressions one doesn't like is the right to control the communication of ideas, which is what the censors alway hope to disrupt.

Well, fuck them.