fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2951 ]

[ SECRET POST #2951 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2951 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[The To-Do List, Brandy/Willy]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Avatar: Legend of Korra]

__________________________________________________

04.

[The Amazing World of Gumball]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Agents of Shield]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Galavant]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Soukyuu no Fafner Exodus]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Jamie Dornan from "The Fall"]

__________________________________________________

10.

(Neil Gaiman)

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 054 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm a total bleeding heart who would have people rolling their eyes (even more) at my naivety and idealism if they knew everything I was thinking. I'm disturbed in general by the level of casual violent rhetoric that is acceptable in our society. People tell others to die over the pettiest shit and it's just accepted as the way things go. I'm not afraid they're actually going to do anything but no one else finds it a tiny bit disturbing that this is what they jumped to in order to express their anger? I've made my peace with basically being a stereotype of a liberal though. If it's just me then I'll just have to deal with it.

I'm a bit like you. I don't like casually violent speech at all, and I'm not *that* liberal.

Lol, it's not just you. I'm a complete bleeding-heart liberal as well, and I really don't understand why people can't be nice to each other. That stuff you described really bothers me in how accepted it is, because what about the one person that eventually means it? It seems like we're in a "boy who cried wolf" situation, where there are so many "I didn't actually mean it" threats that the true threats get passed over.

I'm not gonna lie, it offends me to see someone calling themselves a liberal while opposing a form of speech. SJW? I'll give you that. But you're not any liberal I'd recognize.

(I am so going to regret this. I've never had any quarrel with you before.)

Trying to insist on precise terminology in politics is some King Cnut and the waves shit.

Don't worry, I'm just going to disagree. I'm not what most people would call an sjw. I'm liberal in the sense of providing social benefits for all, in this case protection. And I'm really drawing the line at veiled, yet obvious, threats. I think that's reasonable.

However, I think your view is also reasonable. You just have a different background. I can completely understand the desire for full and complete free speech, I just feel that the cons outweigh the pros.

Edit: I just saw you weren't replying to me. Oops. Sorry about that.

Edited 2015-02-01 23:01 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm sorry for saying "SJW." I got you confused with Sarilla, who self-identified as it in another thread. I would never intentionally call someone an SJW if they didn't use the term themselves.

Meh, no big. I figured you were referring to Sarilla anyway, once I say the comment structure.

I don't actually self-identify as one. I occasionally call myself one as a tongue-in-cheek preemptive strike against other people calling me one.

there's a difference between 'opposing' something as in 'this shouldn't be allowed' and a personal feeling about a type of speech being negative or unpleasant

I agree. Saying I'm opposing anything feels like overstating my position. I'm mostly just asking questions and admitting personal feelings that have nothing to do with what I think the laws should say because I find the topic interesting.

fwiw I thought you made some interesting comments in this thread.
And really, I was all ready for it to turn into a wankfest and it's extraordinarily civil and thoughtful! /is proud of f!s rn

That's good to hear.

I'm kind of regretting go on so much. This is a topic people feel passionately about with good reason and it can be annoying when someone floats around treating it like an intellectual exercise when it's something that matters so deeply to you, so I can understand why even some people who don't think I'm more in favor of restricting speech than I am might be annoyed with me right now. But I'm just honestly interested in all the different opinions on this and I want to hear more about them.

Edited 2015-02-02 00:16 (UTC)

I think you might be getting confused between "classical liberal" and "modern progressive liberal."

I don't think it counts as a quarrel if neither of us turns it into a fight and I don't mind what you're saying. We disagree. That's fine.

Exactly this mate.

Okay, this has been bugging me, but since you didn't reply to either of my other comments I'm not sure if you're actually still reading my comments tonight. Anyway, here goes.

The comment you replied to expressed an emotional discomfort with a certain kind of speech and said absolutely nothing about limiting it. Why does that make me an opponent of free speech while your discomfort with what I said doesn't do the same for you?

I'm not angry, just confused and want to know what you're thinking. I was just saying to someone else that I've kind of been all over the place just exploring different opinions, so I can't blame anyone for having the wrong idea about what I believe. I just wouldn't have expected this to be the comment that got this reaction since I didn't say anything that implied I wanted to enforce my preferences on the world as far as I can see.

You said "How is policing what people say outloud in a public space thought-policing?" I assumed that was a rhetorical question, and you meant "Policing what people say out loud in a public space is not bad and wrong like thought-policing is." In other words, I thought you were advocating policing speech in public spaces, while accepting unfettered speech in private spaces. I apologize if I misinterpreted you.

Edited 2015-02-02 02:41 (UTC)

Mostly I was being irritatingly literal because I'm tired of seeing "thought-policing" being thrown around so much. Thoughts and speech are extremely different in my mind, but it's not anything I want to legislate. Just one of the many personal opinions that people can disagree on all they want.

I agree with those who say that restricting speech is dangerous because you can't just take it on faith that the people making the decisions about what speech is okay are correct and the people who disagree with them are wrong, and dissenting opinions need to be allowed. But I also understand the concerns about the harm that certain types of speech can do and it bothers me when people dismiss that harm. I just don't think it's as simple as some people make it out to be.

Make of that what you will.

This is probably kind of preachy on my part, but if you can handle all the academic jargon, I really recommend a book called The Captive Mind. It's really specific on how policing of ideas actually worked within the context of Soviet Russia. (The short version is that you don't just allow people to have subversive thoughts, you take it for granted that every single citizen holds at least one subversive belief for which they could be arrested and executed. Then you arrest only the ones that are caught expressing subversiveness, and make communicating your true beliefs as much an etiquette violation as treason, albeit one published by death. Daily life becomes a ritualized game of response and counter-response, with no room for variance without punishment.)

I'm fine with academic jargon and that sounds fascinating, but as a continuation of this discussion it feels like you're inching towards a slippery slope argument.

I was just trying to respond to the stuff you were saying about "thought policing." You said your concept of it came from dystopia novels, so I was trying to link it into a real-world setting.

As for slippery slopes, I dunno. Within the "slope" metaphor, the way you "dig in your heels" to stop further change is to publicly speak out against it. When someone has the power to limit publicly speaking out . . . Obviously, you don't get there just from jailing neo-Nazis, but I do think freedom of speech has the least leeway of any freedom.

Ah okay.

I do think freedom of speech has the least leeway of any freedom.

I think this is a really interesting statement and I'd like to hear more about how you came to this conclusion.

(no subject)

feotakahari - 2015-02-02 03:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sarillia - 2015-02-02 08:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

feotakahari - 2015-02-02 09:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-02-02 15:23 (UTC) - Expand

I think I finally figured out why acting like thoughts and speech are the same thing bugs me so much. To me that suggests that thoughts only have power when you voice them and I strongly disagree with that.

And here I just want to reiterate that my question was a literal one and had nothing to do with one of those things being unquestionably okay and the other not.

Eh. I don't know. I don't like the specifically violent nature of it and I don't like the casualness of the violence, but the rhetoric of outrage and anger makes a lot of sense to me, because there's a lot to be angry about. I'd usually express more in a 'throw the bums out' kind of way, but it makes sense.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only