[ SECRET POST #2951 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[sarillia]

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.

[feotakahari]

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.

[sarillia]

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.

[feotakahari]

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.)

[sarillia]

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.

[feotakahari]

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.

[sarillia]

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.

[feotakahari]

Well, if you're not free to do some action X, but you have freedom of speech, you can march in support of X, and send letters to Congress supporting X, and generally speak up in favor of X. Eventually, you may be able to develop a popular movement in support of X, depending on what X is. If you don't have freedom of speech, you may still be able to organize civil disobedience, but it'll be a lot harder, and you'll probably spend some time in jail for it. If speech laws are sufficiently harsh, it may be impractical or even impossible to organize a public movement, forcing the use of a private movement that could be compromised if the authorities get wind of it.

(I'm excluding violent means, because I don't like the idea of using them. I guess there are situations where they're necessary, but that's pretty far away from my experiences as an American.)

[sarillia]

I'll have to think more about this. My first thought was to wonder if restricting the right to assembly would have the same effect, but I can understand how one can argue that it's not as bad. Then I started thinking about voting rights. Then I started wondering if there's a point to deciding which of these is the worst to restrict when we agree that they're all important since it's not like we have to decide between keeping one or another of them. That's not really like me but I'm a little frazzled. I've made a lot of progress in my social anxiety in the last few years but I pushed myself a little too hard.

[feotakahari]

If it counts for anything, I think you acquitted yourself pretty well today.

[(Anonymous)]

That's incredibly patronising, particularly since it seems that part of the reason you think that is because she might be coming around to your way of thinking.

[sarillia]

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.