fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3003 ]

[ SECRET POST #3003 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3003 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #429.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - 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 not trying to be a dick, it's just weird to me that that's become the axiomatic unquestionable position.

Like, if we're talking the specific word 'censorship', then yes, that's specifically governmental. But the idea that there are valid free speech threats that don't go from the government seems to be written off far too easily.

It gets written off with exactly the difficulty it deserves.

Because they don't exist. Free speech goes both ways, and "permission to be a dick" also translates to "permission to tell someone to shut up." In other words, your rights aren't being impinged by not being allowed to say whatever the hell you want in a given forum as set by the rules of other private citizens.

Sure. But there are also very clearly types of speech which, while allowed and legal and valid, are also bad. And I think it's a valid concern that speech which puts social pressure on the free expression of opinion could be bad, that social pressure can be negative. It's certainly a concern that's in line with you know the whole tradition of democratic republican thought.

So what you're saying is that the last 70+ years of change in how we speak about, say, black people, brought about by social pressure, amounts to censorship, as opposed to the natural evolution of language and dialogue and consideration for others. Okay.

Nobody's saying you can't say the N word, but don't expect to not get your ass beat if you say it in the wrong place.

I really arguing in good faith here, man, whether or not you believe it. I actively try to keep my speech politically correct and I am perfectly fine with doing so.

Social pressure obviously isn't always bad, and there's clearly a balance to be struck. But it think it is a valid concern, particularly if you believe in free speech, and particularly when social pressure starts to get applied To ideas, and particularly when it starts to have the effect of causing ideological rigidity. I'm not saying all social pressure is bad and we should all stop doing it now. I'm saying it is something we should try to be thoughtful about, and so I don't agree with the line that you've taken where "free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of speech" even if I think it's true as far as it goes.

DA

This, all of this, it is the things like sending death threats, getting people fired over what they say on Twitter/Failbook/whatever that is way, way, overkill, IMO.

I never said it wasn't a valid concern, but you're making it out to be a bigger issue than it is.

I would argue I'm making it out to be "kind of might be a big deal down the line" in opposition to your "not ever a big deal" position but fair enough. getting into an argument over that would be the definition of pointless pedantry.

Also I want to clarify that I am in no way connected to blitzwing because jeez louise *purses lips, huffs in shock*

No worries!

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-03-26 02:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-03-26 03:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-03-26 04:02 (UTC) - Expand

So to be clear, you believe that the people sending all that horrible shit to anita sarkeesian were well within their rights? That wasn't an attempt to censor her it was them using their free speech just as she was? You don't think that when it is a mass of people using their "free speech" to attack someone in an attempt to shut them up, that that is a problem? Because this situation falls exactly inline with "Free speech goes both ways, and "permission to be a[n outspoken feminist]" also translates to "permission to tell someone to shut up."

I'd think the Anita Sarkeesian shit goes faaaaaaaaar over the line of harassment and also death threats, whereas telling one person to shut up once does not do either.

Oh I agree, but in the end it was still words against words. My point is that "You have the right to say anything you want, and people have the right to retort" is fine, but at a certain point you have to look at the effects of mob mentality and how intimidation works to censor people.

If I told anita to shut the fuck up, it's me excercising my free speach. if me and 250,000 other people tell her to shut the fuck up, once each, it is a bit different. harassment, bullying and an effective attempt to silence her. You see where the "free speech means I get to verbally attack you" can slide into a dangerous place. By and large I am on board with it. but there is some cross over between this and cyber bullying.

Anita didn't deserve any of that. But where do you draw the line? No, I don't think GGers are good people somehow deserving of their opinions being heard, but they have the right to actually speak.

But there's also a difference between saying awful things about someone and sending them death threats (or doxxing them as the case may be.)

NAYRT

What I think I would invoke here is the old principle that "simply because you have a right to say something does not mean that it is right to say."

GGers have a right to say what they say (at least until the point when it becomes harassment and death threat and that kind of thing). However, they ought not say it, as it is harmful and stupid, and also (and separately) because the specific things they are saying are intended to impede the reasonable exchange of ideas by forcing certain people out of the public sphere because of the opinions they hold.

I don't think that's a particularly hard line to draw.

I don't really disagree.

But I would argue that conflicts with the "free speech means dealing with the consequences of free speech" argument. Because it is technically true, and technically a rejoinder to people crying about free speech. But, I think, if taken seriously it involves you in other problems. Like having to defend shitty stuff. Not just as legally permissible but as unobjectionable.

(no subject)

dethtoll - 2015-03-26 03:36 (UTC) - Expand

Well, OP said "banned," which it is clearly not as there are loads of images of it floating around everywhere.

There are definitely valid free speech threats that are non-governmental. I'm just not sure people complaining on Tumblr counts as a valid free speech threat, though. Likely it was a marketing decision at some level, and probably a sensible one given the target market.

Sure I'd agree that tumblr probably isn't a major threat. I just don't think the argument that people use holds that well. (and I'm also not sure the point about market pressure holds tbh)

Well, there's that, and I think that economic forces are probably the single greatest threat to free speech, at least in the developed world. But I think the distinction needs to be made, as people pointing out problematic things often gets attacked as censorship, which it isn't.

Such as a major bank pulling the strings at The Telegraph to kill emerging stories about a banking scandal.

Like that, yeah. Tumblristas don't have that kind of pull.

""""""""probably""""""" isn't

A one in a trillion chance is still a chance, nonny.

I mean, who knows? Maybe tomorrow tumblr takes over the brains of all its users and the resulting gestalt mind being becomes tyrannical ruler of the earth. I bet you feel pretty silly if that happened, wouldn't you?

If that happened I wouldn't feel anything that the hivemind didn't want me to feel, because it would have taken over my brain...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only