[ SECRET POST #3003 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[dethtoll]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[dethtoll]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[dethtoll]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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*

[dethtoll]

No worries!

[blitzwing]

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

Awwwww nonny no. You're on anon--there's no reason to hide our beautiful, shameful relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

Please stop.

[blitzwing]

Well my girl's in the next room
Sometimes I wish she was you
I guess we never really moooooooooooved on

[(Anonymous)]

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."

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[dethtoll]

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.)

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[dethtoll]

I don't really disagree.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[dethtoll]

I don't think it really conflicts, though, and IMO you're reaching by saying that it necessarily means defending shitty stuff as completely unobjectionable.

People have the right to say whatever idiotic shit their brain comes up with (within reason of course, cf. hate speech laws or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.) SHOULD they say it? No, of course not. It's idiotic and offensive and objectionable. But "shouldn't say" is a long way from "not permitted to say."

So if some hooplehead wanted to rant about Jewish mushrooms controlling the government and the fury in his pants, it's a completely indefensible view of course but it's not the content that's being defended here, it's the expression. (I hope you follow me.) And of course his right to free speech doesn't preclude others from exercising THEIR right to free speech and telling him to fuck off back to reddit. It also doesn't preclude them forcibly ejecting him from whatever private space he's spewing his trash in.

Ultimately the triumph of free speech is that A) it serves as an easy moron/bigot/etc. detector and 2) free speech can and does continue to grow and affect change even if you factor for things like hate speech laws and mass negative reaction to unpopular views, because outside of very narrow restrictions as established by the Supreme Court most free speech restrictions are content-neutral.