[ SECRET POST #3029 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3029 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Peep Show]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Alexis Denisof]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Guardians of the Galaxy]



__________________________________________________



08.
[John Green]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Outlander]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Selfie]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Emilio Estevez]


__________________________________________________



12.
[His Dark Materials]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Star Wars, Twilight]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Faux Pas]


__________________________________________________



15.
[Mass Effect]


__________________________________________________



16.
[The Black Lillies]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 067 secrets from Secret Submission Post #433.
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

Re: Calgary Expo Vs MRA women

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that's fair.

Big picture, though, I do think that if we're going to say that the broader political concept of freedom of speech in a civil society is important, it has to mean something, and that something has I think to do with letting others speak and being willing to deal with them even if they have views that we find deeply disagreeable.

On a smaller level, I do think it's slightly different because it's not your yard sign, is it? It's not you being forced to endorse a view; it's a convention's organizers making a decision about what views are and aren't acceptable within their space. And I'm not just talking about the behavior of throwing them out; I'm talking about the line of reasoning where, at a convention, the organizers throw out a group of people for the views that they hold because those views are disagreeable to other people at the convention, and so the organizers may lose money if they don't throw them out and are justified in doing so for that reason alone. That may not be an accurate depiction of what actually happened at the con. But that is the line of reasoning that's being pursued. And that seems to me a lot more problematic than the yard signs example. Because it seems to justify the action on the basis of no more than convenience, and it would seem to be applicable to just about any line of political thought.

Of course, again, the convention was completely legally within their rights and it would be an understandable thing for them to do. But what I'm saying is: do we basically agree with the idea that it's right to say "I don't agree with what you're saying I don't want to deal with it" and then it's right for an event and a space to respond to that, solely with a fiscal interest, by throwing those people out? And I think there's a sense in which that really does conflict with the idea of political speech and toleration.

I want to be clear that I'm not advocating some kind of standard where you're not allowed to shut up anybody, ever. I think there are other lines of argument that make more sense - for instance, if the con had specifically identified themselves as a place that was for certain views and against other ones, and threw the people out on those grounds, it would seem a lot more justifiable to me. And I do think there's a point where we're justified in shutting people up because of the views they hold. But I think it's important to be able to articulate what exactly is going on there, to be aware of what we're doing and why we're doing it, and not just to leave it on the level of "These things are nasty and unpleasant and that is, in and of itself, justification for getting rid of them". And that's a kind of awareness that I don't see when, for instance, the concept of free speech is discussed solely in terms of the First Amendment's legal protection against the government.

(I hope this makes some kind of broad sense; sorry if it doesn't, no coffee)