[ SECRET POST #3628 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3628 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[Kenneth Branagh, Wallender]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of rape/torture (fics)]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #518.
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: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

[(Anonymous)]

I think another part of the issue is that some views (racism, sexism, homo/trans/biphobia) are inherently not nice, and as such cause harm to others however they're expressed.

This actually gets at the heart of the problem: how do you determine what kind of views ought and ought not be tolerated? How do you make that distinction?

I mean, look. Most people think - and I would say there are various extremely strong arguments in favor of the idea - that there are some forms of views or expression that we should not tolerate as a part of our society and our political mainstream (understanding tolerance of differing views as being a part of freedom of speech distinct from the legal protections against government restriction of speech). To give an example of what I mean, it's that you may have the legal right to advance the view that drowning kittens is politically desirable, but a wide range of people would agree that such a view is not politically acceptable to them.

At the same time, it is extremely clear that there needs to be some degree of latitude given to differing views, because otherwise we all descend into religious wars and kill each other, as see for example Europe 1524-1648. So we need some kind of way to divide between things that we may disagree with, but still have to tolerate, and things that we consider outside the mainstream and intolerable. Unfortunately no one can figure out what the fuck the dividing line is. It's really fucking hard both to figure out what the standard should be, and to figure out how to apply it. Looking at the idea that some views are not nice, the question becomes, what does it mean to be not nice? And how do we determine which views are not nice? How do you determine what views constitute a threat? I mean, the reality of politics is that there are very few political questions that can't be construed in terms of threatening people's lives. So it's a really fucking hard question.

But the point I'm making here is, that's what we're basically arguing about here. Can we say with any degree of certainty that some points of view are not nice? And there's substantial disagreement. But you're quite right in pointing out that none of this has anything much to do with authoritarianism, which is why it'd be helpful if certain people would stop fucking screwing around with stupid interpretations and arguments.