Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences
I understand many of you probably heard the phrase "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence" from many so-called free speech advocates. Very often many free speech advocates very seldom understand this and very often think that they can essentially say what they want because they have free speech. Many even believe in an arena, or from online posts, or even discussion forums people believe they have free speech. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo once said:
"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”
But very often people misunderstand that contingency of free speech to believe that there is absolute freedom of expression and that their individual expression is absolved from punishment. In states that have at will employment, you are NOT free to express bigotry,racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other pejorative that can be considered socially pejorative to a particular group of people. The internet discussion boards provide limited protection, and that protection is the anonymity of who we truly are...up until the point our speech becomes threatening. But can so-called free speech go to far?
In the recent case of NBA player Russell Westbrook, sometimes fans and their demeanor can go to far to the point where the speech of fans can be socially disruptive to the point of emotion reaction. Recently Westbrook was involved in an argument with an NBA fan of the Utah Jazz who told him to "get on your knees like your used to." Now of course people wanted to know what lead up to that statement which cause Westbrook to respond:
"I promise you. You think I’m playing? I swear to God. I swear to God. I’ll fuck you up. You and your wife, I’ll fuck you up. [turns towards the court] Nah, fuck that! Nah, fuck that! [turns back to fan] I promise you. On everything I love?. Everything I love, I promise you. I swear to God."
Judging by Westbrooks after game interview, his apparent reaction was due to his perception that the fans phrase "why don't you get on your knees like your used to" had racial connotations. Several players from the NBA have also stated that the Utah Jazz fans are very belligerent and have in the past and present used racial pejorative words towards players. Even some Jazz players have spoken out against the language of some of its fan base. Since the altercation that fan has been banned for life due to the incident and an investigation by the Jazz organization is underway. Online I've seen some comments from some so-called free speech advocates who stated in defense of the heckler that the fan had a right to say what he wants, well, not necessarily.
Another fan similarly made a comment to a Knicks owner (he told the owner as he was leaving through the tunnel to "sell the team") which resulted in him getting a lifetime ban. Ultimately people forget these owners have the last say so, and that your speech is limited in their arena. but in the case of Westbrook was the ban warranted? Was the threat by Westbrook warranted? With the last question I want people here to consider that Russell Westbrook is African-American, and the heckler was white. The heckler told Westbrooker something that was synonymous with slavery and servitude which was construed as racist. One of the legal limitations of free speech (according to the 1st amendment) is speech that incite actions that would harm others (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Considering just the emotional reaction of Westbrook alone, isn't it possible that the heckler's speech could incite violence if other disgruntled African-Americans were present which could result in innocent people being injured? Aren't pejoratives of these kind are factors of limitating speech and/or designated for punishment?
To get a more visual perspective here is the interview:
"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”
But very often people misunderstand that contingency of free speech to believe that there is absolute freedom of expression and that their individual expression is absolved from punishment. In states that have at will employment, you are NOT free to express bigotry,racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other pejorative that can be considered socially pejorative to a particular group of people. The internet discussion boards provide limited protection, and that protection is the anonymity of who we truly are...up until the point our speech becomes threatening. But can so-called free speech go to far?
In the recent case of NBA player Russell Westbrook, sometimes fans and their demeanor can go to far to the point where the speech of fans can be socially disruptive to the point of emotion reaction. Recently Westbrook was involved in an argument with an NBA fan of the Utah Jazz who told him to "get on your knees like your used to." Now of course people wanted to know what lead up to that statement which cause Westbrook to respond:
"I promise you. You think I’m playing? I swear to God. I swear to God. I’ll fuck you up. You and your wife, I’ll fuck you up. [turns towards the court] Nah, fuck that! Nah, fuck that! [turns back to fan] I promise you. On everything I love?. Everything I love, I promise you. I swear to God."
Judging by Westbrooks after game interview, his apparent reaction was due to his perception that the fans phrase "why don't you get on your knees like your used to" had racial connotations. Several players from the NBA have also stated that the Utah Jazz fans are very belligerent and have in the past and present used racial pejorative words towards players. Even some Jazz players have spoken out against the language of some of its fan base. Since the altercation that fan has been banned for life due to the incident and an investigation by the Jazz organization is underway. Online I've seen some comments from some so-called free speech advocates who stated in defense of the heckler that the fan had a right to say what he wants, well, not necessarily.
Another fan similarly made a comment to a Knicks owner (he told the owner as he was leaving through the tunnel to "sell the team") which resulted in him getting a lifetime ban. Ultimately people forget these owners have the last say so, and that your speech is limited in their arena. but in the case of Westbrook was the ban warranted? Was the threat by Westbrook warranted? With the last question I want people here to consider that Russell Westbrook is African-American, and the heckler was white. The heckler told Westbrooker something that was synonymous with slavery and servitude which was construed as racist. One of the legal limitations of free speech (according to the 1st amendment) is speech that incite actions that would harm others (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Considering just the emotional reaction of Westbrook alone, isn't it possible that the heckler's speech could incite violence if other disgruntled African-Americans were present which could result in innocent people being injured? Aren't pejoratives of these kind are factors of limitating speech and/or designated for punishment?
To get a more visual perspective here is the interview:
Comments (57)
Amen. You gotta love people arguing about free speech and not knowing what it is, or why its more important than protecting anyones feelings. Its for grown ups, not sensitive children who get hurt feelings and call it violence.
When the aliens come for us, they wont need rayguns or spaceships or mind powers...just a megaphone they can yell racial slurs and insults and then watch everyone wilt.
Whatever happened to “sticks and stones...”? We taught that to CHILDREN, because we wanted them to one day be ADULTS. Thats not even to mention the quote above that the poster doesnt even seem to know the meaning of.
If you restrict speech, you are eroding your access to your fundamental freedoms.
And yes, that includes the vulgar and hateful.
But the idea that words do not hurt is a myth. Legally it is within one's right for speech within the confines of the law, but there are limitations. It is not necessarily about hurt feelings, rather, in certain arenas should there be limiting factors of speech? For example could free speech in fact cause harm? Yes, see:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/massachusetts-high-court-upholds-michelle-carter-s-conviction-texts-encouraging-n968291
Can racial epithets formed from so-called free speech cause harm? Yes.
Quoting DingoJones
No. In American history words were used to enslave, maim, and kill other people. The residual pain over the generations is evident enough to know words do in fact have an impact on others.
Quoting DingoJones
We also taught children to use violence in retaliatory fashion. We also cite MLK's speech. We also do a lot of things in the United States and elsewhere touting democracy and yet in reality we do the complete opposite.
Quoting DingoJones
My argument here is not to restrict speech, but to also note that the consequences of freedom could result in violence.
Speaking of grown ups (which is a rather juvenile attempt to protect inflammatory) as mentioned before at will employment does not put up with it, and neither does the law. Nobody cannot absolutely say things freely without consequences. This is why we have laws against slander, libel, defamation etc.
Because if I said you are a pedophile and I alerted the news station, and subsequent to that socially I've convicted you to guilt without evidence, and the result is losing your job, pursuit of happiness and perhaps placed you in danger all unfounded on a lie I'm sure you'd want a law to protect you.
Um, I guess DingoJones got it but can you rephrase that for me?
Um, yes. Punishment for defamation is usually a fine, but you can get here a two years prison term for aggravated defamation. (Even if the law here is quite lax with punishments here typically.) And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I guess the majority of people understand this, meaning that they understand what freedom of speech means.
Harm, impact, yes. That must be weighed against the harm and impact of restricting speech. No contest. As the OP quoted, all your other freedoms come from your freedom to speak. Even the bad speech, because whatever harm that causes is a picnic compared to the alternative.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Laughable nonsense Im sorry to say. Words cannot enslave, this requires physical force. Physical force is not words. Words cannot maim, this requires physicsl force, or physical injury/harm. Physical injury/harm is not words. Kill? You think you can kill someone with words?
These things; enslavement, maiming and killing, are actions. They require people to ACT THEM OUT. We stop people from acting badly, from DOING things not thinking them or talking about them.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Retaliatory against other violence. Shoot if your shot at, hit when you are hit upon, yell when you are yelled at. Its pretty simple.
Quoting Anaxagoras
I know you have an idea of what kinds of speech should be responded to with violence, but the problem is so does everyone else. If you grant people the right to commit violent acts in response to speech then violence will become normal. No one will be safe from violence because anyone can be offended by anything. To Terrapins point, you should be restricted to using your voice to fight back, not your fists unless you’ve been attacked with fists. This is why “speech is violence” is so important to your narrative here, its how you justify the unjustified.
Either someone misheard something or someone is lying.
If someone does use racial slurs at a sporting event they shouldn’t be surprised if they’re thrown out and banned.
Isn’t this obvious?
It should be noted that these are private businesses.
It’s a tough problem to deal with though. On the one hand it needs to be talked out and on the other hand it needs to be taken out of the headlines so the flames aren’t fanned. Being such a cultural melting pot I guess the US is always going to feel this kind of thing more than many other nations.
Anyway, my view in general is simple when it comes to free speech. You CAN say what you want. If you say something wrong and people think it’s wrong they should speak up (not shout) and see if they can come to some common understanding.
People get sensitive when it comes to creating laws for speech - and rightly so. Language is so contextual that it’s incredibly hard in many situations to understand the intent and if people start acting in a hypersensitive manner then it is hard to say whether we can anticipate the consequences of our words, be it from being misheard or purposefully taken out of context.
Well said.
Quoting DingoJones
One thing I'm not clear on about this free speech absolutist position, is with what clarity you're identifying suppression of speech on the basis of its content.
Take for example a public debate about abortion, and one of the invited participants said nothing but "fish" throughout the whole thing, loudly and constantly interrupting the others talking. Are you saying that the chair of the debate would not have any justification for throwing them out because loudly saying "fish" over and over again is what they wanted to express and there should be no restrictions on them doing so?
Another example might be university debating platforms, where there's been some significant attention about de-platforming perceived racists. No one made a fuss about the fact that they've been effectively de-platforming the unqualified and uninteresting since their inception.
Basically, we restrict speech acts all the time, so I'm curious as to your criteria for which types of speech act should not be restricted.
I think it's quite obvious in this case that this is way to stop the discussion. Since when freedom of speach means that you don't have to wait for your turn and don't have to give others their "freedom of speach?"
Quoting Isaac
When you think about, there is an abundance of situations where "rights" of individuals seem to be in contradiction with basic norms, rules and regulations. Just think of the event of removing somebody from a private or public area. When can someone literally drag me off from a place? By what authority? One might think this is very confusing, but it actually isn't.
Yes, that's exactly the question I'm asking. What is the line, or general principle people are using to judge the kinds of speech acts which can be restricted (interruptions, belligerence, lack of expertise) and those which cannot (racist language, insults)?
If it is not simply the case that anyone can say anything at any time without restriction, then we must be using some criteria, even if only vaguely.
If I arrange a speech at a university about contract law, I do not see it as a suppression of my free speech if they 'de-platform' me on discovering that I know nothing whatsoever about contract law.
We obviously have plenty of implicit rules about preventing people from saying whatever they want to in certain scenarios. Those in favour of PC speech (for want of a better expression) make quite vocal their rules, but those against PC restrictions rarely do, so I thought I'd ask.
I wouldn't recommend using that example, as it was 1) from 1919, well after the First Amendment was written; 2) never binding law; and 3) overturned. The line comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Court Case US v. Schenck, which
"....had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I.
Furthermore, Schenck was overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
There may be other cases which limit free speech in the United States, but Schenck and it's oft-quoted "fire in a movie theater" statement isn't one of them.
You can read more about it here.
In my view there's not an obligation to provide a platform for just any arbitrary speech.
The obligation is to not take a certain class(es) of actions against anyone due to the content of their speech. What class(es) of actions? That would take awhile to delineate for robots, and it might not be feasible to delineate it for robots, but things like initiating physical violence against the person, imprisoning them, fining them or otherwise monetarily sanctioning them, effectively taking away their ability to earn a living (barring speech they contractually obligated themselves to not engage in when accepting a job), effectively taking away their shelter, their healthcare, etc. I guess we could at least roughly describe it as "not doing things that make it difficult for someone to go about their daily business/to do the daily things they need to do."
Some of that is stuff that only the government could do. Some is stuff that people can do with a mob mentality. Some is stuff that select individuals can even do.
I wouldn't make not doing all of that stuff a legal issue. I don't see freedom of speech as only a legal issue, and I think it's a big mistake to see it that way.
But it doesn't at all amount to being obligated (legally or otherwise) to provide any arbitrary speech a platform. However, we'd hope that people would care enough about freedom of speech that they'd not remove a platform that was bestowed just because folks object to someone's speech. It's easier to get to a culture that doesn't do things like that when we stop seeing freedom of speech as just a legal issue. When it's seen as a legal issue only, people tend to be fine with controlling and effectively censoring speech as long as they're not doing something illegal in the way they're controlling it. That's a problem in my opinion.
Speech shouldn't have those sorts of consequences in my opinion.
Your examples are not about free speech. The person who agreed to talk about Law, then turns out to know nothing about law has come under false pretences. His actual speech is not the issue.
Likewise with the repeating of “fish”. What he is saying is not the issue, its that he has agreed to a debate and is not debating.
If there are rules set forth, and they should be very specific, and someone doesnt follow them then they should be dealt with for not following the rules.
If a bunch of PC people wanna get together for a debate and have a big list of things you cant say, they are welcome to do so and to eject people not following the rules as they see fit. What they arent allowed to do, or shouldn't be allowed to do, is de-platform or impose those rules on other people who have not agreed to their rules. Whether this is via law or by taking direct action through violence or destruction of livelihood is regardless a dangerous and wrong thing to do.
This is the point I'm unsure on. I basically agree with the rest of what you've said, but I'm still unsure here.
As I used in my post above, if one were to arrange to make a speech at university about contract law, and after the booking, the university discover that you, in fact, know nothing about contract law, I wouldn't like to see them obligated to honour the booking so that you could say whatever you wanted to about contract law. I'd like to think it would be reasonable for them to say "actually the sort of things you might say (as a result of your ignorance on the subject) are not really the sorts of things we had in mind when we booked you"
But without setting some arbitrary rules about what sorts of speech should be allowed, this same principle could be applied to someone booked to speak about philosophy who the university later found out was racist (by their definition of the term). It still seems to me to be about the person being likely to say the sort of thing the people hosting him didn't really want to hear.
But what's the difference between this and the people you're arguing with? Aren't they just a group of people discussing the 'rules' for what can and can't be said, in their debates? Isn't a democratic country just a large group of people who have (via democracy) decided the rules about what can and cannot be said in their country (at least the public bits of it)?
My concern with 'free speech' is that it imposes (or seeks to impose) restrictions on what communities can and can't set as their rules of membership. I'm radically in favour of personal autonomy and I don't like impositions on it without just cause. You say that the costs of restricting free speech are higher than any cost the community perceives, but I think that's quite an extreme position and so requires fairly firm evidence and I don't see it.
Yeah, they wouldn't be. And in that situation, there's a chance that the person who did the booking should have their job threatened, because they didn't do their homework very well.
Right, but on what grounds? All I can think of is that they discover the speaker is probably not going to say the sort of thing they wanted him to say (informed facts about contract law, presumably). I'm struggling to think of any other objective grounds. But the trouble is the same would apply to someone they found out was racist (by their definition). It's just that they realise he's probably not going to say the sort of thing they wanted him to say (non-racist things).
I'm still not seeing the difference other than that we're happy for a university to set criteria for what they want their speakers to say on academic grounds, but not grounds of racism.
There's not going to be any objective grounds (in my view).
The grounds are simply that they contracted the person because they believed them to have some expertise in the field the event is focused on, but it turned out that, at least per appearances on that occasion, the person doesn't have those qualifications.
Or in the other scenario, the grounds could simply be that the person appears to have had some psychotic break or whatever.
Not that they need grounds. They could maybe just not like the person or something. Again, my view is NOT that anyone is obligated to provide a platform to anyone. Free speech is an issue re control in the sense that I explained re things like violence, making it difficult for someone to make a living, etc. That's why it's not just a legal issue, because it's not only the law that can affect others' lives in those ways.
The current rule is that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
The movie theater language appeared in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), stating that "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" was not protected speech. Justice Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
I'd say that Bradenburg didn't fully overule Schenk, but that it expanded upon its reasoning.
I suspect states have different levels of punishments yes.
Quoting ssu
Defamation is written speech, slander is oral....They are forms of speech
Quoting ssu
I understand what freedom of speech is and there was nothing I wrote that stated otherwise.
As noted in the Bradenberg test, the speech must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," which does not seem to be satisfied in a situation where there is an obnoxious heckler. That heckler would need to be advocating or producing violent behavior, not simply being offensive. The case of Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) seems to make that point. That is to say, there is a significant difference in yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or in encouraging a riot in a public place and in simply being offensive. The former situations are inciting or encouraging immediate violent or chaotic behavior, while the latter are not.
"Fighting words" are punishable (as noted in Hess), although they would need to be directed against a particular person, and I would think there would be a fairly high First Amendment test as to the reasonableness of whether the words used were inciting. That is, if I chant "Make America Great" at a rally for immigrant rights, that would be protected, because someone can't simply claim particular sensitively to words and then claim I provoked him to action. I would think fighting words would things like telling you that I was going to have sex with your mother or the like, not in just holding offensive beliefs. .
Of course. In the case of Westbrook the fan was disruptive enough to potentially cause an incident.
Quoting DingoJones
True, but there are limitations. You don't have freedom of speech with at-will jobs.
Quoting DingoJones
I suspect you're not American nor African-American? Ever heard of Willy Lynch letters? Perhaps you want to read that. Furthermore speech has a psychological impact especially if used with physical force, but you can enslave someone even with speech.
Quoting DingoJones
Without speech which is the requirement to cause harm when it comes historical slavery yes. You're taking it quite literally which is not something you ought to do. Most certainly speech can be attached to a harm done by someone.
Quoting DingoJones
Um, you didn't get it.
Quoting DingoJones
At this point judging by your response you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
Quoting DingoJones
But where am I saying that. I'm merely highlighting that inflammatory speech that is racist in an arena where the target of the racist epithet, could potentially have members of the same demographic can be a problem. Besides a basketball arena, like a football arena are private businesses as well so yes your speech is limited.
Quoting DingoJones
I agree you "ought" to be restricted but in reality that is not the case. I think from a sociological standpoint based on history you and Terrapin lack the historical understanding how residual pain through the proxy of words can indeed affect people. I think as a non-member of said demographic you don't get to define for someone else how they ought to react given the residual affects of the elements of a given word(s).
I think I understand, thanks. Let me check. If someone came into my house (invited or not) and started making racist jokes (by which I mean jokes I think are racist) I would either ask them to stop or chuck them out. I would do so on the grounds that I don't like racist jokes and I have the power to throw them out of my house.
If I'm a boss of a company, and one of my employees makes a joke I think is racist, I would either ask them to stop or fire them (presuming that doing so was otherwise legal re his employee rights).
The two scenarios sound the same to me, the house/company and the guest/employee seem comparable. And yet, if all bosses felt that way, then the last one to act on those feelings would fall foul of your "making it difficult for someone to earn a living" restriction.
If we introduce a third scenario. A group of people collectively own/run a country, a citizen of that country makes a joke they (collectively) feel is racist and so they ask him to stop. Yet this scenario falls foul of many of your restrictions.
So, am I right in thinking that it's your restrictions on the imposition that preferences have on others that govern what you'd like to see tolerated and what you feel could be justifiably restricted?
Well in the first instance there is nothing wrong per se, but the owner is known to be quite "emotional." For the latter, as I mentioned to another poster, the context can be perceived as racial. If you're not of the demographic and do not share the collective experience of said demographic especially when it comes to historical racism you're in no position to define what is pejorative and what isn't. you're speaking as an outsider and for all intensive purposes, it's not a plausible position. That is like someone using the word homo in the context of a joke. Although you may find it funny someone who is homosexual may not, but you don't sit there and define that such and such speech using the word homo is not inflammatory. This is your position but by no means does it reflect reality.
Quoting I like sushi
Not to those that believe in freedom of speech. These advocates believe that in all facets of society one ought to be free to use inflammatory speech regardless where they are and that is not aligned with reality. People even at my job are getting fired for posting stuff on Facebook about their employer. The common defense in Human Resources is: "well I have freedom of speech and that is my private account."
Wrong.
People forget that in at-will employment states they can almost fire you for anything even if you're using a social media platform that is "private" if someone told HR on the type of speech you're using you can most certainly get fired. In sporting arenas as you've stated, these are private businesses and if they find you disruptive and combative towards players you most certainly will get banned.
Apparently if you're referencing me why not quote me?
Usually people that believe people ought to say what they want whenever they want usually end up unemployed or worse, beat up or shot. I do not condone violence in any way, however I'm not surprised if someone ends up hurt for using pejorative remarks. I think if you're stupid enough to use racial epithets towards a player which may have people of the same demographic you shouldn't be surprised that you are pummeled. I think it takes actual cognitive thinking and maturity to demonstrate restraint of speech in this regard.
That wasn't intended to reference you. I don't know if you think any of that stuff or not.
You're right, but I believe the spirit of inciting violence and harm still stands.
Let me give you an example....
Do you go into a room full of MS-13 gang members with your wife and kids (this is hypothetical of course) and use racist epithets towards them? Obviously no, because your words could endanger the lives of you and those around you who were not using inflammatory speech.
Only by someone looking to be offended. There is absolute NOTHING racist in the comment.
That’s utter nonsense. Using abbreviations is hardly enough to get you sacked, seriously? I have someone who calls himself “homo,” that is his chosen nickname. If someone is offended by a derogatory joke then that is different. Joking about homosexual activity is not “homophobic” and joking about cultural/ethnic/racial stereotypes is not “racist” or any other “-ist” unless it’s blatantly ironic and/or purposefullu derogatory.
If you are in your work place acting in the same manner then they can pull you up about it. If someone is saying something publicly about their work then obviously, prejudice or not, they will be putting themselves in a position where they could lose their job. Note: this is if it’s AIMED specifically at a work colleague or the establishment itself.
The demographic business is more nonsense. We’re all, in some manner or another, a minority of some given group. Be it by the music we like, the clothes we wear, the length of our hair, our wealth, etc.,. One might even refer your OP to your boss and you could very well get accused of “Islamophobia” and made redundant. Somehow I think you may change our opinion VERY quickly if that happened - and make no mistake it doesn’t take much to read your post in that light, because regardless of the intent there is always someone eeadily offended demanding the law step in.
I don't think people often look to be offended. I don't think NBA players in the case of Westbrook go to arena and arena looking to have a fan use inflammatory speech against them, that is wrong. I think people for the most part look to do what they please and mind their business.
Quoting I like sushi
To you and that is okay because you're one person with one perspective but most certainly your perspective is not reflective of reality.
Quoting I like sushi
Jesus, it was an example. Do people on ThePhilosophyforum.com are that much of a literalist to actually think hypothetical examples which use abbreviations are actually the crux of various points that are being made? The use of the word "homo" was indeed at one point used and still is used in the context that was meant to be pejorative. Similarly the abbreviation of the word raccoon, morphed into the pejorative term "coon" in reference to African-Americans in context was meant to cause harm. Regardless whether they are abbreviated or not, in their said context these are pejorative phrases that are harmful.
Quoting I like sushi
Again to you it's no problem but again you are one person and your view bears no actual realistic way of approaching the subject. I invite you to look at this video (if you so choose look at the entire video) and fast forward to 43:43
As the woman said a joke was made that was completely racist and apart from her nobody got it, and sometimes speech of this sort can completely go over someone's head because the target of said joke or comment is not them.
Quoting I like sushi
Not just work, but people included. If you are a racist and use your Facebook to espouse your rhetoric while working at a hospital you most certainly can/will be fired in at-will employment states. Your free speech is not protected.
Quoting I like sushi
Not necessarily. See, you keep disregarding things as nonsense and when you state your reasons they are unsubstantiated neither with research or with anything else. If we take the United States for example despite the progressive movements and changes in our society Caucasians are still over-represented socially, economically, and psychologically. Now, when it comes to particular things like sports then yes. Even demographically when it comes to places where one resides then yes but by being a minority in regards to sports and district demographics this is minute compared to the other facets of society. This is well documented fact in research.
Quoting I like sushi
This is irrelevant especially in comparison to what matters.
Quoting I like sushi
Who is our? I'm in no business to change nobody's opinion and from I see a lot of opinions are not based on reality. I think people here are using a lot of jargon with their own personal conjecture. I deal with facts not jargon used in intellectual gymnastics.
And no, the phrase as it is is NOT racist. The context of the “conversation” may have intended it to be racist. How do we know? Who are we to believe? It’s not difficult to see the danger involved here. And if I worked with someone who was racist, and I actually have, I wouldn’t insist they be sacked. No one is perfect. I’d rather talk to them, understand their position and try to reason with them little by little - and I did.
I’m not that easily persuaded. I don’t think it is easy to deal with this kind of thing, but I’m not convinced it’s a good idea. Better that if someone sees this they confront the person and talk it over. Holding perculliar prejudices is not exactly a reason for destroying someone’s life imo. I’d also argue that it may actually do more damage than good too.
Really? So just allow the racists their racism and be done with it? How about making an attempt to change their opinions by furnishing them with something based on reality instead? I really find this the most bizarre position. Can you explain further? Or did you simply mean provide people with the measn to change their opinion rather than blugeon them to death with yours and tell them what they “should” think? In which case, obviously. I thought that would go without saying though tbh.
Other facets of society being? Have you done a comparison based on income too or only “race”?
https://blackdemographics.com/economics/employment/
Ok. One of the things I learned in graduate school studying racial intersectionality is if someone is unwilling to be open to have a different perspective outside their own mind it’s a pointless endeavor.
Asking questions is exactly, precisely being open to a different perspective, which is what Sushi did.
So, what you really mean is you learned it is pointless to have discussions with people who not automatically see things the way you do. Brilliant. You should have taken the time to learn about double standards, hypocracy and projection. These seem more pertinent for you.
No. when it comes to discussion, if someone is unwilling to see a different perspective especially when it comes to pejorative phrases aimed at a specific group of people, and people are unwilling to understand that viewpoint because THEY think its not racist, then the discussion is pointless.
For example the subject concerning the NBA player Russell Westbrook's incident concerning the fan that made those comments towards him. I share the same cultural demographic as Westbrook so when I mentioned that I understand how Westbrook reacted towards the fan it is because I've had the same shared experiences like other African-Americans when pejorative phrases like "get on your knees like your used to" are being said in public.
I understand how sensitive those comments can be because it is those comments that were used against my grand-father and his family. The problem that I had with sushi was not his opposing view, but the point where he thinks "well, I don't see that as racist" given the fact that collectively, phrases of this kind were meant to harm African-Americans. There is the collective experience concerning these types of phrases and so essentially when a person denies that phrases of that sort are racist and aren't using reasons as to why it ultimately for me, means that these individuals are unwilling to see the cultural sensitivity of such phrases being used.
I think if read it back I said that it may have been racist, but in and of itself it isn’t a racist comment - context matters and I don’t profess to know the context/intent of the speaker.
You don’t seem willing to respond to my comments about your other thread which could be interpreted as “islamophobic”? If you lost your job over that comment would you be willing to concede that there is a point where things go too far (not to say there is no ill intent in all spech)?
If you think I am “unwilling” that is what you think. You interpret my words as you interpret them ... that is kind of my point. You seem to be sayign one thing and doing another (hence the “hypocrite” remakr thrown at you).
Well maybe because I'm just not coming around, and maybe because while I'm getting to it I'm also at work which is the only time I'm able to.
Quoting I like sushi
It wasn't "Islamophobic" considering I already tied in the ethical issues concerning terrorism in relation to extremism. In fact there are books concerning Ibn Safwan's extreme determinism and its potential association with terrorism. I mentioned terrorism in that thread because I made the connection with how extreme determinism, lack of education, and religious extremism can contribute to terrorism. Terrorism, which is a gross misrepresentation of extreme action from personal disagreement of social policy in this case the philosophy of Ibn Safwan's view of determinism seems to contribute to the root cause of heterodoxy in Islamic beliefs. Ultimately, Islam's criterion for orthodox belief holds that "justice" is the main principle of Islam:
"O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. ... And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do."-Surah 5:8
So as I mentioned in that thread Jahm ibn Safwan's position was confronted by the Mu'tazilites because Jahm's position indicated on one end passivity, even Islamic philosopher Walid ibn Ata even said:
"It is inconceivable that God might order man to do something and he be unable to do it, or feel unable to act. Whoever denies man’s ability, denies the necessity [of obedience to God].”
But then on the polar end, the extreme determinism of Jahm's view would also indicate that acts specifically evil acts like terrorism are also a part of God's will which would run counter to how God is identified in the Holy Qur'an. God is just, and so if such is true what is just about a terrorist killing a lot of innocent people? This is why the Mu'tazilites stated that mankind was given the capacity of agency which they can act upon their own will to make choices. Ultimately, the Mu'tazilites believe Ibn Safwan's Quranic interpretation was misplaced.
Now that I spent an inordinate amount of time explaining that......
I asked if your position could be interpreted as “islamophobic” I was not saying it was, wasn’t or that the term “islamophobic” is a fair label.
I’m not convinced that someone should be sacked from work because they are looked at as being some kind of “-ist” over a comment on a forum like this.
If we look at different hypothetical situations we can imagine someone being treated badly because of their religious views or attitudes towards some other demographic. Intersectionality revealed that there are a number of ways a person can be “grouped” and that within each given “group” there are more “groups”. I don’t tend to look at people as a collection of separate identities - although being human we are most certainly primed to do this when presented with minimal data.
Someone could easily say something that is regarded as socially abhorrent by the majority without realising it. We all carry around cetain prejudices. For this reason I am cautious. I do believe we should tolerate people’s prejudices but that we shouldn’t be passive about it. If someone says something crazy then I would eather ask them, try and underdtand why they think what they think what they think and challenge them. Of course in the real world we’re hardly always mindful of the manner in which we handle obscure ideas and views.
I want to talk to the extreme racists and religious zealots because it furnishes me with an understanding and helps me communicate in a more meaningful way with those not almost completely lost to such imposed blindness.
For this reason if someone is posting on facebook about killing certain demographics with obvious zeal then they should be prosecuted by the law. Sadly in todays world we seem ill-equipped to deal with the shouts and cries of the internet. People are most certainly looking to react and look for offense as it is the nature of most comments sections and the lack fo physical proximity causes people to act differently, and for people looking to their content viewed to make mountains out of mole hills in order to make money on the back of their myopic analysis that falls into whatever the latest “outrage” is.
If society lets the bigots always walk away unscathed the society is worthless. History has shown us that the balance is always teetering more one way than another, yet I do see progress (especially if we look back over the last few centuries).
I don’t think the kind of situations we’re bothered about are so clear cut. Of course some idiots will shout “free speech!” in order to cry against the treatment they receive for being blind and midguided individuals, and others will happily de-platform anyone they see as a slight threat by using their “free speech”. It’s a double-edged sword we just have to live with.
What sort of empirical research have you done for claims like that, and logically, what do you believe the upshot of that fact is, assuming the empirical support for it is solid?
Ok fine, but like anything, it could or couldn't be it is up to the one observing it.
Quoting I like sushi
Your convincing is irrelevant when it comes to at-will employment. You can be fired at a job for most things that could be perceived as a liability to the work environment. If you held a job you'd be aware of this. Your speech matters, and people from various hospitals and other facilities have been fired over what they say over the internet. Many have argued free speech but again, if you are making comments and in this case like as you say, made the benign remark telling another African-American to "get on their knees like they used to," and I'm a witness to that and we all work in the same environment I could bring this up to HR. Most likely you'll be either questioned or reprimanded, especially if I bring evidence. Point is, it doesn't matter if you don't find it offensive or not, it matters to the ones who can hire and fire you.
Quoting I like sushi
In the case where speech of this kind, in my own experience it is pointless to discuss with someone who has a perverse view of reality especially if they are dead set on it.
Quoting I like sushi
This is one of the many setbacks with internet. There is a project in Brazil where people who make pejorative remarks online get aired out on billboards, and by this I'm referring to their real names and faces. It begs the question whether if one would make hateful comments if their true identity was revealed?
You really want me to present scholar articles? I suspect you've never taken a course dealing with cultures, race, and history? I have no issue supporting the evidence, but for any student especially in college it is apparent.
Yes, I really want you to present it, because if it wasn't clear already, I'm actually challenging that there has been any significant empirical research surveying meaning/intent for such phrases.
Also, please don't ignore what you believe the logical/implicational upshot is supposed to be.
(Re your question, by the way, do you mean a course on "culture, race and history" combined? If there were any courses on "race" when I was in school, there sure weren't many. So no, I never had a course on "race." "Race" was considered kind of a ridiculous fiction when I was in school--to be filed under "stupid shit that people actually used to believe," and I still agree with that view--which makes it disappointing that things turned around and we seemed to instead go for a full-on embrace of the concept of race academically (and personally, I think that ideological change has been responsible for a lot of problems). I certainly had a lot of history courses, and various sorts of "culture" courses, including that the two fields in which I have degrees are culture fields--philosophy and music theory/composition.)
I pre-emptied this response. It is still useful because understanding where someone no so far gone could go and how they get there is important defusing the situation and furnishing them with a chance of not falling into such a blackhole.
Basically I choose my battles as wisely as I can. If someone looks beyond hope I still try and probe to understand how they arrived at such a position ... and of course, like you, I just give up completely if they cannot even communicate beyond expletives.
I can get onboard with that to a degree. Within there are situations that can get messy though. I do think anonymity is yet again both a hindrance and boon.
If someone can be combatted, and have their mind swayed, whilst remain anonymous, then it’s a good thing for them and they avoid taking a bad road and publicly announcing something they’d later regret. On balance I would be in favour of some kind of anonymity being refused to some select blatantly vile utterances - but then there is the problem of comedy; but I feel that is a separate issue to this because context and setting matters and on the internet the “context and setting” can be abstract.
Cannot for the life of me remember who said this “I don’t care what you call me, I care how you treat me.” I think that is a solid position to start from. In today’s world I think a slight minority are now able to stir up discontent much more easily and that the media often panders to this behaviour. I think we’ll all muddle through though eventually. Maybe it will take the better part of this century or maybe in a couple of decades such discussions would’ve moved onto other problems in society rather than the current topic of free speech.
I don't even think that that's controversial.
The phrase reminds me of that Idi Amin quote, “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech”. Sure you can say what you want, but I cannot promise I won’t punish you for it.
Imagine saying to Marshall Kahn from Pakistan, whom was murdered by an angry mob for posting blasphemy online, “freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences”. It implies he brought it on himself, when in fact it was the mob’s superstitions and group think that caused it.
If I insult someone’s mother and they punch me in the nose, the punch is a consequence of their censorial impulses and violent proclivities, not my words. When anti-abolitionists descended upon an abolition meeting to harass, heckle and beat its attendees, (leading to Frederick Douglas’ passionate defense of free speech) that was a consequence of the mob’s bigotry and violent proclivities, not the words spoken. In the same vein, if I am arrested for something I say, that is a consequence of the laws and not my words.
This phrase seems to me an excuse for censorship. Freedom of speech means exactly the freedom from consequences.
I do think escalating should go through a speech response, a 'get the fuck away' and perhaps even a warning.
There's nothing sacred about the nerve cells in the face as opposed to the one's in my limbic system.
You wanna torture cells at a certain point you need to expect some torture and not of your choosing either may be on the line.
Physical pain, emotional pain. Someone happy creating the latter should be ready to experience the former. They are both unpleasant.
This is my understanding of how things are in the USA, but I'm not from there, and so I may have misunderstood. Am I right or wrong? :chin: