Kelliezgirl
Debauched Dilettante
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2023
- Posts
- 1,429
"The right to offend" is a tricky one: There are limits, of course.
Speaking as something of a free speech absolutist, very very few of them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"The right to offend" is a tricky one: There are limits, of course.
You're always free to reject anything you don't want to be a part of. That rejection can consist of silence or explanation or insults or mockery or digression or whatever you wish.This is a valid point, to what extent am I allowed to shut down any behavior by simply declaring it makes me feel uncomfortable?
You're always free to reject anything you don't want to be a part of. That rejection can consist of silence or explanation or insults or mockery or digression or whatever you wish.
You have no obligation to indulge any behavior that makes you feel uncomfortable, generally speaking. You might have relationships or agreements or employment that modify this, but we're talking about strangers on the internet here, and you owe them nothing.
Some types of advances will be unwelcome. You can get a sense of whether your advances will be unwelcome, based on how aggressively you come on and how much you share and how quickly, and how the average person responds to that.I agree with that, I don't think I was clear enough though.
The point I was trying to make is some people are critical of the "unsolicited" advance, apparently on the theory that some women won't like it.
Meaning they would consider it inappropriate for a man to introduce himself to a woman he doesn't know on the possibility she might feel uncomfortable. I find that ridiculous.
I discuss this a lot with my wife, who is a very self-confident person in many ways. She's been hit on a lot, and rarely, if ever, takes offence when it happens -- because she knows how to handle people; she stays in control of the situation pretty well, so she doesn't feel threatened by sexual advances.
There is of course the right to reject a sexual advance. But when things begin to slide into depriving somebody else of the right to risk a sexual rejection… i think things have gone to far.
Yup.Sometimes it just means "the government isn't allowed to prevent me from doing it or punish me for doing it, as long as I'm willing to live with the consequences." And sometimes it means "I shouldn't have to face any adverse consequences from any quarter for doing this". Those aren't the same thing at all, but people will use "rights" to talk about both of them.
Yup.
The First Amendment (for Americans) guarantees that the government won't prevent your speech, but it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing so (like corporations, who have no obligation to host or promote your speech). And it says nothing about how that speech will be received, or how people will react.
A LOT of ignorant people think their "right to free speech" means they should be free to say and do anything without suffering consequences. That's nonsense.
Wow, that's a non sequitur. I suggested and believe nothing of the sort.So, you would agree that Hollywood blacklisting Communists in the 1950s was perfectly acceptable?
Wow, that's a non sequitur. I suggested and believe nothing of the sort.
I mean, people are free to make choices, but my acceptance of their free will doesn't imply I agree with every choice every person ever makes.
Was it lawful? Yes. Was it awful? Also yes. But then I already answered that question above: "I suggested and believe nothing of the sort." I think perhaps you were reading something into what I said that I didn't put there.I didn't ask if you agreed that they should do it. But based on the position you advocated, that there should be consequences for people's speech, there wasn't anything wrong or inappropriate with blacklisting Communists.
Or as a more direct question, based on your philosophy of freedom of speech, was blacklisting communists acceptable or not?
Unfortunately it is not a question with clear cut binary answer. As I said, any person has the right to reject a sexual advance. But when a critical mass penalizes the advance the distinction "the government did not ban the advance" becomes moot. In fact, it is worse, since government can (or ought to) be held accountable, mobs can not. We do not want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to theft, murder, etc. I do not believe we want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, which is basically what many flavors of cancel culture is.One of the difficulties with these "right to do X" conversations is that it's often very unclear what people actually mean by "having a right" to do something.
Sometimes it just means "the government isn't allowed to prevent me from doing it or punish me for doing it, as long as I'm willing to live with the consequences." And sometimes it means "I shouldn't have to face any adverse consequences from any quarter for doing this". Those aren't the same thing at all, but people will use "rights" to talk about both of them.
And sometimes it means "there should be places and times where I'm allowed to do X", and sometimes it means "I should be able to do X anywhere and any time I want, in any way I want". Again, those aren't remotely the same thing, but people often conflate the two.
Sometimes people hear a message like "if you hit on women in this particular forum, folk will think you're a jerk and maybe the site admins will even ban you", but they react as if they'd been told "the government has made it illegal for you to hit on women anywhere, under any circumstances".
Which of those discussions are people actually having here?
Was it lawful? Yes. Was it awful? Also yes. But then I already answered that question above: "I suggested and believe nothing of the sort." I think perhaps you were reading something into what I said that I didn't put there.
Anyhow, hope you have a wonderful morning.
Unfortunately it is not a question with clear cut binary answer. As I said, any person has the right to reject a sexual advance. But when a critical mass penalizes the advance the distinction "the government did not ban the advance" becomes moot. In fact, it is worse, since government can (or ought to) be held accountable, mobs can not. We do not want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to theft, murder, etc. I do not believe we want mobs dispensing justice when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, which is basically what many flavors of cancel culture is.
So, you would agree that Hollywood blacklisting Communists in the 1950s was perfectly acceptable?