We Never Know
No Slack
Its really this simple. These two things can't be forgotten.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Two things society has seemed to have forgotten
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
I had boyfriends of completely different religious, philosophical and political views.
That was awesome!
That was awesome!
Whilst I certainly agree to an extent
That doesn’t also mean we just shrug off every instance of “offensive speech” as mere differences of opinion.
Sure sometimes you certainly can do that. But there have to be lines drawn in the sand in polite society and many have been drawn for a while now. It’s just that now people are speaking up more and more about folks crossing those lines.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
One is perfectly free to loudly proclaim how they’re against say interracial marriage. That’s 100% their right.
But they don’t get to play the victim card when someone calls them out for it in society. And indeed much of the “etiquette” of you like that we take for granted nowadays had to be fought for in the past. People didn’t just say, “well I know you used that slur at me which I don’t really appreciate, but you know what? Let’s agree to disagree.”
No they called that person out for it, they fought to make it unacceptable in polite society to freely use certain words or derogatory phrases towards people.
This is, in my opinion, the underlying problem with this sentiment. Because whilst I agree with it for the most part. Complacency didn’t result in society giving folks equal rights, either. We had to fight back for that.
Something that society today has seemingly largely forgotten or at least doesn’t like acknowledging
Balance as with all things
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
1. I will comment. I can also get offended. But I will keep it to civil discussion.
2. No question of hating that person. But I will be sorry for his/her ignorance.
Sedim Haba
Outa here... bye-bye!
(This is often attributed to Voltaire but it was Hall condensing a larger article of his.)
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
All fair and well. The limit is when somebody in effect claims a "we" and/or objective evidence, that is not there.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Well, you've made it very difficult to disagree with you on this haven't you.
FWIW, defending's someone's right to say offensive speech can still be compatible with calling them an ******* for saying it and uninviting them from your parties.
(This is often attributed to Voltaire but it was Hall condensing a larger article of his.)
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
(This is often attributed to Voltaire but it was Hall condensing a larger article of his.)
Like freedom of press, freedom of speech is important in democracies because it allows views, other than those held by a ruling government, to reach and influence its citizens.
Yet, what at times seems forgotten is that freedom of speech is one’s right to express oneself publicly, without being censored - not without being questioned, argued with or held accountable for the consequences of what one does say.
If you, by means of freedom of speech, incite a mob to set fire to something, you shall be held accountable for the fire.
If you, by means of freedom of speech, get people with green eyes to beat up people with blue eyes, you shall be held accountable for the beating of people with blue eyes.
In short: if you, by means of freedom of speech, get others to break the law, you become accountable for them having broken the law in that manner - not for having used your freedom of speech.
As lawful citizens in democracies, we must always be mindful of how we use our freedom of speech. It’s our civic duty to ask ourselves: could what I’m about to say in public, lead to others breaking the law? And if the answer is yes, we must know that by choosing to say it anyway, we shall be held accountable.
Finally, it is my personal belief that as lawful citizens in democracies, we also are ethically obliged to point out to someone when we think that they may be inciting others to break the law by how they are using their freedom of speech.
Humbly
Hermit
Society ever knew those 2 things?
Nah.
A few individuals did & still do.
I have some advice for all of us....
When we feel dissed by someone during an argument.
We should ask ourselves whether it's because we
argued....or was it how we argued? Be careful to remain
civil. No accusing the other of whining, dishonesty, & such.
Nah.
A few individuals did & still do.
I have some advice for all of us....
When we feel dissed by someone during an argument.
We should ask ourselves whether it's because we
argued....or was it how we argued? Be careful to remain
civil. No accusing the other of whining, dishonesty, & such.
Something I wonder about when I see people yearning for some past time when society was more tolerant of diverse views: when do you think that was, exactly?
Back in the McCarthy era? Or maybe when Catholics were so "cancelled" that they were forbidden from joining trade unions?
Did the past you're asking for us to return to ever actually exist?
Because from where I sit, we're in the best era in history for tolerating of diverse and dissenting opinions.
... but what has happened is that the views considered "mainstream" have changed in the past few decades, so some douchebaggy views that people could have shared without consequence back in the day will now get called out for what they are.
The douchebags aren't ostracized like non-conformists were back in the day, but their unfamiliarity with both history and discomfort makes them think they're being hard done by when they get anything less than universal acceptance.
It's an interesting sort of feeling of entitlement.
I don't mind if people disagree. I don't even mind if people are rude or insulting about it. Just as long as they're willing to explain why they believe as they do. If they're unwilling or unable to explain why beyond just a throwaway one-liner, then I can't see why their view should be worthy of consideration.
If nothing else, these low-effort attempts at "disagreement" would indicate that someone doesn't care quite as much about the issue as their disagreement would imply. They think of it as "taking a stance" or "fighting the good fight," yet they can't really argue, debate, or even write more than 6 words about whatever issue they supposedly "care" about.
That would at least make it easier to separate those who are arguing just to argue, as opposed to those who deeply care about the issues and are willing to demonstrate it.
We Never Know
No Slack
I have a busy day but will take time to address part of this post.
"One is perfectly free to loudly proclaim how they’re against say interracial marriage. That’s 100% their right.
But they don’t get to play the victim card when someone calls them out for it in society."
I reckon I should have included this one in the OP too.
Again I agree. But do you think a person should be free to discriminate against a person for being a different race or even mixed race?
Because last I checked, that was illegal. In my country and the US.
Just because you’re free to think whatever you want doesn’t make it right. Nor does it necessarily make it legal in many ways. You can be as racist as you want, up until a certain point in society. Where we have purposefully drawn a line in the sand in polite society. Or do you think it should just be anarchy because “different opinions?” Honest question
And don’t forget that I’m just as free to call that person out for going against polite society. Who are you to deny me my right to free expression, after all. Eh?
To point out to someone that they have crossed a line is merely me exercising my own freedom of speech really. And indeed the lines of polite society will constantly change. That’s just reality.
Merely appealing to freedom is ultimately rather shallow in the end. Because reality is far more nuanced than that
And unfortunately that same shallow appeal is often used as a battle cry to gaslight people into accepting horrid unacceptable behaviour. Behaviour that we should be using our freedom of speech rights to fight against, imo
If you don’t like that, then look no further than your own response I would say
Last edited:
(This is often attributed to Voltaire but it was Hall condensing a larger article of his.)
I don't feel this way any more. The sentiment assumes that there are good ideas which need to be expressed, and that bad ideas won't get as much traction, so the net effect of unfettered expression is beneficial to and even essential in a healthy democracy.
That's no longer the case in America, which is not a healthy democracy, and perhaps elsewhere as well. Today, the people with ideas worth hearing are largely ignored, and the people who actually do change minds are doing so with indoctrination and lies. Now, free speech is doing more harm than good. New mores are needed to deal with that.
We Never Know
No Slack
When did disagreeing become discrimination?
Well if one disagrees that certain races are equal to their own, I highly doubt they will hire a person from a race that they deem inferior. Just a guess
Iow prejudices can inform conduct.
Which is why we draw a line. A person is perfectly free to have whatever prejudice they like. They just can’t use it to harm others.
And indeed I think we should challenge each other’s (and our own) prejudices. To stay complacent does nothing but allow certain toxic elements to fester.
Or would you prefer to allow say the KKK to hold open rallies harming/scaring others in your neighbourhood?
After all it’s just a difference of opinion.
I mean freedom is allowing others to do something you disagree with, right?
Last edited:
We Never Know
No Slack
Bob is white. His daughter Sally is dating a black man.
Bob says, I disagree with your choice because it isn't something I would do but its your life.
You question Bob why he disagrees? Bob tells you because it isn't something he would do.
Is Bob being racist?
Is Bob discriminating?
Is Bob being prejudice?
Potentially yes to all three. Or maybe he just has a preference.
Is it worth letting Bob off the hook for that?
So to speak. To just let that go “unchallenged?”
Or do you think it might achieve something more substantial to open a respectful dialogue with Bob?
I’m not saying lecture Bob or treat him and his opinions like trash. But like open an actual dialogue and maybe he won’t change at all. Maybe he might examine his own beliefs. Maybe he won’t. But is it not better to try to come to a more developed understanding of someone else?
Even if both sides still disagree at the end of the day, is it not better to at least try to keep dialogue open?
I think whilst it is certainly fine to agree to disagree. I think it’s also worth pushing back against ideas at the same time. Including my own. Because at least you can say you tried.
And I mean isn’t that how we grow as people?
Last edited:
Sedim Haba
Outa here... bye-bye!
Always there will be those who, perhaps for shock value or notoriety, will garner the majority
of attention, for that is their goal, and the more outlandish the rhetoric the better to achieve this.
But those who, as you say, have 'ideas worth hearing' and 'good ideas' will think their ideas
are equally outlandish, and shocking. If they see others being censored, banned, cancelled,
no matter the justification, they will see themselves suffering the same fate.
The chilling effect of censorship effects all desire to open up and dare to share.