• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Coddling of the American Mind

TownieDeac said:
We may be using different definitions of "liberalism," but this is a good read. How the language police are perverting liberalism.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the article Townie. It was good, and I mostly agree with the author. When pc first started many libs embraced it, supported it, and promoted it, despite the antithetical dissonance of pc and traditional liberal attitudes toward free speech. It would be good if liberals would distance themselves from pc altogether, whatever the common goals may be, and leave pc to the radical left wing, where it belongs.

The great Reformation scholar Roland Bainton, who also wrote on the problem of religious toleration during the 16th century, made some rather interesting and insightful comments on the mentality of persecution. IIRC, he noted that the persecutor must believe three things: he has the truth, this truth is very important, and persecuting those who defy it will do some good. It seems to me that the minds of 16th-century religious persecutors and the politically correct work pretty much the same way. They have the truth, their truth is very important, and persecuting others who don't accept their truth properly will do some good. And this way of thinking is certainly in striking contrast with classical liberal thought.
 
I'm not comfortable drawing lines with what is ok to say and what isn't. The cost of free speech shouldn't be protecting hate.
 
Junebug said:
I don't understand this post. If you are not comfortable drawing lines, then it seems that the cost of free speech is protecting hate. What am I misunderstanding?
Click to expand...

sorry, there should have been a "but" in there

i mean smarter people than me should be making those decisions
 
Junebug said:
They already have. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Click to expand...

Now I'm just reading from Wikipedia, but: "Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections."

I know that not all speech is protected. I'm not comfortable drawing lines, but there are probably some lines to be drawn.
 
to be clear you don't think that the kkk jackasses have the right to hold their stupid marches and rallies?
 
A lot of democracies have tighter limitations on free speech than we do. Some of them go too far IMO, like France's aggressive "secularization" standards where they have banned certain forms of religious garbs. Some countries in Europe have been known to prosecute people for "hate speech" or "incitement" that can sometimes be too close to political speech for my comfort level. I think the US strikes a pretty good balance on most of these issues.* Trying to ban "hate speech" runs a big risk of giving the government too much power to prosecute people who don't agree with whoever is in power. You actually see it in action on these college campuses where certain groups have the power to declare that anyone who doesn't agree with them is engaging in "aggression" or "hate speech." It's dangerous to give that kind of power to the government, it's bad enough when it's just the Student Affairs office (or whoever).

Germany is an interesting example where I think free speech rights are very robust but due to their unique history, all Nazi symbols are banned. Hypothetically, one could make a case that due to the unique history of the US as to slavery and Jim Crow, KKK symbols and the Confederate flag (a symbol of outright armed rebellion against the US) should be banned - personally, I think that gives too much attention and dignity to the crazies and isn't at all worth pursuing.



*Although I disagree with the "money is speech" and "corporations and unions are people" concept. I think protecting the underlying foundation of democracy and people's faith in the integrity of the system is far more important than protecting the rights of billionaires and organized labor to spend unlimited amounts of money to buy - *cough* sorry, "influence" - politicians.
 
Does free speech include students speaking out against what they perceive to be hate speech?
 
sure. it also includes people challenging their perceptions.
 
So can people choose whose free speech to follow when making decisions?

I'm trying to see where the issue is.
 
PhDeac said:
So can people choose whose free speech to follow when making decisions?

I'm trying to see where the issue is.
Click to expand...

Private property owners (i.e. employers, private universities) are free to restrict speech on their property however they like. I can throw someone out of my house or fire them for stating that they intend to vote for Donald Trump, because they're clearly an idiot that I don't want around me or my business. Government entities (including public universities) must follow the US Constitution. That means that some speech that certain students find to be racist or hate speech or whatever is protected and public universities should not be taking action to improperly restrict that speech. Private universities, on the other hand, are free to decide that certain forms of speech that would be protected in a public university are forbidden on their campuses.
 
So UNC has to allow the KKK to march there but that doesn't mean they have to invite Charles Koch to speak at graduation.
 
PhDeac said:
So UNC has to allow the KKK to march there but that doesn't mean they have to invite Charles Koch to speak at graduation.
Click to expand...

They're both welcome to apply for a parade permit.
 
BiffTannen said:
It's contained within townie's pretentious mind.
Click to expand...

Milhouse said:
probably this
Click to expand...

Already admitted smarter people than me should be deciding these things. I'm just talking about it because I'm interested.

I (naively, likely) stand by my idea that hate speech shouldn't be protected. In practice, I do see problems with defining hate speech. In theory, I see parts of American history that probably don't deserve protection anymore. I don't think bigotry and racism have a place in protected speech.
 
Defining what is and isn't hate speech is the problem Townie. Until someone presents an acceptable hard definition of exactly what unprotected hate speech is, most of us are going to be uneasy with the idea of it, as it could easily be used as a means for governmental and political repression.
 
BillBrasky said:
Defining what is and isn't hate speech is the problem Townie. Until someone presents an acceptable hard definition of exactly what unprotected hate speech is, most of us are going to be uneasy with the idea of it, as it could easily be used as a means for governmental and political repression.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Townie's perfectly fine with posting sacrilegious cartoons as humor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top