• 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

If there is no solution, then what is your point? And do really trust these people "smarter than you" to be completely unbiased in defining hate speech?

Are Pope jokes cool, but Jew jokes not? Is black hate speech banned, but making fun of white trash people born into poverty okay? Or vice versa?

It will never work.
 
I don't have solutions, just raising what I see as issues.

It seems like free speech intends to protect liberty, not protect harm. Insofar as it protects liberty and limits harm, it works.

I guess Western democracies have enjoyed greater success without banning speech with workplace non-discrimination laws, pluralist education in schools, and public awareness initiatives.

I guess you just have to chalk up hate speech to the price of liberty.
 
TownieDeac said:
I don't have solutions, just raising what I see as issues.

It seems like free speech intends to protect liberty, not protect harm. Insofar as it protects liberty and limits harm, it works.

I guess Western democracies have enjoyed greater success without banning speech with workplace non-discrimination laws, pluralist education in schools, and public awareness initiatives.

I guess you just have to chalk up hate speech to the price of liberty.
Click to expand...

But hate speech itself isn't causing any harm. If someone stands on a public street and yells "2&2 is a fucking asshole" all day, I'm not actually harmed by it. If I were a pussy millennial than my feelings might be hurt, but I'm still not actually harmed by it. Now if someone hears that hate speech and acts on it by punching me in the face when I walk outside, then the law protects me from that actual harmful action.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But hate speech itself isn't causing any harm. If someone stands on a public street and yells "2&2 is a fucking asshole" all day, I'm not actually harmed by it. If I were a pussy millennial than my feelings might be hurt, but I'm still not actually harmed by it. Now if someone hears that hate speech and acts on it by punching me in the face when I walk outside, then the law protects me from that actual harmful action.
Click to expand...

Im learning that if they post "2and2 is an asshole" on facebook a lot it is worse than the punch in the face.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But hate speech itself isn't causing any harm. If someone stands on a public street and yells "2&2 is a fucking asshole" all day, I'm not actually harmed by it. If I were a pussy millennial than my feelings might be hurt, but I'm still not actually harmed by it. Now if someone hears that hate speech and acts on it by punching me in the face when I walk outside, then the law protects me from that actual harmful action.
Click to expand...

WakeandBake said:
Im learning that if they post "2and2 is an asshole" on facebook a lot it is worse than the punch in the face.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why or when these two thoughts got conflated on this thread, but I'm sure it comes back (like many digressions on this board) to a generational conflict.

Can we not agree that there are different kinds of harm without comparing them? Not everyone has thick skin or an aggressive personality. Many people in privileged situations don't really even need very thick skin. What does Louis CK say about being a white guy? What's the worst thing you can call me? Let's put it another way. I'd rather get insulted than punched in the face, but I'd rather get punched than have my fiancee or someone I care about insulted.

There's an impulse to protect people we care about from harm. If it goes too far, it's coddling. But I'm just unsure of what the base problem is with protecting people from undue or unnecessary psychological harm, especially w.r.t. positions of power, race, etc.
 
It's ironic that on one thread 2&2 talks about the evils of coddling young people, yet on another thread, he argues that one of the most coddled NFL players I can remember should be the highest paid player in the game.

 
There isn't anything wrong with it. I just like being a dickhead on this board.

When I was young me and my friends were sometimes punched in the face or had hockers spit on us and were called fags and shit like that by the older kids. It was just a thing that happened. I never did it back to the kids younger than me when I got older, but people my age did. That was the environment of the abuse, because we had no internet. Pretty much all the abuse was done in person. We all talked shit about each other too, but of course you never knew it because you weren't there and there was no electronic record of it. Now it seems the internet is the environment for most of the abuse and physical abuse is something you guys complain about less, if at all. So this old has gleaned that you aren't being beaten up any more, you are being humiliated on the internet. So while the environment/method/style has changed, there is still abuse happening to you. I get that you categorize them differently, but it is still peer to peer abuse. You guys argue that internet humiliation is worse. Those of us who were scared of being beaten up I think would have welcomed a little internet abuse instead of a punch in the face or shoe to the balls. But I conceded maybe you guys are right, maybe it is worse. I suggested just getting off the social media but was roundly mocked by smarter millennials so IDFK. :noidea:
 
WakeandBake said:
There isn't anything wrong with it. I just like being a dickhead on this board.

When I was young me and my friends were sometimes punched in the face or had hockers spit on us and were called fags and shit like that by the older kids. It was just a thing that happened. I never did it back to the kids younger than me when I got older, but people my age did. That was the environment of the abuse, because we had no internet. Pretty much all the abuse was done in person. We all talked shit about each other too, but of course you never knew it because you weren't there and there was no electronic record of it. Now it seems the internet is the environment for most of the abuse and physical abuse is something you guys complain about less, if at all. So this old has gleaned that you aren't being beaten up any more, you are being humiliated on the internet. So while the environment/method/style has changed, there is still abuse happening to you. I get that you categorize them differently, but it is still peer to peer abuse. You guys argue that internet humiliation is worse. Those of us who were scared of being beaten up I think would have welcomed a little internet abuse instead of a punch in the face or shoe to the balls. But I conceded maybe you guys are right, maybe it is worse. I suggested just getting off the social media but was roundly mocked by smarter millennials so IDFK. :noidea:
Click to expand...

I haven't made any of those arguments, and I won't. I'm roundly separating physical abuse from verbal abuse and not comparing them. When you were growing up, gays couldn't get married and Russia was gonna blow us off the map any second.

It's a different world with different challenges. That you've largely made it more comfortable for our generation is a good thing. And there are higher priority items (at least on this millennial's agenda) than hate speech: jobs, guns, police, education, environment.

I still can't quite get behind state sponsored free hate speech. Black people have been called the N word for too long. It's not hoses, dogs, and lynch mobs today as much as badges and guns, but I get that sticks and stones are still more powerful than words. There's room for policing some speech (if not codified by law, at least by some language policing). I don't think that makes people pussies, or if it does, it's a worthwhile price to pay. I happen to feel the same way about other words, but as I said earlier, who am I to be drawing lines about what's ok and what's not?
 
And getting back to the thread topic, I wonder if pedantry in general is really the issue here. Whether we're top-down deciding to coddle students and hide them from realities of the real world or we're top-down deciding that's a bad idea, there's probably too much top down administration in general. These are a lot of administrative offices:

CMte2tVWwAE7eqA.png
 
TownieDeac said:
I haven't made any of those arguments, and I won't. I'm roundly separating physical abuse from verbal abuse and not comparing them. When you were growing up, gays couldn't get married and Russia was gonna blow us off the map any second.

It's a different world with different challenges. That you've largely made it more comfortable for our generation is a good thing. And there are higher priority items (at least on this millennial's agenda) than hate speech: jobs, guns, police, education, environment.

I still can't quite get behind state sponsored free hate speech. Black people have been called the N word for too long. It's not hoses, dogs, and lynch mobs today as much as badges and guns, but I get that sticks and stones are still more powerful than words. There's room for policing some speech (if not codified by law, at least by some language policing). I don't think that makes people pussies, or if it does, it's a worthwhile price to pay. I happen to feel the same way about other words, but as I said earlier, who am I to be drawing lines about what's ok and what's not?
Click to expand...

I think you make a good point and I really don't know where the line is. My instincts tell me that when you make words illegal you are overinflating their value. The N word is totally fucked up and is a horrible thing to say, no doubt. It's abhorrent and disgusting. That's a value that the word has, albeit a negative one. Does outlawing the use of the word neutralize that value or intensify it? I don't know.
 
WakeandBake said:
I think you make a good point and I really don't know where the line is. My instincts tell me that when you make words illegal you are overinflating their value. The N word is totally fucked up and is a horrible thing to say, no doubt. It's abhorrent and disgusting. That's a value that the word has, albeit a negative one. Does outlawing the use of the word neutralize that value or intensify it? I don't know.
Click to expand...

Words have meaning and are (typically) spoken with intent. Both parts there are important.

The black community (split on usage in-group of the n-word) has made cogent arguments that burying the word neutralizes it AND that co-opting it empowers them.

We've devalued the heft and weight of many words. Usage patterns within the American lexicon alone have been very diverse and whimsical throughout our history. It's not just this generation that has stopped using certain terms and phrases. As we come to understand more about how society interacts, we change they way we use language to describe it.
 
TenaciousKory said:
I'm arguing that cyberbullying is a distinct issue, not some watered-down form of schoolyard physical violence. It's a fact that some kids are killing themselves after suffering abuse over the Internet. A cursory Google search reveals this to be true. That would seem to make it just as important an issue as the kids getting their ass kicked on the way to school, no? Personally, I think it's worse. Forgive the poetic style, but I think this form of abuse can hang over you in ways that a fist never could.

There seems to be some confusion when we conflate the two forms of bullying/abuse, which leads to this strange view of kids becoming weaker over time. Just because you have a misguided belief that cyberbullying is a third-rate form of abuse doesn't mean that the kids who suffer from it are weaker.
Click to expand...

There is no confusion, you're just wrong.
 
Hate can be interpreted in a lot of ways. This is a F'ed up world and while there are not a ton of things that deserve true hate, there are some that do, and should be called out for it. There are also a lot more things that deserve derision and name-calling.
 
TownieDeac said:
And getting back to the thread topic, I wonder if pedantry in general is really the issue here. Whether we're top-down deciding to coddle students and hide them from realities of the real world or we're top-down deciding that's a bad idea, there's probably too much top down administration in general. These are a lot of administrative offices:

CMte2tVWwAE7eqA.png
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that a person could learn more about the realities of life by skipping a fake AFAM class than taking a real one taught by Melissa Harris-Perry.
 
TownieDeac said:
And getting back to the thread topic, I wonder if pedantry in general is really the issue here. Whether we're top-down deciding to coddle students and hide them from realities of the real world or we're top-down deciding that's a bad idea, there's probably too much top down administration in general. These are a lot of administrative offices:

CMte2tVWwAE7eqA.png
Click to expand...

Majority of women on the list. Has/Is university administration become/becoming feminized?
 
sailordeac said:
Majority of women on the list. Has/Is university administration become/becoming feminized?
Click to expand...

Yes. Women who have similar training to men across fields are more likely to go into education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top