It has become quite popular of late to refute an argument based on how severely it offends the interlocutor. Offense is put before facts and reason all too often, and it's created a sort of safety bubble for people who can't stand opposing viewpoints. This in itself might not be so bad if the action against the argument was simply willful ignorance, but the action so frequently taken now is censorship. I suppose this really isn't anything new; the Catholic church has been burning dissenters for much of its history and Muslims have been beheading people for making cartoons they don't like. The censorship that occurs now actually isn't worse at all, I don't think. It's just whinier. It's annoying. People are flocking to 'safe spaces' so that their feelings won't get hurt when someone challenges their views.
Censorship, in and of itself, is a progress stopper. When you end a conversation as soon as it becomes controversial, you back yourself into an intellectual corner. You can make no further headway in any direction. Censorship is quite possibly the largest source of human retrogression in any given field of development. Politicians refuse to cooperate, science is stalled by protesters, peace among kin is obstructed by ignorant and prideful representatives of equally ignorant and prideful populous.
However grim this sounds, I'm here to tell you that it's getting better. In the developed world, violence is no longer the 'go to' form of censorship. People are talking now. Democracy is on the rise, not the decline. Hope exists for future generations of endeavor. More and more people are abandoning their archaic beliefs, an increasing number of people are self-identifying as political independents rather than buying into one party to the detriment of compromise, and more people are thinking. More people are getting up and getting angry about the denial of free speech in purportedly democratic countries. More people are getting tired of censorship and doing something about it. Prophet I am not, but I foresee a flood of revolution coming over the horizon, and it's only a matter of time.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Can you give examples of the censorship you're speaking about?
In recent memory, the incident with Stephen Fry comes to mind. Also, blasphemy laws are still in effect in European nations like Ireland and some of Scandinavia. Also on a more personal level, conversation censorship exists among collegiate theaters. It's hard to be a conservative at a university, in all reality. At least not vocally. While I disagree with most (but not all) conservative values, I don't persecute those who hold them so vehemently as universities do. This is more of a shunning than a punishment, however. But as far as colleges, I find it ridiculous that a professor can lose their tenure for speaking their opinion on a controversial topic in a public setting.
@Jared Alesi: It's hard to be a conservative at a university
For a little while between Christian domination and rampant PC crackpottery, universities were bastions of free speech. I miss them.
You shouldn't be offensive if you're not prepared for the consequences.
i agree if the consequences u mean r people disliking u and being enraged or even being offensive back. not legally tho
Nice to see you in this thread, Isobel. Really, really nice!
thnx i really hope this isnt sarcastic lol
No! It's heartfelt and ridgey didge, as we Aussie say. I'm chuffed you're talking to us and hope you continue to do so.
oh thanks! sorry im just used to sarcasm and negativity towards me on here lol
@ Isobel
Nope, you are a rarity here, a catholic theist who doesn't just throw in a couple of comments and disappear in a cloud of catechism. We do have one other, JoC a filipino catholic who has been around quite a while. You appear to be young and eager to learn, not just impress with your ability to regurgitate fallacy after fallacy, So as Sushi said, welcome , we are happy to help you continue with your quest. It is enjoyable and most people here have been very gentle with you.
I would hazard that you have met much greater intellects here and much more knowledge than you were led to believe that those for ever damned false "atheists" could possible have. Good luck.
TM is a very gentle person should you need "protection' from the outrageous demands of intellectual rigor and both our mods are known to discipline those who overstep the mark with all members. Good luck.
@Isobel
Hey there, young lady! Nice to see you stepping out and spreading your wings a bit. Excellent. Feel free to explore and ask questions. The only way you will ever learn anything useful. *grin*
@J6
Yes, we should all be prepared for a good burning at the stake, or a thorough stoning at the gates.
You can't tell people how to react. So if you're worried, don't be offensive.
And for gawd's sake, don't pick stand up comedy as a career.
Well yeah, don't be a comic if you can't handle the reactions.
@John
Hey, John! I'm gonna hide behind you and throw rocks at random people as they pass by. Hope you don't mind. *snicker-snicker-snicker*
@ TM Dont worry, J6 will ask any cop who accosts him to define "rock" then "throw" then ask him how you can throw a rock which can only be transported by itself and its own thought processes. Then he will lie about his opinion on rocks, he will also change his opinion about lying on lying rocks.
You will never be brought to account....throw those rocks!
Error must be criticized! How else will truth emerge? Honest and reasonably courteous criticism is never a crime in any civilized society. Freedom to speak out, especially to criticize error, pompous views, and to expose corruption, is (or should be) the very corner stone of Western philosophy.
Bad ideas should always be criticized. Example of Censorship: If you argue with a store clerk you can be arrested for disturbing the peace. Cops no longer attempt to resolve the conflict. They just want to get their numbers for the month. Argue on the street with another person and you will both get arrested. Policing for profit is killing self expression in public so it is all moving to the internet.
@orignal post:
We all have societal rules on what is offensive or not. Some are enforced by the law/police, some simply by public shaming and disapproval.
Many things people consider offensive have little actual real world factual evidence reason why they are offensive.
I will agree censorship by various religions including the catholic church is a particularly harmful and dangerous form of censorship. And censorship enforced by brutal violence is especially heinous.
I also agree overall, humans have been progressing towards less censorship and more openness and communication. I would say in the US, that trend is currently towards more censorship, but that has already begun to change and may change more dramatically in the coming months/years.
I do worry we are also possibly headed into a global dark age as capitalism hurls towards its end game, something that is currently at the very least happening to great degree in the US, the country I am most familiar with. And with a global dark age, understanding, communication will give way to increased censorship and other progress limiting effects.
@LogicForTW: I do worry we are also possibly headed into a global dark age as capitalism hurls towards its end game, something that is currently at the very least happening to great degree in the US, the country I am most familiar with.
Well said! Things are really getting weird and something big is right around the corner.
@LogicForTW: I do worry we are also possibly headed into a global dark age as capitalism hurls towards its end game
That sounds a bit biblical!
For all its faults, capitalism has brought more progress and improvement in people's lives than any other system or philosophy in the history of the world. The Industrial Revolution produced working and living conditions that we'd consider dire today, but that period also coincided with dramatic improvements in life expectancy, literacy, etc. More recently, look at how living standards have risen in China, South Korea, Southeast Asia, China, and now Southwest Asia. That's all down to capitalism. Poverty is plummeting. These days it takes a really talented warlord or dictator like the Kims to keep people poor.
Capitalism is no longer unbridled. These days big companies are very focused on their environmental and social track records, in part because of socially responsible investment funds, which are getting very big indeed. And thanks to the Internet, all the dirty washing is quickly out in the open for everyone to see. So apparel firms, for example, have to be really careful about what happens in sweatshops in Pakistan.
The important thing for the future is to keep politicians' grubby little hands off capitalism. As PJ O'Rourke said, when politicians control what's bought and sold, the first things to be bought and sold are politicians.
Capitalism is proof that along with necessity and laziness, greed is the engine of innovation. This also fuels the paradox of hunting as a means of conservation. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is one of the leading organizations of conservation of elk in the world, and they do it through capitalism. Game tags are sold in small amounts to eager hunters, increasing the value of said tags. With the tags, the value of elk itself is raised, so localities that have indigenous elk populations put higher protections on the herds. Poaching decreases dramatically, ecosystems become more balanced as over-hunting dwindles, and everybody profits.
In the end, money saves the elk. Works the same way with whaling, overfishing, and any number of other endangered species.
@Jared Alesi: the value of elk itself is raised
That reminds me of the status of the kiwi in New Zealand. The kiwi is critically endangered, so the government spends a fortune protecting them, yet their numbers continue to dwindle. One of the reasons they're nearly extinct is that they live like rabbits and lay their eggs in holes in the ground. Another reason is that they really taste great. The Maori ate most of them in before the arrival of Europeans. So a politician I once knew publicly proposed farming kiwis for meat. After all, no farmed animal goes extinct.
The resulting uproar can only be described a religious fury. Endangered species are apparently holy things, like suffering saints.
Funny how paradoxes like that work. It makes sense, but is so counterintuitive.
I agree with you on all points Algebe.
Capitalism, despite all its flaws has definitely lead to improvement to everyone's lives, and can be a great thing, but only if it is reigned in so the more negative aspects of it do not win out. It certainly better than most any other form society has been able to organize around in a major way.
However, unfortunately, is the mix that has been occurring at least in the US, the largest economy the world has ever seen, where instead of the state having control of curbing the worst abuses of capitalism markets, the capitalism markets now has large control over the state instead. Citizens United and corporate personhood are some of the worst things to ever happen in accelerating this trend. Completely unfettered capitalism leads fairly quickly to near perfect inequality, (1 person controls all the wealth, everyone else controls none.) Capitalism needs powerful checks and balances, as basic human nature of greed (only takes 1 really greedy person!)
Yes, capitalism is no longer unbridled, and it never was unbridled, large companies do care about their environmental and social track records in a public way. Damage control, greenwashing, and misinformation/counter news strategies, and plain hiding, are also very effective.
An example:
Oil fracking in the US. You will read a lot about, local citizens fighting fracking companies to not drill, frack and pump oil in suburbia America. Why is there nearly countless cases of nearly every smaller town, and edges of metro area cities fighting against fracking companies? Cities and their related metro areas (more densely developed areas) only make up 3.5 percent of the land area of the US. 96.5 percent of the land is mostly or nearly completely empty of human habitation. You would think that fracking companies would have more than enough land to frack well away from human habitation corridors. That fighting the citizens, generating the bad pr, facing delays and lawsuits, that fracking companies would avoid city areas like the plague.
It comes down to money, as always. It is far cheaper to frack near people, where infrastructure and labor is already in place or very nearby.
Drilling out in the middle of nowhere requires road construction, busing of labor, transportation of lots of fracking materials to frack and eventual transportation back of fossil fuels. People get to deal with dangerous fracking activity, and its side effects in their own backyards, because it is cheaper, (capitalism!) People lose the battle against fracking companies almost universally because powerful fracking companies can strong arm the state, that is supposed to protect and carry out the will of the people.
@LogicforTW: Capitalism needs powerful checks and balances
I couldn't agree more. But politicians and bureaucrats aren't the people to provide it. Consider how many retired politicians and bureaucrats go on to lucrative careers as industry lobbyists.
I'm always amazed by the behavior of US politicians from so-called "tobacco states" and "oil states." They seem to care only about narrow, parochial, short-term gains (and campaign donations). Any politician from states that rely on either of these industries should be working with their constituents right now to rebuild their economies, because neither of these industries has a future beyond the next decade or so.
Capitalism in its purest form is extremely democratic. One share. One vote. The checks and balances need to come from shareholder organization and activism, and from socially responsible investment and consumption. Just as we get the politicians we deserve, we also get the corporations we deserve.
Many religions consider you offensive simply for not agreeing with them.
I share the OP's optimism for the future.
If a person puts forth a claim and demands consideration simply because the source is a pastor, priest, bible, koran, reverend, then a bit of offensive sarcasm is appropriate to level the playing field. This may offend the claimant, but, so what?
Offensive? Naming it GoLytely is offensive!
Those of you under 50 may not understand.
Pages