Avoiding discussion

page 1 of 1 15 total items

Cancel

- Being passive aggressive
- Avoiding conversation because you or the other person is awkward and might cry if the other person or you hurt your or the other person's feelings
- Calling art 'subjective' and completely avoiding discussion on controversies like modern art while simultaneously harboring a liking or distaste for the same
- Being 'Politically correct', which does not try not oppress the disadvantaged, merely not to offend them or 'hurt their feelings'
- 'Dislike', 'Downvote', 'Unsubscribe', 'Ban', 'Mute', 'Close thread', because the other person is a troll, is stupid, is obviously wrong, I hate him, I disagree with them but don't have a good argument, I don't want this comment at top of the thread because it's against the theme of the group.
You like posts and agree with each other in the hive mind. Facebook groups, Sub reddita, religions, it's all the same.
Contrary thoughts aren't entertained, and if they are entertained, there's a new group, religion for those views to go to! Whichever has more powerful members, wins! Ah democracy, where Socrates is put to death so righteously by the majority.
- It's 'unprofessional' to talk religion, politics, problems in life, etc. These topics affect your life and you mustn't talk them with people whom you work with for a major part of your life. Not even in casual conversation (which should be justifiably limited though)
- It has come to this now, you can only 'subscribe' to bands and TV shows and stand up comedians, ( or even politicians like Donald Trump) with whom you share your views and who have balls to talk about them publicly. But in real life while talking about these likes, you don't actually talk about why you like it, you're only like 'ohhh that guy is so funny (not that I agree to what he says, haha that'd be silly) or, oh that guy is so cool, or I support him but only ironically.

Why are we so scared to talk, sincerely and earnestly, about what we want? Yeah the previous generations were racists and loose tongued bigoted aggressors. And you're doing right not to be like that. But 'not doing' it doesn't mean at all 'not discussing' it, whether it is right or wrong, whether there's a third option, maybe the fault lies a bit in both parties, maybe more in one party than the other and it's ok.
I think it's because we're too scared to be 'wrong'. Because being wrong had traditionally meant being punishable. And of course punishment is justified, but for actions. Not for thoughts!

When you punish others for thoughts, you tell yourself that you too are liable to be punished for harboring any punishable thoughts, and of course you always harbour some controversial thought. Sometimes it is a thought worth discussing, a thought worth changing the notion of right and wrong.
But you're too afraid. Because you hadn't treated someone else's thoughts as fairly in the past, you had punished the stupid kid in the class with your mockery, instead of correcting him with your empathy.

Can we stop doing this please? Maybe let the casual talk go beyond the smalltalk of sports and passive endorsement of ideas, can we not be more earnest with each other, and 'talk' for real?

UberDog

UberDog

Infinite Wubz...

Cancel

Last time I talked about serious stuff on this site my words were edited from higher powers as to try to make me look as if I was talking crazy. When I called them out for doing this I got a warning...so I am not sure if you want to crack open those doors that shed light on real discussion over the common everyday chit chat as it might lead to possible unwanted consequences. If you do choose to tread in those waters I only say that you have been given fair warning as to possible repercussions. I suggest that you may want to screen capture any serious conversations on this site as it will help insure that you and the members that you are conversing with will have some moderate level of protection as to what was truly spoken. Well that's my two cents on the matter...best of luck.

Knowledge and Time are the Keys to Wisdom.Signature Image

Cancel

That's a worrying comment. I hope whoever did that has matured over time, or maybe can maybe provide a better argument against controversial speech.

I think the only place where it can be somewhat reasonable is when using against hate speech, that drives one or two extremists to act horribly based on their interpretation of the speech.

But this one seemingly justifiable scenario creeps beyond its scope and crosses into and stifle conversation like the original post mentioned.

I think we need to define a boundary of acceptable stifling to solve this

angelxxuan

angelxxuan

ぬいぐるみ !

Cancel

nope, they have not matured any. hate speech, well, let's face it, some countries it's allowed it's called first amendment rights, whereas, let's look at the other countries, where you are killed. so, maybe, in the end, people need to get out of their "safe zones" and toughen their skins up. in other words, put your big girl panties on and deal with it. people are going to be the way they are, trying to force people to edit themselves is just going to cause more anger issues and frustration, let alone "trolling" people on opposite opinions than yourself. people aren't always racist and bigots for believing differently, so a "meet in the middle" would be a good start to clear the air. I haven't changed and I won't change, there's nothing wrong with the things I share, get thicker skin and people can grow up better than being forever trapped in an emo existence. just stating facts and some opinions in there. these terms and the likes can be fact checked via search the net as well.

Undertaker:Kuroshitsuji: How sad it would be, should laughter disappear.


Signature
	Image

pandemonium91

Retired Moderator, Tagger

pandemonium91

Lazy af

Cancel

You bring up a fair point when it comes to subreddits; it's very easy to get caught in an echo chamber on that site. It's also easy to find subreddits where discussion is encouraged. It's natural to want to hang out in places that reflect one's worldviews, but that doesn't ensure a great deal of growth in terms of objectivity.

However, forcing people to "edit" themselves is the law, to some extent. You can go outside and shout that your country's government sucks and that you're going to blow yourself up, but that doesn't mean you won't get a beatdown and have your ass dragged to the police station. You can also call a black person a "nigger", but that doesn't guarantee you won't be missing some teeth by the time you're done talking. Anyone with half a brain will know to avoid that for their own self-preservation, if not due to basic decency.

Using "get a thicker skin" as an excuse to be an asshole is just that. I've seen people insult others, then turn around and claim they were being "honest". You can tell your boss that their hair or clothes look awful because that's the truth, right? Of course, some people do have the tendency to be overly sensitive and always eager to get offended.

Also, it's amusing that you two are trying to encourage someone to avoid discussion in a topic specifically against that ("watch what you say or you'll be bunned").
Likewise, it looks like there's an issue that's being avoided, and a lot of defensiveness out of the blue. Care to mention specifically what that is?

Want to help out with tagging? (Of course you do!) See these: Tag admin thread | Guidelines | Tag-licious

angelxxuan

angelxxuan

ぬいぐるみ !

Cancel

well if black people can call other black people nigger and not get upset, what's the deal with white using the word in the same fashion? seen some wannabes want to use the word to call another white person that. it's just a word after all, being insulted by a word is a thin skin problem. toughen up and deal with the fact people are going to use words that could be hurtful and fly pieces of cloth that could also be troublesome. it's the world, we all got the issues, the sooner people realize that, and the sooner people start to ignore instead of force a law, the better. people will stop using and being mean, forcing people into a 1984 situation will only make matters worse. case in point, america.

can't make the world happy, telling people to sit inside a bubble is just as bad as allowing people to play fully and do whatever they feel like doing. if it feels good just do it, is a stupid thing and causes more trouble than it's worth. insults happen, people complain and forget what they were complaining about or they just stress over the most stupid of things. chances are, if those clothes make you look like something, then stop wearing said clothes when someone mentions it, or not wear them to begin with...just saying and opinion sort of thing...

Undertaker:Kuroshitsuji: How sad it would be, should laughter disappear.


Signature
	Image

UberDog

UberDog

Infinite Wubz...

Cancel

Could someone please direct me to the nearest "safe zone" here at MT...I feel bad things a coming.

Knowledge and Time are the Keys to Wisdom.Signature Image

pandemonium91

Retired Moderator, Tagger

pandemonium91

Lazy af

Cancel

Quote by angelxxuanwell if black people can call other black people nigger and not get upset, what's the deal with white using the word in the same fashion?

Apparently (can't claim to have a definite answer) it's more common to say "nigga", which is akin to "bro", "friend". "Nigger" is demeaning and a racial slur.
I won't get into specifics because I really don't have enough insight into black culture to make a definite statement. The above is context clues.
Sure, words have as much weight as you give them. Don't understand your "America" part of the comment, care to elaborate?

Quote by angelxxuanchances are, if those clothes make you look like something, then stop wearing said clothes when someone mentions it, or not wear them to begin with...

But the clothes are a matter of opinion. What if your boss likes those clothes? Are you going to tell them to change because you don't like them? We return to policing and attempting to dictate others' opinions and behavior because we don't like them.

Quote by UberDogCould someone please direct me to the nearest "safe zone" here at MT...I feel bad things a coming.

You need a safe zone?

Also, still skirting around naming that issue, I see. So far you're the only ones who've been censoring themselves...

Want to help out with tagging? (Of course you do!) See these: Tag admin thread | Guidelines | Tag-licious

Cancel

Quote by angelxxuan nope, they have not matured any. hate speech, well, let's face it, some countries it's allowed it's called first amendment rights, whereas, let's look at the other countries, where you are killed. so, maybe, in the end, people need to get out of their "safe zones" and toughen their skins up. in other words, put your big girl panties on and deal with it. people are going to be the way they are, trying to force people to edit themselves is just going to cause more anger issues and frustration, let alone "trolling" people on opposite opinions than yourself. people aren't always racist and bigots for believing differently, so a "meet in the middle" would be a good start to clear the air. I haven't changed and I won't change, there's nothing wrong with the things I share, get thicker skin and people can grow up better than being forever trapped in an emo existence. just stating facts and some opinions in there. these terms and the likes can be fact checked via search the net as well.


I agree with what you're saying, but asking people to 'toughen up' seems like alienating them, insted of empathizing with them while attempting to challenge their views. A bit off topic: Toughen up is what you can say after the other party has agreed to your views but feels it won't be able to accept them. But it shouldn't be used as an argument to make them agree the point being discussed.

merged: 05-17-2016 ~ 07:46am

Please note: examples that have bearing upon the current subject are appreciated but beyond a level of detail, they become less relevant to this topic and deserve a thread of their own. So PMs or new threads might be more suitable to pursue specific cases in detail.

Monu-chan

Moderator

Monu-chan

Out of Reach

Cancel

Quote by TheCompiler I think it's because we're too scared to be 'wrong'. Because being wrong had traditionally meant being punishable. And of course punishment is justified, but for actions. Not for thoughts!
When you punish others for thoughts, you tell yourself that you too are liable to be punished for harboring any punishable thoughts, and of course you always harbour some controversial thought. Sometimes it is a thought worth discussing, a thought worth changing the notion of right and wrong.

Yes we're scared to be wrong. We're selfish people, we're scared that discussing that will hurt our or other party's feeling, beliefs etc.

Why we or I (because I can't be sure of others 100℅) avoids discussing such is that I'm afraid what people think of me, (please don't tell me other's opinion doesn't matter! because I know it matters!) we're living among those people and can't possibly avoid them all the time, it'll be too childish to avoid someone because he/she has hurt your feelings.

As for religion, I don't understand whole concept of religion, is it to make people mentally strong because by worshipping certain entity they'll feel psychologically strong? or is it to force others to follow them or to discourage/fight with those who follow other religion?
I think it's really okay (and good too!) to follow a religion but it doesn't mean you shouldn't consider other's religion. No one is asking for giving you respect towards others' religion but no one is encouraging you to badmouth/discourage other's too, right?

Ahh racism, black and white people. I do really think we all are Homo sapiens right? regardless of color or language or religion. It's totally okay to call a white person white and black, black. But it's not at all good to insult/hurt anyone by calling them in disgusted way. Yes, words are words. But how to put them, with emotions makes difference, am I right?

there's another topic people tend to avoid in my place; Homosexuality. And many people don't even understand it correctly. Is a guy saying "Wow that guy is hell sexy" means he's a gay? or interested in becoming one? I don't think so. But yeah some people do think like that. Some people judge others based on knowing a little bit about them. And can be harsh too.
Speaking of myself if I say that I find male body more attractive means am I a gay/bisexual? I am not! (it's because female body feels alienated to me) but people will think that. They'll doubt my gender/sexuality. And of course I'm afraid what they'll think of me. I can try avoid talking with them but definitely can't avoid their stare. I'm afraid I might get hurt for something that's based on what others think. So I prefer not talking about them at all.

In the end, most of us are afraid to discuss such topics, because we're selfish, we're afraid of being hurt. We all are not ready to consider other's opinion all the time. That's why we avoid discussing such topics.

As the Light begins to intensify, so does my misery,
and I wonder how it is possible to hurt so much when nothing is wrong.
Signature Image

Cancel

Quote by pandemonium
Pandemonium= P
TheCompiler= TC


P: However, forcing people to "edit" themselves is the law, to some extent.
TC: I don't quite.. But isn't all speech 'edit'ed then.. But then what are we talking about.. Hm.. Alright, so all speech is filtered/edited thoughts, sure, got a bit distracted with that. But what I'm talking here is whether it is justifiable to restrict expression of thoughts at all. The key word here is 'expression', because killing someone is an expression of ideas, and so is disliking, unsubscribing, etc. which are the things I'm being against here. But at the same time I'm supporting other forms of expression like earnest speech. So how to differentiate them- some form of expression like killing, disliking, often restrict expressions of ideas from the recipients of these expressions. At the same time, it adds or removes absolutely nothing to the subject and your opinion on it which you're expressing. This is the bad form. And the exact opposite is the good form.
Now that I've established a good definition of what I'm talking about-
I don't think law forces people to edit the latter type of expression. Please pm me what I said wasn't too clear. Because I'm going to base the rest of my comment on that.
---
P: You can go outside and shout that your country's government sucks and that you're going to blow yourself up,
TC: That sentence went from 1 to 10 real fast!
---
P: but that doesn't mean you won't get a beatdown and have your ass dragged to the police station.
TC: saying that the government sucks is a good form expression, and I don't know how it is justifiable to restrict it. Blowing yourself up is a bad form expression as it ends not only the subject at hand but also many many others. So it is well justified to be restricted by most stringent means. And yet, I say, if you say you're going to blow yourself up 'someday', it's still an alarming sentence, but I'd say it classifies as a good form expression as you're not really restricting anyone and people can attempt to change your view. Of course if you don't agree without a good counter argument and decide on doing it anyway, they it becomes a bad form.
---
P: You can also call a black person a "nigger", but that doesn't guarantee you won't be missing some teeth by the time you're done talking. Anyone with half a brain will know to avoid that for their own self-preservation, if not due to basic decency.
TC: This is an exception. Because I feel it is a kind of law that imposes a restriction deliberately, which normally wouldn't be put on a normal person. So just like locking someone in a room is never justifiable unless done as a week justified and deserved 'punishment' imposed by law (I'm talking about jail). Whether or not it is a deserved and justified punishment imposed on white people by the society is a topic for another thread. Let's not discuss that here, it's not relevant.
---
P: Using "get a thicker skin" as an excuse to be an asshole is just that. I've seen people insult others, then turn around and claim they were being "honest".
TC: But that's just one case. In this case, the person who insults is
1. often an immature rather than a malicious person. They are both earnest and honest, but they simply lack the.. skill to express/grasp thoughts well - just poor communication skills. Two things you can do here: if you have time, forgive and try to teach that person something about communication. If you don't have time, forgive and forget. Both imply getting a thicker skin, can't be helped, I'm afraid, but it doesn't justify stifling their speech, just let em know their problem and wait till they mature.
2. Sometimes, the intentions are malicious, they want the other person to shut up or talk wrong in anger, that means, to end the subject in their favor. This is just another case of bad form expression. Not justified, must be stopped. No forgive and forget here.
3. I forgot the third case while typing the first two....
---
P: Also, it's amusing that you two are trying to encourage someone to avoid discussion in a topic specifically against that ("watch what you say or you'll be bunned").
Likewise, it looks like there's an issue that's being avoided, and a lot of defensiveness out of the blue. Care to mention specifically what that is?
TC: I think any further discussion on this would be more suitable in PM or GB instead of this thread. It's not too relevant here. I apologize if I hadn't established the context of the thread well enough in the original post.

Quote by Monu-chan
Monu: M
Me: T


M: We're selfish people,
T: I think the text you quoted justifies that even the self interests more than the avoidant approach. But, I hadn't thought of your point of view (below). To be clear, I had assumed, we are convinced that such avoidance (especially the negative forms- disliking, banning killing) is somewhat justified, which I'm countering. But I interpret your below views as follows: though we're convinced that avoidance, especially the negative forms that I mentioned is completely unjustified and you'd never do that. But at the same time, you'll continue to subscribe to more positive forms of avoidance like 'liking a comment but not really taking about it', 'saying indirectly that you support some view by saying you like some tv series or comedian, etc' but not directly saying it. And that is so because as you say-

M: we're scared that discussing that will hurt our or other party's feeling, beliefs etc.
Why we avoid discussing such is that I'm afraid what people think of me, we're living among those people and can't possibly avoid them all the time.
T: You've got me there.. I too wouldn't indulge in the negative form restriction, but I can't assume everyone would do what I do! This forces me to adapt a more dishonest approach of positive avoidance. And that's such a pain. Actually I realise now that this is exactly made me frustrated enough to post the original rant post. Maybe somehow if I can slowly make people stop doing this one post a time... But it won't do to be so defeatist, you gotta take at least some risk by not caring about opinions 'whenever reasonably less risky' instead of never altogether.

M: as for religion....but it doesn't mean you shouldn't consider other's religion. No one is asking for giving you respect towards others' religion but no one is encouraging you to badmouth/discourage other's too, right?
T: it's fine if you mean forcing to like or hate a religion is bad. But I'm not sure if it's bad to 'discuss' liking or hating a religion. Or else, it's just avoiding the discussion of what affects you. Yeah it's risky and sensitive, but it's certainly not wrong to talk about it.

M: Ahh racism, ... Yes, words are words. But how to put them, with emotions makes difference, am I right?
T: good point! Context is a big part of what you're saying. A white person saying the n word is not the same message as a black person saying nigga even though both say the exact same thing.

M: there's another topic people tend to avoid in my place; Homosexuality. And many people don't even understand it ..... And of course I'm afraid what they'll think of me. I can try avoid talking with them but definitely can't avoid their stare. I'm afraid I might get hurt for something that's based on what others think. So I prefer not talking about them at all.
T: This is a bit off topic but, if someone is seriously hating because of that, then you gotta talk with that person man, preferably with enough power on your side to discourage any aggression from their side. This seems more like a problem of misinterpretation.

pandemonium91

Retired Moderator, Tagger

pandemonium91

Lazy af

Cancel

I feel that it's important to specify whether we're discussing freedom of speech under a democracy or a dictatorship. I defaulted to democracy.
I also referred to people expressing opinions knowing fully well the consequences they have. No "I accidentally insulted someone" situations.
Also, I'm working with concrete examples to avoid overly abstract discussion, as it is very easy and dangerous to generalize. This is a very interesting topic you've brought up and I'm enjoying all the pro and against arguments! :)

Of course, all speech is edited, I agree with you there. You constantly filter out what you say to your parents, your friends, your superiors (law, boss, parents etc.), and strangers. You restrict the expression of your opinions based on whom you're communicating them to. Even if you hate cops, for example, you're not going to run up to one and start insulting them, right? And if you hate your teacher, you aren't going to call them a bitch to their face.

Restricting your own opinions is a matter of self-preservation and selecting the most favorable situation. Will telling my boss that I think his new tie is ugly benefit me (boss will thank me and think better of me), or will it turn out badly (boss likes his tie, gets pissed that I criticized it)? Will telling my friend that I hate her haircut, which she likes, be good or bad for our relationship? Is it worth expressing my true opinion in these cases?

However, freedom of speech =/= freedom of consequences. Expressing your opinion =/= being absolved of the consequences of your words. Again, you can yell out all you want that women are bitches or that black people are subhuman niggers if you believe that, but it won't stop others from taking offense at your words and acting accordingly.
I will note that you can't have absolute freedom of speech with exceptions, it would be a contradiction.

Quote by TheCompilerBut what I'm talking here is whether it is justifiable to restrict expression of thoughts at all. [...] [claiming you're going to blow yourself up "someday"] classifies as a good form expression as you're not really restricting anyone and people can attempt to change your view

Like you noted, an important difference is that while most democratic countries allow for freedom of expression (for example, yelling out loud that you hate your country), they also allow you to say it without the negative consequences of living under a dictatorship. Consequences like being tortured and having your whole family imprisoned/tortured/killed because you said you hate your government.
Maybe blowing oneself up was a poor example as it's a decision born from an opinion, not an opinion in itself.

Imprisoning someone is not (usually) done to censor their opinions; it's (usually) done to keep other people safe. Unless we're counting dictatorships.

Some questions:
1. Are you advocating free expression of opinions from a legal standpoint, or from a moral one? Because insulting a policeman has legal consequences, while insulting your mom doesn't (unless she decides to sue you, but IDK enough about that).
2. (though maybe not directly related to the topic of the thread) what do you think about joking about taboo/sensitive topics? For example, 9/11, rape, murder, illegal acts against animals or kids etc. In some cases, people may censor themselves (like not telling rape jokes around a rape victim, or dead baby jokes around someone who's recently had a miscarriage).

Quote by Monu-chanAs for religion, I don't understand whole concept of religion, is it to make people mentally strong because by worshipping certain entity they'll feel psychologically strong? or is it to force others to follow them or to discourage/fight with those who follow other religion?

As I understand it, it's more about the mental comfort of having someone to look out for you. In times of stress, some people may think that human capabilities aren't enough; for example, praying for someone to make it through a difficult surgery after the medical team has done their best but the patient isn't stable yet.
Religion as a tool of mass control is another matter entirely.

Want to help out with tagging? (Of course you do!) See these: Tag admin thread | Guidelines | Tag-licious

Cancel

P: I feel that it's important to specify whether we're discussing freedom of speech under a democracy or a dictatorship. I defaulted to democracy.
T: I'm considering both. I'm talking about this in a global context. The less the exceptions the better the argument.

P: I also referred to people expressing opinions knowing fully well the consequences they have. No "I accidentally insulted someone" situations.
Also, I'm working with concrete examples to avoid overly abstract discussion, as it is very easy and dangerous to generalize.
T: cool, examples and thought experiments are awesome.

P: This is a very interesting topic you've brought up and I'm enjoying all the pro and against arguments! :)
T: Nice to know :)

P: Of course, all speech is edited, I agree with you there. You constantly filter out what you say to your parents, your friends, your superiors (law, boss, parents etc.), and strangers. You restrict the expression of your opinions based on whom you're communicating them to. Even if you hate cops, for example, you're not going to run up to one and start insulting them, right? And if you hate your teacher, you aren't going to call them a bitch to their face.
T: Right, I here assume that people use best 'manner' of expression, thus excluding cases of miscommunication, immature way of communication like calling your teacher a bitch instead of using better words to express some complaint. I'm focusing more on the expressions themselves and not their manner of expression.
Manner of expression will be the main theme of this comment.

P: Restricting your own opinions is a matter of self-preservation and selecting the most favorable situation. Will telling my boss that I think his new tie is ugly benefit me (boss will thank me and think better of me), or will it turn out badly (boss likes his tie, gets pissed that I criticized it)? Will telling my friend that I hate her haircut, which she likes, be good or bad for our relationship? Is it worth expressing my true opinion in these cases?
T: I'd say, in current thread's context, I'll tell my boss without considering the consequences. As we have established that the tie sucks(or anything more serious for that matter as long as it's relevant to work) he should objectively consider your opinion and deal with it.

P: However, freedom of speech =/= freedom of consequences. Expressing your opinion =/= being absolved of the consequences of your words.
T: Good point. It's certainly true for 'speech', and 'expression' is even a more general term which also encompasses blowing yourself up to make a statement. But I don't think it applies to 'conveying ideas precisely'. Let me explain-
- Not all expressions have consequences. If you design your expression keeping in mind the person you're talking to, the social background and all, (it's a little less tough that it seems, because most of it we know by common sense, like you can say someone is not good at something instead of calling them useless- Useless, idiot, retard, bitch, etc. are words that have along with their pure intended meanings, other associated connotations that are linked to them in our brains inseparably right from the childhood. This can have sophisticated forms like hearing nigger from a black guy doesn't feel bad but hearing it from a white guy does, and from other races it's a bit confusing)
- many people who support freedom of speech often confuse it to mean freedom of impoliteness. Being impolite is an action, you act on the listener directly by being impolite without the listener's permission. This is a very subtle action, so some people, people who are more empathetic or with 'thick skin', would let a rude remark or two pass while focusing instead on what you meant (very useful in debates). But yes, it's an unsolicited and hence an 'imposed' action to speak too loosely. This makes it (very subtly) a bad form expression which I defined in previous comment.
- These are the borderline cases which is what makes freedom of conveying ideas so controversial. People who wrongly support it are those who say being rude is fine. Isn't. People who oppose it wrongly associate rude/impolite/bad form expressions with the good form ones and then call the whole bulk bad, mostly for selfish purposes.
So I think, properly conveying your opinions have absolutely no consequences by definition and it is possible to convey any opinion in this manner to a mature sensible person, and even to an immature one but that might take some efforts knowing that person beforehand.

P: I will note that you can't have absolute freedom of speech with exceptions, it would be a contradiction.
T: I believe I have convinced you that it can indeed be the case? A thing I'd like to clarify here is, by 'being polite' i don't mean being 'nice'. You can tell the girl exactly what you mean to say exactly when you call her a bitch and tell it to her till she gets what you mean as surely as her being. But you have to do that without using the imposing word: bitch, because the word does stuff you don't really want it to do (which is why we rarely use 'bitch' to refer to a female dog these days outside jokes)
If you still don't agree, I'll have to request an example that shows it is justifiable to expect consequences for the act of conveying ideas.

P: Like you noted, an important difference is that while most democratic countries allow for freedom of expression, they also allow you to say it without the negative consequences of living under a dictatorship.
T: Even monu talked about retaliatory consequences. I'm talking not about whether it is 'wise' to say whatever you want (properly). I'm saying it is unambiguously and always 'right' to do it. And in the long run, what's right is what ends up being considered wise.. after many.. centuries..

P: Imprisoning someone is not (usually) done to censor their opinions; it's (usually) done to keep other people safe. Unless we're counting dictatorships.
T: Yes, but I think censoring opinions can be a punishment itself and can be justifiably imposed, even in very liberal democracies. And I do not believe censoring opinions can keep anyone safe at all(reasons above), if a law or government does so, it is plain wrong.

P: Some questions:
1. Are you advocating free expression of opinions from a legal standpoint, or from a moral one? Because insulting a policeman has legal consequences, while insulting your mom doesn't (unless she decides to sue you, but IDK enough about that).
T: Moral.

P: 2. (though maybe not directly related to the topic of the thread) what do you think about joking about taboo/sensitive topics? For example, 9/11, rape, murder, illegal acts against animals or kids etc. In some cases, people may censor themselves (like not telling rape jokes around a rape victim, or dead baby jokes around someone who's recently had a miscarriage).
T: You have to be a damn good comedian to be able to joke about it the right way, there is a limit to how eloquent one can be when even hearing the word rape would trigger such unpleasant emotions that it's not possible to listen. Joking is not like insulting, but it can be if you're not good at it. Like if you make a really funny statement, it overrules the negative connotations of the words you use.
Actually, this is what makes jokes one of the few things that can allow you to get away with being rude, provided you are really funny enough (some like jimmy carr make it meta by being funny because he's rude).
https://youtu.be/YnyC2-51tQs <- i think this is a great example of that where Patrice talks against gay people but he makes good points in a way amusing enough.

jakuro

jakuro

殁 4 LIFE

Cancel

I try to drum up conversation when anyone I see that is generally active ^^ a lot of the time I get no response but alot of the time I make a new friend or acquaintance. Just remember to message your MT friends, they are on your list for a reason. Even if its just hey, how are you!

Signature
	Image
::wake up in a dying world looking like the antidote::

Cancel

talking for real is just sharing your feelings and dreams.. and of course what you hope for or worry about. sometimes i avoid talking 2 people who make the conversation 2 difficult. i would rather end a nice talk happier than when it started or at least a bit wiser without getting a headache from well just too much talk and too little solutions. i avoid talking 2 people who leave me with negative feelings or who won't look at the opposite side of an issue.. still if we never talk things over we can never learn 2 get along or understand each other, right?

page 1 of 1 15 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.