"I'm allowed to have my opinion"

Everyone's entitled to hold any opinion they want regarding whatever issue they want (except in places like China and such, but who cares about China?). However, no one is entitled to have their opinions respected. If you throw one of your opinions out there, you gotta be ready to face potential criticism, mockery, arguments etc. Someone saying, for example, that your opinion that black people are the missing link is stupid, or that you're a racist for holding such an opinion (which would both be factual statements regarding someone who would hold such an opinion, IMO), is in no way interfering with your right to hold whatever opinion you want.

---------- Post added 14th Dec 2013 at 03:25 PM ----------

Amazing! In two consecutive paragraphs you manage to contradict yourself. If organizing a boycott is "an abuse of the freedoms given to us by the countries we live in," then couldn't you say that hate speech is an abuse of freedom of speech? Why defend one, but not the other (a rhetorical question, obviously)?

You're also making a truly perverse oversimplification here: "boycott and blacklist someone just because they have an opinion contrary to yours." As if people were getting boycotted for thinking green is a prettier color than orange (or as if boycotts are usually about what opinions people hold). Who do you think you're fooling?

 

Them saying that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural isn't an opinion, it is ignorance. It is a fact that it's natural, it is seen in animals in the wild.
As for wrong, that's more up to their twisted morality if they think love is bad..

 

I didn't say hate speech was a good thing, if you read what I wrote correctly (assuming your English comprehension is up to par). Someone is completely free to perform their childish boycotts and blacklisting as well as childish hate speech. Is that easy to comprehend.

Take a step back and look at what I wrote. I have experienced, time and again, people who are adverse to other's opinions (even if they didn't do anything but voice their opinion!) go to extreme lengths to make that person's life miserable.

I remember reading an article about a goth girl who got kicked in the face by her boyfriend. You know what happened? Almost the entire internet world on Livejournal came to her defense and decried her boyfriend. However! This goth girl also made the comment that she didn't like immigration. Next thing you know, Livejournal (as well as other places) came out in force to demonise her, even going to the lengths to making fun of her for getting her face kicked.

Do you see my problem? Do you understand it? Is it too complicated?

It's their belief and they're free to believe as they are.

 

There need to be limits to freedom of speech. No Fascist should be able to go to print, nor should they be allowed public rallies. I like the German laws against Fascism; no tolerance for hate-speech is absolutely mandatory in a civilised society.

Racial supremacy and disgusting misogyny and homophobia do not qualify as mere freedom of speech and expression.

 

There's a difference between having an opinion an argument and straight forwards being discriminatory.
Hate speeches are unproductive. Same goes for religious points of views, be them atheist or theist. By preaching something, you aren't expressing your opinion, you are actively trying to influence someone else's via an argument. Which is no longer solely an opinion.
I was always taught if you haven't got something nice to say, keep it to yourself.
Now that doesn't impact your basic rights, that doesn't stop you from having an opinion or thinking the way you do, that prevents others from getting hurt.
At the end lf the day it's down to who's the better person.

 

My comprehension of English is certainly superior to your writing skills (as well as to your ability to comprehend real life issues, apparently - there's nothing inherently childish about either boycotts or hate speech).

Relevance? This is certainly not an example of a boycott, so I assume you're attempting to exemplify blacklisting? Dramatic much? The above situation is not blacklisting. You're also basically using the word "opinion" as an euphemism now.

Yes, I do understand what YOUR problem is. It's that you're attempting to talk about things which you do not understand.

 

Even if you're a f***ing moron, I'll hear you out and listen to what you have to say, but I'm going to call you an idiot when you're done.

 

This. Homophobia will definitely go away with time- it's happened before and it can happen again. Same with transphobia. Telling people that their opinion is wrong will just lead to everyone throwing ad hominems at each other.

 

To add to my previous message: The girl above didn't receive backslash because she "just expressed her opinion," she received backslash because she (most likely) spewed a racist rant about how "foreigners are ruining the country," or other nonsense. Regardless, if she didn't want a reaction from others, she shouldn't have expressed her views in a public forum.

 

People who hate are entitled to their opinion. That doesn't mean I have to like it, nor does it negate the fact that destructive opinions end up hurting people.

It boils down to this: the opinion that gays should have equal rights doesn't marginalize anyone, whereas the one that they shouldn't, does. People with opinions that oppress others should work to change that opinion.

 

It's funny that you mention ad hominems, since this whole statement is a a fallacy itself (i.e. it's a non sequitur). An opinion can objectively be wrong, especially when it concerns factual issues (e.g. you can hold the opinion that alcohol isn't flammable, but that doesn't change the fact that it is). Also, how do you think homophobia has waned over time? By magic?

 

Right to have an opinion doesn't include the right to not be called out for being an asshole.

 

Except that it's totally necessary to point out incorrect opinions. There is basically no matter where it's "just an opinion" in political discussions. There's a world beyond the hypothetical discussions about rights and the "greater good" (read: what benefits mainly or only the already-powerful). So what is apparently distant and not really important will affect a lot of people very negatively or positively, because it exists outside of "philosophising" (another abused term for the powerful to deny the humanity and needs of others).

That said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But they're not entitled to their own facts, and their right to an opinion ends when it is contrary to the safety and the rights of others.

 

People are free to say what they do and please, the problem is they like to have a chance to knock down our opinion and just see a conversation of gay rights as stupid and idiotic and whatever opinion we have of them goes through one ear and through and goes out another

 

I actually enjoy talking to people that disagree with me, as long as they don't tell me I, as a person, am bad. Going to Catholic school, I love debating over abortion laws. I stop as soon as things threaten to disrespect other people, and not their opinions.
For example, Me: I am pro-choice. Classmate: I don't agree with that, amd I think abortion is murder. This conversation is acceptable and non-offensive.
The other day, a conversation went mor like this- Me: I am pro-choice. Classmate: You horrible person! How can you even look at yourself without disgust!?!

That conversation struck a nerve, and it crossed a line.

The same goes for the gay marriage debate. If I say I am for marriage equality, then if I get a disrespectful response that targets me, then I think the conversation becomes a free-for-all, where I can say anything so long as it doesn't break any rules (for example, cussing)

 

Ah but this isn't non-offensive. Saying that they have the right to dictate what someone does with their own body is still offensive. Especially if they're male. Personal insults are horrible, yes, but the very premise of the argument treats the matter as something hypothetical and not for the relevant people to decide (with their own body and future at stake).

If politeness means being able to argue for inhumane and degrading practices, just without swearing or personal insults (despite it being still "polite" to say a multitude of horrible things) then politeness can get stuffed.

 

Wow. Just- wow. This is not freedom of speech at all. That is controlled speech. Freedom of speech isn't free unless it's all free. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Ah, right. My mom's an English teacher with a Master's Degree who taught me perfect English all my life yet I don't have good writing skills. Right.

Didn't I just say, above, that both boycotts and hate speech based on someone else's opinion were childish? Why do you have to act like such a spoilt brat?

No, it's not an example of a boycott, if that wasn't obvious. It was an example of a group of people attacking a girl because she gave an opinion on something.

I'm not using it as a euphemism but would you be so kind as to tell me what you believe I'm using it as a euphemism of? Because I'm certainly unaware that I was using it as a euphemism. :rolle:

No, it's your problem. You're the one wanting to tell people what they can and can't say because of your 'feelings'.

Let me tell you this- if you want to live in a place where people are limited in what they can and can't say, go live in a communism country. I'm sure you'd fit right in with the politically indoctrinated masses.

Ha. I knew you'd say something like that. It just proves that people like you want to control other people and enslave their minds to your political dogma. I'm really afraid for the future.

 

I am sorry to have shocked you. I hope this will not come between us. I'm not being intentionally inflammatory or controversial here. I'm saying what I sincerely think after carefully considering my opinion. I hope that what follows won't offend you or anyone else, but I want to launch into a long explanation of this in the hopes it will clarify my political theory for you all. As stern and extreme sounding as it may be, it is informed by love and compassion for myself and everyone around me. So here goes.

I should make it clear here that I'm not advocating anyone break the law. That's merely a practical consideration. I am not saying we should follow the law because I think it's just (it's not, and the foundation of liberal society is flawed, but that's another conversation). I'm saying we should follow the law because in an oppressive society, we need to keep as many of our activists out of jail as possible.

In the context of this conversation, I think it's important that I define two concepts here: that of free speech (as it's legalistically defined) and political speech (and its implications.) Free speech, as provided in the First Amendment means "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Particularly enumerated, together with the specific mention of petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, it meant to be a perfect protection of political speech (to be clarified in a moment). At no point does that First Amendment command individuals or private institutions not to visit consequences on those whose speech they disagree with. The US criminal code, tort law, and state criminal law might have something to say about specific actions we may take regarding individuals we disagree with, but as a direct result of the US doctrine of free speech, there is actually no constraint saying people can't take action independent of the State if they really hate what someone is saying.

That notion, that the most someone can do is ignore the person or call him a jerk, is a dangerous application of folk constitutionalism and not implied by the original doctrine. Remember, freedom of association is another right that we all have as human beings. People have specifically invoked it here in almost all of their responses, saying "I'd walk away," "I'd ignore them," or "I'd call them an asshole." The only thing that has gotten me into hot water (one user even likened my advocacy to a child throwing a tantrum) is my advocacy that we do exactly what all of you have been saying, on a massive and coordinated scale.

The only reason I can think that people are coming up with worries is precisely because those tactics might be effective, and they appear to have a very coercive character. To be sure, they do have a coercive character, and that's precisely the point. If a business owner pisses me off, I can simply take my business elsewhere. Yet every time the LGBT community gets pissed off about something and does a boycott (which is the same thing writ large), there's this massive internal debate about whether boycotts are even appropriate or if they amount to censorship or a kind of coercive behavior that should disqualify you from polite society as a wacko. "Real change," we're told, comes slowly and from education, not forcing people to reimagine their social relationships. Nevermind that this is a completely ahistorical view of how change actually happens, it hamstrings our activists in the here and now.

In summary, as a matter of fact, no the law doesn't constrain us from visiting social sanction on the hateful, and our belief that it does, or that there's a moral requirement that we refrain from doing so is very worrisome.

Second, I want to define political speech, but first, I need to say something about the character of the political. Politics is a clash of debates which ultimately affect public policy. To break it down even more, it is speech which attempts to maintain or to redirect the violent force of the State. Furthermore, I would argue that what people say--particularly prejudicial things that they say--evince an underlying political view. If someone calls me a "faggot" or says "gays are disgusting," then I can be sure that person wants to direct the violent force of the State against me. At the very least, he wants me excluded from the institution of marriage, which means that he has a direct desire to harm my economic interests. Any other sexist microaggression or hate speech falls into that category. We're now out of the realm of fun and games. We're dealing with people who want to hurt us.

So what we're saying, in effect, when we say the most we can say is "stop you meanie face," is that it's immoral, if not illegal to fight back in any meaningful way against people who want to do us harm, and who, at any rate, deny our humanity.

And it is this denial of humanity by the oppressor that I think poses a special problem for liberals. The respected political philosopher John Rawls grappled with this question in his essay "Tolerance of the Intolerant." He concluded ultimately that "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." In other words, only when the enemies are actually at the gates should we fight back.

To try and make this point clear, I want to bring up the Cable Street Riot. Oswald Mosley was a fascist operating around the same time as Adolf Hitler. He was based in the UK, and was a complete Hitler copy-cat in like everything. Hitler had his brownshirts. Mosley had his blackshirts. He called his organization the British Union of Fascists, and their anthem was an English version of Horst Wessel Leid. Anyway, his intention was to march his blackshirts through Cable Street, a well-known Jewish neighborhood at that time. The response from the radical community (which is to say, socialists, trade unionists, communists, and anarchists) was to organize a riot. The rallying cry was "They Shall Not Pass." My point in bringing this up is not to compare our political situation to that of British fascist side-movements of 1936, but to point out how inadequate the response of the democratic society was.

Police were sent to try to protect the blackshirts, because it was claimed order needed to be restored, and a free speech interest needed to be protected. Again, I am not saying that "fascism is coming to the United States," but rather that when it does come, we won't know how to respond, because we'll be entirely too busy wondering if "we need to protect their free speech too." Similarly, the British police didn't seem to know what to do, even though fascism was a growing threat all over Europe at the time.

The problem of tolerating intolerance in a democratic society reduces to the problem of the public, as a singular entity, magically being able to know when democratic institutions are really being subverted or not. I would argue it's pretty unlikely that if political speech becomes a real threat that we will actually know when to start applying Rawls' judicious limits to the tolerance principle.

Now, you have raised the question, "well, who is going to decide what dangerous hate speech is?" A few years back, someone wrote a letter to the editor in my town saying Pride parades should be banned because "I have a right not to have my child see that." Even though that person has a profound misunderstanding of his rights, let's run with that. People are wrong about their rights, just as this person was. They are also, then, likely to disagree about hate speech, as with Brian Brown, who seems to think the LGBT community's calling him and his adherents bigots is also hate speech.

I would argue that this kind of an argument suffers from the same weakness as the argument in favor of moral relativism: there's always going to be disagreement. So who is best the positioned to decide?

The idea is that this is supposed to a sort of "gotcha," checkmate question. Obviously, the answer is nobody's (including my own) moral intuitions are always correct, so it seems to mean the whole house of cards should fall down. However, It is unclear to me why the existence of moral disagreement should persuade anyone to think that there is no such thing as moral truth. Moral disagreement just means one or both parties are wrong, as a requirement of propositional logic. In fact, I would argue that very few people take such a view. When we executed Ted Bundy in 1989 (quite correctly, I might add), we did not think of ourselves as having a moral disagreement with him. He was simply profoundly wrong about rape and murder being permissible. Whether there's disagreement or not, there's still a fact of the matter.

But, I digress from the notion of moral relativism or disagreement between speakers. I am not advocating state restriction of speech, even if it is like the WBC. What I am merely saying is that speech is not (as a practical matter) and should not be consequence-free. And an implication of what I am saying is that although we're not going to get anti-fascist black blocers out with baseball bats and start going to town on bigots, what I am saying is that we can and should do more about people than simply ignoring them.

 

Sorry about that. I was unclear. What I meant by that last statement there was "Homophobia will not go away just because you ban people from saying homophobic things." Same with transphobia. And I don't know about you, but most people do not take being told that they're wrong very positively.

Yes, opinions can be wrong. Examples: "If gay people get married, there will never be heterosexual marriages ever again!" "All MRAs are fedora-wearing, brony neckbeards!" "Transgenders are trying to ruin what it means to be a woman!" "If you don't have sex with girls 24/7, you're a beta wuss and shouldn't be called a man!" "Girls are all emotional and suck at math!" These opinions can all be debunked by facts. No need to ban people from saying these things.

It's not magic. People just have more knowledge about us than before (Remember when homosexuality was considered a mental illness?). There are still homophobes and transphobes talking shit about us. Instead of just shutting down their (ultimately bad) arguments, we should try to be rational and explain things, so that hopefully, they will understand. It's said that lack of understanding causes fear and hatred, after all. Magic doesn't get rid of fear. But logic can.

If they're one of those retards who can't see logic (such as those who think being gay is a sin, probably due to bad parenting and those out of context lines from the Bible)... well, time heals all wounds, right? Specifically, it's what you do with that time, and copying one of the main facets of communism isn't going to cut it (i.e. censorship isn't that great).

By the way, there have been societies that embraced homosexuality, gender variance, etc.

 

In a democratic setting, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i too have the right to disagree their opinion!

In my country any speech evenly remotely resembling hate in matters of religion leads to imprisonment. I'm not saying hate speech is good, but if freedom of expression through arts hurts feelings of a community then it does not mean that, that community deem it as hate expression/speech. I think its hypocrite and ridiculous to have laws against hate expression when freedom to expression is the crux of democracy.