What's more important, freedom of speech or the feelings or certain individuals/group

[PurpleTree]

Three more people killed in France today by extremists because of this "free speech" comic thing

Stabbed and almost beheaded in a church in Nice. There have also been incidents in Avignon and Lyon.

France has a population of almost 10% Muslims this could get even a lot uglier than now.

Edited October 29, 2020 by PurpleTree

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Freedom of expression, right to criticise religion, leaders etc. make fun of them, talk about everything?

Or the feelings of certain individuals who feel discriminated against?

For example right now there's a huge issue in France after those released comics and a teacher got beheaded.

Then the french president said "we'll always allow these comics, it's freedom of expression/speech and important for our society"

Now some muslim countries started boycotting France and it just looks like more and more conflict.

Also interesting though that Erdogan etc. for example don't criticise and boycott China for their "re-education camps" etc.

How can this all be resolved?

Free speech is obviously more important than an individual's feelings.

But feelings were NEVER what this argument was about... that was just what it was construed as by thought leaders of the far right to delegitimize those that protest against racism and xenophobia in the eyes of the average person. And it's worked incredibly well for softening the image of Richard Spencer types in the eyes of the masses.

And this false dichotomy of "free speech vs feelings" makes the average person far less likely to call out people who are engaging in bigoted behavior, as they don't want to seem like caricature of the overly sensitive and suppressive left-winger who sees racism where there isn't any and tries to silence all opposing voices. No one wants to seem that way, so most average people will let it slide to avoid looking like an SJW.

And if Fascist leaning thought leaders can create an illusion that those who are fighting against racism and xenophobia are the unreasonable ones who are trying to take away people's rights, they know they can shift the public consensus to where the average person is far more sympathetic to Fascist ideas and actively antagonistic to those espousing more socially progressive ideas.

And this tactic wins a lot of support from those taken in by this illusion under the idea that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." So, if Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists want to get the average person to be more sympathetic to them and their ideals, it is in their best interest to create an caricature of the left wing radical that is overtly sensitive, exaggerative, unreasonable, and suppressive of people's rights. 

And from the left, for anyone with half a brain, it was never about feelings. It was always about trying to put a stopper in marginalization and to put the brakes on society falling into Fascist ways.

So, never believe anyone who says it's "free speech" versus "feelings". It's actually the much more gray area of, "What happens when people use the idea of "fighting for freedom speech as a veneer of plausible deniability to hide their Fascist leanings while actively promoting it."

What so many people have done is to use "Free Speech" as a dog whistle for "Let me gather people to my racist agenda while hiding behind the veneer of devil's advocacy and open-minded freedom fighting."

That way they can argue that they are fighting for people's freedom of speech instead of actually using that freedom of speech to try to take other's freedoms away... which is what these figure's actual agenda is. And they want to trick as many normal people into sympathizing with them as possible. That's how they grow their following and get more influence in society... where they can actually make progress towards taking away the rights of those who they hate and see as inferior.

It also gives a convenient way for those espousing bigotry to move the goal posts. So, if you call them out on their bigotry, they will simply obfuscate and make the conversation about "freedom of speech" and how they have a right to say what they're saying. Meanwhile, putting the other person on blast for not respecting their freedom of speech. So, it turns the whole conversation around from "Hey, you're saying racist things that are harmful" to a conversation about the person calling them out on that racism being too sensitive and suppressive of their rights.

 

[Preety_India]

@Emerald exactly. In the name of free speech, they get to hide their inner racism. 

[Preety_India]

6 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

and has a particular talent for autofellatio.

[PurpleTree]

20 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

As much I am against letting stage Red/Blue minorities dictate their standards and disrupt the social peace, the fact that this country has never made amends or healed its past, and totally denies its massive systemic racism makes it just ripe for this type of ugly consequences.

Which country has really healed it's past though? Germany maybe? but they were forced.

[Hansu]

10 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Which country has really healed it's past though? Germany maybe? but they were forced.

What do you guys mean by healing the past?

If its something like the end of dwelling on old fights ans grudges, then I'd say Finland is another that has healed its past.

[PurpleTree]

Just now, Hansu said:

What do you guys mean by healing the past?

If its something like the end of dwelling on old fights ans grudges, then I'd say Finland is another that has healed its past.

Fin who?

[Hansu]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

Fin who?

The population in general.

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, Hansu said:

The population in general.

Yea i mean a lot of the real grudges in Europe are mostly gone between countries.

Europe was devastated during WW1 and 2.

France and Germany don't really hold grudges, Netherlands Germany etc.

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Etherial Cat said:

It is also particularly in denial about those fact. Yet, it pretends to be exemplar which hits easily a nerve. I think that's why France gather so much hatred and is a terrorist's favorite, unfortunately...

I think it's mostly the colonial history (which is very problematic and partly still going on) war in Algeria etc. and the high numbers of Muslim immigrants, just like in Belgium. Also France is a very proud nation. But for example people like Erdogan only understand "strength" i welcomed it when France stopped him in the eastern mediterranean a few weeks ago.

As a woman do you find it problematic that many women are scared to show themselves in certain French neighbourhoods and get harassed etc.?

Do you blame the French government for allowing such "ghettoisation"? Or do you also blame people who take their religion too serious?

 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

 

But feelings were NEVER what this argument was about... 

 

So you think it's always right wingers xenophobes and bigots who yell "free speech"?

Or those far right wingers etc. just hide under the "free speech" umbrella which others actually take serious and are honest about?

[PurpleTree]

5 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I don't know what to do with these people. They are missing the point of their religion completely. It's really hard to discuss with them because they often don't even have proper logic or "scientifical" reasoning as a tool. To me, its beyond what I can deal with as they function with a lot of non-sensical beliefs that are hard to tackle.

Maybe some kind of education could help but that seems a bit utopian.

I just think it's very interesting when "values" collide like for example "women's rights" and any other value and personally i'm also not sure what could and should be done about it but it seems important to think about.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

 

So you think it's always right wingers xenophobes and bigots who yell "free speech"?

Or those far right wingers etc. just hide under the "free speech" umbrella which others actually take serious and are honest about?

Definitely the latter. That's the trick. Most people are concerned about free speech in good faith.

So, far right wing thought leaders know this and use concerns of "infringement of free speech" as a way of demonizing the other side... thus softening their image and their bigotry to the general audience. It's how they recruit people and warm them up to their more radical agendas. 

And they can create the caricature of the oppressive leftist who wants to undermine free speech as a strawman to make themselves look better by comparison. And people are really susceptible to the mentality of "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" and this idea of the redemption of someone who was once believed to be the bad guy. 

So, it's really a recruitment tactic to get average people parroting their talking points and warming up to their ideologies and to generally shift the Overton Window more towards their side to give them more political influence.

 

[PurpleTree]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, far right wing thought leaders know this and use concerns of "infringement of free speech" as a way of demonizing the other side... thus softening their image and their bigotry to the general audience. It's how they recruit people and warm them up to their more radical agendas. 

For sure, right wingers populists etc. use "democracy" for undemocratic purposes and use free speech as a cheat code.

But religious bigots, strict or extreme religious people, in "western" Europe at the moment it's mostly Muslims do the same, they use "freedom of religion" "democracy" and all those fancy things for themselves but then they're not tolerant of "women's rights" or they discriminate agains jews, etc. 

(in Poland for example it might be Christians) 

That system with free speech, and "oh we have all those great values in the west" is very vulnerable to be taken advantage of.

That's why i think we need to really get our priorities straight in the "west" if we say we love democracy and women's rights then we can't sell weapons etc. to countries which don't care about those, just for the love of money, or else we're not believable etc. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by PurpleTree

[Gesundheit]

17 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

what said about deciding which values etc. is a short to midterm semi realistic goal.

Some feelings are gonna get hurt

[No Self]

On 10/30/2020 at 8:43 AM, Etherial Cat said:

I don't know what to do with these people. They are missing the point of their religion completely. It's really hard to discuss with them because they often don't even have proper logic or "scientifical" reasoning as a tool. To me, its beyond what I can deal with as they function with a lot of non-sensical beliefs that are hard to tackle.

Why are you bringing up Republicans?

...oh wait, my bad. Never mind.

[Carl-Richard]

I believe activism that willfully provokes violence is completely ineffective and inappropriate from a pragmatic standpoint and it should only be deployed if there is no other alternative. You can be an advocate for free speech without being a troll, and you're never going to change the fundamentals of Islam with some cartoons. What are we really achieving?

The cartoonists know perfectly well the consequences of their actions. The hypocritical attitude of "oh look how they're killing people for some ink on paper - we don't support that!" while at the same time gleefully causing more of that to happen only comes from a childish lack of perspective. You're not exercising free speech: you're exercising stupidity. It's like saying you're exercising your freedom of movement by walking off a cliff.

[Forestluv]

“What's more important, freedom of speech or the feelings or certain individuals/group?”

It depends on context. Someone being upset because another person mistakingly used a term like “inter-secionality” is very different than someone being upset because an individual/group is being unfairly harmed. 

I don’t think “feeling” is the best term because it suggests someone is overly-sensitive and had their feelings hurt by something trivial.

In this context, I would place freedom of speech higher than someone overly-sensitive. An example might be a comedian that makes a benign joke, yet someone is waaay too sensitive, throws a fit calling for the comedian racist and demands they lose their job. In this context, I would side with freedom of speech.

This is true in some contexts - yet it’s not fair to extrapolate. There are also contexts in which speech is associated with violence and harm. Another way to phrase the question is:

“What's more important, freedom of hate speech or protecting individuals/group from suffering violence and harm from that hate speech?”

In this context, I would side with limiting free speech. Those that want to maximize free speech and minimize harm understand that targeted limitation of speech is necessary. 

[PurpleTree]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The cartoonists know perfectly well the consequences of their actions. The hypocritical attitude of "oh look how they're killing people for some ink on paper - we don't support that!" while at the same time gleefully causing more of that to happen only comes from a childish lack of perspective. You're not exercising free speech: you're exercising stupidity. It's like saying you're exercising your freedom of movement by walking off a cliff.

Many of their friends were killed and you think they're doing that "gleefully" ?

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Many of their friends were killed and you think they're doing that "gleefully" ?

That's atleast the vibe that I get from the people who argue in support of the cartoons.

[w4read]

On 31.10.2020 at 6:40 PM, Carl-Richard said:

I believe activism that willfully provokes violence is completely ineffective and inappropriate from a pragmatic standpoint and it should only be deployed if there is no other alternative. You can be an advocate for free speech without being a troll, and you're never going to change the fundamentals of Islam with some cartoons. What are we really achieving?

The cartoonists know perfectly well the consequences of their actions. The hypocritical attitude of "oh look how they're killing people for some ink on paper - we don't support that!" while at the same time gleefully causing more of that to happen only comes from a childish lack of perspective. You're not exercising free speech: you're exercising stupidity. It's like saying you're exercising your freedom of movement by walking off a cliff.

It's kinda like a catch 22. Because on one hand you don't want people to spread hate and propaganda and start unnecessary conflict. But on the other hand, it is exactly these things that start the debate and puts light on an issue so that people even become aware of it in the first place. Personally I'm in favor of everything that makes people think. And in terms of the freedom of speech debate I think people have become more aware and more knowledgeable as a result of it being such a hot topic for a long time. So therefore, what seemed like som totally useless and unnecessary provocation could turn out to be really important in order to put light on the issue.