Free Speech or Censorship: a gender divide?

[puporing]

@Karmadhi yes it's a highly complex, nuanced issue. At the end of the day, 'feminine' or 'masculine' are labels to communicate broad generalizations, and we all have these traits within us to varying degrees. I mean in a way it goes back to nondual thinking - how society perceives as more valuable. This is in addition to the challenge of individuality and allowance for one to freely express either broad qualities in society if one wishes to do so. 

The thing I find hard is often people will equate 'pop feminism' with rigorous study of history and examination of current affairs on women, and therefore abandon the whole subject altogether because 'pop feminism' is less credible.

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

There is no reason why things like social sciences or art should be above hard sciences.

In my experience, sociology is treated as less credible than the physical sciences, and thus easily dismissed. By its nature, studying people over long periods presents different challenges compared to studying things in a controlled or smaller setting both in space and time.

The very nature of a less advantaged group advocating for themselves is itself a challenge. Such as when a Black person writes about their experiences of being a Black person in a society that refuses them equal voice or expression, a slave writing about being a slave in a society that has yet abolished slavery, it automatically tends to get tossed out the window. We could only hear about them now because we are no longer in such a society, or that they escaped their situation and relocated to a more tolerant society, and that these people banded together to improve their rights and situations. The situation with women is difficult because the vast majority still gain a lot of survival benefits by continuing to be more passive and less individualistic. It takes a willingness to take risks and self-sacrifice and potential for ostracization by the group (on the survival strategy front) to be an advocate.

Edited January 16, 2022 by puporing

[Leo Gura]

Hard sciences are more credible precisely because they are easier. The fewer the variables the easier it is to do science on it.

[Hardkill]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Hard sciences are more credible precisely because they are easier. The fewer the variables the easier it is to do science on it.

Sadly, it seems that there are less out there in this world than before who believe in science. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Hardkill

[Windappreciator]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Sadly, it seems that there are less out there in this world than before who believe in science. 

what makes you say that

[BlueOak]

9 hours ago, mememe said:

@BlueOak then would you say language is natural censorship? especially if a small ethnicity is not able to speak their language? express themselves?

like for example dwarfs.

Yes to the first part, decided upon in part by somewhat randomly by the collective and in part by an all too small group of academics who then do their own versions of their dictionary.

No to the second here at least. There is no limit on languages which can be spoken, written or read in the UK, and its fairly common to hear other dialects. Though its polite to speak in english in the company of strangers, as its a universal dialect here.

Language itself at its root is based on symbols with rigid meanings, which are far too easily open to individual misinterpretation in the message. Before language pictures were used and these were in part easier because the wider meaning of a picture allowed for individual perspectives to coexist on the subject with less disagreement. A mountain is a mountain. Food is food. Shelter is Shelter etc.

The less strict or rigid a language is, the better imho. Which to be fair to english, it is better than some in that regard as its flexible, there are many ways of describing something or using a word, tone etc. This makes it harder to learn also.

*I will also say I support things like gaelic being preserved but I have a bias toward the culture. Latin also. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by BlueOak

[Hello from Russia]

5 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Sadly, it seems that there are less out there in this world than before who believe in science. 

Lol, are you sure? From what I see, science has become the new Christianity and is spread among the whole globe

Edited January 16, 2022 by Hello from Russia

[Windappreciator]

48 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Language itself at its root is based on symbols with rigid meanings, which are far too easily open to individual misinterpretation in the message. Before language pictures were used and these were in part easier because the wider meaning of a picture allowed for individual perspectives to coexist on the subject with less disagreement. A mountain is a mountain. Food is food. Shelter is Shelter etc.
 

i know what you mean, but it's not really the language itself that gives rigidness, it's the collective assumptions and projections onto others using the language between each other.

the style of depiction that language has makes it easier for the above to exists, because it is simpler to do for everybody, compared to pictures.

Exactly because, language is less restrictive in finding a fit representation compared to pictures.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Windappreciator

[mememe]

whatever, the article holds the specifics of the study very vague. it‘s a bit weak.

especially regarding what kind of hate speach they were talking about.

Edited January 16, 2022 by mememe
specifics

[bejapuskas]

The problem is, when the "right for freedom of speech" is used to justify nazi, fascist, racist, homophic, transphobic, islamophobic, casteist and other harmful views because of which people literally die. If you do not have anything nice to say that is not constructive criticism or giving somebody honest feedback, it is better to shut up. Such insensitive behaviors create atmosphere which actually decreases freedom of speech, because many people might feel excluded. 

[Windappreciator]

@bejapuskas  it also prohibits self strengthening beliefs

[bejapuskas]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not the reason why. The feminine simply has empathy and communion as higher priorities than truth or freedom. This is necessary for mothering.

Feminists are not good to listen to on this point. Feminists often don't appreciate the asymmetry of the feminine and masculine as they try too hard to equalize them.

This is a limiting view for you and also others. Equalizing feminine and masculine in a world where they are considered to be totally different to an excessively large extent (even though it sometimes, only sometimes works) is what we should as a society be aiming for, because it lets us question our biases, become more open-minded and also free. 

What you generalize in this context as truth and freedom is often used to offend women for unfair reasons, justify their absence of right to vote or drive (women do not have driving focus, their attention sucks etc.) and advocate for other shitty perspectives. I would argue that some feminist ideologies (not all of them, there are different feminism from which some are violent) actually do value truth. What you see as feminism is also your biased view.

Equalization is both good and bad, it depends on for whom. I do not think saying genders are always same is right, because it is not. Legally I think there should not be a difference, I cannot think of an example just now where it would be counterproductive to not make all genders equal, but other than that, there are people who are assigned female gender at birth but can be completely 100% male. They might still undergo some female conditioning, which others have mentioned, which is keeping them from perhaps fully expressing themselves. Internalized transphobia exists and it is powerful, I do not know whether you have ever experienced it, but it can be activated when trans people for example feel like they have to justify their rights for self expression to Ben Shapiro likes. There are also intersex, nonbinary, genderfluid and other identities that are not included in this binary limiting ideology. If you break out from this ideology, you can be more free to self express. You can try going to a pride parade to experience this and face your biases and maybe even see how they backfire at you by limiting your freedom and causing you to have internalized fear of your self.

Understand me, some people are just misgendered by most others and if their views would be equalized, that would really help those individuals. (it is not just about perception and ideas, it connects to responsibilities, gender roles, expectations etc. which limit all genders including men) However, telling somebody else who is perhas struggling as a woman to express her sexual freedom and femininity can be harmful too. There are genderless people as well who do not conform to these ideologies at all and they are also valid. 

[bejapuskas]

@Windappreciator What do you mean?

[bejapuskas]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hard sciences are more credible precisely because they are easier. The fewer the variables the easier it is to do science on it.

I disagree that they are less credible. As @puporing  points out, studying views of oppressed groups can give a person radically different perspective which is really different from some mainstream white cisgender heterosexual allosexual perspective. And those minority perspectives can sometimes give you the largest amounts of wisdom and food for thought, because they strike the heart of world's issues and that is why they matter so much. A person who rarely experiences inequality of an unequal system can be very biased and therefore less credible. Even physical sciences can get fucked by nazi and other views, but I think you talked about that in one of your videos. You cannot do credible science without studying these "noncredible" things.

[Raze]

4 hours ago, bejapuskas said:

The problem is, when the "right for freedom of speech" is used to justify nazi, fascist, racist, homophic, transphobic, islamophobic, casteist and other harmful views because of which people literally die. If you do not have anything nice to say that is not constructive criticism or giving somebody honest feedback, it is better to shut up. Such insensitive behaviors create atmosphere which actually decreases freedom of speech, because many people might feel excluded. 

If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for speech you hate, you don’t believe in freedom of speech. You either believe in free speech or you believe an authority should be allowed to shut down speech it chooses too. There is no option of saying you believe in free speech aside from speech you hate.

[BlueOak]

13 hours ago, Windappreciator said:

i know what you mean, but it's not really the language itself that gives rigidness, it's the collective assumptions and projections onto others using the language between each other.

the style of depiction that language has makes it easier for the above to exists, because it is simpler to do for everybody, compared to pictures.

Exactly because, language is less restrictive in finding a fit representation compared to pictures.

I agree on the assumptions and projections, they come from the language. Text is less restrictive in what you can communicate, but not in definition to the person you are communicating with. Its inherently good for you to make a point, but not them to understand it fully, or your shared conversation as as result. Because we define so much language is considerably more restrictive in meaning, tone, format, syntax, and these small but important details in our heads are often lost from one person to the next especially over this format we are conversing now.

A mountain is a large enough image that several perspectives can work with that image without disgareeing on the minor details of it.

Here are some examples.

The words AND or THE are so flexible that their relative meaning is usually lost in transalation. I could be using THE for emphasis, title, form, context etc. Whereas it doesn't matter if the image of a mountain is never fully defined in translation, its always going to be a mountain, and we wouldn't have either of us here picking over the details about it for example.

I am not saying pictures are everything, the details if they can be communicated save time, but the flexibility in my words here almost guarantees you'll only receive part of what I was trying to say, even with the best of intentions.

Edited January 16, 2022 by BlueOak

[bejapuskas]

@Raze I think there should not be freedom of speech to say anything. If you start spamming on this forum and telling people you will kill them, I will ban you. I would never think I should let you do it because it is better for you to be free. I have good reasons for this, everyday, at least one new spam bot appears on this forum and you non-mods usually do not even know this happens because of how quickly they are banned. If we were not banning them this forum would be flooded with spam and trojan horse links. I also think racism and other biases should not be included in freedom of speech. Absolute freedom of speech sucks.

[BlueOak]

15 hours ago, bejapuskas said:

@Raze I think there should not be freedom of speech to say anything. If you start spamming on this forum and telling people you will kill them, I will ban you. I would never think I should let you do it because it is better for you to be free. I have good reasons for this, everyday, at least one new spam bot appears on this forum and you non-mods usually do not even know this happens because of how quickly they are banned. If we were not banning them this forum would be flooded with spam and trojan horse links. I also think racism and other biases should not be included in freedom of speech. Absolute freedom of speech sucks.

@bejapuskas
Its a difficult issue to talk about because its hate and has all kinds of horrid experiences people have gone through attached to it. I didn't post this at first because i'm not black, brown and i'm not a minority in England. My only experience comes from being hated for other things, and I have been, pre judged or dismissed, avoided in a small community where everyone knows each others business. Never my skin color unless I happen to be on a hostile forum, or chat room, channel etc. So I can only imagine what people go through is worse than what I have. Maybe it is people who have been through something as a collective who should have the final word on this.

I agree violence or incitement is a crime and should be. Banning things from this forum isn't the same as banning things entirely everywhere for everyone. Here its your decision, its your house and community you are looking out for.

Part of knowing someone is a racist is part of being able to interact with them, avoid them! or better know why they are saying what they are saying. In the wider sense, if someone is a racist its better known than unknown. If you don't know they are a racist then they don't stop being one. They get to manipulate conversations, because the truth isn't in the conversation its a hidden motive, and at the furthest level where its denied even to themselves, they do things unconsciously that neither you or they are aware of.

Although i've met a handful of very clever racists over my life that tried to flood me with stats to support a fragile identity they had chosen. Most of them are not clever, they are route one hitting their head against a wall types. Without knowing that we can mistake who we are talking to or why they are saying something. We even miss the opportunity to perhaps, I know its a long shot, show them a better way of living their life without hate being their primary focus.

There is a further problem with your line of thought. If people get to pick one thing to silence, they can silence anything and its a slippery slope. I've seen that first hand, nothing to do with racism just censorship on a foreign political issue. I also remember when I watched a youtuber recently talk about the fact the subject of his video was removed, but so was his analysis of it, which had been well balanced. So we can't even address what exists through a third party to raise awareness or take apart hateful reasoning. 

I don't know, I think for this decision to be made properly, I would like a panel of people that experienced racism and still value free speech to get together and make that decision. I suspect it will go as you advocate for, but its important to know what we lose too and that it just goes underground.

[mememe]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

There is a further problem with your line of thought. If people get to pick one thing to silence, they can silence anything and its a slippery slope. I've seen that first hand, nothing to do with racism just censorship on a foreign political issue. I also remember when I watched a youtuber recently talk about the fact the subject of his video was removed, but so was his analysis of it, which had been well balanced. So we can't even address what exists through a third party to raise awareness or take apart hateful reasoning. 

yeah, but there is a difference between that study, a womens majority, truth and what a social media platform is making out of it.

these are all issues about adequately handling information or misinformation, understanding and misunderstanding and the willingness of such aka motive.

(stupidity for example does not need a motive it’s already a motive, which is why it is in fashion)

Edited January 17, 2022 by mememe

[bejapuskas]

@BlueOak  I agree that its good to know about racists that they are racists. I dont think its an excuse to not educate yourself though. I am also not a person of colour, so I dont know what racism is like. I have only experienced prejudiced. And also, just because you are not a minority does not mean people cannot say shitty things to you, I hope you realize you should avoid people who are just super mean with you for other reasons that are not systemic discrimination.

Btw guys hate speech against minorities here is a bannable offense on this forum.

[IAmReallyImportant]

People who are against free-speech are narrow minded.

If everybody would know what they really want, hate and anger would not be the case anymore. But if you supress peoples desires and self-expression they will become even more resistant. Because the reason why hate-speech etc. happens in the first place, is because of intolerance and non-inclusion of people with different world views, opinions etc. .

You cannot supress people, it will end up in a disaster everytime. History has shown that. But green hippie people are often times not that smart.