Free Speech or Censorship: a gender divide?

[Opo]

40 minutes ago, bejapuskas said:

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

Can you define hate speech? 

[Opo]

14 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

You cannot supress people, it will end up in a disaster everytime.  

Pedo alert

[IAmReallyImportant]

15 minutes ago, Opo said:

Pedo alert

lol, I meant in terms of free speech and freedom in general which does not shrink the freedom of someone else. With free speech you don't do that. If people take actions, they are responsible. Words don't hurt, only reactions.

However, I also feel for pedophiles and other people who move accross the social border without being able to do anything about it and basically born with that. This social hunt against them makes people who are not pedophiles get anxiety or compulsive disorders. If society would act out of compassion and not survival instinct, we would be on a completely different place, which would be much better than this one.

And maybe suppression was not that accurate as a term. More like suppression of expression.

Edited January 17, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[IAmReallyImportant]

Rather than suppressing expression it would be better to teach people how to think for themselves, how too filter misinformation and how to find out what they really want.

[Opo]

9 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Words don't hurt, only reactions.

Yea but people are still getting hurt. 

I wish we could change people's reactions especially to silly stuff but it seems too hard. 

[IAmReallyImportant]

6 minutes ago, Opo said:

Yea but people are still getting hurt. 

I wish we could change people's reactions especially to silly stuff but it seems too hard. 

It takes time. People get hurt, because they relate words to their identity and project their believes on it, as well as their emotions. So the problem is that people don't know themselves, their emotions and inner being. That is what creates resistance, pain, misinformation and suffering at the end. And this is what has to be fixed. And not limiting what someone can express.

Edited January 17, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[Opo]

17 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

It takes time. People get hurt, because they relate words to their identity and project their believes on it, as well as their emotions. So the problem is that people don't know themselves, their emotions and inner being. That is what creates resistance, pain, misinformation and suffering at the end. And this is what has to be fixed. And not limiting what someone can express.

That's the mature option. 

I think we first have to realize the limits of the easier option before going down this path. 

[IAmReallyImportant]

5 minutes ago, Opo said:

That's the mature option. 

I think we first have to realize the limits of the easier option before going down this path. 

Yes, I also play with that thought. Society is like a chaotic system and gets even more chaotic because of social media etc. . So that system has to be damped to arrive at a reasonable equilibrium..

I think one has to utilize multiple options. Maybe suppress certain aspects of speech but emphasize that it is not about people or opinions and not about false/true, right/wrong, but rather about the consequences.

And at the same time prepare humanity for the development of traits which are important for non-resistance.

Edited January 17, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[bejapuskas]

To be clear, I wish pedophiles had more free speech, if they are struggling with their sexuality and looking for help, not trying to offend. If they have offended, there should also be more treatment for offenders, there is some good evidence about complex community level treatment for offenders that reduces re-offending probability. I am very radical in my views on who should get more free speech and in what ways. I do not believe in suppression. I also believe that minorities and women should have equal free speech rights (and before you all westerners from countries were women are more equal starts ranting about me mentioning women, consider that their rights are still less in every country in the world and also the world is not only the West, but also for example Afghanistan) as majorities, and that is not possible when xenophobes are respected as "people who just have different opinions." I do not support cancel culture, I belive in people having a second chance (maybe because I am white and am not really fed up with people offending me all the time globally) and should receive resources to reinforce their views on equality. I think call out culture is better than freedom of speech for xenophobes.

[BlueOak]

9 hours ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Yes, I also play with that thought. Society is like a chaotic system and gets even more chaotic because of social media etc. . So that system has to be damped to arrive at a reasonable equilibrium..

I think one has to utilize multiple options. Maybe suppress certain aspects of speech but emphasize that it is not about people or opinions and not about false/true, right/wrong, but rather about the consequences.

And at the same time prepare humanity for the development of traits which are important for non-resistance.

Who decides what gets suppressed? We've seen in this thread a few disagreements on what can/could/should be discussed openly. As i suffered some abuse, not sexual, but abuse nontheless, my views on what you just spoke about above would at one time be very harsh. Should I get to dictate for others whether abusers get to speak? I've mellowed now but 20 year old me would have them in prison doing hard labor with no chance of a word.

How do you handle suppression? Apples are banned, so i'll talk about how bad it is we can't speak about fruit, or i'll make my point via fruit. I'll still be speaking about apples you just can't silence/arrest/fine me for it etc. Unless you then suppress speaking indirectly about apples via fruit. So okay i'll just use a moniker and do it that way, or worse i'll just passive aggressively talk around the subject because I can't talk about the subject. Do you see how all this does is create potential manipulators, repressed emotion looking to burst out, or at least people who are good with their wording? 

Asking resistant people to be non resistant, creates resistance. My first thought here was to resist. I value free speech highly, not at an identity level. The core of my being likes to speak truth. Not lies. Sure my ego and identity amplify this, choose the wording, flavors it. I simply can't live in an authoritarian system, i'd be in jail in a week.

Laws do need to catch up with social media and consequences are a fair way to do it. If individual responsibility still carries the weight of any such law. Nothing about how this could be implemented sits well with me, because there is no way for me to know fully how you will act on my words, that's completely out of my control. Limiting language is such a heavy handed way of doing it also. There are so many uses for each individual word, and context it could be used in. I know there are racial slurs or swear words to be banned but beyond that? Also a few bad commentators shouldn't dictate law for an entire country or planet, that's also a terrible way of collectively arriving at an agreement.

Further as i've discussed, language itself is very prone to being misinterpreted, its hard to ever get the full meaning behind my words.

Edited January 18, 2022 by BlueOak

[IAmReallyImportant]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Who decides what gets suppressed? We've seen in this thread a few disagreements on what can/could/should be discussed openly. As i suffered some abuse, not sexual, but abuse nontheless, my views on what you just spoke about above would at one time be very harsh. Should I get to dictate for others whether abusers get to speak? I've mellowed now but 20 year old me would have them in prison doing hard labor with no chance of a word.

How do you handle suppression? Apples are banned, so i'll talk about how bad it is we can't speak about fruit, or i'll make my point via fruit. I'll still be speaking about apples you just can't silence/arrest/fine me for it etc. Unless you then suppress speaking indirectly about apples via fruit. So okay i'll just use a moniker and do it that way, or worse i'll just passive aggressively talk around the subject because I can't talk about the subject. Do you see how all this does is create potential manipulators, repressed emotion looking to burst out, or at least people who are good with their wording? 

Asking resistant people to be non resistant, creates resistance. My first thought here was to resist. I value free speech highly, not at an identity level. The core of my being likes to speak truth. Not lies. Sure my ego and identity amplify this, choose the wording, flavors it. I simply can't live in an authoritarian system, i'd be in jail in a week.

Laws do need to catch up with social media and consequences are a fair way to do it. If individual responsibility still carries the weight of any such law. Nothing about how this could be implemented sits well with me, because there is no way for me to know fully how you will act on my words, that's completely out of my control. Limiting language is such a heavy handed way of doing it also. There are so many uses for each individual word, and context it could be used in. I know there are racial slurs or swear words to be banned but beyond that? Also a few bad commentators shouldn't dictate law for an entire country or planet, that's also a terrible way of collectively arriving at an agreement.

Further as i've discussed, language itself is very prone to being misinterpreted, its hard to ever get the full meaning behind my words.

I did not say to directly ask resistant people to be non-resistant. There are many hyper-sensitive people out there, who blame others for all of their emotions - out of a place of victimhood. It is impossible to satisfy all of their needs. And if one would do so, this is no society where anybody wants to live in.

Imo nobody can be abused emotionally or psychologically by some other person, because emotions don't come from other people. False interpretations and believes lead to negative emotions.

What people need who believe that other people has abused them, is experience with people who show them love, learning self-love and not avoiding experiences of perspectives, which come from "other people" in their perception of reality.

However, I understand that it could be hard to not fall back in old habits, if some momentum is going on. But you can also understand the other side. It feels extremely presumptuous and unpleasant when hypersensitive people constantly want to hold you responsible for their emotions and "chastise" you. So these are also projections of mine, hence the only solution imo. is that both sides learn about their believes and emotions.

Edited January 18, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[IAmReallyImportant]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

 

I have experienced that some hyper-sensitive person even wanted to kill me - before I opened my mouth. And it happens often that people start screaming at me and get even louder when they see no reaction. Because I learned not to get in the same place of misery. I never say offending things, it is always when I don't agree with something and tell people my opinion in a clear, differentiated and non-discriminating way. I think this is because they get their emotions mirrored, because I don't reflect them.

Edited January 18, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[bejapuskas]

2 hours ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

I have experienced that some hyper-sensitive person even wanted to kill me - before I opened my mouth. And it happens often that people start screaming at me and get even louder when they see no reaction. Because I learned not to get in the same place of misery. I never say offending things, it is always when I don't agree with something and tell people my opinion in a clear, differentiated and non-discriminating way. I think this is because they get their emotions mirrored, because I don't reflect them.

@IAmReallyImportant Could you give an example of when this happens?

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Who decides what gets suppressed? We've seen in this thread a few disagreements on what can/could/should be discussed openly. As i suffered some abuse, not sexual, but abuse nontheless, my views on what you just spoke about above would at one time be very harsh. Should I get to dictate for others whether abusers get to speak? I've mellowed now but 20 year old me would have them in prison doing hard labor with no chance of a word.

How do you handle suppression? Apples are banned, so i'll talk about how bad it is we can't speak about fruit, or i'll make my point via fruit. I'll still be speaking about apples you just can't silence/arrest/fine me for it etc. Unless you then suppress speaking indirectly about apples via fruit. So okay i'll just use a moniker and do it that way, or worse i'll just passive aggressively talk around the subject because I can't talk about the subject. Do you see how all this does is create potential manipulators, repressed emotion looking to burst out, or at least people who are good with their wording? 

Asking resistant people to be non resistant, creates resistance. My first thought here was to resist. I value free speech highly, not at an identity level. The core of my being likes to speak truth. Not lies. Sure my ego and identity amplify this, choose the wording, flavors it. I simply can't live in an authoritarian system, i'd be in jail in a week.

Laws do need to catch up with social media and consequences are a fair way to do it. If individual responsibility still carries the weight of any such law. Nothing about how this could be implemented sits well with me, because there is no way for me to know fully how you will act on my words, that's completely out of my control. Limiting language is such a heavy handed way of doing it also. There are so many uses for each individual word, and context it could be used in. I know there are racial slurs or swear words to be banned but beyond that? Also a few bad commentators shouldn't dictate law for an entire country or planet, that's also a terrible way of collectively arriving at an agreement.

Further as i've discussed, language itself is very prone to being misinterpreted, its hard to ever get the full meaning behind my words.

@BlueOak  Sorry if I triggered you. I did not mean abusers should be free to create discussion forums about their plans to abduct children. But systems should be available for them to become better. Prison does a bad job at this, because it is expensive and does not make one a better person most of the times. It does not matter how long you spend there. These systems may not be what you imagine them to be, it might be controlling the offenders' friend groups, curfew times, family therapy, community therapy etc... Those systemic approaches have been proven to be way more effective then one on one talk approach.

What do you mean by few terrible commentators dictating law? What does speaking truth mean for you? Is it speaking what you currently think or is it being curious to undermine your own biases and speak the truth after some reflection time? Speaking truth requires open-mindedness imo.

[BlueOak]

13 hours ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

I did not say to directly ask resistant people to be non-resistant. There are many hyper-sensitive people out there, who blame others for all of their emotions - out of a place of victimhood. It is impossible to satisfy all of their needs. And if one would do so, this is no society where anybody wants to live in.

Imo nobody can be abused emotionally or psychologically by some other person, because emotions don't come from other people. False interpretations and believes lead to negative emotions.

What people need who believe that other people has abused them, is experience with people who show them love, learning self-love and not avoiding experiences of perspectives, which come from "other people" in their perception of reality.

However, I understand that it could be hard to not fall back in old habits, if some momentum is going on. But you can also understand the other side. It feels extremely presumptuous and unpleasant when hypersensitive people constantly want to hold you responsible for their emotions and "chastise" you. So these are also projections of mine, hence the only solution imo. is that both sides learn about their believes and emotions.

There is a lot of trauma out there yes, less than there used to be if you can believe it, but things are improving as people do.

There is not a detachment from your parents until you age, and thus become your own person. So you can absolutely psychologically and emotionally abuse your kids, because they are a part of you. Eventually we can and do seperate out those emotions as our own and our psychology as our own. This can be increasingly difficult because it often happened before we were able to form conscious memory of it, meaning its all unconscious and doesn't come out until we realise, or someone else does and points it out in a way that person can accept.
 

13 hours ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

I have experienced that some hyper-sensitive person even wanted to kill me - before I opened my mouth. And it happens often that people start screaming at me and get even louder when they see no reaction. Because I learned not to get in the same place of misery. I never say offending things, it is always when I don't agree with something and tell people my opinion in a clear, differentiated and non-discriminating way. I think this is because they get their emotions mirrored, because I don't reflect them.

You have trauma related to this. Which I triggered and I apologize. It might be helpful to think as if you are talking to a wound, and in that case if you see the behavior, ask yourself whats your goal in talking to them? You can accept them and then comfort, you could offer neutral information but most other interactions to a wound are not going to yield a positive outcome from your point of view. 

Also picture you are speaking to a wounded child, as its likely its coming from that place unknowingly and you can temper your expectation accordingly. You are the adult in that conversation. For the moment they are in that state its a big kid shouting at you and not realising, the other 99.999% moments of their life they may be a functioning adult but they haven't seen or accepted the unconcious part of themselves yet.

As for what they are seeking it could be acceptance, certainty, relief, anything that you can picture someone might be lacking that never had a stable family environment. 

[BlueOak]

10 hours ago, bejapuskas said:

@IAmReallyImportant Could you give an example of when this happens?

@BlueOak  Sorry if I triggered you. I did not mean abusers should be free to create discussion forums about their plans to abduct children. But systems should be available for them to become better. Prison does a bad job at this, because it is expensive and does not make one a better person most of the times. It does not matter how long you spend there. These systems may not be what you imagine them to be, it might be controlling the offenders' friend groups, curfew times, family therapy, community therapy etc... Those systemic approaches have been proven to be way more effective then one on one talk approach.

What do you mean by few terrible commentators dictating law? What does speaking truth mean for you? Is it speaking what you currently think or is it being curious to undermine your own biases and speak the truth after some reflection time? Speaking truth requires open-mindedness imo.

Thanks but you didn't. I was offering the perspective of a 20 year old me, how I would have felt, that's over 20 years ago now! Asking a genuine question if people that have gone through a certain event should be the ones that decide if its free speech or not, because they will be the ones that have the loudest opinions. Pick a less charged topic if you like to consider it, I am honestly not sure.

On terrible commentators, I was attempting to show some empathy that the reason some people want free speech changed is because they hear someone they don't like on a regular basis saying outrageous things, and thus base their want for law or moderation for the entire collective on their over exposure to a few loud people. I was picturing a few of the currently banned media commentators from when I used to watch youtube. These days thanks to some big loud names getting banned and thus changing laws, that number has stretched into an obscene amount of banned channels or commentators. 

As to my views on locking certain criminals up. It has not been demonstrated to me that sexual offenders can be reformed, until it is I can't agree with you. Safety of children comes first. I would of course run prisons entirely different to how they are now, as I think most of us would. Dehumanizing people doesn't lead to reform.

Edited January 18, 2022 by BlueOak

[Raze]

 

[Raze]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-women-enrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233

women outnumber men 60-40 in college and the gap is widening as male enrollment declines faster. This is likely why colleges focus on inclusivity now.

[bejapuskas]

@Raze Maybe in the West, but not in other parts of the world. Non-boys are still deprived of education opportunities.

[Raze]

3 hours ago, bejapuskas said:

@Raze Maybe in the West, but not in other parts of the world. Non-boys are still deprived of education opportunities.

Correct, however worldwide there are as many boys out of school as girls

https://web.archive.org/web/20200929081756/https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/did-you-know-there-are-just-as-many-boys-out-of-school-as-girls/