[RD] Cultural Appropriation

[innonimatu]

People claim to be offended way too easily. And forget that there is a fundamental contradiction between "freedom of expression" and "freedom from being offended" You cannot have both.

I back freedom of expression every time, over freedom from being offended.

One recent and rather interesting example: some british famous guy (gymnast, it seems) went from hero to pariah on many british media because he committed the offense of joking about islam with one of his friends in a private event, and it was caught on camera (they are ubiquitous, better get used to it) and published.
Why are people not allowed to joke about islam, or any other religion for that matter? Both publicly and privately? Why do the very same publications that attack and mock some religions treat others as sacrosanct and try to informally institure the equivalent of blasphemy laws against anyone who dares "offend" someone else about them? I'm not singling out islam here, mind you, just using a recent example.
I find myself oddly among the so-called "right-wing" pundits on these issues, because what passes for "left-with" has gone crazy with political correctness. And that cannot work, and will turn against that "left". Worse, it will tar all the "left" (the traditional economic left) as loonies.

Cameras are, as I have mentioned, ubiquitous. Private life is no longer shielded from being recorded and published. And the truth is that almost everyone has prejudices, angry bouts, pet dislikes, and makes comments that "offend" others. Society must live with such "offenses", as indeed it ever has until now. People are not, and should not be, delicate flowers that must be shielded from anything they dislike. That is suck a patronizing, disgusting stance that this "left" and these "social justice warriors" (yes, I'm taking aide in that fight, here and now, because I'm sick of reading stupid persecutions against people who are doing just being people) make me sick. The groups that they supposedly "help" are quite capable of taking care of themselves, they don't need other to claim to "represent" them and tell the world what it should do. And they make a lot of people, the vast majority of the population, sick as well. Conflict and insult are an intrinsic part of social interaction, a totally peaceful society is a rotten society, a dead society that can only be kept that way through institutionalized terror. And that seems to be the SJW's wet dream: criminalize every "offensive behavior". They just neglect to mention that they need a police state to achieve that. But they imagine themselves as the police of that state. Utterly despicable people, no better in their aims (fortunately they're not capable of achieving them) than the inquisition or the religious police of some existing theocracies. Juust grow up, cease meddling into other people's lives, start to actually live your own lives and stop playing the moral police.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

People claim to be offended way too easily. And forget that there is a fundamental contradiction between "freedom of expression" and "freedom from being offended" You cannot have both.

When you say "freedom of expression", in what sense do you mean?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

People claim to be offended way too easily. And forget that there is a fundamental contradiction between "freedom of expression" and "freedom from being offended" You cannot have both.

Sure you can, as long as you accept boundaries.

My self expression might involve howling like a banshee, and that certainly shouldn't be disallowed...but I don't have to do it in hospital corridors or in the street in front of your house while you sleep. If you come to my house and the howling offends you, tough.

My self expression might involve spewing hateful screeds against "*******s," and the comments section on Breitbart provides a fine venue for that, but I don't have a right to expect that I will be allowed to follow people down the street making sure they are aware of my position. If you read Breitbart and get offended, why read it?

Boundaries are simple. Unfortunately some people consider a critical element of their self expression that they be effectively offensive. They don't take any satisfaction from "making their music" unless someone is yelling for them to be quiet. They aren't satisfied sharing their hatred with like minded readers at Breitbart, they have to troll other places. The offensiveness is what they are actually after, so they can't accept boundaries and feel "free to express themselves." Bottom line, they are bullies.

 

[BvBPL]

Sure you can, as long as you accept boundaries.

My self expression might involve howling like a banshee, and that certainly shouldn't be disallowed...but I don't have to do it in hospital corridors or in the street in front of your house while you sleep. If you come to my house and the howling offends you, tough.

My self expression might involve spewing hateful screeds against "*******s," and the comments section on Breitbart provides a fine venue for that, but I don't have a right to expect that I will be allowed to follow people down the street making sure they are aware of my position. If you read Breitbart and get offended, why read it?

Boundaries are simple. Unfortunately some people consider a critical element of their self expression that they be effectively offensive. They don't take any satisfaction from "making their music" unless someone is yelling for them to be quiet. They aren't satisfied sharing their hatred with like minded readers at Breitbart, they have to troll other places. The offensiveness is what they are actually after, so they can't accept boundaries and feel "free to express themselves." Bottom line, they are bullies.

Once you put boundaries on expression, and particularly boundaries based on content, you curtail freedom of expression such that it only exists to promote and reinforce the status quo. Freedom of speech exists to challenge people and to change minds. It is a right of confrontation, a license to cast one’s gauntlet into the marketplace of ideas. It is far, far more about allowing people to expose others to unpopular ideas in public forums, like on the street corner, then protecting an echo chamber.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Once you put boundaries on expression, and particularly boundaries based on content, you curtail freedom of expression such that it only exists to promote and reinforce the status quo. Freedom of speech exists to challenge people and to change minds. It is a right of confrontation, a license to cast one’s gauntlet into the marketplace of ideas. It is far, far more about allowing people to expose others to unpopular ideas in public forums, like on the street corner, then protecting an echo chamber.

Sure. Give me your address and I'll swing by with some philosophy on audiotape at max volume at three AM so we can discuss how there's no need for boundaries.

 

[aelf]

It's crazy that someone so insistent on putting respect in dialogue above everything would also insist that no speech is harmful. It's such a weird position that it makes one wonder if there's an agenda that explains it.

Once you put boundaries on expression, and particularly boundaries based on content, you curtail freedom of expression such that it only exists to promote and reinforce the status quo. Freedom of speech exists to challenge people and to change minds. It is a right of confrontation, a license to cast one’s gauntlet into the marketplace of ideas. It is far, far more about allowing people to expose others to unpopular ideas in public forums, like on the street corner, then protecting an echo chamber.

What's this got to do with addressing material inequalities?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Where did he say it wasn't harmful (although quite what "harmful" means in this context is another question)? He just said he thinks that freedom of expression trumps freedom from offence, and that the structures you'd have to put in place to enforce freedom from offence are far worse than just allowing free expression. There's nothing weird here at all, it's perfectly logical.

 

[aelf]

There's no real difference in the utilitarian binary implied by that logic. If the good of something outweighs the bad, then it's essentially not harmful.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There's no real difference in the utilitarian binary implied by that logic. If the good of something outweighs the bad, then it's essentially not harmful.

That's not really what he's doing though, he's weighing the bad of two different things against each other and then saying that one of the things is a lot less bad than the other. This doesn't mean that he's claiming there's nothing bad about the other at all, and if boiling it down to a utilitarian binary makes it look that way, then maybe that's a problem with boiling things down to a utilitarian binary.

I'm not saying you can't argue against what he's saying or even just express disagreement in his priorities. I happen to agree with him, but that doesn't mean I can't conceive of meaningful objections. But claiming there's something weird about his statement and that it implies some hidden agenda is unwarranted and a bit uncharitable frankly.

 

[aelf]

Err, yes, it is weird. Upholding respect in dialogue necessitates self-censorship - you limit what you say and how you say it for some other benefit. If the argument is that the harm of censorship outweighs the good and therefore it should not be done, then it follows that one should also refrain from self-censorship. This is obviously predicated on a utilitarian ethic, in which any decision can be simplified to a yes/no binary based on whether the good outweighs the harm and vice versa.

On the other hand, if one does not subscribe to a utilitarian ethic, then the question of whether censorship is good or bad doesn't depend entirely on whether it causes more good or harm overall. For example, one could argue that certain rights trump freedom of speech, which is kind of the commonly accepted wisdom. Otherwise, one would have to argue the case for why freedom of speech trumps everything else, which seems indefensible without recourse to utilitarian logic.

 

[luiz]

One recent and rather interesting example: some british famous guy (gymnast, it seems) went from hero to pariah on many british media because he committed the offense of joking about islam with one of his friends in a private event, and it was caught on camera (they are ubiquitous, better get used to it) and published.

It's worse than simply becoming a media pariah - according to the article, he is being investigated by British Gymnastics and may suffer official sanctions. All for a completely light-hearted joke he made in private.

It's painfully obvious that the UK has disgusting double standard when it comes to religion. Christianity is fair game (as it should be), but if someone makes a light-hearted private joke about a (completely ridiculous) tenant of Islam (which is full of stuff that are ridiculous for anyone with 1/4 of brain - as are all religions, but Islam has a place of honor among the most ridiculous), he becomes a pariah and faces official sanctions.

Edit: and of course the UK is not alone in trying to shield Muslims from any criticism of their faith. In France Michel Houllebecq had to stand trial for "racism" for saying that in his opinion, Islam was the dumbest religion. But at least he was found not guilty, and people now do criticize Islam in France. The UK is pretty bad in this regard (probably more influenced by US nonsense).

 

[BvBPL]

That's not really what he's doing though, he's weighing the bad of two different things against each other and then saying that one of the things is a lot less bad than the other. This doesn't mean that he's claiming there's nothing bad about the other at all, and if boiling it down to a utilitarian binary makes it look that way, then maybe that's a problem with boiling things down to a utilitarian binary.

I was not making a statement of valuation from a harm perspective, I was correcting an error. Tim’s statement as to what the right to freedom of speech encompasses was inaccurate. Freedom of speech decidedly protects the part on the street corner spreading uncomfortable ideas. That behavior is EXACTLY what freedom of speech protects.


Tim described freedom of speech as a right. A right is a bare minimum that can be ensured against the interference of others. A right does not describe ideal, exemplary, or worthwhile actions; merely because one has a right to take an action does not mean one should. Where we are talking about what one should or should not do within the scope of his rights, then the question is of civility and courtesy, not one of rights. Civility and courtesy are concepts distinct from rights. The inquiry as to whether someone should or should not canvas a street corner and engage private parties in conversation about a controversial topic is an arguable question of civility and courtesy, not of one’s right to do so.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was not making a statement of valuation from a harm perspective, I was correcting an error. Tim’s statement as to what the right to freedom of speech encompasses was inaccurate. Freedom of speech decidedly protects the part on the street corner spreading uncomfortable ideas. That behavior is EXACTLY what freedom of speech protects.


Tim described freedom of speech as a right. A right is a bare minimum that can be ensured against the interference of others. A right does not describe ideal, exemplary, or worthwhile actions; merely because one has a right to take an action does not mean one should. Where we are talking about what one should or should not do within the scope of his rights, then the question is of civility and courtesy, not one of rights. Civility and courtesy are concepts distinct from rights. The inquiry as to whether someone should or should not canvas a street corner and engage private parties in conversation about a controversial topic is an arguable question of civility and courtesy, not of one’s right to do so.

I agree that canvassing a street corner is exactly the type of exercising of rights that needs to be protected.

Where we disagree is in the boundaries. If I'm on that corner and you are waiting to cross the street and tell me directly "I don't want to hear it" me focusing my unwanted attention on you is clearly not civility or courtesy, though it is my right to do so. The question is how much is your not wanting to hear it backed by your rights? If you think it means I can't talk to anyone else while you are in earshot, I would tell you that your rights don't extend anywhere near that far. If you suggest that my rights, unfettered by civility or courtesy, allow me to maneuver in such a way that I am shouting directly into your face despite any efforts you make to turn your head I would say that you are allowing your own rights to be violated in deference to mine.

Now, I've always been willing to let these boundaries between my rights and the other person's rights be established through commonly held concepts of "civility and courtesy" backed by that timeless favorite "might makes right." However, we are a nation of laws. So these boundaries do need to be established in law, and "guy on the street corner gets to yell in your face by right" is not what we have come up with. Nor should it be.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's painfully obvious that the UK has disgusting double standard when it comes to religion. Christianity is fair game (as it should be), but if someone makes a light-hearted private joke about a (completely ridiculous) tenant of Islam (which is full of stuff that are ridiculous for anyone with 1/4 of brain - as are all religions, but Islam has a place of honor among the most ridiculous), he becomes a pariah and faces official sanctions.

That says more about the working of officialdom than it says about British culture. Most people would regard his comments as rude and inappropriate, perhaps they'd use the dread-word "offensive", but they're unlikely to break out the pitchforks over it. That response is typical of an officialdom stuck between the rock of needing to appear to take racism seriously and the hard place of not having the slightest intention of doing so, which they resolve by responding to basically harmless faux pas with grand shows of retribution while doing absolutely piss-all to make their sphere of responsibility any more meaningfully diverse along racial, ethnic, religious or socio-economic lines.

It turns out the higher ranks of a bureaucratic organisation are filled by deranged, status-sensitive hypocrites; who could have guessed?

 

[luiz]

That says more about the working of officialdom than it says about British culture. Most people would regard his comments as rude and inappropriate, perhaps they'd use the dread-word "offensive", but they're unlikely to break out the pitchforks over it. That response is typical of an officialdom stuck between the rock of needing to appear to take racism seriously and the hard place of not having the slightest intention of doing so, which they resolve by responding to basically harmless faux pas with grand shows of retribution while doing absolutely piss-all to make their sphere of responsibility any more meaningfully diverse along racial, ethnic, religious or socio-economic lines.

It turns out the higher ranks of a bureaucratic organisation are filled by deranged, status-sensitive hypocrites; who could have guessed?

I see what you're saying. I would kind of expect this reaction if what he said was actually something hateful. But it was a mild joke! And made in private! And it was not a "hateful joke". He was laughing (in private!) about a rather bizarre aspect of a religion. If people can't do that anymore, we're doomed.

For me the saddest part was the apology he was forced to issue. It seemed like a retraction extracted by Inquisitors.