[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?

[warpus]

But the appeal made in the Declaration of Independence explicitly not a supernatural one. It contains the word "God", but it doesn't follow that they're invoking the sort of heavenly sponsorship proclaimed by a European king. If anything, it should be read as a direct rebuke of such claims, posing legitimacy as originating not from divine intercession but from universal principles.

Universal principles that the document claims are wrapped up in the supernatural aka the Christian God. Just because they didn't spell it out for us doesn't mean that this wasn't the intent behind this language.

I'm not saying that this is exactly the same situation as an Egyptian king-God claiming legitimacy due to descent from the heavens

 

[Berzerker]

Nature's God, ie that which is responsible for existence

 

[warpus]

It's a reference to the Christian God. It's not like they're talking about Shiva here

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't know that, I've always read Nature's God to be the "enlightenment's" version of god with a small g

The main author of the DoI was Thomas Jefferson and he edited the Bible (NT) to exclude all the supernatural stuff about miracles, etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

Universal principles that the document claims are wrapped up in the supernatural aka the Christian God. Just because they didn't spell it out for us doesn't mean that this wasn't the intent behind this language.

The document doesn't refer to Christianity, or to the God of Israel. The reference may have been interpreted as such by many of the listeners, but that isn't contained in the text itself, which equates"Nature's God" more or less directly with the concept of natural law.

 

[Mouthwash]

Those natural laws are bound up with the idea of a just God, regardless of whether a particular religious canon accurate describes that God.

And it's not as if such a concept emerged independently in other cultures. The Constitution is taking its legitimacy from an idea that is unique to the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Constitutions generally I'm fairly sure, and the US Constitution I am very sure, derive their authority purely from agreement and not from any divine authority. The government is formed "of the people," and the people forming the government are agreeing to empower that government in regards to the functions they agree should be dealt with as a group. The lack of necessity for the involvement of any deity in that process is pretty clear. Now, the people making the agreement may feel inclined to empower the government to manage religious practices as part of that agreed public authority, but at least in the case of the US constitution the framers not only didn't empower the government in that area they specifically denied it such power in perpetuity. It is very unfortunate that the evangelicals resist recognizing that fact.

 

[Ryika]

If our rights are inalienable bestowed on us by our creator then why did that same creator give French citizens 17 rights, the Netherlands grants 20, Germany grants 19

Rights are not something that exists in the physical world but merely a social construct. Government does not grant rights, it merely acknowledges the social construct of rights.

 

[El_Machinae]

Rights are not something that exists in the physical world but merely a social construct. Government does not grant rights, it merely acknowledges the social construct of rights.

And sometimes those governments are hypocritical. For example, the US government decided that the Iraqi people do not have the right to bear arms, despite believing that the right is both endowed by the Creator AND necessary for a free state to exist.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course. Sometimes when fighting greater evil we even suspend free speach, and the right for people to know what they are charged with. And that might be lauded as the most righteous we've ever managed to pull off.

 

[El_Machinae]

Now, don't get me wrong, I might agree with a government violating some rights in the name of self-defense. We live in a profane world, and it's impossible to be wholly good. But, as long as it's recognized as hypocritical and not acceptable.

 

[Berzerker]

The Constitution has provisions for ignoring our rights, like in cases of war, rebellions, etc... For example, during WWII shipping schedules were censored to prevent German spies from informing U-boats waiting off shore.

 

[Old Hippy]

I keep hearing right-wingers talk about how they are being 'silenced' and denied 'free speech' by universities and corporations. The argument seems to be that if certain viewpoints are ostracized, even if there is no coercion involved, the result is the same - with the opinion banished from the public sphere.

So here's a little thought experiment: substitute every opinion you think is being unfairly restricted with a belief that black people should be re-enslaved. Should that be tolerated by employers or given a platform by universities? Would you want to associate with someone holding that view?

just an interesting take of why free speech Trumps unfairly restricting alternate views (deplatforming)

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I agree that dongle guy didn't deserve to lose his job, I feel he should've been on probation and had to do sensitivity training, but I also don't know his history at his work, maybe he had more going on. But I do feel as men you all sometimes don't understand how such casual sexism builds up and wears you down over time

How was the dongle joke thing sexism?

 

[MaryKB]

Oh dear, how isn't it? These sexual objectification jokes you hear all the time make things really uncomfortable for women, and make it hard for you to really do your job.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well it doesn't seem sexist at all. Making a joke about a big "dongle" and "plugging it in something" is just a crude sexual joke. I don't see how it's objectifying anything at all (apart from the male sexual organ). I can see how it's crude and inappropriate to be telling jokes like that in a professional setting where other people are going to hear it, but I don't see how it's in any way sexist, unless you think sex itself is sexist, or referring to male genitalia as a "dongle" is sexist against women (?!). If anything it's the implication here that is sexist - that all men in a professional setting are going to be just fine having to listen to this, but women need to be protected from it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@MaryKB, let me introduce you to Manfred. His shtick is to pretend to be absolutely mindlessly unaware of something totally obvious and badger you endlessly to "explain it" to him, while so obviously not bothering to read the explanations before he asks to have them repeated that you will want to explode in frustration.

 

[MaryKB]

He wasn't just talking about dongles, but also other things being inserted, and male sex "jokes" have a real effect on women, especially in something like technology where you'll find real gender disparities (I'm a woman working in technology, all five other members of my team are men). You find a sort of "bro culture" where women aren't welcome. And if you read her story, it wasn't even her first time at this conference where she'd been dealing with sexism, and lewd jokes were expressly forbidden by their rules, and she just wanted someone to correct him and make him stop, and she ends up being fired and blamed for what happened (very common!). My suggestion though is if you want to understand how something's sexist, consider women's perspectives and not men's.

Thank you kindly for your advice @Timsup2nothin, I was frustrated but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I won't reply any more.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He wasn't just talking about dongles, but also other things being inserted, and male sex "jokes" have a real effect on women, especially in something like technology where you'll find real gender disparities (I'm a woman working in technology, all five other members of my team are men). You find a sort of "bro culture" where women aren't welcome. And if you read her story, it wasn't even her first time at this conference where she'd been dealing with sexism, and lewd jokes were expressly forbidden by their rules, and she just wanted someone to correct him and make him stop, and she ends up being fired and blamed for what happened (very common!). My suggestion though is if you want to understand how something's sexist, consider women's perspectives and not men's.

Thank you kindly for your advice @Timsup2nothin, I was frustrated but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I won't reply any more.

Be prepared to accept that he will claim that as a "win," demonstrating that since you "can't" explain obviously it was never sexist in the first place. As irritating as that will be, just remember that he would make the same claim whether you only explained once, or six times, or six hundred, before you gave up.

This by the way is an interesting demonstration of free speech. Manfred is free to adopt this persona on line, and I am free to describe his posts. He will no doubt take offense at the latter while enjoying the former, and will want to parse "freedom of speech" along some fine and crooked line that allows his and not mine.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well it doesn't seem sexist at all. Making a joke about a big "dongle" and "plugging it in something" is just a crude sexual joke. I don't see how it's objectifying anything at all (apart from the male sexual organ). I can see how it's crude and inappropriate to be telling jokes like that in a professional setting where other people are going to hear it, but I don't see how it's in any way sexist, unless you think sex itself is sexist, or referring to male genitalia as a "dongle" is sexist against women (?!). If anything it's the implication here that is sexist - that all men in a professional setting are going to be just fine having to listen to this, but women need to be protected from it.

Not the worst I've read of it, at least it was genuinely inappropriate for the setting an probably warranting action of some sort. Temporarily stopping work with a weedeater while a woman in an above-knee skirt walks by on the sidewalk is still my favorite example of an offensive sexist act I've had to smile and agree about at work. At least those guys were in tech and not stinky manual laborers, they're dangerous in a somewhat more abstract way.

The link is hyperbole, but seriously you have to wonder sometimes. Well, black guys don't from what I understand. Still aint right.