Freedom of speech means freedom from repercussions?

[Valka D'Ur]

I'd take this to be relevant to topic.
http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/03/ellen-degeneres-kim-burrell-cancelled-tweet/

Yes, it's Ellen's show, Ellen has the right to refuse guests, who likely are paid a premium to appear. Ellen, however, isn't willing to allow a performance by a person of a different understanding or frame of mind. Burrell isn't "trolling", these are her genuine convictions. Yet her talent and conviction just doesn't gel with Ellen's identity agenda and thus she is not welcome, she is censored from appearing in Ellen's "space".

That, regardless of how understandable I see Ellen's decision, is the practice of "safe space". She wants to be seen as equal, supposedly, but does not feel others belong in "that" equal. It's rational, it's "fair", but something seems deeply disingenuous about the plight, continuing forward.

As I understand the situation, Ellen is lesbian, and understandably is not inclined to provide a platform for a homophobe to preach her agenda of hate.

I don't see a problem with her decision.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not defending the harsh tone. I'm contrasting one person's argued right to express to another person's right to express. One person feels strongly one way, which is obviously self-supporting, which means to say they want to be seen as equal while they act in a way another sees as aberrant. This trumps the person who feels strongly because it's part of that person's religious conviction, which, incidentally, is also a free expression in a liberal society. It's not nice, it's not cool, it seems restrictive, nonetheless that is this person's position, and it will be, in the majority, seen as "wrong".

It's like we're being shamed into a behavior pattern that "we can't not like that". Well, why? Why can't people "not like that"? When did that become shameful?

When did homophobia specifically become shameful? Nineties, probably, at least in polite society. It's not a new thing, at any rate.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

As I understand the situation, Ellen is lesbian, and understandably is not inclined to provide a platform for a homophobe to preach her agenda of hate.

I don't see a problem with her decision.

Who is being hated as a reciprocal? Why is that ok? Why can't Burrel just be "different"?

If Burrell is expected to understand and respect Ellen's side, why isn't Burrell's side understood and respected?

 

[Traitorfish]

Are you suggesting that Burrell was born that way?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

When did homophobia specifically become shameful? Nineties, probably, at least in polite society. It's not a new thing, at any rate.

You're intentionally using red flag words. I'm not calling Ellen names. You try not calling Burrell names. Why is her position, her outlook, less?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Are you suggesting that Burrell was born that way?

Do you have genetic or other scientific evidence anyone is born as Ellen? Did I miss the discovery of the gay gene?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Who is being hated as a reciprocal? Why is that ok? Why can't Burrel just be "different"?

If Burrell is expected to understand and respect Ellen's side, why isn't Burrell's side understood and respected?

Why should I respect a bigot whose words, in this country, would at least in part be considered hate speech?

Preaching hate against a segment of society for their sexual orientation makes as much sense as preaching against a segment of society for having blue eyes or a specific skin color. It's how they're born. It's not a choice.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Why should I respect a bigot whose words, in this country, would at least in part be considered hate speech?

Preaching hate against a segment of society for their sexual orientation makes as much sense as preaching against a segment of society for having blue eyes or a specific skin color. It's how they're born. It's not a choice.

See. You're so programmed, there's zero objective view. It has, to you, become a given. It has, to society, become shameful but in the same breath, you will argue Ellen has free expression. You can not see there is a discrepancy, you are wholly incapable.

You can not see our right to "not like things" is being institutionally revoked.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you have genetic or other scientific evidence anyone is born as Ellen? Did I miss the discovery of the gay gene?

If you're suggesting that we start "therapeutically" electrocuting homophobes, we may find common ground after all.

See. You're so programmed, there's zero objective view. It has, to you, become a given. It has, to society, become shameful but in the same breath, you will argue Ellen has free expression. You can not see there is a discrepancy, you are wholly incapable.

You can not see our right to "not like things" is being institutionally revoked.

It's Ellen's show. Stating that she has the right to chose who does and does not appear on it is not a libertarian plea for the unfettered soul, it's a statement of hard-nosed capitalist fact.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And sometimes I am, I don't get the message because the context is unfamiliar, and the person doing the communicating flips out or starts with the mockery because their message was not understood.


As usual, you're taking two different things I said, twisting them, and the result is something other than what you know damn well I meant.

Yes, he was a pop culture icon - he was an actor, after all, and had many fans. I wasn't one of them, and I don't consider it important to pay that close attention to American pop culture. I'm not going to repeat the reasons why I didn't (still don't) respect him as a politician because you can read them for yourself.

Just quit playing your "twist Valka's words" game. It's childish.

LOL...is there ANYONE who was a fan of his movies that is still alive?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Well, before we get led off on more of a tangent, I'll stop arguing, because I'm sure it's going to boil down to my arguing peoples' right to hate and justifying it. I mean, even to myself it's pushing that envelope. Still there is something very wrong here, if people are not allowed to say "I don't like that", "That is disgusting", "I don't want that around me". I defend people different from myself a lot, because I believe in peoples' right to have opinions, convictions, to say and describe what is "not like they are". I have a little trouble when I see institutional bandwagoning, though. I have trouble when I see it aimed at anyone.

 

[Senethro]

Hmmmmm. On one hand we have someone looking for freedom from hate (and its actions), on the other a person looking for freedom to hate. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, before we get led off on more of a tangent, I'll stop arguing, because I'm sure it's going to boil down to my arguing peoples' right to hate and justifying it. I mean, even to myself it's pushing that envelope. Still there is something very wrong here, if people are not allowed to say "I don't like that", "That is disgusting", "I don't want that around me".

Ellen exercised her right to say that she doesn't like homophobes, that she finds homophobes disgusting, and that she doesn't want homophobes around her. The spirit of disagreement is alive and well.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

See. You're so programmed, there's zero objective view. It has, to you, become a given. It has, to society, become shameful but in the same breath, you will argue Ellen has free expression. You can not see there is a discrepancy, you are wholly incapable.

You can not see our right to "not like things" is being institutionally revoked.

Oh, please. This "Why aren't you allowing me to express my faith-based hatred anywhere I want and however I want? You're PERSECUTING MEEEEEE!" nonsense is so tedious.

You're talking to someone in a country with hate laws, and who is comfortable with that. We do have freedom of expression here, but most normal Canadians understand that we have a responsibility to use that right wisely - not to advocate hate and harm to minorities and marginalized people.

You're free to "not like" whoever or whatever you want. Even here in Canada, where our hate laws are often misconstrued by non-Canadians as "thought control". But there's a limit here on where you're allowed to express hate (if that's what you want to express). The woman who was booted off Ellen's show already has ample space to express her bigotry. She doesn't need to whine that one of her targets doesn't want her to do it on her TV show, and doesn't want to seem as though she's endorsing this hateful woman's ranting.

Ellen's show, Ellen's rules. That should be familiar to most of us here who have been around long enough to have participated in one of the numerous "Thunderfall's house, Thunderfall's rules" exchanges when discussing forum rules and policies. This is a similar thing. Just as there are things we're not allowed to say and do here, there are things that Ellen will not allow to be said or done on her show. If you're that upset about it, write to Ellen and complain at her.

Well, before we get led off on more of a tangent, I'll stop arguing, because I'm sure it's going to boil down to my arguing peoples' right to hate and justifying it.

Too late. You're already there.

I mean, even to myself it's pushing that envelope. Still there is something very wrong here, if people are not allowed to say "I don't like that", "That is disgusting", "I don't want that around me". I defend people different from myself a lot, because I believe in peoples' right to have opinions, convictions, to say and describe what is "not like they are". I have a little trouble when I see institutional bandwagoning, though. I have trouble when I see it aimed at anyone.

Who's saying you're not allowed to say you don't like something? That's basically the bread and butter of most discussion forums - there's not one person here who doesn't complain about something at some point. But there's a huge difference between me saying "I hate Brussels sprouts and asparagus" and me standing on a street corner with a megaphone and preaching hate or advocating harm/death against members of a minority or marginalized group of people. The first example got me into trouble with my mother who made me sit there and eat that foul stuff. The second example could get me arrested and charged with a hate crime.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This argument would be so much more effective if you didn't routinely preach hate against anyone who isn't a member of the church of science as you define it. That said, well done, because it was still effective.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

...or advocating harm/death against members of a minority or marginalized group of people.

This was actually never part of the conversation at all. No one did this in any rendition. It was a recorded sermon by a pastor in a church discussing the position, the interpretation, that God dislikes the behavior, a few choice words for the behavior, and that God will enact consequences for such behavior.

No wonder you're so worked up. You're hallucinating people are about to be lynched.

And no, you're not more right just because of your hyperbolic tirade. If people want to believe in a church with a pastor that certain behaviors land you in a particularly inopportune position, I would hope you agree, they have that right.

 

[Traitorfish]

This was actually never part of the conversation at all. No one did this in any rendition. It was a recorded sermon by a pastor in a church discussing the position, the interpretation, that God dislikes the behavior, a few choice words for the behavior, and that God will enact consequences for such behavior.

No wonder you're so worked up. You're hallucinating people are about to be lynched.

There is a history of violence against gay people, in which religion has played no small part as either inspiration or justification, and that can't be ignored. Burrell may not have promoted any sort of violence against gay or trans people, but she seems to be operating inside a discourse which historically has done so, which in some dark crevices still does so, and you can't blame somebody like Ellen DeGeneres, who's old enough to remember those days, who grew up in their shadow, to be comfortable that it's all in the past. You don't get to shirk the weight of your words simply because times have changed such that they are now recognised as absurd.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

There is a history of violence against gay people, in which religion has played no small part as either inspiration or justification, and that can't be ignored. You don't get to shirk the weight of your words simply because times have changed such that they are now recognised as absurd.

There's a history of violence against all people. People who identify as gay don't have that market cornered. To wit, we're discussing Southern Black Baptist church. What do you think, take a guess, happened around there.

I am not the one being absurd. No one's being attacked or advocated against in the perpetration intent. Your, my ideas are being attacked, a bit. Not people.

 

[Traitorfish]

There's a history of violence against all people. People who identify as gay don't have that market cornered. To wit, we're discussing Southern Black Baptist church. What do you think, take a guess, happened around there.

Well, indeed: a black woman, of all people, should understand that words have a significance beyond their immediate and literal meaning.

I am not the one being absurd. No one's being attacked or advocated against in the perpetration intent. Your, my ideas are being attacked, a bit. Not people.

I was referring to Burrell. "You", here, in the sense of "one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This was actually never part of the conversation at all. No one did this in any rendition. It was a recorded sermon by a pastor in a church discussing the position, the interpretation, that God dislikes the behavior, a few choice words for the behavior, and that God will enact consequences for such behavior.

No wonder you're so worked up. You're hallucinating people are about to be lynched.

And no, you're not more right just because of your hyperbolic tirade. If people want to believe in a church with a pastor that certain behaviors land you in a particularly inopportune position, I would hope you agree, they have that right.

Are you being deliberately insistent on misinterpreting my posts or do you genuinely not understand?

I'm Canadian. I look at the world and issues from a Canadian viewpoint. We have hate laws here that say there are things people are not allowed to say or do in public (they can be as hateful as they want in their places of worship or in their own homes).

Like many other non-Canadians, you seem determined to equate hate laws with thought control. They're not equivalent at all. You can believe in whatever hateful, bigoted crap you want to - and express it in a place of worship or in private. I certainly heard enough of the anti-Jewish crap from my grandfather and anti-Middle Eastern/East Indian crap from my mother. It was disappointing to discover that my dad had a prejudicial attitude against same-sex marriage. So don't come with this attitude that I'm saying people shouldn't be allowed to think what they want. I don't like what my family thought, but they were (and are, in my dad's case) still family.

And in case certain people around here haven't mentioned it to you yet, I'm atheist. I consider "God" to be imaginary - a character invented by humans long ago to explain what the people of that time didn't understand. As such, it's just silly to say "God hates this" or "God hates that." You might as well say "The Easter Bunny hates this."