Freedom of speech means freedom from repercussions?

[EgonSpengler]

*Psst.*
Hey, buddy. I'm a gonna let you in on a little secret.
You can be opposed to both hateful acts and overbroad safe spaces.

Excellent. So when I wrote, "I do think people go overboard with the 'safe space' thing" I was, ahem, in a safe space? I appreciate the reassurance.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Apple, if you think a "safe space" in which people are called pretty, correct and great is "vomitous", then surely your disgust with people who throw a Nazi salute into the air and proclaim "Hail Victory" is just beyond expressing with mere words. Surely.

Just like I claim "everyone lies", I claim everyone has prejudices. We all decide what we want near us, what's different from us, what we want in our immediate surroundings, or sphere, what we want affecting our children. Just as people who claim they don't lie are being disingenuous, people who claim little to no prejudice are being disingenuous. Not to justify ethnic or religious discrimination, but at least when people are forthright about it, you know where you stand with them. That "honesty" is more respect given than from people who claim to be your friends, for some principle or self serving purpose, but secretly loathe you, are jealous of you, or make every excuse to not be around you.

People "love the self" in different manners. Healthily loving the self, by nature, practically necessitates, begs, protection of the self and avoidance/removal of what one considers dangerous or otherwise aberrant. Only if one "has a lack" of this, do they manifest some altruistic "love for all", and this is the very foundation of narcissism, and thereby deceit, because one truly can only love others as one loves the self, because narcissism, while it appears "too much love for self" is overcompensation for a deep, specific "loathing of self". So you have a spectrum, a continuum, of left side loving self genuinely and expelling what's foreign or right side loathing self and accepting the foreign to change or otherwise adversely affect the self. All people fall somewhere in this, generally in shades of gray, but neither is necessarily more "correct".

I, for example, have a prejudice against feminists. I feel as a colored person looking to a white supremacist toward them. Many feminists claim they don't "dislike" men, many white separatists claim they don't "dislike" people of other ethnicity. In truth, females have always been powerful, always been just as integral, always been just as influential as males, or we couldn't have gotten here. They look to supposed "power" men have and they lust for similar "power" or "control", disregarding those "powerful and controlling" men maltreat not only women but other men as well, and for some reason want to be "that". So it stems from a feeling of lack of power, lack of control, and manifests as irrational disdain, and in extreme cases leads to hatred, just as racial bigotry.

So some argue "bigotry of bigotry isn't bigotry", but it is. It's entirely too difficult to separate the "actions" or "ideals" from the "person", and you just end up expelling the person from your immediate sphere. It works out the same way, it follows to exactly the same end. So there is no person with zero bias, unless the bias is expressly with the self, and that inevitable leads to projection of the self so on high, one holds himself above existential premise, real or metaphysical. That is the true origin of what we consider evil. That is a more destructive force than any outwardly bigoted group of people could ever dream to perpetrate.

 

[BvBPL]

I don’t know where you are, man. You could be using a 3G connection from Chicago’s South Side for all I know.

 

[metalhead]

Just like I claim "everyone lies", I claim everyone has prejudices. We all decide what we want near us, what's different from us, what we want in our immediate surroundings, or sphere, what we want affecting our children. Just as people who claim they don't lie are being disingenuous, people who claim little to no prejudice are being disingenuous. Not to justify ethnic or religious discrimination, but at least when people are forthright about it, you know where you stand with them. That "honesty" is more respect given than from people who claim to be your friends, for some principle or self serving purpose, but secretly loathe you, are jealous of you, or make every excuse to not be around you.

People "love the self" in different manners. Healthily loving the self, by nature, practically necessitates, begs, protection of the self and avoidance/removal of what one considers dangerous or otherwise aberrant. Only if one "has a lack" of this, do they manifest some altruistic "love for all", and this is the very foundation of narcissism, and thereby deceit, because one truly can only love others as one loves the self, because narcissism, while it appears "too much love for self" is overcompensation for a deep, specific "loathing of self". So you have a spectrum, a continuum, of left side loving self genuinely and expelling what's foreign or right side loathing self and accepting the foreign to change or otherwise adversely affect the self. All people fall somewhere in this, generally in shades of gray, but neither is necessarily more "correct".

I, for example, have a prejudice against feminists. I feel as a colored person looking to a white supremacist toward them. Many feminists claim they don't "dislike" men, many white separatists claim they don't "dislike" people of other ethnicity. In truth, females have always been powerful, always been just as integral, always been just as influential as males, or we couldn't have gotten here. They look to supposed "power" men have and they lust for similar "power" or "control", disregarding those "powerful and controlling" men maltreat not only women but other men as well, and for some reason want to be "that". So it stems from a feeling of lack of power, lack of control, and manifests as irrational disdain, and in extreme cases leads to hatred, just as racial bigotry.

So some argue "bigotry of bigotry isn't bigotry", but it is. It's entirely too difficult to separate the "actions" or "ideals" from the "person", and you just end up expelling the person from your immediate sphere. It works out the same way, it follows to exactly the same end. So there is no person with zero bias, unless the bias is expressly with the self, and that inevitable leads to projection of the self so on high, one holds himself above existential premise, real or metaphysical. That is the true origin of what we consider evil. That is a more destructive force than any outwardly bigoted group of people could ever dream to perpetrate.

But this presumes that prejudice is a given that must necessarily affect one's behavior. One can consciously work to alter their behavior in response to their prejudices, and in some cases eliminate their prejudices altogether. The whole purpose of "bigotry against bigotry" is to show people that we don't have to let prejudice guide our actions, that human beings are capable of overcoming the parts of our nature that make us worse off. It has been scientifically proven that exposure to people we are prejudiced against works to reduce that prejudice. That goes for prejudice based on race, on religion, on sexuality, on gender identity, perhaps even politics to some extent. That's why it's so damaging when people isolate themselves from one another, refuse to acknowledge or expose themselves to fellow man based on their prejudices. It allows them to believe that prejudice is natural, perhaps even healthy.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

When you "think" you're expressing that prejudice doesn't guide your actions, prejudice is guiding your actions. Prejudice is innate, even instinctual, as you don't want to somehow force yourself to believe you want to immerse yourself in thieves and murderers on principle, or your children around known molesters, just to prove a point. That is destructive and inherently unhealthy.

Mis-associating ( I can't think of a better word right now ) , for example, "ethnicity with crime" is exactly the same mechanism as mis-associating a distant growl in the night with a sabre-tooth tiger. Yes, you can calm yourself, rationalize the campfire is protection or that what you heard isn't, truly, a predator, but that instant, that immediate instinctual feeling is exactly what we're looking to when we see much of this racial bias. It's ingrained. Can we help it? Sure, but only when we separate ourselves from that innate nature which kept us alive for thousands of years, and we're "here" today because of it.

 

[Senethro]

So are you saying that it is hard, or that you just don't want to?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

So are you saying that it is hard, or that you just don't want to?

It's both hard and not always necessary, particularly if the reason is "because principle". Some people are better left to their devices as bigots, carrying on their daily lives "over there". I am ok with not living on or near a kkk compound. Some people need that "protection" or they act even more irrationally.

 

[Senethro]

"Because principle" is a pretty poor reason to do anything. Do you think your the opponents of bigotry act only out of principle and not because they think good outcomes occur?

That a presently maladaptive fear of strangers might have been adaptive in the past is a strange argument to make in favour of a particular behaviour.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

"Because principle" is a pretty poor reason to do anything. Do you think your the opponents of bigotry act only out of principle and not because they think good outcomes occur?

That a presently maladaptive fear of strangers might have been adaptive in the past is a strange argument to make in favour of a particular behaviour.

Well, one, it's not so distant in the past as we might like to perceive. I'm an opponent of racial and religious bigotry, yet I know some people aren't going to espouse my contentions, and I need to accept that, and them as human beings. Two, it would probably be very harmful to suddenly, somehow, "yank" someone from the mindset, because you're eradicating a defense mechanism without anything to "fill its place", and that's way more violent and harmful, leaving someone defenseless, than what they likely might do otherwise, sulking in solitude.

 

[Senethro]

Violent and harmful? To whom? Are you speaking about people lacking defense mechanisms being harmed by the lack, or of reactionary violence?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Violent and harmful? To whom? Are you speaking about people lacking defense mechanisms being harmed by the lack, or of reactionary violence?

Like declawing a cat and sending it outside, or the "treatment" in A Clockwork Orange.

You're making this pretty difficult. It should be apparent.

 

[metalhead]

Well, one, it's not so distant in the past as we might like to perceive. I'm an opponent of racial and religious bigotry, yet I know some people aren't going to espouse my contentions, and I need to accept that, and them as human beings. Two, it would probably be very harmful to suddenly, somehow, "yank" someone from the mindset, because you're eradicating a defense mechanism without anything to "fill its place", and that's way more violent and harmful, leaving someone defenseless, than what they likely might do otherwise, sulking in solitude.

There is no solitude any more. That's part of why confronting it head on and using social pressure to fight it is so necessary. People who 20 years ago may have sulked in solitude can now hook up with like-minded people who embolden them to further embrace their hateful ideology, and then project it outwards, without ever leaving their homes.

It seems to me that conservative safe spaces are exactly what you're advocating for. Places to allow bigots to be bigots without outside interference or judgment from the rest of us.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

There is no solitude any more. That's part of why confronting it head on and using social pressure to fight it is so necessary. People who 20 years ago may have sulked in solitude can now hook up with like-minded people who embolden them to further embrace their hateful ideology, and then project it outwards, without ever leaving their homes.

It seems to me that conservative safe spaces are exactly what you're advocating for. Places to allow bigots to be bigots without outside interference or judgment from the rest of us.

Part of the problem in your whole equation is you associate "conservative" equals "bigot" and "non-conservative" equals "non-bigot". That's very irrational.'

It's most irrational when you consider you're stereotyping while telling people to not stereotype.

But at least it's not racial, because principle, right?

 

[Senethro]

Like declawing a cat and sending it outside, or the "treatment" in A Clockwork Orange.

You're making this pretty difficult. It should be apparent.

You're making it pretty difficult yourself. Cat species include both domesticated and wild species, and Clockwork Orange had both film and books versions that would completely flip your analogy.

Lets make it short and snappy, shall we?

Are you saying that if racists weren't racists then harmful strangers really would harm them?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

You're making it pretty difficult yourself. Cat species include both domesticated and wild species, and Clockwork Orange had both film and books versions that would completely flip your analogy.

Lets make it short and snappy, shall we?

Are you saying that if racists weren't racists then harmful strangers really would harm them?

Such prejudice, albeit distasteful, is a defense mechanism. If you could somehow, suddenly, force a person used to such a mindset to "love all (x)", you'd be leaving them defenseless without adequate appropriate defensive mechanism.

Then he's dead. "But at least he's not a dead bigot!"

I really don't like having to spell things like this all out. Can't I just be cryptic, and you figure it out for yourself over a period of months or years and then you go, "oh yeh, that's what he meant"?

 

[JollyRoger]

Why stop at dead bigot? If he has surrounded himself with pets and children, then they are obviously acceptable collateral damage.

 

[metalhead]

Part of the problem in your whole equation is you associate "conservative" equals "bigot" and "non-conservative" equals "non-bigot". That's very irrational.'

It's most irrational when you consider you're stereotyping while telling people to not stereotype.

But at least it's not racial, because principle, right?

Irrational fear of others based on race is far more prevalent among conservatives. Polling data tends to bear that out, as does the far greater tendency of liberals to congregate in multicultural surroundings. That doesn't mean I think bigotry only exists in conservatives. Liberals are bigoted too, albeit in different ways.

I'm curious as to what you think people need a defense mechanism to protect themselves from, which prejudice provides them? I mean, one can have a healthy distrust for strangers without having to give in to unhealthy prejudice against people based on race or religion. Not all prejudices are created equal, and yes, many are beneficial to protecting one's self from harm. But there's a difference between being prejudiced against a stranger walking up my driveway, and being prejudiced against someone I pass on the street because they are a different race than I am.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

How do you think that starts to happen? Take a guess, other than "taught that way", go back to the person who taught it and why they taught it.

Be reasonable in your explanation, as if it's actually supposed to make sense, though we both know it's "deep end".

 

[metalhead]

But we're talking about present day. We've invented things like standing armies to protect us from the "other" that actually means to harm us. I get why the ancestral impulse exists. What I'm not getting is why you consider it to still be relevant to modern life.

 

[Senethro]

He wants us to come up with a variety of answers and then he selects whichever is the most useful one for his purposes. It allows freedom to adopt or avoid adopting whatever position he wants and commit to no statement that might inconvenience him later.

Cryptics are thieves of time.