Hxstory

[Lexicus]

Apparently to some people free speech means that the thought-->speech pipeline must be completely unimpeded at all times. Any modulation of speech for reasons of social etiquette is a barbaric act of oppression that heralds a 1984-style dystopia.

Another interesting phenomenon is that while the right shrieks about 'political correctness' on college campuses the right of course has its own set of political correctness rules, sacred cows that can't be challenged, things that can't be talked about and so forth.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Perhaps the most shocking and appalling assault on free speech was when after the Charlie Hebdo attacks not one single major news outlet showed the cartoons of Muhammed.

Isn't that a bit like saying that it's an assault on free speech if major outlets don't show examples of child pornography whenever anyone is charged for being involved in creating it? At the very least it's not actually a necessary requirement to report the story.

 

[Lexicus]

Isn't that a bit like saying that it's an assault on free speech if major outlets don't show examples of child pornography whenever anyone is charged for being involved in creating it? At the very least it's not actually a necessary requirement to report the story.

I suppose this is as good a window as any into the thinking of 'free speech fundamentalists.' "Free speech is in danger because news outlets weren't being gratuitously offensive to Muslims like I want."
Tough to get more upfront than that.

 

[Nexlev]

Perhaps the most shocking and appalling assault on free speech was when after the Charlie Hebdo attacks not one single major news outlet showed the cartoons of Muhammed.

Rather than an example of the assault on free speech, I would call this an example of the press not doing their job very well. I've noticed myself that the press expresses it's bias and dishonesty, not usually through outright lies, but usually through lies of omission and refusal to report on certain newsworthy events. When this happens the public starts to distrust the traditional media and starts looking for alternative media sources. This isn't a slam on the "liberal" media, the press omits information about liberal causes as well.

We live in a time of unprecedented democracy of information. All the attempts to control the narrative with force or manipulation are incredibly futile, in the end those who attempt to control are the ones that end up isolated. I will say though, that there are some troubling efforts that seek to curb this democracy on a macro level, those I find more concerning.

 

[warpus]

The press these days (for the most part) just cares about money, so they will do whatever translates to more profits. If that means offending less women and Muslims, then so be it. If it means more talk about sneakers, then so be that.

 

[Funky]

Isn't that a bit like saying that it's an assault on free speech if major outlets don't show examples of child pornography whenever anyone is charged for being involved in creating it? At the very least it's not actually a necessary requirement to report the story.

Wait, are you conflating the drawing of a cartoon with child pornograpy? Seriously?

The entire editorial staff of a satirical magazine was butchered in broad daylight for doing their job. Just let that sink in - twelve people were murdered for drawing cartoons. The only adequate response by the media throughout the Western world would have been to rigorously publish these cartoons and show them at every opportunity. For one, because what the cartoons depict is a crucial part of the news story. Secondly, to show solidarity with their massacred colleges. And third and most importantly, to send the unequivocal message to Islamists and jihadists that freedom of speech is not negotiable. Freedom of speech is the core of free societies. This is where the line has to be drawn.

The self-censorship of particularly the liberal media (though it pains me to even use the word "liberal" in this context) is not only morally insane, it is extremely dangerous. We basically gave in to the religious lunacy of the terrorists. We accepted their demand that their blasphemy laws should be followed by non-Muslims.
One of the few newspapers which published the cartoons was a local paper in Hamburg. On the same evening (a day after Charlie Hebdo), one of their offices was blown up by jihadists. By not publishing the cartoons, all the other newspapers made it considerably unsafer for those news outlets who did. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter who you are or where you are, if you publish a picture of Muhammed you are risking your life. This is the result of the cowardice of the media in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo. Free speech is not under threat; on the topic of Islam it has already been eliminated.

Muslims have to learn to deal with the fact that in free societies they will see and hear things that may hurt their religious sensitivities. Such is the nature of free societies. If they insist that their religion can infringe on freedom of speech, then that is no longer freedom of religion. That is theocracy.

 

[Peuri]

I find this hilarious, seeing as the etymology of "history" has nothing to do with "his" and "story", since it actually comes from the greek word "historia". It's like wanting to change the word "grape" to "gxape" since it includes the letters r,a,p,e in that order and consequently reminds the word "rape". It's nonsensical and betrays the lack of historical knowledge on the part of these people.

Edit:
I'm not sure how to pronounce "hxstory", but I guess it's close to hackstory, which is deeply troubling since it seems to imply some sort of cyber crime or that history as a discipline is bad or that historians are doing a bad job at their subject matter, which offends historians to be sure. Wouldn't "yxstory" be better as it takes note of both genders? Or maybe yxlgbtstory?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Wait, are you conflating the drawing of a cartoon with child pornograpy? Seriously?

No.

The entire editorial staff of a satirical magazine was butchered in broad daylight for doing their job. Just let that sink in - twelve people were murdered for drawing cartoons.

Yes. All very emotive, but not relevant.

The only adequate response by the media throughout the Western world would have been to rigorously publish these cartoons and show them at every opportunity. For one, because what the cartoons depict is a crucial part of the news story.

I would have thought the only necessary response would be to report that this event occurred. Actually displaying the cartoons isn't necessary to do that, in fact it doesn't even really add anything to the story.

Secondly, to show solidarity with their massacred colleges.

If they start taking sides and trying to make themselves part of the story then they're not doing what I would want a news organisation to do.

And third and most importantly, to send the unequivocal message to Islamists and jihadists that freedom of speech is not negotiable. Freedom of speech is the core of free societies. This is where the line has to be drawn.

It's not the role of the news media to dictate social policy or attempt to enforce ideologies. It's their role to report the news.

To be clear, I'm talking about the news media here. Perhaps you're talking about editorial or opinion pieces or political magazines. But even then, actually showing the cartoons still isn't really a requirement.

 

[Ryika]

I for one am thankful that these students concentrate on such petty nonsense as their delusions are big enough that they could cause real problems if they were focusing on things that actually matter.

 

[Arakhor]

Can every topic be tortured to complain about Muslims or do we just have special posters?

 

[Funky]

I would have thought the only necessary response would be to report that this event occurred. Actually displaying the cartoons isn't necessary to do that, in fact it doesn't even really add anything to the story.

Twelve people were murdered for drawing cartoons. The cartoons are at the center of the news story. At the very least it would have showed that the cartoons in question were remarkably benign.

If they start taking sides and trying to make themselves part of the story then they're not doing what I would want a news organisation to do.

By not showing the cartoons the media did take sides. By giving in to Islamic blasphemy laws it took the side of the Islamists.

It's not the role of the news media to dictate social policy or attempt to enforce ideologies. It's their role to report the news.

When people are murdered for drawing cartoons, it is an essential part of the story to show the cartoons they were murdered for. This has nothing to do with enforcing an ideology. In fact, by not showing the cartoons, the media proceded, perhaps unintentionally in some cases, to enforce an ideological goal, namely that one specific religion should not be criticised or mocked.

 

[BenitoChavez]

And third and most importantly, to send the unequivocal message to Islamists and jihadists that freedom of speech is not negotiable. Freedom of speech is the core of free societies.

When people are murdered for drawing cartoons, it is an essential part of the story to show the cartoons they were murdered for. This has nothing to do with enforcing an ideology.

These statements seem to contradict each other. Freedom of speech is part of an ideology so showing the cartoons to send the message that we value freedom of speech would be enforcing part of an ideology.

 

[Borachio]

When will the word hysterectomy be banned?

 

[Ryika]

These statements seem to contradict each other. Freedom of speech is itself an ideology so showing the cartoons to send the message that we value freedom of speech would be enforcing an ideology.

Our ideological leanings lead us to the conclusion that freedom of speech is a good thing, but saying that freedom of speech is itself an ideology is nonsense.

 

[Borachio]

Is it?

I'd say that thinking something is a good thing is precisely what an ideology is.

Now, an ideology that consisted solely of free speech would be a pretty thin ideology, imo, so perhaps it would be better to say that free speech (however one might define it) can be an important part of some ideology or other.

 

[Lexicus]

Our ideological leanings lead us to the conclusion that freedom of speech is a good thing, but saying that freedom of speech is itself an ideology is nonsense.

I thought he meant our normative notions surrounding free speech are an ideology.

 

[Ryika]

Is it?

I'd say that thinking something is a good thing is precisely what an ideology is.

Many ideologies value freedom, that does not make "freedom" an ideology.

Well, except for in Civ5 of course.

I thought he meant our normative notions surrounding free speech are an ideology.

Yes, that makes sense - but he didn't say that.

 

[Borachio]

Many ideologies value freedom, that does not make "freedom" an ideology.

Well, I guess you're right. Freedom itself isn't an ideology.

Even so, valuing something (like freedom) is certainly part of what makes up an ideology.

There's something here which doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't know at what point just valuing something turns into an ideology.

What's the minimum number of things a person should value in order for them to qualify as holding an ideology?

 

[Kyriakos]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/07/the-college-that-wants-to-ban-history.html

The article was a bit long so I just posted the link. It's about the bizarre demands of some Western Washington University students to change the name of history to hxstory, police people's speech and to segregate students culturally among other things.

I googled hxstory and had a similar reaction to when I found out rumpology is really a thing if an unpopular one.

This has to be the craziest thing since the college that had those students screaming about a professor who defended non pc Halloween costumes and saying they felt unsafe, and then the college where the students complained about culturally insensitive food got in the news. If I remember right the first was Yale and the second Oberlin.

From the article linked:

The list of demands ends with a lengthy denunciation of WWU’s marginalization of “hxstorically oppressed students.” The misspelling is intentional: “hxstory,” I presume, was judged to be more PC than “history,” which is gendered, triggering, and perhaps violent. It’s easy for me to laugh at these clumsy attempts to make language obey the dictates of political correctness—but I laugh from a position of relative safety, since I am not a WWU professor.

What the hell? History does not have any etymological tie to a gender. I really do hope that (at least) this is not about a dumb homophone of the word. Comes from the verb historein, which means to narrate, tell a story. The article writer claimed he assumes it is about such, so i hope he is just an idiot (and not that the uni is filled with illiterates).

Anyway, "hxstory" is very cacophonic

(edit: @Peuri: )

 

[Zkribbler]

I said: "We get the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" being stricken from the Bill of Rights."

To which, Bugfatty300 replied:

Err what?

I'm referring to Justice Scalia's judicial gymnastics when he violated the touchstone of statutory construction: "all parts are to be given meaning if at all possible." Instead of acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution deals with militias, which can be regulated, he stated these words are meaningless.

Later in that same case, he would define "people" to mean "an individual." Thus, he held that the government cannot regulate an individual's right to carry weapons rather than to hold people are allowed to carry weapons as part of a well-regulated militia.