What it looks like you’re saying is:
Conservatives: [Hateful message]
Lancelot: That’s not the kind of message that freedom of speech was meant to protect!
Liberals: Yeah, what he said!
Lancelot: Quit it with the political correctness!
Can you please elucidate on how “pushing an agenda of intolerance” is “aping the principle of freedom of speech,” but what liberals are doing to fight back against this is “sacrificing the same principle on the altar of political correctness?”
I mean, it comes down to the idea of “Should hateful people be allowed to say hateful things?” And you seem to be castigating any conservatives who say “Yes,” while at the same time demonizing any liberals who say “No.”
By political correctness I mean avoiding speaking of subjects which may offend some members of your society. In theory this is of course a good thing, but in practice it need to be used extremely cautiously.
Though we don’t like to acknowledge it, political correctness is a form of peer group censorship. All forms of censorship, regardless of their intentions, are prone to abuse. When you use political correctness to shame someone from expressing a point of view which you find offensive, you have lost an opportunity to counter a bad argument with a good argument. That person then feels that their views (regardless of their merit) have been suppressed, and they tend to cling to them in sullen silence. As I am sure you know, some conservative spokespeople have made a career by exploiting this situation.
Would it not have been better to just let have their say, counter them calmly with good arguments and then wave goodbye?
I’m sorry about taking so long to respond, I have cerebral palsy and I spilt a cup of coffee on my specialized keyboard. I’m using a regular keyboard for the moment and it takes much longer to use (plus I didn’t get to drink my coffee).
And I’m telling you that marginalized groups have never had the same free speech of the majority. There is a long history of legal abuses, violence, and propaganda by the majority to silence the minority. In fact, the modern use of the term “Political Correctness” is a piece of conservative propaganda that has created an easy strawman to completely dismiss any concerns a minority might express - and you have right here used it as a strawman in a multitude of ways.
Calling a racist statement racist is not “losing an opportunity to counter a bad argument,” someone hearing that what they believe is offensive because of the history oppression of minorities that then feels like they were the ones harmed are at fault (not the one pointing that out to them), and literally no one is “clinging to sullen silence.” People are really vocal with their viewpoint, and as that speech is left unfettered they become even more brazen about it - that’s why there is an increase of hate crimes associated with the rise of people screeching about political correctness.
Sorry if I didn’t express myself well.
Conservatives absolutely have the right to express what they believe, regardless of my beliefs.
What I am saying is that some conservative celebrities have made careers by deliberately baiting liberal groups into reacting badly to them, and then portraying themselves as heroic protectors of freedom of speech. I find this tactic degrades the concept of freedom of speech, while it does nothing to promote true discussions.
What I am saying to liberals is that it is better to have conservatives discussing things you feel promote intolerance in public than sullenly whispering about them in back rooms.
Most of all I’m trying to say that the divide between liberals and conservatives can only be bridged by exchanging points of view honestly. Discussions between people from rival polarized groups are usually painful, and can take a long time to find even the smallest piece of common ground.
But we are not talking about enemies from distant nations, we are essentially talking about family, and families have to make the effort.
I neither said that nor implied it. I did say that marginalized groups gained the voices they do have because the principle of free speech was accepted by many as an important part of a functioning democracy.
Many of the ideas we now hold as vital, such as LGBTQ rights and Racial Equality were once considered offensive and disruptive by the majority, and were only allowed to be discussed because of the principal of freedom of speech.
I agree, what honest person doesn’t?
I am now apparently a conservative operative spreading propaganda. I must admit that I’m distressed at this turn of events, and my family will be very disappointed.
I disagree with labeling political correctness as conservative propaganda. First of all it is not just conservatives who have spoken against it, many of us old liberals have as well. Also I feel that using the loaded word “propaganda” with its associations with fascism and suppression was an attempt to tar me with the same views, You also used the word “propaganda” in your previous sentence regarding the violent abuse of minorities, thereby tying me into those crimes as well.
Why the vitriolic use of language?
I also must object to the term “strawman” which you used twice in your sentence. This is an overused term used to shut down discussions without bothering to use examples, plus I can’t help feeling that your saying that I used it “in a multitude of ways” is needlessly hyperbolic.
I don’t think that this statement has anything at all with anything I said. If this is what you heard when you read what I wrote, then I can only assure you that you are hearing someone else voice. [quote=“emo_pinata, post:43, topic:100582”]
People are really vocal with their viewpoint,
[/quote]
Not always. Sometimes they just feel marginalized until they can vote a racist buffoon into office.[quote=“emo_pinata, post:43, topic:100582”]
and as that speech is left unfettered they become even more brazen about it - that’s why there is an increase of hate crimes associated with the rise of people screeching about political correctness.
[/quote]
I’m not sure you can directly correlate hate crimes with “screeching” about political correctness.
When I was 8 years old a group of adults, including my father, told me that “Jungle Bunny” was a baseball player’s nickname and that I should yell it out whenever he was at bat to distract him (he was on the visiting team). I didn’t find out what I had actually done for a few more years, and I have felt ashamed ever since.
I had taken part in a hate crime, and I had no way to expunge it.
I am very seriously apposed to any form of hate crime, you can choose to believe me or you can choose to disbelieve me. You have that power, not me.
I find your implication, deliberate or not, that my “screeching” about political correctness equates to my willingness to condone or participate in any form of hate crime to be personally distressing and humiliating.
I need to take a nap.
Thanks for sharing the Popehat article. That was a good read.
So I’ve been watching this discussion, and it seems like there’s a little of that No-True-Scotsman thing going on here. The argument seems to be that only a racist would argue that racist speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment. I happen to think that the only way forward is to persuade people to abandon their prejudices, but I’m reluctant to make that argument here because people will call me a racist.
Please point to any comment here that labels anyone here a racist.
And why are you making it all about you and whatever you supposedly are? Seems to me the people you’re talking about are more concerned with what people say and do, rather than with whatever they are.
“I support free speech” is becoming the new “I have a black friend” or “I’m not racist but… [insert racist joke here]”
It doesn’t label anyone a racist. It’s about what people sometimes say, not whatever they supposedly are. If you think it’s labeling anyone a racist, then yes, you are misinterpreting it.
To you I guess it is, since you’re the one who’s hung up on what people supposedly are. To me it’s merely a statement about what people sometimes say. Do you think someone who says they have a black friend should be labeled a racist? I don’t.
The point I was attempting to make above is that the implication seems to subvert any subsequent argument I might make in favor of protecting a person’s right to engage in racist speech.
When you post, “A frozen peach is the new black friend.” what room does that leave for me to defend free speech rights? Would you not automatically assume the worst about my motives for making that argument?
What I wrote is also about something people sometimes say in certain contexts, not about whether they “are racists.”
As for defending free speech rights, you have plenty of room to do that. If that’s what you want to do, go right ahead. Whatever I post can’t stop you.
@milliefink I think you’re really focused on my desire to label people as racists. I did not mean to over-represent that desire, although I think there’s a discussion to be had about the difference between a racist and a person who sometimes engages in racist speech. My intended point was more that I felt like this thread does not have a lot of receptors for a free speech argument in this context.
Anyhoo, I think you’re a caring, thoughtful person and I enjoyed going back and forth with you this morning. I hope you have a great Saturday!
