~~ death to broccoli! ...and other thoughts.

[reenka]

So I've been trying to figure out how I feel about the potential conflict between a 'live & let live' philosophy and the inherent pitfalls of free speech, like saying things that people take as being censorship attempts. It seems like there's a thin line sometimes between saying & doing-- and that words can be taken as calls to action simply because they -can- be, as in the typical example of yelling 'fire' in a movie theater. And how to distinguish these things?

Often enough, that's where arguments & kerfuffles start, isn't it? Someone expresses their opinion, usually involving not liking some people's behavior, and the people who're in the 'line of fire' become offended, tempers flare, and so on. And of course most people would say everyone has the right to their opinions, but isn't it in the nature of particularly strong opinion that it's 'as good as' knowledge, for most people? The only difference, which is difficult to discern straight off, would be that with an -opinion-, it could be changed by whatever form of argument works for the person holding it (emotional, rational, etc), whereas with a belief of fact, you'd need either a revelation of a higher order or hard evidence, again depending on the type of person involved.

And of course, fact is, even in 'free' societies, people get persecuted for their opinions, depending on whether they're seen as 'threatening' by the majority (and actually, a minority could persecute chosen other groups also). I really wonder if free speech can exist without being constantly challenged and oppressed even by people who believe in it-- just because of people's possible emotional investment in the subject at hand. I mean, with most people, it's 'live and let live' until someone treads on your toes, at which point you get pissed off and quite possibly retaliatory, and such is human nature.

As an example: "I don't like your mother, and I think she--" is taken as slander. Speech which is seen to offend or degrade another person. But that is a really straightforward case-- and who's to say where 'slander' really stops? What if one says, "Believing in god is stupid, because god doesn't exist"-- is that slander? What about, "Broccoli sucks. It's green, tasteless, and really disgusting"-- how would the lovers of broccoli feel? What if they really feel deeply about broccoli? Basically, once you go PC, can you ever go back??
    However, I think that in all these, it would be 'okay' to say this between friends-- at least, my friends have certainly never beaten around the bush in terms of panning everything from my mom to my taste in boys to whatever I'm wearing. It gets to the point where I wouldn't even notice the extent of this sort of 'abuse' except in retrospect. But then, we know each other rather well so the 'free speech' is like a favor, which implies that the spheres of 'public' and private discourse are really quite separate in people's minds (and this explains why I get on some people's nerves, I guess, since I view this journal as private discourse in a public forum).


Anyway, it seems like opinions are never just opinions, so any view of free speech as a given in any social group seems naive. Depends on how much you want to keep that social group cohesive and free of conflict, of course-- but on reflection, it definitely appears that people's personal opinions and beliefs are actually the most powerful instruments of change in society. If you've got enough people holding an opinion, they -can- change things either for the worse or for the better-- majority rules, all that. And you can't really predict which opinion's meaningless and has no impact beyond a single person. Basically, words = power.

However, it is in spite and because of this that free speech and tolerance of people you disagree with on however deep a level becomes necessary. I believe that even if that includes someone saying bad things about my mother. Because if it's not 'all or nothing', then how to objectively determine any opinion's relative importance...?

Comments

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It seems like the dominant trouble everywhere is getting to be the difference between making somebody act the way you want, and making people put up with other people not acting the way they want, you know?

For me I think the time I always want to jump in--well, I'll be glad to explain myself for whatever reason--but I want to jump in when I feel like things or people are being mis-represented. For some reason this tends to be part of it a lot. Like, people will say, "I hate it when people do this." And then they'll have to come up with a reason for people doing that that makes them look bad, and that, I think, is when people get really annoyed and say, "No, I am not doing that, I am doing this!"

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heeee!! You've no idea how much I ♥ you for responding to this-- I really feel as if nobody cares about posts like this (...except possibly also you), and goddammit all, this is the sort of thing I really want to talk about ^^;; You make me feel so validated :D Ahhhh, thank you :D Like, I know if I degenerate into only uber-abstract human behavior meta, I'd still have you as my audience >:D

It's amazing to me (even though not surprising) that people are so obsessed with making other people conform, even in thought-- or perhaps especially in thought! I mean, I myself don't care what anyone thinks as long as I can avoid it if I want to-- so I'm always like, why does anyone care until I remember 'oh wait, we're all programmed to care'. Alas. It seems almost entirely fruitless to go on about the next step up from tolerance-- that is, understanding, y'know. Maybe 'cause understanding would lessen the amount of power some people have over others, so like, there's an ingrained motivator -not- to understand where the people you disagree with are coming from.

Heee, I jump in a lot more in real life than online-- like, in class, I don't even think twice before voicing my opinion if I disagree or agree or basically have something to say in general-- but online it's a lot easier to be passive (unless I've got my own forum like this lj or am commenting on the lj of a friend-- but perhaps this is a difference in relating to livejournal itself).

And you're right, of course-- the problem with having these sort of "I hate it when" opinions is that people will naturally try to rationalize it and make it 'normalized'-- that is, make it not just their opinion but the truth in some way. It's almost like it's not just that people can't accept others' opinions-- they can barely accept their own, if they're just seen as subjective! *sigh* And then of course other people will measure themselves against the perception of others, and if that perception makes them 'look bad', as you say, they will feel the need to convince both themselves and the other person that they're not 'bad'. Which is kinda funny to me, 'cause no one's opinion is good enough to have that sort of power over you-- that's really bad for real self-esteem, anyway.

But then, I'm an asocial loner type, of course I get frustrated :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

I care about posts like this, dammit.

I'm just. Braindead. For reasons you probably know.

...yeah, going to bed. -_-;

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

*feels doubly validated* :D :D
man. I can imagine. Writing porn must be exhausting >:D

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

I really feel as if nobody cares about posts like this

*Notes that post had 42 replies when hit reply button. If you call that "nobody" you're a spoiled brat.;P And yeah, not-really-so "uber-abstract" human behaviour meta rocks! Bring it on, I say!:D*

I was thinking about this the other day. How it's possible to be so incredibly offended by something which is "just my opinion", that is. Because there are a whole lot of opinions out there. "Just your opinion" can be anything really, why would it be less hurtful because it's "just your opinion"? I'm all for the right of free speech, meaning that I think you should always have the right to express your opinion, no matter what said opinion is. But people tend to confuse "the right to express my opinion" with "the right to express my opinion without having any consequences whatsoever". And for most opinions that matter, there will be consequences. If, say, it's your opinion that a woman isn't worth as much money as a man, and you express that publically, you shouldn't be surprised when women stop applying for the jobs you offer. And if your opinion is that I'm a fat slob who will never do anything good with her life, you have the right to express that opinion in the name of free speech, but I have just as much right to express how offended I am by your opinion.

Relating this discussion to HP fandom, something that I have always had a hard time understanding, is when people really can't STAND it, when other people ship a ship they don't. I mean, I perfectly understand it when people get annoyed when people say that shippers of their ship are stupid, or other deragatory terms, because man, that pisses me off, too. And I can even understand why people may get offended if someone says something really deragatory about their ship, itself, because sometimes such statements can harbour a hidden criticism towards its shippers. But what I can't understand is when people seem to get offended by the mere idea of a ship different from their own. Like, for instance, when R/Hr-shippers get worked up over the very idea that after Ron and Hermione get together in Canon, H/Hrs will still be writing H/Hr-fics (yes, I have actually seen R/Hrs expressing their outrage over this, believe it or not!) So, I opened up a thread at FAP, asking why, exactly, some people got so worked up over the idea of not everyone sharing their ship. And there was one answer in particular, I remember: "why don't we start promoting tolerance for intolerance as well?" Eh, an interesting perspective. But, uhm, "tolerance to intolerance" is a paradox if ever I saw one. Basically that equals "intolerance" period, because it means people no longer have the right to be offended by intolerant opinions. And yes, you can turn that around and wonder if I, in that question, was suggesting people didn't have the right to be offended by people shipping different ships, but that's not what I did, I was only asking why, plus expressing my annoyance at this attitude, but I never suggested they didn't have the right to have it. Because why should you really have "the right" to think or feel anything? It's not as if you'll think or feel it less, if that right gets removed.

that is, make it not just their opinion but the truth in some way. It's almost like it's not just that people can't accept others' opinions-- they can barely accept their own, if they're just seen as subjective!

And I think you hit the nail on that one. Some people are just so insecure that anything different from them is percieved as a threat. Deep down, they're terrified of differing opinions, because they they challenge their own, and if their own opinions aren't "right", then it must mean they're "wrong", and if they're opinions are "wrong", then they will be "wrong" too, and I guess being wrong are these people's biggest fear. I have a problem with such persons, because they always tend to make me defend myself, which gets very tiring after a while.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, heheh most of the comments are me & malafede going off on tangents :> And generally people don't really respond except for SM to posts that aren't HP or fannish... or at least ones I try not to make too connected. :>

I accept that of course there'll be consequences to opinions, especially ones expressed in certain situations to certain people-- it's just that line where someone else's belief crosses over into 'offensive', 'slanderous' or 'coersive' that's interesting to me in this, because the person perceives the speech of the other as some bid for power or control over them.

I don't think 'tolerance of intolerance' has to itself be perpetuating intolerance, necessarily, if the person taking the so-called 'higher ground' doesn't feel forced into it, I guess...? It's just a question of stopping the cycle of pointless arguing that doesn't get anywhere 'cause those people aren't using rational arguments in the first place, they're just saying ridiculous emotionally-driven things that can't be responded to reasonably. It's just kind of pointless, and usually the people shut up if you leave them alone-- or at least you can't hear them anymore. That's my own philosophy of dealing with that stuff however, as I'd said.

I think I know why people are offended by ships on some level. They just think those matches are 'wrong'-- like, wrong for the characters ('cause they're so emotionally invested it's like the characters are -real- to them so it's like they're upset on their behalf almost). It's not a theoretical construct-- it's like, the very thought of the pairing would... er... influence their own happy-shiny land where their couple is MFEO. Like, the idea is, 'isn't it so obvious that's who they're meant to be with??!' so writing something that contradicts this perfect union would be... like slander. Offensive to them. People are... not very rational about what they find offensive, clearly.

Heheh I don't bother defending myself anymore unless someone confronts me directly-- then again, I never did. If the person can't deal with me on my level, it seems fruitless. The very frames of reference are too different. You can't just butt opinions together-- if they differ, then they're just incompatible and would only create meaningless conflict without obvious resolution. Of course most rationally-driven people wouldn't accept this, but then... rational arguments pitted against emotional arguments... that's what tires me ^^;

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I kinda want to respond to this, but maybe you're responding to something specific, and since I don't have a clue about it, it's not all snapping to place for me? *is dum* So I feel like the terms are muddied together. Like As an example: "I don't like your mother, and I think she--" is taken as slander. Speech which is seen to offend or degrade another person. That's not the def of slander. Slander is about doing damage by *lying.* You can be as offensive and bitchy as you want and it's not slander if you've got your facts right.

A similar thing for free speech. (as I understand it) Free speech is a USA legal thingy. It's about individuals/publications not being censored by the *govt*. That doesn't mean that your internet provider/editor/mom/MLmod/tv network can't censor you though...

Slander and free speech: legal thingys. Many of the other things you bring up seem more like problems of manners/social context. Like, it's legal to say such and such about broccoli or Draco or yo'mamma, and you have a right to say such and such, and such and such might even be true (in whatever sense) but that doesn't mean you won't hurt someone's feelings or be violating some group's social rules.

So "free speech in a social group"... the concept doesn't quite make sense to me. Manners and legal rights are different... Legally you can say you worship the sun god Ra, but don't expect it to win you acceptance at church on Sunday, and don't be too surprised if you are gently asked to leave.

I think every social circle/subculture has its rules and opinions it expects its members to hold (ie slash fandom generally not big on homophobia), that's what makes it a group... so if you're suddenly rocking the boat--you're breaking some of common threads that bind that subculture together. And depending on how many or how important those threads are seen to be (think Draco should never be on top vs. think H/D is unbearably canon vs. think being gay is a mental illness...) the more you'll get people not too happy with you being different.

My pet personal theory about fandom troubles: people disagree as to what social sphere they're in and it's this fuzzy melding that happens with passionate amateurs. Are we doing academic rules where feelings don't matter? Social rules where we count the personality over the talent? Some complex melding of the 2 and everyone has their own vision as to what extent it's either? And woe betide you if you get it wrong? :D

blah blah blah blah :D

pls forgive pedantic tone, cannot seem to help it *cries*

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Manners and legal rights are different...

Oh yeah, that completely drives me mad.

"Your mom is a ho!"
"That was quite assolish of you."
"I HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH THAT WAS SO OPPRESSIVE!"

... dude, I'm not saying your constitutional rights should be removed, I'm saying you're not looking well in the moral department.

[cellia.livejournal.com]

haha you got another pet peeve of mine, tho' well-recognized now! People should realize that free speech applies to those responding too. :D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehe I'm kinda responding to something specific (...I think?) in so far as I was walking along and suddenly contrasting the whole 'I don't care, you assholes!' philosophy that I personally have & 'how dare you say that???! bitches!!' and how it relates to the idea that you theoretically could say anything whereas clearly you can't 'cause people get upset from all sorts of angles.

It wasn't so much about politeness (in my head) as the things people misinterpret and project onto others' speech, which could occur even with politeness, but as usual I'm not that good with examples (or using the correct definition for some things, apparently). Like, people -can- be offensive and not get in 'trouble' legally, but there's certainly trouble in terms of people trying to argue and/or shut you up. I know I used 'slander' (basically trying to use it to mean 'speech people take as being libelous-- oh wait, I should've said libel... or something... uh, or defamation?? damn legalese) but I wasn't trying to get into legalities but rather the grey area of social/fandom debates where it's not exactly about politeness or truth or rhetoric but some messed up combination of all manner of approaches.

So yeah, since I was just rambling & not being very precise (...am I ever...?? I mean, really) my terms were definitely muddled. If anything, I was trying to define my terms as I went along the whole time-- that was sort of the point, I guess.

With free speech-- I was mostly talking about debate forums and social speech like newspapers, online journalling sites, universities, and social gatherings of peers-- which I should've clarified. I wasn't talking about either gov't institutions or businesses, because that's regulated by TOS's and not by the responses of the people involved, which is what I was trying to get at. Most people in online communities and loose social groups like... classes, say, have some idea that theoretically, anything goes. It's not cast in stone, but there's this feeling that as long as we don't piss anyone off too directly or too... something, we always have the right to our opinion. It seems to be a social convention at least among Americans...? I'm not sure either, which is why I was trying to figure it out :>

I was also not trying to say anything about very specific groups like church-- because there the rules of conduct are pretty explicit when compared to something like a class or a fandom gathering. There's no pretense of 'anything goes' because everyone knows what they're supposed to be thinking implicitly. There's no guesswork within that setting, it seems like.

You're right in that there are definitely specific things that will bother specific subgroups more (like Draco fans being especially sensitive to attacks on Slytherins or something). I think I was just generalizing and being abstract and trying to expand from that situation onto others because I can't help myself :>

I was thinking more on a micro level of misunderstanding and the ways in which people express themselves moreso than what they say, exactly-- that is, wondering about whether how someone says "Draco should never be top" affects people's responses, and how people respond to that opinion as if it was an attempt to restrain their own beliefs. So it's like, not only about people being upset you're different but also people taking issue with your speech impairing their own freedom of opinion/belief, it seems like. Eh, I can't help going to the abstract place :>

People definitely do disagree in what social sphere they're in, especially among 'passionate amateurs' (fans) who take discussion oh-so-seriously but it's -not- 'officially' serious because it's not regulated so there's all sorts of internal regulation that works according to on-again-off-again sorts of rules. Which makes it interesting to use in terms of observing people's innate reactions to contrasting/matching opinions/beliefs and things.... Though I was still talking about the micro level of how the actual transmission/reception of these beliefs works and where it goes wrong in a social group where it's accepted that we should be able to just-- say whatever.

The pedantic tone makes me try harder & I succumb to it myself a lot ^^;

[malafede.livejournal.com]

'how dare you say that???! bitches!!'

*obsesses*

Um, really actually it went more along the line of "please refrain from calling me a psycho."

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

But that would only apply to situations where people actually called you a psycho :> Which wasn't what I was referring to, if anything because that's rather straightforward as far as personal attacks go. :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think saying that someone is an ego-tripping maniac who's trying to hide his personal insecurities is very close to the textbook definition of implying a psychosis in the debater associated to the issue he's debating is the reason why the debater disagrees with you.

opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)

[cellia.livejournal.com]

oooh I think I get it. The idea that someone's opinion is/can be seen as somehow coercive!

Hm. You know, I was going to say, "well of course it isn't, not if you're comfortable in your beliefs but also not afraid of new ideas..."

But, hell, I'll admit I'm weak. I'm not always all that comfortably secure in my beliefs and new ideas are sometimes freaky. Oh yeah, intellectually I want it to all be 100% logic. To discard the old ideas as necessary. But emotionally I like my belief system and my ideas. Comfy.

And, hey, sometimes emotion can guide you a bit where logic can't. Or before logic kicks in. You hear a new argument--say why Ron really is a bad friend or whatever--and ag it's so logical! But your heart tells you "no, that's not quite right." Luckily, someone smarter than you later comes along and makes a whole bunch of other points that invalidate lots of the earlier argument. You knew all this yourself but didn't have the time/focus/insight to quite make the leap from intuition to well-rationalized argument.

Yeah, I realize this is shaky ground. How wide is the spectrum between intuition--those unconscious things you picked up that make you believe something in your gut, even if you can't get to them in your brain and articulate it all neatly and rationally--and unquestioning irrationality?

(I think I read an article once that said mental architecture was the hardest thing for humans to readjust. "Studies have shown" that people will do almost anything else, believe all sorts of things, than re-order the structures through which they see the world. I think this flows down to the littlest restructurings too--our animal brains resist it, no matter how enlightened we try to be.)

2 more points
(overgeneralizing about emotions, but seems true for most that I've seen)

1. (Many) people are closer to their opinions than assumed in debate, um, rules. You know, like in academia or fandom debates, all's fair. People are supposed to see the difference between an attack on their opinion/idea and on themselves personally. But, hey, I even feel lame if someone doesn't like the food at a restaurant I recommended. Attacking a person's ideas/opinions... you are saying that their judgment is flawed, their logic is faulty, or, more basically, the things they value or believe (in a character, in a story, in chinese food) are not what you value and believe. That's not the same as saying someone's a kelpto boyfriend-stealer, but still seems pretty personal to me.

And this dissection and realization that people can have different core values than you is not always a happy-feeling thing, although it helps you grow, can be fun, and (unless you are part of a zombie cult) is necessary to being a mature adult...Yup, you're not perfect. I mean, we all know we're not perfect, but it's not always fun to have it pointed out y'know? And often, socially (especially when we don't know the people very well), we usually try to reduce unhappy friction, so I think the tone of many debates can get too harsh for some not expecting academic coldness, or too fluffy for those wanting more than brunch with the in-laws.


2. Because we aren't pure-logic robots, we are get happy when people agree with us because we feel a connection. Someone disagrees? Perhaps an opportunity for knowledge/enlightenment, but no fuzzy connection feeling, and worse if it's someone you like/respect that you have a disconnect with... Maybe it's just me, but even if no debate actually happens, as soon as you see a differing opinion you kinda do your "side" of the argument in your head... can be tiring if this is how you spend the majority of your fandom time, and most people disagree with your opinion... And sometimes, fandom is more about feeling all connected and "yay! you like xyz too!" Of course, an army of clones would be horribly boring too though...

basically, like the theme that's in almost every piece of lit ever: balance is mucho important, extremes=bad.

OMG I have written so much WTF??? I need to go to bed.

Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)

[malafede.livejournal.com]

words argh!

<333333333333333333333

Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)

[cellia.livejournal.com]

*molests*

Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

How wide is the spectrum between intuition--those unconscious things you picked up that make you believe something in your gut, even if you can't get to them in your brain and articulate it all neatly and rationally--and unquestioning irrationality?

That's an intersting question~:)
I think the thing about intuition is that it does question, it just questions in a different manner than logic/rationality does. Irrationality, on the other hand, is like logic gone sour and pickled in its own juices and also inverted-- but it's part of that same axis. I think using intuition virtually all the time, and it allows me to often come to the same conclusions as logic would-- whereas the thing about irrationality is that it's based on assumption and projection and false pretenses, so the conclusions would almost always be different than whatever's logical. Basically, the person themselves couldn't tell, 'cause they'd think they're doing perfectly fine, but a straight-thinking/feeling person could definitely tell, methinks.


I know that people are close to their opinions... and are either afraid or disturbed by things that make them disconnected from each other... I think I'm just rather frustrated by all the misunderstandings and projections and suspicion that goes on. Like, I understand -why- it happens, but it still bothers me that so many people take so many different (often unpredictable) types of things personally, and then rationalize why, and then project the reasons onto the other person, and so on. Like, I know it can't be argued away, but I still think it should be overcome. How, I haven't the faintest idea :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

What if one says, "Believing in god is stupid, because god doesn't exist"-- is that slander? What about, "Broccoli sucks. It's green, tasteless, and really disgusting"-- how would the lovers of broccoli feel? What if they really feel deeply about broccoli? Basically, once you go PC, can you ever go back??

Man, I think all these are somehow dishonest statements. What drives me mad about these conversation is the normativeness of it all; like SM says, the effort to make someone conform. I feel like the only contribute I have to give to conduct codes always goes back to "don't try to make someone conform to your school of thought, ie, accept that they are different without demonising such difference as wrong when clearly it isn't."

I mean, I love broccoli, you hate broccoli. That's great, but when you start saying that people who hate broccoli only do so out of ego-trip over chefs caused by deep personal insecurities, then that's dishonest. It's your way to try to eradicate a difference from your reality by rationalising it as stoopid.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose my point was-- where is that line, between merely stating and trying to censor and/or make others conform. That was what I was trying to pin down. You can't just say, any statement that expresses a strong belief is automatically going to be made with the intent of making others do things-- although here we might get lost in the divide between intent of action and perception of action.

How to react to an attempt at controlling others is clear-- indignation, resentment, accusations of dishonesty, what have you. How to distinguish between an attempt to control/make others conform and a very strong opinion isn't as clear to me. Also, it seems like a lot of inferences about intent go on with people's reactions-- so that what they 'understand' isn't just about what they hear/read, and we're all susceptible to this. Not everyone expresses themselves the same way.

And of course, most of us rationalize our beliefs (as I was saying, because opinions are seen as so flimsy), but that still doesn't necessarily have to equate with a desire to control others' thinking or behavior. In fact, it seems to me that if you assume that others are saying whatever with the intent to affect you in some way, you cannot truly have free speech-- because things would have to be said a certain way in order for certain negative conclusions (dishonesty, coersion, lecturing) not to be drawn. It's just not so obvious by the very nature of language what constitutes coersion to me, in theory, even though in practice you could always 'know it when you see it'.

Anyway, this 'eradicating of difference'-- it is both extremely dangerous yet natural for an individual or a group-- on a macro or micro level. No matter what, it's always going to go on unless people understand each other in such a way that they reach a compromise or a unification of thought, even if that involves saying 'you're crazy, but who cares, I like you'.

People's weak/incorrect rationalizations alone aren't threatening because if anything, in that case everything would have the potential to be threatening. It seems like until people can learn to tolerate intolerance, nothing will get accomplished and the cycle will continue, but I'm not even sure what I'm talking about anymore.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

where is that line, between merely stating and trying to censor and/or make others conform.

I think that line is glaringly obvious, ie if you behave like people should conform to your line of thought then you're a normative arsehole, if you accept their different approach then you aren't. I don't say: "any statement that expresses a strong belief is automatically going to be made with the intent of making others do things", I say "any statement that expresses a strong belief accompanied by an attempt to paint the other side as invalid (unethical or mentally insane) is automatically going to be made with the intent of making others do things."

Look at the debate over criticism of JKR's prose. I think this would be honest and not censoring in intent: "I believe that criticism of JKR is wrong if made by people enjoying the fandom because of X, Y, Z reasons combined together in the following logical steps that conclude their behaviour is unethical thus I am going to deduce they have an ulterior motive for being here, and by analysing the data I observed in fandom behaviour (examples, links) I conclude it must be because of hang-ups A, B and C, so, thoughts? I'd like to hear what your reasons are so I could check my theory by better understand an attitude that's not natural for me."

What went on in a lot of comments: "I believe that criticism of JKR is wrong if made by people enjoying the fandom because of [dogma] and I am going to deduce they have an ulterior motive for [being different from me], and by [supposing everyone is lying about their motivations they are explaining to me] I conclude it must be because of [ad hominem], but I am going to disingenuously pretend I want to hear what goes on in their minds as a disclaimer of false honesty that gives me freedom to wax rhetoric over [dogma] [straw men] [ad homimen]."

Ie, a honest denouncing of unfairness would be able to be explained logically if it were sincerely based on observations of reality that disressed the denouncer; if during the conversation evidence was presented that the behaviour is not, indeed, unfair, the denouncer would acknowledge so, and wouldn't be still crusading against a disproved evil in the name of a "strong belief." (People should stop criticising JKR because that's unfair toward JKR and even if you just explained that pointing out flaws in a writer's work isn't unfair I am still going to call it wrong because really you just dissed my idol and I can't stand it! >:O Not that I will ever admit that before I die.)

I believe the whole thing was based on a false premise. "Criticism of literature is wrong" is a belief that can't be logically argued for and people do know this, which is why then they proceed to make up perverted motives (a sense of entitlement over the characters, ego-tripping, jealousy *CRACKS UP*) that never showed up during the conversation but can be more easily attacked in order to prove a belief that really doesn't hold water otherwise.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think that's dishonesty, and I also think a strong belief should be backed up by logical arguments if you want people to respect it and take it seriously in a discussion and especially its validity shouldn't based on some vague appeal to an AUTHORity. Otherwise the honest way to express your belief that you can't logically explain (faith) should be: "I can't honestly explain this to you, it's deeply personal THUS I am also not going to demand you agree with my DEEPLY PERSONAL NOT-ABSOLUTE truth."

Saying that a choice is wrong ("choosing to criticise JKR" in this case) means exactly that people shouldn't and it express your desire of making them conform to your version of morality. When this happens on ridiculously personal matters as say, being in a fandom even if you don't dig the source material as opposed to only hanging in fandom for canons you dig I am going to call this attempt of making people conform a violation, not lawfully enforced but intellectually unethical, of their freedom to determine themselves. A belief of what other people should make of their life when their behaviour is not harming anyone is always going to be an attempt to create a norm everyone in your group should conform to. Otherwise they are wackos.

as I was saying, because opinions are seen as so flimsy

Well, that's the root of all dishonesty. You are going to present yourself as a believer because having doubts makes it sound like a wuss? Dishonest.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Personally I think broccoli can be REDEEMED. It's not all bad. It just had negative influences growing up.
Reena, baby, the time has come for me to plan. When in NYC can I see you? (be aware, the answer should be: lots and lots)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...Have you had broccoli-and-cheese pie...?? I should get you some-- in NYC-- and then we'll see if you still think it can be redeemed ;))

Heee! I can be there anytime you are!! I don't have any finals!! I'm all yours!! So yeah, lots and lots. When do you want me? :>

[stellabelle.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is really that people (in a free society, at least) are generally going to say whatever the hell they want to, so it's really difficult to define boundaries in terms of 'speaking one's mind' vs. 'being an obnoxious tool', or whatever. So, if my friend tells me I look like a slut in this shirt, is she just saying her opinion or is she saying something rude about me/my character? It ultimately depends on the situation/people involved, I think.

It's like the libraries that would ban, like, Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" (& etc, & etc) because they felt it was too much an example of free speech. Once again, it comes down to 'where does one draw the line?' and the answer is sort of that everyone draws their own & thus the differentiation when it comes to people getting offended vs. not. If that makes sense?

Right. That was entirely too serious for me, haha. Last night I had a dream about vibrating broomsticks. Just um...information you never needed to know, & stuff.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee :D This is what I was getting at, actually-- that it probably depends on the situation/people involved (like how it's okay for my friends to say whatever but I would react differently if a person I didn't know said the same thing 'cause... I didn't know where they were coming from or maybe I wouldn't care). I just think this tendency people have to equate 'free speech' (...which I obviously don't mean in the legal sense) & 'offensive speech' makes free speech that much more difficult, but it's still vital. So like... I'm not sure what I'm saying. People should just chill...?? Heh. I mean, you can't understand the other person and why they say whatever if you don't let go of the emotional knee-jerk reaction stuff.

I think the official gov't-induced stuff is different, 'cause it's not just a question of perceived censorship-- it -is- actual censorship 'cause it involves an actual exercise of power (...which 'normal' people don't have with each other). I do agree, though, that people do draw their own lines-- and often in different places-- which is where the 'grr, argh!' aspect of this comes in, for me >:D

Ooh, broomsticks /:)
......I wouldn't mind one :>