~~ 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 ^^;