~~ 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

[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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

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
...And what does that behavior entail? Is everyone's mode of behavior signify the same thing? Do all people express themselves the same way? That was my point. And even so, you can definitely take that too far in terms of conditioning yourself to perceive things a certain way, so that you could always suspect an intent that's not necessarily there.

Anyway, I was just saying that needing to accept others implicitly -while- stating your opinion is also normative in so far as it interferes with free speech. Because you'd then have to tailor your speech to certain expectations, which as I was saying might be inevitable, but blah-blah.

Like you're saying, yes-- you're approving a phrasing style that's rational/logical and not emotional or simply an expression of opinion. I suppose things that are sloppily/emotionally stated are always going to set someone off, which is why I was saying that about things depending on whether one wants to upkeep emotional stability in a group setting.

You keep saying it's dishonest and you mean it's intellectually dishonest, but these people are trying to let off steam, not be 'honest'. Free speech doesn't have to be honest. In fact, no one in particular has to be honest unless what they're engaging in is slander, i.e., lying to hurt you vs. just lying for fun and happy times (and then we get to the question of 'what is slander?'-- and 'is saying broccoli sucks slander?' because it's a slippery slope).

Also, what does fairness matter in casual discourse? It matters in legal terms, but who cares in social terms? As long as you can get away with it, you're home free. There's no 'be fair or be square' clause that I know of. I don't care about people criticizing JKR -or- people criticizing other people who criticize JKR-- both are about equally 'unfair', but really, it's just playground fighting. There is no 'fair'; there's only 'it doesn't make sense' or 'it makes sense'-- and if it doesn't, then you're stupid, not dishonest (I mean, I'm sure these people are sincere-- or if they aren't, who cares).


"Criticism of literature is wrong" can't be argued for, yes, but in a fandom, you get 'the church effect' that Alice was referring to-- you don't go to a Christian church and say "I worship Ra"-- that's where free speech stops because of implicit agreements between people's goals in a certain setting. Like a fandom. So it's not unfair, in any case-- it's to be expected.

This also depends on whether the holder of the strong belief wants others to respect it. What if they just want to mouth off? That happens. Sure, lots of opinions are based on flimsy logic-- but who cares? People can't think that well; live & let live-- and my point was, when does that philosophy fail in public discourse & why?


Saying someone's dishonest (...well, of course, most people are in some way-- so what does that mean?) still doesn't explain anything. There are some obvious attempts to make others conform, of course, and those are wrong-- but there's still a level of ambiguity as to what sort of speech is an attempt to do that and what speech merely exists, faulty and dishonest and offensive but not coersive. And you say that this distinction is clear to you-- okay. It's just not clear to me, is all.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think I already said somewhere else that having the constitutional right to state your opinion doesn't make it automatically safe from disagreement and especially doesn't make you look any less of an arsehole when you are being one. I mean. I totally don't understand that kind of reasoning.

I have to go now, but I'll answer later, especially to you saying "these people are trying to let off steam, not be 'honest'" which to me doesn't make an ounce of sense, especially the implication that if someone's not trying to be honest then it's okay if they aren't.

The whole thing about fandom being like a church freaked me, just so you know.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Basically, I think it doesn't matter if people aren't honest unless they have the power to seriously affect other people with their dishonesty. If it's no skin off your back, then who cares if they pretend they're Napoleon? It's their issue, I believe, unless you make it yours. And sure, you could be part of a community and affected by the people around you-- but in the case of a fandom, you choose this community based on an implicit stipulation of one background factor, being the source-- and the subcommunities based on the specific people there.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the right to disagreement-- I was talking about painting someone's opinion as coersive-- which is more than disagreement, it's an accusation. I would never say disagreement should be rooted out. Clearly I'm not that good at expressing myself, however, which just points to the problem-- lots of people aren't, I imagine. Misunderstandings happen. The line between intellectual disagreement and offense blurs as per human nature.

As for the church thing-- well, it goes for any uber-specialized group-- plus, y'know, fan comes from 'fanatic'.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

But they aren't pretending they are Napoleon! THEY ARE PRETENDING I AM. Why shouldn't I care? *CRIES*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

That is extreme and not always true. Can you always be sure people are attempting slander-- that is, professing things about you or people just like you (your social group...??) that are untrue and thus detrimental to your well-being or reputation...?

How can you be sure someone is projecting onto you if you don't also project onto them...??

...This all gives me a headache.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

it's actually not so much giving me an headache as much as it is unnerving me.

i know i am not a ego-tripping maniac and i also don't think anything in most of the expressed criticism betrays egomania, so i'm going with the theory that it's just a convenient straw-man, and that unnerves me, too.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Okay, I think the issue here is: free speech has nothing to do with it. Of course people can say whatever the hell they want, but invoking free speech when the people upset by those "letting off steam" statements aren't trying to censore them doesn't make an ounce of sense, either.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess I was just thinking about the line between 'strong opinion' and 'offensive opinion' and just where to you stop when you try not to offend people by 'letting off steam' statements or any other kind of statements. That's what I meant about being PC.

I know 'free speech' doesn't necessarily apply but I'm just not sure how I feel about people always being primed to perceive one as a threat if one states things 'wrong'-- and 'wrong' is different for many people, too. Eh. I dunno.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I actually don't care if an offensive opinion is expressed about me. People call me all the time on my paranoia and they are right. I only care about honesty, ie, if you have a beef with me it would be more productive of you to accuse me of whatever really sets you off rather than making up stuff about me that's more easily attackable especially in front of a bandwagon.

Btw, bandwagons rallying around the need to eradicate a difference are dangerous because they create a culture; which creates social pressure that can be just as effective as law.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...But you keep bringing it back to you and this particular case with this particular post which is a very obvious case (apparently) of people being irrational and offensive-- and I was being general and abstract because of course you could refute any train of theoretical thought by derailing it onto a situation where it doesn't apply!

Basically, I don't think the whole idea of subtle differentiation in coersive/non-coersive language-use applies in a case where the intent is blindingly obvious, y'know? This isn't about honesty if it's about an ad hominem attack-- those are about trying to piss off another person, not make any sort of real argument. They shouldn't even be treated as arguments, since they're outside the realm or reason.

I'm not saying-- was never saying-- opinions can't be powerful agents of change. In fact, I specifically said they were. My point is to understand the different ways we perceive the language used within them.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

okay then since i am being paranoid could you give me a specific example?

i actually think the most dangerous rhetoric tactic used in that debate was the constant conflation of subjective reasons to be pissed with objective reasons to be pissed, ie making your hate sound reasonable to make it a more powerful agent of change, as you said.

say, i think "i hate your mother because she's a bitch to me" would be honest but maybe not gather consensum, so people change it into "i hate your mother because she's a bitch to me and that's wrong/means she has issues," which is what coersive intent comes always to, sometimes in more subtle shades.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

The problem with me giving specific examples is that I often don't have any in mind, or it's a combination of things, or just... I'm making things up based on internal extrapolation. That happens a lot. I combine & recombine until even I don't know where I'm coming from.

I think the most dangerous rhetoric still depends on the degree of perception of the listener-- that is, if you can understand that what the person is saying is just their little fantasy/opinion, it doesn't really matter if they can't physically control you. Still, combining fact & fantasy just makes it more difficult to parse and separate truth from falsehood-- it is still only words until you connect yourself with them. Eh, I agree it's dangerous for most people who're not always vigilant and resentful of any outside influence. Meh. I'm being so biased. *sigh*

Rationalization is inevitable and possibly dishonest, yes, but not in a sense that it's more slanderous. It's in this way that it doesn't matter-- it's a trick, yes, using 'false reason' in conjunction with a straightfoward emotional attack like 'I hate your mother', etc-- and perhaps in that way it's coersion (that is, in so far as coersion = trickery). Perhaps I see what you mean in theory, but I think this is often misconstrued and/or seen when it's not there in practice.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

*bows off discussion classily*