![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSo 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...?
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...?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:20 am (UTC)It seems like incidents that are straightforward ('you're a psychotic ho' for instance) are too obvious & not interesting for me to think about. But incidences where people might project onto normally stated words and interpret things that may or may not be there are more interesting 'cause I think this happens a lot in 'normal' discourse-- whereas calling anyone a psycho is not 'normal discourse'. But I as I said-- again-- this wasn't directed at you :D Just to be 100% clear :>
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:27 am (UTC)Oh, but I think that there were a lot of fascinating rhetorics to think about in that discussion, as well, like accusing people to over-intellectualising their reading of a text as opposed to accepting their refreshing realism. Lots of projection thingies going on there, too, like assuming I claim absolute truth in my criticism of JKR because the speaker doesn't seem to know half measures; this happened with conflating "JKR's work is flawed" with "JKR's work is wretched" which allowed people's to use the "nothing is perfect" argument to declare "JKR's work is the best"... and can you tell it's a hot button?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:37 am (UTC)I said, 'I don't want to think about it because I think it's not interesting'. You said, 'but there are interesting things....' But I wasn't denying there might be interesting things-- I was just saying I didn't want to think about them (for personal reasons), see? :>
I was talking about emotional responses, not intellectual or reasonable responses, basically.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:45 am (UTC)I think people should control their emotional responses better and at least admit to them when they get called on their shit.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:53 am (UTC)I think people should control their emotional responses better
...that's an intent of coersion :>
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 03:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 03:14 am (UTC)