![[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}
opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-02 01:09 am (UTC)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!)
Date: 2004-12-02 10:32 am (UTC)<333333333333333333333
Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-02 10:27 pm (UTC)Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-02 10:37 pm (UTC)...then at least I could watch ;))
Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-03 12:38 am (UTC)I WAS ABOUT TO TELL HER!!! ahaha. *LOVE*
Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-03 07:18 pm (UTC)Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-06 11:02 pm (UTC)Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-03 12:39 am (UTC)come to nyc to see me, big bad dom cellia!
Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-03 07:17 pm (UTC)*uses bottom power icon*
Date: 2004-12-04 04:22 am (UTC)Re: *uses bottom power icon*
Date: 2004-12-05 04:32 pm (UTC)Re: *uses bottom power icon*
Date: 2004-12-06 03:15 am (UTC)You need to come to protect me from Reena's mean demonizing persona. ;_;
Re: opinions and emotions (my opiniona and emotions about 'em--SO META!)
Date: 2004-12-03 01:18 am (UTC)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 :>