~~ 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. -_-;

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

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

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.

[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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Er... right. Textbook definition = straightforward; which... wasn't what I was talking about :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Right, then we're talking about two different conversations. I'm talking about the one where people criticising JKR's work where jealous, stupid, had ego issues and all that jazz.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

*where should were. typos are a way of life to me, and whoever criticises them HAS DEEP PERSONAL INSECURITIES AND A LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS, TOO.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

When I said I was coming from a specific inspiration, I didn't mean it was me reading a fandom post-- since I don't even know what you're talking about with the JKR thing, and probably don't want to know since those things piss me off and avoidance is a happy thing. I was more inspired by... something or other but mostly it's a combination of things.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Oh, it was my email where I raged against the status quo and that person defending it? Um, because that was a ehole different issue where I am not bothered at all by the manner in which they express their opinions, just quite violently disagree with the opinion itself. But um, that doesn't mean I think their debate tactics, per se, are illogical or arseholish.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

But simply disagreeing with a normally-stated opinion made you feel unhappy & oppressed, correct? I believe this isn't that unusual-- this reaction to content no matter what the style-- and therefore I was extrapolating to the point where it wasn't really about you at all but a combination of things, as I've said.

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 :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the point of that essay was that I felt I could disagree strongly if I was not such a lazyarse and we could discuss about it without her trying to convert me.

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?

[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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

See, you're doing that thing where you think I imply coersion through the stating of an opinion-- and that's what I was talking about. Just because I said I don't think the JKR discussion applies to what I was wanting to think about and also sounds like it'd piss me off, doesn't mean I believed someone else couldn't find anything of interest in it.

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.

[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.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Yes, and you just did the same to me what with the whole thinking I presumed you were saying nobody would be interested in this universally, when I was just saying that it would be interesting also in relation to your own post.

I think people should control their emotional responses better and at least admit to them when they get called on their shit.