Yes, that is true? Symbols don't just form out of thin air with the negative meaning behind them already there, they're twisted and used in such a way to create that. How does that de-legitimise their current meaning? Are you saying we shouldn't take offensive/negatively charged material as being that because at any time it could have the meaning overridden by something postiive? Because that's... not really how things work?
Not particularly, they're lined out very clearly in countries that do have them and are only ""dangerous"" to people who are, quite frankly, just bigoted or whatever. "Why can't i use racially charged insults to demean people?" "Why can't demean and deride people for their secuality or religion? Isnt this a FREE country?!" is an undefend-able stance and not really anything worth debating.
I'd like to have an example of this abuse sort of thing
The idea of a "free marketplace of ideas" relies heavily on the concept that the truth is valued above all else on a level playingfield. This is simply not true. Mainstay public opinion is hardly based on what's the most factual idea around and is in fact based entirely on what's popular. This is... completely unrelated to the concept of offensive language, symbols and stereotypes though so i'm not sure why you brought it up?
The idea that people won't say racist things because they're not true is baffling to me, considering the current political situation in the US right now being the antithesis of that
Well, free speech seems to be dead in most of the western world and we're all fine thusfar? That American-centric view of "free speech" you have just doesn't hold up with the rest of the world.
A better question, really, is Why Do You Think You Deserve To Have The Right To Offend People? what possible positive things come of being bigoted or just a straight up jerk? How does being a bad person in that way contribute to society in any way?
How does being divisive for no real reason other than a self entailed idea that you should be able to, help a unified society? What purpose does it serve?
"Symbols don't just form out of thin air with the negative meaning behind them already there, they're twisted and used in such a way to create that. How does that de-legitimise their current meaning? Are you saying we shouldn't take offensive/negatively charged material as being that because at any time it could have the meaning overridden by something postiive? Because that's... not really how things work"
Not particularly, they're lined out very clearly in countries that do have them and are only ""dangerous"" to people who are, quite frankly, just bigoted or whatever. "Why can't i use racially charged insults to demean people?" "Why can't demean and deride people for their secuality or religion? Isnt this a
FREE country?!" is an undefend-able stance and not really anything worth debating."
Symbols again by their very nature are ambiguous and thus can numerous different meanings and by banning these things you marginalize people that may have differing opinions. While it may sound good, it serves to do precisely what real bigots do; divide and marginalize people or ideology's that they don't agree with making you just as bad. What makes it worse is you wish to impose these ideals using government force.
"The idea of a "free marketplace of ideas" relies heavily on the concept that the truth is valued above all else on a level playingfield. This is simply not true. Mainstay public opinion is hardly based on what's the most factual idea around and is in fact based entirely on what's popular. This is... completely unrelated to the concept of offensive language, symbols and stereotypes though so i'm not sure why you brought it up?"
The Free Marketplace of Ideas concept came up due to my believes that all ideas however ridiculous should never be censored. This believe stems from my knowledge of history of bodies of government or groups of people trying to stifle ideals due to them being unpopular and what it did to innovation and the advancement of our species. All ideas should be looked at and should be allowed to be stated. While it's true that may cause a person perceived harm it may also enlighten and enrich. Speech for that reason alone should never be censored or under threat of censorship.
"The idea that people won't say racist things because they're not true is baffling to me, considering the current political situation in the US right now being the antithesis of that"
The idea that you think censorship will make it stop is also quite mind boggling considering it hasn't.
"Well, free speech seems to be dead in most of the western world and we're all fine thusfar? That American-centric view of "free speech" you have just doesn't hold up with the rest of the world."
That mighty bigoted speech there. Free speech in the U.S. means that speech is unhindered by government intervention.
"A better question, really, is
Why Do You Think You Deserve To Have The Right To Offend People? what possible positive things come of being bigoted or just a straight up jerk? How does being a bad person in that way contribute to society in any way?"
"Bad person" and "Jerk" Nice attempt at marginalization and name calling. I must be doing something right. It doesn't, just as feelings and opinions don't either but won't call for their banning either just because I don't like them.
"How does being divisive for
no real reason other than a self entailed idea that you should be able to, help a unified society? What purpose does it serve?"
Thank you for saying "Unified Society". So you want a Utopia? Now who's being unrealistic! People are all different and unique. Thus everyone is going be offended by different things and it's unrealistic and bigoted to expect everyone to conform to everyone's sensibilities especially when it comes to ideas.
The concept of censorship of any form of speech for it's content or it's potential to harm is dangerously hypocritical because it ultimately abides by the idea that one persons rights matter less due to their ideas. It's the antithesis of freedom.
