The right to free speech and debate forums- should we be limited based on our backgrounds and identities?

[gimmepie]

The faggot thing was just an example but the point is that straight people don't get to decide what's offensive to gay people. It just doesn't work that way. Of course you can have valid points that are worth discussing and blah blah, but it's just poor taste for a straight person to try and talk about whether or not something is offensive to a community that they're not a part of.

I'm not saying that people don't have the right to debate or trying to impose some strict rules or anything. All I'm saying is that it's not always someone's place to comment on certain issues and that people should take a step back and ask themselves if their opinion is informed and relevant. Everyone has the right to debate and share their opinion, but that doesn't mean that they should.



Lol the point is that straight men shouldn't be using the word.

It's not a matter of do or don't, it is impossible for one person to determine how another person reacts emotionally. That is beyond human ability and completely irrelevant. Actually people's feelings should be completely irrelevant in a debate because they have nothing to do with hard facts and are illogical.

Personally I also feel that the use of the word as a derogatory term is wrong - although the word also has many other meanings so banning the word itself is a ridiculous notion. The point is not whether or not straight men should insult gay men through the word, but whether or not they have the right to defend their use of the word as a derogatory term.

On that note I'm going to direct you to my favourite quote of all time

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

It doesn't translate perfectly here I admit, but the general gist is the same. We may not like that people think like that or do things like that, but they have the right to defend their use of the word. What some of you people talk about is tantamount to sending someone to a trial but not giving them legal representation or the right to argue their innocence.

If you think that the point of this thread is "straight men shouldn't say faggot", you have seriously misinterpreted the topic.

 

[Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer]

Lol the point is that straight men shouldn't be using the word.

- although the word also has many other meanings so banning the word itself is a ridiculous notion. The point is not whether or not straight men should insult gay men through the word, but whether or not they have the right to defend their use of the word as a derogatory term.

Faggot is actually a food here in England (a sort of minced meat from the cheaper off cuts of pigs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(food)

The trouble is when one group of people decide that a word that has multiple meanings (depending on location or context) is offensive, people who use the word in its traditional or localised non offensive my find themselves in trouble.

I think the politicising of words and language is something best avoided and is covered in George Oswell's 1984 (newspeak).

Of course telling other people that then can't take part in your debate or say certain words because they are not of the same opinion or standing as you only means you put the other groups back up and alienate yourself and your group.

 

[Star-Lord]

1. Being too short-sighted to see how something affects others does not mean that it does not affect others.
2. Being too stuck-up to listen to others' arguments on a topic doesn't mean their arguments are invalid or irrelevant.
3. If your argument is so weak that it can't stand up to criticism from people you believe are unaffected by the issue, methinks you have some work to do on your argument.



4. You're overgeneralizing.


All debate is founded on the principles of rationality, reason, logic. If there is a problem with your logic on something, you don't have to be a direct stakeholder to figure that out. Additionally, many issues have multiple stakeholders, and while you may think only one particular stakeholder matters, others who believe they have a stake in the matter will probably pretty strongly disagree with you.

If you think their arguments are wrong, then point out why they're wrong. Saying they don't have the right to argue in the first place is absolutely absurd. Everyone has the right to speak for what they believe. That's one of the core principles of democracy: the ability for everyone to participate in the discussion of issues of importance. Free expression is inexorably tied into this. Trying to exclude people from debate is a form of de facto censorship (of the worst kind: political or philosophical censorship) and it's not just illogical, it's also immoral if you ask me.

This is literally only a question of someone's social skills. I still don't see why any person who realizes they aren't wanted in a situation would stay there. That's all- I have nothing else to add because you're sort of running in a completely other direction.

 

[Kanzler]

This is literally only a question of someone's social skills. I still don't see why any person who realizes they aren't wanted in a situation would stay there. That's all- I have nothing else to add because you're sort of running in a completely other direction.

I guess that's valid, but in that case the people in such a situation aren't having discussion for discussion's sake. I think you could draw a distinction between social conversation and a discussion for the sake of truth and understanding based on the priority placed on the discussion. For the first you value more so social appropriateness, and for the second you value inquiry, even if it comes at the expense at people's sensibilities. For the purpose of this thread though, which concerns the exclusion of people from debate (presumably for debate's sake), his direction is relevant.

 

[gimmepie]

This is literally only a question of someone's social skills. I still don't see why any person who realizes they aren't wanted in a situation would stay there. That's all- I have nothing else to add because you're sort of running in a completely other direction.

I don't think it matters if one group are wanted in the debate by another quite frankly, they have just as much right to participate in it and simply not allowing one party to join the debate because you don't like what they are saying kind of defeats the purpose of having a debate in the first place. It's the equivalent of a child saying "Well I started the game so we play by my rules" even if the four other children in the game don't like those rules and find them unfair.

The notion of banning a group from a debate is especially ridiculous in the two main examples in this thread - the abortion debate and "faggot" debate - because in both cases the group that some of you would have removed from the discussion on the subject actually have a vested interest in the result and are directly affected by it, whether we like what they think and/or do or not.

 

[Mana1]

I think the faggot example should probably be dropped, imagine the outrage if we said that white people should get a say in whether ****** is offensive...

I agree with Moogles, I think. There are certainly times when someone should not debate something, due to lack of education on the matter, but I wouldn't support a ban on that person. It's really down to them to notice that what they have to say has no bearing or relevancy.

 

[twocows]

I think the faggot example should probably be dropped, imagine the outrage if we said that white people should get a say in whether ****** is offensive...

I agree with Moogles, I think. There are certainly times when someone should not debate something, due to lack of education on the matter, but I wouldn't support a ban on that person. It's really down to them to notice that what they have to say has no bearing or relevancy.

I haven't said whether I think it's right or wrong to use the word, I said that the discussion around that impacts more people than just the ones it refers to and that everyone has the right to weigh in on it.

If what they're saying has no relevancy or is otherwise invalid, that's easy enough to just point out. The point is they should still be able to contribute to the discussion.

The faggot thing was just an example but the point is that straight people don't get to decide what's offensive to gay people. It just doesn't work that way. Of course you can have valid points that are worth discussing and blah blah, but it's just poor taste for a straight person to try and talk about whether or not something is offensive to a community that they're not a part of. I

I'm not saying that people don't have the right to debate or trying to impose some strict rules or anything. All I'm saying is that it's not always someone's place to comment on certain issues and that people should take a step back and ask themselves if their opinion is informed and relevant. Everyone has the right to debate and share their opinion, but that doesn't mean that they should.

I absolutely think that if they believe they have something worthwhile to add, they should. It's not in poor taste at all provided they're being (a) rational and (b) courteous about it. Different people might have different ideas of what constitutes relevant or important, but that's part of what's handled in the course of a debate.

 

[Grey Wind]

I absolutely think that if they believe they have something worthwhile to add, they should. It's not in poor taste at all provided they're being (a) rational and (b) courteous about it. Different people might have different ideas of what constitutes relevant or important, but that's part of what's handled in the course of a debate.

Yeah I know, like I said i'm not trying to impose strict rules or anything. I just think that it's important for people to listen to the people that whatever issue affects and realise that they may not always be in the best position to comment and that doing so can sometimes be kind of insensitive.

 

[Her]

The rule of thumb should be to exercise caution on a case by case situation and realise when your opinion should defer to those who are more directly affected by the discussion at hand.