NATION

PASSWORD

Ian McEwan's "Being Offended" 2015 Commencement Speech

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Orvius
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: May 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Ian McEwan's "Being Offended" 2015 Commencement Speech

Postby Orvius » Sun May 24, 2015 7:31 pm

A rather uneventful college commencement season full of the usual platitudes and bromides was shaken up by British novelist Ian McEwan’s refreshingly challenging the zeitgeist of trigger warnings, free-speech zones, and campus censorship at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania this week. McEwan did not shy away from addressing the current temper on campus, choosing to focus on the creeping group-think in faculty lounges and discussion sections instead of the all too easy targets of Russian crackdowns on free speech or the “industrial scale” state-sponsored censorship in China. McEwan directly confronted the problem of a country rooted in the tradition of free expression under the First Amendment meekly submitting to what he called “bi-polar thinking” — the eagerness of some to “not side with Charlie Hebdo because it might seem as if we’re endorsing George Bush’s War on Terror.” McEwan criticized the cowardly behavior of six writers who withdrew from the PEN American Center’s annual gala over their discomfort with the organization’s support for Charlie Hebdo. He argued that the time to “remember your Voltaire” is precisely when confronted with scathing speech that “might not be to your taste” and said he was disappointed that “so many authors could not stand with courageous fellow writers and artists at a time of tragedy.” Self-censorship or forced censorship on college campuses is growing, with recent instances of progressive speech suppression ranging from protests against Bill Maher at Berkeley to Brandeis University’s reneging on the conferral of an honorary doctorate to the Somali-born feminist and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali over their criticism of Islam. Rejecting the accusations of racism leveled at Hirsi Ali, McEwan forcefully expounded that “all thought systems, all claims to truth — especially the grand claims to truth — must be open to criticism, satire, even, sometimes, mockery.”


Source Article:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418613/british-novelist-american-grads-theres-nothing-virtuous-about-being-offended-mark

Speech Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxVWzYAcKo

"It can be a little too easy sometimes to dismiss arguments you don't like as hate speech, or to complain that this or that speaker makes you feel... disrespected. Being offended is not to be confused with a state of grace. It's the occasional price we pay for living in an open society."

Here's a video sharing a few words of wisdom about the importance of free speech, the cost of 'intellectual tribalism', and the dubious trend of treating offense as a sense of entitlement from author Ian McEwan at the 2015 Commencement Speech at Dickinson College. A few words I feel many of us in our society and indeed this most political website, need to be reminded of.

Consider it a reflection on the modern current of extremism and ideological excommunication that many of our universities and places of higher-education (and otherwise) are plagued with as of late. As more and more speakers are becoming pushed off the educational podium of many universities, it is of utmost importance to remember that considering and listening to differing ideologies helps not only strengthen your understanding of your view, but allows it to remain non-stagnant, as excluding those who challenge your ideals offers nothing but the strangulation of intellectual exercise, so to say. As the speaker says in the speech, "When you meet a Flat-Earther, or a Creationist, it can be useful to be made to remember why you think the Earth is round, or whether your capable of making the case for natural selection."

I guess what it all comes down to is "Remember Your Voltaire", Nationstates.
My nation does not reflect my RL beliefs. If it offends you, then you can firmly shove it up your ass respect difference and continue on with your day.
Libertarianism, Individualism, Free Religion, Freedom of Speech, Life-Liberty-and-the-Pursuit-of-Happiness, Right to Bear Arms, Public Liberty (I'm the Anti-Party party), and Anti-Plutocracy(POWER TO THE PEOPLE).
If you believe this is a human right we're seriously going to hunt you monsters down. We see people putting this "right" into their constitutions more and more everyday and it is absolutely appalling. There is nothing more depressing than a bear without arms, you sick fucks.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163903
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sun May 24, 2015 7:37 pm

Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Orvius
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: May 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Orvius » Sun May 24, 2015 7:48 pm

Ifreann wrote:Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Evelyn Beatrice Hall.


If you had bothered to watch the video first, he does say "the words associated with Voltaire, more likely his sentiment but not his actual phrasing..."


But being snarky was likely more important, eh?
My nation does not reflect my RL beliefs. If it offends you, then you can firmly shove it up your ass respect difference and continue on with your day.
Libertarianism, Individualism, Free Religion, Freedom of Speech, Life-Liberty-and-the-Pursuit-of-Happiness, Right to Bear Arms, Public Liberty (I'm the Anti-Party party), and Anti-Plutocracy(POWER TO THE PEOPLE).
If you believe this is a human right we're seriously going to hunt you monsters down. We see people putting this "right" into their constitutions more and more everyday and it is absolutely appalling. There is nothing more depressing than a bear without arms, you sick fucks.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163903
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sun May 24, 2015 7:56 pm

Orvius wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Evelyn Beatrice Hall.


If you had bothered to watch the video first, he does say "the words associated with Voltaire, more likely his sentiment but not his actual phrasing..."


But being snarky was likely more important, eh?

I was addressing you, not Ian McEwan.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Orvius
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: May 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Orvius » Sun May 24, 2015 8:01 pm

Ifreann wrote:I was addressing you, not Ian McEwan.


Again, if you had bothered to watch the speech in the video, you would have caught that "Remember Your Voltaire" is a catchphrase line he uses in said speech. I was quoting him, hence the quotations...

If you have a problem with the source, feel free to write a smugly written email to Ian McEwan.
Last edited by Orvius on Sun May 24, 2015 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My nation does not reflect my RL beliefs. If it offends you, then you can firmly shove it up your ass respect difference and continue on with your day.
Libertarianism, Individualism, Free Religion, Freedom of Speech, Life-Liberty-and-the-Pursuit-of-Happiness, Right to Bear Arms, Public Liberty (I'm the Anti-Party party), and Anti-Plutocracy(POWER TO THE PEOPLE).
If you believe this is a human right we're seriously going to hunt you monsters down. We see people putting this "right" into their constitutions more and more everyday and it is absolutely appalling. There is nothing more depressing than a bear without arms, you sick fucks.

User avatar
The United Colonies of Earth
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9992
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The United Colonies of Earth » Sun May 24, 2015 8:02 pm

Can you provide me with more information on this ideological excommunication? All I remembered was people getting dissed from commencement speeches and trigger warnings.
But if there's more than that- actual discrimination of people beyond commencement speakers at universities- I will be disappointed.
The United Colonies of Earth exists:
to bring about the settlement of all planets not yet inhabited by a sapient species within this Galaxy and Universe by the Human Race, or all members of the species Homo sapiens;
to ensure the observation and protection of the rights of all human beings;
to defend humankind from invasion, catastrophe, fraud and violence;
to represent the interests of humankind to the other governments of the Galaxy;
to facilitate the perpetuation of the unity of human civilization and infrastructure between otherwise self-governing colonies;
and to promote technological advancement and scientific discovery for the perpetuation and expansion of the unity and empowerment of all human beings.
E Stēllīs Lībertās

User avatar
Orvius
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: May 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Orvius » Sun May 24, 2015 8:10 pm

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:Can you provide me with more information on this ideological excommunication? All I remembered was people getting dissed from commencement speeches and trigger warnings.
But if there's more than that- actual discrimination of people beyond commencement speakers at universities- I will be disappointed.


I was referencing Ayaan Hirsi Ali in that little tid-bit, who was spoken about in the speech. I know that's not exactly the type of person your were looking for, as she is basically commencement speaker like you mentioned, but the fact she's not allowed to speak at many universities now is a bit concerning.

I'm afraid that articles involving singular students are difficult to find, as they aren't public figures. Sorry.
My nation does not reflect my RL beliefs. If it offends you, then you can firmly shove it up your ass respect difference and continue on with your day.
Libertarianism, Individualism, Free Religion, Freedom of Speech, Life-Liberty-and-the-Pursuit-of-Happiness, Right to Bear Arms, Public Liberty (I'm the Anti-Party party), and Anti-Plutocracy(POWER TO THE PEOPLE).
If you believe this is a human right we're seriously going to hunt you monsters down. We see people putting this "right" into their constitutions more and more everyday and it is absolutely appalling. There is nothing more depressing than a bear without arms, you sick fucks.

User avatar
Atlanticatia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5970
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Atlanticatia » Sun May 24, 2015 8:13 pm

Freedom of opinion and speech are important but there is no right to incite racism, sexism, homophobia, or intimidate someone. No rights are completely absolute.
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

Pros: social democracy, LGBT+ rights, pro-choice, free education and health care, environmentalism, Nordic model, secularism, welfare state, multiculturalism
Cons: social conservatism, neoliberalism, hate speech, racism, sexism, 'right-to-work' laws, religious fundamentalism
i'm a dual american-new zealander previously lived in the northeast US, now living in new zealand. university student.
Social Democrat and Progressive.
Hanna Nilsen, Leader of the SDP. Equality, Prosperity, and Opportunity: The Social Democratic Party

User avatar
Filimons
Diplomat
 
Posts: 573
Founded: May 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Filimons » Sun May 24, 2015 8:49 pm

Atlanticatia wrote:Freedom of opinion and speech are important but there is no right to incite racism, sexism, homophobia, or intimidate someone. No rights are completely absolute.

As long as one does not incite violence against a particular group or individual one is entitled to say whatever one wishes to say.
Das Publikum beklatscht ein Feuerwerk, aber keinen Sonnenaufgang.

User avatar
Romalae
Minister
 
Posts: 3199
Founded: May 31, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Romalae » Sun May 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Atlanticatia wrote:Freedom of opinion and speech are important but there is no right to incite racism, sexism, homophobia, or intimidate someone.

Yes there is. You have a right to be racist or sexist or homophobic in this country. It doesn't mean people have to like you, and you should expect significant backlash (which is well warranted). But you still have the right to hold bigoted views.

Now, if you're directly threatening someone or some group, then that isn't protected free speech to my knowledge. In other words, the incitement of imminent lawless action isn't protected.
Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

Location: Central Texas
Ideology: somewhere between left-leaning centrism and social democracy
Other: irreligious, white, male

User avatar
Bogdanov Vishniac
Minister
 
Posts: 2065
Founded: May 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Bogdanov Vishniac » Sun May 24, 2015 9:30 pm

Relevant;

Image


With the addendum that nobody has the right to freedom from speech. If you make the mistake of opening your mouth and saying something heinous, the world and society in general has no obligation whatsoever to temper its own speech right back at you. If you giving a speech at a university is such an unpopular event that people organize successful boycotts to stop you from doing so, maybe you should have a bit of a think about why it is people are doing that before you jump up on a podium and whine about how mean everyone's being.
Last edited by Bogdanov Vishniac on Sun May 24, 2015 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Filimons
Diplomat
 
Posts: 573
Founded: May 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Filimons » Sun May 24, 2015 9:34 pm

Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Relevant;

With the addendum that nobody has the right to freedom from speech. If you make the mistake of opening your mouth and saying something heinous, the world and society in general has no obligation whatsoever to temper its own speech right back at you. If you giving a speech at a university is such an unpopular event that people organize successful boycotts to stop you from doing so, maybe you should have a bit of a think about why it is people are doing that before you jump up on a podium and whine about how mean everyone's being.

No-one said anything to the contrary; one is free to ignore and criticise the views of others in the same others are free to express their views.
Das Publikum beklatscht ein Feuerwerk, aber keinen Sonnenaufgang.

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Sun May 24, 2015 9:41 pm

Atlanticatia wrote:Freedom of opinion and speech are important but there is no right to incite racism, sexism, homophobia...

Yes there is.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
New Grestin
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9500
Founded: Dec 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Grestin » Sun May 24, 2015 9:49 pm

Atlanticatia wrote:Freedom of opinion and speech are important but there is no right to incite racism, sexism, homophobia...


There is always a right to speak as you please, regardless of what anyone tells you otherwise. You're allowed to say whatever insanity you want, but you're not immune to criticism of your character for voicing said belief. A homophobe is allowed to be a homophobe, but he can't stop people from calling him a homophobe, etc.
Last edited by New Grestin on Sun May 24, 2015 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let’s not dwell on our corpse strewn past. Let’s celebrate our corpse strewn future!
Head Bartender for The Pub | The Para-Verse | Writing Advice from a Pretentious Jerk | I write stuff | Arbitrary Political Numbers
Kentucky Fried Land wrote:I should have known Grestin was Christopher Walken the whole time.
ThePub wrote:New Grestin: "I will always choose the aborable lesbians over an entire town."
Imperial Idaho wrote:And with 1-2 sentences Grestin has declared war on the national pride of Canada.
- Best Worldbuilding - 2016 (Community Choice)
- Best Horror/Thriller RP for THE ZONE - 2016 (Community Choice)

User avatar
Atlanticatia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5970
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Atlanticatia » Sun May 24, 2015 9:56 pm

Romalae wrote:
Atlanticatia wrote:Freedom of opinion and speech are important but there is no right to incite racism, sexism, homophobia, or intimidate someone.

Yes there is. You have a right to be racist or sexist or homophobic in this country. It doesn't mean people have to like you, and you should expect significant backlash (which is well warranted). But you still have the right to hold bigoted views.

Now, if you're directly threatening someone or some group, then that isn't protected free speech to my knowledge. In other words, the incitement of imminent lawless action isn't protected.


I know you do, but I'm saying you shouldn't. For example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that:
Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.


Most countries have laws against speech that incite hatred and it is present in international anti-racism treaties that nearly every country has adopted.
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

Pros: social democracy, LGBT+ rights, pro-choice, free education and health care, environmentalism, Nordic model, secularism, welfare state, multiculturalism
Cons: social conservatism, neoliberalism, hate speech, racism, sexism, 'right-to-work' laws, religious fundamentalism
i'm a dual american-new zealander previously lived in the northeast US, now living in new zealand. university student.
Social Democrat and Progressive.
Hanna Nilsen, Leader of the SDP. Equality, Prosperity, and Opportunity: The Social Democratic Party

User avatar
Lake Mead
Attaché
 
Posts: 74
Founded: Nov 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Lake Mead » Sun May 24, 2015 10:00 pm

Atlanticatia wrote:
Romalae wrote:Yes there is. You have a right to be racist or sexist or homophobic in this country. It doesn't mean people have to like you, and you should expect significant backlash (which is well warranted). But you still have the right to hold bigoted views.

Now, if you're directly threatening someone or some group, then that isn't protected free speech to my knowledge. In other words, the incitement of imminent lawless action isn't protected.


I know you do, but I'm saying you shouldn't. For example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that:
Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.


Most countries have laws against speech that incite hatred and it is present in international anti-racism treaties that nearly every country has adopted.


The very point of free speech is to protect opinions that are unpopular within a group. If you start banning something as broad as "hate speech," the liberty to say what you think can gradually wither away.

What should be banned is speech urging violence. Beyond that, nothing much.
"Man is not free unless government is limited." -President Ronald Reagan
Your friendly neighborhood constitutionalist.

User avatar
The United Colonies of Earth
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9992
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The United Colonies of Earth » Sun May 24, 2015 10:08 pm

Orvius wrote:
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:Can you provide me with more information on this ideological excommunication? All I remembered was people getting dissed from commencement speeches and trigger warnings.
But if there's more than that- actual discrimination of people beyond commencement speakers at universities- I will be disappointed.


I was referencing Ayaan Hirsi Ali in that little tid-bit, who was spoken about in the speech. I know that's not exactly the type of person your were looking for, as she is basically commencement speaker like you mentioned, but the fact she's not allowed to speak at many universities now is a bit concerning.

I'm afraid that articles involving singular students are difficult to find, as they aren't public figures. Sorry.

Yeah, it is a bit concerning.
Atlanticatia wrote:
Romalae wrote:Yes there is. You have a right to be racist or sexist or homophobic in this country. It doesn't mean people have to like you, and you should expect significant backlash (which is well warranted). But you still have the right to hold bigoted views.

Now, if you're directly threatening someone or some group, then that isn't protected free speech to my knowledge. In other words, the incitement of imminent lawless action isn't protected.


I know you do, but I'm saying you shouldn't. For example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that:
Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.


Most countries have laws against speech that incite hatred and it is present in international anti-racism treaties that nearly every country has adopted.

I agree with you in principle on this matter. Problem is, sometimes people take things too far on their own- I can't think of any examples, but sometimes a speaker could mention a problem with something without explicitly supporting hatred of a related idea or group of people.
As for Ms. Ali:
Wikipedia wrote:She declared that the religion of Islam had to be "defeated", and regards its followers as "enemies"[2] that need to be "crushed" before "peace" can be achieved.

that's pretty Islamophobic. I'm inclined to say that someone who says that doesn't have the right to speak, but then I remember what Max Barry says- that we ought to argue down or convince away from such ideas people who believe that stuff rather than simply ban them from speaking. They are an expression on a societal level of our own irrational dislikes, which will always be with us unless we are to give up our humanity, I guess.
The United Colonies of Earth exists:
to bring about the settlement of all planets not yet inhabited by a sapient species within this Galaxy and Universe by the Human Race, or all members of the species Homo sapiens;
to ensure the observation and protection of the rights of all human beings;
to defend humankind from invasion, catastrophe, fraud and violence;
to represent the interests of humankind to the other governments of the Galaxy;
to facilitate the perpetuation of the unity of human civilization and infrastructure between otherwise self-governing colonies;
and to promote technological advancement and scientific discovery for the perpetuation and expansion of the unity and empowerment of all human beings.
E Stēllīs Lībertās

User avatar
New Grestin
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9500
Founded: Dec 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Grestin » Sun May 24, 2015 10:15 pm

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:
Orvius wrote:
I was referencing Ayaan Hirsi Ali in that little tid-bit, who was spoken about in the speech. I know that's not exactly the type of person your were looking for, as she is basically commencement speaker like you mentioned, but the fact she's not allowed to speak at many universities now is a bit concerning.

I'm afraid that articles involving singular students are difficult to find, as they aren't public figures. Sorry.

Yeah, it is a bit concerning.
Atlanticatia wrote:
I know you do, but I'm saying you shouldn't. For example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that:


Most countries have laws against speech that incite hatred and it is present in international anti-racism treaties that nearly every country has adopted.

I agree with you in principle on this matter. Problem is, sometimes people take things too far on their own- I can't think of any examples, but sometimes a speaker could mention a problem with something without explicitly supporting hatred of a related idea or group of people.
As for Ms. Ali:
Wikipedia wrote:She declared that the religion of Islam had to be "defeated", and regards its followers as "enemies"[2] that need to be "crushed" before "peace" can be achieved.

that's pretty Islamophobic. I'm inclined to say that someone who says that doesn't have the right to speak, but then I remember what Max Barry says- that we ought to argue down or convince away from such ideas people who believe that stuff rather than simply ban them from speaking. They are an expression on a societal level of our own irrational dislikes, which will always be with us unless we are to give up our humanity, I guess.


You actually stole the words right out of my mouth on the second point. How does one define violent speech? I mean, obviously someone saying "kill the whites" is urging violence, but what about something more ambiguous? What about when people use certain works to justify violence, even when the works themselves don't justify said violence? Does that make the work itself an act of violent speech?
Last edited by New Grestin on Sun May 24, 2015 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let’s not dwell on our corpse strewn past. Let’s celebrate our corpse strewn future!
Head Bartender for The Pub | The Para-Verse | Writing Advice from a Pretentious Jerk | I write stuff | Arbitrary Political Numbers
Kentucky Fried Land wrote:I should have known Grestin was Christopher Walken the whole time.
ThePub wrote:New Grestin: "I will always choose the aborable lesbians over an entire town."
Imperial Idaho wrote:And with 1-2 sentences Grestin has declared war on the national pride of Canada.
- Best Worldbuilding - 2016 (Community Choice)
- Best Horror/Thriller RP for THE ZONE - 2016 (Community Choice)

User avatar
The United Colonies of Earth
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9992
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The United Colonies of Earth » Sun May 24, 2015 10:19 pm

New Grestin wrote:
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:Yeah, it is a bit concerning.

I agree with you in principle on this matter. Problem is, sometimes people take things too far on their own- I can't think of any examples, but sometimes a speaker could mention a problem with something without explicitly supporting hatred of a related idea or group of people.
As for Ms. Ali:

that's pretty Islamophobic. I'm inclined to say that someone who says that doesn't have the right to speak, but then I remember what Max Barry says- that we ought to argue down or convince away from such ideas people who believe that stuff rather than simply ban them from speaking. They are an expression on a societal level of our own irrational dislikes, which will always be with us unless we are to give up our humanity, I guess.


You actually stole the words right out of my mouth on the second point. How does one define violent speech? I mean, obviously someone saying "kill the whites" is urging violence, but what about something more ambiguous? What about when people use certain works to justify violence, even when the works themselves don't justify said violence? Does that make the work itself an act of violent speech?

That raises a good question. I'd argue that such works would have to be interpreted as being one with many meanings, some of which have relationships to nasty things, but others which may be related to more positive things. Inherently the item is too ambiguous to be an act of violent speech.
The United Colonies of Earth exists:
to bring about the settlement of all planets not yet inhabited by a sapient species within this Galaxy and Universe by the Human Race, or all members of the species Homo sapiens;
to ensure the observation and protection of the rights of all human beings;
to defend humankind from invasion, catastrophe, fraud and violence;
to represent the interests of humankind to the other governments of the Galaxy;
to facilitate the perpetuation of the unity of human civilization and infrastructure between otherwise self-governing colonies;
and to promote technological advancement and scientific discovery for the perpetuation and expansion of the unity and empowerment of all human beings.
E Stēllīs Lībertās

User avatar
Nazi Flower Power
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21328
Founded: Jun 24, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Nazi Flower Power » Mon May 25, 2015 12:07 am

Orvius wrote:
McEwan criticized the cowardly behavior of six writers who withdrew from the PEN American Center’s annual gala over their discomfort with the organization’s support for Charlie Hebdo.


Isn't McEwan doing exactly the thing he's complaining about by deciding how these other authors ought to react to the controversy over Charlie Hebdo? It's their choice to go to the gala or not. Withdrawing from the event does not prevent anyone at Charlie Hebdo from continuing to make offensive cartoons if they really want to, nor do the personal decisions of these six writers prevent anyone else from supporting Charlie Hebdo.

Freedom of speech includes the right to complain about being offended. Accommodating people when they're offended is optional.
The Serene and Glorious Reich of Nazi Flower Power has existed for longer than Nazi Germany! Thank you to all the brave men and women of the Allied forces who made this possible!

User avatar
Zakuvia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1989
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Zakuvia » Mon May 25, 2015 12:18 am

I'd take it to another place and say that it's important to offend people to define where our cultural 'boundaries' lie. I say 'our' as a collection of cultures, not just in the US. I find it fascinating how wholly unthreatening language (physically, in any case) is capable of inciting people to homicide. Such is the power of language and expression.

By the way, nobody 'deserves' to be the victim of physical injury or death based on their speech. Ever. Unless you're promoting the agenda of my political opposite, in which case I have a number of crosses in ebony, teak, and imported hardwoods I will create a cult to nail you to. Act now, the wood won't last as long as my maniacal fervor!
Balance is important in diets, gymnastics, and governments most of all.
NOW CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF NS!
-1.12, -0.46

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163903
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Mon May 25, 2015 5:25 am

Orvius wrote:
Ifreann wrote:I was addressing you, not Ian McEwan.


Again, if you had bothered to watch the speech in the video, you would have caught that "Remember Your Voltaire" is a catchphrase line he uses in said speech. I was quoting him, hence the quotations...

You ought not adopt a catchphrase you know to be wrong.

If you have a problem with the source, feel free to write a smugly written email to Ian McEwan.

Hark at this, suppressing speech you disagree with.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Kvatchdom
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8823
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Kvatchdom » Mon May 25, 2015 5:54 am

Restricted freedom of speech is not freedom of speech. People have the right to speak their mind as long as it doesn't promote violence.
boo
Left-wing nationalist, socialist, souverainist and anti-American. From the River to the Sea.
Equality, Fatherland, Socialism
I am not available on the weekends

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163903
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Mon May 25, 2015 6:30 am

Kvatchdom wrote:Restricted freedom of speech is not freedom of speech. People have the right to speak their mind as long as it doesn't promote violence.

That's a restriction on free speech.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53383
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Greed and Death » Mon May 25, 2015 11:47 am

Atlanticatia wrote:Freedom of opinion and speech are important but there is no right to incite racism, sexism, homophobia, or intimidate someone. No rights are completely absolute.

Inciting racism ?

Can you define that ?
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Eahland, Grinning Dragon, Likhinia, Soviet Haaregrad, Talibanada, Yasuragi

Advertisement

Remove ads