FA+
Shop
Freedom of Speech vs Prejudice
15 years ago
I didn't plan on speaking at length about this, but, well, here I am writing something anyway.
This was originally inspired by a deviantArt poll, asking whether we think dA should block all "offensive speech" or whether we prefer being allowed to speak our minds and express our opinions (regardless of whether or not it is "offensive").
Something worth noting that ~pixieface pointed out: American laws regarding freedom of speech does NOT allow Americans to say whatever they want. The first amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~pixieface then continues to explain, "You are protected from having your freedom of speech violated by the government. DA is not the government. They are a private entity, therefore they can choose to have what rules regarding speech as they like; they are not bound by the first amendment." Furthermore, dA is not a purely American entity, so it's somewhat beside the point, anyway.
TL;DR: citing freedom of speech as legal right cannot work here.
So, basically, should deviantArt (or FurAffinity, or where ever) be a place where creative people can express themselves freely (even if those ideas and expressions may be offensive to some), or should some expressions be completely banned?
Things I find most interesting about this issue...
* Is it acceptable to express strong dislike of certain types of people at all?
* If so, why is it more acceptable to say you dislike athiests or Christians, but less acceptable to say you dislike Jews or Muslims? Why is it more acceptable to say you dislike blondes or redheads, but less acceptable to say you dislike blacks? Why is it more acceptable to say you dislike stupid people, but less acceptable to say you dislike the mentally handicapped? What is the real difference between saying the former and saying the latter? - they're all blanket terms for types of people as described by one feature. What exactly makes some dislikes more or less acceptable in expressing? Is this fair?
* All people have their reasons for saying what they do, and almost all people believe that what they say about a type of people is more or less reasonable. This can vary from, "I hate all Asians, I think they're disgusting, and you all need to live with it," to "I haven't liked any Asian I've met so far - I find their behaviour/practices strange, their locales unhygienic, their people unfriendly and alien, but maybe that's just me." Is the issue, then, simply how the dislike is expressed?
* With the previous questions in mind, how does one fairly draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable?
I have my own ideas and answers in response to these questions, but I'm more curious about what other people have to think, actually.
This was originally inspired by a deviantArt poll, asking whether we think dA should block all "offensive speech" or whether we prefer being allowed to speak our minds and express our opinions (regardless of whether or not it is "offensive").
Something worth noting that ~pixieface pointed out: American laws regarding freedom of speech does NOT allow Americans to say whatever they want. The first amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~pixieface then continues to explain, "You are protected from having your freedom of speech violated by the government. DA is not the government. They are a private entity, therefore they can choose to have what rules regarding speech as they like; they are not bound by the first amendment." Furthermore, dA is not a purely American entity, so it's somewhat beside the point, anyway.
TL;DR: citing freedom of speech as legal right cannot work here.
So, basically, should deviantArt (or FurAffinity, or where ever) be a place where creative people can express themselves freely (even if those ideas and expressions may be offensive to some), or should some expressions be completely banned?
Things I find most interesting about this issue...
* Is it acceptable to express strong dislike of certain types of people at all?
* If so, why is it more acceptable to say you dislike athiests or Christians, but less acceptable to say you dislike Jews or Muslims? Why is it more acceptable to say you dislike blondes or redheads, but less acceptable to say you dislike blacks? Why is it more acceptable to say you dislike stupid people, but less acceptable to say you dislike the mentally handicapped? What is the real difference between saying the former and saying the latter? - they're all blanket terms for types of people as described by one feature. What exactly makes some dislikes more or less acceptable in expressing? Is this fair?
* All people have their reasons for saying what they do, and almost all people believe that what they say about a type of people is more or less reasonable. This can vary from, "I hate all Asians, I think they're disgusting, and you all need to live with it," to "I haven't liked any Asian I've met so far - I find their behaviour/practices strange, their locales unhygienic, their people unfriendly and alien, but maybe that's just me." Is the issue, then, simply how the dislike is expressed?
* With the previous questions in mind, how does one fairly draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable?
I have my own ideas and answers in response to these questions, but I'm more curious about what other people have to think, actually.
I want to know where this magical scale of acceptance is.
2. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. o.o We athiests have quite a few bad apples, yet at least we don't shove our beliefs into everyone's faces as Christians often do. I can't say much for the haircolors since I find many redheads attractive. (Female of course)
3. They should just keep it to themselves.
4. So long as we're not banned from this site for the way we do things, it should be ok. If I stated that I hate one group of ppl then I shouldn't be banned for it unless I was openly attacking them.
How many athiests have you seen tell someone to go to hell because what they say apposes something they believe in?
To be fair, almost every group has its good and bad apples. It doesn't matter what group, really (unless it's a group purely defined on being good or bad, or acceptable or unacceptable). Every country/religion/political party/race has its idiots that make everyone else look bad, and every country/religion/political party/race also has perfectly reasonable, intelligent, respectable, good people.
As for fact/truth, there are indeed schools that teach Christianity, or rather, are schools that teach from a Christian point of view. There's one across the street from my apartment, actually, and a local university called Trinity Western, which is a Christian university. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinit.....ern_University
As for the flip side, most schools teach based on the scientific method, which strictly speaking cannot confirm or deny the existence of supernatural beings that cannot be empirically observed. Some people feel this is anti-theist, although I personally disagree - science, at its core, does not promise all the answers and is not and should not be the bible of everyone's existence, but when it comes to empirical knowledge, the fairest way to go. It doesn't say that God doesn't exist any more than it says God does exist.
That being said, it would be nice if more schools taught philosophy and critical thinking (the basis of the scientific method), so that where empirical evidence and therefore science fails, logic and reasoning may take over.
I do agree, there are a lot of pushy Christians. However, I also agree with Skipp that there are a lot of pushy athiests. That's why I was saying there's always going to be "bad apples" for every group - it doesn't excuse the bad apples, but everyone has them and can't act like they don't. It's so easy to be frustrated at these people (both pushy Christians and pushy athiests) because they're generally louder, and solicitous (wanting you to believe as they do), and can often be rude about it. Extremists of ANY group are almost always bad, and that goes for athiests as much as Christians.
I believe that Christians rank higher in "pushiness" as some branches (such as Evangelicalism) believes its their duty to spread the word and convert others. I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the matter, but I don't think many other religions have this aspect, and indeed, it leads to a lot of troubles. However, I don't think it's necessarily fair to condemn Christianity/Christians as a whole, anymore than it's fair to condemn any other entire group based on a single trait that may or may not be found in all its members.
I remember our friends from Seattle came up to visit, and were leaving their car in our back parking lot. They freaked the hell out because they almost forgot to lock their doors. We were like, "?" because we leave our car/house doors unlocked 24/7 :b
Plus, my original comment was mostly to point out the different perspectives. Being a Christian no one ever tries to "push" Christianity on me, while I often get comments and (usually mild) ridicule from athiests.
My apologies to sparking a rather off topic debate, would you be willing to continue the discussion on the forums instead?
Hmm. In highschool, I had teachers vary from being openly athiest (almost militantly so) to openly theist. As for university (I was in the science faculty), most professors actually seemed to be of the theist/agnostic persuasion. Not in a remotely pushy way, but would just be going over material, and they'd make an aside remark along the lines of, "Pretty amazing stuff, wouldn't be surprised if there was a God," or "If there's a God out there, he's done some pretty amazing stuff," or "This is the sort of thing that makes me think there must be a God." Just some of the stuff was, indeed, "pretty neat" and while the intelligent design theory is highly flawed, it doesn't stop scientists and nonscientists alike from being able to marvel at stuff in nature and want to believe there must have been someone overseeing all of it. I thought it was sorta refreshing, compared to the more stereotypical scientist who's a total athiest.
Very big pet peeve of mine, people who believe science and religion/spirituality are completely mutually exclusive (that is, people who think you can't believe in both). It illustrates that the person, very likely, is extremely ignorant about the limits of the scientific method, and what it actually is.
So yeah, in my experience, most knowledgeable/educated people I know are actually at least agnostic (ironically, as the word means "not knowing").
To be fair, almost every group has its good and bad apples. It doesn't matter what group, really (unless it's a group purely defined on being good or bad, or acceptable or unacceptable). Every country/religion/political party/race has its idiots that make everyone else look bad, and every country/religion/political party/race also has perfectly reasonable, intelligent, respectable, good people.
1) So in your opinion, it's not acceptable to express strong dislike for certain people. I can get behind this in certain situations. For instance, if it were somehow illegal, then so would trolling, flaming, harassment, and many other nasty things. But what if someone asks you what you think? Should you lie, or should you tell the truth (even if "the truth hurts")?
In my opinion, you can express even really nasty opinions politely and appropriately. I'm generally for the saying, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all," but I also believe people can disagree, disapprove, or dislike, and it's perhaps unhealthy to attempt to not express this at all, ever. I'm completely against flaming and trolling, but there's a difference between having a negative opinion and throwing it in people's faces or encouraging hatred towards something/someone.
2) I think you may be missing the point? Religion, hair colour, race, political standing... They're all potential descriptors for one aspect of people. Why are some more acceptable to dislike than others? For instance, athiest, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim beliefs are all different forms regarding religion - why is it such a big taboo to say you dislike Jews, while it's so much more commonplace/acceptable to say you dislike Christians or athiests, when they're all based on the same thing - religion. Why is it more okay to say you dislike certain types of people (based on profession, etc.) but less okay to say you dislike other types of people (based on race, gender, sexuality)?
I'm saying it's strange/interesting how some descriptors are so much more sensitive than others. Things like race, gender, sexuality, religion, political standing are all very highly charged, and it's generally considered bad to discriminate on those basis. Yet when people say they don't like people who own guns, or don't like teenagers, it's not nearly so offensive? It's still judging an individual based on a single aspect of their person.
3) I generally agree, especially when it comes to negativity. But people are expressing themselves, directly or indirectly, all the time. By responding, you've taken the stand that you dislike and/or disagree with people who speak their mind when it comes to negative views, which is also a negative view. That doesn't make you a bad person! I think it would be entirely unrealistic to hope that no one will ever express anything negative ever, and as I mentioned above, also unhealthy.
4) "If I stated that I hate one group of ppl then I shouldn't be banned for it unless I was openly attacking them." This I agree with, and what I meant earlier. You can express a negative opinion totally respectfully and politely, and shouldn't be punished for doing so unless you act hurtfully upon it, or encourage hatred/harassment.
2. That's what I'm getting at. It makes no sense at all. o.o
3. True.
4. Yup. :)
2) Yeah, okay. I mean, it makes sense in a... human sort of way. Psychological/sociological patterns can explain it, but it still doesn't make much sense rationally or logically. Some, but not a lot :b But well, that's the problem with being humans and not robots :V (or Vulcans, I guess, haha)
I think the internet in general is so great and used by so many, because people can feel more free and say what they want. So I don't think any expressions should be banned, even if some people find them offensive, you just have to take to the internet with a light heart and take things with a pinch of salt. :3
What exactly makes some dislikes more or less acceptable in expressing? Is this fair?
Put simply, in my opinion, it's not fair, but we have to be careful not to get to the stage where you're not even allowed to 'notice differences' in people, for example, trying to describe someone in a room of people by their clothes, when they're the ONLY black person there (i've experienced this a couple of times actually, why don't people just say "the black guy"? Because then I know exactly who they're talking about).
I think what should be unacceptable, is spitefulness.
Definitely. Man, there's nothing more painful than being a person plumbing the scary perverted depths of the internet and not being able to take things with a pinch of salt XD I do side with free speech for the most part, as I believe in honesty and accepting/understanding bad things as much as good things, but I do wish some people had more tact about how they express their negative views. (eg. trolls/haters versus someone who just simply hates something)
"we have to be careful not to get to the stage where you're not even allowed to 'notice differences' in people, for example, trying to describe someone in a room of people by their clothes, when they're the ONLY black person there (i've experienced this a couple of times actually, why don't people just say "the black guy"? Because then I know exactly who they're talking about)."
I know exactly what you mean. I think this is being oversensitive (but I'm sure there are others who disagree). It's as you said, if it's not spiteful/hurtful and simply a truthful observation (tactfully put "the black guy" versus "that damned n-word"), then it shouldn't be an issue. It's entirely possible to hold strong, negative views of something, express them, and NOT be a troll, and still be acceptable. It's just not many people can agree on how to do this, and beyond that, not enough people can or will.
"I do wish some people had more tact about how they express their negative views. (eg. trolls/haters versus someone who just simply hates something)" - True 'dat!
Political correctness started off as a good thing, but people have just taken it out of hand by assuming that people are infering things.
The thing with trolls is that they don't actually hate anything, they're just trying to have a laugh, and it just happens to have evolved that it's often at the expense of other people, I do find myself laughing at a lot of stuff that trolls do/say, even though I would never do it myself because it can genuinly seriously upset people.
Haha, as for amusing... My boyfriend once ran an online guild in World of Warcraft. The rules were basically to have fun, but drama would not be tolerated unless it was also entertaining XD
In real life, I decline to comment.
That's actually pretty interesting. I wonder if there is any law regarding whether people really DO have the right to say/do whatever the hell they feel like (sort of like the issue with international waters). Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to look into it right now :V Do you know if, legally, internet users really do have the right to say/do whatever they like?
As for my personal opinion, in general (real life or internet), I think people should certainly be allowed to express/hold any opinion they want, no matter how offensive, provided that they exercise a form of tact. There's a difference between simply saying you hate something, and screaming you hate something from a mountaintop (as it were); there's a difference between hating something, and encouraging hatred of that thing or shoving it in people's faces or harassing people. The former I'm all okay with, the latter I am not - the problem is how, as a website, you moderate things like that.
When it comes right down to it, it's easier to not censor, and then hope people are reasonable enough to handle the touchy stuff. And I agree, in this sense, that's the way it "should" be. There's just, realistically, problems with it, as there will be problems with pretty much any governing rule.
But yeah, definitely, websites as a private entity have the right to make whatever rules they want, and may remove/ban offenders as they see fit. We "sign a contract" with them when we make an account, so we're bound by whatever rules they set out.
Someone told me once that they think that's going to be the big up-and-coming field in law. Internet/cyber law. I can definitely see that becoming more and more required as a field.
On the other hand, in the United States, I have heard reports of websites being shut down by the FBI simply because they were deemed "offensive in content". And I'm not just talking things about religion and such, I also mean kinky-but-completely-legal porn and the like.
I didn't look too much further into the issue so I don't know if they did something with the original tweeter, but it's a good example that the Internet is not a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. Things you say and do WILL affect you, and if you cross the line you will face the consequences. It's a deceptive veil that covers ones eyes when they truly believe they are safe because the internet is anonymous...
The thing that made this case prosecutable, I think, though, is that real life action was threatened. If someone just says, "OMG I hate X I wish someone would kill him, the world would be better off if he were dead," that's very different from saying, "I'm gonna kill X, people wanna help?"
Seriously, though, I'm of the school that thinks "freedom of speech" does NOT mean "freedom to not be offended". Keep the doors wide open, and if you don't like it, don't look. And if someone tries to shove their views down my throat, I'll do my best to break their arms in foiling their attempt.
OK? OK.
Even when it comes to apparently clear-cut issues. Like, what if there was a convicted pedophile on FurAffinity? Should we all go and troll him and tell him off? I still don't think so - I don't think masses of people really should have to throw garbage at someone (even if they deserve it). You're not taking a stand, really, you're just being nosy and going out of your way to rub salt in their eyes.
That's just my opinion, though. And even THEN! It can vary! If someone acts like a complete inflammatory idiot in the middle of a crowd, YES, they deserve to get their ass kicked, because they were almost literally asking for it. However, that doesn't mean that people SHOULD go out of their way to try to kick the idiot's ass. If you sorta get my meaning. :V
lolramble, you're much better at this than I.
Places like DA and FA are particularly challenging because the format and the medium often preclude the kind of dialog that you might have in real life - and allow people to hide behind a shield of psuedonymnity. You might be in an art gallery, looking at a piece, and say to your companion, "This really doesn't do anything for me." Or you might see the artist and say, "What were you thinking here?" But you wouldn't turn to him or her and say, shouting for everyone to hear, "You must be a sick person for painting this."
But that's exactly what we do when we're on these forums. We're reflecting in public, and we do so without having established that shared understanding that you have when you're having a conversation. At the end of the day, we don't know many of the people here or in DA, but we come together in appreciation of the talent and the work. And so one would hope that any policy would reflect that. You should be able to post artwork (including stories, etc.) that others might consider "offensive." And you should be able to make helpful, objective comments on the work without fear that they'll get you into trouble. But when you start getting into the people behind the work (or the comments), I think that's where the line gets drawn.
As Dragonianfire said above, I think it should be perfectly acceptable to express yourself; but being a jerk should never be.
... Aaaactually, I know one or two people who would be okay with saying stuff like this in person. o_O BUT! Your point stands. Internet anonymity (or as you put perhaps more correctly, pseudonymity) really doesn't help with people "overexpressing" their views.
"I think it should be perfectly acceptable to express yourself; but being a jerk should never be."
Yup, but therein lies the problem! A lot of jerks don't think they are, or believe that they have good reason, and unfortunately, they're the loud ones. Then other groups get upset because they only hear the loud obnoxious ones, and THEIR jerks start being loud back, and the jerks breed that way :V
Why I really don't support trolling. I don't care if they "deserve" it, and I believe that some people do. I still won't ever go out of my way to troll, or encourage others to troll. It's just... unnecessary, and almost never ever helpful or constructive. You can smack someone for doing something wrong, but you don't need the whole town to rub salt in their eyes too.
Such people are known as haters and trolls. They say such things simply because they can.
It is true that the internet can not abide by the American Constitutions 1st Amendment rules but it is widely accepted by journalists around the world, both professional and amateur, that the general rule of thumb in cyberspace is say what you want, when you want.
Yes, it really, really doesn't help. I think it's cool that the internet has become a haven for fringe people to have a place to feel safe and express themselves, but I hate how it's allowed the evolution of trolls.
"it is widely accepted by journalists around the world, both professional and amateur, that the general rule of thumb in cyberspace is say what you want, when you want."
Someone else mentioned something along those lines. I'm a little curious (but not enough to actually look it up XD) as to what international laws are actually in place with regards to that, and I'm more or less in favour of no censorship. Just the problem with that is that there are always trolls who will take it too far... but as much as I hate trolls, I think the access to unbiased knowledge and understanding outweighs the trolling and flaming and hatred... or at least, breaks about even.
Now if we just went and banned everything people didn't like, then there would be nothing on this website. Banning everything that's offensive to a majority of people, or even furries, is silly too. as for why, without talking about laws and such? well, honestly i can't think of a reason. it's just a personal opinion I've had for a while. :V
as for why it's offensive to say i hate X but it's not offensive to say i hate Y, blame political correctness i think. if you say you hate Jews, then images of Nazi's come up. if you say you hate Muslims, then images of Muslim persecution come up. For blacks, slavery, etc etc.
and as for your last question, where the line is? personally there's very little that gets me riled up, while somebody might rage over a drop of blood, or a hint of boob.
anywho i'm rambling so i'll stop now. 8D
"Banning everything that's offensive to a majority of people, or even furries, is silly"
Yeah, I've always been a little baffled by the diaper-loving cub furry telling the bestiality-drawing furry to GTFO, and so forth. In the world of strange fetishes, everyone's weird, and not everyone's gonna like everything, but as this site revolves quite a bit around strange fetishes (furry itself being one), you can't really all of a sudden say you can't have one fetish but you can have the others. Again, I think FA's tried to do a good job covering its ass with regards to real life human stuff, but still allowing maximum content for furries. There's issues with some admins "being corrupt" or whatever, but I don't know anything about that, just what the official rules are, and they seem fair enough to me.
People are people, there will always be issues.
"blame political correctness i think."
Mmhmm. Certain groups have been charged to be more sensitive (Muslims and Jews over Christians and athiests, for example), and I know that's the answer. Also religion and politics are almost always very charged, sensitive subjects for people, more so than hair colour or profession. It simultaneously does and does not make sense that people would be more sensitive to some than others. We're not robots (or Vulcans :V), we can't help being moved by personal bias or emotion.
"personally there's very little that gets me riled up, while somebody might rage over a drop of blood, or a hint of boob."
Yeah, me too. I may think, "Wow, that's... gross/weird," but I don't actually CARE or get morally outraged. The only thing that actually kind of upsets me is rape fantasies involving taking advantage of little kids, and other forms of child abuse. Even then, I'm not gonna open my mouth or find an excuse to troll - fantasies are fine, and I get that some of them are weird, and lot of them don't involve actually wanting to do them in real life. So whatever goes in my books, until someone is being abused in real life against consent.
You said it right here. It is not what is said but what one means and what is in their heart that counts. Some people can read into someone's statement, not realizing or caring what the person actually means. The same goes to how something is said. Most times I believe the person will state what they mean.
I whole heartily believe in freedom of speak but I also believe you have a responsibility of what you say. To some there is no responsibility and they say anything they desire, no mater how hurtful or how much is is a lie and deception. Without responsibility you end of with nothing but a shouting match.
As for FA or DA, they are private and the owners of those sites can restrict anything they want. There is no freedom to do as you please when it infringes on the rights of the owners of those sites.
That really is the problem, and why some people feel censorship may be the better answer. I definitely see the point of view, being sort of a pacifist at heart, but at the same time, I also strongly believe that people should be honest and express themselves, or rather that being dishonest and repressing themselves can be unhealthy. Just some people seem to have more extreme ideas about what's acceptable when expressing yourself.
...so long as they don't go into a witch-hunt over it, analyzing each and every remark for any interpretation that someone somewhere might find somewhat offensive, and censuring the issuer of that remark. Forbidding blatant hate and venom is one thing. Trying to make it so that nobody encounters anything even slightly offensive ever just won't work - there are people who will be offended by anything, and catering to the oversensitive isn't fair.
Yup, always potential problems with whatever governing rule/system there is XD Like the whole political correctness thing can be so ridiculous. Like describing the room as having, "a guy with glasses, a black guy, and an Asian guy" instead of, say "a guy with glasses, a guy with an afro, and a short guy with black hair" or something - the former wasn't offensive! Of course, some people disagree, but... yeah. It's difficult drawing the line between honest and blunt, and honest and hurtful.
... lol, I just heard in my head, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"
Yes. I agree with this entirely. I'm all for people being honest and expressing themselves - I think being dishonest and repressive is unhealthy. But just because you REALLY HATE something doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. A person can express anger without hurting someone/something, and it should be the same on the internet. Of course, shoulds rarely ever work out, unfortunately!
To date, I have yet to hear a reasonable justification for banning any expression simply because it is distasteful/offensive in the eyes of either an administrator, or simply many in the general audience.
Besides, things that are offensive vary widely between people, so such a ban would be a joke in itself. I'd say everything offends someone, so let's just scrap the site's submissions and journals, and comments, and just turn it into a blog where the administrator says mundane factual things about the weather and the servers.
"so let's just scrap the site's submissions and journals, and comments, and just turn it into a blog where the administrator says mundane factual things about the weather and the servers."
Haha, yeah, pretty much. I'm pretty much for the way FA has handled itself (not speaking for specific cases and moderators) - it covers its ass legally in terms of real humans (no nude photography of ANY kind, no underaged humans period), and then just allows pretty much anything else go on the basis that its fantasy, we can't discriminate one without discriminating everything - so long as it stays fantasy and not real life, FA tries to not discriminate. And I think that's a fair way to go.
I always get a little bit confused when I see subgenres within the furry fandom go at each others's throats. The scat fetishists telling the diaper furs that they're disgusting, the vore fans telling the bestiality fans they're sick. Really, guys, we aren't in a position to talk XD Feel free to dislike, hate, or be disgusted by certain fetishes, but jee'z, it's a little bit hypocritical for one, and secondly if you want one fetish banned they're ALL going to have to be banned. Considering furry art is considered a strange fetish by a lot of people already, you may as well just shut down the site.
And imo, yes, some kind of people, like "I totally dislike murder rapists". Not sure what kind of "people" they'd fit in, but yeah xD
You still shouldn't start a "fan club" about these kind of things thou.
2: As stated, it really depends on how they say it, and what they are accusing.
If it's just the normal "rabble rabble rabble" with around 3-7 % accuracy, then no.
If someone would state they hated (just for example): gold-diggers. I wouldn't mind so much, but if they just clearly state "I hate women, all of them just want your money". Would be both lying and inaccurate. I know this doesn't make to much comparison if you take ex: christians and atheists. But I think it at least manages to make a base point :P
3: Imo, as long as they kept it to "civilized insults" in "appropriate areas".
If they'd say stuff like "I hate n-word!" in a comment on a picture of a Catlarva, it would be completely irrelevant.
If it was a picture of a black person, then it would be relevant, but it would still lack a explanation to why they state their statement.
Easy example for me to explain: If I'd say ex: "I hate periods", I would have stated something somewhat obvious. I could now add a explanation to why such as: "They make my vag bleed, give me mood swings and come at bad times" I would have stated what I disliked, and a somewhat reasonable and logical explanation to why. The question would now be: "Is FA (or w/e I post this) really the right place for me to talk about my vaginal issues? Probably not, but people will do it anyway.
4: I think 3-3 states quite nicely on that part.
If you'd have a reason, an argument, and an appropriate location to have this kind of conversation on, then fine.
Just don't go start "rabbling" thou, it doesn't make any sense.
That's it exactly. It's how you say it. To state something as a feeling or opinion is always valid (although not always appropriate, depending), but to state something as a fact is often not.
... catlarva? o_O
"If I'd say ex: "I hate periods", I would have stated something somewhat obvious. I could now add a explanation to why such as: "They make my vag bleed, give me mood swings and come at bad times" I would have stated what I disliked, and a somewhat reasonable and logical explanation to why. The question would now be: "Is FA (or w/e I post this) really the right place for me to talk about my vaginal issues? Probably not, but people will do it anyway."
lol, awesome. But yeah, more of the same - how you say it. If you give valid reasons ("I don't like Asians because every one that I've met so far has been a jerk.") it's still a lot better than just blanket-insulting the whole group ("All Asians are jerks.") - the former is possibly true, and fairly reasonable. We don't like people who are jerks to us! But the latter, like your previous example, is pretty much provably inaccurate and just hateful/unreasonable.
Catlarva! :D
It's my own self-invented-made mascot, cross breed of a cat and a larva/caterpillar :3
It's actually been proven to help 8 out of 5 people with art block to draw x3
I try my best to make sense :3
Sometimes I manage to do it to well xD
Or get severely misinterpreted, I'm very good at this part xD
Especially when I'm on my crusade through FA for equal rating rights!
I haven't really passes the nipple stage... or barely made any influence at all... but I'm at least trying! :P
Good luck on your crusade :D
*Crawls away with it's trusty sidekick: The Roachsnail* xD
And thanks. Really feels like I'm outnumbered thou xD
"i don't discriminate! i hate everyone equally! <3" (and he'd actually cup his hands into a heart shape too^^")
was going to add more, but i lost my trail of thuoght <_>
But it is your responsibility of the actions/retaliations or consideration of others.
That is what I think.
Heh, yeah... Sometimes I wonder if some sort of dictatorship would work better. Like y'know in families, where Mom and Dad are the rulers, and whatever they say is law. Period. The problem, as you suggested, is some rulers are better than others, and some people will always disagree on which type is preferred :b
"freedom of speech doesn't count as an excuse if it impedes on the rights of others." + "There is a way to phrase things so that it's not offensive. However, that line is not black and white and can vary from person to person."
Pretty much. It's defining the line that's so very difficult. It's impossible to please everyone.
Alas, that is the main problem.
People should be allowed to say anything but they should be able to justify what they say. Yes, people could get offended but that's too bad. They don't have a right not to be offended.
Yeah, generally, if people can justify what they say, I won't have qualms with them. If someone said, "I don't like you because you've accepted adult commissions, and I believe this to be immoral," I would respect that. Cool, you're sticking to your beliefs, and doing it politely, I'm all for that.
Just, it's that some people think it's equally within their rights to say something like, "I hate you and you deserve to die because you're a furry, and furries are all degenerate sickos," which is inflammatory/threatening, and stated as incorrect fact (which is easily disproven, as with most blanket insults) rather than opinion.
Either everything is permitted to say, or nothing. (within laws of course, eg no pedophilia etc)
So someone talks crap. So what? Hurt your feelings? Well, that's your problem. Live with it, or don't.
If one says "I hate Christians." (Or Muslims, or Vegans, or people that use cars) SO WHAT? Cry about it, really. That's called opinion. Everyone has one - more or less. Might not be nice, and he might have a wrong picture of all of this group and whatever - but so what? Do something about it: change his mind with FACTS - and if does not listen to them, well then screw him. Move along and leave him alone.
Sometimes, If I see people reacting to shit, like here in Germany, many turks often also say rassist things about germans - in fact they are a heck of a lot more racist than any other group . So, they say things like "All germans should die". If I see people reacting to them, I sometimes ask myself: Are they grown up, or babies? Becasue most of them act like babies. "OOOOOHHH They hurt our feelings." So what? That might be an excuse for the kindergarten, but not in the grown up world.
In addition: Words are only as meaningful as the people who hear/read them give them meaning.
If I'd write: "I hate all americans" (or something like that), some people wouldn't give a damn, and others would be like "WHY YOUUUUU....!!!" But why? Can't you stand not being liked? Can't you stand someone having a different opinion? These are words, nothing more, concepts of speciffic topics in each constellation of letters - YOU and YOU alone decide how much you make out of these words for yourself. So, if you take them personally, it is YOUR OWN decision. You could also just very well ignore them.
Same with religions, etc. Hurt feelings are no reason in todays world not to critizise them, etc. Mostly, this is nothing more but a sorry excuse, to prevent people to make fun of the (redicolous) stories in these books. Might not be polite - but honestly, just because someone believes something, it does not give any reason NOT to say that what they believe is crap, or whatever. From a normal, unbiased standpoint, ANY religion has stories, which sound merely redicolous - and adults preaching them as truth is even more. So why shouldn't I openly say it? Might not be respectful - but then, again, why should I be that? Just because a person thinks that "redicolous story x" is true? Being polite is again a different matter, and I don't think, that being pollite is a law. But especially on the topic of religions, it his high time that people wake up and see them as what they are: NOT the truth, but bronzage thoughts and myths, how they thought the world worked, combined with metaphors etc, which added and multiplied over the centuries.
So ultimately: YOU ALONE decide wether somethind is offensive to you or not.
As far as I remember, Jocarra, you once posted a pic of someone in a nazi univform -and you too wnated people not to watch, if they did not like it. Ultimately, the same what I said: If you don't like it, ignore it, but let others have their way.
So, some people are surely offended: That is your propblem - remember: Words are only as powerful, as YOU want them to be.
"Might not be nice, and he might have a wrong picture of all of this group and whatever - but so what? Do something about it: change his mind with FACTS - and if does not listen to them, well then screw him. Move along and leave him alone."
*cheers* Heh, I personally have difficulty with this one, though. It drives me NUTS if I present someone with facts, and they simply refuse to accept them (for instance, they personally disagree that they're facts, which somehow works for them). I'm usually pretty careful about how I qualify things, and state things like correlation versus causal, and assumptions and whatnot. So if something is actually observable fact or logic, and the person STILL refuses it, it drives me nuts and it's hard for me to not stop trying XD
"So, if you take them personally, it is YOUR OWN decision. You could also just very well ignore them."
It can be extreme in some cases, though. If a person (let's call him a troll) is very loudly proclaiming things that are provably incorrect, it can be very frustrating seeing the troll convince others, and spreading unfair/unreasonable hatred. Also, freedom of speech is fine, but people have the right to try to stop it when it moves into action (spreading hatred, threatening bodily harm as intended action, etc.) or involves slander/liable.
It's still better to not feed the trolls, though, in most cases :V Just saying it's not always the most correct course of action to simply ignore whatever you don't like hearing.
If someone was standing outside your window, 24/7, screaming YOU'RE A FAGGOT YOU'RE A FAGGOT BURN IN HELL FAGGOT YOU'RE A FAGGOT, you'd bloody well definitely be in your right to do something about the jerk. You definitely should not have to just ignore him.
But yeah, in most cases, people get too caught up in the drama and don't let things go. Take things too seriously or too personally. So someone says they don't like you? That may sort of be unpleasant for you, sure, but get over it, not everyone's going to like you, and certainly not all for good reasons!
"Being polite is again a different matter, and I don't think, that being pollite is a law."
I'm probably a bit more conservative than you (not in a political/religious sense) in that people "should" be civil when possible. However, if a person is NOT civil, and being outwardly and provably ridiculous in some sense, then it's their own fault if they're called on it. If I go out on the streets and loudly proclaim ALIENS ARE COMING with absolutely no proof whatsoever, then yeah, someone's going to call me crazy, and I'm going to deserve it. But if I am calmly and quietly handing out informative pamphlets with evidence and a well-laid out argument, and someone says to me, "You're fucked up," it's in their rights, I guess, and in a way I don't care, but it's a lot less reasonable for them to do so than in the former example.
"and you too wnated people not to watch, if they did not like it."
Actually, I asked people to feel free to express any dislike or upset, but to refrain from engaging in flame wars. People can say they hate it, or think it's wrong (and give reasons why) and so forth, and people can then disagree to those people. I just want people to keep it civil and fair.
"If someone was standing outside your window, 24/7, screaming YOU'RE A FAGGOT YOU'RE A FAGGOT BURN IN HELL FAGGOT YOU'RE A FAGGOT, you'd bloody well definitely be in your right to do something about the jerk. You definitely should not have to just ignore him."
Well, I'd let him shout till he get throatcancer. If he says such things it tells everyone more about himself, than actually about me.
"...in that people "should" be civil when possible."
Sure, but If I encounter someone, who is, in ordinary terms, "an unwilling retard" (no offense to retards, though!) - Well then I will get louder. If one isn't able to learn - well that's a different matter (though unlikely) - but NOT WANTING to learn etc deserves no respect from me. For example, I encountered a taxidriver once, who tried on a longer drive to get me into religion - chrsitianity in this case. Well, he wanted me to tell him what I though about it - and I did. Completly honest. Though, If people are honest, otehrs might not like it. In the end everything he said was something like "well goddidit!" - teh escapemanouver deluxe, if religious people are out of arguments. But instead of admitting it, he just kept on and on, until I told him to stop, if he had nothing new to say. It was possible that that came out quite rude, though not intended. But that's what I mean, that no one should take words too seriously, since words depend on the mood etc - and especially if you are annoyed... well then you do often say things that you normally wouldn't).
"Actually, I asked people to feel free to express any dislike or upset, but to refrain from engaging in flame wars."
Ah Mea culpa maxima. It was someone else then... I just remembered, that someone - and I though it was you - said something liek that on that picture.
"Well, I'd let him shout till he get throatcancer. If he says such things it tells everyone more about himself, than actually about me."
Hehehe. You, perhaps - I'm certain others would do something about it (like your neighbours!) I've done the same thing before - someone was harassing me, trying to make a point, and accused me of being cowardly, etc. So I just left their comments up publicly, and eventually a few people started calling the person out :b
"NOT WANTING to learn etc deserves no respect from me."
Phew, yeah. I know what you mean, now. Like... If a person INSISTS on being ridiculous and irrational, then yeah, they deserve being treated as such. For instance, if a person is determined to be childish, treat them like a child :b They won't like it, but that's the way it goes.
"Ah Mea culpa maxima. It was someone else then..."
I'm sure it was probably my art, but probably someone else who said the whole, "If you don't like it, you don't have to say it/so don't look" or whatever bit. I generally do think, yeah, so you don't like something, if you're not going to give reasonable criticism why bother? But yeah, their rights, and I can just ignore it :b
How could I possibly say that unless I've met them ALL and found out that they were ALL assholes?
I think it's just really silly when people say that, but... whatever. If that's how they want to think, then let them. So long as they're not out hurting people or something.
Basically, your point is the better one XD I just felt like playing devil's advocate :b
But yeah, like you said, there are always exceptions. I guess I do say "I don't like really mean people," like bullies and such. But it's just like you said... maybe one person that's considered mean I actually get along with. xD;
It's... kinda a conundrum. >->
Also illustrates the importance of defining words, even when the meaning should be apparent. For instance, simply saying, "I dislike mean people" could have exceptions, like the example we stated (someone dislikeable by one person may be likeable by another, or someone considered mean by one person may not be considered mean by another, etc.).
Instead, if we say, "I dislike people who I have personally determined to possess the quality of "meanness" defined as offensive and/or malicious, and who have used said quality to purposefully inflict physical, emotional, or psychological hurt to my person," THEN it's much harder to find exceptions, because the definition was so precise. It includes ONLY my personal opinion on who's mean and who is not, and ONLY people who have been specifically "mean" to me personally and on purpose.
It seems needless to have to say things like that, but when you have serious discussions and debates, seemingly silly definitions all of a sudden become hugely important XD
But in real life, I think I'd laugh if someone actually said that to me. "What are you, a lawyer?"
But you are 100% right. :P
I am very familiar with this, as my boyfriend is writing a philosophy book XD WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS...
*Is it acceptable to express strong dislike of certain types of people at all?
~No. It is not acceptable, as a race we need to turn the other cheek to things we dislike and learn tolerance of other people's cultures. As long as no one is hurt or being threatened to be harmed, or Someone is telling others to harm others, There should not be any conflict. Just because you dislike a culture skin type or race, doesn't mean you have the right to be cruel or mean to that person.
**If so, why is it more acceptable to say you dislike atheists or Christians, but less acceptable to say you dislike Jews or Muslims? Why is it more acceptable to say you dislike blondes or redheads, but less acceptable to say you dislike blacks? Why is it more acceptable to say you dislike stupid people, but less acceptable to say you dislike the mentally handicapped? What is the real difference between saying the former and saying the latter? - they're all blanket terms for types of people as described by one feature. What exactly makes some dislikes more or less acceptable in expressing? Is this fair?
~~Although I said no, I will answer this question- Others who say yes will always have a sort of proof they believe to be stone truth about the other, when most of it is just Stereo-typed. For Example- All foxes are promiscuous. This is not true but the stereo-type given for this species of furry. But some think it is fact written in stone. And Although some may argue ," So what if I don't like blondes and think their stupid- who cares?" Maybe the blonde who was interested in you, wanted to be your friend possibly more. They would be turned away from such statements and low and behold you missed out on a personal experience you'll never get back.
*** All people have their reasons for saying what they do, and almost all people believe that what they say about a type of people is more or less reasonable. This can vary from, "I hate all Asians, I think they're disgusting, and you all need to live with it," to "I haven't liked any Asian I've met so far - I find their behavior/practices strange, their locales unhygienic, their people unfriendly and alien, but maybe that's just me." Is the issue, then, simply how the dislike is expressed?
~~~No it is not, when you need to explain your reasons for disliking someone yes the way you do it is absolutely important, being blunt can lead to MAJOR problems. including loss of friends and viewed as a racists or Hate-propagandist. After you have established your reason for stereo-tying or your dislike of someone's culture it's up to you to see if this person is different then what you have come to expect from their race,hair type,religion etc etc. it isn't hard if you pull yourself away from your other experiences and reasoning and view them as what they are- another Human being. Someone just as good as you, no better and no worse, Until proven otherwise. Always start on Neutral ground, and allow their own actions represent who they are and form a reputation with you.
***** With the previous questions in mind, how does one fairly draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable?
~See previous question ^^
@)How many atheists have you seen tell someone to go to hell because what they say apposes something they believe in?
Actually I have met quite a few that have told me many colorful words because I tried Playing Devil's Advocate to their own lack of religion. A the same time I have met and currently friends with Atheists that are laid back and are very friendly. Not to mention your instant defense or your belief but then returning to a relax state shows you have the ability to put your beliefs aside and be friendly to those who do not share the same thoughts as you. You may ask- "How can I be friendly to someone screaming at me that I'm going to hell and not listening to a word I say?" when faced with people like that it's best to smile, and ask them to relax, maybe take a few breaths your not trying to attack them, just be friendly and get to know them as a person. I have friends of all colors and religions, All hair colors and all sizes, I'm not perfect and I do have a temper, but when I meet someone for the first time that temper dissipates do to my ability to push all my stereo-types I've worked and thoughts of anger out of my head.
Remember- your past experiences are not this current persons fault, they are not to blame. they are new and should be treated with respect.
@)How many public schools teach Christianity?
There is a public College called Aquinas that is Catholic and Teaches Catholicism, But do not force it amongst other students of other religions, one of my friends attends and is Jewish. He very much enjoys his experiences there.
I've been to many High-schools that the science areas teach both the Big Bang theory of Mutational evolution and The Bible's Adam and Eve of Creation. In fact the total Number of High schools I've been to with this is 7. why so many? I moved around a lot
as I child. and these are in the states mind you.
My own spin-
Now that I have answered these questions, and my brain has gone from College Grad with honors to Slush, I have a few other things I'd like to say before I go drink Pure caffeine from an IV.
this reply of mine is very long as you can tell. And these are my beliefs out for everyone to read and see. And to troll and Harass. "Take everything at face value at first, analyze-put salt on your wound then move forward and make your analysis public." is something my father used to say to me. And I don't not stick to this for I think it is slightly flawed- but I do take the statement at face value, and I am still trying to analyze it. :)
And so you know, as proof I will tell you more about me.
I am over the age of 20 years, I am French/German/Italian/Scottish/Irish/Russian/Native American I have Black hair and Hazel eyes that change color. I am Male. I am Bisexual, and My Religion is Considered Non-Denominational. I believe that every religion is right in some small aspect, and I piece together the teachings to better myself.
My Name is Dogmacoria online, And my Fursona is a Wolf/Tentacle Monster Hybrid.
I will now take responses and questions to my Responses ^^
"Just because you dislike a culture skin type or race, doesn't mean you have the right to be cruel or mean to that person."
I definitely agree. However, I think this is very much different from expressing dislike. I DO think people should be free to express dislike, and even ACT on the dislike, provided that it's reasonable. For instance, if I dislike someone because it was proven they stole from me, it's entirely reasonable for me to be wary of them, and to not allow them in my house or near my things. If an Asian person rear ends you randomly in the street, it is not racist for you to be angry at them and call them a bad driver, because they WERE a bad driver and they damaged your property.
I'm a pacifist, in general. I hate conflict, and think most trolling/flaming is immature and entirely avoidable if people were a bit more reasonable. So I agree with the sentiment that people just need to bloody well let their differences go and stop being actively hurtful towards others. That being said, I DO believe in people being honest with themselves and allowing the freedom of expression, provided they are REASONABLE about it, as this is entirely different from actually treating others hurtfully. Of course, not all people are able to be reasonable, but then it's OTHER people's rights to do something about it.
If someone started spreading rumours that, "Jocarra is a pedophile," this is libel, and I can take legal action to stop it. If someone starts saying, "I hate Jocarra, someone should totally go kill her," this is threatening/encouraging bodily harm, and I can again take legal action to stop it. But if someone says, "I hate Jocarra, all she does anymore is commissions and never any of her own ideas," then it's both true, and fair. I may not like it, but the person is entitled to their opinion, not everyone has to like everyone else. They just have to be fair about it.
"Others who say yes will always have a sort of proof they believe to be stone truth about the other, when most of it is just Stereo-typed."
This is true, but does not answer the question. It answers why people will dislike groups/types of people (they assume stereotypes to be true/factual, which is a fallacy and usually provably incorrect), but does not address why people treat seemingly equivalent groups as different.
For example, athiest, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim are all religious standpoints. Why is disliking one religious standpoint more acceptable than disliking others, when they're essentially the same type of thing? Why is it so much worse to say you dislike Jews than it is to say you dislike Buddhists? Logically, it first makes little sense, they should have about equivalent value - the answer lies in sociology/psychology, and makes sense here (Jews have had a pronounced history of prejudice, and thus are more sensitive to it, the topic is more charged, therefore it is worse to dislike Jews than a religion that does not have a well-known history of bigotted treatment).
So no need to answer this question, really, unless you have your own take on it that you'd like that share :)
"when you need to explain your reasons for disliking someone yes the way you do it is absolutely important," "Always start on Neutral ground, and allow their own actions represent who they are and form a reputation with you."
Agreed. Treat a person the way they deserve to be treated, as their actions/etc. dictate.
"Actually I have met quite a few that have told me many colorful words because I tried Playing Devil's Advocate to their own lack of religion. A the same time I have met and currently friends with Atheists that are laid back and are very friendly. "
This is why I told the people having this discussion there are almost always going to be good and bad members of almost any group (unless the group by definition is somehow good or bad, and even then). There are definitely unreasonable athiests, and there are definitely unreasonable Christians, but that doesn't mean there AREN'T any reasonable ones, when there provably are. It's just that they're the quiet, polite ones, which is why they are easy to miss/ignore.
"I've been to many High-schools that the science areas teach both the Big Bang theory of Mutational evolution and The Bible's Adam and Eve of Creation."
Interesting, I've never personally been to a school that teaches Creationism. I personally think this is perfectly acceptable in the right context - for instance, a class about world religions and beliefs. However, I would object to it being taught in a science class, as most of creationism is outside what science can talk authoritatively about, and it would be misrepresentational/misleading/incorrect to present it that way.
But yeah, otherwise I'm fine with Christian creationism or any other religious theory being presented, so long as it's not being presented as scientific.
websites are a private setting, and i suppose it is up to the site owners what they want to allow. they may not want to be associated with certain thoughts, beliefs, or even whole subjects. it can make sense to keep certain controversial topics completely off some sites, especially if the site revolves around specific things or is a childrens site. i still personally feel it's okay to say what you want, but feel it's polite to atleast try and explain it. if people give poorly written, negative comments, that do not contribute to the discussion, then i can understand their removal. but again if people are going to err on free speech or over restriction, i'd go for the free speech. it's not nice to be offended, but nothing has actually happened to you.
Heh, kind of goes for most things in life, to be honest. Reasons why it's hard to say things like almost and never, and have them really be true, and most rules have exceptions... and so forth.
"so long as they actually try to sensibly explain why they feel as they do"
*nods* Or acknowledges that their feelings/opinions are only that, and not "truth." Even that somehow seems better to me. Like someone who says, "I hate Europeans. Not sure why, really, just do. Maybe just the different cultures or whatever?" is better to me than someone who's like, "Europeans suck!"
(i took it you meant always rather than almost - funny how the brain decides on it's own words sometimes.)