Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

[vallorn]

In many controversial subjects there are opinions which may offend certain individuals. Opinions that, while offensive, are substantially represented and can serve as opposition to the general consensus.

Opinions including, but not limited to:

-Gay is a choice
-Transwomen are just boys pretending to be girls (and vice versa)
-Christians believe in fairy tails
-Gamers are hateful misogynist neckbeards
-etc.

Opinions that may offend people, but are still held with conviction by their owners.

*Note: Please do not use this thread to specifically discuss any of the opinions mentioned above, I claim no ownership to such opinions, and use them purely as examples of opinions that could be found offensive.*

So let's say that in my town, I have a club that meets to discuss and argue about various issues. Should my club disallow statements of opinions that people find offensive, and after so many warning bar them from access to the discussions? Or, should everybody be entitled to state their opinions, no matter how foul they may seem to others, as long as they aren't meant as attacks upon a specific individual or group that attends the club?

EDIT: If you believe offensiveness should be censored, who do you think should be determining offensiveness? Should it be the owners of the establishment, the guards that work to keep discussions civil, should it be a majority vote type thing, or something else entirely?

I think the answer depends on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sorry to the pure frozen peach people, but I don't think having a debate on whether black humans are people, for example, would be very productive or useful and productivity and usefulness are bigger concerns for a discussion group, I imagine, than pure free speech on principle just because.

And nobody is advocating for that discussion so stop implying that "Free Speech" (Your spellchecker seems to be set to PZ Myers just FYI) want to have precisely that discussion.

Then again, if we're going to do this, let's go back to the mid 1800s.

Sorry to the pure constitutional rights people, but I don't think having a debate on whether black humans are people, for example, would be very productive or useful and productivity and usefulness are bigger concerns for a productive society, I imagine, than pure free speech on principle just because.

I imagine the anti abolitionists would have said something very similar to this. They believed their points were moral and unchangeable to the point where it should never be put forwards in polite society that black people were anything other than animals. They were utterly and completely wrong of course, but they also wanted to shut down any kind of conversation around the issue.

See, this is what the people who say "freeze peach" forget. Free speech works for everyone's benefit in the long term, and those who have opposed it in the past tend to forget that if the tables of the society turn against them then their hatred of "Freeze Peach" will be used against them and their arguments to silence them. This applies to everyone, no matter how holy, moral, ethical or logical you think your arguments are, if the majority opinion turns against you and you have worn away at your own free speech then you only have yourself to blame when you are silenced by those with power.

But in terms of the group? If they want to revisit the age old arguments for a historical reenactment of events or to stress test the ideas that our society is built on, more power to them. It's always, always good to revisit these old arguments so that we don't lose sight of WHY they are right or wrong and so don't let competing arguments win because we forgot how we won before. We can hold as many truths to be self evident as we want but it's always better to have them shored up by people who have gone over them and understand them and the reasoning behind them so that they can be defended properly.

PS: No I do not mean to imply that you think blacks are somehow subhuman and nor do I, I was simply pointing out that your argument against free speech is one made by many groups throughout the centuries who held many ideas that I know you would vehemently oppose

 

[The Lunatic]

I think the answer depends on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sorry to the pure frozen peach people, but I don't think having a debate on whether black humans are people, for example, would be very productive or useful and productivity and usefulness are bigger concerns for a discussion group, I imagine, than pure free speech on principle just because.

Well, I mean, if we're never allowed to discuss such things, how could it ever have come about that it was an incorrect standpoint? I mean, go back not even a hundred years and likely the argument of "Are Actually People" and you'd likely have had plenty of people saying "Obviously not, we don't need to discuss this".

I don't really believe that we live in an age where we have all the answers, there are plenty of areas we could improve upon that popular opinion insists is area of "No debate".

Added to that, there's certainly no limit to the amount of discussion that can be had. It isn't a fossil fuel with which the world will fall into chaos without, so productivity of such a discussion is rather a moot point.

If you'd rather not spend your own time with discussions you deem not worth your time, you actually don't have to.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

The flaw with this question comes from the fact that what is and isn't offensive is completely subjective. There's an entire faith that refuses to depict one of its most prominent figures but the rest of the world has no problem making caricatures of the same subject. There are people who are genuinely offended by critiques of the latest bits of pop culture and people genuinely offended by some of the oldest works of art. There's no universal means of classifying anything as being offensive or not...Hell, Hitler had great PR people. He didn't rise to power on a platform of "Fuck the Jews and Take Over the Planet" alone.

 

[Nuuu]

It's not a discussion if both sides aren't willing to listen to the other, it's just an argument.

As stated before-hand, there's no need to censor something unless it's actual insults aimed at the participants involved. As long as it doesn't devolve into a shouting contest, let them say what they want.

Also "offensive" is a pretty subjective term, so who is the one saying what should be censored?

 

[vallorn]

Now, the reason why, even racist ideas, should be debated in practice. When you leave them alone and make it impossible to discuss them, you protect them from logical arguments. You ensconce the alkali metal of a racist, sexist or homophobic argument within an oil of outrage that means it sits there, undamaged by the oxygen of debate.

To elaborate a little bit on that, I've been known (well, on other forums at least) to take seriously posts that could be kind of trolls, and refute them. Not because I was dead sure the guy was serious and wanted to show him why he was wrong, but because, usually, there's a 5 or even 10 to 1 ratio between readers and posters on most forums, and when someone states something asinine or totally wrong, it needs to be debunked, for the sake of the silent majority of readers. Even if every single poster thinks the guy's a troll and is full of it, it might be a good thing to actually explain why, just in case some lurker/reader might actually think the troll has a point.

This guy, this guy get's it. My unusual hats off to you good sir for putting the point so wonderfully.

It's the same argument that Atheists like myself use to remind ourselves to debate Creationists. "You will never convince the Creationist, their mind is already made up, your purpose in the debate is to persuade the one observer, who might otherwise come to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, otherwise."

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Well, it's your club, and assuming it's a private club, then you have the right to boot out anyone you want for any reason you want. No one has an inherent right to attend your private gathering.

That being said, why would you? If the point of your club is to discuss things, kicking out people for having opinions you don't agree with defeats the entire purpose. If you're going to make the argument that they should be booted because they have opinions not based in science (let's say "being gay is a choice!") then you'd do far more good to use science to refute their points than you would be to simply boot them out.

Likewise, if you want to boot someone out because they have an opinion that offends someone else, that offended person would be far more helped by actually debating the merits of their opinion than essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you la la la!!" every time they hear something they don't like.

Boot out everyone who doesn't have the 'correct' opinion, and soon you don't have debate: you have a circle-jerk of like-minded people patting themselves on the back about how super-smart and correct they are.

 

[Something Amyss]

The title is pretty loaded. But basically:

No of course not. But don't get all uppity when everyone says you're an asshole. Freedom of speech includes "you're a piece of shit." and "go fuck yourself".

This also sort of brings something up to me.

OP asks:

Or, should everybody be entitled to state their opinions, no matter how foul they may seem to others, as long as they aren't meant as attacks upon a specific individual or group that attends the club?

So, in this hypothetical scenario, when someone says "Gamers are hateful misogynist neckbeards," does it matter whether there are members of the group who consider themselves gamers? If it does, I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't censorship under the definition that you seem to be working with (wherein a private club agrees to certain rules of conduct).

 

[renegade7]

No of course not. But don't get all uppity when everyone says you're an asshole. Freedom of speech includes "you're a piece of shit." and "go fuck yourself".

Sure, but sometimes quality or intention of the free speech matters. Social scientists, for instance, might debate on whether being gay is a matter of nature or nurture, and they might have very strong opinions, but the instant phrases like "go fuck yourself" start flying around, the conversation has ceased to be productive and the person behaving that way needs to be removed from the conversation to keep things productive. It's also just not very respectful, and in some environments people do have the right to ask you to leave.

So let's say that in my town, I have a club that meets to discuss and argue about various issues. Should my club disallow statements of opinions that people find offensive, and after so many warning bar them from access to the discussions? Or, should everybody be entitled to state their opinions, no matter how foul they may seem to others, as long as they aren't meant as attacks upon a specific individual or group that attends the club?

If what you're interested in is open debate, then you do have to be prepared to encounter opinions you may find disagreeable or objectionable. That does not mean that anyone may say whatever they like, but rather that people should be polite, neutral, and objective in how they approach controversial subjects and articulate disagreeable opinions. Requiring politeness and civility in how opinions are articulated is the first towards enforcing the most important requirement for productive debate, namely the expectation that opinions be defensible. That is, you must be able to argue your opinion rationally and within some logical framework, without resorting to conspiracy theories, name-calling, and hostility.

That's the stated ideal, of course. But the fact is that some ideas are just completely indefensible. This is usually the case in scientific debates. You don't just get to invite yourself into a debate on a scientific subject, in order for the discussion to be productive a certain amount of background knowledge must necessarily be expected. A fundamentalist Christian may believe with all of his heart that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the theories of inflationary cosmology, evolution, and climate change are fiction made up by atheists to promote a liberal, progressive, secular worldview, and in that case the fundamentalist is so off-target and so clearly lacks basic understanding of the subject matter that there is nothing to be gained from giving him a voice in serious conversations about those issues. He himself has nothing to add and entertaining his lunacy will only serve to waste people's time.

The fact is that a question like "But where did the energy for the Big Bang come from?" or "But all you have for climate change prediction are computer models, so how do you know it reflects reality?" make a real scientist's head spin, because they're so elementary that not knowing the answer precludes any possibility of engaging with the subject productively (the answers, respectively are "The universe is not a closed system so this is not a meaningful question" and "Literally the entire field of numerical analysis is concerned with showing that numerical solutions converge within stable error bounds to analytic solutions", things that a college freshman studying the relevant subject would be aware of).

Which, sadly, brings us to...

Now, the reason why, even racist ideas, should be debated in practice. When you leave them alone and make it impossible to discuss them, you protect them from logical arguments. You ensconce the alkali metal of a racist, sexist or homophobic argument within an oil of outrage that means it sits there, undamaged by the oxygen of debate.

To elaborate a little bit on that, I've been known (well, on other forums at least) to take seriously posts that could be kind of trolls, and refute them. Not because I was dead sure the guy was serious and wanted to show him why he was wrong, but because, usually, there's a 5 or even 10 to 1 ratio between readers and posters on most forums, and when someone states something asinine or totally wrong, it needs to be debunked, for the sake of the silent majority of readers. Even if every single poster thinks the guy's a troll and is full of it, it might be a good thing to actually explain why, just in case some lurker/reader might actually think the troll has a point.

This guy, this guy get's it. My unusual hats off to you good sir for putting the point so wonderfully.

It's the same argument that Atheists like myself use to remind ourselves to debate Creationists. "You will never convince the Creationist, their mind is already made up, your purpose in the debate is to persuade the one observer, who might otherwise come to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, otherwise."

...exactly this.

It's unfortunate that the time and energy of reasonable, intelligent people needs to be spent engaging with ideas that simply are not worth the attention. But the fact is that if the reasonable and informed people consider themselves above debate, then debate will be left to people who are unreasonable and uninformed.

My mind goes back to the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate from last year. Ken Ham is a hack and Bill Nye has better things to do than argue with him in a "museum" (and I use quotes because calling it a "museum" is an insult to anyone who's ever cared about the preservation of knowledge, art, and culture) that features, among other things, animatronic statues of Adam and Eve riding velociraptors like ponies, and anyone who watched that debate would see very, very plainly how obvious it was that Bill Nye had a stronger argument. That debate was not for the benefit of Ken Ham or his organization (whom we can safely say are not going to benefit from attempts to teach them), it was for the benefit of people who might not have been fully informed on the subject and might accidentally stumble across Ham's ramblings and take them seriously.

But like it or not, that is part of the job of being a scientist. We're not just about making discoveries per se but about eliminating human ignorance by creating knowledge because the lessons of history clearly show us how important knowledge is to the human condition and the suffering that can result from ignorance. Sometimes that means that it becomes our job to protect knowledge from ignorance.

 

[SolidState]

Now, the reason why, even racist ideas, should be debated in practice. When you leave them alone and make it impossible to discuss them, you protect them from logical arguments. You ensconce the alkali metal of a racist, sexist or homophobic argument within an oil of outrage that means it sits there, undamaged by the oxygen of debate.

To elaborate a little bit on that, I've been known (well, on other forums at least) to take seriously posts that could be kind of trolls, and refute them. Not because I was dead sure the guy was serious and wanted to show him why he was wrong, but because, usually, there's a 5 or even 10 to 1 ratio between readers and posters on most forums, and when someone states something asinine or totally wrong, it needs to be debunked, for the sake of the silent majority of readers. Even if every single poster thinks the guy's a troll and is full of it, it might be a good thing to actually explain why, just in case some lurker/reader might actually think the troll has a point.

I agree with this 100%. And this is exactly the reason why "just ignore the trolls" is not always a viable strategy. Even moreso if the trolls are numerous in number.

 

[Drathnoxis]

This also sort of brings something up to me.

OP asks:

Or, should everybody be entitled to state their opinions, no matter how foul they may seem to others, as long as they aren't meant as attacks upon a specific individual or group that attends the club?

So, in this hypothetical scenario, when someone says "Gamers are hateful misogynist neckbeards," does it matter whether there are members of the group who consider themselves gamers? If it does, I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't censorship under the definition that you seem to be working with (wherein a private club agrees to certain rules of conduct).

I would say that would not count as a personal attack. It is offensive to gamers in general, sure, but it isn't singling out an individual or individuals.

It's the difference between saying "Gamers are hateful misogynist neckbeards," and Drathnoxis happens to be a gamer and saying "Drathnoxis is a hateful misogynist neckbeard."

Edit: The OP probably should have been a bit more clear, I've edited it to clarify what I meant by "group."

 

[Random Gamer]

I agree with this 100%. And this is exactly the reason why "just ignore the trolls" is not always a viable strategy. Even moreso if the trolls are numerous in number.

That said, my comment was a general one about what Vallorn said, it isn't directly linked to the OP. It's just that if it's a board I visit frequently and if it's a topic that matters to me, if there aren't rules against it, I'll have a tendency to tell apparently trollish opinions that they aren't correct, for the following reasons. If the forum's rules are to totally ignore anything resembling trolling, it'll be a bit difficult for me to always do it but I'll conform as much as I can - even though my tendency would be to debate and debunk.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Shit that offends you is decided on your end, ergo you filter that shit out on your own end.
If websites did filter out absolutely everything some mindless dickhead interprets as offensive then there would be nothing but blank pages.

 

[Vigormortis]

In open discussions, no, of course not. Not if we're to hold to the principles of free speech.

That said, the great thing about free speech is, while someone has the right to say something as monumentally stupid and demonstrably false as "gay is a choice", you have the same right to call them an idiot and explain why they're an idiot.

'Tis the boon and the bane of free speech.

 

[Quellist]

No, just no. Once you start censoring people's opinion because its offensive free speech becomes in danger, especially as its usually those with the biggest axe to grind who decide whats offensive and what isnt

 

[Bat Vader]

No of course not. But don't get all uppity when everyone says you're an asshole. Freedom of speech includes "you're a piece of shit." and "go fuck yourself".

Exactly. People are allowed to voice their opinions and others are allowed to voice their dislike of them and/or their opinions.

It's like the most recent Jimmty Kimmel thing. He has the freedom to make jokes about gamers and I have the freedom to call him a fatass talentless hack.

 

[DrWut]

In open discussions, no, of course not. Not if we're to hold to the principles of free speech.

That said, the great thing about free speech is, while someone has the right to say something as monumentally stupid and demonstrably false as "gay is a choice", you have the same right to call them an idiot and explain why they're an idiot.

'Tis the boon and the bane of free speech.

I don't want to derail, but I've had gay people tell me that they consider being gay a choice, and that they dislike the argument that it's genetic because then it looks like it's some kind of disease or flaw. Their opinion is that they are grown adults and can stick their dick wherever they want, thank you very much.

So is "gay a choice" as demonstrably false and stupid as you think? Could it be argued? What's the deal with ancient Greece or Rome, then? See, free speech is not always a legal matter, sometimes it's a matter of intellectual humility. Recognizing that perhaps issues are not as clear-cut as you think and maybe stuff merits discussion even if you consider it monumentally stupid and blatantly false (bam! derail averted).

 

[Fallow]

Decisively yes.
As soon as someone says something you disagree with, shout "Misogyny!", run to the closest safe space, and start a twitter petition to get someone fired. That's how you deal with disagreement.

In open discussions, no, of course not. Not if we're to hold to the principles of free speech.

That said, the great thing about free speech is, while someone has the right to say something as monumentally stupid and demonstrably false as "gay is a choice", you have the same right to call them an idiot and explain why they're an idiot.

'Tis the boon and the bane of free speech.

I'm not sure 'demonstrably false' means what you think it means.

As long as a subset of current homosexuals have themselves chosen to live that life, it is not 'demonstrably false'.

I also know of two gays who are pretty tired of these holier-than-thou PC dudes who somehow feel the need to tell them that their sexuality is somehow enforced on them as if they're children unable to make individual choices.

But then, perhaps you know best.

 

[Vigormortis]

I don't want to derail, but I've had gay people tell me that they consider being gay a choice, and that they dislike the argument that it's genetic because then it looks like it's some kind of disease or flaw. Their opinion is that they are grown adults and can stick their dick wherever they want, thank you very much.

So is "gay a choice" as demonstrably false and stupid as you think? Could it be argued? What's the deal with ancient Greece or Rome, then? See, free speech is not always a legal matter, sometimes it's a matter of intellectual humility. Recognizing that perhaps issues are not as clear-cut as you think and maybe stuff merits discussion even if you consider it monumentally stupid and blatantly false (bam! derail averted).

Just because those friends are gay doesn't mean they can somehow refute the biological evidence. Especially if their reasoning is, "Because I said so."

Besides, from the sounds of things, they're only making the claim because they perceive the notion of homo/bisexuality being genetic as being an "illegitimate reason".

Anyone who understands the science knows it's not a genetic disease or flaw. Only ignorant bigots desperate for a reason to treat homosexuals poorly think it's a disease.

Gay isn't a choice. People may think it is, but it isn't. You can't choose what sexually arouses you.

And note, I didn't say someone couldn't make the claim nor bring it up in a discussion. In fact, I said someone has every right to. That was my whole point. Free speech is only free when anyone can say anything, provided it doesn't incite a threat to anyone.

(derail re-averted)

 

[DrWut]

I don't want to derail, but I've had gay people tell me that they consider being gay a choice, and that they dislike the argument that it's genetic because then it looks like it's some kind of disease or flaw. Their opinion is that they are grown adults and can stick their dick wherever they want, thank you very much.

So is "gay a choice" as demonstrably false and stupid as you think? Could it be argued? What's the deal with ancient Greece or Rome, then? See, free speech is not always a legal matter, sometimes it's a matter of intellectual humility. Recognizing that perhaps issues are not as clear-cut as you think and maybe stuff merits discussion even if you consider it monumentally stupid and blatantly false (bam! derail averted).

Just because those friends are gay doesn't mean they can somehow refute the biological evidence. Especially if their reasoning is, "Because I said so."

Besides, from the sounds of things, they're only making the claim because they perceive the notion of homo/bisexuality being genetic as being an "illegitimate reason".

Anyone who understands the science knows it's not a genetic disease or flaw. Only ignorant bigots desperate for a reason to treat homosexuals poorly think it's a disease.

Gay isn't a choice. People may think it is, but it isn't. You can't choose what sexually arouses you.

And note, I didn't say someone couldn't make the claim nor bring it up in a discussion. In fact, I said someone has every right to. That was my whole point. Free speech is only free when anyone can say anything, provided it doesn't incite a threat to anyone.

(derail re-averted)

I'll drop it because it's not the place, but since I am a biologist (and not a fan of biological determinism) if you could send me some of the biological evidence by private I would love to take a look at it.

 

[Sarge034]

I'd say no discussion should be censored with a small handful of caveats. All parties involved are adults and no threats or implied threats of bodily harm are made. There's prolly some more but those are the big two.