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.

Oh you again. Why am I not surprised you'd accuse me of trying to imply they advocate for it happening. I'm not. I often find them advocating that all discussions have value, in this case likely the tired nonsense thst it needs to be disproved or else dire unproven consequences will occur. I use this as an example of a discussion with none. Not to say they want it to happen.

If every time you reply to me I get the joy of having to correct your 'misunderstandings' don't expect much beyond correcting you until you can stop 'misunderstanding'

Well I'm going to leave your comments about me aside since they don't really have any bearing on the rest of my post old chap (or chapette).

See, this is what I brought up in my first post in this thread, we do need to revisit the old arguments to make sure that they still hold up. If we do not then we become complacent, we forget why they are right in the first place. And that's not a sign of a healthy society.

All discussions do actually have value in the end, this is because even if it is "settled", playing devils advocate or otherwise testing the old arguments through debate and clever reasoning can show flaws in them or open up new avenues of investigation. Not everything must be rooted in what is useful to us today, the past has lots that it can teach us if we examine it properly, it's not just "tired nonsense" either when populations in certain regions of the world still believe it. How can you hope to, for example, eradicate the mistreatment of women in some foreign nations when you have forgotten the arguments and reasoning that allowed you to do so in your own country?

Finally. Revisiting the old arguments allows one to better understand history. Instead of simply proclaiming that one argument or group was "wrong" or "evil", examining their "tired nonsense" allows you to see if there was anything worth salvaging from the practice. For example, there's a sentiment within Noblesse Oblige that I find quite endearing where those with power, wealth or influence have a duty to help those who are less fortunate than them for one reason or another. That's not to say that the entire argument and practice of Noblesse Oblige is good, but that sentiment within it has some merit that we see reflected in our society today, especially some groups like the British Royal family who use a lot of their time to promote charities for which they are patrons. It's also what spurred the great infrastructure developments of those like Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette who's sense of duty led to the construction of many life improving projects in London like a proper sewer system to prevent cholera's spread.

But enough about that. My point here was to prove that by examining the arguments of the past we can discover things about our modern opinions and we can understand the reasoning that leads us to the societal norms we have today. Therefore it is a good thing to reexamine the old arguments for many reasons.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Oh you again. Why am I not surprised you'd accuse me of trying to imply they advocate for it happening. I'm not. I often find them advocating that all discussions have value, in this case likely the tired nonsense thst it needs to be disproved or else dire unproven consequences will occur. I use this as an example of a discussion with none. Not to say they want it to happen.

If every time you reply to me I get the joy of having to correct your 'misunderstandings' don't expect much beyond correcting you until you can stop 'misunderstanding'

Well I'm going to leave your comments about me aside since they don't really have any bearing on the rest of my post old chap (or chapette).

See, this is what I brought up in my first post in this thread, we do need to revisit the old arguments to make sure that they still hold up. If we do not then we become complacent, we forget why they are right in the first place. And that's not a sign of a healthy society.

All discussions do actually have value in the end, this is because even if it is "settled", playing devils advocate or otherwise testing the old arguments through debate and clever reasoning can show flaws in them or open up new avenues of investigation. Not everything must be rooted in what is useful to us today, the past has lots that it can teach us if we examine it properly, it's not just "tired nonsense" either when populations in certain regions of the world still believe it. How can you hope to, for example, eradicate the mistreatment of women in some foreign nations when you have forgotten the arguments and reasoning that allowed you to do so in your own country?

Finally. Revisiting the old arguments allows one to better understand history. Instead of simply proclaiming that one argument or group was "wrong" or "evil", examining their "tired nonsense" allows you to see if there was anything worth salvaging from the practice. For example, there's a sentiment within Noblesse Oblige that I find quite endearing where those with power, wealth or influence have a duty to help those who are less fortunate than them for one reason or another. That's not to say that the entire argument and practice of Noblesse Oblige is good, but that sentiment within it has some merit that we see reflected in our society today, especially some groups like the British Royal family who use a lot of their time to promote charities for which they are patrons. It's also what spurred the great infrastructure developments of those like Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette who's sense of duty led to the construction of many life improving projects in London like a proper sewer system to prevent cholera's spread.

But enough about that. My point here was to prove that by examining the arguments of the past we can discover things about our modern opinions and we can understand the reasoning that leads us to the societal norms we have today. Therefore it is a good thing to reexamine the old arguments for many reasons.

So you admit you were falsely accusing me of trying to imply that anyone was advocating to have that particular discussion? If you're going to make these accusations I'm not going to simply let you drop it without explanation.

 

[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.

Oh you again. Why am I not surprised you'd accuse me of trying to imply they advocate for it happening. I'm not. I often find them advocating that all discussions have value, in this case likely the tired nonsense thst it needs to be disproved or else dire unproven consequences will occur. I use this as an example of a discussion with none. Not to say they want it to happen.

If every time you reply to me I get the joy of having to correct your 'misunderstandings' don't expect much beyond correcting you until you can stop 'misunderstanding'

Well I'm going to leave your comments about me aside since they don't really have any bearing on the rest of my post old chap (or chapette).

See, this is what I brought up in my first post in this thread, we do need to revisit the old arguments to make sure that they still hold up. If we do not then we become complacent, we forget why they are right in the first place. And that's not a sign of a healthy society.

All discussions do actually have value in the end, this is because even if it is "settled", playing devils advocate or otherwise testing the old arguments through debate and clever reasoning can show flaws in them or open up new avenues of investigation. Not everything must be rooted in what is useful to us today, the past has lots that it can teach us if we examine it properly, it's not just "tired nonsense" either when populations in certain regions of the world still believe it. How can you hope to, for example, eradicate the mistreatment of women in some foreign nations when you have forgotten the arguments and reasoning that allowed you to do so in your own country?

Finally. Revisiting the old arguments allows one to better understand history. Instead of simply proclaiming that one argument or group was "wrong" or "evil", examining their "tired nonsense" allows you to see if there was anything worth salvaging from the practice. For example, there's a sentiment within Noblesse Oblige that I find quite endearing where those with power, wealth or influence have a duty to help those who are less fortunate than them for one reason or another. That's not to say that the entire argument and practice of Noblesse Oblige is good, but that sentiment within it has some merit that we see reflected in our society today, especially some groups like the British Royal family who use a lot of their time to promote charities for which they are patrons. It's also what spurred the great infrastructure developments of those like Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette who's sense of duty led to the construction of many life improving projects in London like a proper sewer system to prevent cholera's spread.

But enough about that. My point here was to prove that by examining the arguments of the past we can discover things about our modern opinions and we can understand the reasoning that leads us to the societal norms we have today. Therefore it is a good thing to reexamine the old arguments for many reasons.

So you admit you were falsely accusing me of trying to imply that anyone was advocating to have that particular discussion? If you're going to make these accusations I'm not going to simply let you drop it without explanation.

No, I just don't think that continuing to go over it and derail the thread with a personal side topic is a good idea. You can always PM me with a request you know.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Oh you again. Why am I not surprised you'd accuse me of trying to imply they advocate for it happening. I'm not. I often find them advocating that all discussions have value, in this case likely the tired nonsense thst it needs to be disproved or else dire unproven consequences will occur. I use this as an example of a discussion with none. Not to say they want it to happen.

If every time you reply to me I get the joy of having to correct your 'misunderstandings' don't expect much beyond correcting you until you can stop 'misunderstanding'

Well I'm going to leave your comments about me aside since they don't really have any bearing on the rest of my post old chap (or chapette).

See, this is what I brought up in my first post in this thread, we do need to revisit the old arguments to make sure that they still hold up. If we do not then we become complacent, we forget why they are right in the first place. And that's not a sign of a healthy society.

All discussions do actually have value in the end, this is because even if it is "settled", playing devils advocate or otherwise testing the old arguments through debate and clever reasoning can show flaws in them or open up new avenues of investigation. Not everything must be rooted in what is useful to us today, the past has lots that it can teach us if we examine it properly, it's not just "tired nonsense" either when populations in certain regions of the world still believe it. How can you hope to, for example, eradicate the mistreatment of women in some foreign nations when you have forgotten the arguments and reasoning that allowed you to do so in your own country?

Finally. Revisiting the old arguments allows one to better understand history. Instead of simply proclaiming that one argument or group was "wrong" or "evil", examining their "tired nonsense" allows you to see if there was anything worth salvaging from the practice. For example, there's a sentiment within Noblesse Oblige that I find quite endearing where those with power, wealth or influence have a duty to help those who are less fortunate than them for one reason or another. That's not to say that the entire argument and practice of Noblesse Oblige is good, but that sentiment within it has some merit that we see reflected in our society today, especially some groups like the British Royal family who use a lot of their time to promote charities for which they are patrons. It's also what spurred the great infrastructure developments of those like Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette who's sense of duty led to the construction of many life improving projects in London like a proper sewer system to prevent cholera's spread.

But enough about that. My point here was to prove that by examining the arguments of the past we can discover things about our modern opinions and we can understand the reasoning that leads us to the societal norms we have today. Therefore it is a good thing to reexamine the old arguments for many reasons.

So you admit you were falsely accusing me of trying to imply that anyone was advocating to have that particular discussion? If you're going to make these accusations I'm not going to simply let you drop it without explanation.

No, I just don't think that continuing to go over it and derail the thread with a personal side topic is a good idea. You can always PM me with a request you know.

If you make false accusations about what I said in the thread I'm going to point it out there in the thread and expect an explanation there.

If it didn't belong why the fuck did you make the accusation in the first place? What my actual argument is is relevant and so is your attempt to misrepresent what I said here.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

No, because how would you do that in the first place? Who will decide what is offensive and what is not?

People can throw their opinions out there, even if they are ridiculously stupid. They shouldn't expect them to gain a lot of applause however, that goes for anyone.

 

[Josh123914]

No, because how would you do that in the first place? Who will decide what is offensive and what is not?

People can throw their opinions out there, even if they are ridiculously stupid. They shouldn't expect them to gain a lot of applause however, that goes for anyone.

Yup, was going to post along these lines.

If what someone is saying is bad enough, people will just defeat you using facts and logic.

 

[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.

Oh you again. Why am I not surprised you'd accuse me of trying to imply they advocate for it happening. I'm not. I often find them advocating that all discussions have value, in this case likely the tired nonsense thst it needs to be disproved or else dire unproven consequences will occur. I use this as an example of a discussion with none. Not to say they want it to happen.

If every time you reply to me I get the joy of having to correct your 'misunderstandings' don't expect much beyond correcting you until you can stop 'misunderstanding'

Well I'm going to leave your comments about me aside since they don't really have any bearing on the rest of my post old chap (or chapette).

See, this is what I brought up in my first post in this thread, we do need to revisit the old arguments to make sure that they still hold up. If we do not then we become complacent, we forget why they are right in the first place. And that's not a sign of a healthy society.

All discussions do actually have value in the end, this is because even if it is "settled", playing devils advocate or otherwise testing the old arguments through debate and clever reasoning can show flaws in them or open up new avenues of investigation. Not everything must be rooted in what is useful to us today, the past has lots that it can teach us if we examine it properly, it's not just "tired nonsense" either when populations in certain regions of the world still believe it. How can you hope to, for example, eradicate the mistreatment of women in some foreign nations when you have forgotten the arguments and reasoning that allowed you to do so in your own country?

Finally. Revisiting the old arguments allows one to better understand history. Instead of simply proclaiming that one argument or group was "wrong" or "evil", examining their "tired nonsense" allows you to see if there was anything worth salvaging from the practice. For example, there's a sentiment within Noblesse Oblige that I find quite endearing where those with power, wealth or influence have a duty to help those who are less fortunate than them for one reason or another. That's not to say that the entire argument and practice of Noblesse Oblige is good, but that sentiment within it has some merit that we see reflected in our society today, especially some groups like the British Royal family who use a lot of their time to promote charities for which they are patrons. It's also what spurred the great infrastructure developments of those like Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette who's sense of duty led to the construction of many life improving projects in London like a proper sewer system to prevent cholera's spread.

But enough about that. My point here was to prove that by examining the arguments of the past we can discover things about our modern opinions and we can understand the reasoning that leads us to the societal norms we have today. Therefore it is a good thing to reexamine the old arguments for many reasons.

So you admit you were falsely accusing me of trying to imply that anyone was advocating to have that particular discussion? If you're going to make these accusations I'm not going to simply let you drop it without explanation.

No, I just don't think that continuing to go over it and derail the thread with a personal side topic is a good idea. You can always PM me with a request you know.

If you make false accusations about what I said in the thread I'm going to point it out there in the thread and expect an explanation there.

If it didn't belong why the fuck did you make the accusation in the first place?

Because the rest of your post ignored the meat of the argument, it was as if your counter argument was to try and nitpick for any issue you could find with the principle of free speech as shown by your repeated use of the "freeze peach" meme which was created to smugly mock those who actually believe that debate and free expression is vital to a modern democratic system. Those who use it are generally not arguing in good faith and so I decided to respond as if that was the case there. If it was not then I apologize.

Now, since I have addressed your question of why I brought that up. I'm stepping out of the thread before it get's further heated/derailed by this back and forth between us.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

No. Political correctness and censorship are bullshit.

 

[kitsunefather]

Eh, in public or by the government? Obviously, censorship is bad. But in private spaces? Forcing a privately-owned company or forum to play host to or publish speech they don't want to host or publish is infringing on their own freedom of speech, frankly.

Private ownership is a valid point; that no one should be able to force discussion in a place owned by someone where that discussion is not welcome. Posting evidence of the Holocaust wouldn't be welcome on Stormfront forums, same as evidence of evolution wouldn't be welcome on creationist ones.

But the question isn't should everyone be required to accept all discussion, as I understand it, but rather should "offensive" opinions be banned by their nature in general. That is obviously "no" (to me at least), because if you aren't allowing your assertions to be challenged, you are forming a cult; possibly religious, possibly of personality, it doesn't matter. Assertions that can't be challenged are dogma, and dogma is anathema to free thought.

 

[FalloutJack]

Ummm...let's go with no. Too complicated to bother doing.

 

[l33t.heathen]

Firstly: Who gets to define what's "offensive"? Because if it's me, then everyone has to shut up forever.

I vote this dude defines it. But in all seriousness why would you think we need to create even more of an echo chamber?

 

[l33t.heathen]

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the science is wrong. I mean, you know a couple of guys who make a counter claim, a claim backed up with a 'because I said so', so clearly you must know more than the biologists.

Ah yes the mighty throne of science. Yes let us worship there because science is eternal and unchanging and has never made a claim that later turned out to be complete baloney when we discovered something else or was influenced by the desires of popular culture and politics.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Oh you again. Why am I not surprised you'd accuse me of trying to imply they advocate for it happening. I'm not. I often find them advocating that all discussions have value, in this case likely the tired nonsense thst it needs to be disproved or else dire unproven consequences will occur. I use this as an example of a discussion with none. Not to say they want it to happen.

If every time you reply to me I get the joy of having to correct your 'misunderstandings' don't expect much beyond correcting you until you can stop 'misunderstanding'

Well I'm going to leave your comments about me aside since they don't really have any bearing on the rest of my post old chap (or chapette).

See, this is what I brought up in my first post in this thread, we do need to revisit the old arguments to make sure that they still hold up. If we do not then we become complacent, we forget why they are right in the first place. And that's not a sign of a healthy society.

All discussions do actually have value in the end, this is because even if it is "settled", playing devils advocate or otherwise testing the old arguments through debate and clever reasoning can show flaws in them or open up new avenues of investigation. Not everything must be rooted in what is useful to us today, the past has lots that it can teach us if we examine it properly, it's not just "tired nonsense" either when populations in certain regions of the world still believe it. How can you hope to, for example, eradicate the mistreatment of women in some foreign nations when you have forgotten the arguments and reasoning that allowed you to do so in your own country?

Finally. Revisiting the old arguments allows one to better understand history. Instead of simply proclaiming that one argument or group was "wrong" or "evil", examining their "tired nonsense" allows you to see if there was anything worth salvaging from the practice. For example, there's a sentiment within Noblesse Oblige that I find quite endearing where those with power, wealth or influence have a duty to help those who are less fortunate than them for one reason or another. That's not to say that the entire argument and practice of Noblesse Oblige is good, but that sentiment within it has some merit that we see reflected in our society today, especially some groups like the British Royal family who use a lot of their time to promote charities for which they are patrons. It's also what spurred the great infrastructure developments of those like Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette who's sense of duty led to the construction of many life improving projects in London like a proper sewer system to prevent cholera's spread.

But enough about that. My point here was to prove that by examining the arguments of the past we can discover things about our modern opinions and we can understand the reasoning that leads us to the societal norms we have today. Therefore it is a good thing to reexamine the old arguments for many reasons.

So you admit you were falsely accusing me of trying to imply that anyone was advocating to have that particular discussion? If you're going to make these accusations I'm not going to simply let you drop it without explanation.

No, I just don't think that continuing to go over it and derail the thread with a personal side topic is a good idea. You can always PM me with a request you know.

If you make false accusations about what I said in the thread I'm going to point it out there in the thread and expect an explanation there.

If it didn't belong why the fuck did you make the accusation in the first place?

Because the rest of your post ignored the meat of the argument, it was as if your counter argument was to try and nitpick for any issue you could find with the principle of free speech as shown by your repeated use of the "freeze peach" meme which was created to smugly mock those who actually believe that debate and free expression is vital to a modern democratic system. Those who use it are generally not arguing in good faith and so I decided to respond as if that was the case there. If it was not then I apologize.

Now, since I have addressed your question of why I brought that up. I'm stepping out of the thread before it get's further heated/derailed by this back and forth between us.

My *first* reply ignored the meat of the argument? There was none yet. You seem to have somehow taken it personally. At that point it was general and wasn't presented as having to do with you or your argument at all. It was a general reply of my position to the OP and a very brief example of disagreeing with a very generalized version of the opposition and the sort of thing I usually see. And I got the idea right anyways. Here you argue all arguments have value(in arguing them). The one I mentioned was supposed to be an example of one with no value. That was explicitly what it was meant to demonstrate. You say all have value to be argued I am saying there is nothing to be gained.

And f you're going to keep making your first reply to me in threads assume I'm not answering the thread itself in good faith then expect me to keep calling you on it to the exclusion of the rest. I do not appreciate it and will actively try to discourage getting that kind of shit flung at me by not letting it slide or eventually just putting whoever does it on ignore.

I'm not sure why you seem to feel wronged by my reaction when you came and replied to me assuming my reply was not in good faith.

That said I will go on and reply to your actual arguments now since that's done with.

See, this is what I brought up in my first post in this thread, we do need to revisit the old arguments to make sure that they still hold up. If we do not then we become complacent, we forget why they are right in the first place. And that's not a sign of a healthy society.

Do you have any actual examples where you can show people seriously forget why things are right in the first place due to lack of argument? Why exactly are you dismissing education on history as being sufficient? Why must it be an active argument? And those two are important to the first question since if you show people forgetting the next step is determining why.

I ask these because I honestly am doubtful you have a good basis to claim that.

All discussions do actually have value in the end, this is because even if it is "settled", playing devils advocate or otherwise testing the old arguments through debate and clever reasoning can show flaws in them or open up new avenues of investigation.

This only works if there are flaws and new avenues of investigation in every issue. I do not see a reason to simply assume this is a truth. This is simply a very vague and unproven "It *could* be true". There are lots of those, they need a bit more heft to be worthy of consideration imo.

Not everything must be rooted in what is useful to us today, the past has lots that it can teach us if we examine it properly, it's not just "tired nonsense" either when populations in certain regions of the world still believe it. How can you hope to, for example, eradicate the mistreatment of women in some foreign nations when you have forgotten the arguments and reasoning that allowed you to do so in your own country?

Who has actually forgotten them? I don't think that the knowledge has vanished. You don't need to argue it to remember it. That is a somewhat roundabout way of education. Yes getting people to arrive at the conclusions themselves is good, but hardly necessary or in fact feasible for everything.

Finally. Revisiting the old arguments allows one to better understand history. Instead of simply proclaiming that one argument or group was "wrong" or "evil", examining their "tired nonsense" allows you to see if there was anything worth salvaging from the practice. For example, there's a sentiment within Noblesse Oblige that I find quite endearing where those with power, wealth or influence have a duty to help those who are less fortunate than them for one reason or another. That's not to say that the entire argument and practice of Noblesse Oblige is good, but that sentiment within it has some merit that we see reflected in our society today, especially some groups like the British Royal family who use a lot of their time to promote charities for which they are patrons. It's also what spurred the great infrastructure developments of those like Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette who's sense of duty led to the construction of many life improving projects in London like a proper sewer system to prevent cholera's spread.

But you don't have to argue it or seriously entertain the idea to learn what the arguments were or see an idea and decide you like it. I've heard of Noblesse Oblige and I didn't have to actually argue with anyone to learn of it.

Yes remembering these things is important. Yes you can see old ideas and salvage them. But that's an argument to learn history. It doesn't say we should learn it by continually entertaining these arguments.

But enough about that. My point here was to prove that by examining the arguments of the past we can discover things about our modern opinions and we can understand the reasoning that leads us to the societal norms we have today. Therefore it is a good thing to reexamine the old arguments for many reasons.

There's a difference between examining them and insisting it is important to see people seriously argue them and reply.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Narp. Whoever holds views that might be considered offensive are well within their rights to express them, and those who disagree have every right to do the same. So long as it all stays vaguely civil, it's fair game.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Narp. Whoever holds views that might be considered offensive are well within their rights to express them, and those who disagree have every right to do the same. So long as it all stays vaguely civil, it's fair game.

Hey? You can be offensive, but you can't be uncivil about it? How does that work?

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Narp. Whoever holds views that might be considered offensive are well within their rights to express them, and those who disagree have every right to do the same. So long as it all stays vaguely civil, it's fair game.

Hey? You can be offensive, but you can't be uncivil about it? How does that work?

I was think of 'vaguely civil' as near-enough everything short of giving the other guy a Glaswegian piercing. But yeah, you can have an 'offensive' opinion but be civil about it. For example: "I don't like the idea of taking in refugees because they may put a strain on employment for our citizens." versus "Fucking foreign scum coming over here and taking our fucking jobs. Cunts." Not a terribly nice (one could say offensive) opinion no matter which way you cut it, but one statement is significantly more civil than the other. The distinction lies in having 'offensive' views but not being offensive (i.e. an arse) when expressing them.

 

[Callate]

Of course! We have all the correct opinions right now, and none of them ever needs to change or be questioned. We're quite fortunate to be the first people to have ever accomplished this.

Seriously: For the hundredth-or-so time, anyone simply finding something offensive is a bad reason for that thing to cease to exist. If "it offends me" is the best reason you can come up with for suppressing or destroying something, you don't belong at the adult table.

 

[Phil the Nervous]

What, and let the majority decide who gets to say stuff?
(spelling that out for the slow people, majority "votes" on social guidelines = majority decides what's offensive)

That's great and all, but the majority's frequently been proven to be grossly incompetent and prone to being hijacked by anyone with two brain cells.

And don't even get me STARTED on what happens when people figure out they can get utility from "voting" themselves a higher social status!

Firstly: Who gets to define what's "offensive"? Because if it's me, then everyone has to shut up forever.

I vote this dude defines it. But in all seriousness why would you think we need to create even more of an echo chamber?

This. Oh my God. So much this.

 

[cleric of the order]

No, the moment this become allowable is the moment conversation is infinity easy to control.
More importantly "offensive" is a subjective thing someone has to take (so to speak). you have to find something offensive something is neither innately offensive or universally offensive, which means the arbitrators of what is offensive are in actuality the people that would either need to hear it the most or have the most invested interest in controlling differentiating opinion, be they the common man or the elite.
This is how you radicalize people, if you have an opinion that is beyond reproach both the opinion that is censored itself (if you deny it you make a matyr of it better to fight it in the ring of public discourse then let it fester). But also you begin to raise premises and arguments within your own opinion above inspection, and that happens ever more steadily as the radicalization begins to take effect, until you have a mesa teetering on but a few incestuous pebbles.
I'll just leave this here

Yes.
Let the circlejerk commence.