Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

[Therumancer]

No, "offensive" content should not be censored at all. Almost every civil liberties case, whether you agree it or not, began with things that could be considered "offensive" at the time. It also opens the door for banning and censoring all forms of media on the grounds of sexual content or violence.

It's tempted for a political movement in the theroes of victory to want to censor the opposition to ensure their position but that's a very dangerous way to think, especially when enough people are disagreeing with you to make it an issue. It was wrong when Conservatives wanted to do it, and it's wrong when Liberals currently want to do it. Believing your righteousness is self evident is no excuse. Had we allowed this horror movies would likely be banned (especially in the UK due to the "Video Nasties" list) as would PnP RPGs, etc... not to mention consider things like Playboy and the like which have constantly been under attack are feminist publications (for those who actually know what real feminism is, the current "feminists" are not true feminists, but that's an entirely different discussion, no.. you cannot separate it into "waves" to try and justify yourself).

Right now I find the censorship of "hate speech" and the like disturbing because the motivation behind it is simply that the various issues such as gay rights are so heavily divided in reality, the media controlling the narrative doesn't change reality. You have issues with entire state populations and their elected officials being suppressed under Federal Authority and the like. Rather that doing things properly which was to gradually change people's minds over a number of generations so they elect people who will do things, we've had a lot of social reforms forced through with a sledge hammer and a lot of people realize the situation is a lot more tentative than is broadcast.... on a lot of issues, so censorship especially now seems unusually attractive, since banning "hate speech" and the like allows for an official stranglehold on communications, not just a practical one.

As enough time passes and if people are gradually converted, the need for "censorship" on social issues likewise passes because when minds change so does the expression of "nastiness" to the current perspective.

Simply put, if people really believe all those "aging xenophobic conservatives" are on their last gasp and will be dying out in a few years, The Republican Party already being dead... there is no real need for censorship or banning hate speech since it will all vanish on any notable scale before too long.

This is not a new issue or question. What side I'm on should be obvious though because as a general rule I believe any form of censorship is wrong, including opinions and perspectives I disagree with, or even rudeness directed at me which is why I don't report people on this site (or in general). If your big enough to talk, your big enough to be on the receiving end.

 

[San Martin]

I saw some kids playing football the other day. They were all boys. A girl approached and asked to play but they replied "no, football is not for girls". I could have censored that offensive opinion by beating them up and stealing their milk money, but I took the high road and left them to it. The girl, put in her rightful place, went and joined a netball team. Case closed.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

snip

Maybe instead of science I should have addressed the issue in terms of logic. If you understand logical statements, you will see why you assertion about "feelings" amounts to circular reasoning. You claim that the reason you get offended is because you have certain feelings. And the way we know you have these feelings is because you get offended. That's circular reasoning. The statement "I get offended because I have feelings." can be translated to "I get offended because I get offended." That is a tautology.

 

[CaitSeith]

The question is too broad to give a proper answer. Like, what kind of people would be meeting there that would require banning offences? If there is censorship it should be for the common sense of avoiding the offences to escalate into something worse (like someone ending up with a broken nose)

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Of course not.


How else would people know to challenge these ideas (or have their own challenged) if they aren't presented with them or willing to engage with those who hold them?

Discussion begets knowledge.
Knowledge begets understanding.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Hmm no it's more like "That offends me", and when asked why there will be a myriad of reasons.

For example shouting at a girl that she's a fucking n***** that needs to die will most likely offend her because it's telling her you would rather she's dead due to extreme racism. There's zero she can do to change that, and it's generally terrifying.

I can show why the argument about feelings is circular. Let me show an argument in a series of statements. Each statement will be numbered with a (#).

(1)Girl 1: "When someone calls me a f****** n*****, I have no choice but to be offended."
(2)Girl 2: "Why dont I get offend when someone calls me a f****** n*****"
(3)Girl 1: "Because you dont have my feelings"
(4)Girl 2: "How do you know I dont have your feelings"
(5)Girl 1: "Because you dont get offended when someone calls you a f****** n*****"
(2)Girl 2: "Why dont I get offend when someone calls me a f****** n*****"
(3)Girl 1: "Because you dont have my feelings"

You should be able to see that statements 2-5 will repeat to infinity. I.E. the argument will go 1,2,3,4,5,2,3,4,5.....

This creates and endless loop of circular reasoning.

 

[Flathole]

I didn't read any of this thread but the title.

Who is the judge of what is "offensive" and what is "acceptable?" Congress? Vatican City? Oprah Winfrey? Bill O'reily? And with censoring comes codes, i.e "Adolf Hitler" and the number "88" (google "adolf hitler 88" w/o quotes), leading to countless probable faux paus', like an unknowing football fan proudly wearing his favorite player's jersey- NO.88- then going into a Jewish restaurant where the owner is aware of the hidden meaning and is also on edge, maybe they got robbed recently, and tells the football fan to fuck off or they'll call the police, and the football fan leaves, perplexed, deeply insulted, hungry and disappointed, because he was expecting some delicious matzah balls.

There are lots of opinions that I honestly wish didn't exist, such as the opinion that censorship is justified. But they do, and oppressing them won't make them disappear. This doesn't mean I'm toothless, I can still debate, investigate/expose, ignore, or insult what I find distasteful.

Now, if there's a forum or discussion where there's a specific, stated topic for discussion, it makes sense to discourage irrelevant topics. But irrelevant opinions aren't inherently offensive. Even still, irrelevant opinions can't really be controlled legally.

Lastly, screaming FIRE in a crowded theater isn't an opinion, it's a statement. The person shouting isn't telling anyone what to do, just informing them of an aspect of their environment. That isn't to say outright liars should be immune to punishment.

I'm guessing the OP just wanted to spark a conversation about the issue.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

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".

Depends what sort environment you want, I guess. If you start with the end in mind, and use your example quotes to project to that end... I think you'd wind up with a fairly hostile environment of screaming apes. I, personally, see little in that which is appealing. I enjoy a healthy debate, even on controversial topics, but only with the frame of a respectful environment. I guess you can defend freedom of speech to the bitter end, but you will chase away all the people that enjoy reasonable discussions, and in their place, you will have a pit of howler monkeys, or a barren forum.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

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".

Depends what sort environment you want, I guess. If you start with the end in mind, and use your example quotes to project to that end... I think you'd wind up with a fairly hostile environment of screaming apes. I, personally, see little in that which is appealing. I enjoy a healthy debate, even on controversial topics, but only with the frame of a respectful environment. I guess you can defend freedom of speech to the bitter end, but you will chase away all the people that enjoy reasonable discussions, and in their place, you will have a pit of howler monkeys, or a barren forum.

People are taking me a touch too literally here, I should have been clearer. There are certain people who constantly argue for free speech but freak the fuck out when what they're saying is criticised.

Ah. I read it a couple times, but wasn't sure- I almost deleted my reply, but I guess I misread it in the end.

 

[Something Amyss]

Maybe instead of science I should have addressed the issue in terms of logic.

Are you admitting to being unscientific? Because you were accusing me of such, but now you won't address me on a scientific level. That seems like a concession to me, but I'd like to know if you still think you can cut it in the realm of science.

If you understand logical statements, you will see why you assertion about "feelings" amounts to circular reasoning.

No, I see why the strawman of "feelings" is circular reasoning. Except you're not addressing it in the context in which it was originally used, nor are you addressing it in my context, nor were you willing to define your terms. An argument can be logically sound and still rely on informal fallacies, such as the notion of feelings because feelings.

You claim that the reason you get offended is because you have certain feelings.

Not unless you accept my terms, which you clearly haven't. I suggested that "feelings" might be defined as "emotional response to stimulus," which is still a rough definition, but one that would seemingly make Pluvia's statements true. We can actually measure the physiological effects of these responses. This is both why the "lie detector" exists and why it's an unreliable tool for detecting lies.

And the way we know you have these feelings is because you get offended.

I bet you can't show me where I said that. Because I didn't. I note you "snipped" my last post.

That's circular reasoning. The statement "I get offended because I have feelings." can be translated to "I get offended because I get offended." That is a tautology.

I'm actually pretty sure nobody said this except you. That's the problem.

So, can you show me where anyone actually said that in this thread? Because it looks like you're slowly moving the goalposts.

The idea that "different people feel different" is a simplistic one, but accurate for the initial question you posed. Accept that.

G1: "I find it offensive when someone calls me fucking n***** that needs to die"
G2: "Why don't I get offended when someone calls me a fucking n***** that needs to die?"
G1: "Probably because we're not the same person"

An the best part is that we have entire fields of psychology devoted to this.

Edit: whoops! Left out a couple words!

 

[Twintix]

Absolutely not.

If opinions are censored, no matter how "wrong" they are, there's not much discussion left, now is there? All we'll be left with then is an echo chamber. Also, it might depend for some on what you define as offensive. As we know, some are more sensitive than others for a variety of reasons.

You know the "Dear Fat People" video that that woman (What'sherface) made last week? Well, I think she is a humongous ***** for how she chose to put her opinion[footnote]And then took down her own channel to make it look like Youtube censored her. What a ****.[/footnote], but then I read she was fired from her role in a movie because of that video. I don't agree with that decision. Some disciplining might've been in place, perhaps a thorough discussion on how not to be a dick when expressing your opinion, but firing her for being an asshole is not something I can get behind.

And at the same time, while I don't agree with the decision, I understand why the film makers fired her - To prevent being associated with controversy and negativity. Why give yourself a bad image when you don't have to?

 

[zinho73]

Of course not.
With censorship there is no discussion.
Also, people can get offended with practically everything and almost every forum would end up being heavily censored and useless for discussing anything.

What all forums must have is guidelines to avoid abuse.

Some general ones: don't attack people, only their ideas; be respectful, avoid derailing the topic, do not post pictures of yourself nude and so on.
And some specific: do not discuss religion in the sports section.

Those guidelines help to keep the debate civil and to the point.

In rare contexts, some form of censorship might make sense for some private institutions or people.
PewdiPie (don't Know if the name is correct) blocked comments on his videos, and it kind of makes sense, since his show is not about debating anything and he was tired of keeping track of what was useful what was not.

Anita Sarkeesian blocked her comments also and it feels like a coward thing to do and it certainly damages her credibility because she was trying to promote a discussion. Also, she cannot receive the death threats anymore and might suffer a surprise attack now (roll eyes).

If you are not prepared to ignore the trolls and to listen to the arguments against yours with an open mind, you are not prepared to debate.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

An the best part is that we have entire fields of psychology devoted to this.

Yes, like psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, or any kind of positive psychological help which all revolves around helping people control their emotions and feelings. You can choose to say, "I'm not got to let those kinds of insults get to me anymore". If you could not control your feelings, then most of psychology would be moot, and depressed people might as well give up and commit suicide. Fortunately, people can control their feelings. You can choose to not get angry every time you hear an opinion you don't like.

 

[Bat Vader]

Hmm no it's more like "That offends me", and when asked why there will be a myriad of reasons.

For example shouting at a girl that she's a fucking n***** that needs to die will most likely offend her because it's telling her you would rather she's dead due to extreme racism. There's zero she can do to change that, and it's generally terrifying.

I can show why the argument about feelings is circular. Let me show an argument in a series of statements. Each statement will be numbered with a (#).

(1)Girl 1: "When someone calls me a f****** n*****, I have no choice but to be offended."
(2)Girl 2: "Why dont I get offend when someone calls me a f****** n*****"
(3)Girl 1: "Because you dont have my feelings"
(4)Girl 2: "How do you know I dont have your feelings"
(5)Girl 1: "Because you dont get offended when someone calls you a f****** n*****"
(2)Girl 2: "Why dont I get offend when someone calls me a f****** n*****"
(3)Girl 1: "Because you dont have my feelings"

You should be able to see that statements 2-5 will repeat to infinity. I.E. the argument will go 1,2,3,4,5,2,3,4,5.....

This creates and endless loop of circular reasoning.

Not looking to start an argument but anyone that calls someone else a racist term with hate behind it is a piece of scum sucking trash. They have every right to say it and I have every right to call them a piece of shit and scum of the earth.

 

[Guffe]

Someone once said "Offense is not given, it's taken". I think those are pretty smart words. Sure if I've discussed with someone before and know what they get offended by, I can start trying to push certain buttons if I feel like an ars. But generally you can't offend someone unless they get offended by what you say. Then again someone can, as stated earlier, get offended by pretty much everything, so maybe the person talking should be a bit careful depending on the situation, whilst then again people should not get offended by every little minor thing said.

More On Topic:
No it should not, if someone thinks the argument is valid, for example, that everyone who has done a school shooting has CoD in their shelves, means that only people who play CoD = killers. Then they are entitles to this opinion. You can't start throwing these guys out, because that means in the end, that there will be 3 people only agreeing on stuff in your club, not much to argument then is there?

Also there is a difference in saying "this is my opinion, gamers are all 30-year-olds living in their parents basements" versus "I'm going to kill you you fucking ****** fucking jerktwat". That second one, depending on context of course (let's say here that line comes after someone has countered with a good argument and the person is known to have a slightly violent history) is already illegal.

But just not having people with different opinions because argumenting might get a bit hectic sounds pretty far fetched for me. Unless they actually cause trouble.

I hope I understood the OP correctly.... <.<

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

So basically, if someone tells you that you deserve to die solely due to the fact you were born, you should just choose to not be offended by it.

I wouldn't be offended at all. Words cant force you to be offended. Its suggest someone can control your mind using "magic words". Whats the difference between saying a voodoo witch can use magic words to make me sick and that a bigot can use magic words to make me sad/depressed/angry/etc.

I am frightened by the concept that people posses words of power than can lay terrible curses on me. I don't want to believe that someone can invoke magical incantations on my Facebook page to emotionally devastate me or drive me to suicide.

 

[Christian Neihart]

Why give hate an audience? You don't owe them anything.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Naturally, no. Apart from all the moral problems and whatnot that are already discussed, such opinions and ways of thinking would simply be pushed underground and fester there, not really getting dealt with in the proces. Censorship doesn't really work.

The problem, by the way, is not in the giving or taking of offense. Of course there's things that go out-of-bounds pretty obviously, but it's very nebulous area simply because everyone feels different and is set in different contexts. The old adage "You can't please everyone" applies. Offence can't be completely avoided.

Where the problem lies is, I think, how we deal with offence. Reacts to being offended seem to become more and more extreme. Take the case of a middle-aged man calling a younger girl "stunning" on LinkedIn. I can imagine her feeling offended by that in a certain way thanks to the context of the situation. And that's okay, personally I don't think what he did was okay. but then all of a sudden a human-rights lawyer gets involved and the man gets accusations of misogyny thrown at him and the whole affair gets thrown in the public sphere. On the internet too we see opinions being countered with everything from death threats to doxing.

And therein lies the problem. Yes, people can say stupid shit, but shouldn't we counter stupid shit with reason and solve it just as reasonably? What we should do, I think, is calm the hell down and be reasonable about getting offended.

An the best part is that we have entire fields of psychology devoted to this.

Yes, like psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, or any kind of positive psychological help which all revolves around helping people control their emotions and feelings. You can choose to say, "I'm not got to let those kinds of insults get to me anymore". If you could not control your feelings, then most of psychology would be moot, and depressed people might as well give up and commit suicide. Fortunately, people can control their feelings. You can choose to not get angry every time you hear an opinion you don't like.

This isn't really how it is. We can only control our emotions in a very limited manner. Large parts of psychotherapy are focused on dealing with certain emotions, how to work with them. Not to simply turn them off.

Simply choosing not be angry? No, it's not like that.

 

[sternduckling51]

"Offensive" is fine (well no not really but in this context it is) but "provoking and upsetting people purely for the sake of provoking and upsetting people" isn't ok and it's appropriate to censor that if it persists. Ignoring trolls works in some contexts but they can completely dominate a discussion if there's enough of them.

It might not always be obvious which is which to start with but it doesn't take that long to find out who is genuinely willing to explore and better understand and explain their own and others opinions. Those try to change other people's minds are usually fairly distinct from those who just want people who disagree with them to feel bad and give in, though there is grey area.

This might well be an unpopular thing to say and get me labelled as being biased but I don't think you can completely seperate out the acceptability of people's ideas from the acceptability of how people present those ideas. For example drowning out an anti-gay marriage demonstration with a music van bellowing "Pet Shop Boys" songs is both hilarious and (to me) acceptable but drowning out an Atheist's "seperation of church and state" speech with hymns isn't ok. I can't really think how those are different other than the fact that I approve of the first but not the second. You can analyse it in terms of "punching up" and "punching down" but I usually find that stuff to pretty perspective dependent anyway.

Basically I think the acceptability of your way of expressing an opinion will, in part, depend on how justified that opinion is. Some issues are worth getting angry about, some positions are ripe for ridicule, some issues aren't that big of a deal and I'm fine agreeing to disagree and some opinions make you a prick for having them in the first place.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

Actually, how to deal with those emotions (rationally) is exactly the kind of behavior I'm advocating in the first part of my post. So yes, on that I'm with you. Cthuluspawn sadly, probably, meant nothing of the sort, especially considering a post slightly below the one I quoted of his.

And yeah, when I picked that avatar I was a really angry dude too. I've mellowed a lot in the last two-ish years though, but I ain't gonna mess with recognizability.