40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Now this I take rather seriously.

 

Did you know malicious slander IS prohibited unlike the things you falsely accuse me of?

I didn't accuse you of it. I said your definition of Freedom of Speech is similar to the kind those that do that kind of thing say to justify.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I didn't accuse you of it. I said your definition of Freedom of Speech is similar to the kind those that do that kind of thing say to justify.

I may not agree with that statement you put forth, but it is not illegal to be an islamophobe. Is it pathetic? Sure, but it's not illegal you can't do a rat's ass about that.

 

You start censoring people and it's a slippery slope down to 1984 land

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I may not agree with that statement you put forth, but it is not illegal to be an islamophobe. Is it pathetic? Sure, but it's not illegal you can't do a rat's ass about that.

 

You start censoring people and it's a slippery slope down to 1984 land

It actually is an iffy legal territory whether or not expressing said views is illegal, going off of all the laws related.

My point is those people use a twisted, idealistic (to them) version of Freedom of Speech that people tend to believe because of a generalized idea that many people have as to what it means.

 

It doesn't give you free reign to say completely everything you want. Including racial slurs and such.

 

You don't censor people and it's a slippery slope to anarchy and/or a land of hatred. I don't think that statement I just made is factual, however I think the same of yours. Slippery slopes itself is a slippery argument, because it's conjecture you can't really prove and is based on your personal opinion.

[vla1ne]

Not to jump into the fire, but freedom of speech even covers hate speech and insults, if somebody calls me a n****r of says f*** all Asians, or anything of the like, they are well within the rights of the first amendment. If somebody says something that hurts the feelings of other people, they have 100% protection from the law, and that's the way it should be. Let people say what they believe freely, and without fear of government retaliation. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past. When people speak their minds honestly, even if you don't agree with them, you can at least know where they stand in relation to you, and that brings you one step closer to at least a better understanding the other person. what you decide to do or say after that is up to you.

 

I don't support limiting freedom of speech, it serves no purpose other than instilling a false sense of security to people too afraid to get their feelings hurt, while limiting exchange of ideas.

[epicmemesbro]

Its because most millennials prefer quick short term solutions to complicated problems than finding a long lasting solution throughout a gradual period of time. For instance they want free healthcare, community college, and a bunch of other stuff they believe that should be a right not a privilege without thinking how this is going to be funded. That explains why Sanders is popular amongst them.

Now some of those 40% probably think that in every situation freedom of speech is being challenged is because there is some negative connotation in it. I suppose they went from there to decide to limit freedom of speech that would be considered offensive to minorities. Problem is this is a bit iffy. By minorities they will probably mean groups of people in general not just by ethnicity. Lets say a certain group of reactionary people who want to push policies like this one would probably face some sort of opposition. By limiting "offensive" free speech to minorities, they would probably benefit on terms of limiting criticism.

 

Now what one would view as "offensive" would be someone's subjective opinion. Another issue arises with people who aren't minorities always speaking on the minorited behalf without their consent and thinking what they say is representative of said minorities. For instance there was a debate on affirmative action and I was going to speak but then tho other person chimed in and said that affirmative action is necessary for all minorities and stated that I would agree. (that person was no minority). Even then that person assumed because I was a minority I would want affirmative action (which I don't). Not only that but that person decided for himself that all minorities would agree with him because he thought he was doing what he thought was right for them.

[ihop]

Hello, I'm coming from the point of view of the 40% here.

 

I've always found freedom of speech, and "rights" in general to be a dangerous concept which people are just going to twist in order to be able to do whatever they want regardless of the negative effects on people. I think it's hard to disagree that genuine hate speech doesn't really bring anything good and if it was realistic I'd absolutely support a ban on hate speech as well.

 

Obviously it's very difficult to draw the line and different peiple will have different opions on what is hate speech and what is not and that's why a ban of hate speech isn't realistic because one man's hate speech is another man's genuine point. As much as I'd love to see hate speech banned in general I know it'll never happen, but I can absolutely understand the point of view of people who want it banned. If I was polled there I'd probably have been one of the 40%.

 

Also, calling a black person "jabroni" isn't anything close to hate speech. I don't call anyone "jabroni" myself but I've been called it by people of more or less every race, it just seems like a standard way of addressing people when you're drunk/comfortable with someone/want to come across as cool. By all means, if someone has a problem with being called "jabroni" that is fair enough, but it's just like having a problem with being called anything else - tell the person you have a problem with it.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I still just want to say

well first drunk phil makes more sense than me

and second

 

People see "limit Freedom of Speech" and jump to extreme conclusions and that's a big problem.

That is all.

[Wildflame]

I'm..., on the 58%, I think? Shitty opinions should be condemned, not prohibited.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I still just want to say

well first drunk phil makes more sense than me

and second

 

People see "limit Freedom of Speech" and jump to extreme conclusions and that's a big problem.

That is all.

 

I don't jump to extreme conclusions so much as I take an extreme side of the argument.

 

That being that Freedom of Speech should not be regulated, ever. I don't think believing 1984 and Harrison Bergeron might come true because of this is an extreme. I can't prove they can happen, but I feel it is something that could plausibly happen with the way the pendulum is swaying.

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

I'll just chime in here and say here in Sweden, while it's nowhere near being enforced properly, we do actually have legislation that's the exact same thing the link seems to be talking about. Hate speech towards minorities is not allowed, period. And we're functioning just fine. In fact the only ones that have even expressed that they think that law is a problem, is the exact type of people it's supposed to limit (in this instance mostly nazis or other adherents of the "white power" movement)

 

And for those wondering, "minority" is under that law defined as either different ethnic heritage, religious belief, sexuality or gender identity.

 

Hell, from where I'm standing I sincerely hope this actually does go through in the US (eventhough the chance is slim to none if it actually even becomes a serious option due to the Bill of Rights), just because the US already has a widespread problem of people abusing a, in my opinion, way to lenient freedom of speech in order to spread nothing but hate. At least this way you can keep a leash on people like the WBC

[ihop]

also itt: millenials support millenials who bash millenials.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

also itt: millenials support millenials who bash millenials.

I'm kinda slightly ashamed to be a milennial honestly.

[Dad]

Hello, I'm coming from the point of view of the 40% here.

 

I've always found freedom of speech, and "rights" in general to be a dangerous concept which people are just going to twist in order to be able to do whatever they want regardless of the negative effects on people. I think it's hard to disagree that genuine hate speech doesn't really bring anything good and if it was realistic I'd absolutely support a ban on hate speech as well.

 

Obviously it's very difficult to draw the line and different peiple will have different opions on what is hate speech and what is not and that's why a ban of hate speech isn't realistic because one man's hate speech is another man's genuine point. As much as I'd love to see hate speech banned in general I know it'll never happen, but I can absolutely understand the point of view of people who want it banned. If I was polled there I'd probably have been one of the 40%.

 

Also, calling a black person "jabroni" isn't anything close to hate speech. I don't call anyone "jabroni" myself but I've been called it by people of more or less every race, it just seems like a standard way of addressing people when you're drunk/comfortable with someone/want to come across as cool. By all means, if someone has a problem with being called "jabroni" that is fair enough, but it's just like having a problem with being called anything else - tell the person you have a problem with it.

The problem with bastards today is that you're all too comfy. You're too funking complacent. You can be a keyboard warrior and think you can get away with saying what you want as far as my brother's go. It may not be "hate speech" but you better funking believe we hate it.

[ihop]

huh?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

huh?

Dad's saying, as a Black man, that in general using that term is hated.

[vla1ne]

The problem with motherf***ers today is that you're all too comfy. You're too f***ing complacent. You can be a keyboard warrior and think you can get away with saying what you want as far as my brother's go. It may not be "hate speech" but you better f***ing believe we hate it.

 

Why do you hate it? it's a word, people can say it all day long and it will not change one thing about you. Take offence at the people who use it with that connotation, not the word itself. The definition of a word can change over time, a f** was once a cigarette, and it once defined gays, but now it's a broadly used term for douchebag bikers. 

n****r was once a word that oppressed an entire subset of people in america, but those days are over, and the people who still think they can use the word in such a brazen manner are often swiftly ostracized from society at large.

 

 

 

 

I'll just chime in here and say here in Sweden, while it's nowhere near being enforced properly, we do actually have legislation that's the exact same thing the link seems to be talking about. Hate speech towards minorities is not allowed, period. And we're functioning just fine. In fact the only ones that have even expressed that they think that law is a problem, is the exact type of people it's supposed to limit (in this instance mostly nazis or other adherents of the "white power" movement)

 

And for those wondering, "minority" is under that law defined as either different ethnic heritage, religious belief, sexuality or gender identity.

 

Hell, from where I'm standing I sincerely hope this actually does go through in the US (eventhough the chance is slim to none if it actually even becomes a serious option due to the Bill of Rights), just because the US already has a widespread problem of people abusing a, in my opinion, way to lenient freedom of speech in order to spread nothing but hate. At least this way you can keep a leash on people like the WBC

 

Freedom of speech does not mean there are no consequences for saying what you think, it just means that you will not be arrested or detained by law enforcement for saying what you believe. Outside of government issues, you can still get in trouble for saying dumb s***. For example, if you express hate towards a specific minority, or even against a majority group, while the law itself can say and do nothing to you, the people of that group, and the people who support that group can say whatever they want back, and even convince others to refuse to associate with you, This does much more than mask the problem, it actively allows the problem to expose itself so that there can be discussion on why the problem exists, and why people believe the person saying such things is proper.

 

The proper way to remove hate speech isn't to prevent it from being discussed, that just lets it smolder beneath a veil of civility, and allows discussions related to it to be turned into "he or she is a racist because they want to discuss free speech" distractions. You need to learn why those who use it wish to do so and cut it off at the source. For example, look at the westboro baptist church. Hate speech like a motherf***er, yet all they did was demonstrate the futility of hate speech in the modern age, and the ignorance of those who use it. Their vitriol swayed some people on the fence of gay rights over to the opposite side, and earned them rebuttals thousands of times over, breaking the bonds that held some WBC members who had not known any other way of thinking and comforting those who had once been a part of that madness ( https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=westboro+baptist+church+defectors).

 

You can ignore ignorance, and let it fester into stupidity, or you can look at it directly and get something done. In every situation, i would rather at least hear the conversation, so that people can hear why the idea is wrong. For another example: 

People can develop thoughts relating to racism simply from experiences they go through, like the teacher who wrote that essay, and if the subject is banned from being discussed, how can it ever be addressed? 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Why do you hate it? it's a word, people can say it all day long and it will not change one thing about you. Take offence at the people who use it with that connotation, not the word itself. The definition of a word can change over time, a f** was once a cigarette, and it once defined gays, but now it's a broadly used term for douchebag bikers. 

n****r was once a word that oppressed an entire subset of people in america, but those days are over, and the people who still think they can use the word in such a brazen manner are often swiftly ostracized from society at large.

 

Because those days aren't completely over, to be perfectly honest. That's why.

Imma give some advice to people. When a minority mentions how things are still shitty for them because of being a minority, they don't really care if you don't see it. No offense intended vla1ne. Just saying that, believe me, this stuff happens still. Which is why those words cause pain and/or anger.

[Dad]

Why do you hate it? it's a word, people can say it all day long and it will not change one thing about you. Take offence at the people who use it with that connotation, not the word itself. The definition of a word can change over time, a jabroni was once a cigarette, and it once defined gays, but now it's a broadly used term for douchebag bikers. 

jabroni was once a word that oppressed an entire subset of people in america, but those days are over, and the people who still think they can use the word in such a brazen manner are often swiftly ostracized from society at large.

 

Why do I hate it? Because of how it displays my people. Because of the label it's associated with. Because of the derogatory weight that it carries, when you talk about my brothers and sisters. That's why I funking hate it.

 

Don't you ever try to tell me it's just a word. The days of oppression of my people isn't over. The days of outcasts and discrimination is not funking over. But you wouldn't know that. Because you don't funking live it.

 

You have this convoluted thought that "it's okay it's just a word". You want me to let it go because "it's all in the past". No the funk it's not. It's as prevalent today as it has been for 200 years. And for some stupid reason or another, just because it's used as a term of endearment by some, and offensive by others, I'm supposed to accept it?

 

funk outta here.

[vla1ne]

Because those days aren't completely over, to be perfectly honest. That's why.

Imma give some advice to people. When a minority mentions how things are still shitty for them because of being a minority, they don't really care if you don't see it. No offense intended vla1ne. Just saying that, believe me, this stuff happens still. Which is why those words cause pain and/or anger.

 

I am black and i get racist remarks from people too, I get over it because aside from actions, what reason do i have to give a damn about them? if it's coming from somebody i know or care about, then they're either joking out of familiarity, or they are not my friend. I learned to brush it off when i got bullied up to and throughout the 4th grade about being blacker than midnight. if somebody wants to lay hands on me, that's one thing, but words don't do s*** to me anymore because it was either outgrow insults or live my life in fear of words that i don't like.

 

 

Why do I hate it? Because of how it displays my people. Because of the label it's associated with. Because of the derogatory weight that it carries, when you talk about my brothers and sisters. That's why I f***ing hate it.

 

Don't you ever try to tell me it's just a word. The days of oppression of my people isn't over. The days of outcasts and discrimination is not f***ing over. But you wouldn't know that. Because you don't f***ing live it.

 

You have this convoluted thought that "it's okay it's just a word". You want me to let it go because "it's all in the past". No the f*** it's not. It's as prevalent today as it has been for 200 years. And for some stupid reason or another, just because it's used as a term of endearment by some, and offensive by others, I'm supposed to accept it?

 

f*** outta here.

 

Who cares what history it carries if nothing physical is being done? do you think n****r can make you bleed like runaway slave had to? do you think the word colored is gonna send you straight to the back of a bus? can a vocabulary that includes coon lynch humans now? you think we're the only people that went through s*** at the hands of another race? damn near every race has been through their own period of hell, and every race has their own derogatory term.

 

n****r is not a man with a whip, n****r is not holding a gun to your head, n****r cannot hold you back in school, n****r does not decide who you are as a person, n****r holds no more goddamn power over you than what you f***ing let it. I do not have the time to be held down by f***ing words, I do not have the patience to be held back by political correctness, and unless you want to go through the rest of your life in fear of what might be taken as racist, you would not either, say what you mean and if you have to apologize to somebody for it, then make damn sure you get your message across.

 

if you are half the human i think you are, then you are no n****r, I've seen your posts, you're not stupid, you aren't clumsy, and you are not inferior to any race or gender known to me. words can be countered by intelligence. wise up man, if somebody wants to hurt you, if all they have are words, then they lose outright no matter what they say. physically acting on racism is one thing, and that's what hurts people. but if words are enough to harm you then the world at large is going to become hell for you, and the internet... well that might as well be self inflicted torture. I get that you don't like the word, but if you can't take a word, then you are the one who will be at a disadvantage.

[Simping For Hina]

I am offensive and I find this millennial.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

I am black and i get racist remarks from people too, I get over it because aside from actions, what reason do i have to give a damn about them? if it's coming from somebody i know or care about, then they're either joking out of familiarity, or they are not my friend. I learned to brush it off when i got bullied up to and throughout the 4th grade about being blacker than midnight. if somebody wants to lay hands on me, that's one thing, but words don't do s*** to me anymore because it was either outgrow insults or live my life in fear of words that i don't like.

Doesn't change the fact that it does hurt others unnecessarily and people should at least be considerate of that. Don't base how things should be/are on your own personal experience only. Respect that others have different experiences and feelings about said experiences. Not everyone will react the same and it should be totally understandable that there are those who are hurt by it.

[epicmemesbro]

Well the Bill of rights can be edited, most have been such as the second and fifth. However I doubt such a thing will ever get support, much like the Equal Rights Act because it opens the door to other controversies. I'm beginning to wonder to what ends would something be considered offensive? If someone were anti immigrant, would they be prevented from expressing this belief because it offends some minorities? They aren't very clear in that sense and I suspect that's exactly what the supporters of this want: ambiguity, so it can be molded to their liking.

[vla1ne]

Doesn't change the fact that it does hurt others unnecessarily and people should at least be considerate of that. Don't base how things should be/are on your own personal experience only. Respect that others have different experiences and feelings about said experiences. Not everyone will react the same and it should be totally understandable that there are those who are hurt by it.

true. some people take more offense to it than others, but editing the bill to limit free speech does not solve the problem. it simply masks it and builds resentment. unless you can bring it out the open, were it can be brought down decisively, there will never be an end to the problem.

 

another example, personal, but applicable i believe: after work a few days ago, i was walking home on my own, when a bunch of white guys shout out "what's up n****r" out of a passing car. is this something that will be solved by making it illegal? no, in fact, i posit that it's wouldn't affect cases like this at all. the most harmful forms of racism (ie: physical and legal racism) have been knocked out already, they're illegal, now all that's left is the form of racism that can be shut down by an intelligent rebuttal or social condemnation, verbal racism might hurt feelings, but it cannot really harm those who do not let it without something physical, it may sound cruel, but i cannot accept a limiting of speech simply because words may be uncomfortable or offensive, because if that becomes the norm, then it becomes possible to shut down productive discussion simply because it may offend somebody. 

[a bad post]

The term jabroni, and all variations of it, began as derogatory remarks, and are still used as derogatory today, so when someone says that they don't like hearing the funking word you could at least not have common courtesy not to continue using it around them. It's an offensive word, just because you as a minority don't find offensive doesn't mean others don't, you are not the end all be all of the black community.

 

In the end though, I don't think we should, or even could, limit free speech because that leads to a very slippery slope. However I do think that if you hear, or see someone doing some offensive or rude, you have a moral obligation to correct that behavior, because when you allow it to go unchecked that's basically saying that that person's actions are ok, and that they should do it again. 

[vla1ne]

If that first remark was directed at me, then know this; I used the word the way i did, and as often as i did to prove a point. The word might have heavy connotations, but being bound by them only hurts you in the end. That's the reason i said "say what you mean and if you have to apologize to somebody for it, then make damn sure you get your message across." I will use the most effective words in my vocabulary to convey a message, and while it might not have been the most pc word, it is the most effective in the point i was attempting to convey because it was at the heart of the subject being discussed. That subject being that words alone do not have any more power than you give them. I'm willing to apologize for how i said it, because upon rereading it, it does sound dickish (i need sleep, I have work in the morning). I meant every word I said though, and i will not apologize for saying it because it is my honest belief. I never claimed to be the end all of anything. if somebody dislikes my words, they have every right to object to them. and the discussion can carry on from there. I hold no control over the thoughts of others, nor would i want to.

 

I agree that limiting free speech leads to a slippery slope, but I don't think that pepole have an obligation of any sort to dispute rude or unpopular ideas. I do believe it's for the best to dispute them, and i cannot guarantee that i would not hold it against somebody if they simply remained silent on a subject, but i do not believe that there is any inherent obligation to dispute ideas.