Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

What does "free speech" really mean?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    Concepts, like language, change over time. Hell, over time I've come a lot closer to liking you! In fact, just the other day, I was thinking fondly of you as I was baking up some goodies.
    Words also have meanings and constantly changing those meanings every time it is to your advantage tends to make communication difficult if not impossible.


    And...
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
    Says here, some of the earliest colonies not only enforced church membership, that is, established a religion, but required church attendance as well.
    Just a point of order but FWIU the Constitution wasn't in force during the Colonial period. In fact the First Amendment was designed in part to stop the sort of thing you brought up, so maybe you can explain what the point of this was. Thanks.
    Last edited by rogue06; 04-19-2021, 07:50 AM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

      While acknowledging the need to form an accessible alternative, I dislike that formulation because of its awkwardness.

      I refuse to use it in conversation myself, even if it means a constant struggle to work around it, often at the expense of the brevity I prefer. In fact, if anyone's interested, most of my posts start out as long-winded rambles that are then pruned back ruthlessly until just the gist remains, or at least, that's the plan, lol.

      Before I'll use that phrase, I'll reformulate it as "words or phrases that are hurtful based on having historically been used to denigrate whole classes of people based on their race." I balk at "people of color" for the same reason, but I'll use it while pointing out obliquely that replacing the preposition with the natural adjective runs afoul of the same historical minefield.

      There is a slew of would-be euphemisms that have failed sequentially. Each replacement for retarded, which was originally created as a euphemism, has had a shorter and shorter half-life, it seems to me. Special became challenged became ...

      Perhaps it's too reductionist, and it doesn't always work for me, but my principle is pretty simple: Think about how you'd treat your neighbor's dog, and try to treat your neighbor at least as well as that. When it works for me, I feel good about myself, and when it doesn't, I don't.
      You could always do what IIRC Jay Leno's wife did after returning from a trip to Africa several years back.

      She referred to those living there as "African-American Africans."

      Just wrong on so many levels. And if you disliked the formulation in "n-word"...

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        Tact is sometimes the best option along with good manners of course.
        While showing some tact is usually the wiser course, being tactless is protected by free speech which is the topic of the thread.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

          It's a history thing, not a logic thing.

          colored.jpg
          Like this sort of history?

          55314c8b-d3ce-4671-b145-bdfc7eb41f33.jpg

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            While showing some tact is usually the wiser course, being tactless is protected by free speech which is the topic of the thread.
            Calling someone the N word is free speech but is it either good manners or tactful?

            With regard to freedoms in general, as a legal adult you have the freedom to become inebriated to the point of blacking out every day of your life. However, is it prudent to do so?
            "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

              Predicated on my reference to good manners and tact, sometimes it is best to keep one's gay relationships to oneself and do nothing.
              You are free to follow your own advice. I hope you and your husband are very happy together!
              "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                You are free to follow your own advice. I hope you and your husband are very happy together!
                I see you avoided what was said. Typical.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                  Calling someone the N word is free speech but is it either good manners or tactful?

                  With regard to freedoms in general, as a legal adult you have the freedom to become inebriated to the point of blacking out every day of your life. However, is it prudent to do so?
                  Depends on who is doing it and why. It is not at all uncommon to hear a black person refer to his close black friends as "my niggas" and mean in an almost loving way.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Like this sort of history?
                    Ask Anything: 10 questions with NAACP President Rev. William Barber
                    Posted December 16, 2008 7:00 a.m. EST
                    Updated July 13, 2018 2:03 p.m. EDT
                    .
                    Dear Rev. Barber, this is something that's always puzzled me. If the term "colored" is considered offensive, why is it still part of the NAACP's name? Thank you for your time. – Bret Chambers, Wake Forest

                    Great question. To be quite honest, there has been some internal wrestling with the name, but one reason it hasn’t been changed is out of respect for history and the founders.

                    In 1909, when the organization began, “colored” was one of the more respected identifications used by the larger society when compared with all the other grotesque names used to refer to African-Americans.

                    Another reason however, is that the NAACP was founded as a multi-ethnic organization by whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, male, female, etc. In fact, the majority of the founders were white. The first chair was a white woman. So, in a sense, it was a “colored” organization dedicated to the eradication of racism and legalized racial discrimination and disparity.

                    Even today, our mission is broad and covers all minorities: “The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.”

                    Short answer: In 1909, it wasn't offensive.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                      Ask Anything: 10 questions with NAACP President Rev. William Barber
                      Posted December 16, 2008 7:00 a.m. EST
                      Updated July 13, 2018 2:03 p.m. EDT
                      .
                      Dear Rev. Barber, this is something that's always puzzled me. If the term "colored" is considered offensive, why is it still part of the NAACP's name? Thank you for your time. – Bret Chambers, Wake Forest

                      Great question. To be quite honest, there has been some internal wrestling with the name, but one reason it hasn’t been changed is out of respect for history and the founders.

                      In 1909, when the organization began, “colored” was one of the more respected identifications used by the larger society when compared with all the other grotesque names used to refer to African-Americans.

                      Another reason however, is that the NAACP was founded as a multi-ethnic organization by whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, male, female, etc. In fact, the majority of the founders were white. The first chair was a white woman. So, in a sense, it was a “colored” organization dedicated to the eradication of racism and legalized racial discrimination and disparity.

                      Even today, our mission is broad and covers all minorities: “The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.”

                      Short answer: In 1909, it wasn't offensive.
                      And even well after 1909. When I was a kid I knew a couple older black people who insisted on being called colored, absolutely rejecting the term "black." That was long after 1909.

                      Ironically, we are now seeing a purge of things that have been declared racist in recent years that were not thought of as such when they started, such as the images of blacks on commercial products[1] and team names (often done to honor a particular group).






                      1. if you knew the story behind the real Aunt Jemima you would be well within your right to consider her removal as being racist

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Depends on who is doing it and why. It is not at all uncommon to hear a black person refer to his close black friends as "my niggas" and mean in an almost loving way.
                        Assuming you are not black, would you in the name of free speech, address a black person by that term?
                        "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                          I see you avoided what was said. Typical.
                          I just wished you well. You introduced gay marriage after all.
                          "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            1. if you knew the story behind the real Aunt Jemima you would be well within your right to consider her removal as being racist
                            I'm aware of a social media story that made the rounds a while back that featured Nancy Green, a woman hired to do demos on the product as part of a marketing campaign long after the product's debut, but there never was a real Aunt Jemima. The namesake for the brand was Old Aunt Jemima, a minstrel song, dating back to 1875.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              I just wished you well. You introduced gay marriage after all.
                              I did. Just as you said keeping your mouth shut was what free speech means. Big brother would be proud. War is peace and all.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                                I did. Just as you said keeping your mouth shut was what free speech means. Big brother would be proud. War is peace and all.
                                You are droll. There is nothing incorrect, unethical, tactless, etc. with introducing the topic of gay marriage. I merely wished you well!
                                "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seanD, Today, 11:57 PM
                                0 responses
                                2 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 06:02 PM
                                2 responses
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 01:18 PM
                                0 responses
                                19 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:01 AM
                                17 responses
                                158 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Sparko, 06-14-2021, 10:51 AM
                                7 responses
                                54 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X