Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

[oxmixmudd]

For context, here is the relevant portion of Leonhard's post:

"In Denmark radical Muslim groups have gotten in trouble for some of the prayers that called for the eradication of Jews, even though technically that could fall under religious freedom. Legal repercussions were had against them. The US has similar reasonable restrictions about how far you can push religious freedom as an excuse to say whatever you want."

I can't think of any restrictions on any religious speech that I would consider "reasonable." I think anyone should be able to say or print pretty much any vile and horrendous thing they desire, and all the more so in the context of "religion," and also "anti-religion" (atheism).

But I see you asked "why" I believe this. Well, why not? Don't you consider freedom of expression a basic fundamental human right?

Why not? An example: if a person calls for people of like mind to mass together and start killing people they see as different from them or evil. A reason for making such speech illegal one citizen to another is to maintain order, to maintain civilization and living together according in some measure of peace.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Remember, once we allow that box to be opened, it ends with the Bible being banned as hate speech. It's guaranteed. To that end, I will defend the rights of others to say whatever vile thing they want in the interest of defending my right to preach the gospel.

I disagree. There are reasonable limits on speech that have to exist for civilization to be civilization. And remember, the purpose of free speech in this country was never to allow vile, hateful, or corrupt speech to be the norm, but rather to allow for free criticism of the government and government leaders. Free exercise of our religion is what preserves our capacity to hold, read, and believe the content of the Bible. Limits on free speech that encompass speech that encourages people to behave violently or that creates mass panic should not be able to cross a line that limits the free exercise of religion.

Though the reality is that in a fundamentally secular society the possibility of direct conflict between free speech and the free exercise of religion is much higher than in the society in which the documents were drafted where the fundamental rightness of Biblical morality was more or less accepted.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

I disagree. There are reasonable limits on speech that have to exist for civilization to be civilization. And remember, the purpose of free speech in this country was never to allow vile, hateful, or corrupt speech to be the norm, but rather to allow for free criticism of the government and government leaders. Free exercise of our religion is what preserves our capacity to hold, read, and believe the content of the Bible. Limits on free speech that encompass speech that encourages people to behave violently or that creates mass panic should not be able to cross a line that limits the free exercise of religion.

Though the reality is that in a fundamentally secular society the possibility of direct conflict between free speech and the free exercise of religion is much higher than in the society in which the documents were drafted where the fundamental rightness of Biblical morality was more or less accepted.

Jim

In today's world, I don't trust the people who want to define those limits. You know if they could, Democrats would ban any Christian utterance.

[oxmixmudd]

In today's world, I don't trust the people who want to define those limits. You know if they could, Democrats would ban any Christian utterance.

I dont think it is right for us out of fear for ourselves to fight against that which is best for our society and culture. And that is what you are proposing. Because we are afraid someone might be able to finagle a method of limiting our freedoms, we will allow the devil to roam free in the area of hateful and vile speech that we will permit.

Jim

[Tassman]

Political Correctness is a loaded term. It basically means "speech regulation that I don't like".

Yes, 'political correctness' taken to extremes is quite unacceptable to anyone on either side. But, properly understood it merely describes language or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage specific groups in society. Surely this is a good thing.

[Juvenal]

... speech at it's extremes ...

... agree its a hive ...

Oh hell yeah!

That, right there, made it worth stopping in.

Y'all be good.

[Mountain Man]

I dont think it is right for us out of fear for ourselves to fight against that which is best for our society and culture. And that is what you are proposing. Because we are afraid someone might be able to finagle a method of limiting our freedoms, we will allow the devil to roam free in the area of hateful and vile speech that we will permit.

Jim

I would err on too little restraint than too much. As the saying goes, those who would trade essential liberties for a little, temporary safety will lose both.

[NorrinRadd]

Why not? An example: if a person calls for people of like mind to mass together and start killing people they see as different from them or evil. A reason for making such speech illegal one citizen to another is to maintain order, to maintain civilization and living together according in some measure of peace.



Jim

I *might* consider it appropriate to prohibit direct, open calls for person-on-person violence. Maybe. Even then, I'm suspicious that the libs will crack down on imprecatory prayers (which call for violence by God), or on "militaristic" language ("weapons of our warfare," "armor of God," etc.). But I definitely don't want "maintain(ing) order" to be a guideline.

[KingsGambit]

On the topic of 4Chan; That website is populated with both children, and man-children. They're not really a reflection of society with free-speech taken to it's extreme, than they are the grubby, Doritos-eating, Mountain Dew-chuggin, anime/video game-obsessed, unwashed masses living in their mom's basement. They represent Peter Pan syndrome taken to it's extreme under the veil of total and utter anonymity. And even that website has censorship (it's not very broad, but it's there). If larger society had even an inkling how degenerate and childishly stupid that website was, they'd be horrified. So, no, it's not really an accurate representation of "free speech" in society.

On the contrary, I would argue that freedom of speech is only as useful a concept as it is as it applies to what people would consider the "edge cases". The First Amendment was not written to protect your grandmother's poetry, as they say.

The real turning point for me in admitting that I do not truly support freedom of speech was coming into contact with the libertarian classic Defending the Indefensible by Walter Block, where he devotes chapters to arguing in favor of legalizing death threats, extortion, blackmail, libel, yelling fire in a crowded theater (as well as pimping and child labor, though those aren't relevant here). He outright argues that these people are "heroes" for fighting for freedom of speech, and his arguments are frankly awful in places (such as where he argues that the person who yells fire in a theater who may get a thrill out of being trampled to death has just as much right to live out his thrills as the others do to safety). The Mises Institute helpfully put this pile of trash online for free.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh hell yeah!

That, right there, made it worth stopping in.

Y'all be good.

Quit picking on the furriners, toasti.

[oxmixmudd]

I would err on too little restraint than too much. As the saying goes, those who would trade essential liberties for a little, temporary safety will lose both.

Yes, too much can be as bad as too little. In a civilized society, too much can be worse than too little.

But no boundaries at sll is what was being advocated.

Jim

[Adrift]

I'm a Christian so I get the sentiment, but I don't know about you but I find the hyper-sanitized television shows back then nauseating to watch. Even if something represented something that was wrong, I wouldn't create laws, or lobby against it. I prefer liberty over correctness. Though from reading your post I think you seem to lean in the same direction.

Yes, I know you're a Christian. As a hardcore movie buff, I too disliked the Hays Code, and the period of self-censorship. Some of the most interesting films of Classic cinema came out of parts of Europe where censorship was much lighter. I don't know about TV (where I'm sure the FCC had a deciding hand in censorship), but for film, Hollywood censorship was mostly self-imposed. Self-imposed purely because they were concerned that the government itself would jump in and do the censoring for them, which they wanted to avoid. I don't find myself nauseated watching the hyper-sanitized TV of yesteryear though. I find something utterly wholesome, and innocent about that stuff. Censorship aside, I think people really did have a view of life much like something out of Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Donna Reed, The Honeymooners, and Dobie Gillis, etc.. I'm too young to know, but talking to my pops, and other older Americans, life truly did seem simpler, and less insane. Perhaps it had something to do with the greater interconnectivity with one's local community, and lack of the 24 hour news cycle telling about horrors coming from the other side of the country. Also, the enforcement of the Movie Code did have some positive unintended consequences, forcing writers and directors to think of creative ways to show without showing, and adding punch to scenes without invoking censorship that are still in use in films today (one of my favorites being the "Lewton Bus" technique from the 1942 film Cat People).

Can you elaborate on this. We both agree its a hive of scum and villainy. And aside from producing a lot of hillarious politically loaded memes, including a lot that have been crossposted by people here, its pretty much an unkosher place. Its anti-politically correct. But your main objection is that they don't have anything interesting to say. Yet, does free speech have to be interesting?

I simply mean that, free speech completely unfettered won't necessarily lead to the nonsense that is 4Chan. 4Chan is the result of particular people and particular conditions all converging at one place.

That's not like those examples I gave. Where you're talking about a Conservative group at a university in the US, challenging the status quo by calling in not a seasoned politician, or a professor of Conservative political philosophy, but some ultra-right wing crank or provocateur invited to talk openly about "Racial realism". This is protested, the university agrees that the person there has nothing of value to add, and FoxNews/Breitbart/Theologyweb flips out about evil leftists shutting down free speech, etc...

That's the example I had in mind. And the reason I talk about it is that it is example. I wouldn't consider that an attack on freedom of speech, at all.

Maybe it's because I don't hit up every Civics thread, but I can't remember a time that Theologyweb flipped out because a Neo-Nazi, or some other far-right racist wasn't given a platform at a university. And I agree that those types don't really have anything relevant to say at a university, so universities have little incentive giving them their platform (though, it seems plenty of racists make it on to the faculty of universities, but their racism is usually subtle and under the guise of Marxist social theory). As NorrinRadd stated, it's more the Charles Murray and Ann Coulter types that are seemingly censored and not allowed to speak after being invited to universities.

[oxmixmudd]

I *might* consider it appropriate to prohibit direct, open calls for person-on-person violence. Maybe. Even then, I'm suspicious that the libs will crack down on imprecatory prayers (which call for violence by God), or on "militaristic" language ("weapons of our warfare," "armor of God," etc.). But I definitely don't want "maintain(ing) order" to be a guideline.

Again, I do not believe it is appropriate to allow evil to flourish in an attempt make sure their are no very speculative negative consequences. Its an awful lot like the fellow that buried his Talent to keep it safe because he knew his master might discipline him if he lost it.

The most obvious lesson from that parable is that we are expected to try in matters of good and faith and not to just adopt some protective posture that looks out for our own interests at the expense of others

Jim

[KingsGambit]

I'm a Christian so I get the sentiment, but I don't know about you but I find the hyper-sanitized television shows back then nauseating to watch. Even if something represented something that was wrong, I wouldn't create laws, or lobby against it. I prefer liberty over correctness. Though from reading your post I think you seem to lean in the same direction.

I used to watch the old black and white channel sometimes when I just had an antenna and I actually found that kind of thing wholesome and refreshing. Granted, there wasn't a whole lot of depth, but as somebody who genuinely does believe that sinful material being presented in a non-condemnatory context should be off-limits to Christians, it was nice to have light entertainment that I didn't have to feel bad about watching.

I do think the Hays Code went way overboard. I wrote a research paper on it back in college and I don't remember many specific details but Hays' sectarian biases went well beyond the bounds of what I would consider necessary and appropriate.

[Adrift]

Quit picking on the furriners, toasti.

I'm completely lost.