Town Quixote's

[Sherman]

LOL! You gotta wonder about some folks. I have run across some interesting characters on Facebook too.

 

[Idolater]

From a friend of mine elsewhere on the topic of PC speech and whether, as another friend suggested, it was a call for censorship:

"It's not the words that are politically incorrect [that is the problem] it's the implied meaning they are given when used in a certain context. For example, if someone says, "Black lives matter," and another person responds with, "All lives matter," they are using that phrase to diminish the first statement [and not to uplift the larger group]. It's not calling for censorship, it's calling for decency." John Michael Daw

Here's me trying to distinguish between this, and actual censorship. What is censorship if it isn't the expunging of certain language that we don't like to be written or said, regardless of the supposed intent of the language? In the above, is the author arguing that forbidding "All lives matter," even in the context of responding to "Black lives matter," is Not censorship? Because here's me trying to distinguish between this, and real censorship.

 

[Town Heretic]

Here's me trying to distinguish between this, and actual censorship. What is censorship if it isn't the expunging of certain language that we don't like to be written or said, regardless of the supposed intent of the language? In the above, is the author arguing that forbidding "All lives matter," even in the context of responding to "Black lives matter," is Not censorship? Because here's me trying to distinguish between this, and real censorship.

He's not arguing for censorship at all. He's saying that it's the sort of thing a person says who isn't so much concerned that people might have forgotten the majority matters as they are in attempting to dismiss the minority interest in promoting an inequity of treatment contrary to the idea of a just society.

 

[annabenedetti]

I have a confession...sometimes, when I read through forum or FB posts I find myself wishing more people were illiterate...and when it gets really bad I include myself in that number. lain:

I have a confession... usually the first thing I do when I log on to TOL is close the chat box.

 

[annabenedetti]

"It's not the words that are politically incorrect [that is the problem] it's the implied meaning they are given when used in a certain context. For example, if someone says, "Black lives matter," and another person responds with, "All lives matter," they are using that phrase to diminish the first statement [and not to uplift the larger group]. It's not calling for censorship, it's calling for decency." John Michael Daw

Was there anyone on the right going around saying "all lives matter" before there was a "Black lives matter?"

 

[Town Heretic]

I have a confession... usually the first thing I do when I log on to TOL is close the chat box.

I renamed it...and find that if I feel obliged to insert "nude" into the comments at some point it really changes my level of interest and the entertainment value of reading it.

Take Truster's, "If you shake the bushes one always pops up." Now it could be, if you shake the bushes nude...or one nude always pops up...or pops up nude...there are usually a few variations. lain:

Was there anyone on the right going around saying "all lives matter" before there was a "Black lives matter?"

Of course not, just as there was never a call for White Entertainment Television, or less diversity in film. Most of these people appear to be voicing the resentment of a comfortable majority having to put up with a suddenly vocal minority they once only had to consider when they could assume a vaguely messianic role, if then. You hear worse resentment aimed at minority members who do it from a position of wealth and power, reminding many that they've been lapped in the previously determined oval of social order.

 

[annabenedetti]

I renamed it...and find that if I feel obliged to insert "nude" into the comments at some point it really changes my level of interest and the entertainment value of reading it.

Take Truster's, "If you shake the bushes one always pops up." Now it could be, if you shake the bushes nude...or one nude always pops up...or pops up nude...there are usually a few variations. lain:

I would imagine suggest opine that if you insert "nude" into the comments the effect would be similar to what happens when you drop a fish stunner in a pond... :chuckle:

Coincidentally, there was a nudist camp question in the RWA quiz yesterday. Just curious, do you remember how you answered the question?

Of course not, just as there was never a call for White Entertainment Television, or less diversity in film. Most of these people appear to be voicing the resentment of a comfortable majority having to put up with a suddenly vocal minority they once only had to consider when they could assume a vaguely messianic role, if then. You hear worse resentment aimed at minority members who do it from a position of wealth and power, reminding many that they've been lapped in the previously determined oval of social order.

I'm way past giving them the benefit of "appear to be."

I know it's better to word it that way, and why, but we're dealing with people who've completely sabotaged - you know what, it just occurred to me that the "revolutionaries" they needed to fear were themselves. They've appropriated for their own use every tactic they once ascribed to "the left." I've mentioned their rightist adaptation of Alinksky, but there are more comparisons than just that.

 

[Town Heretic]

I would imagine suggest opine that if you insert "nude" into the comments the effect would be similar to what happens when you drop a fish stunner in a pond... :chuckle:

Substituting works about as well. I love the imagery though...speaking of...

Coincidentally, there was a nudist camp question in the RWA quiz yesterday. Just curious, do you remember how you answered the question?

I enthusiastically supported the notion. If I ever happened upon one I'd be game to blend in. At least for now. Ask me again in ten years. Likely a very different answer, brimming with moral outrage and a strong sense of how I've let things go...and how things go on their own. :shocked:

I'm way past giving them the benefit of "appear to be."

Well, you know, you have to hold out hope for the exception.

I know it's better to word it that way, and why, but we're dealing with people who've completely sabotaged - you know what, it just occurred to me that the "revolutionaries" they needed to fear were themselves. They've appropriated for their own use every tactic they once ascribed to "the left." I've mentioned their rightist adaptation of Alinksky, but there are more comparisons than just that.

That's about it, right there...which I'm seriously considering as the eventual title of my autobiography or could double as the title of sex tape from somewhere in Minnesota (I may watch too much Brooklyn Nine-Nine).

One of those. lain:

 

[Idolater]

He's not arguing for censorship at all. He's saying that it's the sort of thing a person says who isn't so much concerned that people might have forgotten the majority matters as they are in attempting to dismiss the minority interest in promoting an inequity of treatment contrary to the idea of a just society.

So you think that a just society is one that practices censorship? Or is it your friend who does?

 

[Idolater]

Was there anyone on the right going around saying "all lives matter" before there was a "Black lives matter?"

Of course not, just as there was never a call for White Entertainment Television, or less diversity in film. Most of these people appear to be voicing the resentment of a comfortable majority having to put up with a suddenly vocal minority they once only had to consider when they could assume a vaguely messianic role, if then. You hear worse resentment aimed at minority members who do it from a position of wealth and power, reminding many that they've been lapped in the previously determined oval of social order.

They called themselves "Pro-Life." Back then.

 

[Town Heretic]

So you think that a just society is one that practices censorship? Or is it your friend who does?

I don't know how you got that from either of us. I explicitly said he wasn't saying it and I don't recall my saying it either. Unless you're mostly talking about self-censorship and the encouragement of friends.

 

[Idolater]

I don't know how you got that from either of us. I explicitly said he wasn't saying it and I don't recall my saying it either. Unless you're mostly talking about self-censorship and the encouragement of friends.

The right to free speech is inalienable, no matter how offensive the exercise of the right is to anybody. There's everything right about challenging why someone is saying whatever they're saying, and it's wrong to make laws authorizing police to penalize people for saying something offensive. When the matter is making laws that support PCism, those who disagree with PCism get very sensitive, even to the point of thinking that what's being discussed is making laws that support PCism when it's not. Very sensitive indeed.

 

[Town Heretic]

The right to free speech is inalienable, no matter how offensive the exercise of the right is to anybody.

It's exercise is often restricted in the balancing of competing rights and persons. So you can speak your mind, but not in my living room, by way of. And you can offer a long oratory, but not in a theater. That sort of thing.

There's everything right about challenging why someone is saying whatever they're saying, and it's wrong to make laws authorizing police to penalize people for saying something offensive.

What laws, in particular?

When the matter is making laws that support PCism, those who disagree with PCism get very sensitive, even to the point of thinking that what's being discussed is making laws that support PCism when it's not. Very sensitive indeed.

I think PC is stuff and nonsense, is the sort of thing people say before saying something that would and should embarrass them to say in church.

 

[Idolater]

It's exercise is often restricted in the balancing of competing rights and persons. So you can speak your mind, but not in my living room, by way of.

Rather, it is lawful for you to do what you will with your own (Mt20:15KJV), and if it is your own living room, and if your guest is saying or doing something you find offensive, you've every right to demand that they leave. That doesn't affect anybody's inalienable right to free speech.

And you can offer a long oratory, but not in a theater. That sort of thing.

Supra.

What laws, in particular?

Laws that authorize police to penalize people for saying offensive things.

I think PC is stuff and nonsense, is the sort of thing people say before saying something that would and should embarrass them to say in church.

I can't help that the only people out there who sound like they'd like to make censorship laws are PCism proponents.

 

[Town Heretic]

Rather, it is lawful for you to do what you will with your own (Mt20:15KJV), and if it is your own living room, and if your guest is saying or doing something you find offensive, you've every right to demand that they leave.

There are places where you can't speak your mind whenever the urge strikes you.

That doesn't affect anybody's inalienable right to free speech.

Sure it does. It just did.

Laws that authorize police to penalize people for saying offensive things.

Profanity in public? In Church? Outside an elementary school?

I can't help that the only people out there who sound like they'd like to make censorship laws are PCism proponents.

"Sound like" is the problematic part (well, so is PC, but you already know what I think of that hooey). It doesn't have to be more than your bias filter at work. On the left they note "un-American" exercise and call that an effort to censure.

I think both sides could relax a bit and apply a reasonable man rule of thumb to guide their own speech, including political rhetoric.

 

[annabenedetti]

I don't know how you got that from either of us. I explicitly said he wasn't saying it and I don't recall my saying it either. Unless you're mostly talking about self-censorship and the encouragement of friends.

You weren't endorsing censorship, you couldn't be more clear.

I was remarking on how "all lives matter" wasn't a thing until "Black lives matter" came into being. I guess it sounded scary to certain Whites who had to look around real quick for some kind of protection from the scary idea.

 

[Idolater]

There are places where you can't speak your mind whenever the urge strikes you.

Like in court.

Sure it does. It just did.

Nobody has an inalienable right to be in your own living room Town, so no.

Profanity in public? In Church? Outside an elementary school?

Who decides what is and what is not profane, and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from? I don't have any problem with obscenity laws, so long as what is defined as obscene doesn't favor one religion or theology over all the others, including Satanism. That's all part of the inalienable right to not be penalized by police for exercising free speech.

"Sound like" is the problematic part

"Perception is reality" is a fact. Message sent may not be the message received, and while the receiver has some burden so does the sender.

(well, so is PC, but you already know what I think of that hooey). It doesn't have to be more than your bias filter at work.

"It" being what?

On the left they note "un-American" exercise and call that an effort to censure.

Mainly, I just wish that "the left" would support the right to bear arms, half as much as they do the right to get an abortion.

I think both sides could relax a bit

I think when someone sees inalienable rights being infringed, that is exactly when not to relax. And I say that even to those who I believe wrongly see rights being infringed.

and apply a reasonable man rule of thumb to guide their own speech, including political rhetoric.

Who determines what a "reasonable man" is, and how do they decide what is and what is not a "reasonable man," and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from?

I think it's reasonable and commendable to fight for the rights of people.

 

[Town Heretic]

Like in court.

One of many places where what you can say and when you can say it is reasonably and necessarily limited.

Nobody has an inalienable right to be in your own living room Town, so no.

You don't appear to get my aim with that one. I said there are other rights and parties exercising them that impact your speech. In that case, my property right impacts it. In another, your participation in a theater where you have a right to be is impacted when you interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other patrons. There are a number of ways the exercise of right can be amended and subjugated to other concerns. That's the point.

Who decides what is and what is not profane, and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from? I don't have any problem with obscenity laws, so long as what is defined as obscene doesn't favor one religion or theology over all the others, including Satanism. That's all part of the inalienable right to not be penalized by police for exercising free speech.

Profanity tends to be a reflection of community standards. Some words, relating to sex and ancestry, tend to be universal prompts as fighting words. And those aren't expressions that are permitted in given situations and places, another example of speech restrictions.

"Perception is reality" is a fact.

In the same way that strawberry is a horrible flavor for ice cream.

Message sent may not be the message received, and while the receiver has some burden so does the sender.

I think that goes to a reasonable man standard. It's not my burden if your perception is steeped in the unreasonable, the paranoid, etc.

"It" being what?

Your perception.

Mainly, I just wish that "the left" would support the right to bear arms, half as much as they do the right to get an abortion.

Very different considerations. You could argue a pure stance in favor of life would lead you to oppose both. I'm against abortion and support the right to bear arms, though not the right to bear every kind.

I think when someone sees inalienable rights being infringed, that is exactly when not to relax.

I think it's important to realize the difference between someone having a right stripped from them and the natural balancing of interests we see in the speech/theater or right to bear arms/tank mitigation.

And, of course, it's important to understand that objecting to offensive speech isn't itself an act of censorship absent some force that compels it from without. If that objection compels the other from within, it's nothing more or less than the impact of a call to conscience.

Who determines what a "reasonable man" is, and how do they decide what is and what is not a "reasonable man," and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from?

The trier of fact will determine it, subject to review upon appeal.

"A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care,skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care
than is an ordinary person." Online Legal Dictionary

So, would the average person be moved to respond as the person being considered acted?

 

[Idolater]

One of many places where what you can say and when you can say it is reasonably and necessarily limited.


You don't appear to get my aim with that one. I said there are other rights and parties exercising them that impact your speech.

But it doesn't impact my speech, if you object so much to it that you expel me from your own living room. That's your right, as owner of your living room, and you've nobody to answer to for your free choice to expel me from your own living room. My right is not infringed by that, as I can just as well say what I want to say out on the sidewalk, so long as I'm not committing a noise disturbance, which would be infringing upon people's right to not suffer hearing damage.

In that case, my property right impacts it.

No it does not. No police are going to penalize me for saying what I say, even if they do penalize me for trespassing on your property.

In another, your participation in a theater where you have a right to be is impacted when you interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other patrons.

That's again a case of the property rights of the theater's owners to expel me, for whatever reason they have.

There are a number of ways the exercise of right can be amended and subjugated to other concerns. That's the point.

These examples don't make that point, since they're easily handled through understanding the rights of owners (cf. Mt20:15KJV).

Profanity tends to be a reflection of community standards.

It does, but that means that a community of Southern Baptists are going to makes laws incongruent with laws made by a community of Satanists, and this incongruence is incompatible with uniform laws that ought to exist all throughout a nation governed by one Constitution.

Some words, relating to sex and ancestry, tend to be universal prompts as fighting words.

Compare and contrast what a community of Amish people would consider "fighting words" with a community of Satanists then. They aren't the same. The law must walk the line and not favor one religious or theological tradition or school over any others.

And those aren't expressions that are permitted in given situations and places, another example of speech restrictions.

The reason being that people have a right to not be harmed, and any supposed exercise of a right that does harm others, is not an exercise of a right, but is a crime.

In the same way that strawberry is a horrible flavor for ice cream.

Nope. Every reasonable man knows that perception is reality.

I think that goes to a reasonable man standard. It's not my burden if your perception is steeped in the unreasonable, the paranoid, etc.

Experience proves you wrong here. What makes things happen in the world is not some idealized abstract notion of the truth, but what people perceive the truth to be. As is expected, this fact results in legislative chaos, which is why it is paramount to identify, recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc., rights.

Your perception.

Ah.

Very different considerations. You could argue a pure stance in favor of life would lead you to oppose both.

Anybody can argue anything. The important thing is to defend rights, which is the genius of the American founders, in preemptively protecting the weak and the minorities from tyranny of the majority and powerful.

I'm against abortion and support the right to bear arms, though not the right to bear every kind.

I support the right to abortion. Abortion is killing, but so then is using lethal force in self defense or in the defense of your family, friends, neighbors, and other innocent of capital crimes people.

I think it's important to realize the difference between someone having a right stripped from them and the natural balancing of interests we see in the speech/theater or right to bear arms/tank mitigation.

I think it's important to recognize that everyone not imprisoned possesses all the same rights as everybody else, and that if we are wary of recognizing someone's rights and all of them, then we should imprison them for the protection of innocent people, which will tend to ward off pressure on innocent people to break the law in their own defense.

And, of course, it's important to understand that objecting to offensive speech isn't itself an act of censorship absent some force that compels it from without.

Absolutely agreed. It's part of the right.

If that objection compels the other from within, it's nothing more or less than the impact of a call to conscience.

Yes, I'm fine with that.

The trier of fact will determine it, subject to review upon appeal.

"A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care,skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care
than is an ordinary person." Online Legal Dictionary

So, would the average person be moved to respond as the person being considered acted?

And so the answer is that judges determine just what a "reasonable man" is.

 

[Town Heretic]

But it doesn't impact my speech

Oh, well if you don't feel not being able to speak your mind wherever you please is an infringement, then I'd apply the same idea to other rights and we're getting where I mean for you to be, only using different language to describe it.

if you object so much to it that you expel me from your own living room. That's your right, as owner of your living room, and you've nobody to answer to for your free choice to expel me from your own living room.

My living room. Your business. Our town square. You seeing the connection?

No it does not. No police are going to penalize me for saying what I say, even if they do penalize me for trespassing on your property.

They can penalize you in the street. Supra.

These examples don't make that point, since they're easily handled through understanding the rights of owners

All property and every space is owned, either by individuals or by government. And all rights are subject then to other rights in exercise, which has been a point I noted earlier.

It does, but that means that a community of Southern Baptists are going to makes laws incongruent with laws made by a community of Satanists, and this incongruence is incompatible with uniform laws that ought to exist all throughout a nation governed by one Constitution.

Rather, laws frequently reflect community standards, but there are fairly universal understandings on some words, just as there are for certain actions. Now there will always be some group that has a different standard, just as there are some people who would react violently to fairly innocuous behavior.

Compare and contrast what a community of Amish people would consider "fighting words" with a community of Satanists then. They aren't the same. The law must walk the line and not favor one religious or theological tradition or school over any others.

Laws proscribing conduct on religious grounds would run afoul of Constitutional protections, but community standards that aren't recodified dogma can and do survive that scrutiny, however we ascribe the root of the standards subjectively. The reasonable man is the average man and so the exceptional, be they Satanist or Amish, will not prevail by claiming exception.

The reason being that people have a right to not be harmed, and any supposed exercise of a right that does harm others, is not an exercise of a right, but is a crime.

As I say, there are reasons for limiting the exercise of right.

Nope. Every reasonable man knows that perception is reality.

Rather, there is what is and then how we value and relate to it. So the former is not always the same animal as the latter, depending on what part of it you grab (see: blind men circling an elephant). Also, every man should then understand that values are inherently subjective, as with ice cream flavors.

Experience proves you wrong here. What makes things happen in the world is not some idealized abstract notion of the truth, but what people perceive the truth to be.

That's not really a rebuttal that proves my observation wrong. Rather, a racist's perception of the reasonableness of a black man smiling at a white woman might ring true for him, as his action in response would seem warranted. The reasonable man, unburdened by his subjective ire, would not.

As is expected, this fact results in legislative chaos, which is why it is paramount to identify, recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc., rights.

Rather, ir results in the necessary application of principle and reason, as it should.

Anybody can argue anything.

Not rationally though, not defensibly as an operation of ethic and logic. The proffer I gave was both, or could be easily expanded into perfect Amish harmony.

The important thing is to defend rights, which is the genius of the American founders, in preemptively protecting the weak and the minorities from tyranny of the majority and powerful.

To defend and to negotiate the reasonable exercise. Because rights without that are just another form of tyranny to the person injured by their exercise.

I support the right to abortion.

Without limitation of any sort?

Abortion is killing, but so then is using lethal force in self defense or in the defense of your family, friends, neighbors, and other innocent of capital crimes people.

That's no real argument for abortion absent the mother's life being in jeopardy though, is it.

I think it's important to recognize that everyone not imprisoned possesses all the same rights as everybody else

Not entirely, but mostly true among adults.

and that if we are wary of recognizing someone's rights and all of them, then we should imprison them for the protection of innocent people, which will tend to ward off pressure on innocent people to break the law in their own defense.

I'm not entirely sure of what you're after with that part.

Absolutely agreed. It's part of the right.
Yes, I'm fine with that.

Good. That's all my friend was really arguing for, a restraint born of conscience.

And so the answer is that judges determine just what a "reasonable man" is.

Most laws have standards built into them, so the application of a reasonable man standard is fairly limited. Where it exists it's no more or less problematic that reasonable doubt. That is, past any point where the stakes are high enough human judgment, a weighing of sorts, will come into play, subject to review by men and women learned in the law and having exceptional skill in applying critical though processes to the whole.

And even then, now and again, there will be failure. That's the human component, I suppose, in anything.