Un-Hip Bigots

I believe people given to narrow-minded intoleance should be free to express just that so more enlightened souls can tell who they are and steer clear of them. You'll never successfully educate anyone who isn't willing to have his (her) mind open. Bigoted folks will tend to not heed the logic you and I find so obvious. It's a level of denial.

As difficult as personal attacks and intolerance are to deal with, there's a two-way street component to that too- no one can offend you without your permission. It's a decision to be offended- to empower someone to ruin your mood. As I get older I'm increasingly selective with whose opinions I'm going to value. The price of having freedom of speech is to allow bigots to freely express themselves. To me such expression is just noise that has little value beyond the idiot beacon purpose it serves so well.

 

You seem to be under the impression that, if people are not free to express ignorant ideas, then those ideas stop existing.

Let me break this down...
1. Free speech and humanity are not mutually exclusive. One of them does not need to be chosen "over" the other.
2. It is impossible to limit ignorance by limiting freedom. Free speech has the adverse impact actually. More free speech = more tolerance and less ignorance (historically speeking)
3. Rules against discrimination can indeed be called persecution. Obviously you are not a fan of freedom of association, and you think people should follow your code of ethics instead of their own, but if you would punish them for being a bigot or for being discriminatory, then you are persecuting them and oppressing them. There is no ehtical difference between what you want, and a religious conservative saying that kinky sex between two consenting adults should not be allowed. In both cases, it's simply somebody trying to force their morals onto everybody else.

 

Excellent points, man.

The only questions I have are these:

1) What do we do when that "freedom of expression" begins to limit or deny the "freedom of expression" of others?

2) What do we do when that "freedom of expression" puts others lives in serious danger?

3) Do you believe that there should be limits to free speech and, if so, what should they be?

4) What is more important: A bigot's freedom to express bigotry or a person's freedom to not be discriminated against?

I may have been a bit hasty or may have come across as hardline here, but I am merely irritated that bigotry is tolerated more than homosexuality, open relationships, or any other lifestyle differing from the traditional, "moral" standard.

 

PLEASE READ THE ABOVE POST.

Apparently, you seem to believe that discrimination ought to be tolerated. Perhaps, you also believe that it someone's right to scream, "FIRE!" in a crowded area. Otherwise, we'd be persecuting them.

I am sorry, but I place more value on HUMANITY than on one extension of it.

 

Can somebody please explain how yelling "Fire" in a crowded area = discrimination? Maybe I'm unintelligent, but I just can't seem to make than connection.

 

(but they can be sooooo much fun)

 

It doesn't. But, it has a HELL of a lot to do with "free speech". And my question is simple: SHOULD there be limits to it?

And should those limits include any speech that limits or comes into conflict with the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of others?

 

The highest political goals, in my opinion, are Life, Liberty, and Property. This obviously falls within the liberty catagory. I will admit there there is some wiggle room in regards to whether or not there should be limits on one of these catagories in instances where they could detract from one of the other two.

So should there be a limit on yelling fire in a theater (violates life), or using speech to defraud a person (violates property)? I would argue yes, but I'm open to debate here.

However, I don't see any usefulness in limiting free speech purely for the sake of suppressing unpopular ideas such as bigotry. This would just be limiting liberty without an increase of life or property.

Addressing another of your concerns, are human rights violations a problem? Of course, as they potentially violate all three of the catagories. You have yet to explain, however, how limiting liberty even further by cutting back on free speech would in any way help other human rights violations.

 

Well said!

Its just one of hte doulbe standards of this place. Free love (particularly in a platonic sense) is considered to be a standard of hippie-dom, yet you atually talk about teh non-platonic versino of it and uhoh youre a big sex maniac with no thought as to those around you, no consideration of your partners and no open, frank discussions with them. No limitations, no thought behind what youre doing. Its just ridiculous.

 

Come on Lib, I know you don't like pills that are blue, but for pete's sake take that valium please. Relax, bro....
Geez, lots of shouting going on here.

Okay, let me say my "piece", then I'll butt out. (I'll basically be busy running from the flying tomahawks anyway)

Bigots are "all about" exclusion. They want to exclude people that don't fit "their ideal" from participating. (speaking, being heard, showing up...etc)
What is it that's being changed here?
3..2..1..Okay, I'm sprinting away now...

 

By this statement you admit you are a bigot.

 

By this statement you admit you know nothing about bigotry or me.

 

By this statement you admit again you are a bigot.

 

Well, as for "property", I don't think that's quite what was written. I believe it was "pursuit of happiness". I will not get into the whole property issue. Not here in this thread.

Bigotry is not just an idea. It IS a limitation of others' freedoms when acted upon (and this CAN include "free expression").

NO ONE has answered my four questions.

Free Speech is one of the most important things, but not the MOST important. Certainly not more important than human rights or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

He's a hip bigot though. This thread was specifically about un-hip bigots.

 

By this statement you admit you are ignorant, but you still have the right to be ignorant--as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

 

Ummm Free Speech is PART of the liberty thing you mentioned.

 

I'm not quite sure how this might apply to the forums but we have to trust the mods to be able to root out problems.

To me that isn't freedom of expression. When one incites violence he isn't expressing himself, he is using words to cause trouble.

I think there needs to be a discussion to determine what constitutes free speech. It's not self expression if one is limiting the freedoms of or placing another in danger. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not expressing yourself.

Tough one to address. Aa bigot may be very vocal, but in silence, those who think themselves as bystanders become complicit with a bigot by allowing his rhetoric to pass unchallenged. People should be free to pursue their lifestyles but there is no entitlement to be free of discrimination. How one responds to lifes many inequities goes a long way to defining his character.

We can look to the weakness of community as a factor in allowing some to bully and discriminate. Without people banding together in numbers to protect their rights and freedoms bigots will be free to do their thing and those making laws will be forced to limit everyone's freedom. I strongly believe that culturally we've been lulled to sleep. Our entire energy is spent pursuing the almighty dollar with little time or inclination to establish and maintain neighborhood connections. Without knowing who lives next door there's little precedence for giving a damn what happens to them. If a bigot attacks someone down the street it doesn't affect them so they don't care. The clincher is what happens to your neighbor has bearings on what can happen to you... but most people I know care less for that than they do about what's going down on Survival Island. Life has become a spectator sport... we're witnessing our own self-destruction

I see stupidity posted and the trolls and bigots get their payoff by the predicably entertaining anger and indignance that ensues. A bigot only plays his game where he knows he'll find a receptive audience. Outside trolls should be collectively ignored and established members who cross the line should be called on their activity. Members here should look at themselves as having a role in maintaining order. If we rely on authority to do this we do so at the jeopardy of our own freedom. We're not entitled to anything that we're not willing to defend.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance- Thomas Jefferson

 

Hardly a bigot.

If you want to call me a "bigot" against bigots, you may jerk off to that, but I happen to believe that bigotry should not be tolerated and luckily that philosophy seems to be winning in America--at least for a while.

Thank goodness for limitations on bigotry!

 

By this statement you admit you.... oh well, I give up.