Are you personally responsible for offending or provoking others?

[TCK 2,164]

In modern times, social issues are becoming more and more of a priority as our struggle for survival itself lessens. With new social issues comes new social awareness, of both ourselves and each other. If you act in a way that someone else finds offensive, they are more likely now than ever to let you know. While some say that it is our responsibility to look out for others' feelings in advance in a setting of tolerance, some go further still to support the idea that inarguable crimes such as rape or murder could have been prevented if the victims took more precautions to not antagonize the aggressors and that we should be wary of making ourselves targets. The Charlie Hebdo shooting is a somewhat recent example of such a murder, while the most common advice given to women to avoid being a target for rape is to not wear too tight or revealing clothes. Are either of these stances correct, and if so, to what degrees?

[Takka 13,376]

Course not, 90% of the time. However if you're going out of your way to offend someone for whatever purpose, then you should be prepared for something in return, because it's no longer passive; you're instigating.

[TCK 2,164]

Course not, 90% of the time. However if you're going out of your way to offend someone for whatever purpose, then you should be prepared for something in return, because it's no longer passive; you're instigating.

I agree, and I think it raises another question. Do you have a right to insult others?

I would say yes, you do, and I would also have to disagree with the all-too popular notion of "hate speech isn't free speech." Even if it's hateful, you have the right to say any opinion you have as long as it's not slanderous (falsifying information about someone to hurt their potential in some area) or harassment (attempting to communicate with a person when they've said they wish not to). And you should be aware that they may be spurred to retaliate.

On whether leniency should be shown in cases involving provoked attacks, I have mixed feelings. To one side, it's true that a person should not let words bother them; people are mean, and the government shouldn't have to protect you from that. Contrastingly, the reality is that we are all aware emotions exist and have undue control over our actions. I suppose it's a proper halfway point to provide leniency, while still punishing the crime.

[Weps 1,378]

The First Amendment wasn't established to protect uplifting and kind speech...

 

Watts vs. the United States;

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=394&invol=705

[TCK 2,164]

The First Amendment wasn't established to protect uplifting and kind speech...

 

Watts vs. the United States;

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=394&invol=705

Well I agree but I recall in the Charlie Hebdo thread you held the opposing view: that one should not speak lest he endanger himself and those around him when in the presence of those who are prone to violence. Has that changed or do you see that as a different principle?

[Weps 1,378]

Well I agree but I recall in the Charlie Hebdo thread you held the opposing view: that one should not speak lest he endanger himself and those around him when in the presence of those who are prone to violence. Has that changed or do you see that as a different principle?

 

It's all apart of the same paradigm.

 

My point in the Charlie Hebdo thread wasn't about keeping silent, it was about accepting the consequences of actions. You are free to call someone a "shit eating, asswipe", but you're not free from being decked in the face by them. 

 

People want to have their cake and eat it too, but that's not how things work. If you want to preserve free speech, you have to accept hateful speech and accept that there may be repercussions of that speech. 

 

What nearly everyone forgets is that while Constitutional Rights or Human Rights in general are inalienable rights, those rights have to be protected and upheld, and that is done with the gun. 

 

Everyone wants to separate the Amendments, put them each in their own neat, little box. In the academic, that just seems so nice and orderly, but that's not how reality is. Each Amendment, in some way derives its power from another. I'm sure at one point or another everyone has heard the term "The Second grants all the others teeth", which is no lie.

 

Your average SJW or Soccer Mom doesn't grasp the fragility of our system, of not only governance, but the construct of constitutional/human rights. Paper and words only serve as a benchmark of those rights, they don't preserve or uphold them. Men willing to do violence on behalf of others are what preserves and uphold those rights. 

 

In modern society, things like "being offended" of speech has become the norm. Out of fear of "offending" someone, people trip over themselves trying to prevent it or prohibit it. In centuries past, even men of money and influence used offensive and vulgar language in public and private. While it is from a movie, it was common language of the time; On the floor of the Texas legislature, Gen. Sam Huston stated "I called you a Scottish catamite; that's one step up from assistant pederast!". If you know (or Google) what a "catamite" and "pederast" are, that's pretty damn offensive.

 

If we're going to poke fun at radical zealots, NO ONE should be surprised when they start blowing shit up or shooting up places. Nothing more idiotic and infuriating than someone who touts freedom of speech, then doesn't have the sack to stand up for it, but instead hides cowering, when Baba Yaga comes for their ass.

 

My brother is the perfect example of someone who stood his ground for his rights and didn't back down. 

[WaeV 5,049]

I don't mean to invoke the topic title, but is there a reason you chose bikini-clad women as the debate image? It doesn't seem explicitly related to the topic.

[TCK 2,164]

I don't mean to invoke the topic title, but is there a reason you chose bikini-clad women as the debate image? It doesn't seem explicitly related to the topic.

It was based on Krazychic's original debate suggestion - http://opencarnage.net/index.php?/topic/1457-topic-suggestions-and-history/?p=64232 Are rape victims responsible for provoking their attackers by wearing tight or revealing clothing? The reference to rape is in the debate description. I chose that portion for a picture because the other portion is about statements, which I doubted I could find an image to really illustrate (except a Hebdo cartoon which seems more graphic to be honest).

I added a specific reference to wearing tight or revealing clothes so people understand the connection.

My point in the Charlie Hebdo thread wasn't about keeping silent, it was about accepting the consequences of actions. You are free to call someone a "shit eating, asswipe", but you're not free from being decked in the face by them. 

People want to have their cake and eat it too, but that's not how things work. If you want to preserve free speech, you have to accept hateful speech and accept that there may be repercussions of that speech. 

...

If we're going to poke fun at radical zealots, NO ONE should be surprised when they start blowing shit up or shooting up places. Nothing more idiotic and infuriating than someone who touts freedom of speech, then doesn't have the sack to stand up for it, but instead hides cowering, when Baba Yaga comes for their ass.

Now, I agree that you should be prepared to defend yourself if it seems physical harm may be attempted on you. However I disagree that you have to accept there are repercussions for that speech; what you have to accept is that not everyone respects the line, that these are words and any more is too far, and prepare to defend yourself due to that. I would never say that physical attacks are repercussions for free speech, as then it's not free. Those actions can be predicted if you are responsible, but it doesn't mean that the person attacking is justified in his attack. He has the same freedom of speech you do, but instead of exercising it the way you are, he is choosing to escalate.

 

What nearly everyone forgets is that while Constitutional Rights or Human Rights in general are inalienable rights, those rights have to be protected and upheld, and that is done with the gun. 

Everyone wants to separate the Amendments, put them each in their own neat, little box. In the academic, that just seems so nice and orderly, but that's not how reality is. Each Amendment, in some way derives its power from another. I'm sure at one point or another everyone has heard the term "The Second grants all the others teeth", which is no lie.

While that's true, words aren't harm being done to you. Being unable to control your emotions and lashing out violently is simply improper. You are allowed to reasonably defend yourself from any attack, and the only attack occurring is a verbal or written one; so reasonable defense is a verbal or written one. It just so happens that the aggressor has the right to be aggressive in this context, while in a violent context only the defending party is justified.

 

Your average SJW or Soccer Mom doesn't grasp the fragility of our system, of not only governance, but the construct of constitutional/human rights. Paper and words only serve as a benchmark of those rights, they don't preserve or uphold them. Men willing to do violence on behalf of others are what preserves and uphold those rights.

Oh I believe they grasp the fragility; I believe they grasp it well enough to know that they can attack it without anyone doing them harm, because contrary to what they might say, they do realize that we as a people are generally responsible in comparison to many other peoples.

 

In modern society, things like "being offended" of speech has become the norm. Out of fear of "offending" someone, people trip over themselves trying to prevent it or prohibit it. In centuries past, even men of money and influence used offensive and vulgar language in public and private. While it is from a movie, it was common language of the time; On the floor of the Texas legislature, Gen. Sam Huston stated "I called you a Scottish catamite; that's one step up from assistant pederast!". If you know (or Google) what a "catamite" and "pederast" are, that's pretty damn offensive.

Wholly agreed that being a victim of others' opinions is far too popular.

 

My brother is the perfect example of someone who stood his ground for his rights and didn't back down.

What happened?

[Takka 13,376]

While that's true, words aren't harm being done to you. Being unable to control your emotions and lashing out violently is simply improper. You are allowed to reasonably defend yourself from any attack, and the only attack occurring is a verbal or written one; so reasonable defense is a verbal or written one. It just so happens that the aggressor has the right to be aggressive in this context, while in a violent context only the defending party is justified.

Words can have a very physical impact, and can be quite damaging. This should be apparent to anyone with experience online, where words make and break organizations as well as people on a regular basis. Words are information, and information is power.

[TCK 2,164]

Words can have a very physical impact, and can be quite damaging. This should be apparent to anyone with experience online, where words make and break organizations as well as people on a regular basis. Words are information, and information is power.

Well yes, but if the words are true then it's simply sharing of information; if they're false then it's slander, which I agree with being illegal.

 

If someone is sharing true information that paints you negatively, or a negative opinion they have of you without making up anything, the impact is irrelevant when it comes to how you're allowed to respond. And if it IS slander, you should respond legally. I understand the reality of emotions getting the better of us, which is why I said I support leniency in aggravated cases, but the crime is still unjust.

 

O lawdy, my stars are back. I actually did miss them.