💾 Archived View for zaibatsu.circumlunar.space › ~visiblink › phlog › 20190118 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Yargo wrote a great response[1] to my previous post[2] on discrimination, pointing out that in some cases ideas and viewpoints might not be changeable -- and that physical appearances might be. That's fair and really got me thinking about my own biases and preconceptions. In the end, I came to the conclusion that I prefer civil debate involving constructive criticism over ridicule. Commentary on appearances rarely involves the former. Even when it does involve what might be construed as constructive criticism at a superficial level, it's rarely intended that way -- and often has the effect of humiliating the subject. Then again, perhaps the same can often be said of the criticism of ideas, and I'll be watching for that more often now. I'm also interested in the preference for libertarian freedoms. I hear it stated a lot online, and I agree that freedom of speech is absolutely essential to constitutional democracies. But I don't believe that freedom of speech includes freedom from all consequences whatsoever. Should there be limits on free speech? I don't think so. There are real problems with determining who sets the limits and for what reasons. But there should be consequences for harmful malicious acts, whether they are the product of speech or otherwise. It shouldn't matter whether the acts are the product of speech or some physical action. For example, in the case mentioned in the National Post[3], it was alleged that the comedian's comments did actual harm to the child. While we should be free to state our opinions, we should also bear responsibility when it is proven that we have used that freedom to cause harm to others. That's a fine line to walk -- for both authorities and regulated populations -- and I guess that's why these kinds of issues become so controversial. Addendum: Yargo wrote in his post: "But then, if I think my opponent simply is dumb and not able to see The Truth, I should assume they did not choose their opinion, but it was forced upon them by their mental inability, and therefore it qualifies for the same 'protection' as their appearance." Since I'm sure that the capitalization of 'The Truth' was meant to undercut the concept of absolute truth, I don't think it's necessary to address that subject. The more pressing issue is that logically, I know that it _must_be_ _true_ that some people are mentally incapable of developing a reasoned opinion of their own. But when I begin to follow the many implications of that statement, I find myself straying into mental territory that I know was once occupied by eugenicists. Perhaps there are truths that are best pushed to the peripheries of consciousness. [1] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space/0/~yargo/clog/yr-joking-about-others.txt [2] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space/0/~visiblink/phlog/20190117 [3] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-comic-mike-ward-in-court-defending-joke-about-disabled-singer