The Anarchy of Offensive Speech

[DarkColoredLight]

I'd still rather have offensive speech edited rather than offensive words.

 

I believe, you can justify using offensive words to pack the punch of a valid and intact message. But, offensive speech, not using offensive words, hit's below the belt in most cases. Unless it's mutual, which it is rarly mutual. Meaning there is middle ground between the two and they are willing to understand, and come closer to, each other.

 

As an analogy, can person 1 justify stealing person 2's food, if person 1 leaves person 2 a gun?

Impling that person 2 should use the gun to steal something of value from person #. I say no.

Therefore, can person 1 justify robbing person 2 of their opinion, saying person 1's opinion is intact, which makes it right? Impling person 1 is then right about everything, and that person 2 is wrong about everything. Just because person 2's different opinion is not fully intact? Again I say no.

 

 

Am I speeking your language now? Or, should I come back a little later with a more sharpened sword?

 

The activist side of me says "BAN OFFENSIVE SPEECH!! ALLOW OFFENSIVE WORDS!!" But, the passivist side of me says "fsk the world."

[Buffy]

I'd still rather have offensive speech edited rather than offensive words.

I'd agree with you there! This has never been about the words: its about the way they are used to convey disrespect. It does not suit your goal of showing how the disenfranchised are unfairly oppressed by the evil overlords, and I'm probably wasting my time expecting you to come over to the middle ground, but I'll give it a shot...

I believe, you can justify using offensive words to pack the punch of a valid and intact message.

Exactly, and if you use offensive words in a valid but totally out of context message, you get people mad at you not because you used the words but because you disrespect them by rude interruption with irrelevant comments. In that sort of situation, the words have the same effect of making the rudeness *more extreme* and making the "speech more offensive."

 

Now, here's a *great* exampe of offensive speech:

Therefore, can person 1 justify robbing person 2 of their opinion, saying person 1's opinion is intact, which makes it right? Impling person 1 is then right about everything, and that person 2 is wrong about everything. Just because person 2's different opinion is not fully intact? Again I say no.

No offensive words there, but you've managed to say that making any argument against your opinions is "stealing them." The interesting thing about this is that this speech is both "offensive" because its calling people thieves for disagreeing with you, while in effect being a perfect example of "stealing an opinion!" :eek: Whoa! Cool! You've got some great talent here, I'd just love to see it used in a way that was less about trying to find fault with everyone who dares to disagree with you...

 

Meaning there is middle ground between the two and they are willing to understand, and come closer to, each other....Or, should I come back a little later with a more sharpened sword?

That's the dilemma: You can debate and discuss or you can resort to the sword. The latter shows the intolerance you seem to freely accuse others of unfairly wielding against you. Indeed, its important to note that sometimes the"middle ground" is not really the solution. Would you be happy with a "middle ground" between Martin Luther King and Hitler? No, sometimes these conflicts simply need to allow the two sides to continue to speak their beliefs, but recognize that the *market of ideas* can very efficiently weed out the extreme beliefs (much to the chagrin of the extremists!). I guess that's why extremists hate democratic institutions....

 

Everyone has a right to my opinion, :(

Buffy

[DarkColoredLight]

I'm probably wasting my time expecting you to come over to the middle ground, but I'll give it a shot...

Monkey see, monkey do.

I'd just love to see it used in a way that was less about trying to find fault with everyone who dares to disagree with you...

If I find and expose fault in others, then realize it's my own fault. Then that's a win win for me. It's up to them to do unto me as I have done unto them.

That's the dilemma: You can debate and discuss or you can resort to the sword.

Oh, but you assume I need the sword to be sharp. I want it sharp, and I want it with me. For defensive purposes and to prove a point. Point being, you might be listening, but you might not want to be understanding.

The latter shows the intolerance you seem to freely accuse others of unfairly wielding against you. Indeed, its important to note that sometimes the"middle ground" is not really the solution. Would you be happy with a "middle ground" between Martin Luther King and Hitler? No, sometimes these conflicts simply need to allow the two sides to continue to speak their beliefs, but recognize that the *market of ideas* can very efficiently weed out the extreme beliefs (much to the chagrin of the extremists!). I guess that's why extremists hate democratic institutions....

So if we put together the minds and methods of said persons, we cannot come to our own conclusion. Then, apply our conclusion to our own topics. Using heaven and hell, to make a better earth in my case. I believe that's called learning from the pasts.

Everyone has a right to my opinion, :(

Buffy

Everyone has a right to my opinion, :eek:

DCL

 

 

 

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

[Buffy]

Monkey see, monkey do.

Would ya call that an example of offensive speech?

Point being, you might be listening, but you might not want to be understanding.

Gee, ya might call that offensive too, but if you've been listening there's praise in here too. I actually really love some of what I understand from you. There are a few things--this thread is one of those--I disagree with you on. One of the points you make here is the *benefit* to society of those who challenge the conventional wisdom, and that's a good thing, but it *works a lot better* when you figure out how to *convince* as opposed to falling back on the "I'm right and if you don't like the way I say it its your problem."

Everyone has a right to my opinion, :eek:

DCL

Ooooh, be careful where you stick that thing! I'll just assume you got the sarcastic comment and I'll take the sharp poke from your sword. :eek2:

 

“Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed," :(

Buffy

[DarkColoredLight]

Would ya call that an example of offensive speech?

Just an expression, which I understand to mean in this situation; If I see you walking towards me, and know you're walking to meet me. Then, I will walk towards you. You know, to make your small journey smaller, giving you the opportunity to make your long journies last longer.

Gee, ya might call that offensive too, but if you've been listening there's praise in here too. I actually really love some of what I understand from you. There are a few things--this thread is one of those--I disagree with you on. One of the points you make here is the *benefit* to society of those who challenge the conventional wisdom, and that's a good thing, but it *works a lot better* when you figure out how to *convince* as opposed to falling back on the "I'm right and if you don't like the way I say it its your problem."

Truth be told. But, heard me out. Who is it helping if I shove my ideas down the throats of others, when they too have a mouth, possibly plate, possibly table, possibly house, possibly doorstop, possibly street, possibly world filled with the thoughts of others? I do, however, agree there has to be a better way. For me, as well as society as a whole. Maybe start giving them what they want, instead of food. Here goes another delema. But before I say my solution, I'll like to ask you want yours might be.

 

Ooooh, be careful where you stick that thing! I'll just assume you got the sarcastic comment and I'll take the sharp poke from your sword. :eek2:

Do unto others. :eek2:

“Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed," :(

Buffy

 

Well said, but what you hold in your hand is not nearly as strong as what you hold in your brain. :eek:

DCL

[DarkColoredLight]

Care to take over KAC?

 

My hunger for food, has spoke to my hunger for knowledge. And it said "GRRRR."

[IDMclean]

There is a difference of understanding, and desiring to understand, and as is often the case the desire to understand is found lacking.

 

take for example here at Hypography, one desires to understand Science, but one (or some) does (do) not wish to understand Metaphysics, Parascience, Parapsychology, Religion, and a number of other topics. This is their choice. One can but only speak the truth, all facts as they are known, and how they are recieved, if they are recieved is not up to the one whom speaks.

 

There is listening, grokking, and then there is tactful nodding. For subjects one doesn't have an interest in, or for which one already has a full formed oppinion regarding, the tactful nod is usually given, it is an untrue motion of curtesy, for social grace. I personally (speaking for no one else, and making no implications, merely stating what myself feels) find such things Offensive and choose for a more direct approach, not to alienate but simply to avoid Obfuscation.

 

I dislike lies and untruths. Most people I encounter immediately assume I am interested in being a jerk, however candor has suited me and is much more tolerable than the subtle psycho-drama of social grace.

[DarkColoredLight]

There is listening, grokking, and then there is tactful nodding. For subjects one doesn't have an interest in, or for which one already has a full formed oppinion regarding, the tactful nod is usually given, it is an untrue motion of curtesy, for social grace. I personally (speaking for no one else, and making no implications, merely stating what myself feels) find such things Offensive and choose for a more direct approach, not to alienate but simply to avoid Obfuscation.

 

I dislike lies and untruths. Most people I encounter immediately assume I am interested in being a jerk, however candor has suited me and is much more tolerable than the subtle psycho-drama of social grace.

 

My analogy for what was just said would be:

You and I think and act alike. I have no clue who you are, yet understand where you're coming from. Reason being you're coming from behind me. Not to say that I am coming before you, but that we have our backs to each other. I have chosen to turn around, and would like to speak with you "face to face" if you will.

 

The way I would say what you said would go something like this:

I would rather talk WITH someone that replies-to-understand, then someone that listens to reply. On the same note, I see benefit in speaking TO someone that can only hear. Along with walking away from someone that is speaking TO me, not wanting to talk WITH me.

 

There is a difference of understanding, and desiring to understand, and as is often the case the desire to understand is found lacking.

 

I'm sure there's a easy way to help people understand that they don't desire to understand. AIM=DarkColoredLight