Announcement

**Elok** · August 29, 2015, 13:50

Returning to your points, I do think outright banning offensive speech will cause harm over the long term. You've established the precedent that, even in the absence of immediate danger, a hostile point of view may be silenced by force. At present, I assume, that can only be done in particular circumstances. What is to keep that set of circumstances from expanding? Because the ability to declare an argument over by fiat once the opponent crosses a certain line is a potent weapon, and people are going to be tempted to use it whenever it's an option. And when the objection is couched in moral terms, that only doubles its potency, because nothing I can think of shuts down rational argument half so fast as moral indignation.

For example, this article has been making waves in some circles lately. TLDR version: the tendency to recast offensive or even discomforting speech as a form of violence is undermining American universities' mission to encourage free inquiry. I don't know how things stand in Britain, as I've never been there. Perhaps other cultural factors will keep such a mentality at bay. But it's already making mischief here.

**giblets** · August 29, 2015, 14:13

Content advisories for media are nothing new. How exactly is a "trigger warning" so different from warning someone that a movie or video games contains violence or nudity? (Other than its intention to warn a minority with psychological trauma in advance instead of catering to conservatives who want their standards of what's obscene to have some sort of official recognition).

**Sava** · August 29, 2015, 14:28

Originally posted by Elok View Post

Returning to your points, I do think outright banning offensive speech will cause harm over the long term. You've established the precedent that, even in the absence of immediate danger, a hostile point of view may be silenced by force. At present, I assume, that can only be done in particular circumstances. What is to keep that set of circumstances from expanding? Because the ability to declare an argument over by fiat once the opponent crosses a certain line is a potent weapon, and people are going to be tempted to use it whenever it's an option. And when the objection is couched in moral terms, that only doubles its potency, because nothing I can think of shuts down rational argument half so fast as moral indignation.

For example, this article has been making waves in some circles lately. TLDR version: the tendency to recast offensive or even discomforting speech as a form of violence is undermining American universities' mission to encourage free inquiry. I don't know how things stand in Britain, as I've never been there. Perhaps other cultural factors will keep such a mentality at bay. But it's already making mischief here.

harmful speech is already banned and your stupid anti-PC sky hasn't fallen

you can't say fire in a theater because it could cause a disturbance that could threaten human life

same principle applies to yelling ****** in the ghetto, or the movie theater, or a restaurant, or school

you dumb ****

so **** off

eat ****

and do it again, i dunnno

maybe you are beyond help

**Sava** · August 29, 2015, 14:32

**** your ideas

oh oh oh what will this mean if it is banned? OMG 1984obama deathcamp

stupid moron

**Elok** · August 29, 2015, 14:42

Sava, I can guess without looking what you just posted: BIGOT blah blah HATE blah blah UNCHRISTIAN TOOL PIECE OF **** blah blah. Not going to bother reading it, though it's an excellent example of how reframing someone else's POV as violence can be a handy excuse for not engaging it. At this point, however, our cup runneth over with examples. You can stop anytime.

Originally posted by giblets View Post

Content advisories for media are nothing new. How exactly is a "trigger warning" so different from warning someone that a movie or video games contains violence or nudity? (Other than its intention to warn a minority with psychological trauma in advance instead of catering to conservatives who want their standards of what's obscene to have some sort of official recognition).

As the article itself notes, repeated exposure to triggers in a safe environment is actually desirable to extinguish the reaction. Article also notes that the mere possibility that someone might feel "unsafe" as a result of exposure to unpleasant ideas can be used to banish said ideas from the classroom or campus entirely. And has been, with multiple examples cited.

**giblets** · August 29, 2015, 14:56

1. They're supposed to be exposed to triggers gradually- if someone's afraid of elevators you would start by having them look at an elevator, and wait until looking at an elevator is normal and their brain stops associating the sight of elevators with trauma before moving to the next step, you wouldn't just shove them into an elevator and force them to ride it before they're ready. If someone provides warnings about possibly triggering content that doesn't mean they're saying people with PTSD should avoid exposure to triggers as much as possible.

2. I'm not going to bother with dissecting the anecdotes in the article you linked to because I don't think it's worth the time and effort.

**Elok** · August 29, 2015, 15:27

1. I can sort of see, but if you're still so raw about it that you lose it at a passing mention of the subject, you probably aren't ready to be a student. I don't mean that as a "get it together, pansy" thing, but that sounds like someone who still needs substantial therapy.

2. Okay, but I don't know what you expect to get out of this conversation.

**Sava** · August 29, 2015, 15:52

1. There are laws on the books against this sort of thing already. "fighting words law". No harm in refining the laws to include other harmful speech that threatens public safety.

2. Nothing. You have to choose to be a good person. I can't shame you into it.

**Sava** · August 29, 2015, 15:53

Originally posted by Elok View Post

Sava, I can guess without looking what you just posted: BIGOT blah blah HATE blah blah UNCHRISTIAN TOOL PIECE OF **** blah blah. Not going to bother reading it, though it's an excellent example of how reframing someone else's POV as violence can be a handy excuse for not engaging it. At this point, however, our cup runneth over with examples. You can stop anytime.

As the article itself notes, repeated exposure to triggers in a safe environment is actually desirable to extinguish the reaction. Article also notes that the mere possibility that someone might feel "unsafe" as a result of exposure to unpleasant ideas can be used to banish said ideas from the classroom or campus entirely. And has been, with multiple examples cited.

Your own words are the evidence against you. **** for brains.

We can all read even if you have trouble.

You think I'm gonna sit here and listen to your **** and not call you what you are?

You are even dumber than I thought.

**I AM I AM MOBIUS** · August 29, 2015, 15:56