Support NeoGAF

[ElNarez]

How do you not realise this is her point entirely. The left, which was once the bastion of free speech and tolerance, is normalising authoritarianism when it's discriminating against areas they feel should be discriminated against.

Yeah. I know.

I'm saying it's a terrible point that does not take into account the actual threat neo-nazis pose to, amongst other things, freedom of speech. Because neo-nazis are exactly the kind of authoritarians the piece tries to warn against.

 

[darkace]

Discouraging the spread of fascist, racist etc. views is a part of free speech, not normalizing authoritarianism.

No, protecting people from hate speech, incitement, vilification and violent racist/fascist attacks is a part of free spech. Restricting what people can say in a non-violent, non-inciteful way is not. Restricting the non-violent groups they can join is not.

Restricting the spread of non-violent racist views is just as legitimate as restricting the spread of intolerant non-violent Islamic views. The only difference is the target.

 

[JP_]

People keep bringing up this Australian law. If it's so bad, why couldn't she bring up any examples of it going too far? It didn't seem to stop her from doing anything.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

If I'm reading this right, infractions of the quoted part aren't even criminal offenses -- you'd just have a complaint filed.

To expand:

Bernardi and Leyonhjelm, and other campaigners for the rollback of 18C, tend to focus on the words “offend” and “insult” that form part of the key phrase in the legislation (“offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”). However, this approach misunderstands the harm threshold in 18C.

The courts have consistently held that the bar is not a low one. To fall within 18C the speech must have:

"… profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights."

In Eatock v Bolt the Federal Court explained:

"The definitions of “insult” and “humiliate” are closely connected to a loss of or lowering of dignity. The word “intimidate” is apt to describe the silencing consequences of the dignity denying impact of racial prejudice as well as the use of threats of violence. The word “offend” is potentially wider, but given the context, “offend” should be interpreted conformably with the words chosen as its partners."

Finally, there is another point that often gets lost in the debate over 18C. As far as legal regulation goes, the regime contained in the Racial Discrimination Act is one of the more modest forms of state intervention. The Human Rights Commission is a neutral facilitator, not an enforcer. And, wherever possible, the aim is to resolve things via conciliation.

Only a very small number of cases ever make their way to the court system. Even where a complaint is upheld, the remedies are hardly draconian. Damages are rarely awarded (and if they are, the amount is modest), and no-one is convicted or goes to prison – because 18C does not create a criminal offence.

http://theconversation.com/explaine...why-do-some-politicians-want-it-changed-64660

 

[metalslimer]

I'll also say that I heard this same language being thrown around by people angry that people were trying to get others to stop using gay as an insult or the word faggot. There certainly has to be a balance but in my estimation people standing up for themselves has done a lot more good for discourse than bad.

 

[Jintor]

When it gets to the point you're criticizing/discouraging fictional antagonists in novels based on what race they were written- it's gone too far.

If the discouragement was in the form of laws (darkace has raised some points for me to ponder on s18c despite my complete abhorrence of just about every part of Bolt), perhaps I'd agree with you. In terms of just people calling it out/shouting it down - whatever. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

 

[The Technomancer]

No, protecting people from hate speech, incitement, vilification and violent racist/fascist attacks is a part of free spech. Restricting what people can say in a non-violent, non-inciteful way is not. Restricting the non-violent groups they can join is not.

Restricting the spread of non-violent racist views is just as legitimate as restricting the spread of intolerant non-violent Islamic views. The only difference is the target.

Peaceful expression of racism contributes to a culture of violence towards the targets of racism. You can't look at the normalization of anti-Islamic speech and the rise of anti-Islamic violence in the US and say "total coincidence, that right there" surely?

 

[gwarm01]

The progressive movement (nb. word choice) has forgotten positivity. People should try engaging others with more than "you are a horrible person because..."

I absolutely agree. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone post an argument that I absolutely agree with but can't stand the elitist and aggressive nature in which it was made. It's the sort of attitude that alienates people and hurts your cause.

I don't even try to bring this point up because I've seen too many people get ganged up on by those who are all too eager to willfully misinterpret someone's message. Plus I'm too old to get caught up arguing online.

 

[MistakenMobius]

That is a break you start to see in Europe:
The new right wing is not nostalgic of the third reich anymore.
They are LGBT friendly
Some are progressive toward women right
Depending of the country are not particularly Catholic.

The European left is stuck between acknowledging that there is issue with migrants or saying that LGBT and women shouldn't provoke retrograde sensitivity of some people.

Edit : the messenger seems quite nasty though.

 

[aeolist]

To expand:




http://theconversation.com/explaine...why-do-some-politicians-want-it-changed-64660

oh hm look at that case law

it's almost as if pointing to the text itself is a red herring

weird

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Except the article is based on the author having very recently been embarrassed by criticism of their latest work.

This is a common pattern I've noticed:

1. Someone who thinks of themselves as "not racist" does something that maybe passed as "not racist" in the 90s but in 2016 is tone deaf at best.

2. Said person gets pushback on the racist thing they did.

3. Said person turns around and accuses the left of censorship instead of taking the time to be reflective and apologize.

This is just another example of that.

Yep. Being progressive means actually progressing. We can debate if we're actually doing that, but having to coddle people who haven't grown out of '90s diet racism and stereotypical stubbornness toward minority issues is frustrating.

 

[ClosingADoor]

this is exactly what i'm talking about. people don't have a problem with white writers putting black characters in their books, they had a problem with her particular book having a bunch of shitty racist caricatures. that's a different thing and the context is important.

if she wanted to point out some brand of ridiculous millenial hypersensitivity maybe she should have chosen an example of a well-written empathetic black character from a white writer who actually saw some meaningful negative consequence for writing them, but i'm guessing that's a tough ask.

"people yell at me on twitter" isn't going to inspire much sympathy with me. this happens across all age groups and political affiliations and none of it has much of an effect on the real world.

again, there's maybe a point to be made here. mob mentality and harassment are real problems in social media but that's not what she's talking about.

please provide examples of this 30 year old law limiting speech and why it's the fault of 20 year old leftists.

Like I said, I agree with some of it, not all. I agree with the idea that you don't have to come from the exact background you are talking about. Abdel-Magied in his piece - which this one is a reply to mostly - he says it is not always OK to write about minority characters, because those minorities don't get to have their own say. Instead of then saying "don't write about this" we should give more minority writers a podium to actually have their say. The solution is not to go on social media and complain about the text of a privileged writer, the larger issue is that other writer doesn't get the chance to put a book in the spotlight.

Now I'm not going to excuse her of writing shitty characters. I haven't read the book, so I can't even form a total opinion on it one way or the other.

As for social media outrage, you say it has no impact. That is just false. People "yelling" at Twitter certainly has an impact. There are people behind the screens who read that. And I don't think social media outrage put in 140 characters has any way of making a good argument, so it just becomes yelling and hating without an actual argument of substance being voiced.

A law can be faulty even if it is not used. Because it gives an opening to use it. Where is the line for what to say then, who decides what is offensive. That is mostly a subjective thing, so how do I make a decision about that as a judge. There shouldn't be laws about being offensive, it makes no sense.

 

[aeolist]

I absolutely agree. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone post an argument that I absolutely agree with but can't stand the elitist and aggressive nature in which it was made. It's the sort of attitude that alienates people and hurts your cause.

I don't even try to bring this point up because I've seen too many people get ganged up on by those who are all too eager to willfully misinterpret someone's message. Plus I'm too old to get caught up arguing online.

for me the process of maturation has included the gradual understanding that i don't have to particularly like people i agree with ideologically, nor must i dislike people with whom i disagree.

also coming to the understanding that my own anecdotal experiences do not constitute a trend and shouldn't be extrapolated to cover the entirety of political discourse. just because i see some leftist being a shit on the internet doesn't mean that's a systemic problem with leftism.

 

[jakonovski]

Yep. Being progressive means actually progressing. We can debate if we're actually doing that, but having to coddle people who haven't grown out of '90s diet racism and stereotypical stubbornness toward minority issues is frustrating.

I agree with the general sentiment, but this post includes both the question and the answer. It's not a call for debate, it's a laying down of rules. Which of course doesn't work on the internet, hence everything.

 

[darkace]

Peaceful expression of racism contributes to a culture of violence towards the targets of racism. You can't look at the normalization of anti-Islamic speech and the rise of anti-Islamic violence in the US and say "total coincidence, that right there" surely?

The problem is this can be expanded to everything. Are we criminalising the Deep South evangelicals for their homophobic views? Are we criminalising large portions of rural states for their xenophobic views?

These views undoubtedly propagate hatred and violence, where exactly are we drawing the line once we start criminalising viewpoints? We've crossed over incitement, violence, vilification, etc. into the realm of essentially legislating morality with insults and offence. Are the more radical Black Lives Matter protesters going to be criminalised?

There's no doubt that neo-nazis are vile. The alt-right is awful. But are they more or less awful than a government that tells us what we are allowed to be insulted by?

 

[JoeyJungle]

No. The left isn't calling for people to be arrested for saying things that are insensitive. They're just making it known that it won't be idly tolerated as the norm anymore. If you say something insensitive without attempting to understand why it's wrong or offering any remorse people on the left are going to publicly regard you as an asshole, because you're an asshole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/u...otesters-block-journalists-press-freedom.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-some-students-said-they-no-longer-feel-safe/

I think you're downplaying how significant this movement is and the possible effects on free speech (in the sense of freedom to have open inquiry and discussion for the purpose of understanding and expanding your views without being harassed for asking questions you don't understand to be inappropriate or understanding that your views are inappropriate but not knowing why, and looking to clarify and shift your own views, especially in a university setting where those things should be encouraged, without a fear of mob harassment. Not in the legal sense of free speech) and freedom of the press. Things like the name of a presidential nominee and the year of the election, or just covering protests, are being criticized as endangering people's right to be safe.

 

[xevis]

I'm oppressed because I can't oppress others anymore, damned leftists! What about freeze peach!

Right? Why can't we be free to demean and hate others with our speech? Waaah.

 

[Angelus Errare]

The progressive movement (nb. word choice) has forgotten positivity. People should try engaging others with more than "you are a horrible person because..."

Minorities have no obligation to coddle, educate, and empathize with people who refuse to step out their echo chamber/comfort zone while they the minorities are constantly in a state of discomfort due to the complete insensitivity and most times purposeful maliciousness of others. I'm of the mindset of calling people for what they are and going about my day. No thanks so the role of coddler, educator, empathiser. Definitively not on that magical negro shit

Also way too many people don't understand what freedom of speech is to be having this discussion. Government isn't rounding people up for being racist otherwise Trump wouldn't be running for President. You're free to be a twat, difference is minorities and others no longer have to take it, we can now criticize you and tell you to fuck off. The irony that people are offended by that isn't lost on me however.

 

[JP_]

I have a feeling she wouldn't have been criticized for writing her minority characters if she didn't write them so badly. The Get Down is about the birth of hip hop but wasn't created by black people, yet you don't see any real controversy over it. This myth that white people can't write minority characters is just something she's inventing in her head in response to people criticizing her characters.

 

[thegoosen]

That is a break you start to see in Europe:
The new right wing is not nostalgic of the third reich anymore.
They are LGBT friendly
Some are progressive toward women right
Depending of the country are not particularly Catholic.

The European left is stuck between acknowledging that there is issue with migrants or saying that LGBT and women shouldn't provoke retrograde sensitivity of some people.

An interesting new right wing you are talking about, I must live in a different Yurop.

 

[dave is ok]

Right? Why can't we be free to demean and hate others with our speech? Waaah.

So what you're saying is that every fictional depiction of a non-white character must be 100% positive or its oppression?

 

[MistakenMobius]

An interesting new right wing you are talking about, I must live in a different Yurop.

Well look at Front National, how Marine Lepen got rid of the old racist fart.

She is probably closer to the old PCF that a right wing party.

 

[Mr. X]

So what you're saying is that every fictional depiction of a non-white character must be 100% positive or its oppression?

Hello, I would like you to not be dense.

 

[ClosingADoor]

An interesting new right wing you are talking about, I must live in a different Yurop.

Right wing movements vary a lot between European countries. He pretty much described Geert Wilders and his platform there.

 

[Kin5290]

So what you're saying is that every fictional depiction of a non-white character must be 100% positive or its oppression?

No, but if 100% of your non-white characters are tired racial stereotypes and you write about a black woman being led around by a white man on a fucking leash, you may have some problems.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You literally cannot discuss the piece without the context of the author's previous work. It entirely informs their perspective

This is nonsense. The argument is either correct, on its own merits, or not. The writer may have stumbled into said correctness via dart-tossing, and not by consistent application of logic and reason, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this piece, taken on its own merits, makes a cogent argument or not.

And yes, "cultural appropriation" and related concepts have absolutely been weaponized by parts of the left to try and constrain expression in the name of protecting authenticity and inclusion. There are undoubtedly censorious strains of thought in modern social justice circles, heavily politicized notions of how certain kinds of characters or cultures "should" be represented and who has the right to even employ such stories in their work. And yes, it is absolutely antithetical to true creativity, even if this particular author is not the best avatar for that argument (I have not read their work, only the representations of it posted within this thread, so cannot comment).

 

[JoeyJungle]

have no obligation to coddle, educate, and empathize with people who refuse to step out their echo chamber/comfort zone

I feel like this is how both sides feel about this, which makes any type of understanding pretty impossible unless you're already in one of the echo chambers.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I think the biggest problem is that people forget that these people can be just ignored.

Hundreds of people tweeting at you about how offended they are at what you are doing? Ignore them and block the most offensive ones.

Just because people have a voice, doesn't mean you need to give a fuck about what they say. Do what you need to do and KIM.

 

[Kimawolf]

No. The left isn't calling for people to be arrested for saying things that are insensitive. They're just making it known that it won't be idly tolerated as the norm anymore. If you say something insensitive without attempting to understand why it's wrong or offering any remorse people on the left are going to publicly regard you as an asshole, because you're an asshole.

Not arrested just whipping up hate/internet harassment mobs to enforce their sensibilities on almost any for of art they find offensive.

I have said it before in threads and was accused of being some kind of right winger, even to the point where I felt like a mob was after me (im a pretty liberal guy too btw). the funny thing is 20, 30 years ago it was conservatives on that train. Who were the,thought police, wanting to shout down speech ans stuff they did not like. Hell half the replies on the first page go into attacks, not discussion. And that IS the tactics the milenials use.

No discussion, no debate, just nonsensical name calling and online borderline harassmsnt witch hunts in the name of righteousness. Its very much if you are not with me on EVERYTHING then you obviously are my enemy.

 

[The Technomancer]

I feel like this is how both sides feel about this, which makes any type of understanding pretty impossible unless you're already in one of the echo chambers.

Or you learn, as I did, to shut up and listen when people with different experiences than you talk about their experience. This seriously is not actually that hard. The amount of effort required to listen to black people when they say "hey look, this major black character in a TV show is pretty racist" is laughably little

 

[The Technomancer]

This is nonsense. The argument is either correct, on its own merits, or not. The writer may have stumbled into said correctness via dart-tossing, and not by consistent application of logic and reason, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this piece, taken on its own merits, makes a cogent argument or not.
.

This argument is not a set of logical deductions or a mathematical paper. Its a response to the author's perception of a set of events. "Correctness" here is not measured by application of scientific method, but by how we also interpret those events

 

[Cyanity]

ITT: Gen Xers who don't understand millenials

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Not arrested just whipping up hate/internet harassment mobs to enforce their sensibilities on almost any for of art they find offensive.

I have said it before in threads and was accused of being some kind of right winger, even to the point where I felt like a mob was after me (im a pretty liberal guy too btw). the funny thing is 20, 30 years ago it was conservatives on that train. Who were the,thought police, wanting to shout down speech ans stuff they did not like. Hell half the replies on the first page go into attacks, not discussion. And that IS the tactics the milenials use.

No discussion, no debate, just nonsensical name calling and online borderline harassmsnt witch hunts in the name of righteousness. Its very much if you are not with me on EVERYTHING then you obviously are my enemy.

There is plenty of discussion and debate going on here.

I think you guys don't see the contradictions now going the other other way. It's fair to point out the author's history with the public rightly criticizing this book which is the root of everything the author is saying.

ITT: Gen Xers who don't understand millenials

LOL nailed it.

Young liberals are already over identity politics. They want to dismantle capitalism now. You guys are like adults talking about kids lingo that's already dated by the time you hear about it.

 

[CoolZombie360]

The progressive movement (nb. word choice) has forgotten positivity. People should try engaging others with more than "you are a horrible person because..."

Nail. Head. I've got to say that my observation is that so many people just want to shout everyone down for things they say, dog piling on them and sometimes without all the facts even being present. Extremely judgmental and holier than thou, no positivity in life at all. It is very draining, and seems to be happening more and more often.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

That is a break you start to see in Europe:
The new right wing is not nostalgic of the third reich anymore.
They are LGBT friendly
Some are progressive toward women right
Depending of the country are not particularly Catholic.

The European left is stuck between acknowledging that there is issue with migrants or saying that LGBT and women shouldn't provoke retrograde sensitivity of some people.

Edit : the messenger seems quite nasty though.

I don't really think this is true.
If one scratches but a little on the far right you find homophobia and anti LGTBQ statements.

 

[aeolist]

This argument is not a set of logical deductions or a mathematical paper. Its a response to the author's perception of a set of events. "Correctness" here is not measured by application of scientific method, but by how we also interpret those events

it is also literally just "this one thing happened to me, also here's a law i don't like" followed by a dozen paragraphs of extremely generalized bitching with no solid points or examples

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Nail. Head. I've got to say that my observation is that so many people just want to shout everyone down for things they say, dog piling on them and sometimes without all the facts even being present. Extremely judgmental and holier than thou, no positivity in life at all. It is very draining, and seems to be happening more and more often.

You don't see these people when they're around friends.

 

[JoeyJungle]

Or you learn, as I did, to shut up and listen when people with different experiences than you talk about their experience. This seriously is not actually that hard. The amount of effort required to listen to black people when they say "hey look, this major black character in a TV show is pretty racist" is laughably little

I don't really understand what scenario you're talking about anymore. You're basically saying that if someone doesn't understand the perspective you have, you should just tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up until they share your point of view. That's not very persuasive.

This argument is not a set of logical deductions or a mathematical paper. Its a response to the author's perception of a set of events. "Correctness" here is not measured by application of scientific method, but by how we also interpret those events

I mean he's making an argument, if you disagree with it then you can have a rebuttal relevant to the argument he's making instead of taking offense to other unrelated things he's said.

 

[deli2000]

Nail. Head. I've got to say that my observation is that so many people just want to shout everyone down for things they say, dog piling on them and sometimes without all the facts even being present. Extremely judgmental and holier than thou, no positivity in life at all. It is very draining, and seems to be happening more and more often.

"I hate people casting judgments about people they don't know!"

*proceeds to cast blanket judgement on the entire progressive movement*

ok.

 

[MistakenMobius]

I don't really think this is true.
If one scratches but a little on the far right you find homophobia and anti LGTBQ statements.

There is a lot of far right people that hate LGBT people, there is no denying in that, but a lot of the new far right movement (in Western Europe) are much less malignant on this:
The NVA in Belgium has a gay pride presence.
PVV is campaigning on LGBT rights.
Same for some of the Scandinavian.
But it's true where the far right is linked to Catholicism, they will not change soon.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't really understand what scenario you're talking about anymore. You're basically saying that if someone doesn't understand the perspective you have, you should just tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up until they share your point of view. That's not very persuasive.

See, you're not listening. It really isn't hard, like he says. You just immediately come back with this angry, stubborn mess.

 

[JoeyJungle]

See, you're not listening. It really isn't hard, like he says. You just immediately come back with this angry, stubborn mess.

I really don't understand what I'm not hearing. I'm not angry at all. Please discuss with me.

 

[Adam_Vania]

feel like most of this is, before the internet, nobody really paid attention to college kids, now that we have instant communication, everyone knows what everyone else is doing, and that one ridiculous scandal at that one policy department that would have previously just been another thing you never heard about becomes national news and evidence of some massive shift that is not really there.

 

[Trojita]

Ironically, only fellow liberals will be cowed by terror of being branded a racist (a pejorative lobbed at me in recent days — one that, however groundless, tends to stick). But there’s still such a thing as a real bigot, and a real misogynist. In obsessing over micro-aggressions like the sin of uttering the commonplace Americanism “you guys” to mean “you all,” activists persecute fellow travelers who already care about equal rights.

lol this isn't true at all. I see people on the right absolutely bewildered when someone calls them what they are.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't really understand what scenario you're talking about anymore. You're basically saying that if someone doesn't understand the perspective you have, you should just tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up until they share your point of view. That's not very persuasive.

I'm saying that if someone is ignorant the onus is on them to seek out and learn, or at the very least be open minded, not on the people who actually have to deal with shit. Recognize that if you're a straight person you don't actually know much about what living as a queer person in our society is like. Recognize that as a white person you don't actually know much about what the modern black life is like. Hell, recognize as a black person that you don't fully understand what the modern asian life is like, and visa versa. But when people say "hey this thing is offensive for these reasons" don't just reflexively shut down with "WHAT NO I MADE A PERFECT THING YOU'RE WRONG I'M NOT A BAD PERSON" which is what this author seems to be doing

I mean he's making an argument, if you disagree with it then you can have a rebuttal relevant to the argument he's making instead of taking offense to other unrelated things he's said.

But its not unrelated at all. This topic in question is entirely founded on people's experiences, and this piece is founded on the author's experience

 

[aeolist]

I mean he's making an argument, if you disagree with it then you can have a rebuttal relevant to the argument he's making instead of taking offense to other unrelated things he's said.

"you're not reading the article or responding to its claims!" *misgenders the author*

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I really don't understand what I'm not hearing. I'm not angry at all. Please discuss with me.

Listening doesn't mean just shutting the fuck up, though that's a huge part of it that most people can't do anyway for some reason. Stepping out of your comfort zone means recognizing arguments and opinions you don't like could be coming from an informed, logical place that you just can't see because you don't have the same life experience.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

it is also literally just "this one thing happened to me, also here's a law i don't like" followed by a dozen paragraphs of extremely generalized bitching with no solid points or examples

Indeed.
The thing about threads like this is that we are having a debate about the debate.
And i hate this meta BS that is going around.

People bitch about identity politics and say it is censorship with out first giving a solid example of how someone was supposedly censored.
I would like to know if this supposedly "assault on free speech by the authorian/regressive left" actually has stopped ANYONE from creating any kind of culture?
How do people confuse criticism with censorship?

There is a lot of far right people that hate LGBT people, there is no denying in that, but a lot of the new far right movement (in Western Europe) are much less malignant on this:
The NVA in Belgium has a gay pride presence.
PVV is campaigning on LGBT rights.
Same for some of the Scandinavian.
But it's true where the far right is linked to Catholicism, they will not change soon.

In Sweden we have racists who try and pink wash but if one digs deeper you see that it is just a facade.

 

[jakonovski]

"you're not reading the article or responding to its claims!" *misgenders the author*

One of the things I learned today is that Lionel Shriver changed her name because male authors are taken more seriously.

 

[spekkeh]

Where are you getting this conjecture from? I'd say it's the reverse.

No conjecture. Science.

"We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000," said Sara Konrath, a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research. "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait."

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7724-empathy-college-students-don-t-have-as-much-as-they-used-to

 

[Cyanity]

Some of y'all in here have no clue how Millenials actually act or think in real life. But go ahead, keep casting your false perceptions onto an entire generation as if they're all the same type of person.