"Hatespeech" = "Newspeak"?

[schmuckley]

New terms..mind control.Of course Orwell's "1984" is fiction..no? What do you think?
Is "HateSpeech" a form of "Newspeak"?


Someone posted this link and I noticed some striking similarities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
"Newspeak"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
"Hatespeech"

 

[Newbian]

We need a third option for "What?".

 

[Soundmanred]

If I could never think about how there are always more about the way I find to be, there will truly be many times over.

 

[schmuckley]

We need a third option for "What?".

You have to read the link..

 

[fskimospy]

Newspeak was a government attempt to limit the range of possible human thought. At least in the US, the government does not prohibit hate speech.

People condemning hate speech is just that, condemning ideas they find to be reprehensible. When you freely express shitty ideas one of the consequences of that is that people might tell you that your ideas are shitty.

 

[Doppel]

Newspeak was a government attempt to limit the range of possible human thought. At least in the US, the government does not prohibit hate speech.

People condemning hate speech is just that, condemning ideas they find to be reprehensible. When you freely express shitty ideas one of the consequences of that is that people might tell you that your ideas are shitty.

The people do it themselves, in deference to some authority even if it is not readily identifiable. Case in point n1gger, a word that cannot even be used now when explaining to somebody not to say it. It is now just the N-word.

The power of shaping thought through not the content of language--the message it is innately portraying--but rather the simple words that are used to invoke a visceral reaction is undeniable, and very nefarious. My favorite political term these days is "common-sense" when used preceding talk of some kind of reform. It means nothing, but to then argue against that reform you're arguing against common sense even if the reform is objectively nothing of the sort.

The OP's poll is not all that well constructed but I voted yes anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

The people do it themselves, in deference to some authority even if it is not readily identifiable. Case in point n1gger, a word that cannot even be used now when explaining to somebody not to say it. It is now just the N-word.

The power of shaping thought through not the content of language--the message it is innately portraying--but rather the simple words that are used to invoke a visceral reaction is undeniable, and very nefarious. My favorite political term these days is "common-sense" when used preceding talk of some kind of reform. It means nothing, but to then argue against that reform you're arguing against common sense even if the reform is objectively nothing of the sort.

The OP's poll is not all that well constructed but I voted yes anyway.

People can and do use that word on a daily basis.

Racial and ethnic slurs exist explicitly to express certain thoughts that a large percentage if people find objectionable. You are not prevented from expressing those thoughts, but your seeming expectation that you should be able to express them without consequence appears to be simply exchanging the freedom of expression of others for your own.

 

[FerrelGeek]

People can and do use that word on a daily basis.

Racial and ethnic slurs exist explicitly to express certain thoughts that a large percentage if people find objectionable. You are not prevented from expressing those thoughts, but your seeming expectation that you should be able to express them without consequence appears to be simply exchanging the freedom of expression of others for your own.

That's all well and good, but you know bloody well that if I walked down to the local hood and started yelling the N word, the consequences to me would be far more disastrous than if G went for a stroll in a lily white neighborhood shouting crackah bich. And if G did have something bad happen to him, the media would run to G's aid vs mine.

Sorry about the hastily crafted post. Gotta run to a meeting.

 

[dank69]

Your threads are just as stupid as your posts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

People can and do use that word on a daily basis.

Racial and ethnic slurs exist explicitly to express certain thoughts that a large percentage if people find objectionable. You are not prevented from expressing those thoughts, but your seeming expectation that you should be able to express them without consequence appears to be simply exchanging the freedom of expression of others for your own.

That people are materially punished for expressing their thoughts however distasteful exists. Condemnation? Sure Punishment? I disagree. Should I be able to harm you as an expression of my freedom?

 

[poofyhairguy]

I voted yes. As George Carlin once said:

""...some people don't like you to talk like that. Some people want to shut you up for saying those things. You know, lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk, tell you want you can't talk about."

 

[fskimospy]

That people are materially punished for expressing their thoughts however distasteful exists. Condemnation? Sure Punishment? I disagree. Should I be able to harm you as an expression of my freedom?

Punishment by whom? The government doesn't punish you for it.

Is firing someone punishment? If I employ someone who routinely spouts hate speech why should I continue to have to employ someone who attacks my customers? Is not hiring someone punishment? If so, why should I be forced to hire someone who will make my business associated with ideas I find reprehensible? If I am, how is that not sacrificing my freedom?

What other sorts of material punishment were you thinking of? Of course I can do people material harm as an expression of my freedom. I don't have to employ people who do things I don't like, I don't have to purchase things from companies I don't like. I can openly expose someone's reprehensible behavior to public scorn, which will likely result in material harm to them, etc. All of those things are perfectly good expressions of my freedom and all of them would likely harm another person.

 

[thraashman]

This thread is sounding an awful lot like a bunch of white people who are mad they can't freely use the N-word without consequence. And eskimospy who's actually making sense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Punishment by whom? The government doesn't punish you for it.

Is firing someone punishment? If I employ someone who routinely spouts hate speech why should I continue to have to employ someone who attacks my customers? Is not hiring someone punishment? If so, why should I be forced to hire someone who will make my business associated with ideas I find reprehensible? If I am, how is that not sacrificing my freedom?

What other sorts of material punishment were you thinking of? Of course I can do people material harm as an expression of my freedom. I don't have to employ people who do things I don't like, I don't have to purchase things from companies I don't like. I can openly expose someone's reprehensible behavior to public scorn, which will likely result in material harm to them, etc. All of those things are perfectly good expressions of my freedom and all of them would likely harm another person.

You are fired.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread is sounding an awful lot like a bunch of white people who are mad they can't freely use the N-word without consequence. And eskimospy who's actually making sense.

You're fired for drawing racist conclusions.

 

[fskimospy]

You are fired.

I'm going to assume that you realize your point isn't really supportable on the merits then?

 

[TreVader]

We need a third option for "What?".

+1

 

[TreVader]

That's all well and good, but you know bloody well that if I walked down to the local hood and started yelling the N word, the consequences to me would be far more disastrous than if G went for a stroll in a lily white neighborhood shouting crackah bich. And if G did have something bad happen to him, the media would run to G's aid vs mine.

Sorry about the hastily crafted post. Gotta run to a meeting.

Actually the dumbest analogy ever. Were your ancestors enslaved for hundreds of years... raped and abused, hanged, beaten, and exploited and still thought of as less than another race TO THIS DAY in a large majority of the south? All the while being called the word "cracker".


The analogy that cracker = n1gger is ridiculous. One word has a centuries long history of being used to subjugate and marginalize another race, the other is just a stupid word.



/thread

 

[TreVader]

It is so funny that the OP has to cloak his true intentions in some ridiculous pantomime of a serious issue with an orwellian overlord taking away your rights. In reality, you just like to call black people n1ggers and you are upset that you would get your a$$ BEAT if you did it in their presence.


Guess what, too f*cking bad.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Punishment by whom? The government doesn't punish you for it.

Is firing someone punishment? If I employ someone who routinely spouts hate speech why should I continue to have to employ someone who attacks my customers? Is not hiring someone punishment? If so, why should I be forced to hire someone who will make my business associated with ideas I find reprehensible? If I am, how is that not sacrificing my freedom?

What other sorts of material punishment were you thinking of? Of course I can do people material harm as an expression of my freedom. I don't have to employ people who do things I don't like, I don't have to purchase things from companies I don't like. I can openly expose someone's reprehensible behavior to public scorn, which will likely result in material harm to them, etc. All of those things are perfectly good expressions of my freedom and all of them would likely harm another person.

Anyway.

The basic difference between us is that you are more authoritarian and I more towards classical liberalism. I believe that because a person holds power should not enable hold those of lesser influence as effective inferiors. You seem to do so. You can choose to not buy something, but you don't have the power to force them to do what you do not want, a distinction you seem to miss. Whether it is government or business doesn't matter for this discussion. And I'm not going to dance on the edge of a teacup saying "******, ******, ******" over and over in a place of business is acceptable, because MY sensibilities aren't the one's being affected, but co-workers, clients and customers are almost certainly going to be offended and that affects more than my personal sensibilities, and there is room for discussion for what limits there might be, but you seem to argue, again from an authoritarian POV that power enables one to harm another just because. I disagree. If I don't like Obama I shouldn't be able to fire you for not voting for his opponent, or because you didn't donate or because you have a bumper sticker on your car. I don't think you or anyone else should be able to use Facebook or other social media and fire them because they said something I didn't like. You argue freedom, but for those with authority and power. Everyone else suck it up.

In the end that's what the idea of newspeak is all about. A way of creating a uniformity of thought. The concept goes way beyond government. Orwell's systemic approach to culling out thought those whom in charge did not like is dependent on power and authority, and those are NOT limited to government. Everyone is free, as long as they do it the way I tell them or I'll make them suffer. Not my idea of a society worth having.

 

[Incorruptible]

This hatespeech is BS. It's just used by liberals when they oppose something so they can shut down the debate. Gotta love the hypocrisy where they rail for free speech but want to shut down those who oppose them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm going to assume that you realize your point isn't really supportable on the merits then?

I elaborated on that just now. There was a point, but you apparently missed it, and that would be that if you worked for me and I found what you posted, my freedom would be inhibited by my not being able to fire you if you said something I found offensive. I would be your master by the rules you set up.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyway.

The basic difference between us is that you are more authoritarian and I more towards classical liberalism. I believe that because a person holds power should not enable hold those of lesser influence as effective inferiors. You seem to do so. You can choose to not buy something, but you don't have the power to force them to do what you do not want, a distinction you seem to miss. Whether it is government or business doesn't matter for this discussion. And I'm not going to dance on the edge of a teacup saying "******, ******, ******" over and over in a place of business is acceptable, because MY sensibilities aren't the one's being affected, but co-workers, clients and customers are almost certainly going to be offended and that affects more than my personal sensibilities, and there is room for discussion for what limits there might be, but you seem to argue, again from an authoritarian POV that power enables one to harm another just because. I disagree. If I don't like Obama I shouldn't be able to fire you for not voting for his opponent, or because you didn't donate or because you have a bumper sticker on your car. I don't think you or anyone else should be able to use Facebook or other social media and fire them because they said something I didn't like. You argue freedom, but for those with authority and power. Everyone else suck it up.

In the end that's what the idea of newspeak is all about. A way of creating a uniformity of thought. The concept goes way beyond government. Orwell's systemic approach to culling out thought those whom in charge did not like is dependent on power and authority, and those are NOT limited to government. Everyone is free, as long as they do it the way I tell them or I'll make them suffer. Not my idea of a society worth having.

What's funny is that your argument is actually the authoritarian one, and real believers in classical liberalism would be highly offended by your idea.

As I see it you have two options:

1.) Acknowledge that freedom allows people the freedom of speech, association and who they do business with and therefore allows them not to associate or do business with those they find objectionable. Individual actors all doing what they think is right. That is pretty much the basis of classical liberalism and is what my argument in this thread is in its entirety.

2.) Saying that we do not have that freedom or that such freedom should not be exercised, therefore shutting down freedom of expression to disapprove in the name of freedom of expression to say. This is done because people should not have the right to do things that negatively impact others just because of something they said. This appears to be your argument and would be the vastly more authoritarian of the two.

I am an enormous believer in freedom of expression and I'm very happy that the US puts nearly no limits on it. If you really believe in freedom of expression though that means you need to accept both the freedom to say what you want and the freedom of others to respond accordingly (within the law of course). Real freedom isn't just about doing what you want, it's about accepting the consequences of what your actions cause.

Come over to the side of freedom of expression. You might like it!

 

[fskimospy]

I elaborated on that just now. There was a point, but you apparently missed it, and that would be that if you worked for me and I found what you posted, my freedom would be inhibited by my not being able to fire you if you said something I found offensive. I would be your master by the rules you set up.

This is the opposite of freedom. You're now attempting to force people to employ those that they believe act in objectionable ways. Interesting that you're always angry about the crushing hand of government regulation in so many other ways but you appear happy to regulate business down to such a level that people must employ those who spout racial epithets. (and if you weren't proposing the government enforce such things then I don't know who else would and it would be an empty gesture)

That's an incredibly authoritarian viewpoint to take. This confirms my suspicion that conservatives aren't actually against government involvement, they just want government to enforce the things they like.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is the opposite of freedom. You're now attempting to force people to employ those that they believe act in objectionable ways. Interesting that you're always angry about the crushing hand of government regulation in so many other ways but you appear happy to regulate business down to such a level that people must employ those who spout racial epithets. (and if you weren't proposing the government enforce such things then I don't know who else would and it would be an empty gesture)

That's an incredibly authoritarian viewpoint to take. This confirms my suspicion that conservatives aren't actually against government involvement, they just want government to enforce the things they like.

What I object to is the powerful subjugating the weak. You hold a different view. I never said there we no limits. In fact I said that was open for discussion, but apparently limits on what can be said and what can be done aren't in your thinking.

I said that people shouldn't be fired for having political bumper stickers. You hold that they should. Oh you never said that, but you wouldn't want to restrict the freedom of the oppressor. I never said there's shouldn't be laws or regulations. I do object to foolish use of power. I never argued that government is not necessary. I have said that government is a necessity which needs to be restrained and watched. The people matter more than the government. "Conservatives aren't actually against government". Well they might or might not be, but I don't presume to speak for them. "An incredibly authoritarian view". BS. I'm sure you would have said that to those who presented the King with the Magna Carta. After all they were restricting the freedom of the king. How dare they.