Language *NSFW*

[StephenArdrey]

You can express your views without using hate filled language. There are literally no scenarios when using such language is neccessary.

Hate is an emotion and emotions deserve to be expressed. We are moving closer to the idea of a society where emotions are completely banned because you can't express love for one thing without expresses hate for another.

Hatred and other emotions can easily be expressed in any number of ways without resorting to bigotry. Fyi. No one is arguing that bigoted terms should be banned from art but endorsing their use in any context kind of makes you one of the bigots. Hth.

It only makes you a bigot, if you believe some of the politics behind the words exp. saying I hate fags. In the UK, cunt is common descriptor for both men and women. It's all in how it's used and why but that's not how we see it in the US anymore. Any use of those words is frowned upon no matter the context. Remember the Bill Cosby contreversy from a few years back?

He made several comments that were considered unfavorable amongst his own race. Dr. Cosby has never said cunt, fag, or nigger. He is often referred to as a racist because of his views on his own race especially the idea that African-American parents are failing to educate their children. Is he a racist?

The idea of racial identity is strange and most people associate certain actions with certain groups of people. Sexual identity is even tougher to talk about because of how many variants there are and trying to decide where the acceptable line should be drawn. Philosophical problems are even more complicated because everyone thinks their side is right. The "Sex Wars" will continue as long as one sides continues to exhibit the stereotypical archtypes.

It's not easy because you can be labeled a biggot, by just expressing an opinion. You might have all the justification on Earth but you have a dual sided ignorance. The first side being that everything is ok and there are no rules, the other being that everything needs to be controlled. No matter which approach you take biggotry would still exist and the only thing you lose is the right to discuss it.

You haven't justified anything. Oh, that girl got a tattoo so you should be able to call her a cunt and British people use it as a garden variety curse word. Great justification.

Are you familiar with popular forms of media and the internet? There is more artistic license and freedom of information now than in any other time in human history. It's undeniable.

No one here is in favor of limiting discussion, obviously. Limiting hate speech does not limit discussion. Hate speech has no merit. You are extremely misguided for thinking that it can.

The problem becomes the definition of hate speech. Who defines it and who is allowed to define it. I am not I should be able to or not, I am just saying if you did there is a probability she would get pissed. Limiting "hate speech" does limit discussion because of the ability to discuss what is or isn't acceptable.

In order to do that, you have to look at each individual instance and see if hate was the motive. Then you have to decide whether a writer or a person was intentionally trying to offend, crossed that social line but it was unintentional, or if they were trying to present an angle of the arguement. I don't think any of us can read the hearts of people to decide that especially an artist or any creative person.

Are those words offensive?

Yes, in the wrong context any word can offend anyone. That's not even the debate but what is or isn't socially acceptable and when is it.

No one is arguing in favor of censorship. Your article isn't about censorship or the media. It's about really thin justifications for calling people faggots niggers and cunts.

No, it's not. People who are going to use those words are going to use them regaurdless but that's at the core because of sociatal based censorship. If someone says this then they are bad. People aren't good or evil, they just are. People are faliable and have flawed views but does that mean that people can tell them to shut up and stop them from speaking their mind. Yet again, we are both two white people arguing about race relations. People will see what they see and interrpretation is different for everyone.

Hahahaha, "societal based censorship", what is that? Who is censoring whom?

Sociatal based censorship occurs when people with in a society begin to censor themselves based off of fear of repriesal of the current social in group. The best example is that of free speech limitations imposed in the South during the era of Jim Crow laws or currently when ever a public figure says something that disagrees with the social in group. This puts a limitation on those speaking by not being able to express opinions based on fears of reprisal.

Oh, you meant self-censorship. Totally different phenomenon. You should always self-censor yourself in public. That's pretty much what we're saying. Haha.

No self censorship is when you make the decision not to use a word, image, or series there of because of your own feelings on a subject. The opinion of the society as a whole plays no part in self-censorship because it's a decision made by the individual without any outside interference. Societal censorship is when opinions of the outside world impose on your decision to say something.

[Shnards]

No, that's really not what it means. Self-censorship is what twitter users in China do.

[Shnards]

Anyway, I'm all in favor of putting social pressure on people to not be racist or at the very least outright racist! That social pressure is achieved through discussion by the way. Hth.

[ChillPill]

You can express your views without using hate filled language. There are literally no scenarios when using such language is neccessary.

Hate is an emotion and emotions deserve to be expressed. We are moving closer to the idea of a society where emotions are completely banned because you can't express love for one thing without expresses hate for another.

Hatred and other emotions can easily be expressed in any number of ways without resorting to bigotry. Fyi. No one is arguing that bigoted terms should be banned from art but endorsing their use in any context kind of makes you one of the bigots. Hth.

It only makes you a bigot, if you believe some of the politics behind the words exp. saying I hate fags. In the UK, cunt is common descriptor for both men and women. It's all in how it's used and why but that's not how we see it in the US anymore. Any use of those words is frowned upon no matter the context. Remember the Bill Cosby contreversy from a few years back?

He made several comments that were considered unfavorable amongst his own race. Dr. Cosby has never said cunt, fag, or nigger. He is often referred to as a racist because of his views on his own race especially the idea that African-American parents are failing to educate their children. Is he a racist?

The idea of racial identity is strange and most people associate certain actions with certain groups of people. Sexual identity is even tougher to talk about because of how many variants there are and trying to decide where the acceptable line should be drawn. Philosophical problems are even more complicated because everyone thinks their side is right. The "Sex Wars" will continue as long as one sides continues to exhibit the stereotypical archtypes.

It's not easy because you can be labeled a biggot, by just expressing an opinion. You might have all the justification on Earth but you have a dual sided ignorance. The first side being that everything is ok and there are no rules, the other being that everything needs to be controlled. No matter which approach you take biggotry would still exist and the only thing you lose is the right to discuss it.

You haven't justified anything. Oh, that girl got a tattoo so you should be able to call her a cunt and British people use it as a garden variety curse word. Great justification.

Are you familiar with popular forms of media and the internet? There is more artistic license and freedom of information now than in any other time in human history. It's undeniable.

No one here is in favor of limiting discussion, obviously. Limiting hate speech does not limit discussion. Hate speech has no merit. You are extremely misguided for thinking that it can.

The problem becomes the definition of hate speech. Who defines it and who is allowed to define it. I am not I should be able to or not, I am just saying if you did there is a probability she would get pissed. Limiting "hate speech" does limit discussion because of the ability to discuss what is or isn't acceptable.

In order to do that, you have to look at each individual instance and see if hate was the motive. Then you have to decide whether a writer or a person was intentionally trying to offend, crossed that social line but it was unintentional, or if they were trying to present an angle of the arguement. I don't think any of us can read the hearts of people to decide that especially an artist or any creative person.

Are those words offensive?

Yes, in the wrong context any word can offend anyone. That's not even the debate but what is or isn't socially acceptable and when is it.

No one is arguing in favor of censorship. Your article isn't about censorship or the media. It's about really thin justifications for calling people faggots niggers and cunts.

No, it's not. People who are going to use those words are going to use them regaurdless but that's at the core because of sociatal based censorship. If someone says this then they are bad. People aren't good or evil, they just are. People are faliable and have flawed views but does that mean that people can tell them to shut up and stop them from speaking their mind. Yet again, we are both two white people arguing about race relations. People will see what they see and interrpretation is different for everyone.

Hahahaha, "societal based censorship", what is that? Who is censoring whom?

Sociatal based censorship occurs when people with in a society begin to censor themselves based off of fear of repriesal of the current social in group. The best example is that of free speech limitations imposed in the South during the era of Jim Crow laws or currently when ever a public figure says something that disagrees with the social in group. This puts a limitation on those speaking by not being able to express opinions based on fears of reprisal.

Oh, you meant self-censorship. Totally different phenomenon. You should always self-censor yourself in public. That's pretty much what we're saying. Haha.

No self censorship is when you make the decision not to use a word, image, or series there of because of your own feelings on a subject. The opinion of the society as a whole plays no part in self-censorship because it's a decision made by the individual without any outside interference. Societal censorship is when opinions of the outside world impose on your decision to say something.

Just thought I'd keep this massively long quote string alive. 

[StephenArdrey]

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities of others, without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority.

The problem is that we have so many groups now, that virtually anything you say will sufficiently piss someone off. We don't think about the sensitivity of others because we are these grand beings that have been enlightened but because we fear the reaction of groups to what it is we say. Yeah, people in China and everywhere else have some sort of government imposed censorship.

If this whole article had been about bashing religions, the reaction would be different. People have different views of religion and it will be sure to piss someone off. Mention Scientology in a negative context and you will wind up in court. There is no good solution.

[StephenArdrey]

You can express your views without using hate filled language. There are literally no scenarios when using such language is neccessary.

Hate is an emotion and emotions deserve to be expressed. We are moving closer to the idea of a society where emotions are completely banned because you can't express love for one thing without expresses hate for another.

Hatred and other emotions can easily be expressed in any number of ways without resorting to bigotry. Fyi. No one is arguing that bigoted terms should be banned from art but endorsing their use in any context kind of makes you one of the bigots. Hth.

It only makes you a bigot, if you believe some of the politics behind the words exp. saying I hate fags. In the UK, cunt is common descriptor for both men and women. It's all in how it's used and why but that's not how we see it in the US anymore. Any use of those words is frowned upon no matter the context. Remember the Bill Cosby contreversy from a few years back?

He made several comments that were considered unfavorable amongst his own race. Dr. Cosby has never said cunt, fag, or nigger. He is often referred to as a racist because of his views on his own race especially the idea that African-American parents are failing to educate their children. Is he a racist?

The idea of racial identity is strange and most people associate certain actions with certain groups of people. Sexual identity is even tougher to talk about because of how many variants there are and trying to decide where the acceptable line should be drawn. Philosophical problems are even more complicated because everyone thinks their side is right. The "Sex Wars" will continue as long as one sides continues to exhibit the stereotypical archtypes.

It's not easy because you can be labeled a biggot, by just expressing an opinion. You might have all the justification on Earth but you have a dual sided ignorance. The first side being that everything is ok and there are no rules, the other being that everything needs to be controlled. No matter which approach you take biggotry would still exist and the only thing you lose is the right to discuss it.

You haven't justified anything. Oh, that girl got a tattoo so you should be able to call her a cunt and British people use it as a garden variety curse word. Great justification.

Are you familiar with popular forms of media and the internet? There is more artistic license and freedom of information now than in any other time in human history. It's undeniable.

No one here is in favor of limiting discussion, obviously. Limiting hate speech does not limit discussion. Hate speech has no merit. You are extremely misguided for thinking that it can.

The problem becomes the definition of hate speech. Who defines it and who is allowed to define it. I am not I should be able to or not, I am just saying if you did there is a probability she would get pissed. Limiting "hate speech" does limit discussion because of the ability to discuss what is or isn't acceptable.

In order to do that, you have to look at each individual instance and see if hate was the motive. Then you have to decide whether a writer or a person was intentionally trying to offend, crossed that social line but it was unintentional, or if they were trying to present an angle of the arguement. I don't think any of us can read the hearts of people to decide that especially an artist or any creative person.

Are those words offensive?

Yes, in the wrong context any word can offend anyone. That's not even the debate but what is or isn't socially acceptable and when is it.

No one is arguing in favor of censorship. Your article isn't about censorship or the media. It's about really thin justifications for calling people faggots niggers and cunts.

No, it's not. People who are going to use those words are going to use them regaurdless but that's at the core because of sociatal based censorship. If someone says this then they are bad. People aren't good or evil, they just are. People are faliable and have flawed views but does that mean that people can tell them to shut up and stop them from speaking their mind. Yet again, we are both two white people arguing about race relations. People will see what they see and interrpretation is different for everyone.

Hahahaha, "societal based censorship", what is that? Who is censoring whom?

Sociatal based censorship occurs when people with in a society begin to censor themselves based off of fear of repriesal of the current social in group. The best example is that of free speech limitations imposed in the South during the era of Jim Crow laws or currently when ever a public figure says something that disagrees with the social in group. This puts a limitation on those speaking by not being able to express opinions based on fears of reprisal.

Oh, you meant self-censorship. Totally different phenomenon. You should always self-censor yourself in public. That's pretty much what we're saying. Haha.

No self censorship is when you make the decision not to use a word, image, or series there of because of your own feelings on a subject. The opinion of the society as a whole plays no part in self-censorship because it's a decision made by the individual without any outside interference. Societal censorship is when opinions of the outside world impose on your decision to say something.

Just thought I'd keep this massively long quote string alive.

thanks, i lost that.

[ChillPill]

You can express your views without using hate filled language. There are literally no scenarios when using such language is neccessary.

Hate is an emotion and emotions deserve to be expressed. We are moving closer to the idea of a society where emotions are completely banned because you can't express love for one thing without expresses hate for another.

Hatred and other emotions can easily be expressed in any number of ways without resorting to bigotry. Fyi. No one is arguing that bigoted terms should be banned from art but endorsing their use in any context kind of makes you one of the bigots. Hth.

It only makes you a bigot, if you believe some of the politics behind the words exp. saying I hate fags. In the UK, cunt is common descriptor for both men and women. It's all in how it's used and why but that's not how we see it in the US anymore. Any use of those words is frowned upon no matter the context. Remember the Bill Cosby contreversy from a few years back?

He made several comments that were considered unfavorable amongst his own race. Dr. Cosby has never said cunt, fag, or nigger. He is often referred to as a racist because of his views on his own race especially the idea that African-American parents are failing to educate their children. Is he a racist?

The idea of racial identity is strange and most people associate certain actions with certain groups of people. Sexual identity is even tougher to talk about because of how many variants there are and trying to decide where the acceptable line should be drawn. Philosophical problems are even more complicated because everyone thinks their side is right. The "Sex Wars" will continue as long as one sides continues to exhibit the stereotypical archtypes.

It's not easy because you can be labeled a biggot, by just expressing an opinion. You might have all the justification on Earth but you have a dual sided ignorance. The first side being that everything is ok and there are no rules, the other being that everything needs to be controlled. No matter which approach you take biggotry would still exist and the only thing you lose is the right to discuss it.

You haven't justified anything. Oh, that girl got a tattoo so you should be able to call her a cunt and British people use it as a garden variety curse word. Great justification.

Are you familiar with popular forms of media and the internet? There is more artistic license and freedom of information now than in any other time in human history. It's undeniable.

No one here is in favor of limiting discussion, obviously. Limiting hate speech does not limit discussion. Hate speech has no merit. You are extremely misguided for thinking that it can.

The problem becomes the definition of hate speech. Who defines it and who is allowed to define it. I am not I should be able to or not, I am just saying if you did there is a probability she would get pissed. Limiting "hate speech" does limit discussion because of the ability to discuss what is or isn't acceptable.

In order to do that, you have to look at each individual instance and see if hate was the motive. Then you have to decide whether a writer or a person was intentionally trying to offend, crossed that social line but it was unintentional, or if they were trying to present an angle of the arguement. I don't think any of us can read the hearts of people to decide that especially an artist or any creative person.

Are those words offensive?

Yes, in the wrong context any word can offend anyone. That's not even the debate but what is or isn't socially acceptable and when is it.

No one is arguing in favor of censorship. Your article isn't about censorship or the media. It's about really thin justifications for calling people faggots niggers and cunts.

No, it's not. People who are going to use those words are going to use them regaurdless but that's at the core because of sociatal based censorship. If someone says this then they are bad. People aren't good or evil, they just are. People are faliable and have flawed views but does that mean that people can tell them to shut up and stop them from speaking their mind. Yet again, we are both two white people arguing about race relations. People will see what they see and interrpretation is different for everyone.

Hahahaha, "societal based censorship", what is that? Who is censoring whom?

Sociatal based censorship occurs when people with in a society begin to censor themselves based off of fear of repriesal of the current social in group. The best example is that of free speech limitations imposed in the South during the era of Jim Crow laws or currently when ever a public figure says something that disagrees with the social in group. This puts a limitation on those speaking by not being able to express opinions based on fears of reprisal.

Oh, you meant self-censorship. Totally different phenomenon. You should always self-censor yourself in public. That's pretty much what we're saying. Haha.

No self censorship is when you make the decision not to use a word, image, or series there of because of your own feelings on a subject. The opinion of the society as a whole plays no part in self-censorship because it's a decision made by the individual without any outside interference. Societal censorship is when opinions of the outside world impose on your decision to say something.

Just thought I'd keep this massively long quote string alive.

thanks, i lost that.

You're welcome.

[StephenArdrey]

You can express your views without using hate filled language. There are literally no scenarios when using such language is neccessary.

Hate is an emotion and emotions deserve to be expressed. We are moving closer to the idea of a society where emotions are completely banned because you can't express love for one thing without expresses hate for another.

Hatred and other emotions can easily be expressed in any number of ways without resorting to bigotry. Fyi. No one is arguing that bigoted terms should be banned from art but endorsing their use in any context kind of makes you one of the bigots. Hth.

It only makes you a bigot, if you believe some of the politics behind the words exp. saying I hate fags. In the UK, cunt is common descriptor for both men and women. It's all in how it's used and why but that's not how we see it in the US anymore. Any use of those words is frowned upon no matter the context. Remember the Bill Cosby contreversy from a few years back?

He made several comments that were considered unfavorable amongst his own race. Dr. Cosby has never said cunt, fag, or nigger. He is often referred to as a racist because of his views on his own race especially the idea that African-American parents are failing to educate their children. Is he a racist?

The idea of racial identity is strange and most people associate certain actions with certain groups of people. Sexual identity is even tougher to talk about because of how many variants there are and trying to decide where the acceptable line should be drawn. Philosophical problems are even more complicated because everyone thinks their side is right. The "Sex Wars" will continue as long as one sides continues to exhibit the stereotypical archtypes.

It's not easy because you can be labeled a biggot, by just expressing an opinion. You might have all the justification on Earth but you have a dual sided ignorance. The first side being that everything is ok and there are no rules, the other being that everything needs to be controlled. No matter which approach you take biggotry would still exist and the only thing you lose is the right to discuss it.

You haven't justified anything. Oh, that girl got a tattoo so you should be able to call her a cunt and British people use it as a garden variety curse word. Great justification.

Are you familiar with popular forms of media and the internet? There is more artistic license and freedom of information now than in any other time in human history. It's undeniable.

No one here is in favor of limiting discussion, obviously. Limiting hate speech does not limit discussion. Hate speech has no merit. You are extremely misguided for thinking that it can.

The problem becomes the definition of hate speech. Who defines it and who is allowed to define it. I am not I should be able to or not, I am just saying if you did there is a probability she would get pissed. Limiting "hate speech" does limit discussion because of the ability to discuss what is or isn't acceptable.

In order to do that, you have to look at each individual instance and see if hate was the motive. Then you have to decide whether a writer or a person was intentionally trying to offend, crossed that social line but it was unintentional, or if they were trying to present an angle of the arguement. I don't think any of us can read the hearts of people to decide that especially an artist or any creative person.

Are those words offensive?

Yes, in the wrong context any word can offend anyone. That's not even the debate but what is or isn't socially acceptable and when is it.

No one is arguing in favor of censorship. Your article isn't about censorship or the media. It's about really thin justifications for calling people faggots niggers and cunts.

No, it's not. People who are going to use those words are going to use them regaurdless but that's at the core because of sociatal based censorship. If someone says this then they are bad. People aren't good or evil, they just are. People are faliable and have flawed views but does that mean that people can tell them to shut up and stop them from speaking their mind. Yet again, we are both two white people arguing about race relations. People will see what they see and interrpretation is different for everyone.

Hahahaha, "societal based censorship", what is that? Who is censoring whom?

Sociatal based censorship occurs when people with in a society begin to censor themselves based off of fear of repriesal of the current social in group. The best example is that of free speech limitations imposed in the South during the era of Jim Crow laws or currently when ever a public figure says something that disagrees with the social in group. This puts a limitation on those speaking by not being able to express opinions based on fears of reprisal.

Oh, you meant self-censorship. Totally different phenomenon. You should always self-censor yourself in public. That's pretty much what we're saying. Haha.

No self censorship is when you make the decision not to use a word, image, or series there of because of your own feelings on a subject. The opinion of the society as a whole plays no part in self-censorship because it's a decision made by the individual without any outside interference. Societal censorship is when opinions of the outside world impose on your decision to say something.

Just thought I'd keep this massively long quote string alive.

thanks, i lost that.

You're welcome.

No sir, you are welcome

[Shnards]

'the sensibilities of others'

You think people only act like decent human beings because they fear a reprisal from others? This is seriously something that a sociopath would think. It's like you have no concept of empathy.

[StephenArdrey]

'the sensibilities of others'

You think people only act like decent human beings because they fear a reprisal from others? This is seriously something that a sociopath would think. It's like you have no concept of the idea of empathy.

No, it's not. It's why you hear celebrities go on long racist rants when they are intoxicated. It has nothing to do with the alcohol besides it has lessened their inhibitions and they show their true colors. People seek affirmation from others and it's a known psychological fact. It has nothing to do with sociopathy.

We all start out as sociopaths. Empathy is a learned behavior and so are social right and wrongs. I am not saying it's ok for us to be sociopaths. I am just saying that who people appear to be and who they really are, are two totally different people.

[ChillPill]

You can express your views without using hate filled language. There are literally no scenarios when using such language is neccessary.

Hate is an emotion and emotions deserve to be expressed. We are moving closer to the idea of a society where emotions are completely banned because you can't express love for one thing without expresses hate for another.

Hatred and other emotions can easily be expressed in any number of ways without resorting to bigotry. Fyi. No one is arguing that bigoted terms should be banned from art but endorsing their use in any context kind of makes you one of the bigots. Hth.

It only makes you a bigot, if you believe some of the politics behind the words exp. saying I hate fags. In the UK, cunt is common descriptor for both men and women. It's all in how it's used and why but that's not how we see it in the US anymore. Any use of those words is frowned upon no matter the context. Remember the Bill Cosby contreversy from a few years back?

He made several comments that were considered unfavorable amongst his own race. Dr. Cosby has never said cunt, fag, or nigger. He is often referred to as a racist because of his views on his own race especially the idea that African-American parents are failing to educate their children. Is he a racist?

The idea of racial identity is strange and most people associate certain actions with certain groups of people. Sexual identity is even tougher to talk about because of how many variants there are and trying to decide where the acceptable line should be drawn. Philosophical problems are even more complicated because everyone thinks their side is right. The "Sex Wars" will continue as long as one sides continues to exhibit the stereotypical archtypes.

It's not easy because you can be labeled a biggot, by just expressing an opinion. You might have all the justification on Earth but you have a dual sided ignorance. The first side being that everything is ok and there are no rules, the other being that everything needs to be controlled. No matter which approach you take biggotry would still exist and the only thing you lose is the right to discuss it.

You haven't justified anything. Oh, that girl got a tattoo so you should be able to call her a cunt and British people use it as a garden variety curse word. Great justification.

Are you familiar with popular forms of media and the internet? There is more artistic license and freedom of information now than in any other time in human history. It's undeniable.

No one here is in favor of limiting discussion, obviously. Limiting hate speech does not limit discussion. Hate speech has no merit. You are extremely misguided for thinking that it can.

The problem becomes the definition of hate speech. Who defines it and who is allowed to define it. I am not I should be able to or not, I am just saying if you did there is a probability she would get pissed. Limiting "hate speech" does limit discussion because of the ability to discuss what is or isn't acceptable.

In order to do that, you have to look at each individual instance and see if hate was the motive. Then you have to decide whether a writer or a person was intentionally trying to offend, crossed that social line but it was unintentional, or if they were trying to present an angle of the arguement. I don't think any of us can read the hearts of people to decide that especially an artist or any creative person.

Are those words offensive?

Yes, in the wrong context any word can offend anyone. That's not even the debate but what is or isn't socially acceptable and when is it.

No one is arguing in favor of censorship. Your article isn't about censorship or the media. It's about really thin justifications for calling people faggots niggers and cunts.

No, it's not. People who are going to use those words are going to use them regaurdless but that's at the core because of sociatal based censorship. If someone says this then they are bad. People aren't good or evil, they just are. People are faliable and have flawed views but does that mean that people can tell them to shut up and stop them from speaking their mind. Yet again, we are both two white people arguing about race relations. People will see what they see and interrpretation is different for everyone.

Hahahaha, "societal based censorship", what is that? Who is censoring whom?

Sociatal based censorship occurs when people with in a society begin to censor themselves based off of fear of repriesal of the current social in group. The best example is that of free speech limitations imposed in the South during the era of Jim Crow laws or currently when ever a public figure says something that disagrees with the social in group. This puts a limitation on those speaking by not being able to express opinions based on fears of reprisal.

Oh, you meant self-censorship. Totally different phenomenon. You should always self-censor yourself in public. That's pretty much what we're saying. Haha.

No self censorship is when you make the decision not to use a word, image, or series there of because of your own feelings on a subject. The opinion of the society as a whole plays no part in self-censorship because it's a decision made by the individual without any outside interference. Societal censorship is when opinions of the outside world impose on your decision to say something.

Just thought I'd keep this massively long quote string alive.

thanks, i lost that.

You're welcome.

No sir, you are welcome

even I think this is getting fucking ridiculous! you "N word",and "Rainbow Chasers" need to stfu already.

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, other than keeping this epic quote sting alive.

[StephenArdrey]

You can express your views without using hate filled language. There are literally no scenarios when using such language is neccessary.

Hate is an emotion and emotions deserve to be expressed. We are moving closer to the idea of a society where emotions are completely banned because you can't express love for one thing without expresses hate for another.

Hatred and other emotions can easily be expressed in any number of ways without resorting to bigotry. Fyi. No one is arguing that bigoted terms should be banned from art but endorsing their use in any context kind of makes you one of the bigots. Hth.

It only makes you a bigot, if you believe some of the politics behind the words exp. saying I hate fags. In the UK, cunt is common descriptor for both men and women. It's all in how it's used and why but that's not how we see it in the US anymore. Any use of those words is frowned upon no matter the context. Remember the Bill Cosby contreversy from a few years back?

He made several comments that were considered unfavorable amongst his own race. Dr. Cosby has never said cunt, fag, or nigger. He is often referred to as a racist because of his views on his own race especially the idea that African-American parents are failing to educate their children. Is he a racist?

The idea of racial identity is strange and most people associate certain actions with certain groups of people. Sexual identity is even tougher to talk about because of how many variants there are and trying to decide where the acceptable line should be drawn. Philosophical problems are even more complicated because everyone thinks their side is right. The "Sex Wars" will continue as long as one sides continues to exhibit the stereotypical archtypes.

It's not easy because you can be labeled a biggot, by just expressing an opinion. You might have all the justification on Earth but you have a dual sided ignorance. The first side being that everything is ok and there are no rules, the other being that everything needs to be controlled. No matter which approach you take biggotry would still exist and the only thing you lose is the right to discuss it.

You haven't justified anything. Oh, that girl got a tattoo so you should be able to call her a cunt and British people use it as a garden variety curse word. Great justification.

Are you familiar with popular forms of media and the internet? There is more artistic license and freedom of information now than in any other time in human history. It's undeniable.

No one here is in favor of limiting discussion, obviously. Limiting hate speech does not limit discussion. Hate speech has no merit. You are extremely misguided for thinking that it can.

The problem becomes the definition of hate speech. Who defines it and who is allowed to define it. I am not I should be able to or not, I am just saying if you did there is a probability she would get pissed. Limiting "hate speech" does limit discussion because of the ability to discuss what is or isn't acceptable.

In order to do that, you have to look at each individual instance and see if hate was the motive. Then you have to decide whether a writer or a person was intentionally trying to offend, crossed that social line but it was unintentional, or if they were trying to present an angle of the arguement. I don't think any of us can read the hearts of people to decide that especially an artist or any creative person.

Are those words offensive?

Yes, in the wrong context any word can offend anyone. That's not even the debate but what is or isn't socially acceptable and when is it.

No one is arguing in favor of censorship. Your article isn't about censorship or the media. It's about really thin justifications for calling people faggots niggers and cunts.

No, it's not. People who are going to use those words are going to use them regaurdless but that's at the core because of sociatal based censorship. If someone says this then they are bad. People aren't good or evil, they just are. People are faliable and have flawed views but does that mean that people can tell them to shut up and stop them from speaking their mind. Yet again, we are both two white people arguing about race relations. People will see what they see and interrpretation is different for everyone.

Hahahaha, "societal based censorship", what is that? Who is censoring whom?

Sociatal based censorship occurs when people with in a society begin to censor themselves based off of fear of repriesal of the current social in group. The best example is that of free speech limitations imposed in the South during the era of Jim Crow laws or currently when ever a public figure says something that disagrees with the social in group. This puts a limitation on those speaking by not being able to express opinions based on fears of reprisal.

Oh, you meant self-censorship. Totally different phenomenon. You should always self-censor yourself in public. That's pretty much what we're saying. Haha.

No self censorship is when you make the decision not to use a word, image, or series there of because of your own feelings on a subject. The opinion of the society as a whole plays no part in self-censorship because it's a decision made by the individual without any outside interference. Societal censorship is when opinions of the outside world impose on your decision to say something.

Just thought I'd keep this massively long quote string alive.

thanks, i lost that.

You're welcome.

No sir, you are welcome

even I think this is getting fucking ridiculous! you "N word",and "Rainbow Chasers" need to stfu already.

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, other than keeping this epic quote sting alive.

what qoute string are you talking about?

[Shnards]

Yeah, you've got this completely backwards. Empathy is pretty instinctual. This has been studied extensively. Babies and young children reflect the emotion of their parents and react emotionally when others are hurt. Have you ever been around children?

Also, do you think everyone on Earth is racist?

[StephenArdrey]

Yeah, you've got this completely backwards. Empathy is pretty instinctual. This has been studied extensively. Babies and young children reflect the emotion of their parents and react emotionally when others are hurt. Have you ever been around children?

Also, do you think everyone on Earth is racist?

I think to an extent, that everyone on Earth is racist. We like to think we aren't but we will always have some reflex to other racial groups. Part of it has to do with on going conflicts around the world and how governments promote racism either directly or indirectly.

As far as empathy, that is still part of the nature vs. nuture debate and what makes us human. A general consensus about empathy is that it's one part learned and one part innate. Yes, I have been around children. I just don't have any of my own but that's either here nor there. The interactions of children are wildly distinct as well.

One child may comfort another just to go and push another child down. Yes, we try to teach empathy to children and we like to think that's part of human nature but it's not. Instinctively, we are out for our own assets and well being hince the reason why we have been able to evolve this far.

[Shnards]

Because empathy isn't evolutionary advantageous...