The Attack On Free Speech

Today the First Amendment has almost as many enemies as the Second Amendment. In this posting, I thought it might be amusing to take a little look-see into this phenomena, and explore the 'thinking' of its opponents:












What do you think...is 'Free Speech' just soooo passé, or is it still worth defending?

 

Sometimes 'free speech' means that some old white men don't want to give up their rights to freely call a black person the 'N' word; a gay guy the f*g word; denigrate women; hopefully you get my drift as I don't want to continue with examples. Sometimes people mistake Hate Speech for Free Speech. Doesn't mean I think speech should be legal or illegal; just mean some folks get angry when told this speech is no longer appropriate, causing anger in them thinking that means people are calling THEM inappropriate, not their choice of speech.

And sometimes not.

Your choice of links is lost on me as I would never watch it or read it on the internet, though I certainly pay attention to what Trumpites are saying. Want to know, to understand, but there is a limit. Rather listen to you and others directly than the links. I have doubts you care about that, but don't know for sure.

So yes, Free Speech is worth defending even if it contains what is no longer appropriate in the modern world where disparagement of others is no longer ok. Also worth defending is the right to criticize what is indefensible though not illegal.

 

I believe that freedom of expression and free speech are basic rights.

I don't believe in banning words or censoring books.

I also believe that with those rights come responsibilities.

We have the right to bear arms and we have the right to free speech but we also need to take responsibility and be accountable when we decide to pull the trigger or when we choose to speak our minds.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

And sometimes SJW-commies (and their equally mindless NPC automatons) consider absolutely everything and anything not approved by their puppetmasters as "Hate Speech", as it 'triggers' them....so they must run to their 'safe space', and once done frothing at the mouth, these adult three-year olds demand satisfaction by way of censure, and suppression, and maybe even a good old beat-down. After all, once quaint notions and feelings and suppositions have been marginally considered, what need do these folks have for debate or reasoning? Once that closed mind is put on lock-down, and hermetically-sealed, any evidence or proof or facts to the contrary is simply a threat to their beloved mindset, and not to be tolerated. After all, if they think what they think is true, then what they think is true is true for them...end of debate, end of discussion! And it is exactly this line of reasoning that pretty much guarantees the Leftist-Rightist conflict will not be settled by peaceful means. Once the talking is done, the listening is done, then diplomacy is over, and any compromise is not happening.

I would like to say that you can get everything you need to know to make an informed decision from me....but I'd be lying. I am a researcher, not an orator like Ben Shapiro. Nor am I a Muslim scholar like one Imam in the links. Nor am I a gal who was FGMed, and grew up not much better than chattel in a Muslim country. I do not have those skills nor those life experiences. As a researcher, I can point you in the right direction (links), which in turn will give you a clear idea of what questions remain unanswered, and what questions you need to ask (and find answers for), and yes, you may actually have to do a bit of research on your own. What better way for anyone to discover the truth than actively pursuing it, and uncovering it yourself? In any case, unlike many here, I will not tell you what to think, I'll simply guide you to the reference materials....whether you choose to read the books (as I have), or burn the books (as the SJWs would) is your choice. I'll simply say that whether my links "contains what is no longer appropriate in the modern world where disparagement of others is no longer ok" or whether they " criticize what is indefensible though not illegal" is a difference many here will never really know.....can you guess why?

 

Actually that’s pretty cut and dry and doesn’t take into account the types of cognitive types involved in a “debate”.

The thrust in today’s educational / societal systems is insistent upon changing the more lateral thinking process into a non-lateral cognitive response to a social stimulus. Ethics, reasoning and research may well be the backbone of the linear thought process but imagination and logic belong to the other.
Those who go from point A to point B stopping only to reference every detail sometimes lack the ability to explore other possibilities whilst the opposing non-linear thought process demands more opinion based on personal observations.
Those two positions are like sine waves which find themselves juxtaposed at certain points but never truly mesh at any point.
Until we learn to employ both methods of thought then there are going to be some huge differences not only in our science based academia but socially as well.

In one way we are all alike. Whether linear or non-linear, when a conclusion is made then there is virtually nothing left to argue or present to the opposing side.
I too am a researcher but with that I do take on a responsibility to examine all aspects of an argument before I go head strong into it. Others take on the approach that once something has been verified to their personal level of contentment then there is nothing left to peruse even when there is differing evidence presented by the opposing party.
Figuratively speaking, placing a period after a sentence ends the thought whereas the ability to use a semi-colon and continue on with variations to a thought after a short rest is nearly always a more favorable response to a debate but there are those who do not know what a semi-colon is. Until they learn through whatever processes that have to take place, one cannot be held totally responsible for their use of periods.
Jack wears red. Jill wears pink / Jack wears red; Jill wears pink. Both are contextually correct but the later gives us the more agreeable and favorable response.

In short, there are always going to be people who think from point A to point B and will always also be people who examine other possibilities and both, at times, in some pretty troublesome ways.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a right nor wrong to an argument especially when it involves ethics, but there are better ways of dealing with it than one feeling as though they have to place their head in the sand whilst the other argues with a bullwhip.

Now to the argument concerning attacks on our freedom of speech; it’s been under attack since day one and will be under attack by one or the other types of thought processes until way after I am dead and gone.

 

Strange... people feel persecuted by people exercising their right of free speech. Laws might prevent prosecution on free speech grounds, but do not prohibit society from expressing their opinion. We may send troops into battle to protect our laws, but each individual must fight their own battles when it comes to societal entanglements. Wishing to make statements that are offensive might be legal, but might not be acceptable to society. It takes a courageous person (or stupid, depending on viewpoint) to speak out in the general public on issues that might result in persecution.

 

Harry, I was just thinking about you! Guess why. Glad you posted.