LogFAQs > #926662093

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Should comedians be immune from criticism?
joe40001 08/28/19 3:37:49 PM #35:	legendary_zell posted... joe40001 posted... scar the 1 posted... joe40001 posted... I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say? "He shouldn't say that" is expressing an opinion on speech. "He shouldn't be allowed to say that" is expressing a desire that speech be policed. Critics will argue about why joking about certain topics is problematic and harmful, but I've yet to see many critics argue that jokes should be forbidden. That's Trump territory. There's always this defensive overreaction to critique. The very nature of critique is to analyze things in a critical light. It's not about wanting to ban speech, it's about viewing speech through a critical lens. As long as people acknowledge that it's all like opinion and not objectively something that "shouldn't be said" then yeah whatever that's fine. I don't think there's a defensive over-reaction. I think people are just vigilant these days because some of the people who are 'just being critical' have a habit of sounding a lot like the people who want somebody canceled. Scar essentially said what I would have said. But on the point of canceling, I think it's fine to not want to go to someone's shows, to publicize what they said, and to ask people not to lend support by associating with them. I believe that's full free association and free speech. I don't support any type of hate speech law or censorship though. You may still call that canceling, but I call it the marketplace of ideas. Let's be fair, it's not "asking people not to lend support" that's very clearly softening up the reality. It's almost always stated in the form that is basically a demand, and it's not a demand that "people not lend support" it's a demand that "X gets taken off the air" or whatever. The issue is not when one person has an opinion, it's when one person has an opinion and doesn't care if others disagree. "People shouldn't be able to pay to see Louis CK because of how I feel, I'm going to make a mob and try to pressure venues to not host him" That's a person going beyond speaking for themselves and trying to dictate to others, that's not a marketplace of ideas that's people bullying due to outrage. Actual marketplace of ideas is fine, but that means no "asking people not to lend support" so long as that is a euphemism for "demanding a person is deplatformed" --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9 <cite>joe40001 posted [p:926662093] in Should com... [t:77970466]...</cite> <quote>legendary_zell posted...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>joe40001 posted...</cite> <quote>I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say "they shouldn't say that" if you don't mean "they shouldn't be allowed to say that". How can you tell somebody what they should and shouldn't say without telling them what they should and shouldn't say?</quote> "He shouldn't say that" is expressing an opinion on speech. "He shouldn't be allowed to say that" is expressing a desire that speech be policed. Critics will argue about why joking about certain topics is problematic and harmful, but I've yet to see many critics argue that jokes should be forbidden. That's Trump territory. There's always this defensive overreaction to critique. The very nature of critique is to analyze things in a critical light. It's not about wanting to ban speech, it's about viewing speech through a critical lens.</quote> As long as people acknowledge that it's all like opinion and not objectively something that "shouldn't be said" then yeah whatever that's fine. I don't think there's a defensive over-reaction. I think people are just vigilant these days because some of the people who are 'just being critical' have a habit of sounding a lot like the people who want somebody canceled.</quote> Scar essentially said what I would have said. But on the point of canceling, I think it's fine to not want to go to someone's shows, to publicize what they said, and to ask people not to lend support by associating with them. I believe that's full free association and free speech. I don't support any type of hate speech law or censorship though. You may still call that canceling, but I call it the marketplace of ideas. </quote> Let's be fair, it's not "asking people not to lend support" that's very clearly softening up the reality. It's almost always stated in the form that is basically a demand, and it's not a demand that "people not lend support" it's a demand that "X gets taken off the air" or whatever. The issue is not when one person has an opinion, it's when one person has an opinion and doesn't care if others disagree. "People shouldn't be able to pay to see Louis CK because of how I feel, I'm going to make a mob and try to pressure venues to not host him" That's a person going beyond speaking for themselves and trying to dictate to others, that's not a marketplace of ideas that's people bullying due to outrage. Actual marketplace of ideas is fine, but that means no "asking people not to lend support" so long as that is a euphemism for "demanding a person is deplatformed" --- "joe is attractive and quite the brilliant poster" - Seiichi Omori https://imgur.com/TheGsZ9</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1