![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLong story short, Locus Magazine has found itself in a bit of a kerfuffle over one of it's April 1st pranks. They issued a false press releases announcing that, in the interests of inclusiveness, all guests and attendees of a feminist science fiction convention (WisCon) would be required to wear Burqas. As one can imagine people complained that the announcement was offensive to Muslims, anti-Feminist, and not particularly funny. As such it has since been taken down and replaced with an apology.
The statement's original author, Lawrence Person, retaliated by posting about the controversy and a copy of the original statement in his own blog. Regardless of one's opinion on the above there's something that cropped up in the comment section that I found interesting.
A commenter identifying herself as Barbara posted the following...
I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us. And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is what it is. Period.
Emphasis mine.
Now I don't know if Barbara is being serious or satirical but her comment highlighted something that has always bothered me. The belief that one has a "right" to not be offended requires one to also believe in the right to force one's ideology on another. It is, by nature, anathema to the traditional interpretation of the 1st Amendment and the whole idea of freedom of speech / religion in general. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing trend in American politics to use conspicuous displays of outrage and offense as a form of political signalling raising the obvious question of, how does one avoid offending someone who is actively looking for something to be offended about?
The simple answer is that you can't.
Admittedly this is not a "Talking Point" so much as it is a rhetorical tactic but it still ranks among the dark arts and as such it's practitioners should be called out. ;)
The statement's original author, Lawrence Person, retaliated by posting about the controversy and a copy of the original statement in his own blog. Regardless of one's opinion on the above there's something that cropped up in the comment section that I found interesting.
A commenter identifying herself as Barbara posted the following...
I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us. And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is what it is. Period.
Emphasis mine.
Now I don't know if Barbara is being serious or satirical but her comment highlighted something that has always bothered me. The belief that one has a "right" to not be offended requires one to also believe in the right to force one's ideology on another. It is, by nature, anathema to the traditional interpretation of the 1st Amendment and the whole idea of freedom of speech / religion in general. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing trend in American politics to use conspicuous displays of outrage and offense as a form of political signalling raising the obvious question of, how does one avoid offending someone who is actively looking for something to be offended about?
The simple answer is that you can't.
Admittedly this is not a "Talking Point" so much as it is a rhetorical tactic but it still ranks among the dark arts and as such it's practitioners should be called out. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/13 20:47 (UTC)No worries I'm in a similar situation.
Are you sure that it's my conception that's lacking? Saying that you have freedom of belief so long as the belief is never expressed or acted upon sounds a lot like repression to me.
*Your
Yeah I am saying that. I agree with the latter part to a degree. Freedom can only occur under constraints. There is no absolute freedom that exists unconstrained. This repression you are talking about is explained in great detail in Sartre's Being and Nothingness and Existentialism is a Humanism. I'm not in lock step with Sartre, but I think he offers a more nuanced, mature understanding of freedom than say Kant or Mill.
If that is the case, what is the distinction between being offensive for comedic or artistic effect and being offensive for polemical effect? Likewise if you subscribe to Carlin's thesis that 'rights" have no objective existence beyond those we can physically enforce, how can you claim that your right to not be offended is any more or less valid than my right to be offensive.
Well first off I'm generally not offended at many things. Then again, I'm a white dude with a decent education and lots of leeway. I don't argue that people shouldn't be allowed to do certain things because I'm personally involved in the situation. I view the democratic process as being a decent way at coming up with intersubjective consensus.
As to your artistic question... Can you tell the difference between Colbert and O'Reilly and a Klan meeting? If not then I don't think you're in much of a position to ethically justify your claims. If so, then what the hell are you worried about? Do rational people gain anything from the Klan kind of speech? Ostensibly, no if you are Kantian. If you're a utilitarian, there's no empirical support for you to run to. If you want to say that those artistic endeavors may be silenced, well... I'll say that much of the pretense behind doing an artistic act is that it runs contra the narrative. Banksy is a good case of an artist needing the laws to be structured the way they are so that his message actually is relevant and sensical, even if you don't agree with it (I wonder how a libertarian deals how to crack that nut)
Yes, If steps are not taken to prevent it.
In keeping with the above, if you believe that rights have no objective existence, then you must also believe that they can be arbitrarily revoked at any time. This includes the right to life, autonomy, fair trial etc... At that point the ideological differences between yourself and the Spanish Inquisitors come down to the question of acceptable tactics.
I don't believe there is no objective reality. I'm not solipsistic. I believe there is no abstract objective reality i.e. objective in the commonsense notion of Natural Rights theories. I'd say that this holding onto supposed "objective" (read absolute, Cartesian objectivity, i.e. God's dick is the Archimedian point from which all truth is derived) exists solely to allow fascists to exist and sustain in civil society. If the premises were true, we should have seen some kind of equilibrium where things like Confederate flags are removed from STATE capitols less than 150 years after the marketplace of ideas has had time to hash things out. I refer you to the essay I already referred you to on the mechanics of it all.
Suffice it to say, you are suggesting that free people can't decided for themselves what to do while simultaneously holding that they are free. You're suggesting that minorities with hundreds of years of ACTUAL oppression are free only in the sense that they are free to fuck off and shut up and take being called a nigger or a spic. That to me is fucking fascist. When you suggest that I'm a step away from the Inquisition, I find it hilarious. The enslavement and destruction of whole peoples took place in your idyllic 1st amendment universe, the whole ideological basis for libertarianism took place at EXACTLY the moment your idols decided to enslave the fucking planet, and I'm the one with the tyranny problem. Lolzzz OK