DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: Calvin6s on November 21, 2015, 05:49:08 PM

Title: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Calvin6s on November 21, 2015, 05:49:08 PM
40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/)
(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/11/FT_15.11.19_speech.png)
(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/11/FT_15.11.19_speechEurope.png)

The combined description of the least tolerant amongst us:
Non-White Democrat Millennial Women with the education of High School or less
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: portnoy311 on November 21, 2015, 07:44:06 PM
...So the people most likely to be victims of that speech?


It's obviously a bad idea and won't ever fly.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: orcus116 on November 21, 2015, 08:00:03 PM
This is the ultimate gray area since the definition of offensive seems to have been watered down so much that anyone of note is better off shutting up than saying anything lest they get a lawsuit up the ass or get publicly character assassinated by the mouth breathing headline skimmers. You get the too big to topple person like Trump who seems immune to any actual/pseudo slandering but for the average person with a brain anything that may seem like slander, however logical and factually correct, it's best to just stay silent. Personally I'm all for saying whatever the fuck anyone wants but it just doesn't seem like the general consensus nowadays.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: portnoy311 on November 21, 2015, 08:04:04 PM
It's literally the majority position of every category that people should be allowed to say these things publicly. We're also way ahead of Europe. I wouldn't worry about this right going away.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Calvin6s on November 22, 2015, 02:27:20 AM
You say victim.  I say oppressor.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on November 22, 2015, 05:07:00 AM
I'd like to see that millennial group broken up into two age groups; 18-24 and 24-34, and then see those poll results. Let's be real, most 18 year olds barely know what freedom of speech even means or why we have it.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: portnoy311 on November 22, 2015, 10:00:33 AM
Very true Chino.

Calvin - great.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Genowyn on November 22, 2015, 11:27:51 AM
I'm sorta split on this.

On the one hand, free speech already has limitations. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater, I can't slander someone, and as far as I know hate speech is already illegal here in Canada, not 100% sure on that.

On the other hand, free speech I guess?

Ultimately I don't think it should be illegal for people to use offensive terminology, but I also don't think I should have to associate with or ever take seriously someone who does.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Calvin6s on November 22, 2015, 01:41:50 PM
This isn't even about simply free speech.  It is about bullying off of what quite frequently is perceived hate speech.

And how is "minority" defined.  If you are in a store where you become a minority of one, then I guess you can start hurling offensive language without repercussion, while you can claim a law has been broken the minute you perceive something was offensive.  Where I'm from, racism is pretty rampant, but not from the race you'd think.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: portnoy311 on November 22, 2015, 07:08:05 PM
In literally every subset of the population listed the majority agrees with you.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: orcus116 on November 22, 2015, 07:13:47 PM
While true the accounts of people being ousted from their jobs/asked to step down recently for not saying/doing actual racist/offensive things despite the response claiming such is incredibly disturbing. It's a trend that needs to get squashed immediately.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: portnoy311 on November 22, 2015, 07:15:38 PM
Freedom of speech is freedom from the government. Not your employer. I don't know what examples you're talking about, but that is not outside the realm of legality for a company to fire someone for speech, nor is it a new phenomenon.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Lucien on November 22, 2015, 07:19:09 PM
Honestly I'm not surprised by the chart at all. I think it's sort of an extension of people against racism and homophobia (young people). People hate hate.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: orcus116 on November 22, 2015, 07:22:33 PM
Freedom of speech is freedom from the government. Not your employer. I don't know what examples you're talking about, but that is not outside the realm of legality for a company to fire someone for speech, nor is it a new phenomenon.

Teachers/school presidents at colleges that have been circulating the news over the last few weeks. I do agree that the employers take over so there is a snag in my argument (which is reality vs gut) but it's frustrating to see jobs lost for purely PR reasons and the "you need to be a scapegoat" mindset when a very small faction makes headlines for faux outrage at something they have little to know knowledge about.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Calvin6s on November 22, 2015, 07:41:57 PM
The idea that it is just PR isn't exactly right.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: orcus116 on November 22, 2015, 07:42:58 PM
Care to elaborate?
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Calvin6s on November 22, 2015, 08:02:26 PM
Employment does have sex, gender, race laws that are definitely harsher (as in exist) over non-employment situations.  So the idea that the employer is just doing out of irrational fear (PR) and not fear of a lawsuit (laws by government).  So your original example works just fine.

And it isn't just the employer.  When I did some warehouse work while I was going to college, the two females would complain if the guys didn't pull their larger orders (and then give all the credit to the females).  Standing up to the abuse never worked well for the dude refusing to do their work for them (which made it look like they weren't working paperwork wise).

I had the audacity to suggest that people that can't pull heavy item orders shouldn't be given heavy item orders.  "Are you saying girls can't do what guys do?"  Uh, no.  They are saying that.  You are saying that.

Although I had already charted my way to a higher paying position, it was also my way to make it out of that legally created nonsense.

There's examples like this al the time.  There is always somebody willing to abuse a law based off offense.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on November 23, 2015, 08:32:16 AM
Honestly I'm not surprised by the chart at all. I think it's sort of an extension of people against racism and homophobia (young people). People hate hate.

Which is an oxymoron, because it results in hating only some "hate" and not "all hate".  Just that "hate" that isn't convenient for you.

It's more an indication of things we've talked about elsewhere here: the abdication of responsibility by our "millenials", whereby there is no personal accountability.  It's all "the other guy".  There was a great skit (well, it was appropriate; I don't know if it was "great") on the first episode of "Saturday Night Live" called "The Millenials" that captured this perfectly.  There was great (and this one was great) Doonesbury this weekend (Sunday) that captured it as well.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean "getting rid of everything you don't like".  "Tolerance" means letting others live as they see fit, and doing the same for yourself.  That by definition means there will be unpleasantries.  "Hating hate" is just a copout to say "MY hate is okay, but not yours!".  That's not "tolerance".  That's "bigotry". 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Lucien on November 23, 2015, 10:23:23 AM
"Hating hate" is just a copout to say "MY hate is okay, but not yours!".  That's not "tolerance".  That's "bigotry".

I don't really get this. Young people hate homophobia nowadays, usually. Is that hate okay? I mean, I think so. Is it bigotry to say that hatred of homophobia is acceptable? But I don't think it's really "hatred" of homophobia, anyways. I just said "People hate hate." as a way to reduce "People don't accept hate as much anymore." Most people don't accept homophobia anymore. Most people don't accept racism anymore. Is not accepting racism and homophobia "bigoted"?

"Tolerance" doesn't mean "getting rid of everything you don't like".  "Tolerance" means letting others live as they see fit, and doing the same for yourself.  That by definition means there will be unpleasantries.

Not everyone wants racist and homophobic people to exist. As of now we might be letting those people live as they want, but, as this thread discusses, I'm not surprised at all people want those people silenced. We simply aren't tolerant of racism and homophobia. We're bigots to bigots, I guess.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: kaos2900 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:01 AM
"Hating hate" is just a copout to say "MY hate is okay, but not yours!".  That's not "tolerance".  That's "bigotry".

I don't really get this. Young people hate homophobia nowadays, usually. Is that hate okay? I mean, I think so. Is it bigotry to say that hatred of homophobia is acceptable? But I don't think it's really "hatred" of homophobia, anyways. I just said "People hate hate." as a way to reduce "People don't accept hate as much anymore." Most people don't accept homophobia anymore. Most people don't accept racism anymore. Is not accepting racism and homophobia "bigoted"?

"Tolerance" doesn't mean "getting rid of everything you don't like".  "Tolerance" means letting others live as they see fit, and doing the same for yourself.  That by definition means there will be unpleasantries.

Not everyone wants racist and homophobic people to exist. As of now we might be letting those people live as they want, but, as this thread discusses, I'm not surprised at all people want those people silenced. We simply aren't tolerant of racism and homophobia. We're bigots to bigots, I guess.

Isn't that the point thought? Everyone should be able to believe what ever they want. The issue becomes when someone tries to force their views on others and eliminate the views of those who don't agree with them. This is the hypocrisy of our country today. Watch the current season of South Park. They are hammering this point home. Honestly, in my 31 years of life, this is the first time where I feel fearful of the future of our country.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: theseoafs on November 23, 2015, 12:18:18 PM
Isn't that the point thought? Everyone should be able to believe what ever they want. The issue becomes when someone tries to force their views on others and eliminate the views of those who don't agree with them. This is the hypocrisy of our country today. Watch the current season of South Park. They are hammering this point home. Honestly, in my 31 years of life, this is the first time where I feel fearful of the future of our country.

Really? Everyone should be able to believe anything they want?
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on November 23, 2015, 12:26:32 PM
Isn't that the point thought? Everyone should be able to believe what ever they want. The issue becomes when someone tries to force their views on others and eliminate the views of those who don't agree with them. This is the hypocrisy of our country today. Watch the current season of South Park. They are hammering this point home. Honestly, in my 31 years of life, this is the first time where I feel fearful of the future of our country.

Really? Everyone should be able to believe anything they want?

Yeah. That's the cool thing about being a human. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. Believing and putting into practice are two very different things. I believe this country would be a better place without Mitch McConnell. There's nothing wrong with me believing that. That doesn't mean I have the right to shoot him in the face.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: theseoafs on November 23, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
Isn't that the point thought? Everyone should be able to believe what ever they want. The issue becomes when someone tries to force their views on others and eliminate the views of those who don't agree with them. This is the hypocrisy of our country today. Watch the current season of South Park. They are hammering this point home. Honestly, in my 31 years of life, this is the first time where I feel fearful of the future of our country.

Really? Everyone should be able to believe anything they want?

Yeah. That's the cool thing about being a human. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. Believing and putting into practice are two very different things. I believe this country would be a better place without Mitch McConnell. There's nothing wrong with me believing that. That doesn't mean I have the right to shoot him in the face.

Yeah, that's the entire point. As Americans we believe that you should be able to believe anything you want, but that that doesn't necessarily translate to action. e.g. you can believe all you want that a man and a young boy should be able to enter into a romantic relationship if they're both consenting, but as soon as you do anything to act on that belief, we lock you up forever.

The argument for censoring "offensive speech" comes from the same place. The argument is, "you can believe whatever you want about minorities, but vocalizing those feelings is damaging". Saying the words is the action that we shouldn't allow in this case -- or so the argument goes.

Here's the disclaimer: I don't agree with this argument myself. I find it pretty silly, especially in the context of a college campus. But this isn't the silly part of the argument. You can't just freeze up and insist you have the right to say whatever you want in the face of millennials who believe this stuff. Your counterargument has to be more nuanced than that.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Lucien on November 23, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3ty7ee/russia_bans_scientology/

relevant, look at those upvotes, pretty massive for reddit
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: portnoy311 on November 23, 2015, 09:21:55 PM
Scientology also isn't recognized as a religion in Germany. I know a lot of it is the level of organized crime involved in the "church's" organization, and how it's basically seen as a scheme to brainwash people out of their money instead of an actual religion.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on November 24, 2015, 08:14:36 AM
"Hating hate" is just a copout to say "MY hate is okay, but not yours!".  That's not "tolerance".  That's "bigotry".

I don't really get this. Young people hate homophobia nowadays, usually. Is that hate okay? I mean, I think so. Is it bigotry to say that hatred of homophobia is acceptable? But I don't think it's really "hatred" of homophobia, anyways. I just said "People hate hate." as a way to reduce "People don't accept hate as much anymore." Most people don't accept homophobia anymore. Most people don't accept racism anymore. Is not accepting racism and homophobia "bigoted"?

As long as it's your hate.  You can hate homophobes, but can I hate homos?   (I say that to make a point, I hope you know; I don't refer to our homosexual friends as "homos" in regular conversation). 

And to more directly answer your point (which is a good one, don't misunderstand me) it depends on how that "non-acceptance" is handled.   There's a lot of "hate-shaming" (is that what the kids are calling it these days?) that is stifling opinion.    It's where the line is between thought and action, and where the line is between option and obligation.  Kim Davis had no standing to do what she did.  That is unacceptable.   She is unquestionably a bigot.   But she was ACTING in contravention to the law and established requirements of her position.   If I THINK like her (which I don't, by the way; she's the worst example of "America" today) why does that deserve or merit your "hate"?  Aren't you just judging me on my ideas and beliefs?  How is that any different than judging me on my skin or sexual preference?


Quote
Not everyone wants racist and homophobic people to exist. As of now we might be letting those people live as they want, but, as this thread discusses, I'm not surprised at all people want those people silenced. We simply aren't tolerant of racism and homophobia. We're bigots to bigots, I guess.

So who gets to make that call?  Why is your bigotry warranted and someone else's isn't?  As long as I'm not actively prejudicing you - say, I'm not making hiring decisions based on the trait we're talking about, or I'm not choosing who to sell my wedding cakes to - why does my thought not merit the same protections and respect that yours do?   (I'm using these pronouns purposefully to make it so that you don't think I am attacking you; I have my prejudices like anyone else, but they are decidedly NOT racial or sexual in nature).  My signature on another board is pretty appropriate here:  "A strong democracy is how it deals with the most unsavory of ideas." 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 24, 2015, 09:03:34 AM
Everyone should be entitled to think and say whatever they want.

Which doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for that belief or speech. 

But there should be no LEGAL repercussions.  That's what the First Amendment is all about.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on November 24, 2015, 01:48:39 PM
Everyone should be entitled to think and say whatever they want.

Which doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for that belief or speech. 

But there should be no LEGAL repercussions.  That's what the First Amendment is all about.

I agree with all of that, and have written as much before.   But it goes a tad further than that; the repercussions have to be reasonable and in line with the speech.  Does the store owner that refuses to put a gay-themed message on a wedding cake - legally his right - REALLY have to be shamed on national social media?   

Just because I think or suspect you to be a bigot, doesn't give me the right to go nuclear on you.  Part of the notion of the social contract regarding rights is that I have to RESPECT yours even if I don't agree with them.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: eric42434224 on November 24, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
I don't see where anyone has to respect anyone else's rights.  I would see that as a right itself, as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on November 24, 2015, 01:55:25 PM
Everyone should be entitled to think and say whatever they want.

Which doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for that belief or speech. 

But there should be no LEGAL repercussions.  That's what the First Amendment is all about.

I agree with all of that, and have written as much before.   But it goes a tad further than that; the repercussions have to be reasonable and in line with the speech.  Does the store owner that refuses to put a gay-themed message on a wedding cake - legally his right - REALLY have to be shamed on national social media?   


Is that legally his right though? Sure, he owns the store, but the infrastructure that powers his bakery and supplies it with safe water comes from the tax payer. The police he may one day have to call are funded by the tax payer. The DOT crews that allow customers to get to his business in the winter months are funded by the tax payer. That owner, whether he likes it or not, attributes at least some of his success to the tax payers, some of whom might be gay. If they are in one way or another funding that guy's success, I feel like they should have some kind of right to not be refused. Now, if the baker we're talking about is the one who refused to make the wedding cake but offered to make them literally anything else in their catalog, I'm kind of on the fence with that one. I don't know. It's tough.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: eric42434224 on November 24, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
Everyone should be entitled to think and say whatever they want.

Which doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for that belief or speech. 

But there should be no LEGAL repercussions.  That's what the First Amendment is all about.

I agree with all of that, and have written as much before.   But it goes a tad further than that; the repercussions have to be reasonable and in line with the speech.  Does the store owner that refuses to put a gay-themed message on a wedding cake - legally his right - REALLY have to be shamed on national social media?   


Is that legally his right though? Sure, he owns the store, but the infrastructure that powers his bakery and supplies it with safe water comes from the tax payer. The police he may one day have to call are funded by the tax payer. The DOT crews that allow customers to get to his business in the winter months are funded by the tax payer. That owner, whether he likes it or not, attributes at least some of his success to the tax payers, some of whom might be gay. If they are in one way or another funding that guy's success, I feel like they should have some kind of right to not be refused. Now, if the baker we're talking about is the one who refused to make the wedding cake but offered to make them literally anything else in their catalog, I'm kind of on the fence with that one. I don't know. It's tough.

I would think that there are rules, perhaps withing the law, code, or business license, that bounds the business owner to not discriminate against protected classes or certain groups.  I have no problem with that.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: kaos2900 on November 25, 2015, 07:07:01 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/24/college-campus-protests-this-is-generation-that-will-destroy-america.html?intcmp=hplnws

Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on November 25, 2015, 07:12:00 AM
The people that raised this generation are the fuck ups.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Implode on November 25, 2015, 07:43:05 AM
My friends and I were talking about every generation laments the younger generations and cries how it's the end of civilization. But an interesting thing we discussed is how it seemed to skip a generation this time. We found that it's really the boomers that are opposed to the millennial and that gen x has really just become complacent. What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on November 25, 2015, 07:56:05 AM
It's tough to say. I think the boomers and generation X had way more in common than people from my generation and the kids being born today. It'd say both are equally responsible.

The millennials didn't vote in the people who made corporations more important than people.
The millennials didn't allow people into office that turned drug use into a tax draining, cartel fueling epidemic.
The millennials didn't allow our prisons to become privatized.
The millennials didn't ask to be rewarded for simply participating
The millennials didn't bring the TV into the kitchen during family dinner
The millennials didn't ask to be born into an era where a year of college cost what four did for our parents
The millennials didn't ask to be born into a world of globalization with people in other countries working for slave wages
The millennials didn't ask our parents to buy $700K homes on $60K a year salaries
The millennials didn't turn this culture into a consumer culture
The millennials didn't dream up bullshit like Black Friday
The millennials didn't destroy the values of this country, our parents did.

The conditions created and the policies put into place under the baby boomers is what destroyed this economy and ultimately this country. The ripple effect took a few decades to really manifest into what we have today. Millennials are stuck trying to claw their way out of the rubble.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on November 25, 2015, 08:30:44 AM
Everyone should be entitled to think and say whatever they want.

Which doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for that belief or speech. 

But there should be no LEGAL repercussions.  That's what the First Amendment is all about.

I agree with all of that, and have written as much before.   But it goes a tad further than that; the repercussions have to be reasonable and in line with the speech.  Does the store owner that refuses to put a gay-themed message on a wedding cake - legally his right - REALLY have to be shamed on national social media?   


Is that legally his right though? Sure, he owns the store, but the infrastructure that powers his bakery and supplies it with safe water comes from the tax payer. The police he may one day have to call are funded by the tax payer. The DOT crews that allow customers to get to his business in the winter months are funded by the tax payer. That owner, whether he likes it or not, attributes at least some of his success to the tax payers, some of whom might be gay. If they are in one way or another funding that guy's success, I feel like they should have some kind of right to not be refused. Now, if the baker we're talking about is the one who refused to make the wedding cake but offered to make them literally anything else in their catalog, I'm kind of on the fence with that one. I don't know. It's tough.

That's a tough line to draw though, since it virtually puts any entity that uses a road for access as a "government entity".   That's stretching proximate cause to a level that I'm not sure is sustainable.

In any event... I don't quite get the rationale that it is ok to force SOME people to do something they don't want to do, yet not others.   
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on November 25, 2015, 08:36:04 AM
It's tough to say. I think the boomers and generation X had way more in common than people from my generation and the kids being born today. It'd say both are equally responsible.

The millennials didn't vote in the people who made corporations more important than people.
The millennials didn't allow people into office that turned drug use into a tax draining, cartel fueling epidemic.
The millennials didn't allow our prisons to become privatized.
The millennials didn't ask to be rewarded for simply participating
The millennials didn't bring the TV into the kitchen during family dinner
The millennials didn't ask to be born into an era where a year of college cost what four did for our parents
The millennials didn't ask to be born into a world of globalization with people in other countries working for slave wages
The millennials didn't ask our parents to buy $700K homes on $60K a year salaries
The millennials didn't turn this culture into a consumer culture
The millennials didn't dream up bullshit like Black Friday
The millennials didn't destroy the values of this country, our parents did.

The conditions created and the policies put into place under the baby boomers is what destroyed this economy and ultimately this country. The ripple effect took a few decades to really manifest into what we have today. Millennials are stuck trying to claw their way out of the rubble.

Oh, please, Chino.  You're making me show my age now, but that is just another form of the whining that we're talking about here.   My generation didn't do a lot of the things that we had to deal with, either.  We didn't put men in chains.  We didn't build a device that is the size of my car and yet can annihilate an entire COUNTRY.    We didn't decide that an entire religion ought to be exterminated from the planet.   Certain people don't care what the rules are, they take the rules and they be as successful as they can within those rules.   And others lament the rules and complain about how it could be easier, and it could be more fair, and could be this and could be that.   Coulda, woulda, shoulda. 

Of course everything is a ripple; but at some point we have to realize that ripples - of one form or another - have been around since the genus homo lifted his second hand off the ground for keeps. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Implode on November 25, 2015, 09:01:14 AM
The difference is that the boomer generation was born into one of the most prosperous times in the country's history. That's literally why there was a boom.

Certain people don't care what the rules are, they take the rules and they be as successful as they can within those rules.   And others lament the riles and complain about how it could be easier, and it could be more fair, and could be this and could be that.

That's a gross over simplification of the problem. The secret to success today isn't just about accepting your situation and trying your best. Sometimes that's just not good enough. And it's true; that's always been the case. But with our generation literally being told from the moment that we could understand language that we can accomplish anything if we put our minds to it, you can't blame us if we're slow to face reality.

And this is coming from someone who I consider to be relatively successful for my age. I've been incredibly lucky, and compared to how much work some other people I know put in, I genuinely feel guilty that it seems like my opportunities have simply fallen into my lap because of the work my parents did and nothing I did. I honestly don't have any friends my age that aren't living on their own and barely making end's meet (or not at all) at the moment. Was that as common in previous generations (genuine question)?
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: kaos2900 on November 25, 2015, 09:29:36 AM
I'll say I was lucky to have parents raise me in a way to be hard worker but everything else I earned. I worked my ass off in school and at my job to be where I'm at. When my co-workers are on facebook and looking for process improvements.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on November 25, 2015, 09:33:44 AM
Good thing you didn't grow up in areas like Chicago where entire communities are taught no such thing.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on November 25, 2015, 01:36:57 PM
But - and this is a legitimate question, Chino, so please don't take it as I am arguing with you - how do we respond to that?   They've certainly learned now, no?   So what's the answer?  Give a bunch of stuff that is in essence a "do over" and hope the lesson skips a generation?   

Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2015, 06:12:09 AM
But - and this is a legitimate question, Chino, so please don't take it as I am arguing with you - how do we respond to that?   They've certainly learned now, no?   So what's the answer?  Give a bunch of stuff that is in essence a "do over" and hope the lesson skips a generation?

I'm not sure what the complete answer is. However, I'm sure we could all agree that a good first measure would be doing away with minimum sentencing and the need to post bail. Also, we need a way to make government assistant a worse deal than going to work. A minimum wage bump could help with that. 

I hate to say it, but maybe writing this generation off would be the best option. I know it sucks, but if there was a way doing so could help mitigate these economic scenarios for the future generations of these communities, it could end up being significantly cheaper in the long run.

I'm not trying to completely excuse my generation. You said "They've certainly learned now, no?". You bet they did. I'm seeing first hand my generation learning this the hard way. But learning it isn't going to make tens of thousands of dollars in debt just disappear. Hopefully what was learned this time around will be passed down. The students learned, the banks learned, the parents learned, universities learned, and the communities have all learned. This was an equally shitty learning experience all around.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2015, 08:03:16 AM
But - and this is a legitimate question, Chino, so please don't take it as I am arguing with you - how do we respond to that?   They've certainly learned now, no?   So what's the answer?  Give a bunch of stuff that is in essence a "do over" and hope the lesson skips a generation?

I'm not sure what the complete answer is. However, I'm sure we could all agree that a good first measure would be doing away with minimum sentencing and the need to post bail. Also, we need a way to make government assistant a worse deal than going to work. A minimum wage bump could help with that. 

I hate to say it, but maybe writing this generation off would be the best option. I know it sucks, but if there was a way doing so could help mitigate these economic scenarios for the future generations of these communities, it could end up being significantly cheaper in the long run.

I'm not trying to completely excuse my generation. You said "They've certainly learned now, no?". You bet they did. I'm seeing first hand my generation learning this the hard way. But learning it isn't going to make tens of thousands of dollars in debt just disappear. Hopefully what was learned this time around will be passed down. The students learned, the banks learned, the parents learned, universities learned, and the communities have all learned. This was an equally shitty learning experience all around.

Actually, I don't think it is the worst idea in the world to (figuratively) write off that generation.  Not everyone is going to fail, and those that succeed can help to further the lesson.    And while I am not a proponent of the minimum wage in any way shape or form, yours is probably the best argument for it (that it makes working more attractive than staying home).   I think there are other (better) ways of doing that, but that is for a different thread, I would imagine. 

I just know that "providing for" is never the right answer when it leads to a situation where the "providing for" never ends.  And we're there now, because we're advocating for "providing for" without any real understanding of what that means in the big picture.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: TL on December 05, 2015, 02:35:49 PM
Every generation has people complaining that the next generation are terrible. It's a documentable trend.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/05/me-generation-time/65054/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD0x7ho_IYc
http://xkcd.com/1227/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/01/08/why-do-we-always-sell-the-next-generation-short/


As for the question on whether or not there should be some limitations on free speech;
I think there isn't one objectively correct answer. Different countries may handle the subject a bit differently, and with each it may just be a difference of opinion.

In Canada, for instance, there are a few limitations when it comes to hate speech (though it has to be pretty extreme). It's an interpretation of the balance between freedom "to" do things, vs freedom "from" things. A balance of allowing freedom of speech and expression, while also protecting oppressed and marginalized minorities.

The difference between how the US and Canada handle free speech just seems like a different interpretation to me, with neither necessarily being right or wrong.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: jammindude on December 05, 2015, 03:05:56 PM
That doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't in a certain amount of decline.   I can testify to the fact that when I was young, I was a complete and total screw up.   In fact, if I could go back and tell my teenage self anything at all, I probably wouldn't bother saying anything.  I would just punch him in the mouth for being a complete and total dip****.     

And yes, I was worse than the generation before me, and I'm only just now (in my mid-40's) catching up to the 25 year olds of the generation before me.   And I also personally think that most (not all) of the 25 year olds of today are *even less* responsible than I was at 25...and I was pretty damned irresponsible.   
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: TL on December 14, 2015, 04:58:04 PM
I think it's easy to view the previous generation in a way that forgets that they were young and stupid once too. As they get older, the focus obviously shifts to when they had gotten their shit together.
The younger generation just hasn't been around for as long, being a younger generation and all. I don't think any generation is actually uniformly worse than the previous one.

If there's anything to it, I think it's just more visible now because of advances in media and technology. That young foolishness was always there though.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 15, 2015, 07:40:49 AM
I think it's easy to view the previous generation in a way that forgets that they were young and stupid once too. As they get older, the focus obviously shifts to when they had gotten their shit together.
The younger generation just hasn't been around for as long, being a younger generation and all. I don't think any generation is actually uniformly worse than the previous one.

If there's anything to it, I think it's just more visible now because of advances in media and technology. That young foolishness was always there though.

But as Jammin said, "documentable trend" doesn't mean "wrong" or "misplaced".  I kind of view it as a saw blade.  Each generation are dumbasses a 22, and gain knowledge as they go.  But there is no guarantee that they achieve the level of knowledge of their fathers.  And when the cycle starts again, their kids are a little more dumb in the ass, and while they learn, they don't learn to quite the level of their fathers.

I like to think I'm rather intelligent, and I try (with moderate success) to be as much of an autodidact as I can and as much of a Renaissance man as I can.  But there is a lot lost.  My father still is smarter than I am, and still has more of those skills that probably don't come into play every day, but gosh, when you need them...

And beyond that, he has a set of morals and manners that most kids not only don't have, but (worse, in my opinion) view as weak or outmoded. 

My father's generation would never, in a MILLION BILLION years, ever have made note of or, worse, had issue with, the concept of "voting against one's self-interest".  Not out of ignorance, but because the concept of voting FOR your self-interest would have been foreign to them.  One doesn't - or rather, shouldn't, because unfortunately, we DO - vote for your self-interest; you should vote for what's best for the collective.  That some moron in Hartford, Connecticut likes some proposal or candidate because it's good for them personally has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether that candidate is fit to lead, has the ideas and wherewithal to make this country stronger and more productive, or can handle the various crises that come about in the normal course of international politics.   

I'll keep it bipartisan for now, but there are PLENTY of candidates that are "shining examples" (there's irony for you, in case you're not predisposed to see it) of the down-side of voting FOR self-interest. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Lucien on December 15, 2015, 07:58:33 AM
Each generation are dumbasses a 22, and gain knowledge as they go.  But there is no guarantee that they achieve the level of knowledge of their fathers.  And when the cycle starts again, their kids are a little more dumb in the ass, and while they learn, they don't learn to quite the level of their fathers.

So you're saying every generation is dumber than the last? That the past years of extreme technological advancement were made by people dumber than Henry the Eighth or William Shakespeare?
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 15, 2015, 08:13:23 AM
Each generation are dumbasses a 22, and gain knowledge as they go.  But there is no guarantee that they achieve the level of knowledge of their fathers.  And when the cycle starts again, their kids are a little more dumb in the ass, and while they learn, they don't learn to quite the level of their fathers.

So you're saying every generation is dumber than the last? That the past years of extreme technological advancement were made by people dumber than Henry the Eighth or William Shakespeare?

Ah, yes, that is what I am saying.   But you've called me on my sloppy language; I don't mean "dumber" in the stricter sense; I mean more of a one trick pony.  Those technological advancements come at a cost, and while the other threads in this section spend an inordinate amount of time on "income equality", for me, the issue isn't about income it's about intellect.   I feel like this country (and not just this country, but it's the one I can speak to best) has a real problem with INTELLECTUAL inequality (it's for another post, but I believe that is the root cause of income inequality). 

We have all these conveniences that don't actually ENHANCE our intellect, they enhance our convenience while dumbing down our intellect.   I can remember in the early 70's the rage was "memory".  The idea was that to succeed you had to increase your memory capacity.  Now, we've got Smartphones that remember our appointments, remember our passwords, hell, my kid has an app that remembers her period.    Do you honestly think that the average citizen is materially better off AS A PERSON due to the technology you're talking about?   Better CONNECTED, yes, but better off intellectually? 

Find it if you can, but there is a great blog by Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric Company regarding the tech bubble.  Really illuminating stuff. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Lucien on December 15, 2015, 08:23:56 AM
Those technological advancements come at a cost, and while the other threads in this section spend an inordinate amount of time on "income equality", for me, the issue isn't about income it's about intellect.

So people who are poor, that cannot get an education because they are poor, just weren't smart enough to fix the problem that they are poor?

We have all these conveniences that don't actually ENHANCE our intellect, they enhance our convenience while dumbing down our intellect.   I can remember in the early 70's the rage was "memory".  The idea was that to succeed you had to increase your memory capacity.  Now, we've got Smartphones that remember our appointments, remember our passwords, hell, my kid has an app that remembers her period.    Do you honestly think that the average citizen is materially better off AS A PERSON due to the technology you're talking about?   Better CONNECTED, yes, but better off intellectually? 

People certainly could be better off intellectually. Just start reading articles, books online, hell, wikipedia articles about various things will make you "better off intellectually". People just tend to enjoy easy-to-swallow media, which is where people are actually dumbed down. I don't have a smartphone personally, since everything you can do on a smartphone you can do on the laptop I'm currently using, and more, with more security.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 15, 2015, 09:57:52 AM
Those technological advancements come at a cost, and while the other threads in this section spend an inordinate amount of time on "income equality", for me, the issue isn't about income it's about intellect.

So people who are poor, that cannot get an education because they are poor, just weren't smart enough to fix the problem that they are poor?

Ah, the struggle.  Do I take the bait, or no?   I'm in...

Your question is not correctly phrased; it's a false premise that people are not getting an education "because they are poor".   IN his book "Dumbing Down Our Kids", the author, Charles I Can't Remember His Last Name clearly debunks the myth that it is "dollars alone" that leads to education.  Perhaps in the private university level, but not in the public school, K through 12 level.  In fact, inner city schools often get MORE funding, based on performance and some of the recent "developments" (if you want to call them that) in performance-based outcomes.   The public school graduation rates in inner cities are HORRID, as are the unemployment rates (meaning, the kids are not leaving school to work, as they might have done 50 years ago).  They don't value an education, even though almost every study ties income to education, at least after a certain level is achieved. 

So, to read into your question, we're not exactly saying the same thing.

Quote

People certainly could be better off intellectually. Just start reading articles, books online, hell, wikipedia articles about various things will make you "better off intellectually". People just tend to enjoy easy-to-swallow media, which is where people are actually dumbed down. I don't have a smartphone personally, since everything you can do on a smartphone you can do on the laptop I'm currently using, and more, with more security.

My thoughts exactly.  People rag on Wikipedia, and certainly, for researched materials there are far better sources, but in terms of a quick hit to your mental capabilities, I live on Wikipedia.  Other sources too, but it is a great place to start. 

And you're feeding the beast now, because I have been on an anti-Twitter kick in recent months for the very reasons you allude to.  We want everything concise and pat.  I can recall the debate where I think it was CNBC had the Twitter feeds playing underneath and it became almost unwatchable, listening to candidates try to articulate their position and seeing some doucherocket from Baltimore twatting something quippy and inane, thinking they were offering something tangible to the debate.   I can confidently and unequivocally say that it is impossible to simplify a $10 TRILLION global economy down to "140 characters or less". 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on December 15, 2015, 10:04:51 AM
Those technological advancements come at a cost, and while the other threads in this section spend an inordinate amount of time on "income equality", for me, the issue isn't about income it's about intellect.

So people who are poor, that cannot get an education because they are poor, just weren't smart enough to fix the problem that they are poor?

Ah, the struggle.  Do I take the bait, or no?   I'm in...

Your question is not correctly phrased; it's a false premise that people are not getting an education "because they are poor".   IN his book "Dumbing Down Our Kids", the author, Charles I Can't Remember His Last Name clearly debunks the myth that it is "dollars alone" that leads to education.  Perhaps in the private university level, but not in the public school, K through 12 level.  In fact, inner city schools often get MORE funding, based on performance and some of the recent "developments" (if you want to call them that) in performance-based outcomes.   The public school graduation rates in inner cities are HORRID, as are the unemployment rates (meaning, the kids are not leaving school to work, as they might have done 50 years ago).  They don't value an education, even though almost every study ties income to education, at least after a certain level is achieved. 

So, to read into your question, we're not exactly saying the same thing.

Washington DC spends $29,500 per student per year, the most in the country. At an 8th grade level, 83% are not proficient in reading, and 81% are not proficient in math. You will never solve the education problems of this country with money. Maybe at a college level some government assistance can do some good, but from an elementary school standpoint, it's just wasted funds. Those communities will not improve until the head of the households start acting like functioning members of society.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 15, 2015, 01:37:22 PM
Those technological advancements come at a cost, and while the other threads in this section spend an inordinate amount of time on "income equality", for me, the issue isn't about income it's about intellect.

So people who are poor, that cannot get an education because they are poor, just weren't smart enough to fix the problem that they are poor?

Ah, the struggle.  Do I take the bait, or no?   I'm in...

Your question is not correctly phrased; it's a false premise that people are not getting an education "because they are poor".   IN his book "Dumbing Down Our Kids", the author, Charles I Can't Remember His Last Name clearly debunks the myth that it is "dollars alone" that leads to education.  Perhaps in the private university level, but not in the public school, K through 12 level.  In fact, inner city schools often get MORE funding, based on performance and some of the recent "developments" (if you want to call them that) in performance-based outcomes.   The public school graduation rates in inner cities are HORRID, as are the unemployment rates (meaning, the kids are not leaving school to work, as they might have done 50 years ago).  They don't value an education, even though almost every study ties income to education, at least after a certain level is achieved. 

So, to read into your question, we're not exactly saying the same thing.

Washington DC spends $29,500 per student per year, the most in the country. At an 8th grade level, 83% are not proficient in reading, and 81% are not proficient in math. You will never solve the education problems of this country with money. Maybe at a college level some government assistance can do some good, but from an elementary school standpoint, it's just wasted funds. Those communities will not improve until the head of the households start acting like functioning members of society.

Doesn't that blow your mind?  Almost 85% of eighth graders can't read proficiently.    And we wonder?
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Lucien on December 15, 2015, 03:28:32 PM
Doesn't that blow your mind?  Almost 85% of eighth graders can't read proficiently.    And we wonder?

Then the question is who's fault is it? The child or the parent? Chino states "Those communities will not improve until the head of the households start acting like functioning members of society", which I assume means the fault should be placed onto the parent (if I'm putting words in your mouth, Chino, I apologize), and if that is the case, I agree with him.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: kingshmegland on December 15, 2015, 03:49:17 PM
I agree with Chino.  As grown ups, the busy work life is an excuse not to help an push our children to better themselves.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 16, 2015, 08:05:40 AM
As do I.  I'm a parent, and I find the time. 

It's mostly the fathers.   There was a stat at my daughters school that was something along the lines of "students who see their fathers read are 60% more likely to read themselves".  It was NOT the same for mothers.  I forget what the actual number is, but it was shocking, and I remember thinking "Thank GOD I read like a jackass". 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fatherhood/five-reasons-why-dads-should-read-to-their-children-more/
http://www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/training-and-consultancy/fathers-reading-day-training/
http://www.begintoread.com/research/literacystatistics.html

You'll also note that fourth grade (age 10 or so) is about when the patterns are discernible, so we're not talking about kids that have to work, we're not talking about kids that are making their own decisions.  At age 10, it's pretty incomprehensible that we're not placing the blame on the parents. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: TL on December 16, 2015, 01:12:50 PM
I think it's easy to view the previous generation in a way that forgets that they were young and stupid once too. As they get older, the focus obviously shifts to when they had gotten their shit together.
The younger generation just hasn't been around for as long, being a younger generation and all. I don't think any generation is actually uniformly worse than the previous one.

If there's anything to it, I think it's just more visible now because of advances in media and technology. That young foolishness was always there though.

But as Jammin said, "documentable trend" doesn't mean "wrong" or "misplaced".  I kind of view it as a saw blade.  Each generation are dumbasses a 22, and gain knowledge as they go.  But there is no guarantee that they achieve the level of knowledge of their fathers.  And when the cycle starts again, their kids are a little more dumb in the ass, and while they learn, they don't learn to quite the level of their fathers.

I like to think I'm rather intelligent, and I try (with moderate success) to be as much of an autodidact as I can and as much of a Renaissance man as I can.  But there is a lot lost.  My father still is smarter than I am, and still has more of those skills that probably don't come into play every day, but gosh, when you need them...

And beyond that, he has a set of morals and manners that most kids not only don't have, but (worse, in my opinion) view as weak or outmoded. 

My father's generation would never, in a MILLION BILLION years, ever have made note of or, worse, had issue with, the concept of "voting against one's self-interest".  Not out of ignorance, but because the concept of voting FOR your self-interest would have been foreign to them.  One doesn't - or rather, shouldn't, because unfortunately, we DO - vote for your self-interest; you should vote for what's best for the collective.  That some moron in Hartford, Connecticut likes some proposal or candidate because it's good for them personally has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether that candidate is fit to lead, has the ideas and wherewithal to make this country stronger and more productive, or can handle the various crises that come about in the normal course of international politics.   

I'll keep it bipartisan for now, but there are PLENTY of candidates that are "shining examples" (there's irony for you, in case you're not predisposed to see it) of the down-side of voting FOR self-interest.

I have no doubt that your father is an exceptional man.
I just don't think generations as a whole have a consistent quality (good or bad). It would be just as easy to find someone who is doing better than their predecessors by every conceivable metric. I think finding problems with "millennials" or any other generation and using a glance at a visible few, and declaring an entire generation to be inferior based on that, is using too narrow of a view.

I think it's easy to look back at past generations and mostly remember their best and brightest, while the less shining examples slip peoples minds.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: kaos2900 on December 17, 2015, 06:34:04 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment/

Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 17, 2015, 08:13:41 AM
I have no doubt that your father is an exceptional man.

You have no idea.  I admire that man more than anyone on the planet.  I wrote about him once on the old Genesis board (I was 'Doodad" for anyone that was there) and the response was, frankly, overwhelming.  He informs my world view on a daily basis.

Quote
I just don't think generations as a whole have a consistent quality (good or bad). It would be just as easy to find someone who is doing better than their predecessors by every conceivable metric. I think finding problems with "millennials" or any other generation and using a glance at a visible few, and declaring an entire generation to be inferior based on that, is using too narrow of a view.

I think it's easy to look back at past generations and mostly remember their best and brightest, while the less shining examples slip peoples minds.

I don't disagree with you one bit.  There are certain things about past generations that probably shouldn't be brought forward.   I think though, that this conversation is important and should still be had because it reminds us that we should strive to be better, but more importantly (MOST importantly) it reminds us to think about HOW we can be better.  "Having cell phones" doesn't make us better.  It gives us a TOOL to be better, but if we don't take advantage of it, we're losing something. 

My step daughter says to me the other day "please remind me, I have to do xxx".   And I think the world of her, she is smart and beautiful and has the world at her feet, but I was like, "really?  You have that phone surgically grafted to your palm so you can throw Snapgrams about cute puppies, but you can't put a little note in your calendar to pop up on your screen to remind you of xxx?"   Small, easily dismissed example, but not irrelevant.  As important as it is (and it is) it's not enough that our kids grow up not calling people "fags" or something equally derisive. 

I'm going to say something very controversial here, but I think there is a selfishness that is creeping in, and I believe - strongly - that it is subtly but directly feeding some of the partisanship that we see in society.   There feels like there is this big "need" for dramatic action.  ACAs.  Climate treaties.  Marriage laws.   And I feel like if more attention was paid to the day-to-day interactions, the selflessness that has to follow from being more connected emotionally - as opposed to electronically - to our fellow man, we wouldn't need these grand gestures.   We don't hold people accountable anymore, which allows things to get out of control quickly.

The problem is, none of what I am talking about is easy, none of it is able to be parsed down to "140 characters or less" and none of it plays well to those who's attention span is measured in milliseconds. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Genowyn on December 17, 2015, 09:08:35 AM
And I feel like if more attention was paid to the day-to-day interactions, the selflessness that has to follow from being more connected emotionally - as opposed to electronically - to our fellow man, we wouldn't need these grand gestures.   We don't hold people accountable anymore, which allows things to get out of control quickly.

Have you considered that these new technologies use the electronic connection as a means to facilitate emotional connection? Seriously, not to beat a dead horse here, but people have been saying this shit EVERY TIME we revolutionize the way we communicate. People said it about telephones. They said it about telegraphs. I would wager they said it about writing, too.


Quote
The problem is, none of what I am talking about is easy, none of it is able to be parsed down to "140 characters or less" and none of it plays well to those who's attention span is measured in milliseconds. 

Do you really, honestly believe that all political discourse between young people happens on twitter? Like, seriously? People write blogs, they make videos, etc... what is really happening here is people whose voices were kept out of the conversation in the past finally have a means to make themselves heard. These are not new problems, they're just ones that centralized media chose to ignore.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: kaos2900 on December 17, 2015, 10:25:30 AM
Everyone now has a voice thanks to social media. The problem is they all seemed to have forgotten that their voice is not any more important than anyone elses and that people do not have to agree them.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 17, 2015, 10:27:46 AM
And I feel like if more attention was paid to the day-to-day interactions, the selflessness that has to follow from being more connected emotionally - as opposed to electronically - to our fellow man, we wouldn't need these grand gestures.   We don't hold people accountable anymore, which allows things to get out of control quickly.

Have you considered that these new technologies use the electronic connection as a means to facilitate emotional connection? Seriously, not to beat a dead horse here, but people have been saying this shit EVERY TIME we revolutionize the way we communicate. People said it about telephones. They said it about telegraphs. I would wager they said it about writing, too.

I'm sure they have.  But I've lived through two and a half of these 'revolutions' and they're not all the same.    There are no "screen names" on telephones and letters.     I don't get to hide behind "HotChick47" when I tell you that all Muslims ought to be put on an island somewhere when I'm on television or when I call you directly.   I understand your point and I don't dismiss it, but as I said, it's an incremental change, and you're getting younger and younger people involved at a level of development (of technology) when they don't have an appropriate level of social development. 

I had a healthy fear of strangers growing up because I had to look at them and talk with them.  I knew I was talking to someone older than me.  I knew if it was a man or a woman.   I could very easily go on line right now and with little forethought or planning, talk directly with a 10 year old boy.    That didn't happen at that level when I was 10.  So now you get more and more and more opportunities to test their moral boundaries in a way that has almost no consequences.   

I'm no prize, and I'm happily married, but when I got divorced about three years ago, it was like a kid in a candy shop.   It was a real test of will and of... I don't want to say "morals", necessarily, but certainly a test of self-discipline.  Do I want to do this?  Do I want to look back in six months and know I did this?   Most people aren't asking that question.   


Quote
Quote
The problem is, none of what I am talking about is easy, none of it is able to be parsed down to "140 characters or less" and none of it plays well to those who's attention span is measured in milliseconds. 

Do you really, honestly believe that all political discourse between young people happens on twitter? Like, seriously? People write blogs, they make videos, etc... what is really happening here is people whose voices were kept out of the conversation in the past finally have a means to make themselves heard. These are not new problems, they're just ones that centralized media chose to ignore.

I do not, but I do think - and I don't need to put much effort in to prove this - that even in those other media, the dialogue is "Twitter-friendly", if not in actuality, then in spirit.   "TL;DR" should not be a thing when it comes to talking about global economies, and global politics. 

And I respectfully call "self-serving (of a generation, not you personally) bullshit" on the notion that "voices were kept out of the conversation and are now being heard".   If you want to be heard, you will.  For every legitimate case of a disadvantaged person being materially and transformationally changed by this mode of conversation, there are ten or twenty that are only spewing their blather because it is convenient.   if anything, I feel like the "ease of communication" is not a good thing.  I'm sure there is someone somewhere that has a legitimate point, well-thought out and well-articulated, that would not have gotten traction without this, but there's an element to the idea that if the thought had merit it would have endured the effort needed to get published. 

This is the same phenomenon in music; there are countless people who believe this notion that any kid with a Casio keyboard and a Mac in his bedroom can make a CD-release quality demo, but that doesn't make the material worth the CD. 

This gets to the underlying point of PC, which is being discussed elsewhere here.  What is important is the idea.   And that idea only gets to remain important in the crucible of discussion.  And we've warped the crucible; we have the point (where I think you are) that just getting the idea out there is enough, but we're left with the question of, "how do we know that is a good idea?"  and with the noise of this unfettered eruption of ideas, brought about by taking the EASY WAY OUT, we're trending toward answering that question with the equally easy answer "BECAUSE IT SOUNDS GOOD AND DOESN'T OFFEND ANYONE".   But that's not an arbiter of truth.  It OFFENDED people when it came out that being gay was not something one could just "choose".  We are born that way.  But that "truth" - offensive as it may be to some - is no less true because it might offend someone. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 17, 2015, 10:28:54 AM
Everyone now has a voice thanks to social media. The problem is they all seemed to have forgotten that their voice is not any more important than anyone elses and that people do not have to agree them.

I'd go one step further:  just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean your opinion is free from the underlying facts that apply to everyone.  You can't excuse everything with "IMO". 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Genowyn on December 17, 2015, 11:17:02 AM
On the point of hiding behind usernames: maybe this is just me but what people think of 'Genowyn' and what people think of 'Sean' are equally important to me. Hell, I might care more about what people think of 'Genowyn' because more people know 'Genowyn' than 'Sean'. It's not as though they're distinct identities either. 'Genowyn' can be linked back to 'Sean'. Who I am online is just a more eloquent version of who I am in real life.

On the second point: I absolutely agree that ideas either prove themselves or fail in a forum of open discussion, but the problem is that for centuries, nay, millenia in the west, the people determining what made it to that forum were upper-class white dudes, ie, the people who had the power. Maybe today we can replace the 'white' with 'Christian or Jewish', but for the most part the power to control the conversation and the topics has remained in the same hands. All ideas are not equal, but they deserve equal opportunity to be heard and considered. Social media allows the ideas to get out there without going through the filter of the people who have the most to gain from maintaining the status quo.

Finally, in an ideal application (which admittedly is not how it is often used today), political correctness does not mean
not offending people, it means treating people with respect. The example brought up in the PC thread about the person who didn't like the term hard worker is not an example of political correctness, it is an example of an idiot. I'm sure as a Conservative you understand the value of not having a few idiots represent your ideas.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on December 18, 2015, 09:29:49 AM
On the point of hiding behind usernames: maybe this is just me but what people think of 'Genowyn' and what people think of 'Sean' are equally important to me. Hell, I might care more about what people think of 'Genowyn' because more people know 'Genowyn' than 'Sean'. It's not as though they're distinct identities either. 'Genowyn' can be linked back to 'Sean'. Who I am online is just a more eloquent version of who I am in real life.

And that's how I handle myself as well, for the most part.  No, always.   I am not embarrassed at all to introduce myself to someone with "You know me as 'Stadler'" (though it's only happened a handful of times).    But you're not ever going to convince me that hat applies across the board.  I have no doubt that those "people" (quotes intended) over at the sister forum of this site, who posted some atrocious things (anti-Semitic, homophobic, pedophilic, and, actually, worse) about Mike in the wake of the split with DT wouldn't say half the filth they said on-line to his - or anyone else's - face.

Quote
On the second point: I absolutely agree that ideas either prove themselves or fail in a forum of open discussion, but the problem is that for centuries, nay, millenia in the west, the people determining what made it to that forum were upper-class white dudes, ie, the people who had the power. Maybe today we can replace the 'white' with 'Christian or Jewish', but for the most part the power to control the conversation and the topics has remained in the same hands. All ideas are not equal, but they deserve equal opportunity to be heard and considered. Social media allows the ideas to get out there without going through the filter of the people who have the most to gain from maintaining the status quo.

Well, I'm not going to spend too much time with this argument.  I understand it, I only agree with it to an extent, and can't help but hear it as "excuses", even though I assume you don't mean it that way.  There's an element to that counter argument that basically says, the "old" avenues to be heard have established their checks and balances; it may be "power" but it also has veracity.   Even if you're rich and white and privileged, you don't get to make up your own facts, and you don't get to excuse nonsense with "IMO".  It sounds like a tangent, but it's my beef with Jon Stewart, and calling him "the most trusted journalist".  That he says the same thing you agree with doesn't make it truthful, or accurate.  I understand your point, and I expect you to tell me "not to throw out the baby with the bathwater" (and I agree) but if you're going to claim credibility on the medium to be used, you have to earn some of that through discipline and self-editing.  That is SORELY lacking in the chosen methods of communication being used today. 

Quote
Finally, in an ideal application (which admittedly is not how it is often used today), political correctness does not mean
not offending people, it means treating people with respect. The example brought up in the PC thread about the person who didn't like the term hard worker is not an example of political correctness, it is an example of an idiot. I'm sure as a Conservative you understand the value of not having a few idiots represent your ideas.

As a Conservative, I DO understand the value of not having a few idiots represent your ideas.  But I'm smart enough to look past the inanity of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer.  :)    Boo-yah. 

Look, notwithstanding that respect is earned, I don't disagree, but we've gotten to the point - I think in large part because of the proliferation of social media - where it is almost de facto that "Ideas I don't agree with" don't merit respect.   A very wise person I know once said "a strong democracy is how it deals with the most unsavory of ideas".   There was an article in today's Hartford Courant that criticized disciplinary action of schools in the state, and called expelling students (for disciplinary reasons) "unconstitutional" because it unfairly discriminates by race.  And the argument is that since the school is 35% African American, and those students disciplined are approximately 55%.   I defy anyone to make the argument that perhaps rather than it be "they're disciplined wrongly because they are black" it is actually a fact that race has nothing to do with it.  There are other factors - namely, economics - that contribute to behavior that I'll for the sake of brevity call "criminal" (even if that isn't exactly the right word).  That's not a "respect" issue, and it's not racist to suggest that something is NOT tied to race, but in today's environment that is a very charged idea to present.  That is an idea whose proof or refutation is central to the concept of addressing race relations in America, but it can't be presented. I know it can't, because Justice Scalia said something very similar in a different context and was deemed a Neanderthal at best, and an outright racist at worst, and he had the numbers to back him up!
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Cable on January 05, 2016, 08:54:01 PM
Back to the original topic. I fall somewhere between GenX and Millenial last I knew, and I'm ok with word control.

Let's use a real situation I encountered at work. At my agency, we have a meeting for any client that identifies as GLBT. Mainly, it's for transgender folk. But can be the G or B too. These meetings involve supervisors and important folk from medical and individual units. I represent Mental Health. After the meeting with a client, a unit boss called the person a "fag." Why didn't he say that when the client was in the room? How would that guy of been taken to being called that?

Words morph and change in meaning. The N word, then "coloured" at one point were acceptable. Now they are not. Unfortunately, I think the N word lingers due to continued usage by the targets.

Regardless, censorship really wouldn't do much at the end of the day. If people were penalized maybe, but people will look up words. I get the concept of eliminating a word to the best effort might help. But GLBT negative terms will be passed around, as will minority discriminatory terms.

So I conclude with a meh I guess. I'm for it, but really have many other things I care more about and think are more worthwhile.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: kaos2900 on January 06, 2016, 06:51:19 AM
That's the thing though. He should have every right to call anyone a fag. He will also have to deal with the consequences of using that word in the work environment. If he would have said that at my job he would have been canned on the spot.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on January 06, 2016, 11:50:55 AM
Back to the original topic. I fall somewhere between GenX and Millenial last I knew, and I'm ok with word control.

Let's use a real situation I encountered at work. At my agency, we have a meeting for any client that identifies as GLBT. Mainly, it's for transgender folk. But can be the G or B too. These meetings involve supervisors and important folk from medical and individual units. I represent Mental Health. After the meeting with a client, a unit boss called the person a "fag." Why didn't he say that when the client was in the room? How would that guy of been taken to being called that?

Words morph and change in meaning. The N word, then "coloured" at one point were acceptable. Now they are not. Unfortunately, I think the N word lingers due to continued usage by the targets.

Regardless, censorship really wouldn't do much at the end of the day. If people were penalized maybe, but people will look up words. I get the concept of eliminating a word to the best effort might help. But GLBT negative terms will be passed around, as will minority discriminatory terms.

So I conclude with a meh I guess. I'm for it, but really have many other things I care more about and think are more worthwhile.

I mean this nicely, but it's easy to say that when it's not your words being censored, and when it's so obvious ("fag") as to be a non-issue.  What about when it's not "hate", but rather, as I talked about above, just ideas you don't agree with?   How about commissioning a study, using government funds, to understand whether it really IS race, or some other factor that contributed to the 55% disciplinary rate for African Americans in that Connecticut school?    The Supreme Court has deemed that "money is speech" (although I'm using that idea horribly out of context here to make a point) so do you think that study will ever get funded? 

I agree with Kaos, with the one caveat that it doesn't open the door to ALL consequences; they should be reasonable and fitting of the initial act.  You don't get to kill someone that calls you a fag, and you don't get to ostracize them and their families from society for the same, either (I'm thinking of that dentist that killed the lion in Africa). 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on January 06, 2016, 11:57:39 AM
I'd rather be called a fag every day to my face than live in a country where someone couldn't do that.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Prog Snob on January 06, 2016, 12:49:00 PM
Everyone should be entitled to think and say whatever they want.

Which doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for that belief or speech. 

But there should be no LEGAL repercussions.  That's what the First Amendment is all about.

This is my take on it, as well. 

We're worrying about some words that only take meaning based on the intent of the user. However, we do have kids killing themselves because of bullying. How about we stop worrying about banning words and learn how to treat each other kinder? Maybe schools should be teaching children about intent and perception. Removing the words doesn't remove the intentions or the sentiments. Banning the word fag doesn't rid the user of his hate for homosexuals, if that is indeed the reason for using the word. It's instilling laziness and ultimately will make things worse because now using a word becomes a hate crime.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on January 06, 2016, 02:55:28 PM
Hef's right, as is usually the case, but it's a shade more nuanced than that.  One, the First Amendment only protects against government censorship, which leaves the door open to private, de facto censorship.  Which leads to two, which is the growing "activism" crusade to crush financially what can't be stopped legally.    The stores that go out of business because it becomes public that they wouldn't decorate a cake that says "Trevor, Happy Birthday, and I love you, honey! Brad".

It's a slippery slope, I grant you, but while there are companies I will or won't do business with for various reasons, I refuse to organize and bully (and that's what it is) others into doing the same.  If you reach the same conclusion as I do, of your own accord, that's fine, but this idea of using social media to shame others into making financial decisions based on YOUR agenda is like I said above, bullying in it's own right. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Genowyn on January 06, 2016, 08:32:53 PM
This is confusing to me though. Libertarians always say "We can't legislate that the free market will sort it out" and then when the free market sorts it out, you call it bullying?

Boycotting companies whose practices you don't agree with is sorta fundamental to that idea.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Lucien on January 06, 2016, 10:32:34 PM
Boycotting companies whose practices you don't agree with is sorta fundamental to that idea.

boycotting is meaningless, really. you can't force the millions upon millions of people who don't care what a company does, who just buy from them out of convenience, to stop buying from them in the hope that they'll change something. the people have very little power to influence because so little people think they actually can. sort of the same reason so few vote; they think it's meaningless, that their voice is not being heard.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Genowyn on January 06, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
But it has worked in the past, and more to the point, if it doesn't work then what is Stadler so worked up about?

To be clear, not saying a boycott of Verizon or something would work, but the local bigoted baker? Absolutely.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: jammindude on January 07, 2016, 07:49:22 AM
It's hard to draw the line, because it's difficult to know exactly when it's crossed.

I think you (a person) should be able to boycott whatever, and be free to educate others why you are doing so. But the minute you try to strong arm or buffalo people into doing what you do, and label and criticize those who chose to do differently...I have a BIG BIG BIG problem with that.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Stadler on January 07, 2016, 07:55:45 AM
But it has worked in the past, and more to the point, if it doesn't work then what is Stadler so worked up about?

To be clear, not saying a boycott of Verizon or something would work, but the local bigoted baker? Absolutely.

Well, you guys are dancing around my position on this.  I think it IS effective, I think it IS bullying, but I live with it because I believe that most people not "don't care" but rather see it for what it is.  BULLYING.   

Genowyn, I don't mind a person buying their conscience.  I do that too.   I can't name one off the top of my head, but there are companies I would choose to not do business with for whatever reason.  Where it translates into "bullying" is where I try to force my will on others.   When I stand in front of the store and "shame" those that have made the choice to shop there, whether it's because they agree with the store owner, because they don't care about the store owner, or because they are so desperate that they are willing to bite the bullet, but I shouldn't take away their choice, or change their choice so that they are doing it for the wrong reasons (and "your reason" isn't enough to keep it from being "the wrong reasons"). 

The process also gets corrupted.   It's one thing for me to go in, ask for a cake, have the baker say "No dice, faggot", and me decide to not shop there.  It's another thing entirely for someone who wants a cake from that baker for whatever reason to have to choose "do I wrongly get publicly labeled a bigot for even going into that store?"  What would your position be on that young girl who makes the impossible decision to have an abortion; do you think it's just and fair that she have to "perp walk" through the people carrying signs and calling her a "baby killer"? 

And it's still another thing entirely when the process gets used in inappropriate ways; for example, I don't get the raise I want from my boss and then organize a PR campaign and rally on social media to shame my boss into giving me something I clearly didn't deserve the first time, only to "save face". 

In short, I don't trust the boycotters.  I'm sure you think you're right 100% of the time, and on the "right side of history" as someone so arrogantly put it here a couple months ago (about the liberal platform) but life doesn't work that way.  There are nuances that protestors and political platforms can't possibly (Vanna, I'd like a "p" please) accommodate. 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Genowyn on January 07, 2016, 09:24:07 AM
So do you think it was wrong when businesses who refused to serve black people were boycotted during the civil rights movement?

And I'm not aware of any examples of people mobbing around these sorts of places trying to shame people going in - that's always shitty -  but what, praytell, is the difference between a gay person telling their friends and family "Hey Jim Bob's Bakery wouldn't sell me a cake because I'm gay", them thinking, "That's fucked up, I won't shop there in the future," then going on and sharing the story with their friends and family and so on, until most people feel uncomfortable going to Jim Bob for a cake and Jim Bob goes out of business, and that same gay person says what happened in their Facebook status to the same effect? The speed at which the information is disseminated?
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Chino on January 07, 2016, 09:31:53 AM
So do you think it was wrong when businesses who refused to serve black people were boycotted during the civil rights movement?

And I'm not aware of any examples of people mobbing around these sorts of places trying to shame people going in - that's always shitty -  but what, praytell, is the difference between a gay person telling their friends and family "Hey Jim Bob's Bakery wouldn't sell me a cake because I'm gay", them thinking, "That's fucked up, I won't shop there in the future," then going on and sharing the story with their friends and family and so on, until most people feel uncomfortable going to Jim Bob for a cake and Jim Bob goes out of business, and that same gay person says what happened in their Facebook status to the same effect? The speed at which the information is disseminated?

I think the difference is not with the speed information travels, but the distance. In the word of mouth scenario, the community members are the ones deciding what's right for their community and what isn't. With the Facebook example, you can have millions of people coming down on you from all over the country. What might be a misunderstanding within the community become the center of a nationwide debate.

There was a baker not too long ago that refused to make a gay wedding cake. However, he told the couple that his religion prevented him from endorsing the wedding cake, but he'd be willing to make anything else for them that they wanted. He'd make stuff for their wedding, it just couldn't be the cake (not really sure what the difference is, but whatevs). The nation wide debate made it sound like the owner said "Get out of here you homos. I don't need your money you fucking queers. Go find Jesus". 
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: Genowyn on January 07, 2016, 09:43:31 AM
I'm not really sure your example would make it better. I'd have just as many problems with a baker who refused to make a cake with a Star of David or Star and Crescent on it.
Title: Re: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 07, 2016, 12:26:23 PM
Stadler, in both of your posts on this page, you mentioned social media in conjunction with the idea of boycotts.

Based on this, and other comments you have made here in the past regarding social media, is it really just social media you have a problem with?  After all, boycotts have been around much longer than social media.