PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.
Discussion
There seems to be a growing trend recently towards the censorship of expressed views and declaring that any opinion which doesn't match a very narrow prescribed 'correct ' world view as immoral/unacceptable/somethingist and discarding it. Apparently it's now acceptable to eschew debate completely and simply accuse someone of an 'ism' (whether it's even relevant or not) to just shut their input down or marginalise them. We regularly see public figures sacked/expelled/resigning for expressing opinions that are held by large swathes of the population but do not meet the party/BBC PC line. This means that these issues never get the chance to make it to a proper democratic test thus artificially limiting our democratic choices.
This trend is becoming increasingly enshrined in law by the various 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' offences. I find this rather worrying, it's a slippery slope towards making disagreement with the government illegal. That of course filters down into society, for example there are views that are disallowed on this site because they might expose the publishers to legal risks. Outlawing opinions will not change them, it only fosters resentment and likely strengthens those opinions, only reasoned debate can shape opinion.
Be it Islam, immigration, transactivism, 'equality', the EU, travellers, politics or a whole raft of issues, I believe that people should be allowed and encouraged to express their views. The right to do so is in fact a cornerstone of successful democracy, I believe that this trend is why there have been some highly 'unexpected' election results recently (both recent general elections and Brexit), people could not express their actual views safely but when put to secret ballot they could do so.
It's all related to this idea that we can't offend anyone, if we could discard this notion it would benefit society greatly IMO. Developing a thicker skin and some debating skills rather than lobbying for any opinion not your own to be banned would do wonders for everybody and society at large.
Opinions?
This trend is becoming increasingly enshrined in law by the various 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' offences. I find this rather worrying, it's a slippery slope towards making disagreement with the government illegal. That of course filters down into society, for example there are views that are disallowed on this site because they might expose the publishers to legal risks. Outlawing opinions will not change them, it only fosters resentment and likely strengthens those opinions, only reasoned debate can shape opinion.
Be it Islam, immigration, transactivism, 'equality', the EU, travellers, politics or a whole raft of issues, I believe that people should be allowed and encouraged to express their views. The right to do so is in fact a cornerstone of successful democracy, I believe that this trend is why there have been some highly 'unexpected' election results recently (both recent general elections and Brexit), people could not express their actual views safely but when put to secret ballot they could do so.
It's all related to this idea that we can't offend anyone, if we could discard this notion it would benefit society greatly IMO. Developing a thicker skin and some debating skills rather than lobbying for any opinion not your own to be banned would do wonders for everybody and society at large.
Opinions?
There was a very interesting program on Channel 4 about this, called something like 'Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far'.
Basically, yes. Way too far.
I have seen the Barcelona thread, and it seems like having an opinion gets you banned.
News Flash mods: you haven't changed his opinion. You just stopped him expressing it. :slow clap:
Basically, yes. Way too far.
I have seen the Barcelona thread, and it seems like having an opinion gets you banned.
News Flash mods: you haven't changed his opinion. You just stopped him expressing it. :slow clap:
TurboHatchback said:
There seems to be a growing trend recently towards the censorship of expressed views and declaring that any opinion which doesn't match a very narrow prescribed 'correct ' world view as immoral/unacceptable/somethingist and discarding it. Apparently it's now acceptable to eschew debate completely and simply accuse someone of an 'ism' (whether it's even relevant or not) to just shut their input down or marginalise them. We regularly see public figures sacked/expelled/resigning for expressing opinions that are held by large swathes of the population but do not meet the party/BBC PC line. This means that these issues never get the chance to make it to a proper democratic test thus artificially limiting our democratic choices.
This trend is becoming increasingly enshrined in law by the various 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' offences. I find this rather worrying, it's a slippery slope towards making disagreement with the government illegal. That of course filters down into society, for example there are views that are disallowed on this site because they might expose the publishers to legal risks. Outlawing opinions will not change them, it only fosters resentment and likely strengthens those opinions, only reasoned debate can shape opinion.
Be it Islam, immigration, transactivism, 'equality', the EU, travellers, politics or a whole raft of issues, I believe that people should be allowed and encouraged to express their views. The right to do so is in fact a cornerstone of successful democracy, I believe that this trend is why there have been some highly 'unexpected' election results recently (both recent general elections and Brexit), people could not express their actual views safely but when put to secret ballot they could do so.
It's all related to this idea that we can't offend anyone, if we could discard this notion it would benefit society greatly IMO. Developing a thicker skin and some debating skills rather than lobbying for any opinion not your own to be banned would do wonders for everybody and society at large.
Opinions?
Spot on. This trend is becoming increasingly enshrined in law by the various 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' offences. I find this rather worrying, it's a slippery slope towards making disagreement with the government illegal. That of course filters down into society, for example there are views that are disallowed on this site because they might expose the publishers to legal risks. Outlawing opinions will not change them, it only fosters resentment and likely strengthens those opinions, only reasoned debate can shape opinion.
Be it Islam, immigration, transactivism, 'equality', the EU, travellers, politics or a whole raft of issues, I believe that people should be allowed and encouraged to express their views. The right to do so is in fact a cornerstone of successful democracy, I believe that this trend is why there have been some highly 'unexpected' election results recently (both recent general elections and Brexit), people could not express their actual views safely but when put to secret ballot they could do so.
It's all related to this idea that we can't offend anyone, if we could discard this notion it would benefit society greatly IMO. Developing a thicker skin and some debating skills rather than lobbying for any opinion not your own to be banned would do wonders for everybody and society at large.
Opinions?
We criticise places like NK and China for lack of free speech. We're going the same way FFS!
You have a right to a certain amount of free speech (free, minus 'hate speech')
As I understand it, this means you can say whatever you want as long as you do not break the hate speech laws.
You do not have the right to have that opinion go in challenged as many seem to want. Often I see people who complain about 'shutting down of debate' are just annoyed that many people disagree with them.
We rely so much on commercial entities (such as Facebook and pistonheads) to express our views. However-IMO nowhere within 'free speech' is it enshrined that a website (or other medium) has to publish what you say.
As I understand it, this means you can say whatever you want as long as you do not break the hate speech laws.
You do not have the right to have that opinion go in challenged as many seem to want. Often I see people who complain about 'shutting down of debate' are just annoyed that many people disagree with them.
We rely so much on commercial entities (such as Facebook and pistonheads) to express our views. However-IMO nowhere within 'free speech' is it enshrined that a website (or other medium) has to publish what you say.
cookie118 said:
You have a right to a certain amount of free speech (free, minus 'hate speech')
As I understand it, this means you can say whatever you want as long as you do not break the hate speech laws.
You do not have the right to have that opinion go in challenged as many seem to want. Often I see people who complain about 'shutting down of debate' are just annoyed that many people disagree with them.
We rely so much on commercial entities (such as Facebook and pistonheads) to express our views. However-IMO nowhere within 'free speech' is it enshrined that a website (or other medium) has to publish what you say.
They don't have to publish it,but it would be nice if it wasn't so biased.As I understand it, this means you can say whatever you want as long as you do not break the hate speech laws.
You do not have the right to have that opinion go in challenged as many seem to want. Often I see people who complain about 'shutting down of debate' are just annoyed that many people disagree with them.
We rely so much on commercial entities (such as Facebook and pistonheads) to express our views. However-IMO nowhere within 'free speech' is it enshrined that a website (or other medium) has to publish what you say.
In the current news the resignation of Sarah Champion, an excellent MP, wasn't a resignation. It was a constructive dismissal because of, in her words, '...the offence caused by the extremely poor choice of words..' (in my view they were extremely accurate words and long overdue). The great leader Corbyn demanded her resignation because he feared the party might lose thousands of votes in her Labour constituency. So PC culture is in fact political expediency which from an alleged democrat is disgusting. But you won't hear that on our national favourite TV channel.
Edited by Thorodin on Thursday 17th August 20:07
Funkycoldribena said:
They don't have to publish it,but it would be nice if it wasn't so biased.
the only way you will have a place to voice what ever you feel you need to say with out someone else holding the editorial power is your own web site.it might be a bit of a echo chamber though
it is heymarkets playground and they are the school bullies live with it or move on ,you really dont have any other choice
Funkycoldribena said:
citizensm1th said:
the only way you will have a place to voice what ever you feel you need to say with out someone else holding the editorial power is your own web site.
it might be a bit of a echo chamber though
Bit like the Trump thread then.it might be a bit of a echo chamber though
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff