Could it be that we are too free?

[oggbashan]

This makes it sometimes unbelievable what people are allowed to say in other countries. For us it would be unthinkable to say out loud that one kind of person is less than another. Take your pick from color, sexual preference, religion, gender, whatever. Note that I write: say out loud. Plenty there who'll think it of course.

Today my wife had a letter published in our local newspaper contradicting a previous correspondent. He and she have been writing letters in an argument for weeks.

Every time he rings ME up to argue. I tell him that my wife wrote the letter, not me. I give him her telephone number. He won't telephone HER because I MUST HAVE written the letter. I agree with her arguments but I don't agree with her writing the letters because he will never be convinced by logic.

He can't believe:

1. That my wife could have written the letters.
2. That my wife can do something I do not agree with.
3. That I talk to my wife and discuss things. He thinks I must TELL her what to do.

You see my point. You will never convince someone with those beliefs by logic.

Og

PS. My wife has higher academic qualifications than I have. He doesn't believe that either.

 

[Black Tulip]

Pathetic, isn't it?

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Just another proof, that you can't tell or explain to someone something they don't want to hear.

 

[Remec]

It strikes me that the majority of our country, and perhaps the western world, realise that it's all bollocks.

Why then are they allowed to get away with it??

Because too few people who have the money and/or the means to stand up for such things refuse to do so. To be inoffensive is the norm these days, and everyone does everything they can to be sure that even when they disagree or have every right to say or do something in a certain manner, they have to pull back and make sure they wouldn't be offending someone who might come back and destroy them financially or characterwise.

 

[Remec]

In one of the papers yesterday, here in UK, some silly American tart, who next to nobody here has ever heard of, and whose name escapes me now, was crowing about the use of the word "Girl!"

She was saying that the use of the word "Girl" was tantamount to racism.

WHAT?????

It would depend on the context. A fair amount of this country still thinks, if not says, "Boy" and "Girl" in connection to African-Americans. Doesn't matter the age or, really, the socioeconomic gap between them and the person they are describing or referring to thusly.

Not having grown up in that sort of family and/or part of the country, my use of the term "girl" is more a catchall for women who seem to be younger than myself...which, since I'll be 39 in July, is prolly a habit I really need to break myself of. <g>

 

[rgraham666]

In my experience, most of the people bitching about political correctness are really bitching about the fact that it isn't their type of political correctness.

And as far as multi-culturalism is concerned, we're all just going to have to get used to it. With modern transportation and communications people from all over are now travelling and talking all over. Sure there's going to be friction. But we can't change that.

And if there's any problem with freedom, the problem is with us. Too many of us think freedom means doing any Goddamn thing we want. But freedom doesn't trump courtesy or wisdom.

 

[sanchopanza]

Multi-culturalism is not just a term used to describe the fact that many people from all over the world will live in close proximity it says that no one culture is superior in any way to another so we should embrace all cultures no matter what they preach.

The problem with freedom is not with us. The problem of freedom is with those in power and those who despise the democratic-capitalist West. Those in power want to restrict our freedom because through usurping power from us can they feel an inflated sense of power in themselves. Those who hate democracy believe it is evil and that nobody should enjoy it. So I can't quite see how the problem is ours.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Over here PC has become the rage. Personally I hate it. If you want to be a racist, go ahead it's your right. If you want to hate someone for no reason at all go ahead, it's your right. As I stated in the France thread you can't do anything here without someone being offended and personally I have reached a point where I don't give a crap if they are.

Freedom of speech is just that, it's the freedom to speak. And if what you say offends someone I think they have the fredom to leave. They have the freedom to argue. They have the freedom to state their beilef in counter point. If the only freedom they choose to exsercise is the freedom to be ofended then they can do that too, but they have no right to expect me or anyone else to give a flying fritter flip that they are offended. And that's the rub, over here it isn't just enough to be offended, you have to go out and make sure everyone knows your offended. Like I care. i have more concern for the charge left in the batteries of my vibrating dildo than I do for the angst in these loud mouth dildos. At least mine can do something besides whine.

If you think the stuff they show on television is offensive, turn the damned thing off, thats what I do. I haven't watched network TV in years. If Al Franken's book offends you don't buy the damned thing, or if you have toss it. Thats what I do when I don't like a book. If sex on the internet offends you, don't go cruising porn sites. How bloody difficult is that to understand?

The problem isn't that we have too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much stupidity. If you are genuinely offended by something that is in your life and beyond your control I can sypathise. If you are offended by something that you can just walk away from and you don't then I think you deserve to be offended. Actually I think you deserve a good swift kick in the ass.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

If you think you are free? Think I.R.S.

The one weak link in the checks and ballances system.

Jmt

 

[banditman]

I would argue that we're not nearly free enough.

gay marriage is such a threat to "American values" that we're actually considering amending the Constitution to *prevent* such a freedom.

possession of marijuana can still get you jail time, never mind the damage caused to thousands of people every year by legal substances such as alcohol or tobacco.

your taxes are used for whatever those in power damn well want to use them for, whether it's incarceration of the poor slobs in Gitmo or syphillis experiments on blacks in Alabama during the 1940s.

incumbent congressmen can send out any kind of propaganda they want in the guise of newsletters, completely at taxpayers' expense. they can fly just about anywhere in the world on so-called fact-finding missions and call press conferences whenever they want and are virtually guaranteed ink and airtime, courtesy of our so-called free press. is it any wonder that 98 percent of em are re-elected every election.

no one goes anywhere without a social security number. the government quite literally regulates everything from what kind of building you can put on a particular piece of property to the number of times your windshield wipers move back and forth each minute.

if anything, I find political correctness to be a healthy sign that we the people are perfectly capable of determining what's fair and foul without some law or regulation telling us so.

are we too free?

don't even get me started.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you think you are free? Think I.R.S.

The one weak link in the checks and ballances system.

Jmt

I agree with what you say about the IRS but I think the INS is another.

 

[Guest]

Over here PC has become the rage. Personally I hate it. If you want to be a racist, go ahead it's your right. If you want to hate someone for no reason at all go ahead, it's your right. As I stated in the France thread you can't do anything here without someone being offended and personally I have reached a point where I don't give a crap if they are.

Freedom of speech is just that, it's the freedom to speak. And if what you say offends someone I think they have the fredom to leave. They have the freedom to argue. They have the freedom to state their beilef in counter point. If the only freedom they choose to exsercise is the freedom to be ofended then they can do that too, but they have no right to expect me or anyone else to give a flying fritter flip that they are offended. And that's the rub, over here it isn't just enough to be offended, you have to go out and make sure everyone knows your offended. Like I care. i have more concern for the charge left in the batteries of my vibrating dildo than I do for the angst in these loud mouth dildos. At least mine can do something besides whine.

If you think the stuff they show on television is offensive, turn the damned thing off, thats what I do. I haven't watched network TV in years. If Al Franken's book offends you don't buy the damned thing, or if you have toss it. Thats what I do when I don't like a book. If sex on the internet offends you, don't go cruising porn sites. How bloody difficult is that to understand?

The problem isn't that we have too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much stupidity. If you are genuinely offended by something that is in your life and beyond your control I can sypathise. If you are offended by something that you can just walk away from and you don't then I think you deserve to be offended. Actually I think you deserve a good swift kick in the ass.

-Colly

Very well said, Colly.

"If the only freedom they choose to exsercise is the freedom to be ofended then they can do that too, but they have no right to expect me or anyone else to give a flying fritter flip that they are offended."

Quite! And, I love the way you put that.

Lou

 

[sanchopanza]

I agree whole heartedly as well. Freedom of speech should be defended to the death. Being offended, contrary to the belief of some, is not a big deal; the only time at which freedom of speech becomes something harmful is when it directly preaches violence - such as in the case of preaching pogroms and our beloved Hamza.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

One word that I like in the English language is "you".
It can be used for whomever you're speaking to. It can be "What do YOU think, Bill?" or "What do YOU think, Sir?" or "What do YOU think, Mary and Sue?"

Swedish has two words for "you". When addressing Bill, you would say "du", when addressing Mary and Sue, you would say "ni".

For a couple of decades now, Swedes haven't referred to strangers as Sir or Madame or Miss, unless as a joke. "Why, Madame, I'm shocked!"
In a case where you'd address Sir Thisorthat or Madame Whatever, you'd say "Ni". A little remnant from our common background with the Germans.

These days, there's a trend among service people to go back to calling people "Ni". Several times, I've been adressed as "Ni" wen speaking to service people.

I hate it.

It suggests a distance between people, a false feeling of "respect", as if respect is a simple phrase, and not the behaviour itself.

When I discussed this with a French woman once, she thought it sounded very rude that our language didn't have an exact phrase for "please", and that we didn't address people as Sir or Madame, but with the same pronouns as we use for close friends.
I explained to her that Swedes express politeness with the tone of voice, and possibly also with body language, so that a "du" SOUNDED like a "Ni". Much more efficient than a "Ni" thrown out in a bored tone that sounded like "du".

When service people try to weasel out a "Ni" to me, I do the same thing as the funny, fat, female stand-up comedian Babben Larsson:
I look around as if to see if there's someone else standing next to me, then turn to the offensive person in question, and say, in a voice that indicates how insulted I feel, Hey, I may be fat, but I'm still only ONE person! Don't call me "ni"!

 

[NoJo]

Wow, SF, you must have HATED the Knights Who Say "Ni" in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.

 

[minsue]

Wow, SF, you must have HATED the Knights Who Say "Ni" in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.

Thanks, SubJoe, for the first big grin of the day. Just in time to head out into rush hour traffic, too.

 

[Liar]

When I discussed this with a French woman once, she thought it sounded very rude that our language didn't have an exact phrase for "please", and that we didn't address people as Sir or Madame, but with the same pronouns as we use for close friends.

Svenska, please jump in and spank me if I'm wrong, but isn't the English word for "please" (um, that would be "please", right? ) just as unexact as the Swedish one? In English we use the verb "to please" as a command. "Please (me), get me some coffee." In Swedish we have "snälla" (plural version of the adjective "snäll" = kind). Same thing, different word. What do you have in French? Sil vous plaît? I know no french, is that more specific?


Btw, (here comes a dumb little side note of little interrest to anyone, stop reading) there is a very specific story behind the "du" adressing in Swedish. My grandfather is in the middle of it. As a teaching professor at Stockholm Uni it was customary for students to address the teacters as "ni". Gramps didn't care either way, but one of his colleauges was really bugged about it, and started something called the "du" reform, where he forced people to adress him as "du" instead of "ni". That's where it started. Later, as a general director flr the social security bureau, the same man got his "preposterous ideas" as some like to call them, institutionalised and practiced by the whole government,, and the practice spread pretty quickly in society So thank Bror Rexed for not having to use that groveling definiion anymore.

#Liar

 

[Pure]

All in all, and given that 'freedom' is a slippery concept, and that the freedoms I like are genuine, whereas yours tend to license and irresponsibility, I nominate Holland for the country with the great genuine freedom.

(And Sweden's also right in the running for top, of course.)

 

[oo0_boo_0oo]

The best example I can think of for political correctness gone mad was at my son's nusery school...

They didn't sing baa baa black sheep, they asked the children to pick a colour instead.......

The world gone mad!!

 

[Liar]

All in all, and given that 'freedom' is a slippery concept, and that the freedoms I like are genuine, whereas yours tend to license and irresponsibility, I nominate Holland for the country with the great genuine freedom.

(And Sweden's also right in the running for top, of course.)

There are certain freedoms and citizen rights that makes Sweden a very good place to live. But there are also another side of that. Compared with some other countries, we are knee deep in institutionalised political correctmess. To have an opinion against a certain ethnical group and then express it, is illegal. I can not say "deport all muslims" or "Finns are all retarded" (not that I would say those things, duh) without risking to be sentenced to heavy fines of even prison (if you rally up enough people to say it to). It's very easy to step on a toe with a legal nerve attached to it.

I think it's bad för the democracy. Even the downright evil stance should be allowed to take. In a working open society, there would always be ten sober, sensible voices for every insane one, arguing the bigots and racists into huddling lumps or dough. I might be naive, but I like to have an ideal to strive for.

Is there any country in the world where freedom of expression allows for expression of anything?

 

[lewdandlicentious]

The best example I can think of for political correctness gone mad was at my son's nusery school...

They didn't sing baa baa black sheep, they asked the children to pick a colour instead.......

The world gone mad!!

Further to that, I've heard of education authorities that have ordered a change to the words of that NURSERY rhyme.

And what about a black board, having to now be referred to as a chalk board.

OK, petty perhaps I know, but it's always been a black board, and it's colour is, uh, black!

 

[Guest]

However, my kids use whiteboards every day at school (and the teachers and kids call them that). During numeracy, they use them to do quick workings out, using a black marker pen.

Yes, the world has gone mad.

Lou

 

[Boxlicker101]

Further to that, I've heard of education authorities that have ordered a change to the words of that NURSERY rhyme.

And what about a black board, having to now be referred to as a chalk board.

OK, petty perhaps I know, but it's always been a black board, and it's colour is, uh, black!

When I was in elementary school, blackboards were all black and we called them that. When I got into high school, the boards were green but we still called them blackboards. That seemed rather dumb so we started calling them chalkboards, which was more accurate. The concept of PC was unheard of at that time; we were just being accurate.

 

[Black Tulip]

Of course the changing of a nursery rhyme is ludicrous. But I have not yet heard anybody on the subject of the boundaries of freedom. Other than as a hindrance, not as a safeguard.

I do not mean the nearly pathological anxiety to say something not political correct.
What I mean is the inevitability that my freedom of speech infringes on the rights of someone else.

If I can speak out in public with whatever bigotry I like, what about the right of others to be treated like equals? If I can start a neo-nazist party, what about the right of others to be protected from the ideas that go along with it?

Maybe it's European, or Dutch, but words can be very harmful if they are not checked. Exciting the masses to do horrible things, adhere to atrocious ideas. If I am at the receiving end of discriminating remarks I can ignore them if they come from one person, but how long can I do that if ever more persons start making them?

Hitler started out with words and the use of democracy, to name an example.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Of course the changing of a nursery rhyme is ludicrous. But I have not yet heard anybody on the subject of the boundaries of freedom. Other than as a hindrance, not as a safeguard.

I do not mean the nearly pathological anxiety to say something not political correct.
What I mean is the inevitability that my freedom of speech infringes on the rights of someone else.

If I can speak out in public with whatever bigotry I like, what about the right of others to be treated like equals? If I can start a neo-nazist party, what about the right of others to be protected from the ideas that go along with it?

Maybe it's European, or Dutch, but words can be very harmful if they are not checked. Exciting the masses to do horrible things, adhere to atrocious ideas. If I am at the receiving end of discriminating remarks I can ignore them if they come from one person, but how long can I do that if ever more persons start making them?

Hitler started out with words and the use of democracy, to name an example.

The old adage is that the freedom to swing your fist ends at the exact point where my nose begins. Words can hurt. Ideas can hurt even worse.

But a racist has the right to hate. And he has the right to say whom he hates and why. And as a free society, you cannot infringe up on that right to speak, without placeing a value judgement on the content. And once you do that, you open the way to have freedom of speech for all subject to a value judgement on content. And when that occurs no one is free to speak any longer.

In college there was a student who was a reactionary white suprimisist. And he went to the quad each saturday and delivered a speech on the wonderful qualities of his idol, Adolph Hitler. He is allowed to do that. He is allowed to form a Nazi party if he chooses. He is allowed to run for office as a Nazi. If he does all these things he is within his rights. The first time he organizes an SA and sends them out to intimidate or attack opponents he has crossed the line and he will probably see jail time.

His freedom to speak should be unabrogated. His freedom to act should be bound by the exact same law as every other citizens. Obviously his speeches were offensive to the few Jewish students we had and often a group of them would gather to heckle him. That was their right and as long as they were heckling him, exercising their right to free speech there was no problem.

One day when I was a senior however it degenerated to blows and six of them beat him up. It is probably a testament to the depth of revulsion the majority of us felt about his opinion that no one intervened until the campus cops showed up.

There is a moral here though and a lesson that shouldn't be lost. The attackers were all arressted, tried, sentenced to varying hours of community service and expelled. He was back two saturdays later, bandages and all giving another sermon.

He was free to speak. They were free to heckle him. But when they crossed the line and attacked him they became the bad guys. They all have police records now. They all have assault convictions now. He has none (that I am aware of). Had they ignored him and let him rant he would have remained an oddity and a laughing stock and just a lone weirdo. Thanks to them he garnered sympathy from some, after all six people beating up one is going to earn the one some sympathy. But even worse, they gave him some noteriety, and he attracted a larger audience and when I graduated later that year he had four or five converts who went out with him on saturdays.

And his most persuasive argument that jews are evil people and are working to destroy the country? Just look at me folks, I'm living proof. I come here and tell the truth and they send their bullys out to try and silence me.

In the case of most all extremists they are hoping for noteriety, they are hoping for a confrontation or to be muzzled. The absolute worst thing that can happen to them is to be allowed to rant, be protected by the law and to be ignored. Without the controversy these people would never become more than lone kooks out preaching on the side walk. It's only when you try to shut them up that you give them the one thing they most desperatly seek. A spotlight and an audience.

-Colly