I'm against freedom of stupidity.

Okay, so I'm going to try and wade into this argument now that I'm not high as a kite, under the proviso that I ignore the childish supposition that restricting freedom of speech is called for by autistic people, and that that is even some sort of insult. I don't really know what Jacob was going for but I'm sure it's just unpleasant.

A lot of people who call for freedom of speech sort of destroy the credibility of their arguments just by their personality. This idea that there's an entitlement to say whatever you like and be free from any repercussions, is utter rubbish. What gives you this entitlement? Why do you deserve to say what you like without anything resulting from it? If I had a kid with down's syndrome and you took the piss for cheap laughs or something, I'd rightly curb stomp your face. It's funny, it tends to be white middle class boys who scream the loudest about freedom of speech when in reality, it is precisely this demographic who gets away with the most shit Scott-free.

Even the human rights act has a provision for when governments or organisations may need to stifle freedom of speech when necessary, or for instance, to protect individuals such as with the 'right to be forgotten', or when a persons libellous accusations threatens to damage your self irrevocably.

Saying you want to be free to say what you like just to call people faggots, trannies, cunts or whatever the fuck, makes you sound like an ignorant child who's probably very cloistered from reality.

You're an idiot. Nobody here was even making that argument and that's not what freedom of speech means.

Freedom of speech, bro.

You can say whatever you want, but don't be pissed when it makes you look like an idiot. I don't understand how you have no understanding of a concept we've discussed to death already. Nobody is saying someone should be free from repercussions, we're saying being arrested or physically harmed for saying something is fucking disgusting, no matter what it is.

No, what STM is saying makes perfect sense and it's you who looks like an idiot. Oh and by the way. Stop resorting to ad hominems. It's become boring for everyone involved.

You do realise being arrested of harmed for saying something is a repercussion though right? Again, let's drop the trite, blanket Ayn Rand, "being arrested for saying something is always wrong" thing though, because as I said, there are times when you absolutely must take a course of action to silence what someone is saying to protect an individual or a group of people.

Actually it's just the being arrested part. Being physically harmed for being a dick to someone is something I'm completely in favor of.

It's unacceptable, it's a fucking neanderthal response. Protect a group of people from words that they might not like or disagree with? Get the fuck out of here! You have got to be trolling!

Being physically harmed for being a dick to someone is literally worse than being arrested for hate speech or whatever. It's disproportionate retribution.

Is 70% of this website honestly libertarian? Because that's such a childish position to hold.

Wow, you said something intelligent. I agree.

He’s talking about protecting people from speech meant to incite hate against them. Y’know, like inciting attacks, death threats, yadda yadda. Not your imaginary “ban all mean words feminazi tumblrite” straw man that you’ve rolled out a million times already the past few weeks.


And there you go being an asshole to people again. You realize you don’t need to be a dick to get your point across, right? And that knowingly being a dick is only going to hurt your point as well?

And with that, I really feel like there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Your bizarre inability to understand the nuances of a debate, and your immediate default to insults when something isn't going your way, makes you a person that I really cannot talk to about anything where there is even the vaguest potential for it to become inflammatory.

No but, you see, if he's not constantly an asshole, people have no reason to attack him or feel attacked by him. And if people don't want to shut him up, his "evil tumblrinas want to ban free speech" rhetoric falls down.

Remember that whole thing I said about "don't take shit to heart"? Yeah? Do you remember that one?

And like I've discussed before, I think censorship of any kind is needless.

Yes, FurAffinity, my "evil tumblrinas want to ban free speech" rhetoric is the only argument I have. Even though I haven't mentioned Tumblr in a while and when I do it's a joke. We're having an actual discussion here.

No, the other argument you have is calling people names.

Aww did I hurt your poorly little feelings? No, the name-calling bit is not an argument, it is a joke. I think it's funny.

Yes, calling me FurAffinity not only hurt my feelings but it broke my heart. I was also being sarcastic.

Name calling isn't funny, it's immature, and you're an annoying asshole and I'll stop responding to your bullshit because you feed on it like some kind of troll.

On the one hand, you will never hear a Westerner say: "I am against freedom of speech".

On the other, it's common to say: "hey, of course I support freedom of speech, but...".

Vlam has, surprisingly, hit the nail on the head with that one.

I don't care what you think it is. I think it's funny and that's all that matters.

If I think it would be funny to hit you with a bus does that make it ok?

This is actually completely wrong. Let me try to explain:


You see, this ideal here? The whole “don’t take shit to heart” diatribe? It doesn’t work. It doesn’t mean anything. Do you know why that is?

It’s because pretty much every human being alive has different tolerances of bullshit they can or will put up with.

Let me put that in context for you: I can take a hell of a lot of insults. From the sound of it it seems like you can too. That’s great, it’s a pretty big asset to have in your favor, it means you can deal with more shit that people throw at you on a daily basis. But there are people out there who can’t take as many insults, or can’t take specific ones, for many possible reasons.

Most people are not carved from stone. Almost everyone on the planet will have things that they will take personally, that will upset them, to different degrees. Some people are in a position where they receive abuse daily, and that wears them down until they get sick of hearing it. Others might have things which just push their buttons out of nowhere.

Now you as a human being get to decide how to interact with every other human being you come into contact with. You can choose to be abrasive, to say things that others could very easily take issue with. Or you can choose to be respectful and empathetic, and try to avoid causing offence to people around you. Each of those will draw different reactions from people. Sometimes what you think might get one response will actually get another; everyone is different. You get to choose how to react to that as well – if you say something you thought was fine but it upset someone, or got them angry, you can choose to try to appease them or you can stand your ground, or even dig in deeper to antagonize. It’s all up to you.

But generally speaking, you’ll find that going around saying whatever you like to people or in a public space, saying things which you can generally assume someone around you is going to dislike or find offensive, is a good way to alienate yourself and draw ire from other people. And being stubborn, refusing to apologize when you do cause upset or antagonizing further will not endear you to anyone. Responding to those people with “don’t take shit to heart” misses the point, which is that you are saying something that’s causing harm to someone and you have the power to avoid doing it. If you don’t take steps to avoid it — or worse, you actively strive for it — then at best you are wilfully ignorant of other people and at worst actively malicious towards them.

So, basically:

• Everyone has different tolerances for what they find inappropriate, hurtful, offensive or upsetting.
• It is possible to knowingly or unknowingly overstep that tolerance and hurt someone.
• You have the choice in how you interact with others, and how you react to people when they dislike something you say.
• Intentionally being abrasive shows a lack of respect and empathy for others and will do you absolutely no favors in life.

People never really did me any favours in life in the first place, so under no circumstances will I go out of my way to avoid offending somebody.
That was a well written summary. But the thing is, I just don't care.
Once, I used to care. I really did. But at some point you just get sick of taking shit and say fuck it, I don't care.

I'll sum up my opinion with a quote from Ricky Gervais.

That’s a very bitter way of looking at things. Just because you feel others have done you no favor that does not justify you acting negatively towards others.


Yeah, I had a feeling, but I had to try.


And has that helped at all? Are you getting any less shit? Are you having an easier time in life for it?


There is a conspicuous difference between being offended by someone’s beliefs, actions or lifestyles and being offended by insults, abuse, or hateful comments aimed at you. Allow me to summarize with a counter-quote from John Stuart Mill:

It kinda depends on how someone is being a dick, no? Some people have it coming.

Give me ONE example where that is okay. Yeah it's much easier. It wasn't really a choice, though. I just came out of hospital one day to discover that I didn't give a fuck.

That quote is an excellent one, however jokes and arguments can not be equated to physical assault. Everyone has the right to insult everyone. Now when it becomes harassment, that's where you draw the line.
You block them, you don't cry about it though.

Not directly, of course – physical harm represents a more immediate threat to anyone and so is considered worse. But it’s an analogy which makes the point that taking an action that brings harm to another should be considered a bad thing to do, and we can assume that this is regardless of the amount of harm it would cause. Doing even a small amount of harm to another is still a negative action and should be avoided, even if it has no long-term repercussions.


Everyone has the right, but people do not always have the cause; and then there is also the right to response, which can include repercussions for the person doing the insulting which often makes it counterproductive for them to do it even if there was adequate cause.

Thought exercise: you’re walking down the street and you pass another person going the opposite way. They shove into you as you pass one another. Do you turn around and shout an insult at them? What if they look stronger than you? What if they look weaker than you? If not, why not?

And the reverse: As above, you’re walking down the street and you pass another person going the opposite way. In this case you do not make any kind of contact with them. Do you turn around and shout an insult them? If not, why not?


This makes the assumption that it is possible to block them, and that the offence in question can never be bad enough to cause upset. It’s easy to come up with situations where one or both of these is not the case.

I'd probably mutter something under my breath if it was a big guy. If it was a smaller guy I'd probably call him a dickhead. I generally don't want to get into fights because I'm quite a passive individual.

In the second instance, if course I wouldn't say anything, but that analogy doesn't work because it's a completely different environment.
When I'm around people I know, we toss insults left right and centre because it's just how we interact - it's banter. There's no animosity.

As for your second point, if you're being legitimately harassed irl then you go to the police

In both scenarios, saying something would significantly increase your chances of getting into a fight. If that’s something you want to avoid, why then would you insult them at all? Your chances would be better by not rising to their action in the first scenario. We can compare this to responding to one’s insult with an insult of your own – it is unlikely to do you any good, and puts you at risk of further negative consequences.

The reason I included the second scenario is to see what you would do in a neutral setting. The first scenario has an antagonist so it’s more likely you might respond, but the second it’s expected you wouldn’t take action – after all, if you don’t want to get into a fight, why would you make an unprovoked insult on someone? We can then take this response and generalize it – in a social situation where there is no prior antagonization it is better to avoid taking an action that would antagonize the other party.

This is the point that I’m trying to make. By not making any effort to avoid causing offence to others or by actively antagonizing others you put yourself at greater risk of negative consequences. It is therefore generally more beneficial to you to refrain from this behavior.


And that’s generally fine. You know each other’s boundaries, you have an idea of what is and isn’t appropriate to say to each other. But you have to remember that what you’re saying to each other isn’t always said in a vacuum – if you’re in a public space for example, people unfamiliar with you could very easily overhear and take issue with something one of you said.


There is a whole spectrum of situations where the police wouldn’t or couldn’t get involved. It’s not just a binary “minor slight” or “legitimate harassment”.

There’s also this other side to consider – if we only ever think of offensive behavior as something to block out, ignore or hide from, then we are not solving the root problem of that behavior. That’s why you get people who will tell you when they perceive something to be offensive – it’s a signal to the offender that this is behavior that may not be positive, and they are being given an opportunity to examine their actions. And that isn’t someone trying to censor you.

The thing I have an issue with most here is this:

So fucking what? I wasn't speaking to them, they have no right to call me out on it.
I agree that just blocking out harassment isn't going to solve the root of the problem, but can you think of anything that would? It's the way people are and it will never stop happening, so ignoring it is always the best cause of action.

Now on the forums, I speak my mind and I'm honest. When I call someone a name it's because I find it funny and it's not serious 99% of the time (unless I call them an idiot that's generally because they are being an idiot). If they get offended by that, I just don't care because I've got what I've wanted and I've had my laugh, and being offended serves no purpose.
If they are offended by actual opinions that I hold then again, I'm not going to coddle them because they can't handle it. It's their prerogative.

Being offended is the most useless thing a person can do. 8t advances no argument, makes no point and serves only to make them irrational and bring emotional arguments into the mix, which hold no water.