5 ms·

I don’t really get it. Why do we keep telling people that it is support worthy to engage in name calling? Is it alright to let kids call teachers names at schoo

I don’t really get it. Why do we keep telling people that it is support worthy to engage in name calling? Is it alright to let kids call teachers names at school? “This fucking imbecile wants me to do homework! Fuck that shit!” Maybe that’s ok now since Trump made it acceptable but it certainly wasn’t considered to be appropriate for a long time. It’s not free speech, it’s derogatory speech (for either side of those comparisons). So what changed?

Teever 6y ago
“Take away the right to say ‘fuck’ and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government.” -- Lenny Bruce I've never really understood the drive to banish profanity or insults. The purpose of language is to communicate ideas and I see no reason why it should be unacceptable for someone to express their disapproval at a situation or individual in the succinct way that profanity provides. If anything profanity is far more mundane than the kinds of words a particularly clever person can string together to convey a heinous idea.
- ace_of_spades 6y ago
  I mean, you do have a point. Obviously, your choice of words becomes limited if you refrain from using offensive language. And given our predisposition towards rage and anger to give attention this seems like an important “tool” to have at your disposal. But as the incentives stand right now, accepting this kind of behavior is likely to trigger a race to the bottom as more and more speech get’s radicalized (in either direction) as people realize it is more powerful and can grab people more easily. We see this in the republican party. We need to find stop lines for this madness and find a somewhat stable equilibrium. Some places might be overreaching in moderation but this is to be expected as it’s difficult to find the right line as we don’t really have an understanding of the “proper” balance yet. And my point is really that I am not sure what triggered this need for redress in the first place. Why is it so important to use spiteful language now? Couldn’t we have stayed more civil in the first place? Why should we support this shift?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > Couldn’t we have stayed more civil in the first place? Who is "we"? It was just some Discord server. No one forces you to be a part of it. And they're not even political. It's stock market, so obviously people will get emotional.
    - ace_of_spades 6y ago
      I was referring to the general attitude of one of the parent comments which was making a statement about supporting speech with derogatory terms on principle. In this instance, I generally agree that I don’t think it is a prime example of things that need to be “shut down”. It’s probably a borderline case. But if discords terms of service disallow this type of language, I think it’s a good sign that they try to stand by it and apply it also to cases that are not clearly (also) politically motivated. If it’s about how to talk rather than what you say this is what you would expect to see. All my comments point to this renegotiation of norms and obviously tough and contentious calls will have to be made.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        I support that kind of speech. Not the teacher example, but if it happens in some voluntary gathering, I really can't see why not. Like I said, people sometimes get emotional and you can't expect from everyone to stay calm no matter what. It's better to vent frustrations with words than doing something stupid and irresponsible.
  - spdionis 6y ago
    > Couldn’t we have stayed more civil in the first place? I feel like there's a disconnect. Movies may not depict it so, but curses and profanity have always been a part of language. So the "shift" is happening in the opposite direction the way I see it.
- xapata 6y ago
  > “Take away the right to say ‘fuck’ and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government.” -- Lenny Bruce That's a comedian being funny and cool. The right to say "fuck the government" isn't important. I'd rather keep the de facto right criticize the government substantively, which may de jure exist, but is drowned in the de facto drivel.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    Profanity matters. It motivates people. Not everyone has the time to attend your 1 hour TED talk. You tell them “FUCK WALL STREET” and you got a crowd ready to take down the traders. Publishing a position paper on the potential negative impacts of naked short selling while taking into account the views and interests of all stake holders ... cool. But you’re not motivating people with that. By the way, FUCK Wall Street.
    - xapata 6y ago
      > Profanity ... motivates people Yeah, that's the problem. Too many people swayed by cheap laughs and the thrill of anger. Thus the failed insurrection earlier this year. It's hard to predict what'll be fun this week. > Not everyone has the time to attend your 1 hour TED talk. I guess we should package up the science into more concise bits. How about 5 minutes instead of 1 hour?
      - Teever 6y ago
        lol you're saying that people stormed the capitol because of profanity? This reminds me of a time shortly after 9/11 when an agitated old man chased my friend for a block while screaming "People like you caused 9/11" just because he stole a jack in the box mascot head car antenna topper.
        xapata 6y ago
        No, that's not what I said. "Cheap laughs and the thrill of anger" is a superset. More succinctly, "bread and circus." There's nothing new about it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ttt0 6y ago
Slowly, but surely, more and more words are being chipped away from the definition of free speech. Putting the free speech thing aside, the problem here is that it can and it is being used as a pretext to silence the dissidents and the opposition.
- ace_of_spades 6y ago
  So the opposition of discord is a gang of wallstreet traders? Are you sure about that? To be honest, I don’t see it. If people comply with basic norms of decency they will get back on those platforms. The problem might be that they CAN’T but then it’s a problem of basic education and training rather than opposition. And I would argue the reverse to your point regarding free speech. More and more words are being used under the banner of free speech. People are trying to justify more things and other people are pushing back trying to uphold formerly established civil norms about how to say or not to say things under free speech. It’s really a plot of irony. The biggest irony of all is that the perspective on this matter is largely shaped by your political philosophy and whether you profit from these changes. It’s really difficult to make objective judgements on this matter (also for me).
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > So the opposition of discord is a gang of wallstreet traders? It was just in general, but even in this case, yes, there are two sides opposed to each other. One happens to be more influential, powerful and with more money behind it, and the underdog is the wallstreetbets people. > If people comply with basic norms of decency they will get back on those platforms. I guess so, but if you have thousands of people in a single server, it's virtually impossible to keep everyone calm, especially in situations such as this one, where large sums of money are involved. Also you'll have bad actors who are trying to make it look bad on purpose so they get shut down. This is Discord and people actually use this kind of tactics there. > More and more words are being used under the banner of free speech. Speaking strictly about the USA, this is just factually incorrect. Racism, homofobia etc. used to be fine not that long ago. And legally it's still protected under the 1A. But then it became socially unacceptable and from that point more and more speech started to become "not free". This year questioning the integrity of the elections became a fireable offense and as I found out today - anything offensive. > The biggest irony of all is that the perspective on this matter is largely shaped by your political philosophy and whether you profit from these changes. Regarding the profits, for sure, I imagine. But politically this is an apolitical "movement", you will find socialists, libertarians, nationalists and anything in between that support their efforts. I guess it really united people, in a way.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think your example highlights exactly what people are reacting to. School is an environment where teachers have broad authority and try to use it to create a safe space to protect children from hurtful speech. Many people react strongly to the application of this power dynamic to adult interactions. Derogatory speech has always been free speech, but the places where people speak are becoming more visible, and organizations are becoming more active in expanding safe spaces. Derogatory speech is probably the lowest it has ever been, but more heard than it has ever been, and more scrutinized than it has ever been.
h_anna_h 6y ago
> This fucking imbecile wants me to do homework! Fuck that shit This was always acceptable (and even common) as long as no teacher heard it. Not sure what Trump has to do with it. Maybe it is different in america, I hear that they are very puritan over there.

Teever 6y ago

“Take away the right to say ‘fuck’ and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government.” -- Lenny Bruce I've never really understood the drive to banish profanity or insults. The purpose of language is to communicate ideas and I see no reason why it should be unacceptable for someone to express their disapproval at a situation or individual in the succinct way that profanity provides. If anything profanity is far more mundane than the kinds of words a particularly clever person can string together to convey a heinous idea.

ace_of_spades 6y ago
I mean, you do have a point. Obviously, your choice of words becomes limited if you refrain from using offensive language. And given our predisposition towards rage and anger to give attention this seems like an important “tool” to have at your disposal. But as the incentives stand right now, accepting this kind of behavior is likely to trigger a race to the bottom as more and more speech get’s radicalized (in either direction) as people realize it is more powerful and can grab people more easily. We see this in the republican party. We need to find stop lines for this madness and find a somewhat stable equilibrium. Some places might be overreaching in moderation but this is to be expected as it’s difficult to find the right line as we don’t really have an understanding of the “proper” balance yet. And my point is really that I am not sure what triggered this need for redress in the first place. Why is it so important to use spiteful language now? Couldn’t we have stayed more civil in the first place? Why should we support this shift?
- ttt0 6y ago
  > Couldn’t we have stayed more civil in the first place? Who is "we"? It was just some Discord server. No one forces you to be a part of it. And they're not even political. It's stock market, so obviously people will get emotional.
  - ace_of_spades 6y ago
    I was referring to the general attitude of one of the parent comments which was making a statement about supporting speech with derogatory terms on principle. In this instance, I generally agree that I don’t think it is a prime example of things that need to be “shut down”. It’s probably a borderline case. But if discords terms of service disallow this type of language, I think it’s a good sign that they try to stand by it and apply it also to cases that are not clearly (also) politically motivated. If it’s about how to talk rather than what you say this is what you would expect to see. All my comments point to this renegotiation of norms and obviously tough and contentious calls will have to be made.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      I support that kind of speech. Not the teacher example, but if it happens in some voluntary gathering, I really can't see why not. Like I said, people sometimes get emotional and you can't expect from everyone to stay calm no matter what. It's better to vent frustrations with words than doing something stupid and irresponsible.
- spdionis 6y ago
  > Couldn’t we have stayed more civil in the first place? I feel like there's a disconnect. Movies may not depict it so, but curses and profanity have always been a part of language. So the "shift" is happening in the opposite direction the way I see it.
xapata 6y ago
> “Take away the right to say ‘fuck’ and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government.” -- Lenny Bruce That's a comedian being funny and cool. The right to say "fuck the government" isn't important. I'd rather keep the de facto right criticize the government substantively, which may de jure exist, but is drowned in the de facto drivel.
- nindalf 6y ago
  Profanity matters. It motivates people. Not everyone has the time to attend your 1 hour TED talk. You tell them “FUCK WALL STREET” and you got a crowd ready to take down the traders. Publishing a position paper on the potential negative impacts of naked short selling while taking into account the views and interests of all stake holders ... cool. But you’re not motivating people with that. By the way, FUCK Wall Street.
  - xapata 6y ago
    > Profanity ... motivates people Yeah, that's the problem. Too many people swayed by cheap laughs and the thrill of anger. Thus the failed insurrection earlier this year. It's hard to predict what'll be fun this week. > Not everyone has the time to attend your 1 hour TED talk. I guess we should package up the science into more concise bits. How about 5 minutes instead of 1 hour?
    - Teever 6y ago
      lol you're saying that people stormed the capitol because of profanity? This reminds me of a time shortly after 9/11 when an agitated old man chased my friend for a block while screaming "People like you caused 9/11" just because he stole a jack in the box mascot head car antenna topper.
      - xapata 6y ago
        No, that's not what I said. "Cheap laughs and the thrill of anger" is a superset. More succinctly, "bread and circus." There's nothing new about it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ttt0 6y ago

Slowly, but surely, more and more words are being chipped away from the definition of free speech. Putting the free speech thing aside, the problem here is that it can and it is being used as a pretext to silence the dissidents and the opposition.

ace_of_spades 6y ago
So the opposition of discord is a gang of wallstreet traders? Are you sure about that? To be honest, I don’t see it. If people comply with basic norms of decency they will get back on those platforms. The problem might be that they CAN’T but then it’s a problem of basic education and training rather than opposition. And I would argue the reverse to your point regarding free speech. More and more words are being used under the banner of free speech. People are trying to justify more things and other people are pushing back trying to uphold formerly established civil norms about how to say or not to say things under free speech. It’s really a plot of irony. The biggest irony of all is that the perspective on this matter is largely shaped by your political philosophy and whether you profit from these changes. It’s really difficult to make objective judgements on this matter (also for me).
- ttt0 6y ago
  > So the opposition of discord is a gang of wallstreet traders? It was just in general, but even in this case, yes, there are two sides opposed to each other. One happens to be more influential, powerful and with more money behind it, and the underdog is the wallstreetbets people. > If people comply with basic norms of decency they will get back on those platforms. I guess so, but if you have thousands of people in a single server, it's virtually impossible to keep everyone calm, especially in situations such as this one, where large sums of money are involved. Also you'll have bad actors who are trying to make it look bad on purpose so they get shut down. This is Discord and people actually use this kind of tactics there. > More and more words are being used under the banner of free speech. Speaking strictly about the USA, this is just factually incorrect. Racism, homofobia etc. used to be fine not that long ago. And legally it's still protected under the 1A. But then it became socially unacceptable and from that point more and more speech started to become "not free". This year questioning the integrity of the elections became a fireable offense and as I found out today - anything offensive. > The biggest irony of all is that the perspective on this matter is largely shaped by your political philosophy and whether you profit from these changes. Regarding the profits, for sure, I imagine. But politically this is an apolitical "movement", you will find socialists, libertarians, nationalists and anything in between that support their efforts. I guess it really united people, in a way.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think your example highlights exactly what people are reacting to. School is an environment where teachers have broad authority and try to use it to create a safe space to protect children from hurtful speech. Many people react strongly to the application of this power dynamic to adult interactions. Derogatory speech has always been free speech, but the places where people speak are becoming more visible, and organizations are becoming more active in expanding safe spaces. Derogatory speech is probably the lowest it has ever been, but more heard than it has ever been, and more scrutinized than it has ever been.

h_anna_h 6y ago

> This fucking imbecile wants me to do homework! Fuck that shit This was always acceptable (and even common) as long as no teacher heard it. Not sure what Trump has to do with it. Maybe it is different in america, I hear that they are very puritan over there.