Nov 17, 2022Liked by BOPBadger

We often find ourselves at odds with others' opinions or speech. In reality they are entitled to both although many times they could be more thoughtful. We try to remain respectful of others by simply saying we disagree with your opinion but you are certainly entitled to it. However, shaming or calling someone racist or a denier is another matter and should not be taken lightly. Those actions contribute to division and take away the opportunity for civil and productive opportunity for conversations.

T & K

Expand full comment

One man's hate speech is another's truth. I think everyone has a right to say "I hate this/you/them!"

I believe the whole idea of "hate speech" is for one group to try to get a legal/political advantage over another by denying the free expression of ideas they don't like. Language then becomes more and more restrictive as the goal posts are pushed back and those who promulgate speech controls (censorship) become more aggressive.

"I am offended by this!" is really a power play. If someone declares they are sickened and offended by my nudity, they are trying to control my behavior. The same thing is true if I say I am sickened and offended by their declaration of being sickened and offended. One problem with taking (genuine - and not affectational) offense is that it puts power in the hands of the offender by allowing them to generate a response in you. Another is that the more times you get offended the less impact it has. Someone who is always offended has no credibility.

My theory is that just because someone wants to give offense, there is no reason I should take it. I don't play that game. If someone isn't trying to offend me, then taking offense is self destructive and antagonistic. It cuts off your ability to understand where the other person is coming from and likely drives them farther away from where you'd like them to be.

And when they are angry and you refuse to become angry, either they calm down or they spiral off into absurdity - which can be fun to watch and makes them look like an idiot.

The first amendment was specifically crafted with unpopular and angry speech in mind. Carving exceptions to it only makes it easier for the other guy to carve exceptions in it when they gain power. Because democracy is a pendulum in nature, they always will.

Expand full comment

We;; written article. The UN and other definitions of Hate Speech pretty much includes the kind of misanthropy commonly used about naked people. When they call someone "obscene" or "indecent" they have spoken hate. When they threaten to punish him or her under force of government for simply being a human who is seen rather than hidden, their hate speech includes advocating violence.

Expand full comment
Nov 10, 2022Liked by BOPBadger

What I find more concerning and disturbing than anything else is “group think”. There seems to be a distinct lack of critical thinking among the populace that could well be genetically ingrained within our species.

If we can overcome this conditioning and challenge conventional thought. If we don’t blindly accept statements as fact without thoroughly investigating and verifying the source.

What results is an interesting clarity of mind.

As Jillian Penn would phrase it, you see all of the bullshit.

Expand full comment

I am not sure that groupthink is genetic. It may well be behavioural and come about from our need to fit in socially.

Expand full comment

I think the need to fit in socially is genetic and groupthink could be the inevitable product of that. Whether it is directly coded for in the genes doesn't matter.

Every multivariate genetic trait is distributed on a Bell curve, just like height. So there will always be those who don't feel a need to fit in and those who will literally suicide if they cannot. There will also always be those who feel the need but just can't manage it and there will be those who have very high charisma and define exactly what fitting in means.

Ditto group-think. And sometimes that group can itself be a rebellion against a dominant group.

Expand full comment

Quite true but just consider how far back it reaches. I’m no expert or specialist in that field so there’s no value in labouring the point 🙂

Expand full comment