It's a bird.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I can't see any bolded words for some reason. Which one was it?
A nice butterfly
"should"
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
The law in the night
You can't say "it has nothing in common with speech apart from being speech".
I could stop at a bus stop, yell fuck and just leave. People would wonder what the hell was that about but that would be it, just a word with hardly any meaning beyond the definition of the word itself.
I can yell "the theater is on fire" inside at my home near my roommates and yell the same thing at a crowded theater, I have the freedom to do it in both places but only in one of those I will face repercussions and certainly will face a legal ones if someone dies or gets injured.
While there are no laws outright stating that you can't yell fire in a theater, taking actions which can endanger others aren't legal, as such actions like yelling fire wouldn't be much different than pulling the fire alarm in a theater without a fire or crying wolf.
The theater is a loose definition of a safe space where certain speeches and actions award a reaction, but like all spaces with limitations on them, by entering them fully knowing or not their limitations you're agreeing with a limited form of censorship in exchange for the space.
In cases where people are arrested or face legal problems with speeches and other medias like written, audio and cinematographic are usually because the contents of their speeches and works weren't legal before their presentation or viewing.
The selling and distribution of Mein Kampt is illegal in Brazil and well any works that promote racism, a person could talk about how black people deserve to be slaves on a discussion about racism and be arrested for hate speech, because was illegal before the person made its views public and the repercussion is nothing but the law being it fair or not being put in action.
If you live in a place with no such restrictions, the consequences you will face will come in a different shade. People may no longer want to be associated with you, your employer may no longer consider you fit to work due to being associated with your speech, people would deny you channels to voice your opinions among other things. This wouldn't entail into censorship, you're still allowed to speak your mind and publish your papers without being sued or arrested, you're however not entitled to have people providing the means for it nor you are entitled to have people hear it.
Logically the same thing applies to private safe spaces, where you can set the rules of what speech and actions are allowed and those that aren't, thus impose a degree of censorship upon all of those who agree to enter it, but the difference between the legal censorship and the one you agree when you enter the safe space is that the safe space censorship ends as soon as you leave it, allowing you to publish everything you're not allowed to in the safe space without repercussion outside it.
Regarding black bars over penises, modesty laws are a form of censorship too, though there is the difference between not being allowed to show nudity because it is forbidden by the state versus not showing nudity because the viewership and the publishers find it inappropriate.
Inter arma enim silent leges
A nice butterfly
The only difference is that censorship has to come from someone with a higher societal power. It is not censorship if equal regulates equal through opinion it is censorship when it is directly punching down.
In that sense I cannot say that me calling my brother's opinion on something stupid would be censorship as much as my boss doing it is.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
A procrastination in of itself
At a minimum there's in the US a US Supreme Court case saying that you can't, there's probably are laws in some countries.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The law in the night
To put it in perspective
Hoff Po: Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People
.
But I disagree with censorship being something that is only related to a power structure, power structures help set up censors but other other less privileged groups can also impose it. Specially on the information age where you can use bogus copy right complaints to shut down videos on Youtube or how easily you can D Do S any group you don't agree with.
Yeah, IIRC those fell under the reckless endangerment laws and were ruled as not being a violation of the First Amendment due to them being specifically being used with the intent of causing harm.
A procrastination in of itself
I am not at all surprised that it's a student that came out in favour of segregation. College/uni exists so that people can learn how stupid such ideas are.
Shop Owner
So, it's the racism=prejudice+power school of social understanding, clever. Charming even
A procrastination in of itself
Even that doesn't work, as anyone who has the power to ban an entire racial group from a meeting by definition has power over the people being banned.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Is "Safe Spaces Without White People" effectively Segregation?
edited 24th Feb '16 4:28:51 PM by hellomoto
"Safe Spaces Without White People" is effectively Segregation applied to white people instead of black people, did I get that right?
An example of "discrimination goes both ways"?
edited 24th Feb '16 4:29:14 PM by hellomoto
A procrastination in of itself
No effectively, it simply is. But yeah discrimination goes both ways, generally one has to leave the US to find major examples, but they do happen internally to on occasion.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
A nice butterfly
Yes indeed it is.
Is that the end of the world though? These white people are not being denied access to basic things, like public transportation, water, bathrooms or education, they are just being denied access to something that has a rather educational purpose for a segment of the population with a clearly defined temporary issue and objective.
It's like demanding to enter your gynecologyst's practice with your daughter's first time there. Your presence is not helping no matter your good intentions.
It's when you take it away from the level of education, like say, the example that I bet you are itching to mention, Bahar Mustafa that safe spaces and this segregation loses its value and simply becomes bigotry.
edited 25th Feb '16 9:15:52 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Queen of Good Things, Honest
Or demanding to enter the gynecologist's practice just to be there, even though you have no daughter involved, because you don't like being told you can't be.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
A nice butterfly
DON'T EVER TELL ME WHAT I CAN'T DO!
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
The law in the night
The Evolution of Shaming
A communications director sends an ill-advised tweet before boarding a plane. A dentist kills a lion. Donald Trump says pretty much anything. In all of these cases, the Internet ratchets itself into a dervish of judgment, outrage, and opprobrium. To some, this repeated pattern of online shaming is a sign of mob behavior gone horribly wrong; to others, it’s a sign of social progress and underrepresented voices finally being heard. But to Jillian Jordan from Yale University, it’s a clue about a universal human behavior called third-party punishment.
Third-party punishment happens when we punish people who behave badly and violate social rules, even when their actions don’t directly affect us. All cultures show it to varying degrees (while chimpanzees do not). It starts early: eight-month-old babies will gravitate towards a nasty moose if it punishes an unhelpful elephant. And it usually comes with costs: whistleblowers risk their careers, protesters face arrest and beatings, people sending disapproving tweets can get doxxed and harassed, and more generally, punishers lose time, energy, and social relationships.
So why bother? Why censure someone who hasn’t harmed us directly?
Some scientists have suggested that it helps to cement human societies together by enforcing social norms and discouraging selfishness or bad behavior. As such, groups that practice third-party punishment should do better than those that do not. That may be true, but collective benefits don’t explain why individuals choose to incur the cost of punishment. Why doesn’t any one person just sit back and let others punish?
In online shaming, Jordan saw a clue. “I started thinking about friends I knew who were involved in social justice,” she says. “There was a lot of moralistic speech that seemed like it was focused on communicating one’s own position.” In other words, maybe third-party punishment is primarily a signal that tells onlookers that you are trustworthy, in the same way that a peacock’s tail or stag’s antlers signal its genetic quality. It says: If I’m willing to punish selfishness, you know I’m not going to act selfishly to you.
Together with David Rand, a psychologist who studies cooperation, Jordan tested these ideas by recruiting hundreds of volunteers through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and having them play a game of trust in two stages. In phase one, a Helper can decide whether to share money with a Recipient; if they’re selfish about it, a Punisher can decide to penalize them. A Chooser watches all of this. In phase two, they get a pot of money and can invest part of it with the Punisher. That investment gets tripled and the Punisher can decide how much to return to the Chooser. So the Chooser must evaluate how much they trust the Punisher, based on what they did in the first game.
Jordan found that the Choosers sent more money to the Punishers if they actually punished the selfish Helpers. “They treated punishment as a sign that you’re likely to be nice,” she says. And they were right to do so because the Punishers who punished ended up returning more money to the Choosers. They were, indeed, more trustworthy.
“This shows that people aren’t solely punishing because they want to see the selfish people harmed,” says Jordan. “They want to signal that they’re trustworthy. If there’s a better way of doing that, they won’t punish.” Likewise, from the Chooser’s point of view, “It’s not inherently about rewarding punishment, no matter what. It’s about predicting who will be trustworthy.”
“This clarifies why some studies show that punishers benefit and other studies do not: Helping others is a better signal of one’s cooperation, so people use that as a signal when possible,” says Pat Barclay at the University of Guelph.
Barclay and others have predicted that third-party punishment can be a reliable signal of cooperative intent, “but this paper provides empirical support for that prediction,” says Nichola Raihani from University College London. The team also enshrined their ideas in a mathematical model that simulates how punishment affects virtual people when playing games of trust. The results from that model closely match those from the actual experiment, which suggests that it’s a useful tool for exploring the evolution of punishment even further.
Jordan and Rand caution that this is an evolutionary perspective, about why third-party punishment arose in humans in the first place. It doesn’t suggest that people who show outrage, online or otherwise, are doing so because of cold calculations and self-interest. “We’re not calling people liars, like they say they care but really don’t,” says Jordan. “People genuinely feel outrage and moral anger. But at least part of why they care is that it gets them reputational benefits.”
“That also helps to explain why people get pissed off even when the wrong that was done was accidental,” she adds. “It’s hard to explain that if you think that the reason for punishing is for the good of the group.”
But punishment has reputational costs too. Although experiments have shown that people entrust more money to punishers, “most research says that people don't seem to like punishers more than non-punishers,” says Barclay. “They trust punishers to do the right thing, but don’t particularly like them, possibly out of fear of being punished themselves.“
And Sarah Mathew from Arizona State University says the team’s conclusions may not apply broadly. They certainly don’t jibe with her experiences of working with Turkana pastoralists in East Africa. “Among the Turkana, those who don't punish are talked about as free-riders” she says. They’re billed as “useless” people who don’t contribute to the community. “People may care about their reputation as punishers, not because it is a form of signaling, but because punishment is one domain of cooperation, just like providing aid or participating in warfare.”
She adds that it’s misleading to study the origins of third-party punishment by looking at large states. In such societies, formal institutions like the legal system do the heavy-lifting of maintaining social order, which changes the way we view individuals who dole out punishment. And for most of our evolutionary history, such institutions didn’t exist. “It’s a bit like making conclusions about human diet by studying people practicing agriculture,” Mathew says.
That may shed a light on the moral high ground people take when they use shaming as an censorship tactic towards people they don't agree with.
Inter arma enim silent leges
A procrastination in of itself
X3 Or demanding to enter the gynecologist's practise because you need to see a gynaecologist and being denied because of the colour of your skin.
edited 25th Feb '16 10:56:13 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Queen of Good Things, Honest
No, that's quite different. The distinction is at the heart of why this argument is one that becomes so heated: the distinction between
- I am outraged because I have a need for this service but am being denied it use.
- I am outraged because I am being denied this service's use even though I have no need for it and it does not impact my life at all.
There is a world of difference between being refused medical treatment because you're black and being refused admittance to a trauma victims' shelter because you're perfectly healthy and have no reason to be there.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
A nice butterfly
I would also add that there is the educational aspect of safe zones too.
I would go back tothe nudist colony example but then you guys would think i am weird.
...heh. Boobies.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
A procrastination in of itself
I fail to see how denying press access to an event based on the race of the press people is anything but the first one.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Queen of Good Things, Honest
That sounds awfully specific. Is there a particular example sticking in your craw? Because I'm speaking generically.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
A procrastination in of itself
I'm speaking about the linked article which was specifically about two white members of the student press being denied access to an event because it was a blacks only event.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
A nice butterfly
I assume U.S universities have practice for psychological and medical stuff? Do press students get to listen in on those? Is this something they need to report on?
Cuz' it's similar here to what this situation is: The press students would be actually interfering in the act here (of sociological and educational nature), to the point that their very presence is unnecesary, intrusive, and not really worth reporting on without saying "So I am reporting on this gathering but they kinda did nothing cuz some stupid reporter was there when he shouldn't have been"
It's not like they are gathering in the dark, saying they are there on secret business that you cannot know anything about and coming out with mysterious ticking boxes that they refuse to disclose anything about.
edited 25th Feb '16 11:28:18 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
I bolded the important part in this question because it is what I am going to be refering to. I can have my opinions, yes, but making demands implicit by this very word, is just too autocratic a thing for me to say, really. I'm a bit more into psychological repression and emotional and physical torture than outright absolutist demands, yanno.
I mean, that word bears that "whiny demand" tact connotation, which might be problematic for the purpose
Censorship is not just destroying or preventing the means though. It can also mean punishing the messenger for posting a message, or modifying the message itself.
A censor's job for example is putting all those black bars next to the penises and vaginas or bleeping out the words. It is still censorship without having fully replaced it by absolute silence.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes