In general I sympathize with that principle. Let's test it. Imagine a progressive professor who starts referring to all of her students as 'she.' Would you have a right to complain?

Yes. Free speech goes both ways. But one should never seek to censor her.

I would prefer to stick with the language the way it is. So men as addressed as a "he", women as "she". — M777

I think that's a common enough preference. But should that personal preference trump the professor's right to express their view of the world (which is perhaps that all humans are essentially female in some non-biological sense) ? Forcing others to conform to your pronoun preference (which you have not suggested, I should add) would seem to be hypocritical. It's not clear that tradition alone could give your traditional preference any more weight in such a situation, though one might argue that it's the innovator's burden to justify changes in linguistic norms.

As I see it, words primarily have their meanings as proprieties of use. Such meanings can and do change. We can decide as a group that 'male' and 'female' no longer refer to things like XY and XX, and of course many of us already have, so that dissenters are not welcome. It's not insane to suggest such a change, even if you can find some careless types on either side who really haven't sorted out the various issues here.

Yes. Free speech goes both ways. But one should never seek to censor her. — NOS4A2

I appreciate the consistency.

Yes. Free speech goes both ways. But one should never seek to censor her. — NOS4A2

I think that if my name is Michael but my professor insists on calling me Mary despite knowing my name then the university has the right to discipline her.

Hmm... not sure how did you come to such conclusion. — M777

Both rich and control massive powerful organisations.
Both influence the lives of millions.
Both have access to very powerful tech.
Both can influence global politics
Both are narcissistic b*******

Stalin/Chavez/PolPot/Mao/kimjonun, — M777

I personally would not have included Chavez in your group of villains but all the others are totalitarians and always were. They are NOT or EVER were socialist.
The Russian and Chinese revolutions did have socialist beginnings but there was no serious attempt in either example to set up a socialist system.
These are not ‘attempts at a socialist system,’ it’s just mostly western propaganda to suggest they were.
It’s a similar claim to the theistic claim that such systems are also ‘what happens when the atheists are in charge.’
Total BS.

I call all my students morons but if they complain I tell them they are violating my free speech and fail them.

I think that if my name is Michael but my professor insists on calling me Mary then the university has the right to discipline her and compel her to call me by my name. — Michael

As a teacher, this is my solution to all the pronoun angst. Just use proper names, especially those chosen by the students. No one is (yet) objecting to that, even if a Derridean jester reminds us that names are unripe toetags.

When I was a student I had to refer to my teachers as "sir" and "miss". We weren't allowed to call them by their first names. The school system sure is oppressive.

You think that's bad I had to wear one of these hats:



(I did not go to Shore, for the record for any Australians here).

SO oppressed.

When I was a student I had to refer to my teachers as "sir" and "miss". We weren't allowed to call them by their first names. The school system sure is oppressive. — Michael

I think you are joking, but this is maybe a tricky issue. It's hard if not impossible to get by without linguistic norms (like those gendered terms of respect you mentioned). But it's also hard to make everyone happy. I think it'd be fair for a student to want to be called 'Mr' or 'Ms' in any context where they can't call me by my first name. But that might indicate a shift in the status of teachers.

I think you are joking, but this is maybe a tricky issue. It's hard if not impossible to get by without linguistic norms (like those gendered terms of respect you mentioned). — igjugarjuk

Yes, I was joking. Mocking those who believe in unrestricted free speech. As if students having to call their teachers "sir" or MPs in the UK having to refer to their colleagues as "the Right Honourable" or people having to wait their turn to speak at a town hall is some tyrannical attack on human rights.

Which is why I said "[o]r maybe trying to label me as being any one thing is futile. Better to just address the individual views I hold rather than fit me into a specific box." — Michael

I'm not trying to fit you in a box. We are discussing what liberalism is.

Yes, and trying to prevent things like the resurgence of Nazism is an inevitable interference. — Michael

Imposing one's views on others under the guise of fighting nazis.

Come on.

Even if you genuinely believe that, your choice of censorship and ostracization are extremely poor ones, and haven't done anything to stop it over the course of nearly a century.

Liberalism is a philosophy that starts from a premise that political authority and law must be justified. If citizens are obliged to exercise self-restraint, and especially if they are obliged to defer to someone else’s authority, there must be a reason why. Restrictions on liberty must be justified.

This is about accountability, and that certainly is a part of what liberalism considers legitimate governance.

This description leaves the philosophical fundation of liberalism unaddressed; why must power be kept in check and constantly demanded to account for its actions?

Because man and by extension the governments they control can only make decisions based on highly subejctive, flawed ideas of reality, making man and by extension governments extremely poor arbiters of reasonableness on behalf of others.

Within the ideas of liberalism, government is a necessary evil and not a means to an end.

A liberal understands that when people are free, they will sometimes use that freedom to do things we don't like. And that's the price of freedom. Freedom of speech means sometimes people will have reprehensible ideas. So what? As long as they're not infringing upon people's fundamental rights they can entertain all the ideas they want.

I'm not trying to fit you in a box. — Tzeentch

I was referring to the exchange where you referred to my views as being hypocritical.

Even if you genuinely believe that, your choice of censorship and ostracization are extremely poor ones, and haven't done anything to stop it over the course of nearly a century. — Tzeentch

Well, there hasn't been another Hitler so maybe it has stopped it. We might not have stamped out Nazi ideology entirely but by censoring and ostracising those who promote it we're making a good effort to push it mostly into the fringe, which is a good thing.

This description leaves the philosophical fundation of liberalism unaddressed; why must power be kept in check and constantly demanded to account for its actions? — Tzeentch

Because as the article says, via Mill, "the a priori assumption is in favour of freedom." But such an assumption doesn't then mean that there's never a good reason to restrict freedom.

This is a better account of liberalism than your account that somehow entails that liberals must support unrestricted freedoms.

But all this is mostly irrelevant. The simple, everyday fact is that "liberal" is the term adopted by those people who support things like interracial and same-sex marriage, transgender rights, drug legalisation, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. Rather than splitting hairs over the meaning of the term "liberal", why not actually address the merits of the specific policies they either support or oppose?

I liked it when we murdered Nazis by mass bombing that was a good time.

I was referring to the exchange where you referred to my views as being hypocritical. — Michael

The idea that people should be free only if it suits one's opinions is certainly a hypocritical idea.

Well, there hasn't been another Hitler so maybe it has stopped it. We might not have stamped out Nazi ideology entirely but by censoring and ostracising those who promote it we're making a good effort to push it mostly into the fringe, which is a good thing. — Michael

You give yourself too much credit. I think people looking at history and deciding for themselves that nazism is probably not the road we want to go down did a lot more to ensure nazism moved to the fringes. Ostracising and censorship probably did very little.

What it did do is create the type of climate in which extreme ideologies take root. Perhaps not nazi ideologies, but they weren't the only ones that were problematic.

But such an assumption doesn't then mean that there's never a good reason to restrict freedom. — Michael

True. Yet at the same time a liberal must recognize there are certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, that are fundamental, a human right and shouldn't be infringed upon. And that's for several good reasons, one of which being that a climate of ostracization and censorship breeds polarisation and extremism, instead of combatting it.

This is a better account of liberalism than your account that somehow entails that liberals must support unrestricted freedoms. — Michael

I never claimed as much.

But all this is mostly irrelevant. The simple, everyday fact is that "liberal" is the term adopted by those people who support things like interracial and same-sex marriage, transgender rights, legalisation, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. Rather than splitting hairs over the meaning of the term "liberal", why not actually address the merits of the specific policies they either support or oppose? — Michael

Because as I argued before, the term "liberal" was hijacked by unsavory individuals who in fact aren't liberal at all - much the opposite. They behave like little tyrants that believe their view is best and that it should be imposed on every one else through government force. They're the antithesis to liberalism.

The idea that people should be free only if it suits one's opinions is certainly a hypocritical idea. — Tzeentch

Well I never expressed that idea so I don't understand the relevance of this comment.

Yet at the same time a liberal must recognize there are certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, that are fundamental, a human right and shouldn't be infringed upon. — Tzeentch

They don't have to. A liberal can agree that perjury should be a crime, that an employee who tells trade secrets to a competitor should be fired, and that a parent who verbally abuses their child should be condemned and maybe even have their child taken away from them.

I never claimed as much. — Tzeentch

Sorry, unrestricted freedom of speech.

Because as I argued before, the term "liberal" was hijacked by unsavory individuals who in fact aren't liberal at all - much the opposite. They behave like little tyrants that believe their view is best and that it should be imposed on every one else through government force. They're the antithesis to liberalism. — Tzeentch

I don't know what you mean by "imposing a view on everyone else through government force" so I don't know how to address that.

Well I never expressed that idea so I don't understand the relevance of this comment. — Michael

You did.

Didn't you want to lobby against people who have neonazi thoughts in their head to get them fired from their jobs?

That's actually even worse, since it implies the law isn't enough to exact the type of revenge you're after.

They don't have to. — Michael

Sorry, unrestricted freedom of speech. — Michael

If one is so afraid of words that one believes speech should be restricted according to one's fancies, one is, again, not a liberal.

And before you come with caricatures about yelling fire in a theatre: freedom of speech is about being able to express one's genuinely held beliefs in a civil manner, and I believe there should be no restriction on that, nor that any individual is able to impose reasonable restrictions on that.

don't know what you mean by "imposing a view on everyone else through government force" ... — Michael

Political opinions are opinions about what one believes governments should force other people to do.

When you say "I believe xyz" in relation to a political opinion, what you're saying is "I want my government to force people to act more in accordance to xyz".

It's good that we're discussing this, because apparently the nature of what government is is not clear.

You did.

Didn't you want to lobby against people who have neonazi thoughts in their head to get them fired from their jobs? — Tzeentch

There's a meaningful difference between "people who promote Nazi ideology should be fired" and "people who disagree with me should be fired". I asserted the former, not the latter.

And before you come with caricatures about yelling fire in a theatre: freedom of speech is about being able to express one's genuinely held beliefs in a civil manner. — Tzeentch

There's nothing civil about Nazism or racism or homophobia or transphobia. Expressing one's beliefs in a "civil manner" is about more than just tone but also about content. Telling my boss calmly and with a smile that I think he's a "fucking nigger" doesn't make me civil, and he'd be right to fire me.

When you say "I believe xyz" in relation to a political opinion, what you're saying is "I want my government to force people to act more in accordance to xyz". — Tzeentch

So what exact examples do you have in mind? Because boycotting some business and posting condemnations on Twitter because their CEO is a racist (which is the sort of thing that happens nowadays) isn't the same as wanting the government to force people to behave a certain way.

That's actually even worse, since it implies the law isn't enough to exact the type of revenge you're after. — Tzeentch

Or I just think that saying that Jewish people should be killed doesn't warrant prison time but does warrant being fired from Starbucks. Not sure how that's worse...

There's a meaningful difference between "people who promote Nazi ideology should be fired" and "people who disagree with me should be fired". — Michael

What are nazis other than individuals whose views you strongly disagree with?

Assuming everyone in the example of moving within the bounds of the law I disagree there's a meaningful difference, if there's even a difference at all other than your subjective judgement about what are acceptable thoughts to have and views to hold.

Again, I disagree that individuals are able to make such distinctions to the extent that they should be given power over other people's fundamental rights.

Expressing one's beliefs in a "civil manner" is about more than just tone but also about content. — Michael

I disagree.

Civil means in a non-disruptive way, so as a part of a normal discussion. And I believe in such a setting every idea should be able to be discussed, no matter how reprehensible I may find it.

Telling my boss calmly and with a smile that I think he's a "fucking nigger" doesn't make me civil, ... — Michael

Why would purposefully insulting someone be considered a civil way to express one's beliefs?

So what exact examples do you have in mind? — Michael

If one holds the political opinion that some views should not be able to be freely expressed, one desires for their government to enforce limitation on freedom of speech, which means it has to threaten people into not expressing those views. That's how governments function.

One expresses this desire by voting, activism, etc.

However much one may be convinced of the soundness of their views, it doesn't change the nature of how governments function and how one attempts to use it to impose those views on others.

Because boycotting some business and posting condemnations on Twitter because their CEO is a racist (which is the sort of thing that happens nowadays) isn't the same as wanting the government to force people to behave a certain way. — Michael

No, in a sense it's way worse, because you're going out of your way to try and exact revenge and punishment upon people for behaviors that are perfectly legal, even enshrined as fundamental rights in the constitution and human rights legislation.

I think that's morally reprehensible.

If you were to try and enact your changes by means of the democratic process, at least it would have some semblance of legitimacy.

EDIT: Discrimination by this hypothetical CEO would be against the law, at which point one only needs to provide evidence for this crime for the system to do its job and uphold the law.

What are nazis other than individuals whose views you strongly disagree with? — Tzeentch

I don't understand your question.

If you say "we have the right to say what we like" should I interpret that as "we have the right to do whatever I believe we should be able to do"? If not then why are you interpreting me saying "we have the right to fire people for saying this" as "we have the right to fire people for disagreeing with me"?

Why would purposefully insulting someone be considered a civil way to express one's beliefs? — Tzeentch

You're right, why would it? So why would someone saying "transgender men aren't men" be considered a civil way of expressing one's belief when it purposefully insults transgender men?

No, in a sense it's way worse, because you're going out of your way to try and exact revenge and punishment upon people for behaviors that are perfectly legal, even enshrined as fundamental rights in the constitution and human rights legislation.

I think that's morally reprehensible. — Tzeentch

So you're saying that I shouldn't lobby a business to convince them to fire their employee for being a racist? That my speech is morally reprehensible? I don't quite understand how you balance this apparent contradiction in your position. I have the natural right to condemn and ask for someone to be fire don't I?

If you say "we have the right to say what we like" should I interpret that as "we have the right to do whatever I believe we should be able to do?" — Michael

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It's not me saying you should have a right to freedom of speech. It's mankind as a whole deciding that freedom of speech belongs to a list of things governments should uphold in order to guarantee a baseline of humanity.

In that list are also things like "legitimate governments shall not commit genocides", and that should probably tell you something.

So why would someone saying "transgender men aren't men" be considered a civil way of expressing one's belief when it purposefully insults transgender men? — Michael

Because it's not an insult, regardless of how one may interpret it.

Saying the world is round may offend a flat earther. It doesn't make it an insult.

I guess for transgenderism specifically it's unfortunate their stake in reality is so closely related to their identity, to the point of which any discussion about that reality becomes an insult to them.

So you're saying that I shouldn't lobby a business to convince them to fire their employee for being a racist? That my free speech is morally reprehensible? I don't quite understand how you balance this apparent contradiction in your position. — Michael

People may use their freedom to do things I find morally reprehensible.

And I'm fine with that, assuming it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others or break the law.

That's the essence of liberalism you see.

Yes, I was joking. Mocking those who believe in unrestricted free speech. As if students having to call their teachers "sir" or MPs in the UK having to refer to their colleagues as "the Right Honourable" or people having to wait their turn to speak at a town hall is some tyrannical attack on human rights. — Michael

Basically I agree with you. But it seems this same argument cuts both ways. Assuming that gender expression is otherwise unconstrained, it seems that keeping pronouns tied to biology is just tradition, just words, etc. Being offended by having to use the 'wrong' pronoun seems adjacent to being offended by having the 'wrong' pronoun used. Some would like to give control over the pronoun to the referent, others to the user. In general, the referent is perceived, probably correctly, as more vulnerable, so that it's easy to forget the symmetry mentioned above (it's all just bitching about linguistic norms, which is seemingly only as important as we make it out to be.)

I agree in general but I would refuse to use BS titles of nobility. No matter if it was based on the vile UK honours system or a family inheritance.
I would not bow to the queen or refer to a moron like Alan Sugar, as Lord Sugar. I would respect a title such as judge, professor, doctor etc but not ever king, queen, lord, pope etc or Sir something. I would use sir but not Sir Alan or such.

Bad comment :down:

No. Killing Nazis is a good. There is nothing controversial about this.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. — Tzeentch

You seem to be arguing that because I disagree with Nazism then when I claim that someone should be fired for being a Nazi then I am claiming that someone should be fired because I disagree with them. That's a non sequitur. I was trying to offer a similar misinterpretation of your claim to explain the fallacy.

Because it's not an insult, regardless of how one may interpret it. — Tzeentch

Yes it is.

I guess for transgenderism specifically it's a shame their stake in reality is so closely related to their identity, to the point of which any discussion about that reality becomes an insult to them. — Tzeentch

I don't understand this. Gender identity is an identity, and so the reality of their gender is their identity.

People may use their freedom to do things I find morally reprehensible.

And I'm fine with that, assuming it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others or break the law.

That's the essence of liberalism you see. — Tzeentch

And this is where we disagree. I don't think liberalism requires that morally reprehensible speech be tolerated. As I alluded to before, one can be liberal in one area but not another. I'm liberal with respect to marriage if I support interracial and same-sex marriage. I'm liberal with respect to drugs if I support drug legalisation. I'm liberal with respect to the economy if I oppose regulations. I don't see a problem with someone referring to themselves as a liberal if they are liberal in many areas, even if they're not liberal in one or two others.

I'm a liberal with respect to the market economy if I oppose regulations. — Michael

In the US, this is a conservative position. Liberals are pro-regulation.

Would you include the German babies killed during the allied bombings of Germany under your;

Killing Nazis is a good. There is nothing controversial about this. — Streetlight

comment?

In the US, this is a conservative position. Liberals are pro-regulation. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, that's the very problem with labels like this. It's not as straightforward as some would like to make it. Are Libertarian Republicans liberal or conservative?