Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

[Drathnoxis]

In many controversial subjects there are opinions which may offend certain individuals. Opinions that, while offensive, are substantially represented and can serve as opposition to the general consensus.

Opinions including, but not limited to:

-Gay is a choice
-Transwomen are just boys pretending to be girls (and vice versa)
-Christians believe in fairy tails
-Gamers are hateful misogynist neckbeards
-etc.

Opinions that may offend people, but are still held with conviction by their owners.

*Note: Please do not use this thread to specifically discuss any of the opinions mentioned above, I claim no ownership to such opinions, and use them purely as examples of opinions that could be found offensive.*

So let's say that in my town, I have a club that meets to discuss and argue about various issues. Should my club disallow statements of opinions that people find offensive, and after so many warning bar them from access to the discussions? Or, should everybody be entitled to state their opinions, no matter how foul they may seem to others, as long as they aren't meant as attacks upon a specific individual or [specific] group [of individuals] that attends the club?

EDIT: If you believe offensiveness should be censored, who do you think should be determining offensiveness? Should it be the owners of the establishment, the guards that work to keep discussions civil, should it be a majority vote type thing, or something else entirely?

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Yes.

Let the circlejerk commence.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Firstly: Who gets to define what's "offensive"? Because if it's me, then everyone has to shut up forever.

 

[BrokenTinker]

Nope, just look at any number of dictatorships and communists states. Hell, even democracies like japan.

Oh..., what wouldn't the rightwing nationalists give to shut the japanese citizens and war vets up about the atrocities they committed during the 20th century and about the whitewashing of the history books.

Frank discussions and clashing of ideas should be the norm, not the exception. A person can't handle a given topic? The onus is on THEM to remove themselves, not have everyone else cater to their every needs. Even with medical conditions, the onus is on the person, and the treatment for these cases are often exposure therapy, not isolation which have been shown to worsen the illness.

 

[Barbas]

I guess I should begin with the question: Are you talking about on this site?

EDIT:

Firstly: Who gets to define what's "offensive"? Because if it's me, then everyone has to shut up forever.

^ This, for starters. This is what a lot of people would do - that includes people here, I'm reasonably certain.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I guess I should begin with the question: Are you talking about on this site?

No, obviously this is just a general question about what is reasonable to allow in a group organized for the purpose of having discussions and is not specific to this or any other internet forums.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Firstly: Who gets to define what's "offensive"? Because if it's me, then everyone has to shut up forever.

Good question. Who do you think should be determining offensiveness? Should it be the owners of the establishment, the guards that work to keep discussions civil, should it be a majority vote type thing, or something else entirely?

 

[DefunctTheory]

It largely depends on the club in question. If its purpose is to debate, or to share ideas, then no. The only restrictions of such clubs should be the methods one is allowed to pursue (Like maybe requiring sources, or not being able to assault the debaters on a personal basis), or having to stay on topic. If the clubs purpose is to, say, sit around and play board games every other weekend, then sure. Censor the hell out of the person who insist on trying to tell everyone how much they hate republicans.

That being said, the club at large could hardly be blamed for expelling (In effect, censoring) a person who consistently fails to honor other group policies. If they seem to be able to spin every debate towards 'its the fault of all the homos,' then I think it may be productive to throw them out.

 

[runic knight]

Presuming this is limited solely to opinions that are offensive and not behaviors or threats, and the intent is discussion itself, no, they should not be in the least. At the worst, all an offensive opinion does is force you to explain why it is wrong in the first place. At best, it gives you something to laugh at.

I suppose, if I supported censoring opinions, the power there would fall upon the owner of the establishment. The guards work at the owner's discretion, so would be forced through threat of employment to follow the standards of the owner. Majority vote would merely allow tyranny of popularity contests to run amok (to say nothing of political shenanigans).

 

[ScaredIndie]

This is a great discussion that I think has been happening for a good portion of human society.

I think it depends on the venue and those involved in the discussion where the line of acceptability lies.

In Mar's example I can definitely see why at a high-school level especially with parental objection to certain topics, it would be considered unacceptable for a debate club as it was sanction by the school and thus implicitly endorsed. However unsanctioned hallway discussion would I image would not carry such restrictions and I would even go so far as to argue that it would be inappropriate to demand such censorship of discussion out side of things sanctioned directly by the school.

This case is a little different than online communities as I think those more fall under the hallway example than the sanctioned debate club.

 

[vallorn]

Yes.

Let the circlejerk commence.

This offends me.

Spoiler: Mod edit: pls put lrg imgs in splrs. erma grd. kthxbai.

/s

Okay on more serious terms, no, nothing like that should be forbidden. And at the same time, people should be gently informed when they use their outrage as an excuse to be frightfully rude, that being polite is required for people to take you seriously (and no, outrage at outrage doesn't count as an excuse to be rude. It just makes you a doubleidiot).

Really, manners are important. In a perfect world such opinions would be brought up and debated logically through the Socratic method or other methods of philosophical reasoning, perhaps through the scientific method also where appropriate. However, some people seem to believe that if you disagree with someone it gives you an excuse to be rude just because you are "showing them the door", failing to realize that this is Censorship By Mob. To these people I would like to refer to this:

http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/

PS: This is one of the few times where XKCD is unequivocally wrong and used by idiots to justify their actions based on stupidity.

Now, the reason why, even racist ideas, should be debated in practice. When you leave them alone and make it impossible to discuss them, you protect them from logical arguments. You ensconce the alkali metal of a racist, sexist or homophobic argument within an oil of outrage that means it sits there, undamaged by the oxygen of debate.

But, when you remove the oil, it tarnishes, blackens. Just like the BNP back in the UK, when the media stopped trying to ignore them, their arguments fell apart under scrutiny, and when they started getting the water of media coverage poured on them they burned away to a salty residue. It is only because they were actually debated rather than being denied "the oxygen of publicity" that the BNP and EDL no longer have anything close to the numbers they had a few years ago.

Thus rests my argument, If you have to yell and scream and call people names, it might make you feel good but it protects abhorrent arguments from the logical attack that would actually destroy them. Therefore, free speech is not merely government censorship but also about the mob censorship that protects these ideas from true scrutiny.

 

[Creator002]

No. All censorship does it attempt to protect the feelings of those offended (generally easily) and shuts down discussion of sensitive topics.
Also, telling something that their opinion is dumb, offensive or anything negative doesn't infringe on their right to have and say it.
"Gays are disgusting."
"Your opinion is what is truly disgusting."
"I have Freedom of Speech protected by the Constitution of the United States of America."[footnote]If that sentence is wrong, it's because I'm Australian. Feel free to tell me it's some other document. If I get nothing, I'll assume the Amendments are in the Constitution.[/footnote]
"And? You're opinion is still disgusting."

Captcha: I mustache you why.
Seriously? I mean, I like it. It's different from other Captchas, but seriously?

 

[Tono Makt]

Case by case basis. Discussing things that some may find offensive in order to get past perceived bigotry and prejudice is generally a good thing - we wouldn't have same-sex rights anywhere in the world if people had not been able to discuss things that were offensive to many, to show them how wrong their thinking was, and change things for the better. Being offensive just to be offensive is generally a bad thing.

It would take a great deal for me to say that something should be censored, though. Beyond obvious security issues (like not discussing where undercover police are, or not discussing military battle strategies, doxxing, etc.), I can't honestly come up with an example, even a hypothetical example, where I would support discussion being censored. Not even for something like NAMBLA. I believe in the saying "Sunlight is the best disinfectant", so get things out in the open, show them for what they are, and if they don't stand the scrutiny let them wither and die. Censorship is the opposite of that; it allows bad ideas to fester and grow, it makes them appear to be more legitimate than they should be and gives them an aura of victim-hood that they do not deserve.

So bring on the discussion of offensive topics! Just be polite and respectful in them.

 

[Random Gamer]

Now, the reason why, even racist ideas, should be debated in practice. When you leave them alone and make it impossible to discuss them, you protect them from logical arguments. You ensconce the alkali metal of a racist, sexist or homophobic argument within an oil of outrage that means it sits there, undamaged by the oxygen of debate.

To elaborate a little bit on that, I've been known (well, on other forums at least) to take seriously posts that could be kind of trolls, and refute them. Not because I was dead sure the guy was serious and wanted to show him why he was wrong, but because, usually, there's a 5 or even 10 to 1 ratio between readers and posters on most forums, and when someone states something asinine or totally wrong, it needs to be debunked, for the sake of the silent majority of readers. Even if every single poster thinks the guy's a troll and is full of it, it might be a good thing to actually explain why, just in case some lurker/reader might actually think the troll has a point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Tricky...though, "offensive" isn't so much the issue, though that is normally how proponents of unlimited free speech (or more often, freeze peach) like to portray it. Some ideas are dangerous.

In theory, if something is obviously wrong, it can be shot down, sure. But most of the obviously wrong stuff isn't aimed at people who can see it's obviously wrong.

If I go around telling people that vaccines cause autism (and imply that autism is worse than diseases you get vaccinated against, I guess), I'm not trying to convince doctors or scientists or anyone else that understands the issue, I'm trying to convince random citizens who know that mercury is poisonous and not much beyond that. If people allow me to promote that view, sure, I'll get shouted down by those in the know, but there will likely be some who will believe me and their kids will suffer for it.

Likewise, if I claim that Group X is subhuman, it's not going to be decided in a logical debate by informed people with time to dedicate to this, it's going to be decided by the general public in the five minutes they had not devoted to other issues.

Even if I am decisively proven wrong, did everyone hear about it? I can come back in a few months and do it all over again, hope to convince some people this time, or just waste the time and effort of people arguing against me. If they get fed up and quit before I do, I'm proven right, in a way.

Now, deciding what views to allow to be said (by a given group) or not is difficult, but in the case of a small club, if you get the answer wrong, it's not that bad in of itself.

 

[The Lunatic]

Absolutely not.

Even if we were, how on earth would we begin to decide what is and isn't offensive?

If we go by number of people offended, groups like homosexuals, people who identify as trans-gendered and such account for very small minorities, sometime less than a single percentage. By that metric, saying "Republicans are dumb" is going to offend more people.

Do we have specific groups who simply can't be spoken ill of? That seems like a terrible idea, and it's pretty offensive to those groups in particular as it insists that these people need defending and can't handle uncensored opinions. Plus, it's impossible to define these groups without being arbitrary, and even then, who makes this decision?

The other way around, by having acceptable targets that can have offensive opinions floated around about them? That simply degrades into bullying, and suffers the same issues as above.

Added to that, without explaining such opinions, it's impossible to declare them offensive or not.

I mean, as a homosexual, the statement "Being gay is a choice" isn't really that clear cut.

Whilst I'm sure most people get a vague notion of what's being implied by it, if you look at the statement with a more in depth gaze, I can't help but draw the following question:

What do you mean by "Gay" and what do you mean by "Choice"?

I mean, are we talking about "Gay" in the sense of a lifestyle in which one dresses in pink tank-tops and attends gay clubs? I'd say that's a choice, I mean, it's certainly not required to be homosexual, although many enjoy it, and rightly so. "Gay" in the sense of having homosexual attractions? Well, I'd say they're not a choice, but, the choice to act upon them probably is. And I don't think anyone is ever perfectly straight, so, I mean... I guess to identify as "Gay" is a choice? However, if 90% of your attraction is to males, then, well, it's not a choice really, is it?

It's only really by discussion that the depth of these statements can be worked out.

 

[Gennadios]

I have a club that meets to discuss and argue about various issues.

wot m8?

How can there be argument without a dissenting opinion? Would it be arguing about just how far an extreme to take the reaction to the topic in question?

Honestly, as long as the club isn't receiving taxpayer money, is exempt from taxes, or is convening with the endorsement of the government, it's really not any outsider's business how it conducts itself internally.

People like their echo chambers and prefer to jump to conclusions and not have them challenged too much, nothing wrong with them getting it.

 

[vallorn]

Tricky...though, "offensive" isn't so much the issue, though that is normally how proponents of unlimited free speech (or more often, freeze peach) like to portray it. Some ideas are dangerous.

Freeze peach is a maymay proliferated by those who want restrictions on free speech to 'protect' people from things.

In theory, if something is obviously wrong, it can be shot down, sure. But most of the obviously wrong stuff isn't aimed at people who can see it's obviously wrong.

And that is why it's important to debate it so that the lurkers or other silent people can see, logically, why it's wrong.

If I go around telling people that vaccines cause autism (and imply that autism is worse than diseases you get vaccinated against, I guess), I'm not trying to convince doctors or scientists or anyone else that understands the issue, I'm trying to convince random citizens who know that mercury is poisonous and not much beyond that. If people allow me to promote that view, sure, I'll get shouted down by those in the know, but there will likely be some who will believe me and their kids will suffer for it.

Look, I'm a boy with Aspergers which manifested after I had the MMR vaccine in the UK. Even I know that that is baloney, but if people are ill informed enough to buy that hokum then the real solution is to fix the root cause by enhancing the education system so that people understand biology a little better rather than banning people from publicly talking about it which causes it to spread in the shadows where it is protected from debate by the ban on talking about it.

Likewise, if I claim that Group X is subhuman, it's not going to be decided in a logical debate by informed people with time to dedicate to this, it's going to be decided by the general public in the five minutes they had not devoted to other issues.

Then you work to improve the educational lot of the general population so that you don't get these clusters of "informed people" who know about it. This is a symptom of the population being poorly educated, not of the actual ideas being poisonous themselves. America as a whole has a poison in it's culture where ignorance is prized and those with intelligence ('geeks', 'nerds', etc) are often outcasts. This also is compounded by a poor educational system that lacks academic rigor.

Even if I am decisively proven wrong, did everyone hear about it? I can come back in a few months and do it all over again, hope to convince some people this time, or just waste the time and effort of people arguing against me. If they get fed up and quit before I do, I'm proven right, in a way.

Atheists keep debating creationists to disprove them over and over and over, some have even made careers out of it on Youtube. It just takes passion and strength of character.

Now, deciding what views to allow to be said (by a given group) or not is difficult, but in the case of a small club, if you get the answer wrong, it's not that bad in of itself.

There's no real 'wrong' answer except to ban people's views. Once you establish that precedent you open yourself up to being silenced if your opinion suddenly becomes the minority opinion or otherwise "dangerous". Imagine if your group was suddenly full of social conservatives from a freshman year who all espoused that being gay was immoral and thus, through a club motion or by seizing the levers of power, banned anyone from saying anything "Pro-Gay" within the club because they deemed that it was "dangerous". That would be awful! It's frankly just better to be polite yet unrestrained in subject than anything else.

Disclaimer, I'm a guy with a boyfriend so don't take my analogies as the words of a homophobe. I don't endorse such opinions but using them as an example troubles me not at all.