Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

[Vigormortis]

I don't want to derail, but I've had gay people tell me that they consider being gay a choice, and that they dislike the argument that it's genetic because then it looks like it's some kind of disease or flaw. Their opinion is that they are grown adults and can stick their dick wherever they want, thank you very much.

So is "gay a choice" as demonstrably false and stupid as you think? Could it be argued? What's the deal with ancient Greece or Rome, then? See, free speech is not always a legal matter, sometimes it's a matter of intellectual humility. Recognizing that perhaps issues are not as clear-cut as you think and maybe stuff merits discussion even if you consider it monumentally stupid and blatantly false (bam! derail averted).

Just because those friends are gay doesn't mean they can somehow refute the biological evidence. Especially if their reasoning is, "Because I said so."

Besides, from the sounds of things, they're only making the claim because they perceive the notion of homo/bisexuality being genetic as being an "illegitimate reason".

Anyone who understands the science knows it's not a genetic disease or flaw. Only ignorant bigots desperate for a reason to treat homosexuals poorly think it's a disease.

Gay isn't a choice. People may think it is, but it isn't. You can't choose what sexually arouses you.

And note, I didn't say someone couldn't make the claim nor bring it up in a discussion. In fact, I said someone has every right to. That was my whole point. Free speech is only free when anyone can say anything, provided it doesn't incite a threat to anyone.

(derail re-averted)

 

[DrWut]

I don't want to derail, but I've had gay people tell me that they consider being gay a choice, and that they dislike the argument that it's genetic because then it looks like it's some kind of disease or flaw. Their opinion is that they are grown adults and can stick their dick wherever they want, thank you very much.

So is "gay a choice" as demonstrably false and stupid as you think? Could it be argued? What's the deal with ancient Greece or Rome, then? See, free speech is not always a legal matter, sometimes it's a matter of intellectual humility. Recognizing that perhaps issues are not as clear-cut as you think and maybe stuff merits discussion even if you consider it monumentally stupid and blatantly false (bam! derail averted).

Just because those friends are gay doesn't mean they can somehow refute the biological evidence. Especially if their reasoning is, "Because I said so."

Besides, from the sounds of things, they're only making the claim because they perceive the notion of homo/bisexuality being genetic as being an "illegitimate reason".

Anyone who understands the science knows it's not a genetic disease or flaw. Only ignorant bigots desperate for a reason to treat homosexuals poorly think it's a disease.

Gay isn't a choice. People may think it is, but it isn't. You can't choose what sexually arouses you.

And note, I didn't say someone couldn't make the claim nor bring it up in a discussion. In fact, I said someone has every right to. That was my whole point. Free speech is only free when anyone can say anything, provided it doesn't incite a threat to anyone.

(derail re-averted)

I'll drop it because it's not the place, but since I am a biologist (and not a fan of biological determinism) if you could send me some of the biological evidence by private I would love to take a look at it.

 

[Sarge034]

I'd say no discussion should be censored with a small handful of caveats. All parties involved are adults and no threats or implied threats of bodily harm are made. There's prolly some more but those are the big two.

 

[Vigormortis]

I'm not sure 'demonstrably false' means what you think it means.

If it means an idea can be shown to be false by demonstrating evidence to the contrary, then I'm pretty sure it means what I think it means.

As long as a subset of current homosexuals have themselves chosen to live that life, it is not 'demonstrably false'.

A: Just because someone claims to be gay, it doesn't make their counter assertions to the science any less invalid.

B: Just because someone 'chooses' to have sex with someone of the same sex, it doesn't necessarily mean they're homosexual. For example, some men choose to have forceful sex with other men as a sign of power. They derive arousal from 'dominating' another.

I also know of two gays who are pretty tired of these holier-than-thou PC dudes who somehow feel the need to tell them that their sexuality is somehow enforced on them as if they're children unable to make individual choices.

What the hell are you on about? "Enforced on them"? "Holier-than-thou PC dudes"?

Since when has pointing to the science behind the biological explanation for homo-and-bisexuality been a "holier-than-thou" stance?

Is this where you start calling me an SJW or some such thing?

But then, perhaps you know best.

Glad to see you're being mature about this.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the science is wrong. I mean, you know a couple of guys who make a counter claim, a claim backed up with a 'because I said so', so clearly you must know more than the biologists.

 

[jklinders]

*facepalm*

this actually looks like a serious question but I still feel compelled to open with.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."


Now, real talk time. We are talking about people having controversial or potentially offensive opinions in discussions about controversial topics. *insert Nick Cage "you don't say" meme here* So of course people are going to get riled up. But in talking about controversial shit, if nothing offensive to you ever comes up you are not in a discussion. You are in a hugbox and only getting your viewpoint reaffirmed without it being challenged. Forgive me for this, but that's an idiotic way to waste your time. If your viewpoint cannot stand in the face of a legitimate challenge, then it either needs to be either adjusted or abandoned.

In quoting that fry quote above I may have come across as a bit of a *****. But c'mon, offense at a statement on it's own is not worthy off censorship. the act of being offended about something is insufficient cause for censorship. Now if someone is coming at you with malice not related to your opinion that's different. But the simple act of having an offensive opinion is not something you should be silenced over. It's how you conduct yourself with that opinion that should be looked at.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

No, all matters should be freely discussed but some people will not want to discuss certain subjects with you be it because they see no point in trying to change your mind, it's not an appropriate moment (pro tip, funerals are poor forums for discussions) or they just don't give a fuck on the subject one way or the other.

 

[Vigormortis]

I'll drop it because it's not the place, but since I am a biologist (and not a fan of biological determinism) if you could send me some of the biological evidence by private I would love to take a look at it.

I've already stayed up far longer than I should. I have an appointment in 7 hours and I haven't slept for roughly 24 hours, so I'm off to bed. Even so, here's a fairly recent one - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9385646&fileId=S0033291714002451

I'm just too tired to go digging further, so that's all you're gonna get for now. If you'd like to see more, the resources are out there. Perhaps we can continue the discussion later via PM.

 

[Nimcha]

Not really a discussion, the answer is simply no. 'Offensive' is a meaningless term that adds zero value to anything.

Now if a website like this removes posts for whatever reason that's fine, but censorship never really has any good grounds.

 

[inmunitas]

... Some ideas are dangerous.

*snip*

So it isn't ideas that are dangerous, it's ignorance and stupidity that's dangerous, hence why educating people is so important.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Eh, in public or by the government? Obviously, censorship is bad. But in private spaces? Forcing a privately-owned company or forum to play host to or publish speech they don't want to host or publish is infringing on their own freedom of speech, frankly.

 

[Fallow]

If it means an idea can be shown to be false by demonstrating evidence to the contrary, then I'm pretty sure it means what I think it means.

Ahh, I think we operate on different levels here.
The logical negation of "homosexuality is not a choice" is "there exists atleast one homosexual who chose to be such". Claiming that choice is 'demonstrably false' means that you can prove that noone has chosen to be a homosexual, which is a very very strong claim. It is also a claim without supporting data. Perhaps you meant something else?

A: Just because someone claims to be gay, it doesn't make their counter assertions to the science any less invalid.

B: Just because someone 'chooses' to have sex with someone of the same sex, it doesn't necessarily mean they're homosexual. For example, some men choose to have forceful sex with other men as a sign of power. They derive arousal from 'dominating' another.

The answers here are very authoritarian. Do you consider yourself qualified to decide whom is really gay and whom is merely an impostor?

What the hell are you on about? "Enforced on them"? "Holier-than-thou PC dudes"?

Enforced as in "You have no power to influence your life, you are going in this little box marked 'gay'", and holier-than-thou as in taking a morally super-superior stance and calling everyone that doesn't agree 'monumentally stupid', even though the topic is far from black & white (as controversial topics often are).

For reference:

That said, the great thing about free speech is, while someone has the right to say something as monumentally stupid and demonstrably false as "gay is a choice", you have the same right to call them an idiot and explain why they're an idiot.

---

Since when has pointing to the science behind the biological explanation for homo-and-bisexuality been a "holier-than-thou" stance?

Is this where you start calling me an SJW or some such thing?

No, the fact that you point to real science (and biology none the less) means that you are far too smart to make even a half-decent SJW.
Also, I'm not even in disagreement here; I think that biology plays a major role. But since I am humble as 1.4x Jesus, (and since I know what epigenetics mean,) I strongly doubt that it's the only component, a stance which is also supported by the article you linked.

Glad to see you're being mature about this.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the science is wrong. I mean, you know a couple of guys who make a counter claim, a claim backed up with a 'because I said so', so clearly you must know more than the biologists.

Maybe you are wrong. The article you linked doesn't support your claim that "gay is a choice" is demonstrably false. It doesn't try to either. From TFA:

Spoiler: Background

Background.
Findings from family and twin studies support a genetic contribution to the development of sexual orien-
tation in men. However, previous studies have yielded con
fl
icting evidence for linkage to chromosome Xq28.

Spoiler: Conclusions

Conclusions.
Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chro-
mosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 in
fl
uencing development of male sexual orientation.

Guess why they use words such as 'contribute' and 'influence' and not 'decide' or 'determine'?


Also, guess what I do for a living?

Spoiler: tl;dr

Being gay is not an on/off switch in your genes. Being gay is part biology, part upbringing, part choice, part circumstance, part random. To claim it is purely biological is infantilising, as gays have just as much agency to influence their lives as everyone else.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

Of course not. Only "tumblrinas" (is that a word?) are ever "offended" by stuff people say on the internet. You can easily filter out the stuff you disagree with and dislike but censoring based on personal judgment is stupid. It's freedom of speech turned on its ass

 

[Thaluikhain]

Of course not. Only "tumblrinas" (is that a word?) are ever "offended" by stuff people say on the internet. You can easily filter out the stuff you disagree with and dislike but censoring based on personal judgment is stupid. It's freedom of speech turned on its ass

"Tumblrinas" is a commonly used word nowdays, though not sure why. Half of tumblr seems to be cat photos, which are only marginally political.

Anyhoo, I don't see people saying that something shouldn't be said because it's "offensive". That it's hate speech or a lie or something, sure, but "offensive" tends to crop up more in straw tumblrinas than in actual posts (or cat photos).

 

[Batou667]

Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

"Offensive" is subjective, so any censorship, even in the name of "removing hateful speech" or "making people feel safe" is an act of endorsing one opinion over another. That is to say, censorship and moderation is an inherently political act.

That's not always a bad thing, of course, but I think it's important we acknowledge that, rather than kidding ourselves that by censoring fringe views we're arriving at a "true" or "correct" state of consensus. Bottom line, most forums (whether it be a space on the internet, or the proverbial country club or individual's living room) are privately owned, so even if people have the theoretical right to say whatever they like, the host or owner reserves the right to ask them to leave at whatever point they like.

Incorrect opinions, now that's another matter. If somebody is claiming complete falsehoods then there can sometimes be a valid case for shutting them up. Ditto speech that can be reasonably be shown to be a direct incitement to violence, (self) harm, etc.

 

[Batou667]

"Tumblrinas" is a commonly used word nowdays, though not sure why. Half of tumblr seems to be cat photos, which are only marginally political.

...and the vast majority of people who browse 4chan aren't involved in raids, hacking or harassment. The vast majority of 8chan users aren't paedophiles. But certain communities tend to be generalised due to their most visible members and Tumblr is no exception. I'm willing to bet you know perfectly well what the Tumblr stereotype entails.

 

[Qizx]

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

I think this hits pretty well, what's offensive to me is not offensive to others. I find many things not offensive that would have others up in arms.

People have a right to say offensive things, I can dislike them and think they're assholes but they have that right. On forums they don't have the RIGHT but I think they should be allowed to say what they think without censorship. Short of spreading incorrect information or pretending it's fact. As long as someone says "I think hitler was a great guy for XYZ reasons" I don't think we should silence them. If they try and say "Hitler was right for XYZ reasons and the holocaust didn't happen." That's where I draw the line, don't allow the spread of incorrect "facts."

 

[Robert B. Marks]

It really depends on the case.

Ideally, you want to raise the level of discussion. You want the discussion to be factual, and any opinions expressed to be informed and grounded in reality (for that matter, Harlan Ellison once put it wonderfully: "You are not entitled to an opinion, you are entitled to an INFORMED opinion"). So, a discussion about whether the Muslim world should be left alone to solve its problems may get heated, but it will probably be okay, even if somebody does find a viewpoint offensive. A discussion about whether 9/11 was a false flag operation is not.

If somebody expresses an opinion that somebody may find offensive, but is factual and informed, I don't see a problem with it (hell, if somebody makes it good enough in a Garwulf's Corner comment thread, it goes into one of the regular feedback installments). If somebody is being offensive and completely uninformed, then they're not actually adding anything to the discussion, and it should probably be shut down.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It really depends on what kinds of discussions you're trying to have.

For example, there's a place on the Internet I go to talk about Sarkeesian's gaming videos. Get into in-depth discussion of details, gaming history, the philosophy of why she may think a certain way, various criticisms about examples and conclusions, etc.

That place is not here. Because we can't have that discussion here. For reasons.

Similarly, discussion of a certain group is also banned[footnote]interestingly enough, not GG[/footnote]. This is because any discussion, any mention of said group derails whatever discussion being had by a good 20-50 posts.

So, no talking about them so everyone can stay on topic. Some people think said policy is a violation of free speech, but I'd argue that agreeing to some basic house rules and a set version of reality can lead to a much deeper level of discussion about a lot of contentious topics.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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 group 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?

I think the answer depends on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sorry to the pure frozen peach people, but I don't think having a debate on whether black humans are people, for example, would be very productive or useful and productivity and usefulness are bigger concerns for a discussion group, I imagine, than pure free speech on principle just because.

And nobody is advocating for that discussion so stop implying that "Free Speech" (Your spellchecker seems to be set to PZ Myers just FYI) want to have precisely that discussion.

Oh you again. Why am I not surprised you'd accuse me of trying to imply they advocate for it happening. I'm not. I often find them advocating that all discussions have value, in this case likely the tired nonsense thst it needs to be disproved or else dire unproven consequences will occur. I use this as an example of a discussion with none. Not to say they want it to happen.

If every time you reply to me I get the joy of having to correct your 'misunderstandings' don't expect much beyond correcting you until you can stop 'misunderstanding'

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think the answer depends on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sorry to the pure frozen peach people, but I don't think having a debate on whether black humans are people, for example, would be very productive or useful and productivity and usefulness are bigger concerns for a discussion group, I imagine, than pure free speech on principle just because.

Well, I mean, if we're never allowed to discuss such things, how could it ever have come about that it was an incorrect standpoint? I mean, go back not even a hundred years and likely the argument of "Are Actually People" and you'd likely have had plenty of people saying "Obviously not, we don't need to discuss this".

I am talking in the context of the modern day. Yes there is a point where most conversations will probably have a good reason to be had. That does not mean they are going to remain valuable forever. There is progress and it's a waste of time to keep retreading the old ground

As for the last bit, if Hitler said is good to brush your teeth would you just let them rot instead?

Instead of cowering in fear because someone else might have said the same thing I much prefer to take a stance on whether they were right or not. Namely no, they would be wrong to say that then. Doesn't have jack shit to do with it whether there is any purpose to a discussion on whether black humans are people NOW.

I don't really believe that we live in an age where we have all the answers, there are plenty of areas we could improve upon that popular opinion insists is area of "No debate".

Believing that some discussions have no value is different from thinking we have all the answers. I prefer not to act like we have none.

Added to that, there's certainly no limit to the amount of discussion that can be had. It isn't a fossil fuel with which the world will fall into chaos without, so productivity of such a discussion is rather a moot point.

You did read the OP, right? That situation is indeed limited. You don't have 10000 simultaneous debates going. It is a location, not the concept of arguing with someone anywhere at your leisure.