What you say, re totalitarianism, is true and so frightening and frankly depressing. Not that I want to be offended but "free" speech doesn't matter per se until someone is offended. In a way the offense is a beautiful testament to our long forgotten constitution.

Of course folks should be kind and polite.

But I stand for their right not to be.

Institutions are within their right to curtail speech on theor property, but they are taking it too far and ot reflectspoorly on them

Some people estimate that at its peak, the Stasi and its network of informants were numbered close to 300,000 and 200,000 respectively. With a population of 17 million, this came out as 3% of the population dedicated entirely to monitoring the activities, thoughts and words of the rest (slightly above Orwell's _1984_ 2% for the "inner party").

To quote wikipedia, the mission statement for these thought police(wo)men could be summarised as -

//One of its main tasks was spying on the population, mainly through a vast network of citizens turned informants, and fighting any opposition by overt and covert measures including hidden psychological destruction of dissidents (Zersetzung, literally meaning decomposition)//

Social justice warriors can take pride in achieving far more with much less than the Stasi and its networks - and they have done so voluntarily, through their own initiative, and not at the point of a despotic regime's gun.

Apparently, this is "freedom" 21st century Newspeak style.

You can't censor words and expect the thoughts disappear along with them. I think fundamentally this is what is going on. That once ugly things are hidden from public view they're not real anymore. But they are things people firmly believe with all their heart and soul.

I loved stern when he would have KKK Daniel Carver on his show and they would let him prattle on. People criticized Stern for giving him an outlet but he would explain that well--they're actually making fun of him. Everything he says just sounds so damn ridiculous out in the open.

What makes a person get offended is never what another person says, but always what he or she thinks about what the other person has said. But as the responsibility for the result of ones thoughts clearly is always with the one who is thinking, you can, as a matter of principle, not make another person responsible for feeling angry or offended about what that person has said.

Understanding this simple truth would make the whole stupid debate about "responsible discourse" go away and, more importantly, put the responsibility for "feeling offended" where it belongs: To the one whos thoughts about what I say makes him or her angry, and not to me who am expressing my thoughts.

It would also make clear how oppressive the the whole idea of outlawing speech that "offends (...) or insults" certain persons is. Because the offense is always a result of the thinking of the one who is feeling offended.

Also, who gets to be the arbiter of what's ugly? Today's ugly is my speech -- tomorrow's ugly is yours.

Note to SJWs: Repeat the sentence above over and over. You may think you're on the side of the angels now, but you won't always be, and anyway, you don't get to decide.

As I tweeted back to somebody last night:

I'm for the free speech of even the biggest assholes out there, because that's what being for free speech means

"You can't censor words and expect the thoughts disappear along with them."

Yes, you can. Part of "censorship" is redefinition and changes in usage.

You don't bat an eye at hearing someone is a "detainee", but "prisoner" upsets you. So people are now "detained", and for far longer than one would think.

You probably don't hear of some circumstances, either, such as Helio Castroneves being put in 4-point shackles for tax evasion, because money offenses mean he would be a violent flight risk. Not reporting occurrences is also censorship.

Years ago I went to a counter march when the KKK was given the legal right to march in DC.

Not surprisingly, the atmosphere of the counter march was very tense. Some folks were showing up with baseball bats. One big black guy had nails driven through the hitting end of his bat so that it looked like a crude medieval weapon. Not cool at all!

Well, one young black guy (and I agree completely with his stance) put a white pillow case on his head with two eye holes cut out and pumped his fist up and down shouting:

"I have the right to be an asshole!"

Exactly. And boy, did he break the tension - everyone was laughing, even the cops.

While, this young guy was sort of joking there is truth to what he was saying. Personally, I'd much rather deal with the Klan than with the silent bigot. (provided, of course, that they don't take away my 2nd amendment rights.)

I was referring to the context of this post Rad, which is hate speech.

You can't censor people that think women are inferior and expect their thoughts to magically become enlightened.

provided, of course, that they don't take away my 2nd amendment rights

Oh, they're working on that.

They start with reasonable sounding things like "you don't need an assault rifle" or "you don't need more than 10 bullets in a magazine".

But let me counter that if someone else is telling me what I "need", then they consider me a serf not a citizen, or worse.

Rounding back onto topic, I don't "need" to be an asshole.

Stephan, I'm not entirely down with what you said. Basically an asshole has a right to be an asshole. However, please don't assert that a jerk can be a jerk but the problem is with those who hear those words to not care about those words. Somehow that's a real twisted thing to say. So a misogynist jerk can call me a lazy bitch cunt, but it's MY PROBLEM if it offends me? Words cut and hurt, and I'm all for the freedom to say them. Truly, I am. However, to say that they shouldn't hurt you, is like saying water shouldn't drown you.

I think one problem is that an awful lot of people think "free speech" means the right for adults to force MINORS to listen, in school, to things that aren't true. (The first time I heard of this, more or less, was in the early 1980s, through the courtesy of "Bloom County," regarding a law forcing public schools to make students sit through lectures about how creationism is just as "valid" as evolution.)

Until we get minors properly protected from that, we're never going to come to an agreement.

True story, my 14-year-old came home beside herself because her history teacher showed the actual killings of those children in Africa on Youtube in class. She had an anxiety attack, of course her classmates laughed at the video, then at her. Some teachers have no sense, no filter, no ability to make a good decision about what should be debate or not, about what opinions should be voiced in a classroom. I believe the teachers intended reception of the video was for it to be shocking - not the mocking that incurred.

"Understanding this simple truth would make the whole stupid debate about "responsible discourse" go away and, more importantly, put the responsibility for "feeling offended" where it belongs: To the one whos thoughts about what I say makes him or her angry, and not to me who am expressing my thoughts."

Um, no. Some speech is legit obnoxious. Doesnt mean it should be censored, but doesn't mean the speaker isnt an asshole

"However, please don't assert that a jerk can be a jerk but the problem is with those who hear those words to not care about those words. "

Well, I kind of get his point... I always have the option of deciding not to let myself be offended. That said, I also have the right to be offended. There are some thoughts and expressions that are considered widely offensive, and I'n not going to suppress a sense of indignation just becase someone wants to mock me for it.

And there's a third thing: I have the right to be offended but not express it at the time. Instead, it goes into the memory bank, a data point that influences my judgement of the person who said it. We all do this all the time, and often when we decide that a person is prone to be offensive, we simply decide to avoid that person. If others think as we do, then eventually that person finds that they no longer have an audience. Shunning and exile are often more powerful behavior-modifying tactics than law and punishment are. (Which is why we all get lectured as children about not shunning anyone gratiuitously.)

Some years ago, around 1990 IIRC, the KKK scheduled a big march through Pulaski, Tennessee. Now, the good citizens of Pulaski had been having to put up with these sideshows for years: protestors, counter-protestors, media everywhere, and having their town's reputation slimed. So this particular time, they decided on a different tactic: close the town down for the day and go fishing. There was no big announcement, no press release, no challenge and counter-challenge. Everyone just disappeared for the day. The KKK found themselves marching through empty streets, past locked doors, shuttered windows, and drawn curtains. Other than the marchers and the media, there wasn't a soul to be seen anywhere. It wound up being a huge non-event, and almost no media reports were filed because guys marching around in silly robes through a deserted ghost town doesn't make for capitvating visuals. That was the last time the KKK marched in Pulaski.

Reminds me of what a tolerance-based magazine once told its readers: "Don't attend a hate rally."

That is, don't give them the attention they want. It only attracts the media.

Institutions are within their right to curtail speech on theor property

No. They arent.

They are within their rights to fire employees for interfering with businesses operations.
They are within their rights to ask trespassers to leave and summon authorities when they refuse to leave.
They are within their rights to remove leaflets and signs place on their property without their permission.

They have no right to tell anyone what they are allowed to say and write.

Especially as colleges accept tax payer money making them de facto government service providers.

Doubly especially as students are CUSTOMERS of a business selling them services and experiences.

Would you stand for Wal Mart taking customers money and then refusing to let them leave with the items they bought because they said they werent happy with Wal Marts service?

Or because the person in line behind them claimed they had said something offensive that no one else heard?