Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[baker]

Hence, all words are regarded as morally neutral.

Free speech absolutists seem to start off with the idea that words are morally neutral, and derive their other ideas from there.

"Words are morally neutral" has a better chance of being an axiom than other free speech absolutism claims. After all, most people are taught from early on that sticks and stones can break their bones, but words can never hurt them, and that anyone who'd be hurt by words is a wuss (and being a wuss is bad). So "Words are morally neutral" comes naturally to most people.

[Steve3007]

Free speech absolutists seem to start off with the idea that words are morally neutral, and derive their other ideas from there.

"Words are morally neutral" has a better chance of being an axiom than other free speech absolutism claims. After all, most people are taught from early on that sticks and stones can break their bones, but words can never hurt them, and that anyone who'd be hurt by words is a wuss (and being a wuss is bad). So "Words are morally neutral" comes naturally to most people.

Yes, I suppose if the FSA was acting like a politician or advertising agent and had an eye for selling his ideas to a potentially sceptical public with a catchy tagline, as you say, he might note that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a well known saying from an early age for most people (at least in our societies) so it might be a good place to start drumming up support for the philosophical position. But if he isn't doing that, he seems to start from a combination of that notion that human actions have no prior causal influences and in a general belief in the principles of libertarianism and individual freedom to do what you want so long as you don't infringe in the rights of others to do what they want.

[Sy Borg]

Fair point. Add adrenaline rush to the list. It's suggestive of naturally aggressive people who lack positive outlets for their emotions and have a need for stimulation.

"Positive outlets" don't work. One seeks to express one's emotions in some _relevant_ way, in some _relevant_ context.
Punching bags or screaming inside of soundproof rooms is insulting to one's moral indignation.

I have not heard of anyone having gainful employment as a professional bag puncher or quiet room screamer. Sounds great! If the pay is good, I might try for a post retirement career.

[Terrapin Station]

Hence, all words are regarded as morally neutral.

Free speech absolutists seem to start off with the idea that words are morally neutral, and derive their other ideas from there.

"Words are morally neutral" has a better chance of being an axiom than other free speech absolutism claims. After all, most people are taught from early on that sticks and stones can break their bones, but words can never hurt them, and that anyone who'd be hurt by words is a wuss (and being a wuss is bad). So "Words are morally neutral" comes naturally to most people.

Some people feel hurt by words, but that's not something I morally object to.

And in my view, if one is hurt by words, it's a good indication that you need to "work on yourself." There's no need to be hurt by words. How to work on oneself to not be hurt by words, to not be offendable, etc. is a big topic, but it's worth pursuing if one is often hurt by words.

[baker]

And in my view, if one is hurt by words, it's a good indication that you need to "work on yourself." There's no need to be hurt by words. How to work on oneself to not be hurt by words, to not be offendable, etc. is a big topic, but it's worth pursuing if one is often hurt by words.

This is a deflection.

Words matter. The belief that words matter is essential to communal life; and to the love of wisdom. Trying to paint words as irrelevant and impotent is to try to tear apart the fabric of communality, and of philosophy.

Moreover, you yourself clearly believe in the power of words, otherwise, you wouldn't use them, and you wouldn't see verbal persuasion as a meaningful and worthwhile endeavor.

[baker]

"Positive outlets" don't work. One seeks to express one's emotions in some _relevant_ way, in some _relevant_ context.
Punching bags or screaming inside of soundproof rooms is insulting to one's moral indignation.

I have not heard of anyone having gainful employment as a professional bag puncher or quiet room screamer. Sounds great! If the pay is good, I might try for a post retirement career.

Are we on the same page here?

[Terrapin Station]

And in my view, if one is hurt by words, it's a good indication that you need to "work on yourself." There's no need to be hurt by words. How to work on oneself to not be hurt by words, to not be offendable, etc. is a big topic, but it's worth pursuing if one is often hurt by words.

This is a deflection.

Words matter. The belief that words matter is essential to communal life; and to the love of wisdom. Trying to paint words as irrelevant and impotent is to try to tear apart the fabric of communality, and of philosophy.

Moreover, you yourself clearly believe in the power of words, otherwise, you wouldn't use them, and you wouldn't see verbal persuasion as a meaningful and worthwhile endeavor.

You're not arguing that it's not my view that one shouldn't be hurt, offended, etc. by words, are you?

[baker]

You're not arguing that it's not my view that one shouldn't be hurt, offended, etc. by words, are you?

Too many negatives! Do translate.

[Terrapin Station]

You're not arguing that it's not my view that one shouldn't be hurt, offended, etc. by words, are you?

Too many negatives! Do translate.

In other words, I'm saying that my view is "People shouldn't be hurt or offended by words."

Are you arguing that that's not actually my view?

[Sy Borg]

I have not heard of anyone having gainful employment as a professional bag puncher or quiet room screamer. Sounds great! If the pay is good, I might try for a post retirement career.

Are we on the same page here?

To recap, I said in context of aggressive people people losing the physical jobs they would thrive in like like military and policing to machines:

"It's suggestive of naturally aggressive people who lack positive outlets for their emotions and have a need for stimulation".

Punching bags and quiet rooms are not positive outlets, just a variant on Gestalt Therapy. You can see in those MAGA rallies, thousands of of testosterone-laden blokes well-suited to work in the military, construction, security and other intense physical vocations. But the jobs are either going to machines or overseas.

So, lacking positive outlets for their aggression, they direct their excess energy into arguing and fighting.

[baker]

In other words, I'm saying that my view is "People shouldn't be hurt or offended by words."

Are you arguing that that's not actually my view?

No. Your view is, as stated, "People shouldn't be hurt or offended by words." I actually agree with it.

Nobody's words can hurt me. But they can hurt my feelings for that person. If you're mean to me, or if you lie to me, the (prospective) relationship between us suffers or cannot develop. With your words, you can hurt my feelings for you. This is the power that words do have.

I've noticed this is a point that is very difficult for Americans to understand.

[baker]

To recap, I said in context of aggressive people people losing the physical jobs they would thrive in like like military and policing to machines:

"It's suggestive of naturally aggressive people who lack positive outlets for their emotions and have a need for stimulation".

Punching bags and quiet rooms are not positive outlets, just a variant on Gestalt Therapy. You can see in those MAGA rallies, thousands of of testosterone-laden blokes well-suited to work in the military, construction, security and other intense physical vocations. But the jobs are either going to machines or overseas.

So, lacking positive outlets for their aggression, they direct their excess energy into arguing and fighting.

This is a popular theory, but it doesn't sit well with me.

When someone feels moral indignation, this isn't something to "channel positively", such as by working in the military or some such. To me, such "positive channeling" is still a variant of punching a bag when angry. Sure, this way, a person's energy gets used up, so they don't have the energy to cause problems for other people -- but inside, they still feel moral indignation, just that now, after a hard day of working and training, they don't have the energy to express it anymore. They still want to argue and fight, it's just that they don't have the energy anymore to do it. So such "positive channelling" isn't really a solution.

It doesn't seem to me that people argue and fight because they would have "excess energy". The arguing and the fighting are primary, but whether they can be expressed is a matter of how much energy a person has.

[Sy Borg]

I have not heard that "theory" before and you have not captured the point again.

Much indignation comes directly from not being able to channel energies productively. Any excuse is enough for outrage these days, as per the thread topic.

When people are happy and fulfilled and have enough sex, they tend not to be indignant about everything under the Sun. When they are frustrated, miserable and unfulfilled, anger is the go-to emotion.

[Count Lucanor]

That last statement does not match the previous one. The first one talks about deplatforming another person (a physical restraint)....

I don't think that de-platforming another person, in general, constitutes a physical restraint. If I invite someone to (metaphorically) stand on my platform to speak, and I then decide to withdraw that invitation I'm not physically restraining them. I'm not gagging them. I'm not stopping them from standing on some other platform to speak, or making their own platform and then standing on it and speaking. I'm merely withdrawing an invitation. So, that being the case, as I said I think a consistent free speech absolutist would see nothing immoral in cancel culture or de-platforming (if they're being self-consistent).

But I'll reiterate that I'm not a free speech absolutist myself and I do have ethical problems with cancel culture for the same general reasons that I have problems with various other forms of intimidatory speech.

As far as I can recall, incidents of deplatforming usually have worked this way: A invites B to speak in a platform provided by A. Then, C shows up to the venue to block B from exercising their free speech rights, actually overriding the permission from A to use the platform. Or they put some threats against A (a typical cancel culture retaliation) to force them to revoke the permission and effectively block B from the previously granted access to the platform. This is effectively a physical obstacle, an action to block B from delivering a speech. The ultimate objective of these actions is not to criticize B's speech, but to not allow the speech act to be consummated.

The act of speech is a concrete singular event that includes the whole physical context where it is delivered, so it cannot be argued that it remains unhindered because potentially the message can be delivered somewhere else. It is THAT act that is being stopped, it is those people's speech (including the speaker and the audience) that is being stopped. Would you find it reasonable if someone blocked Steve3007 from expressing his views and argued: "anyone else can express the same views somewhere else, so no free speech right has been hampered"?

[Count Lucanor]

Yes, I agree and this makes sense. It must be noted, however (for the benefit of such free speech absolutists), that the whole point of cancel culture is to actually, effectively, achieving a ban on other people's behavior, that is, to affect their personal freedom of action, including their right to have platforms to speak about anything the cancel culture advocates despise.

Yes indeed. The point of cancel culture, and other forms of intimidatory speech, is to curtail other people's feeling that they can speak freely (not their physical ability to do so), by using speech, not physical force. There are a lot of examples of speech which intimidates others into silence in this way, from the subtle to the obvious.

Intimidation tactics are an offshoot of cancel culture, it is the time when the investment in a toxic social climate pays off dividends, which certainly will affect speech. As morally reprehensible as it may be, it's not the only expression of cancel culture. I'm actually more concerned about those cases where it ends in coercive administrative action, which implies at least some physical restraint, not only to speak, but to hold your beliefs or behave in a certain way.