I am floored by the results of the last alert I sent regarding mysogyny...Three out of three thought

[patrice]

176. There are people who think "stupid" is a legitimate critique; apparently you don't "get it". Let's

Let's see if I can get there from here:

There is a perspective that says ANY and all speech is, or should be, acceptable and they only way that we are going to get there, i.e. get to that acceptability, i.e. a situation in which anyone can say anything and everyone else can deal with whatever is said appropriately (validly, functionally, rationally and emotionally constructive ((which implies deconstructively as an initial pre-REQUISITE))) ... that is, the only way that we are going to get there is by going ahead and doing it: say anything and let the reactions to all of that just go ahead and work themselves out. Sound familiar? Kind of like laissez faire Capitalism?

Because I know that intellectual development does not develop without challenge, I have some sympathy for the point-of-view sketched above, BUT - this perspective is built upon the presumption that everyone has the same aptitudes and opportunities to work their reactions to words, like "twat" or like the n-word, out to achieve for themselves as individuals valid, functional, rational, constructive etc. processing and, even if they don't have those opportunities and, thus, suffer and cause suffering in their more dysfunctional reactions, that's all okay, because even that will result in the best forms of adaptation and growth . . . . wherein lies the flaw in this line of reasoning and why, therefore, I have adapted it for myself in ways that I consider more honest and therefore valid.

People bring different tools to their abilities to process language, images, and memes. Some people have enough of what it takes to experience challenges and to net-out some form of development, growth, improved personal functionalities. Others don't and to say that doesn't matter presumes that those who don't, those who cannot process certain words or memes, are not near, nor will ever achieve, critical mass, such that their dysfunctions inhibit the functional development of others. I think the no-holds-barred free speech proponents either don't consider this possibility, or they don't care.

Perhaps you recognize the rational argument that prohibits "shouting fire in a darkened crowded theater without enough exits" (or with exits that are not identified. I think this case has relevance not only to free-speech, but also to gun-ownership, financial regulation, and attitudes toward sexuality.

So, what to do when one encounters loaded terminology like "twat"? If the basic value is that people should become as functional as possible, hiding from challenges does not help them do that. OTH, if a person hasn't learned algebra, no matter how many times you demand (by far most) of them do algebra, all you're going to get is pain and frustration and a hatred for algebra. Therefore, challenges MUST be challenges, but they also MUST be appropriate challenges, which in an environment such as DU, is nearly impossible, because we are on the internet and the possibility of causing pain is, to all practical intents and purposes, nearly infinite.

I don't think this excuses us from challenge, but I do think it means something other than just throwing whatever words and images and memes out there without ANY concern for the damage that they can cause and which then systemically oppresses others, making them also incapable of responding functionally to such challenges too and, thus also, "necessitating" further censorship.