Are we too sensitive?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Climate change, evolution, misogyny, parenting, politics, religion... Any of these and other topics are almost guaranteed to challenge our emotions. Some topics like questioning ones religion and whether its basic tenets are violent or misogynistic are labelled hate speech by some now or heresy back in the good old days of Christianity. These labels are meant to halt any debate on a subject because its just too sensitive.

 

I've recently read "Heretic" which is about the call for a reformation of Islam and am now reading a book called "A troublesome inheritance" which discusses whether race is evolutionary or cultural. I make up my own mind after reading something but these books are highly controversial and the authors threatened with physical and/or academic punishment. It takes a very brave person to go against the "consensus" of public or academic opinion, even more so now it seems.

 

My question to you, is it ever a good thing to stifle critical debate on uncomfortable issues? Should we be allowed to rationally discuss uncomfortable topics without getting crucified by uncharitable types, or is this the devolution or degeneration of debate and science?

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

You pose a difficult question. I think it's extremely important for people to be able to both listen to and debate within differing viewpoints about ANY topic. I think it's even more important to be able to keep ones mind open to different views and perspectives and to update your personal ones as you grown, learn and evolve.

 

In this world of "political correctness" I don't think there's room for any of that however. The underlying thought seems to be one of "not upsetting anyone" by limiting what you say and how you say it. Tolerance and acceptance aren't the standards by which people govern themselves anymore it seems. Not to say there haven't been many trends of non acceptance, judgment and intolerance through the years but at least then there seemed to be more of an open discussion/debate where now it's more a "don't talk about that you'll upset someone" frame of mind.

 

I think it's sad that those with differing views or opinions are threatened with violence or some sort of punishment or in some arenas, completely ignored as not important or valuable.

 

Things are definitely broken when it comes to free speech, respect, open honest debate, tolerance and acceptance (in a broad sense). I believe the internet ushered in a new way of doing things as it gave a voice to the masses however didn't give the responsibility that goes along with it.

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

I think that being able to debate, whether it being on a light topic or a deep one, is very much cultural. I am originally from France, and my friends from France living here and I agree to say that here debating is a very difficult thing to do. Nobody wants to hurt anybody. But there are ways to debate without insulting others, while still being able to strongly affirm one's point of view. So sometimes people mix "debate" with "fight". Hence the first debate TV show that appeared on TéléQuébec years ago, hosted by Marie-France Bazzo at the time - I don't know if this show is still on - that was called "Let's go for some sport!". And the song lyrics of this show were simply: "Let's go for some sport! OK, but I'll stay calm" (hopefully my translation is good enough to be understood properly).

 

For French from France, debating is simply a natural cultural thing to do.

[Guest jake_cdn]

Some topics like questioning ones religion and whether its basic tenets are violent or misogynistic are labelled hate speech by some now or heresy back in the good old days of Christianity. These labels are meant to halt any debate on a subject because its just too sensitive.

 

There is nothing like a debate between two people who are equally passionate about their thoughts and beliefs. Unfortunately, debating as an art has sadly given way to rants and emotions as you indicated.

 

I have found that the people who resort to emotional release rather than a subjective discussion on a specific topic are suffering from a lack of ability to debate. They may have well formed arguments or points but simply cannot convey them and the frustration sets in.

 

People often laugh at the concepts of a debating team but clear, terse arguments are an art unto itself.

 

I am also frustrated by individuals who resort to rants and aggression to mask the lack of a complete understanding of the subject being discussed.

 

There is nothing wrong with losing an argument and admitting that the other person has a valid point or that you have altered your opinion based on the discussion.

 

Nothing invigorates me more than a strong debate ... well almost nothing !

[Guest s******ecan****]

My question to you, is it ever a good thing to stifle critical debate on uncomfortable issues? Should we be allowed to rationally discuss uncomfortable topics without getting crucified by uncharitable types, or is this the devolution or degeneration of debate and science?

 

The answer is no.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Thank you for the replies so far. I particularly like your last paragraph, Tracie. Maybe some of the fear is cultural, Mia. Although Americans don't seem shy about having an opinion and expressing it. :) But certainly, some topics seem off limits in the USA as well. Jake_cdn, it's true, once we resort to ranting and insults we have lost the argument. In a word, YES to scotthecanuck's concise point.

 

I would hope we are evolving towards enlightenment but it seems some people(probably well meaning) want to keep us in the dark... protect us from uncomfortable truths or even hearing a taboo subject. I want to forge my beliefs in the fire of debate, not simply have my opinion given to me by the majority. I don't need their approval.

 

Is Tracie on to something? Has the internet "googled" our brains. What I mean is, we google an issue and are given an opinion(usually a consensus) and quickly accept it rather than reflecting for ourselves. I suppose the same can be said for other forms of mass media. What would the ancient Greeks think?

[MightyPen 67414]

My question to you, is it ever a good thing to stifle critical debate on uncomfortable issues? Should we be allowed to rationally discuss uncomfortable topics without getting crucified by uncharitable types, or is this the devolution or degeneration of debate and science?

 

I would hope we are evolving towards enlightenment but it seems some people(probably well meaning) want to keep us in the dark... protect us from uncomfortable truths or even hearing a taboo subject. I want to forge my beliefs in the fire of debate, not simply have my opinion given to me by the majority. I don't need their approval.

 

Thing is, right out of the gate you're phrasing the question to demonize views that differ from yours. Read back over your posts. As you phrase it, the only reason people might want to put limits on speech is because they're unenlightened, shrink from debate, and uncharitably out to crucify people.

 

I think your portrayal is itself uncharitable and belittles from the outset anyone who would disagree with you. Pot, kettle.

 

Personally I think that it's reasonable to place some limits on speech in some environments (the workplace and schools, for example) to preserve a civil environment where people are trying to get things done, and counter discrimination against traditionally powerless groups. It's not just fire-in-a-crowded-theatre stuff, but casual expressions designed to demean groups you don't like. Want to do that in your own home? Sure, go ahead. Want to be an obnoxious bully to your colleagues at work about their race, gender, or sexual orientation? Sorry, dude -- you lose.

 

BUT... while I cautiously support hate-speech and hate-crime laws, there should always be specific fora in which anything can be discussed. That way, people looking to engage in fiery debates on hot-button topics have a place to do that without censorship, and the rest of the world doesn't have to put up with it in their daily lives unless they want to hang out in those places.

[Guest S****r]

I've had cause to be reviewing the concepts of argumentation and persuasion recently and I am wondering about any connection here. There is an art to arguing well and/or persuading.

 

A dialectic approach will be a kind of analysis of two sides (or more) of a situation and an examination of them in order to determine truth.

Rhetoric involves a blatant attempt to merely persuade the other party to your position and uses three appeals: ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos is the appeal to credibility--that there are reasons why the speaker or writer should be listened to as an authority. Pathos is the appeal to the listener's emotions. Logos is the appeal to logic, the systematic use of reason. The reasons can be presented with either an inductive or a deductive approach.

 

Speakers and writers who use such tactics are stimulating to listen to, provoking a person to think and come to a conclusion about what has been said. As a couple of other people have noted--rants and raves have become the common form of expression instead. These do not necessarily have to include these elements. They might be based purely on the emotion of the speaker him/herself. Such presentations of thoughts tend to annoy listeners, rather than lead them to any conclusion. They can easily insult. They don't invite discussion, but merely seek to express one's own point of view. with little regard of others' views, thoughts, or feelings. People develop little patience with such postulations.

 

But people learn in great part by example, and rants, raves and diatribes are quite the norm now and spread far and wide easily via the internet.

 

All this to say that maybe it is not only that people are seem less tolerant of other opinions, but furthermore are intolerant of the WAY opinions and thoughts are often expressed.

 

Just a thought......

 

Because you are right--a well-presented and thought-out argument on anything is quite interesting to follow and stimulating to our own thoughts. Perhaps we could strive for more of that here on lyla. Like in this very thread, even!

:-)

 

Thanks for the topic.

[cinelli 22184]

If someone wants to believe in an idea that is really stupid they do not deserve tolerance.

Lots of stupid ideas out there that only continue to exist because they are "delicate".

 

It is a shame that debate is not taught in school, or considered a sport as important as football. Instead of teaching students to play silly children's games they should be teaching them critical thinking.

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

Exactly, critical thinking should be taught in schools (a course that, by the way, I am certainly going to take at Queen's University next fall).

 

In debate, there is respect, even in strong verbal and idea exchanges. In fights, there is no respect. In debate, both parts can learn from each other. In fights, there can only be a winner, or a looser. But society looses then, anyway. The ability to debate is a very important motor of a society so that it can grow in a healthy way. No dialog, no evolution.

 

Do you sometimes listen to the CBC Radio show "The Debaters"? (every Wednesday). It is hilarious. For example, a debate can be about: "Which is the better Canadian Icon, the Polar Bear or the Beaver?". This is how we should learn how to debate, about topics that might seem ridiculous and that we don't really care about, even having to defend a point of view that we don't even believe in. Because human perception is not just one. And because there is not just one, a healthy society needs to have the courage and the ability to listen to all perspectives. Although this has to be done with strength, it must also be done with respect. Yes, it is possible.

[Andee 220524]

In university I took a philosophy class in critical thinking and it was harder than any mathematics course I ever took. It was apparent that most people do not have a clue how to debate and that was evident even with the class after working in teams and believing we had it down pat, all failed our first exam.

 

I believe the debate team in high school only scratched the surface on logical deduction etc.

 

So even if I followed the modality I was taught to a tee, I would be basically be talking to myself or the wall when it comes to dealing with most folks out there.

 

Personal beliefs, ethics, prejudices, misinformation, reacting from emotion often cloud one's belief that they are arguing logically.

 

I choose my battles now in regards to who I wish to engage in discourse because deflection, red herrings, blanket statements based on hate or prejudice just aren't worth pursuing.

 

And to the OP, why is so important to you that you should have the right to debate without fear of of being criticized. I say, if you put it out there, you are not responsible for what comes back, but if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[cinelli 22184]

Do you sometimes listen to the CBC Radio show "The Debaters"? .

 

Love it. :)

 

My favourite is The House on Saturday morning. I love hearing M P 's and Senators put on the spot. They are hilarious when they try to avoid the truth. A few have exposed themselves as true scum.

It annoys me that debate has stopped in Parliament. The Tories rarely answer a direct question, and instead they respond with "speaking points" which may be irrelevant. We will see a lot of this in the campaign now starting.

Same thing on most news programs about politics, instead of debate we see people ranting about their own agenda and disregarding the topic at hand. Or sticking to a party line that they know is factually incorrect, but the speaker adheres to for ideological reasons.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Good comments! Mature Angela, thanks for your post. I encourage debate which is an argument by discussion. I need someone to criticize me in order to have a debate so I'm unsure why you suggest I don't want to be criticized. I would prefer it to be civilized though and not backed up with retribution, as I'm sure most would. There just seems to be a lot of "write rage" out there which is the internets equivalent of road rage.

 

I'm more against "stifling" debate through punishment, either physical or academic punishment. Even Universities refuse to allow some speakers or topics to be discussed. Universities! Academic freedom? As an example, Conservatives shut down debate by muzzling scientists, information, etc. I'm sure they feel they have their good reasons. Universities feel they have their good reasons to remove uncomfortable debate. Should it be a contest to see what's not allowed to be discussed or should we allow everything to be debated in a respectful manner?

 

To clarify, I am talking about respectful debate on uncomfortable subjects at "appropriate" venues. It seems like a red herring to suggest stifling debate is OK because one might start interrupting their workplace from a soap box. I'm recommending coffee shops, maybe dinner parties, scientific gatherings and the like. I'm also not suggesting we try and belittle someone. That would be churlish... and churlish to imply. Let's just say yes to more civilized, critical debate on uncomfortable truths. That's all.

 

There are obviously exceptions to anything one discusses but I've tried to be straightforward with no hidden agenda here.

 

Be well.

[oldblueeyez 15475]

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

[Phaedrus 209521]

TW: words.

 

I'm generally against limiting anybody's right to say whatever they damn well please... although I'm also against shielding them from the consequences of that. A right to freedom of speech does not imply a right to be listened to, or compel anyone else to broadcast what you have to say (this point is mostly lost whenever anyone gets fired for saying something stupid), and there's certainly no right to avoid ridicule and contempt if that's the reaction your speech provokes from others.

 

One thing that really disturbs me, though is the increased movement towards allowing people to avoid seeing or hearing anything that they might dislike. Every summer, we see a rash of speakers being dis-invited from giving graduation and commencement speeches because a delicate flower somewhere disapproves of something the speaker once said. I'm fine letting people know what they might be in for so that those who might dislike it can stay away... but they'll have to accept the consequences of missing out if that's what they choose to do, and I'm absolutely against them forcing anyone else to miss out as well.

[Guest D***el B***e]

removed my post

[oldblueeyez 15475]

Not that I give a shit either way, but it seems that now, if you think Israel's actions against Palestine are cruel, it's a crime to criticize Israel? Or is that law still in the works?

[cinelli 22184]

I am talking about respectful debate on uncomfortable subjects at "appropriate" venues. It seems like a red herring to suggest stifling debate is OK because one might start interrupting their workplace from a soap box.

 

Wow you hit a whole bunch of raw nerves of mine with that post.

First I have to say the workplace is a terrific example. We had two religious zealots retire who used to annoy everyone and yes they were very disruptive. Probably the most ignorant pair of people I have ever seen and the biggest hypocrites to boot. We have a big Christmas dinner at work and everyone donates money, two of the ladies organise it and do all the cooking and prep.

The two religious guys did not want participate and lectured us that we should not be celebrating because we were being materialistic...their argument made no sense.

It didn't stop them from sneaking into the conference room and stealing food!

We nearly had a fistfight break out!

Since Christmas until they just recently quit it has been hell here.

 

The other thing was Re scientist: my dad worked at NRC and it really sucked under the Tories. He said there was enormous pressure and they had a steady stream of ignorant and abusive Members of Parliament visiting them and talking down to them as if they were welfare bums. Literally saying things like you're not doing anything useful to a guy who had been working on something for twenty years and had a worldwide reputation. That guy had a visit from a parliamentary secretary who was too uneducated to understand the point of the research so his funding was stopped.

I knew a lot of my dad's friends and these were men and women with doctorates and members of the Physical Society, etc, many of them said a wrong thing to a political staffer and suddenly their funding stopped.

Nobody is willing to speak out about it because they don't want to be next. I could give names and the work they are doing but that would be like denouncing someone in Stalinist Russia.

[oldblueeyez 15475]

 

 

Iron Maiden - The Prisoner

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

TW: words.

 

I'm generally against limiting anybody's right to say whatever they damn well please... although I'm also against shielding them from the consequences of that. A right to freedom of speech does not imply a right to be listened to, or compel anyone else to broadcast what you have to say (this point is mostly lost whenever anyone gets fired for saying something stupid), and there's certainly no right to avoid ridicule and contempt if that's the reaction your speech provokes from others.

 

One thing that really disturbs me, though is the increased movement towards allowing people to avoid seeing or hearing anything that they might dislike. Every summer, we see a rash of speakers being dis-invited from giving graduation and commencement speeches because a delicate flower somewhere disapproves of something the speaker once said. I'm fine letting people know what they might be in for so that those who might dislike it can stay away... but they'll have to accept the consequences of missing out if that's what they choose to do, and I'm absolutely against them forcing anyone else to miss out as well.

 

Phaedrus, thanks for the thoughtful post. To clarify, I am not advocating that we must listen to someone who makes us uncomfortable. In fact, I'm recommending "turning the channel" as opposed to removing the channel. Consider, we wouldn't have porn if the offended had their way.

 

The other point you made about not shielding someone from the consequences of debating a touchy subject is certainly valid, to a point, except for when those consequences are so severe they are just another tool to stifle debate. As an example, the conservatives threatening a scientists job for saying something they disagree with. Or the left-wing/liberals version of economic punishment(demanding one's job) for discussing a disagreeable topic. Is that any different?

 

Anyway, I appreciate all the comments and lively debate.