I am old enough now that I can wax historically without shame. I have decades of learning and knowledge to combine with experience to interpret and determine a response to an action or activity. The issue with the young is their lack of experience and knowledge to draw comparisons from. The young can only use what has been learned by and shown to them in whatever time they have been exposed to something. That brings up a point that I want to make that is a deviation from the main theme of this post - I feel strongly that one of the reasons that politics has degenerated into what it has and the candidates have become as bad (on both sides!) as they have, is that we feel it takes more maturity and wisdom to decide to buy an alcoholic beverage than it does to vote for our elected representatives - 21 vs 18 years of age; and to diverge more- with less proof of who is doing the activity! (ID for those slow on the uptake) But that is not the gist of this post, let me get to it.
A lot of people today seem hell-bent on regulating speech. The term "hate speech" has become bandied about to encompass any thoughts or words that cause discomfort or anger. This is a dangerous stance. The FIRST amendment to the Constitution was put in to guarantee freedom of speech (and religion, but that is another subject, for another time) Does "hate speech" exist? Of course it does. In my opinion, it always will. It is the defining of the term that is malleable and has changed with societal norms. We all know true hate speech (I will drop the quotes now for expedience sake) when we hear or read it. The issue is where is the line drawn and who draws it?
One of the first things a tyrant does when taking control of a population is restrict speech (and typically also take away guns, but again - another day). This can be from taking control of the press and broadcast media by complete operation of these entities to censoring any and everything that they produce to meet the "correct" positions as defined by the tyrants. We are approaching this idea now; not by our government but by opposition to it - again, from both sides to an extent - though from my perspective it is much more prevalent from the left than from the right.
OK HERE COMES THE "MEAT" OF THIS POST:
So called "safe spaces" are a manifestation of this desire to regulate thought by regulating speech. To silence opposing views is a terrible imposition on true growth of understanding among people. The other issue here is the one I truly wanted to address. When we shrink the breadth of commentary by taking away the extremes, it just moves the extremes. Read that again please: when we shrink the breadth of commentary by taking away the extremes, it just moves the extremes. By definition, the thoughts most to the right or left of an argument are the extremes. When we limit the true outliers we make the less seem more so.
Think about it: if we have someone calling for the death of every person different from themselves, that is an extremist view. It would be hate speech by almost any definition. Now, if we silence that person. The people calling for the segregation of every person different from themselves becomes the most extreme. Still hate speech - silence them. Then we get to people that want to congregate to worship or socialize with people that are similar to themselves. Hate speech? Possibly, but magnitudes away from the first position, yes? If you stop to think that we are to a point that college campuses (bastions of learning, knowledge, and understanding) would ban speakers from a mainstream political party just because they are from that party - we have a problem. The human position would be to allow them (and truly anyone in my opinion) speak. If you are truly trying to grow as a human being and wish to foster thought, you would go to hear them. If you are truly offended by their position and do not wish to hear it - you do not go! They still speak, but they cannot offend you with your speech if you do not hear it. This should apply to music, movies, TV shows, etc. We should not ban or remove any if we truly want free speech. Instead, we should just avoid and not support those that we find offensive.
Now, insulating oneself from opposing thoughts makes one ignorant and small minded. But it is better to allow the thought, no matter how vile (I am not speaking of inciting riots or calling for the death of others, but anything short of that) needs to be there to keep the extremes of thought wide and allow for the larger middle to breathe. I think that is our main issue today with political thought - the definition of what is extreme and exposed to everyone has narrowed to the point where normal discourse and disagreements escalate into hate speech and worse. There is no middle ground any longer as the edges are almost together.
Listen to others. Respect those that differ from you. Try to see the other points of view by exposing yourself to every position that is out there. That will make you stronger in your beliefs or maybe allow you to expand them.
Comments