That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Janx]

That's debatable. Certainly many people place a direct causal link between his actions and violence.

OR, we could consider that the reaction is in violation of other people's rights as an abuse of the protest form of freedom of speech.

If I can burn any book on the planet EXCEPT one specific title and not get rioting and pillaging in the streets, then whose really the problem?

Furthermore, aren't the people organizing the protest responsible for the injuries, damage and littering that occurs when they decide to take umbrage at an insult?

So sending an insult is certainly a "wrong" thing to do. But as they say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

The person reacting to those words is making a choice to decide that they were hurt and then to respond in a way that actually tends to cause more harm to other innocent parties.

Now saying something to hurt somebody is always wrong, and probably should not be fully protected as Free Speech.

but I don't think there's a right of incredibly huge reaction to counter that.

additionally, what bugs me about that kind of thing is that anybody can make any claim that something offends them. If they are given special entitlements when alleged offence occurs, there is the potential for abuse.

Who regulates what is offensive? If rape is offensive because it brings back painful memories, what about murder? Robbery?

Are we forbidden from making jokes about anything because somebody on the planet had that bad thing happen to them?

What about people who just make stuff up? I'm offended by larger than 4 syllable words because it makes me look dumb that I don't know them.

Not doing provocative things is smart because there are spaztards out there who can't react reasonable. That doesn't mean that others are specifically entitled to protection from those provacative actions. Only that its a bad idea to antagonize things that will bite you.

 

[Janx]

...snip... At what point of scale does it shift from being acceptable to stop insults, to not acceptable?

And that might be a very short way to say what I was asking. Plus, I agree with the stuff I snipped. I just hang long quotes.

The old How to Speak Minnesotan video observed that Minnesotans don't generally talk about politics or religion (as opposed to Texas where you'll get asked what church you go to while in line at the BBQ restaurant).

This avoids a great deal of conversation controversy and shock that not everybody votes the same way or goes to the same church.

I liken EN World's policy to that same concept.

On EN World, we all have a social contract to try to avoid sensitive subjects because we know it'll probably agitate somebody.

Out in the real world, I think there's no such agreements, no such expectations, no such protections. As such., whether I stick to Minnesotan Best Practices or not, have no specific right to expect the treatment I may desire or prefer. As such, I am best prepared if I constrain my reactions to anything I may encounter. So I may treat you under my presumably decent protocols, but I do not expect it in kind. You may try to kill me, insult me or be nice to me and I will react in a way that protects my interests and minimizes future trouble for myself.

So, in the real world, while it would be nice if everybody would be nice to each other, since that doesn't happen, I don't think that entitles anybody to act like a sissy when somebody insults them. It's a tough world, and we Minnesotans are hardy folk (we also tease the stuffing out of each other to harden our young. We don't tolerate sensitive wimps).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If I can burn any book on the planet EXCEPT one specific title and not get rioting and pillaging in the streets, then whose really the problem?

You and I know the answer, but we're now delving into people actually dying, not hurt feelings on he internet.

Who regulates what is offensive? If rape is offensive because it brings back painful memories, what about murder? Robbery?

Are we forbidden from making jokes about anything because somebody on the planet had that bad thing happen to them?

To be clear, I have no problem with the original joke. I don't think anyone has the right to regulate what is offensive. But the book burnings lead to real attacks. Not just rioting, but basically modern warfare. People often won't recognize it as such because the responsible groups aren't formal armies, but they are enemy combatants nonetheless.

 

[Janx]

You and I know the answer, but we're now delving into people actually dying, not hurt feelings on he internet.



To be clear, I have no problem with the original joke. I don't think anyone has the right to regulate what is offensive. But the book burnings lead to real attacks. Not just rioting, but basically modern warfare. People often won't recognize it as such because the responsible groups aren't formal armies, but they are enemy combatants nonetheless.

And for that, I don't recommend burning such books. Not out of ethics or morals, but out of tactical sense that some people react dangerously. Just as I wouldn't chum the waters before taking a swim in the ocean.

 

[Umbran]

A
Out in the real world, I think there's no such agreements, no such expectations, no such protections.

Oh, sure there are. There's a ton of different behaviors you dang well know are unacceptable, so you don't do them.

Go take a look at the Rules of EN World. Note how they aren't all that specific. Open to interpretation. The rules in the rest of the world are similar. You just disagree with some on what the interpretations are. The only difference between here and there is that Morrus has chosen some individuals to be that arbiters of interpretation. The rest of the world has those for only a set of behaviors (crimes). The rest are not so clearly policed.

I don't think that entitles anybody to act like a sissy when somebody insults them.

And now, unfortunately, I have to be more official...

Ah, yeah! Big man, calling people names! That really makes your point *soooooo* much more valid. That you say that right after I remind you that my job includes stopping insults... well, it doesn't make you look too bright. Might make folks question how valid the rest of the reasoning is.

We don't tolerate sensitive wimps.

And we (meaning EN World Moderators) don't tolerate name-calling. It is, in this context, a form of bullying - those who stand against you are now branded, "sissy" and "sensitive wimp", safely dismissed. However, you can't intimidate me with that crap. Cut it out. Raise your rhetorical game.

Or, you know, don't. At the moment, you're doing less to prove that you're right, and more to demonstrate that you can be a jerk.

Interestingly, given your setup, you can't complain about how rude I just was, can you? That would make you a sissy, wouldn't it?

I do apologize to the collected folks for that little display. It was to prove a point - we have social rules, for good reason. It isn't all that hard to see when someone has violated them, and no, it isn't wrong to speak out when you do see it. It doesn't make you a sissy. It makes you someone who wants people to treat each other with a modicum of respect and thoughtfulness. And standing up for that is not weakness.

With the right of free speech (which, of course, is actually the right not to have the government stomp on you for what you say) comes a responsibility to use that right wisely. As with most rights, you fail in the associated responsibility, you risk losing the right.

 

[Janx]

And now, unfortunately, I have to be more official...

And I stand corrected. Since I also used some made up names previously, I'll refrain from that as well if I continue in this thread.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And for that, I don't recommend burning such books. Not out of ethics or morals, but out of tactical sense that some people react dangerously. Just as I wouldn't chum the waters before taking a swim in the ocean.

Which is why I have no issues with authorities stopping him. Because what he's doing is chumming the waters while you are taking a swim.

 

[SkidAce]

Which is why I have no issues with authorities stopping him. Because what he's doing is chumming the waters while you are taking a swim.

There's an important point in this analogy.....

 

[Cadence]

It took me way too long to get back to this, due to a combination of my home computer down and the difficulty of finding the time to post this on my work computer. Apologies for the delay on my end.

I hope your home computer situation starts cooperating!

So, I think I understand how you're applying things and might be able to explain where I differ.

They don't have to enable it; they just have to not disable it via the venue(s) they control.

I'm inclined to view deciding to carry something as an action that gives a (possibly minimal) sign of approval of the product (and likely a sign that they also think it will make them money). I would also view the decision to carry the product as (at least minimally) enabling the product's success by giving its producers the opportunity to sell more of the product and to make it easier for them to do so.

I'm also inclined to add that "approving, encouraging, or actively enabling something you think is immoral" is a negative duty.

Thus, it would be a negative duty for a store's owner who believe that sex-and-violence filled AO games are immoral to sell them.

On the other hand, I don't think that declining to sell something falls afoul of:

"do not suppress someone else's freedom of creative expression."

unless the store in question has a monopoly on the distribution of that type of product, because I don't think that meets my definition of suppression (namely I don't think there is a right to have one's products sold at particular stores, and declining to sell a product is different than trying to stop others from selling it).


I'm also trying to think of a question to ask you about your views of what a blogger or web-site owner who posts about creative things needs to do in regards to anything creative they have submitted to them to avoid negative duty... but I'm having trouble doing so.

 

[Alzrius]

I hope your home computer situation starts cooperating!

It'll start when the new computer I ordered arrives.

So, I think I understand how you're applying things and might be able to explain where I differ.

For what it's worth, that's sort of the point of all this. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong (notwithstanding the insane individuals who do not), but comparatively few people seem to think through why certain things are right or wrong, and how they reach those determinations. I'm saying that in order to have a debate, it becomes necessary to examine those processes so as to better explain our thinking on the matter.

I'm inclined to view deciding to carry something as an action that gives a (possibly minimal) sign of approval of the product (and likely a sign that they also think it will make them money). I would also view the decision to carry the product as (at least minimally) enabling the product's success by giving its producers the opportunity to sell more of the product and to make it easier for them to do so.

Bear in mind that if one were to have a negative duty regarding not suppressing another's creative expression, then the above could be in conflict with it. Since the point of a tiered structure is to have the higher duty win out in the event of a conflict, that would likely mean that even with the above caveat, one could still come to the conclusion that they should carry products they don't personally approve of.

I'm also inclined to add that "approving, encouraging, or actively enabling something you think is immoral" is a negative duty.

Thus, it would be a negative duty for a store's owner who believe that sex-and-violence filled AO games are immoral to sell them.

As a note, this would seem to run afoul of the general guideline I mentioned in regards to specificity of action (since actions are what we're judging the morality of). Citing "something you think is immoral" in a framework set up to make the state of morality be the determination, rather than part of the qualifiers being judged, is somewhat counterproductive.

On the other hand, I don't think that declining to sell something falls afoul of:


unless the store in question has a monopoly on the distribution of that type of product, because I don't think that meets my definition of suppression (namely I don't think there is a right to have one's products sold at particular stores, and declining to sell a product is different than trying to stop others from selling it).

I personally disagree with the requirement that something only be considered suppression if performed by a singular monopoly-holder, since that means that such actions, when performed in groups, are never considered to be suppressive (e.g. the case with Manhunt 2).

I'm also trying to think of a question to ask you about your views of what a blogger or web-site owner who posts about creative things needs to do in regards to anything creative they have submitted to them to avoid negative duty... but I'm having trouble doing so.

I can intuit the question you're thinking of (at least I think I can), and the answer I can come to is that I wouldn't consider that to be an act of suppression because your personal space doesn't really constitute a venue for distribution in the first place. If your neighbor from across the street wants to paint your car with commercial logos for his new business start-up, you saying no isn't an act of suppression because he's not looking to use any sort of public medium to do so; he's looking to use an extension of yourself - saying that you don't want to be used in that manner is not suppressing someone else.