but i would be surprised if the same people would claim that psychological damage and torture aren't possible (same boundary transgression)
-
-
Replying to @fronxer
what i feel might be missing is theory that situates language in a material context (instead of the other way around à la butler)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
instead of saying "your assumed-material identity is constructed in language", say "linguistic realities are a subset of material realities"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @fronxer
back to the question of who benefits: it's people who have a strong belief in 'freedom of speech' being universally and unquestionably good
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
they see the issue of 'harmful words' as a fair price to pay for the freedom, which is the greater good
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
there is a related question that's often brought up: who has (or should have) the authority to say what is or isn't harmful
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Also that we can't defeat harmful ideas if they're forced underground. I want them debated publicly so that the problem is clear.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
i would propose the analogy of an epidemic that needs to be fought AND contained to challenge that, at least for certain cases
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Id resist that. You can fight my ideas that God does not exist but if you try to contain them, we have a theocracy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Stephen Fry currently being investigated for blasphemy in Ireland is a good example. He gave his view on a platform he was offered.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.