I really don’t understand how we got from this to the couple of posts linked there in the comments that went the OMG OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK FROM THIS ATTITUDE route.
I didn’t read anything in Sylvia’s post that said “and this guy should go to jail, lose his writing job, etc. for offending me!” Nowhere does she advocate for, or imply support for, making it illegal to destroy symbols.
I don’t mind the disagreements and discussions, nor do I think you need my permission to have them, I’m just trying to note a difference here between someone coming down against free speech versus someone using her own speech to say “I don’t like what this guy did or said.”
Is it not possible to say you agree with the guy Sylvia disagrees with, without insinuating that she’s in favor of overturning the First Amendment? Jesus.
May 26, 2008 at 12:16 am |
Oh, god, thank you. I am so tired of people who think their “freedom of speech” requires others to lose theirs. It’s the stupidest argument ever. We guarantee you can talk. We don’t guarantee that no one will talk back to you. If that’s what you want, then you in fact don’t like freedom of speech, and you should admit that instead of compounding your offense with a side order of hypocrisy.
May 26, 2008 at 4:28 am |
Hahaha, they don’t like what I don’t like. It’s an endless cycle. But I’m surprised they’re using the First Amendment to hide behind while saying I’m full of shit. I never said that I was against symbolic speech or that I didn’t understand the significance of it. I do. That’s why I said it shouldn’t be undertaken casually. That’s why I advocated respect over destruction — because of people’s tendency to destroy wantonly, sloppily, and carelessly. Especially when the response to destroying one thing is whinging about destruction of something else. Well, in this relativity craze you’re using, what the hell did people expect to happen?
I just don’t think the solution is necessarily “hold nothing sacred” or “hold everything sacred.” To me it’s “be respectful of what people hold sacred, and they’ll do the same for you.” Golden rule diplomacy: everyone get them some.
May 26, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
What I particularly object to, having checked out the objections now, is the knee-jerk nature of them. “Oh you said desecrating a religious symbol was bad so you must mean blah blah blah stupid argument that no one made but I can’t be bothered to actually employ reading comprehension to see what you did argue.” If you’re just here to grind your favorite, not particularly original ax (oooh, you’ve burned a flag — how daring, no one ever thought of that before), fine, but don’t expect to be taken too seriously.