tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7950890435770299116.post2592323307606479554..comments2023-03-30T05:27:28.532-07:00Comments on Flat Out: On Being an Uppity CripDavidGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11734028655032503805noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7950890435770299116.post-74475059677271485202011-11-26T08:42:14.539-08:002011-11-26T08:42:14.539-08:00"A lot of people (and I am talking about peop..."A lot of people (and I am talking about people opposed to right-wing libertariansim) seem to think that aside from physical violence there should be absolute freedom of behaviour"<br /><br />I normally counter that with the example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre (not that Oliver Wendell Holmes was exactly on our side). Once you force them to admit that there are situations in which absolute freedom of expression is unreasonable you can move into discussing the concept that their civil rights stop being absolute the moment they compromise yours, mine or anyone elses.DavidGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734028655032503805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7950890435770299116.post-35408419579033871492011-11-25T02:50:45.379-08:002011-11-25T02:50:45.379-08:00Oh yeah, I think there are plenty of stories and t...Oh yeah, I think there are plenty of stories and types of story that draw in the nasties from all over the place. I've commented on the Guardian website for years, and it's always been a problem; they're drawn by the reputation of Guardian readers I suppose, thinking they'll be an easy target for a wind-up.<br /><br />The debate over humour is one of these "absolute freedom regardless of consequences vs absolute freedom as long as it's ethical" questions, which cause a lot of friction within non-right-wing circles, though I may be more sensitive to that due to having a few ties to the USA, where such debates take up more time. A lot of people (and I am talking about people opposed to right-wing libertariansim) seem to think that aside from physical violence there should be absolute freedom of behaviour (with no repercussions for themselves, ironically) and that anyone who gets hurt as a consequence should just "deal with it"; any attempt to simply point out the pain that someone's words are causing is met by accusations of censorship. There are tons of them on the political left, though as I say, it may be a more obvious division in America than over here.<br /><br />You're absolutely right about the Gervais problem as it stands currently. I'm glad he apologised, but a lot of the damage can't be undone now.jan.4987https://www.blogger.com/profile/03301342161024286342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7950890435770299116.post-27982087221758354652011-11-24T16:45:28.182-08:002011-11-24T16:45:28.182-08:00I don't entirely agree with you on the Guardia...I don't entirely agree with you on the Guardian comments, it's likely true to a degree, but I don't think most of the commenters attacking me and people like Nicky Clark are part of the Guardian's core readership. Some may well be Guardian readers, but there are an awful lot of fairly right-wing comments expressed on Comment is Free that just don't fit with the Guardian's core values - I think a significant number of commenters really do fall closer to the Daily Mail demographic and are there solely because they like to argue with people holding left-wing views (or are just plain trolls). Another, and particularly significant, part of the problem is that before backing down, Ricky Gervais was egging his fanbase on to attack the people who disagreed with him - I saw at least one tweet in which he referred to us as 'haters,' which is deeply ironic on multiple levels. Unfortunately, that's given the more aggressive, less insightful wing of his followers license to hunt down and intimidate people who've dared to disagree with their idol.<br /><br />Which of course simply proves the point Nicky Clark first set out to make.DavidGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734028655032503805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7950890435770299116.post-14824180801983479172011-11-23T03:28:56.896-08:002011-11-23T03:28:56.896-08:00I absolutely loathe that "lay yourself bare o...I absolutely loathe that "lay yourself bare or be held a liar" tactic, because of course if you do lay yourself bare, you're called a liar anyway, because "this is the internet, you could be anyone". The only thing to do is to tell them that you know that that will be their next move and that you're not playing. I think what they're doing is flaming as much as trolling (though trolling may be the umbrella term, I'm not too well up on these things). <br /><br />The Guardian can be ok, but unfortunately the commenters there are extremely tribal about the "offensive comedy" issue, as they believe that anyone raising ethical concerns about jokes is automatically aligning themselves with the Daily Mail, (a bizarre suggestion in the case of disabled people, I have to say). What they seem to have trouble grasping is that with free speech everyone, meaning absolutely everyone, even crips, has a right to reply. If they really believed that there were no ethical problems, why would they resort to abuse to try to silence people such as yourself? Guilty conscience. I don't even know what the answer to this issue is, but the kind of behaviour you recount above suggests that deep down these people believe that they're in the wrong.<br /><br />I like your analysis of the parallels with other civil rights movements. I see Michele Obama was referred to as "uppity" this week. Some people really can't cope without someone to hate and despise.jan.4987https://www.blogger.com/profile/03301342161024286342noreply@blogger.com