40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

vellavu

Scooby
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
3,114
Black Thorn
40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

U.S. Millennials More Likely to Support Censoring Offensive Statements About MinoritiesWe asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.

Even though a larger share of Millennials favor allowing offensive speech against minorities, the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
 
What about people like me, who don't think such speak is okay, but also don't favor the government censoring private individuals? (What should be obvious, but isn't for some baffling reason, is not allowing the government to censor someone doesn't mean that a person can escape social consequences, which may include a loss of job or business as others exercise their own freedom.)

I suppose anything other than "government is always the problem" and "government is always the solution" is a radical concept to most people, though I consider both those extremes to be radical from my own personal perspective. Though I did pretty much hold the "government is the disease masquerading as its own cure" extreme myself up until my mid-20s.
 
Last edited:
I don't normally get involved in commenting on politics as I find it frustrating. There is never a right answer & no matter what you are never going to please everyone.
But this topic is a grey area worthy of the Watchers Council HQ.
Just how do you define a minority? One person, ten, a hundred? And who decides what is offensive to said minority?
Giving any kind of leeway to this kind of thing encourages small groups with an agenda to cause trouble by claiming to be a minority & to be offended by everyday things. (An guy living in my area tried to claim 'Compensation' claiming that as an immigrant, he was in a minority group & that he found people speaking English around him
to be racist & offensive).
Once again, there is no right answer. Things put in place to help some can & will be exploited by others, so you have to find a balance.....and a 'fudge' pleases no-one!
Ok......The soap box is free now 🙄
 
There is a right answer: let anyone say what they want and suffer only social consequences thereafter. There was a case of one medical researcher who discovered that an enzyme necessary for the digestion of alcohol was missing in Orientals. The Orientals never raised a fuss (because they know it is true) but the Native American population was divided over their response - some said the research must be suppressed because they would never be able to get good jobs if this got out and some said it should be promoted because then they could claim that they had a disability and could get government money for it. Neither side had any regard for the truth. Speak your mind and let the chips fall where they may.

The beginning of this was laws stating that you are guilty of a crime if you discredit the Holocaust and shortly thereafter some places passed Rothschild laws stating that opposition to Zionism (Jews reclaiming Palestine) was anti-Semitic (meaning there a number of anti-Semitic Jews and oblivious to the fact that the largest Semitic group is Arabs). First of all, if you discredit the Holocaust, you are an idiot and I prefer to know that I am dealing with an idiot without the law getting in the way. Secondly, there is nothing to say lack of support for Israel means you are anti-Semitic - most of my friends in university were Jewish and included some Zionists and the best man at my wedding, but I do not support Israeli apartheid in any way.

The most shameful thing is universities where free speech is heavily constrained - a university is supposed to be a place where all ideas are open for discussion, and under these constraints, a degree has now lost all meaning. If you know that the phrase "Israeli apartheid" will get you censured, cause you to fail or get you expelled, you will shy away from any real discussion and that will spread to anything. Universities are now in the thrall of people who want "safe spaces", "trigger warnings" (and this has appeared in topic names on this forum) and a muzzle over any real discussion which may prove uncomfortable to any minority. In a debate under these conditions, as in any war, truth is the fist casualty. If I had the power, I would remove the accreditation of any university that offered honorary degrees or interfered with free speech in any way.
 
The Bronze
The Bronze
I was going to write something but this has pretty much nailed my way of thinking.
When did the word Millennial get a new meaning, it used to mean a period of 1,000 years.
 
Banning Holocaust denial is insane.
"I don't think this happened".
"Go to jail".
Who the hell thought that was a good idea? We're so sure it happened we're banning people disputing it? When did that become a valid way of persuading people?

Banning speech offensive to minorities is hilariously vague. Even on more specific examples I think social consequences are a better form of dealing with the issue. The government certainly has no right to shut down discussion even if it can be offensive.

In contrast with American Millennials, those ages 18 to 34 in Germany and Spain are more likely to say people should be able to say things offensive to minorities compared with those ages 35 and older.
Do you reckon younger generations in Germany are starting to get over their war guilt?3
 
As a German who thankfully didn't suffer much of the brainwashing we were subjected to post WW2 (1 I grew up in East Germany and 2. didn't go to university) but is currently living under Stasi 2.0....it sucks no matter what.

And this is how freedom of speech gets eventually eroded. Certain topics are too sensitive, can only be brought up by a certain group and so on. Real news get labeled fake news and vice versa, all media is controlled by the government or certain individuals with their own goals. From schools to college you get told what to think.

And for the record what is a minority? White people are already a minority across the globe. Yet racism can only come from white people? Huh?
 
Die Hard with a Vengeance showed an example of black on white racism.
And that was how long ago? In this day and age racism only applies when a white person does something. If you try and use it on these so called minorities (who are majorities across the globe) you will find yourself in prison fast. Or at least dragged through the dirt on social media.
 
Different ideological persuasions like to lambast people over the net where their lynch mob activity can be done with little fear of consequence to themselves (and Google and such find ways to profit from it and thus subtly promote it). But I have a hard time taking "I'm white in a western nation, therefore oppressed" seriously, though.
 
The beginning of this was laws stating that you are guilty of a crime if you discredit the Holocaust and shortly thereafter some places passed Rothschild laws stating that opposition to Zionism (Jews reclaiming Palestine) was anti-Semitic (meaning there a number of anti-Semitic Jews and oblivious to the fact that the largest Semitic group is Arabs). First of all, if you discredit the Holocaust, you are an idiot and I prefer to know that I am dealing with an idiot without the law getting in the way. Secondly, there is nothing to say lack of support for Israel means you are anti-Semitic - most of my friends in university were Jewish and included some Zionists and the best man at my wedding, but I do not support Israeli apartheid in any way.

I almost lost my job over some anonymous person accusing me of being anti-semetic (hilarious if you know me) for not supporting my company selling products in Israel. I no longer say anything about it, because this is how bad it's got. The vast majority of Jews are against oppression, because they are decent human beings like the rest of us. Surely attacking a government policy should not be the same as attacking a religion? There are other parties in Israel who are not right wing, are they not real Jews? Does this mean anyone can literally do anything with the shield of religion? Where does it stop? Will I get arrested for my words? Maybe one day, the way the Divided Kingdom is going.
 
Racism is everywhere and not just in America. Whites can be minorities in other countries.
 
I went to Tech college in Southall back in the early 80's (Yes during the Southall riots - People in the UK will know what I mean)
& when I went to evening classes there I was often the only white face amongst 300+ people hanging around campus. So I know what it's like to be the odd one out.

Also I was dating a Sri Lankan Girl at the time. You would not believe the grief THAT caused us both!
 
What I'm paying attention to is that white people still run the system (and it's tailored made to white males with everyone else finding it a little less convenient) and are the majority of it. I've seen and experienced racism against whites, but the cops and courts were still on my side even then (and it was annoying how one minority neighborhood I lived in was plagued by white drug dealers that might as well have advertised themselves with a flashing neon sign, but the cops would ignore them for months while everyone else had to be furtive about it, and that's despite me and the other white person in the neighborhood calling the cops on those dealers and their obnoxious customers).

I've also listened to people who seriously wanted to be thought of as being oppressed for being white, and they were never convincing (they typically sound more like whining that they don't have as unfair an advantage as their grandparents did). Perhaps the most common example I've run into is those saying they don't have better jobs because of "quotas" when quotas don't work as they think they do, and they never struck me as the bright stars they thought they were (their default thought was that a minority could never exceed even that of an average white person, and therefore any minority who was hired was inferior, and only because of quotas--and ignored that they themselves blaming quotas were barely even average of anyone).

I've also noticed that they don't really understand what minorities (not just racial, though that's perhaps the biggest) ones have to put up with. It's like it's not happening to them or bothering them so it's not happening to anyone else (at least no one that doesn't deserve it) either, and thus becomes invisible. (It's a human trait to exaggerate one's own burdens while overlooking the burdens that others bear.)

That was even true of me, though I realized they did have some hardships I didn't. It was a lot worse than I thought, but more in a "death by a thousand paper cuts" way with the more flagrant manifestations rare (and even more "passive aggressive racists" put down the overt kinds). I saw how many white people acted differently when minorities were around, and had a lawyer not gotten involved then I'd have lost a place to live over it over false allegations concerning my BFF who happens to be black (and something else regarding non-racial minorities), and on top of that I know minorities tend to turn on each other despite having developed a necessary solidarity. The blasian I was with caught hell from both sides, my BFF gets called "oreo" (white on the inside) by members of her own family and she was also called the n-word by another black guy who was angry (and he wanted to take his anger out of me, but knew if he so much as menaced a blue-eyed blonde that the local police would come down on him like a ton of bricks so he targeted my friend for abuse instead as the black woman was a safe target for him), and in that minority neighborhood I mentioned it was roughly the blacks with token whites against the Hispanics (though it was complicated by religious issues as well, and this is a general statement, it was all more complicated than that)

And fake news is the new plague, and all sides are infested with clickbait headlines and distorted (at best) news stories to sell ad space, and with increasing frequency just telling people what they want to hear (I wonder how Snopes is dealing with the deluge of fake news?). And outrage sells the most advertising space (and gets passed along the most) so that's preferred (even before considering the political propaganda value), and anyone who can be outraged will be pandered to, including those outraged about such things as immigrants in Europe or racial issues. I still retain a few email penpals from around the world, and that includes one in Ireland who has a lot to say on such matters (though even he gets frustrated with the thought police at universities, which he says is a problem throughout Europe, but the fake news is also ridiculous).

And even before fake news became so prevalent, I've noticed how many find some minor crackpot and try to paint an entire movement or even group of people with the same brush. Just one of many examples I've come across (though this is perhaps the most extreme and ridiculous, but some came very close to this) was a newsletter for Scandinavian paganism that was usually okay, but an article got printed that addressed the readers as "white people" (like "how does that make you feel, white people?") though not all readers were, and was essentially trying to prep "white people" for a race war. He quoted some (black) guy speaking hate speech against whites that really was ridiculous and hateful, but I'd bet the cops and FBI would be on a black guy saying such things in a heartbeat for talking like that (even before 9/11 that kind of speech calling for death and destruction could get criminal charges against you), but when I looked it up I found out the guy (barely a footnote in history) he quoted that very month gave that speech about killing whites before I was even born! And yet we were supposed to believe most if not all blacks had this rabid hatred of us (and ignore Martin Luther King Jr, etc), so we better get them first. Thankfully, I wasn't the only one to catch that BS, and enough readers called it out and wondered how such trash got past the editors, the only ones to believe it being those who WANTED to believe it, and claiming that those calling BS on BS were just being PC reactionary.

This is getting way too long, so I'll just end with these are only some of the reasons I get skeptical when I hear how hard white people have it when they live in a system run by whites and tailored made for them (though not as blatantly unfair to the point of oppressive as it used to be), and just how unbelievable I tend to find such people with such complaints who obviously had an axe to grind, and way too eager to believe fake news. As I said, I know there is racism and even attacks against white people as well, but the difference is it's not systematic, and it's not tolerated (I've seen fake news distort it so it seems so at times). Some PC jerks can be just as reactionary, obnoxious, and hateful with their internet lynch mobs, and be as fast to hate an entire group of people (like say rednecks) without getting to know them as individuals which is hypocritical (and deserves mockery), but all in all, playing white (especially straight white male of the dominant religion in your area) is the "lowest difficulty setting" for the game of life, and I've seen just how many people blame minorities are just making excuses for their own inadequacies.
 
Back
Top Bottom