Anti-something; the hierarchy

[HydrogenBond]

With all the hype about Mel Gibson and his anti-semitic remarks, it raised a couple of questions in my mind. There are all types of anti's. One can be anti-American, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic, anti-abortion, anti-govenment, etc. The list appears endless. The questions I have are, why are certain anti's giving more value or weight than others. Secondly, how does one go about changing the position of their anti on the scale of anti values?

 

For example, if one was anti-American, one hates Americans but this is not considered a hate crime. Some anti's get extra protection and prestige as though the opposite of the anti is considered of higher value than the opposite of another anti. I am confused? If Mel Gibson had said anti-business remarks he would be treated like a hero instead of a chump. Was this because the anti scale discriminates.

[InfiniteNow]

why are certain anti's giving more value or weight than others.

Seems to me a question of context. If you were anti-Jew in a group of militant muslims, you'd fit right in. Also, it's a question of the impact on society as a whole. If I were anti-McDonald's, who cares? If I'm anti-caring for disabled children who have been abandoned by their mothers, it's a bit different. Context. This, however, changes as does the weather.

 

Secondly, how does one go about changing the position of their anti on the scale of anti values?

Switch social groups, change your views, or wait until the tides change in favor of your perspective. I do not, however, recommend that last one.

[HydrogenBond]

The Constutional right called freedom of speech should protect a person's right to be anti anything they want. The hierarchy of political correctness appears to take away freedom of speech at different levels even without formally alterring the Constitution. Isn't political correctness anti-freedom of speech and therefore unconstitutional? Aren't those enforcing such things breaking the law of the land?

 

Getting back to the anti scale, logically the more a group has held the crap end of the stick of life and the less they have held the good end of the stick would be a good measure of how close to the top they should be. For example, many of the poorest Africian nations have seen nothing but famine and death for centuries with almost no time in the drivers seat. This anti would qualify near the top of the list under my criteria. The Palestinians should also be very high up since they are the bottom of even the Arab pecking order and haven't seen much in the way of good times. The Jewish people have always been picked on for thousands of years and suffered the atrocities of the Holocost. On the other hand they were given a special place among nations, by Godm and have often done well in a material sense. Today, Isreal is a very progressive nation holding the good end of the social stick in that region. The Jewish population is well organized and succesful on a large scale throughout the world. There is much plus to offset the minus making this anti on the upper portion by not at the top.

 

If one is a white, AngloSaxon, straight male, christian, history seems to indicate a long spell of holding the good end of the stick. This would probally rate them low on the anti scale. The anti scale, however, does not reflect the uniqueness of individuals. There are such wasp males who have always held the crap end of the stick but are treated like they have never seen the crap end and are given a double dose of grieve by the anti-scale. On the other hand, there are those near the top of the anti scale who have never seen anything but the good end of the stick in their lifetimes yet are given all the special treatment of someone who always held the crap end.

 

Personally I think anyone should be allowed to say anything they want about anyone to anyone. It is a good way to vent frustration. The trick is not to do it in anger but to do it in good humor. If you don't like others to make fun of your group, learn some good generic jokes so you can defend your group, i.e,, touche. Laughter makes friends.

[infamous]

With all the hype about Mel Gibson and his anti-semitic remarks, it raised a couple of questions in my mind. There are all types of anti's. One can be anti-American, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic, anti-abortion, anti-govenment, etc. The list appears endless.

I believe, for the moment at least, I'll remain Anti-anti..........If that offends anyone, please accept my apologies, I just couldn't resist making that remark...........................Infy

[CraigD]

The Constutional right called freedom of speech should protect a person's right to be anti anything they want.

Yes, it does.

The hierarchy of political correctness appears to take away freedom of speech at different levels even without formally alterring the Constitution. Isn't political correctness anti-freedom of speech and therefore unconstitutional? Aren't those enforcing such things breaking the law of the land?

If restrictions on such speech were actually being legislated and enforced, yes, such action would be unconstitutional in the US.

 

I’ve seen no evidence that such legislation or regulation exists.

 

In the Mel Gibson case, note that he is being charged only with

1. Drunken driving
   
2. Public intoxication
   
3. Having an open container of liquor in a vehicle
   

He’s not being charged with any crime for making insults against Jews, or crude remarks toward women (It’s alleged that, in a less reported part of his drunken tirade, he called one of the arresting sheriff’s deputies “sugar tits”). Although in later statements to the press, he described his behavior toward the deputies as “belligerent”, which is potentially a crime, he’s not being charged with that – apparently Mr. Gibson’s idea of belligerence didn’t rise to their standard.

 

Mel Gibson appears to be experiencing nearly the exact opposite of a restriction of his speech – he desperately wants his speech, caught on video, to be censored. His enemies – primarily members of the press - are fighting to see his speech disseminated as widely as possible, while his friends – primarily his lawyer – are fighting to see that it is no more widely published than it has already been.

[Eclogite]

I believe, for the moment at least, I'll remain Anti-anti

I'm opposed to that.

[HydrogenBond]

If restrictions on such speech were actually being legislated and enforced, yes, such action would be unconstitutional in the US.

 

But such actions occur all the time. Almost any job in both the public and private sector is made more vulnerable if one says the wrong thing. One has to deny their right to freedom of speech, tow the line, or else suffer the social consequences. Don't take my word for it. Try an experiment and pretend to take a verbal position against an aspect of political correctness and see if you freedom of speech will be censored with the threat of repercusions. It is sort of like an unwritten but sanctioned criminal action against the freedom of speech. The technicality is good enough for lawyers but not for observational reality.

[CraigD]

But such actions occur all the time. Almost any job in both the public and private sector is made more vulnerable if one says the wrong thing. One has to deny their right to freedom of speech, tow the line, or else suffer the social consequences.

The US Constitution and its Amendments explicitly guarantee only that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The accepted interpretation of Article IV, Section 4, which states “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…” is that “a republican form of government” includes a requirement that the states also make no law abridging speech.

 

It does not guarantee that no individual not acting as an agent of the government shall conspire or take actions to abridge free speech.

 

Private individuals and corporations regularly and systematically attempt to limit free speech. To see this, one need only compare first-hand experience with various political gatherings with their depiction – or lack of depiction – by the large news outlets. For example, I’ve personally witnessed (and inadvertently been part of) what can only be called riots within sight of the White House, yet have seen journalistic presentations of these seemingly newsworthy events only in videotapes produced by small, activist organizations, such as prop1.org’s ”The Ground War at Home”.

 

The US federal and state governments conscientiously make no effort to censor free speech, but neither do they support or encourage it. The mass distribution of political speech is conducted primarily by private companies, many of which have very specific (and not particularly secret) political agendas, who sometimes perceive protected speech as opposing their business or political objectives, and, without violating any laws, aggressively seek to suppress it.

 

The suppression of free speech by private companies may legally extend to their requiring employees to refrain from free speech, on penalty of terminating their employment, and, in some cases, civil legal action. This is also true of Federal and State, and local government employees, and officers and enlisted armed service personnel.

 

Contrary to widespread belief, companies that use radio and television are not legally compelled to promote free speech. They are also under no legal compulsion to assure that the information they provide is true, or refrain from representing as true information they know to be false (although content provided by their advertisers is, per public law and regulation varying by jurisdiction). The same is true of businesses considered “press”, either broadcast, print, or internet.

 

The communication of protected speech requires unusual effort on the part of both the speaker and their audience.

[Qfwfq]

For example, if one was anti-American, one hates Americans but this is not considered a hate crime. Some anti's get extra protection and prestige as though the opposite of the anti is considered of higher value than the opposite of another anti. I am confused?

Anti-X doesn't necessarily mean hating X, it can even mean just disagreeing with it, or even having the opposite persuasion. This is fully within the scope of the freedoms which modern civilization values.

 

Some antis, OTOH, are hatred and the two things should not be confused. Antisemitism, of the Nazi-Fascist kind, is one of them and is condemned as "hate crime" and shouldn't quite be considered within the scope of free-speech issues. I'm antifascist and I don't consider it a form of hatred, just simply a contrary opinion. There is, currently, an increasing hatred directed indiscriminately toward the Islamic and Arabic world. Although this is caused by true problems it isn't justified by the wrongs of some and it should be condemned as much as antisemitism.