This guy was a great proponent of freedom of speech and I respect that.
But with freedoms of expression comes responsibility and sometimes consequences. This guy embarrassed people and humiliated them as part of his social media platform. Used his superior intellect and years of practice to intellectually ‘shoot people down’ and posted it for views. Not a deliberate attempt to embarrass people but definitely a by product when debating ‘intelligent’ college student where their public defeat was a byproduct.
I can see how it could easily have been one of those humiliated individuals… in a perfect world, everyone moves on, but there are human emotions and feelings…
But what I struggle with, is freedom of speech is acceptable but can’t extend it to physical violence. However when there’s a power or intellectual imbalance then it’s not a fair argument is it? Mental harm can be worse than physical harm (not shooting someone obviously!) How do we allow freedom of speech vs emotional harm?
I think the rise in people taking issues into their own hands through violence, Wellington protests, Tom Phillips, sovereign citizens, voting for Trump, shooting at Trump, etc is the power imbalance and inability of everyday people to have a fair influence over their own lives. The power imbalance and smart people creating a system that traps people.
Just my random thoughts for the day.
What is emotional harm?
If we ever get to the point where a defendant in court can legitimately use the "That redneck hillbilly HURT MY MANA so I stabbed him!" argument and have it used as defence against being found guilty, rather than a mitigating circumstance at sentencing (even then, it's an unprovable argument, it's basically "take my word for it, he hurt my soul and I DESERVED REVENGE!"), we're significantly even more screwed than we are now.
Freedom of speech wins over emotional harm. Even with the power (is it okay to justify smacking your boss because A You disagree with him and B He's got more power than you?) or intellect (The old "kill the intellectuals" attitude of people like the Khmer Rouge comes to mind, there) imbalance, you can't let the few nutbags who take excessive personal offence to someone they agree with on political or social issues ruin that.
But there is always a way of refuting someone's arguments respectfully and thoughtfully rather than outright telling them they're walking, talking brain donors and if they went to Australia from New Zealand, the average IQs of
both countries would go up. I fear we're losing that, bit by bit.
Over the last few years I keep hearing National and Labour - and this probably the same in Australia with their major politcal parties - being compared as different cheeks on the same ass. So only the minor parties offer real substantial difference but, of course, they're not likely to ever get to deliver on those differences that might
seriously change things
quickly. Is that a good or bad thing, given the disruption that would cause? And the killer, we might like the
theory of that serious, quick change but would we like the
practice. Like climate change, we want
other people to change their jobs/habits because it's good for the environment (shut down the mining in Westport/Greymouth). But we don't want do that
ourselves (not get the latest, greatest Samsung or protest planned obsolescence, which uses in part the stuff the mining Westport/Greymouth digs up)
.
www.garbageday.email
.
is now a far right gesture
