Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Free Speech Deemed Contentious.
209 Answers
Our tradition of free speech is threatened by a growing trend find within it reasons to be offended where no offence was ever intended.
Such offence is manufactured, and validated by a subjective redefinition of meaning.
Surely this trend has its roots in post modernism and relativism, where any word or phrase can be deemed to be offensive when no offence was ever intended.
Will this idea ever be challenged successfully to reinstate the value and protection of free speech as it has always be understood?
Such offence is manufactured, and validated by a subjective redefinition of meaning.
Surely this trend has its roots in post modernism and relativism, where any word or phrase can be deemed to be offensive when no offence was ever intended.
Will this idea ever be challenged successfully to reinstate the value and protection of free speech as it has always be understood?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes your concerns are valid in some cases, where offence is intended, but the doctor was asked to use compelled speech to turn on its head, known science and human experience and tradition dating back thousands of years.
If you give in to these snowflakes where does it stop?
The tail truly wagging the dog.
Has common sense been abandoned?
If you give in to these snowflakes where does it stop?
The tail truly wagging the dog.
Has common sense been abandoned?
I was shocked a few days ago, to see on the news in America, people queuing at gun shops, whilst we were queuing for bog rolls.
It's in the American DNA it seems to never allow the government to compel them into anything and the knee jerk reaction is more guns, sad but understandable.
Let the government chip away at our freedoms and we become Germany 1933.
It's in the American DNA it seems to never allow the government to compel them into anything and the knee jerk reaction is more guns, sad but understandable.
Let the government chip away at our freedoms and we become Germany 1933.
The frredom to say what we like and when we like? Go back to the times when it was ok to call people names , to jeer at their beliefs and to treat people in a threatening way? To be sexist and racist and hugely offensive because we don't care how much we hurt or offend.....mmm how kind and thoughtful some of us are eh Theland...................
Known science is now finding that gender is not so clear as was believed in modern times. Some human experience also knows this. You can't say that something isn't so just because you have never experienced it. Tradition also says this. In many cultures multiple gender variations are acknowledged and accepted.....all of which is irrelevant because as I said if you want the job, you follow the rules of the job in working hours....some professions which have professional bodies also have a requirement that you do not do or say anything that could bring the profession into disrepute at ANY time.
spicerack I am not in favour of censoring speech. I am in favour of good manners which including addressing and referring to a person using their preferred words (as is Ab Editor) But again its irrelevant. This person can be as arrogant and hidebound as he likes in his own time but when at work he must abide by work rules.
The difficulty I have is with "Third Party" offence. People taking offence on behalf of others (whom they see as "victims") when those others were not present when the "insults" were proffered and probably don't even know of them. It happens on here. The First Minister of Scotland is sometimes referred to as "wee Jimmy" because of her remarkable resemblance to one half of "The Krankies". It doesn't harm Ms Sturgeon, especially as I doubt she subscribes to AB. Politicians have had nicknames since there were politicians. I have referred to Emily Thornberry as "Lady Nugee". She doesn't prefer it, almost certainly because it would damage her socialist street cred. But that's who she is. I've been castigated for it. Ms Thornberry knows nothing about it. I don't understand why Third Parties take offence on behalf of others. It probably stems from the preposterous recommendation by Lord MacPherson in his report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. He said that the definition of a racist incident should be one which is "perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." It was taken on board, and it's morphed into the "offence by proxy" which we hear so much of.
//i agree about third party taking offence but that's not what this thread is about NJ//
What is it about then? From the original post:
"Our tradition of free speech is threatened by a growing trend find within it reasons to be offended where no offence was ever intended."
I've never intended to offend Ms Thornberry (My Lady Nugee) and even if I had she would never have heard about it. Addressing Ms Surgeon as wee Jimmy likewise.
"Such offence is manufactured,..."
It most certainly is, by Third Parties finding reasons to be offended on behalf of others when they have little or no interest in the wellbeing of those so-called "victims". I would say that's exactly what this thread is about. Stifling free speech because those hearing it do not like it. Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
What is it about then? From the original post:
"Our tradition of free speech is threatened by a growing trend find within it reasons to be offended where no offence was ever intended."
I've never intended to offend Ms Thornberry (My Lady Nugee) and even if I had she would never have heard about it. Addressing Ms Surgeon as wee Jimmy likewise.
"Such offence is manufactured,..."
It most certainly is, by Third Parties finding reasons to be offended on behalf of others when they have little or no interest in the wellbeing of those so-called "victims". I would say that's exactly what this thread is about. Stifling free speech because those hearing it do not like it. Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
Trump has been called 'racist' for referring to the 'Chinese virus', does this mean that we can no longer refer to Spanish Flu, Asian FLu, Black Death? In picking up on such trivial examples the cause of race relations is diminished.
The same applies to the struggle for female equality, we could no longer have 'manhole covers', they became inspection chambers and dozens of other trivial examples.
A very very young teacher from our school went on a course on multiculturalism, we were a 99.9% white school. She returned with policies we had to put into practice, with no-one on whom to practice and she declared that only white people can be racist. Those of us who had taught in more than one school, in my case very culturally mixed in Bradford, could barely hold in the laughter.
SOme people dop their causes no favours.
The same applies to the struggle for female equality, we could no longer have 'manhole covers', they became inspection chambers and dozens of other trivial examples.
A very very young teacher from our school went on a course on multiculturalism, we were a 99.9% white school. She returned with policies we had to put into practice, with no-one on whom to practice and she declared that only white people can be racist. Those of us who had taught in more than one school, in my case very culturally mixed in Bradford, could barely hold in the laughter.
SOme people dop their causes no favours.
I am totally on the same wavelength as Woofgang re the Doctor and how to address someone - if a professional cannot be courteous whilst that person is in their presence then they don't want the job.
I shall be told by some that by saying 'She/Her' when either visually or on paper the person appears as a 'Him/He' is aiding and abetting lies - I however see it as said as good manners.
I shall be told by some that by saying 'She/Her' when either visually or on paper the person appears as a 'Him/He' is aiding and abetting lies - I however see it as said as good manners.
Let the tail wag the dog once and get away with it, and before you know it, the tail takes over.
Forget about the sensitivities of the man/woman sensitivities, because then I would deem that insensitive to my feelings.
Great eh?
Why don't we all join in and find something that we deem to be offensive?
Forget about the sensitivities of the man/woman sensitivities, because then I would deem that insensitive to my feelings.
Great eh?
Why don't we all join in and find something that we deem to be offensive?
Theland, was the Dr David Mackereth employment tribunal case your reason for posting this thread?
You claim "The man / woman deemed that offence had been caused."
There was NO man nor woman who claimed 'offence'.
"but the doctor was asked to use compelled speech "
Yes he was asked to use speech he found unacceptable, to potentially vulnerable service users with existing mental health problems.( who bureaucratically had NOT been identified as transgender, and indeed his hiring authorities, rightly or wrongly, deemed that they could NOT be pre-identified as transgender NOR triaged as 'it might stigmatize them'.
"If a man thinks he is a woman, Imwould suspect he has a mental problem,"
Yes, that may indeed be why they were being 'assessed' by Dr Mackereth in his job as a Health and Disabilities Assessor (HDA) on behalf of the DWP.
The transgender complexities are a veritable minefield, the details of this particular employment tribunal are detailed and cheap point scoring is petty and simplistic.
'Free speech' in this case was Dr Mackereth Right at literal interpretation of his book, ( = Bible.)
Dr Mackereth does not come across as the most honest of men, IF, if the Tribunal notes are correct and IF the fair judgement was made.
Why Dr Mackereth was not allowed to address his clients by their name on their form, or by their surname and avoid any pronouns is beyond me.
Gender Recognition certificates/ Gender Recognition Act 2004 and whether a 'six-foot man with a beard' was EVER mentioned were more interesting parts than some others of:
\\\\\\37. In essence Dr Mackereth told us, and we find, that he holds to the principles of the Great Reformation of the 16th Century including a commitment to the supremacy of the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God as his final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
70. Despite that, Dr Ahmed told us that Dr Mackereth did not appear surprised by his response and that he jumped in to the conversation and said he understood that was the Government’s position but that as a Christian he believes that God assigned people’s gender at birth and he could not refer to individuals by a gender that was different to their birth sex. Dr Ahmed added that Dr Mackereth stated that he was prepared to defend his beliefs if challenged in court if he had to.
92. Contrary to Dr Mackereth’s assertion both in his witness statement and orally, that mid consultation he was called in to a room to discuss faith, Dr Mackereth later accepted that that was not during the middle of the consultation with a customer but whilst he was preparing his report on an assessment
96. Dr Mackereth also stated that whilst he did not intend to harm or offend anyone, he understood that his behaviour could be offensive////////
https:/
You claim "The man / woman deemed that offence had been caused."
There was NO man nor woman who claimed 'offence'.
"but the doctor was asked to use compelled speech "
Yes he was asked to use speech he found unacceptable, to potentially vulnerable service users with existing mental health problems.( who bureaucratically had NOT been identified as transgender, and indeed his hiring authorities, rightly or wrongly, deemed that they could NOT be pre-identified as transgender NOR triaged as 'it might stigmatize them'.
"If a man thinks he is a woman, Imwould suspect he has a mental problem,"
Yes, that may indeed be why they were being 'assessed' by Dr Mackereth in his job as a Health and Disabilities Assessor (HDA) on behalf of the DWP.
The transgender complexities are a veritable minefield, the details of this particular employment tribunal are detailed and cheap point scoring is petty and simplistic.
'Free speech' in this case was Dr Mackereth Right at literal interpretation of his book, ( = Bible.)
Dr Mackereth does not come across as the most honest of men, IF, if the Tribunal notes are correct and IF the fair judgement was made.
Why Dr Mackereth was not allowed to address his clients by their name on their form, or by their surname and avoid any pronouns is beyond me.
Gender Recognition certificates/ Gender Recognition Act 2004 and whether a 'six-foot man with a beard' was EVER mentioned were more interesting parts than some others of:
\\\\\\37. In essence Dr Mackereth told us, and we find, that he holds to the principles of the Great Reformation of the 16th Century including a commitment to the supremacy of the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God as his final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
70. Despite that, Dr Ahmed told us that Dr Mackereth did not appear surprised by his response and that he jumped in to the conversation and said he understood that was the Government’s position but that as a Christian he believes that God assigned people’s gender at birth and he could not refer to individuals by a gender that was different to their birth sex. Dr Ahmed added that Dr Mackereth stated that he was prepared to defend his beliefs if challenged in court if he had to.
92. Contrary to Dr Mackereth’s assertion both in his witness statement and orally, that mid consultation he was called in to a room to discuss faith, Dr Mackereth later accepted that that was not during the middle of the consultation with a customer but whilst he was preparing his report on an assessment
96. Dr Mackereth also stated that whilst he did not intend to harm or offend anyone, he understood that his behaviour could be offensive////////
https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Jokes21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.