"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:FB978802D67148D588E07FAC63485DAD@HomePC...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: somebody [mailto:x### [at] ycom]

> > Well said. I often use a quote from Sagan to those who presume that
> the
> > more
> > outlandish, the more against-the-grain and the current thinking an
> idea
> > is,
> > the more it has to have merit:

> I didn't say anything of the sort.  I just think you shouldn't
> automatically dismiss them just because they offend you.

True, but you said "every major change in thinking has been preceded by
outspoken individuals who offended those around them". I don't believe
offending those around you is either necessary or sufficient for change.
With Sagan's quote, however, I was going on a tangent.

> > Yes, freedom of expression is a good thing, but let's say it as it is,
> > 99.9%
> > of all expression is worthless, even if it's (maybe especially if
> it's)
> > laced with vulgarities.

> Yes, the "90% of everything is crap" rule.  Does it matter, though?  If
> 90% of YouTube comments contain certain words, those words can't really
> be said to be offensive to the majority of society, can they?

I sincerely hope YouTube is not the barometer of society. In any case, I
don't think 90% of YouTube comments include the type of language being
objected to.

> (Obviously, sample sets come into play here... that is, the set of
> people who post YouTube comments is not necessarily representative of
> Society as a whole, but that's another issue).
>
> It seems like an extremely vocal minority is complaining about the
> behavior of the majority.  How, and why, should the minority be given
> the power to censor?

If it's a minority, they will likely be ignored. I frankly don't know the
numbers. But this (that it's a very small minority that seeks moderation)
would be a good argument. Freedom of speech, IMO, is not.

Post a reply to this message