Giving and Taking Offense
Tuesday's
reading details arguments for and against "blasphemy laws" and the
protection of hate speech. The conversation about blasphemy laws was relatively
in depth, and many examples were given. A lot of questions were raised, such
as, does intent matter when a work or action offends a religious group? If
blasphemy laws are acceptable, who should be protected by them? The
conversation centered on hate speech is less in-depth, and in my opinion, many
questions still remain. I did appreciate the inclusion of the court case
("Skokie and toleration"), because I think understanding the legal
context around an issue can be helpful when trying to improve it.
I
think my practical (and by this I mean something I can apply to my thought
processes in day to day life) takeaway was that sometimes you will be offended,
and that is not an inherently bad thing. Further, bad things happen, and laws cannot
change this. I think it is good for laws and cultural norms to make an effort
to limit bad things—especially in issues which are systematic and affect
certain populations more than others—but we cannot altogether stop many of the bad
things we encounter in everyday life. People will have disputes and
disagreements; that is okay. In fact, conflict can be good; people can grow because
of disagreements.
For example, when I was very young, I was deeply religious.
However, I'd argue that I was brain washed into religion; I had not chosen it
out of conviction, but because it was all I had ever known. Seeing people treat
the religion in a humorous way, and especially seeing people question the
validity of the religion, allowed me to come to a place where I could recognize
my displeasure with my reality. I was able to walk away from it with no
regrets, and I am a much happier person and more skilled in critical thinking
because of my decision. Thus, I really believe that opposition to, and to an
extent the blasphemous treatment of, that religion legitimately improved my
life and well-being. I am glad I was exposed to thoughts which were
fundamentally opposed to my own.
That
is not to say everyone needs to have their convictions shaken such that they
break; rather, it is healthy for one to come to a place of questioning whether
or not they really believe what they have been taught. This dissonance is
important in and outside of religion as a step towards the development of the
self.
Something else I want to note is that I don’t think any of the
conflict I came across was hate speech; had I been exposed to speech which
actively sought to bring me down as a member of that religion—rather than
speech which criticized the religion itself—I think I would have simply
doubled-down on my beliefs. So yes, conflict can cause growth, but hate speech
and targeted harassment does not really help people reflect inwardly, at least
from my experience.
That being said, this is a complicated issue, and I know I don’t
have all the answers. So, what do you think? Do you have any examples of times
someone’s opposing opinion made you rethink, and perhaps improve, your own
stance?
Also, what did you make of the reading? I only touched on a small
part of it, so what other parts of the text were significant to you?
Great post! I enjoyed this reading because I feel like it covered a lot of the nuances that goes into a topic like this, and it made me think more in depth about blasphemy laws and hate speech than I have previously. Your example about being deeply religious when you were young, but having your thought process changed when seeing people question the validity of the religion is really interesting, because I think in general a lot of people don't treat it the same way. I think that ( in my opinion) in general people disagreeing or being offended makes them retreat further into their belief system/political views/ other opposing beliefs, rather than opening up conversations. I think that is one of the rewarding things about college and classes like this, we get the space to have these types of conversations. I hope our generation, and generations below us (all of whom I think are more open minded than previous generations) continue this type of thinking whether or not it sways their opinions like it did for you.
ReplyDeleteI agree that most people become even more set in their ways when they are confronted with opposition. I think I would have been like that too had the opposition I faced been attacking me personally. Most of the conflict I faced was either critical of religious figures, or asked questions about the religion I legitimately could not answer without invalidating my own beliefs. I was able to separate myself and the religion such that I could say that maybe the religion was "bad" (for me at least), but I was not "bad" for being a part of it for so many years. I think it's really important to not demonize specific people when making criticisms, because that can just make people even more upset!
DeleteI love what you touched on in the second paragraph, about being offended sometimes but it not always being a bad thing. Have you ever been in a position where you got offended by something but you have no reason to explain why you got offended? Almost like you got offended for someone else? I have, and to this day I'm not entirely sure as to why I got offended. But thinking back on it, the other person had a really good point. Or if you're in a debate/argument, and the other person points out a really good fact that you hadn't heard of yet? That is what comes to mind when you asked for examples of times when someone else's opposing opinion made you rethink a stance. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that yes, being offended will happen when you debate (sometimes simply talk) against with another person(s). However, its what you do with that opposing opinion that really shows if you were truly offended or not. How you respond and such. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteI can see why this chapter was the primer, so to speak, for Churchill's article! Churchill's words certainly had the potential to be really, really offensive to those who are sensitive towards 9/11. I read online that Churchill was fired from the university he was working at over his words concerning 9/11. I think that this was unjust; I don't think this article, while controversial, warranted having his employment terminated--especially at a public university. I think it is important to expose America's history of genocide; sure, the way he went about it could easily upset someone, but the content of his message is one I consider to be necessary to share. I say that, however, as someone having first read the article in 2020... The American public was significantly more on edge about the topic when this article was published, so I can see why they would act so severely in response to it.
ReplyDeleteI found these readings pretty interesting.I liked that both recognized that they were speaking for themselves and not for entire groups/countries, which was emphasized in "Notes on Writing and the Nation". Neither author directly demanded for people to agree with them, only to be aware of what happens in our country and others. They seemed to know they would be opposed and accepted and combated it, like in Churchill's response to other's reactions. He informed them in places they were wrong, but did not ignore what they said. Both writers had their opinions on what people and nations should/should not do, but understood there were still people who would hold to their patriotism in sometimes an ignorant way. I agree that sometimes speech that can be hateful can be used to grow from either through going further into their belief or by questioning their belief. It is difficult to understand where to stand in affection for the U.S. While the U.S. has committed multiple acts of genocide, it is sometimes difficult to entirely hate the country you live in and call home. Does anyone else have difficulties understanding how to assess their feelings toward the country especially after these readings?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about how offensiveness can be okay and disagreements can be good things. I think offensiveness can be helpful in being able to see what yourself and others care about. If seen in the right light and with a level of respect, one can use offensiveness as an opportunity to become more empathetic to oneself and to others. Your story about how you came to form your opinions about your religion was appreciated. I think that's really important - that even if someone doesn't ultimately come to change their views, their views are strengthened because they were able to question them at all. But yes, I also agree that this is probably more possible if the opposition is not hate speech and does not come from a place of negativity and blatant harm to another's view.
ReplyDelete