Quote from: Serious PaulI think it is and has to be. It is essential to the core issues being discussed here.

I can't agree, there are to no reasonable standards any First Admendment rights involved in this thread.

Quote from: Serious PaulI do think sometimes we inflate things that just aren't as dangerous as we think them to be, and we often end up glorifying something that should be marginalized, at best.

I would agree, as long as one keeps the ability to marginalize. However that seems nearly completely lost in today's world of moral relativism and quite acceptance.

I'm a firm believer in holding the easy lines. Sure, it may only be an eye sore to have rampant graffiti- but holding the line there makes holding it against more dangerous trends much easier or even possible.

Quote from: SpikeI don't mind, for one, if its socially acceptable to fantasize about neckraping cabin boys or not.  I DO mind when its not acceptable for me to point to said fantasizer and call them a sick fuck, and use said fantasies as a reason not to leave my cabin boys under the supervision of said fantasizer.

So ... you're not being legally sanctioned, of course.  The "not acceptable" thing here is simply that someone has expressed their opinion that you are wrong, the same way that you called the fantasizer wrong.  Is that correct?

What, exactly, would your ideal scenario here be?  It sounds like what you want is for you to have the right to have the last word:  You dispense your "sick fuck" comment, and nobody's allowed to respond with "No, your intolerance is sick," or whatever.  Have I understood you correctly?

We have the right, I believe, to stigmatize people with verbal condemnation, and to restrict people within our own property (physical or intellectual).

Its like I've always said, for example: I can take issue with RPG.net's moderation practices, I can object to them or mock them; likewise I can mock their attempt to present themselves as something other than a private business. But in the end, they ARE a private business, and the business owners have the right (whether they are smart or boneheaded about their use of that right) to determine what can or cannot be discussed there.
Likewise, this place is NOT a business, but is a private venue.  As the owner, I have chosen to allow a relatively wide latitude of free speech. However, I have the right as the owner to restrict what speech goes where (as in, what topics are discussed on what forum) and to restrict any type of speech altogether based on my own personally judgment (for example, I would certainly restrict any speech which anyone attempted to make here advocating "white power" or sex with minors, or several other things; because I would judge them to be disruptive to this site).

RPGPundit

Quote from: gleichmanI can't agree, there are to no reasonable standards any First Amendment rights involved in this thread.

I think that's skirting the issue. The fundamental right to free speech is at the heart of this issue, and the first amendment, in this country (Which so far the topic has generally been about.), is the yard stick by which we measure the issue.

QuoteI would agree, as long as one keeps the ability to marginalize. However that seems nearly completely lost in today's world of moral relativism and quite acceptance.

I think that's subjective. It's what you feel, and I don't feel the same way. And we have no way of proving a majority of people in this country agree or disagree with you. Significant numbers? Yes. A majority? No.

Of course I am moral relativist who doesn't quietly accept things.

QuoteI'm a firm believer in holding the easy lines. Sure, it may only be an eye sore to have rampant graffiti- but holding the line there makes holding it against more dangerous trends much easier or even possible.

I am a firm believer that there are no easy lines, and that people who hold this to be true should not be allowed to be in charge of me. That doesn't mean I think you're a bad guy, or I am smarter than you. It's just what I feel. Luckily for both of us, neither of us in charge. And generally we're forced, by societies standards, to compromise on most of the important issues.

America may not be the greatest place on earth, or the cleanest or whatever...but it's far from being a child soldier in Chad.

Quote from: Serious PaulFor instance in Michigan most prisoners have an education level of eight grade or less, but not everyone with an eight grade education or less is a prisoner.

I always wondered if the low education and IQs of people in prison reflected not the background of criminals, but the background of criminals who get caught... I mean, when only half of homicides end in a conviction, something is determining who gets locked up and who gets away... it could just be random chance, but...

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... you're not being legally sanctioned, of course.  The "not acceptable" thing here is simply that someone has expressed their opinion that you are wrong, the same way that you called the fantasizer wrong.  Is that correct?

What, exactly, would your ideal scenario here be?  It sounds like what you want is for you to have the right to have the last word:  You dispense your "sick fuck" comment, and nobody's allowed to respond with "No, your intolerance is sick," or whatever.  Have I understood you correctly?

By all means they can tell me that they think I'm intolerant.  But the general tone here hasn't been just standard 'I disagree' but an actual movement to silence critizism of these points of view. Obviously with limited effect, true.

While its not much of a worry given the Pundit's control of the site, et cetera, I am concerned with that trend in general. I am allowed to express my dislike of something, and by extension I can't deny others the right to express their dislike of my dislike. That's a given. However, when they cast their dislike into certain expressions they create an environment of hostility to critisizm of the transgressions. How do I stop a potential movement towards denying me the right to criticize without crossing the line and and circumventing THEIR right to speak up?

The only way I can see that keeps me on the straight and narrow path, if you will forgive the conceit, is to simply call it like I see it, every time, as loudly as possible.

So: They can dislike what I say about their fantasies all they want. But when they suggest that their fantasies deserve special protection by casting my criticisms into socially unacceptable lights... that is, when being the more 'moral' person becomes wrong... though I am loathe to frame it so... then they have crossed a line and deserve a good kicking.

If I'm unclear I blame lack of sleep. I feel like I'm thinking through a fog here...

Quote from: Kyle AaronI always wondered if the low education and IQs of people in prison reflected not the background of criminals, but the background of criminals who get caught... I mean, when only half of homicides end in a conviction, something is determining who gets locked up and who gets away... it could just be random chance, but...

I think you have a point. Based on my experience, and that of my colleagues who work in other areas, and for other departments, much more crime is committed than is ever reported, let alone prosecuted.

Quote from: SpikeIf I'm unclear I blame lack of sleep. I feel like I'm thinking through a fog here...

You're clear enough, and I agree with you, broadly speaking.

IMO what this boils down to is, if you think someone's criticism of something is wrong, then defend the thing itself. Don't resort to a blanket repudiation of all criticism; that's just intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Quote from: SpikeBy all means they can tell me that they think I'm intolerant.  But the general tone here hasn't been just standard 'I disagree' but an actual movement to silence critizism of these points of view. Obviously with limited effect, true.

Oh.  "Tone."  

Okay.  No arguing with your perception of tone.  I don't know what people (other than myself) actually intend, and you don't either, which makes us equally ignorant.  But I can certainly see how the perception of a movement would make you feel persecuted.

Quote from: SpikeHow do I stop a potential movement towards denying me the right to criticize without crossing the line and and circumventing THEIR right to speak up?

I don't think there's a credible threat there that needs stopping.  You're not at any risk of losing your right to criticize.

If you were saying "How do I stop people from deciding that I'm a bad person, and portraying me as such?" then you'd be worrying about a credible threat ... but then the answer would be obvious:  You can't.  Sad, but true.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIMO what this boils down to is, if you think someone's criticism of something is wrong, then defend the thing itself. Don't resort to a blanket repudiation of all criticism; that's just intellectually and morally bankrupt.

But if you want to stick up for people's right to express themselves, surely the only way to do that without being a hypocrite is to stick up for the rights of people with whom you violently disagree, as well as for those with whom you agree.

Sometimes it is important to repudiate unfair criticism and restraint, even if the subject being criticized is one you abhor.  Jerry Fallwell wanted to have Hustler removed from store shelves.  A whole lot of good, tasteful people who thought Hustler was appalling filth stood up to speak against that attempt to control what could be printed, distributed and read ... and a good thing too.

I'm hard pressed to think of those folks as intellectually and morally bankrupt.  Want to make your case?

As far as I'm concerned, by the way, people can criticise anything and everything. Just try to do so with some taste, wit and intelligence and you can tell me whatever you like. I reserve the right to reject your points, of course, but that's civilised discourse.

When I see somebody jumping up and down on the virtual pavement and pointing their virtual fingers and screaming, I tend unfairly to dismiss their points without having heard them.

Quote from: TonyLBBut if you want to stick up for people's right to express themselves, surely the only way to do that without being a hypocrite is to stick up for the rights of people with whom you violently disagree, as well as for those with whom you agree.

Portraying this as a matter of rights is a load of crap.

QuoteJerry Fallwell wanted to have Hustler removed from store shelves.  A whole lot of good, tasteful people who thought Hustler was appalling filth stood up to speak against that attempt to control what could be printed, distributed and read ... and a good thing too.

There's no comparison. Falwell sued Hustler for libel and lost. Organized boycotts aren't censorship. Case closed.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI always wondered if the low education and IQs of people in prison reflected not the background of criminals, but the background of criminals who get caught... I mean, when only half of homicides end in a conviction, something is determining who gets locked up and who gets away... it could just be random chance, but...

I've read an article that suggest that the violent thuggish psychopaths who are easily caught are the ones who can't figure out how to blend in and fly under the radar.  There is also a theory (see this article) that the unsuccessful psychopaths are particularly "insensitive to cues that predicted punishment and capture".

Serious Paul makes an important point when he says that just because a person fits all of the key indicators for a criminal does not mean that they'll be a criminal.  Even many psychopaths behave themselves or they act in ways that may hurt others but are not necessarily criminal or serious.  

Dr. Robert Hare claims that only 1 in 30,000 psychopaths will become a serial killer, though all have to potential to kill without qualms.  Curiously enough, one of the distinctions between Neutral and Evil in the D&D 3.5 alignment system is that Neutral characters "have compunctions against killing the innocent", and it's not uncommon to find articles linking psychopaths and evil, which is how I started looking into it.

Dr. Martha Stout claims that about 4% of the population are psychopaths while hare claims that about 1% of the population are hard core psychopaths, leaving 3% who may cause problems for others but who won't generally become criminal.  One of the keys to training psychopaths to not commit other crimes is to convince them that it's in their own best interest to avoid committing crimes and I suspect that a large number of intelligent psychopaths figure that out on their own.

Okay, I think I can infer what 'squicked' means from its context. It seems to be a synonym for 'disgusted', used by a sub-culture of internet geeks who abhor judgement of any kind and want to be disgusted without appearing to judge the material that disgusted them. Is that about right?

As for the social acceptability of shocking fantasies, people should be free to say what they like. That includes denouncing material they find repugnant and the people who author it. But for some reason, many people who want the freedom to express whatever they want to in public, feel their freedom should come with some sort of immunity to judgement and criticism.

I'm not sure where this sea change in attitudes came from. The growing consumption of shocking content is evidence of jaded or crude tastes - more people who need ever more transgressive images to glut their insatiable appetite for sensation. It's sobering to consider where people who get bored with play-acting sodomizing the corpses of children will have to go next to get that feeling of naughty transgression in their belly. This trend is converging with the maturation of a generation that has been shielded from criticism or judgement its entire lives, and considers anything less than polite toleration of anything they say to be a tyrannical assault on the essence of their person.

Sorry, but if you're adult enough to express those naughty things, then you should be adult enough to take disapproval and condemnation of your words without acting as though you're a child being picked on by a mean teacher.

Quote from: John MorrowDr. Robert Hare claims that only 1 in 30,000 psychopaths will become a serial killer, though all have to potential to kill without qualms.  

I've seen a study which says that a relatively small number of soldiers account for most of the kills in face-to-face combat, and that many of those soldiers are psychopaths. In other words, psychopaths make excellent front-line soldiers. However, they understandably have a tough time fitting in after they're discharged.