Being offended.

The only "ideology" involved is the understanding that you can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Businesses have the sense not to support people like Carlson who offend people.

Hi Larni! Hope all's going well I have a quick question.
I don't have children (and, really, no plans to ever have children.)Could you offer me a quick example so that I can understand your point better?I can start one off:Let's say we have a teenage daughter who, say... didn't clean her room.What sort of response would be "negative reinforcement" vs. one that's a "punishment."
(To be clear... I'm not looking for a "correct response from a parent" ... just looking to identify the difference between the two categories.)Would spanking her be a punishment?
Would sending her to her room be a punishment or negative reinforcement?
Would taking away her phone be a punishment or negative reinforcement?
Would have a "strong talk" with her be negative reinforcement?It seems to me that, taken literally, all of those responses can fall into both categories.
I'm just wondering which is which and where the line is drawn (if it actually is a line, even...)

quote:

---

Yes it's possible to use freedom of speech in the service of tyranny, that may be the ultimate reason America will collapse and become just another third world cesspool governed by a murdering Antifa general.

---

What on Earth are you ranting about? Who is using free speech in the service of tyranny?

Huh... I tried to look it up on my own and it is a very subtle concept (if what I was looking at is even accurate): Positive/Negative Reinforcement and Positive/Negative PunishmentAfter reading this, my guess is:Example (again) - A teenage girl does not clean her room.Saying "I'm going to take your phone away for the rest of the day because you didn't clean your room." and taking her phone away - negative punishment.
Saying "You can have your phone back after you clean your room." and taking her phone away - negative reinforcement.The difference is that with the punishment - the child only has to "survive" the punishment in order to return to normal.
However, with the reinforcement - the child only has to "perform the desired duty" in order to return to normal.I think I can understand that.

This could have been an interesting discussion if the extreemist Christians hadn't made a bloody shambles of the argument, one by being illiterately vague the other by ranting yet again about gays and Muslims.Imo there *are* things to concern us about the suppression of speech that might be taken as offensive by a group of people. The two most damaging examples I can think of are the refusal to take action against serious crimes by mostly Pakistani men against young white girls that have been uncovered lately in several of our Northern towns, Rotherham being the worst example.

quote:

---

The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gendercontemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources.[25][26][8]

---

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - WikipediaThe second was ignoring and silencing of the growing unrest in some parts of our country caused by large numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe. The result of that was the disaterous referendum decision. (There are analogues of this in many European countries and in the US where the rising anger of the working class was also ignored and allowed the disgusting Trump to pretend to be their champion.Across much of the Western world there's an undercurrent of nationalism and kick-back because a lot of people feel that their opinions have not been allowed to be said, let alone heard. In the Rotherham and imigration cases it was fear of being accused a racist if those fears were mentioned. Instead of being dealt with properly in the open, people were literally shut up. Now we have to deal with the consequences.The supression of speech for seemingly good reasons - no matter how abhorrent and offensive to the liberal, literate classes - almost always ends badly.

Absolutely.There's lots to said for public movements as well.Like the #MeToo movement.
-A greatly needed movement that is incredibly important in moving society closer to one where "all people" are treated equally.
-But certain minor... enthusiastic... pushers of this group use it to see if they can "cause a big reaction (like loss of a job)" where none (or possibly only a much weaker reaction) is required.Such over-bearing 'headline-seekers' seem to exist for a lot of significant movements.
I think they are partly a necessity in attempting to "find where the line should really be" and also helpful in reminding us all to use our reason and thinking-caps whenever a situation arises. Blind-responses are rarely a good thing, regardless of the cause they are attached to.And, of course, the system of respecting-others that already exists already covers how to deal with such things.Some group abusing a movement one way or another?
It's quite possible (and easy) to not-respect this particular group while still fully-respecting the movement as a whole - or any other group that's actually using the movement to do what the movement should be doing.It all usually ends up about right in the end.
But it wouldn't hurt to have a public reminder every now and then to think before we jump to a conclusion.
The media has a tough-hand to play in this regard... What do they report? When do they report? How should it be reported?
And it's also easy for advertising/personal usage payments to go towards the ones who handle it well, and shy away from those who handle it poorly.
Self-correcting, again. I just sometimes wish it was faster

And so it is. Right here. Today.Remember "free speech" is an ideological/legal constraint on government action against social and self-expression either verbal or symbolic. At least in the USofA the government cannot seek to punish anyone for their speech (except in strict highly specified cases where bodily injury is immanent). This applies to all levels of governance from federal thru the local school board.This legal restriction DOES NOT apply to individuals, corporations, social groups or anyone, anything, outside the circles of government. These entities, us, are free to protest, jeer, shout down, interfere, interrupt, disrupt or just plain make a complete asshole display of displeasure towards the speaker whomever, where ever, when ever we so choose, without the interference of ANY governing body (again, legally constrained when harm is immanent).We hear often how right-wing demagogues are so hounded on a school campus that they cannot give their talk and are thus denied their "right to free speech".I submit that this IS the right of free speech in action. Free from government interference but with the full force of social opposition in all its glaring glory. You have a right to speak without being thrown in jail. You have no right to speak free from social backlash and opposition, even disruptive opposition. You have every right to give offence and to take offence and to express yourself accordingly, individually or in a group, always mindful that opposition, often loud and disruptive, may be right around the corner.PC is a social movement counseling personal and group restraint on being everything from deliberately nasty/violent/bigoted to unknowingly insensitive towards each other. This is most often applied to identified groups that share some point of mutual identity that some other groups find vehemently objectionable such as LGBT, Native Americans, African Americans, gingers and the list grows longer.PC is nothing more than "do unto others ..." If that offends someone, so be it.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I'm coming into the middle of a conversation that I haven't been following and so may be completely out of context, but anyway: This positive/negative punishment thing seems like nonsense to me, with no difference between them except in the approach taken to describing them. One example of positive punishment is "A child touches a hot stove (behavior) and feels pain (aversive stimulus)," but it could as easily be described as "A child touches a hot stove (behavior) and no longer has a pain-free finger (reinforcing stimulus removed)."In the same way, one example of negative punishment is "A child kicks a peer (behavior), and is removed from his/her favorite activity (reinforcing stimulus removed)," but it could as easily be described as "A child kicks a peer (behavior), and is made to sit and watch other children have fun (aversive stimulus)."Every few years new fads arise how best to raise children. They deserve as much attention as horoscopes. A long while back there was a book called All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. The main point I took from it is that most of the answers to life's problems are based on simple principles we're already very familiar with.Apologies if I'm out of context, just ignore.--Percy

..but it is you that claims that God ordered genocide and public stonings. As you claim that as God gave the command it must be good. Therefore, although I know you don't, others could claim that genocide would be the right approach to deal with Islamic populations. The circumstances are similar so the best solution would be to go drop bombs on them, or as individuals go carry out a terrorist act in Islamic territories.Again, anyone can become a terrorist.

Well duh. Just don't go making laws about your idea of bigotry. I already have. And there always will be. Racism was on decline from the 70s until Obama took office. It's hardly the problem it was, and the people fighting against it are pussies compared to fighting for it back when it wasn't popular to do so. I know because I have fought against it my whole life. Being against racism in the 70s and 80s was a lot different than today. It's a joke what I see today. Hardly worth the press it gets. I do. I do. Stop using it as some kind of justification. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

You really didn't address any of my points with fact. You are just name calling, what you do best and why you aren't taken seriously by me.

And again.

It's becoming more and more of a conversation. This is NBC...https://www.google.com/...w.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna832246

For me it's not about "toughening up". I will fight to keep my rights, and not have other people like Paulk tell me what is this is or that with his subjective commentary. I guess Antifa smashing heads in the street over "hate speech" or "white supremacists marches" don't qualify as meat? When was the last time we even saw a white supremacists march? Wtf?150 posts and I have nothing? You have your head in the sand bro?

Charlottesville was about 15 months ago, and it was a white supremacist who actually killed someone there. I'm sure there have been others since.