if there is nothing wrong in voicing beliefs openly why you deny that right to Savage?
I never denied that right to Savage. The fact of voicing the beliefs is fine, however the content of that voicing, especially in the context - is not. His freedom of speech of course includes the right to call the Bible bullshit and the Christians pansy asses. However if he is doing it to the students while he's in position of authority, with clear intent to hurt them - and he is doing so while presenting himself as anti-bullying activist - he is a jerk and a hypocrite. Jerks and hypocrites have freedom of speech too, and that's great - that's how we discover who they are. Then we call them out for what they are.
It's either or: either he insulted them personally or he insulted their faith (but not them)
He did both. First he insulted their faith (mind you - not criticized, not questioned, but plainly insulted), and when the students refused to continue listening to him, he proceeded to insult them personally, clearly thinking they have some obligation to listen to his insults. You clearly think so too, since you say the mere act of refusing to listen to Savage's insults somehow incriminates the students. It does not. Everybody has the right to speak freely, but nobody has the right to have others to listen to them if they don't want to. If Savage stopped by insulting just Christianity, it would be marginally fine - I still don't think anti-bullying forum is the right place to spread any kind of group animosity, either Christian or anti-Christian, but at least we could say he's trying to open their minds and not to hurt them. However what happened next clearly proved the message was nothing but hate and contempt, on group label basis. This is despicable, and unfortunately not very rare among self-proclaimed promoters of tolerance and good manners on the left.
As to your jewish example let me ask you: is it OK to attack random atheist because some commie murderers happened to be ones
No it is not. However as none of the people in question ever did that, as far as I know, I do not see how this is relevant. "'They' do it too" is not a valid excuse.
it is not 'they do it, too". it is "they did it in the first place, and now they know how it feels on receiving end". I already said how it is relevant.
I am sure there were other Christians in this audience besides those 10 "victims". however, not all of them got up and made a show of indignation by walking out. that's the type of behavior I, as an atheist, am often advised to assume: do not take insults against atheists personally, if you do, you incriminate yourself and in what atheists are being accused of. Note I am not saying this is a reasonable or even logical advise - but that's what i often hear from religious people.
it's a 2-way street. be it jewish-christian, christian-gay, all confessions-vs-atheist situations; it's always helpful to remember that (intrinsically libertarian) principle -do not do anything to others that oyu don't want them to do to you
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I never denied that right to Savage. The fact of voicing the beliefs is fine, however the content of that voicing, especially in the context - is not. His freedom of speech of course includes the right to call the Bible bullshit and the Christians pansy asses. However if he is doing it to the students while he's in position of authority, with clear intent to hurt them - and he is doing so while presenting himself as anti-bullying activist - he is a jerk and a hypocrite. Jerks and hypocrites have freedom of speech too, and that's great - that's how we discover who they are. Then we call them out for what they are.
It's either or: either he insulted them personally or he insulted their faith (but not them)
He did both. First he insulted their faith (mind you - not criticized, not questioned, but plainly insulted), and when the students refused to continue listening to him, he proceeded to insult them personally, clearly thinking they have some obligation to listen to his insults. You clearly think so too, since you say the mere act of refusing to listen to Savage's insults somehow incriminates the students. It does not. Everybody has the right to speak freely, but nobody has the right to have others to listen to them if they don't want to.
If Savage stopped by insulting just Christianity, it would be marginally fine - I still don't think anti-bullying forum is the right place to spread any kind of group animosity, either Christian or anti-Christian, but at least we could say he's trying to open their minds and not to hurt them. However what happened next clearly proved the message was nothing but hate and contempt, on group label basis. This is despicable, and unfortunately not very rare among self-proclaimed promoters of tolerance and good manners on the left.
As to your jewish example let me ask you: is it OK to attack random atheist because some commie murderers happened to be ones
No it is not. However as none of the people in question ever did that, as far as I know, I do not see how this is relevant. "'They' do it too" is not a valid excuse.
no subject
it is not 'they do it, too".
it is "they did it in the first place, and now they know how it feels on receiving end".
I already said how it is relevant.
I am sure there were other Christians in this audience besides those 10 "victims". however, not all of them got up and made a show of indignation by walking out. that's the type of behavior I, as an atheist, am often advised to assume: do not take insults against atheists personally, if you do, you incriminate yourself and in what atheists are being accused of. Note I am not saying this is a reasonable or even logical advise - but that's what i often hear from religious people.
it's a 2-way street.
be it jewish-christian, christian-gay, all confessions-vs-atheist situations; it's always helpful to remember that (intrinsically libertarian) principle -do not do anything to others that oyu don't want them to do to you