Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[downzy]

Thread to discuss various societal, political and cultural trends that have taken hold across Western societies.

There's a lot of analysis and insight into male alienation that's forging cultural and political movements.  One of the leading voices has been Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychology professor.  

Came across this article that covers who Peterson is and why he's become championed by the disillusioned young male:

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life

Some highlights (it's a longish article):

• Jordan Peterson is a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, a widely cited scholar of personality, and the author of what’s currently the No. 1 best-selling nonfiction book on Amazon in the United States. The New York Times’s David Brooks, echoing George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen, calls him “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.”
• Jordan Peterson is also a right-wing internet celebrity who has claimed that feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination,” referred to developing nations as “pits of catastrophe” in a speech to a Dutch far-right group, and, just last Tuesday, threatened the social critic Pankaj Mishra, who’d written a searingly critical essay on Peterson, with physical violence over Twitter. “If you were in my room at the moment, I’d slap you happily” is the direct quote.
• The answer is that Jordan Peterson is tailor-made to our political moment. His reactionary politics and talents as a public speaker combine to be a perfect fit for YouTube and the right-wing media, where videos of conservatives “destroying” weak-minded liberals routinely go viral. Peterson’s denunciations of identity politics and political correctness are standard-issue conservative, but his academic credentials make his pronouncements feel much more authoritative than your replacement-level Fox News commentator.
• Peterson is also particularly appealing to disaffected young men. He’s become a lifestyle guru for men and boys who feel displaced by a world where white male privilege is under attack; his new best-selling book, 12 Rules for Life, is explicitly pitched as a self-help manual, and he speaks emotionally of the impact his work has had on anxious, lost young men.
• Peterson is both a clinical and research psychologist, meaning he sees patients while also doing research. After he received his PhD in psychology from McGill University, one of Canada’s two most prestigious universities, in 1991, he spent two years practicing at McGill’s hospital. After that, he was hired by Harvard, where he taught until 1998. He left when the University of Toronto, Canada’s other leading university, hired him as a full professor and a practicing clinician.
• There are now innumerable videos of Peterson arguing with various liberals and leftists on YouTube, with titles like “Leftist Host SNAPS At Jordan Peterson, Instantly Regrets It.” They have millions of views and have led to a massive surge in donations to Peterson’s personal account on the crowdfunding site Patreon. By September of last year, donations on the platform totaled about $62,000 a month.
• Peterson’s stellar academic credentials act as a sort of legitimizing device, a way of setting up his authority on politics and making his denunciations of “leftist ideologues” more credible and attractive to his fans. Combine his undeniable talents as a public speaker and debater with his ability to use YouTube to reach audiences around the world and you get a right-wing celebrity who has transcended Canada and become a global reactionary star.
• Peterson uses the term postmodernism fairly loosely, but he’s referring to, roughly speaking, French philosophers working in the middle of the 20th century, most prominently Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault.  “How about if we don’t say ‘working-class capitalists’ we say ‘oppressor/oppressed?’” he says, summarizing the alleged postmodern line of thinking. “We’ll just think about all of the other ways people are oppressed, and all the other ways that people are oppressors, and we’ll play the same damn game under a new guise.”  “The Marxists aren’t just wrong: They’re wrong, murderous, and genocidal,” he says. “The postmodernists don’t just get to just come along an adopt Marxism as a matter of sleight of hand because their Marxist theory didn’t work out and they needed a rationalization, because it’s too dangerous — it’s too dangerous to the rest of us.”
• Actual experts on postmodernism note that the thinkers Peterson likes to cite were often quite critical of Marxism. His reading of these thinkers, as the social critic Shuja Haider points out, is shallow and deeply uncharitable. “Peterson’s fantasy of neo-Marxist wolves in postmodern sheep’s clothing has little bearing on actual debates in 20th-century political theory,” Haider concludes.  “Peterson’s understanding of Marxism and postmodernism is very vulgar,” Harrison Fluss, an editor at the Marxist journal Historical Materialism, tells me. “He connects the two in [an] overarching conspiracy theory.”
• Peterson’s framework serves as a justification for dismissing the idea of any kind of privilege — white, male, or otherwise — as a tool used by closet Marxists to manipulate you. He states this explicitly, calling it a “Marxist lie” designed to enable the Marxist-postmodernist effort to seize control of the state.
• This theory elevates battles over political correctness and free speech into existential struggles over Western society. He is very literally arguing that if the “postmodernists” win, if people start using others’ chosen pronouns, we’re one step closer to modern gulags.  Peterson’s position helps claim the mantle of “facts” and “reason” for the anti-PC right. Because postmodern theorists are skeptical about the notion of an entirely objective reality, Peterson argues, the entire project of “identity politics” is grounded in an irrational rejection of logic and discussion. It’s not only right to reject identity politics; it’s a sign of irrationality not to.
• These arguments are catnip for a very specific kind of young white man — Peterson himself said in his Channel 4 interview that 80 percent of his YouTube audience is male. These young men are upset about the erosion of white male privilege, about the need to compete with women and minorities for jobs and spots at top universities, and they are angry about the way feminists and racial justice activists describe society.  In Peterson, they found someone telling them that their grievances are not only justified but, in fact, important: that they have picked up on a secret threat to society writ large, and that they are its first victims. Peterson is drawing on a deep well: This kind of anger about the declining social status of white men is incredibly common across the Western world today, and finds a comfortable home in reactionary political movements on both sides of the Atlantic.
• “The underlying mass-appeal of [Peterson] is that he gives white men permission to stop pretending that they care about other people’s grievances,” writes Jesse Brown, host of the Canadaland podcast and a longtime Peterson watcher. “He tells his fans that these so-called marginalized people are not really victims at all but are in fact aggressors, enemies, who must be shut down.”
• Peterson became more than just an internet celebrity on January 23, 2018. That’s when his book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, was published by Random House Canada — and skyrocketed to the top of international best-seller lists. It was after this book’s publication, and the following press tour, that David Brooks pronounced him the world’s most influential public intellectual.
• Peterson has inextricably intertwined his self-help approach with a kind of reactionary politics that validates white, straight, and cisgender men at the expense of everyone else. He gives them a sense of purpose by, in part, tearing other people down — by insisting that the world can and should revolve around them and their problems.  This painful contrast is on display later in that very interview, in which he explicitly argues that concern for sexism is to blame for the plight of the West’s young men.  “We’re so stupid. We’re alienating young men. We’re telling them that they’re patriarchal oppressors and denizens of rape culture,” he says. “It’s awful. It’s so destructive. It’s so unnecessary. And it’s so sad.”  The empathy that he displays for men and boys in his BBC interview and 12 Rules for Life is touching. The problem is that he can’t seem to extend it to anyone else.

[Gordon Comstock]

When our PM is an SJW mimbo, someone like Peterson is a breathe of fresh air. I'm not surprised you'd post a Vox article about him though.

[downzy]

28 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

When our PM is an SJW mimbo, someone like Peterson is a breathe of fresh air. I'm not surprised you'd post a Vox article about him though.

What about the article you disagree with?  Not the source, the article itself.  

[Gordon Comstock]

32 minutes ago, downzy said:

What about the article you disagree with?  Not the source, the article itself.  

The whole thing is off-base, that last bullet point especially. I've listened to hours of the guy's talks or interviews, and that article paints a very narrow perspective of Peterson.

Some of his biggest talking points are around 'compelled speech' and 'equality of outcome', and he's very logical with his arguments. But the article doesn't give his fully explained opinions, just some 'controversial quotes'. It's like they watched the interview he did with Vice and tried to put that tone into an article.

What are your thoughts on compelled speech/C16, and equality of outcome? 

[downzy]

14 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@downzy Do you like/agree with political correctness?

Depends on how you define political correctness.  

Quote

It describes white men as misguided idiots ignorantly resisting particularly righteous and noble social trends because they are insecure pussies about their place in the universe and don't want to allow women and minorities to compete with them in the workforce... lolwut?

No it doesn't.  Unless you can find in the article where it describes all white men as idiots.  I do think that many white men are responding to changing social norms with expected anger, frustration, and bitterness.

Quote

The reason why modern day feminism is stupid is simply because they are stupid...

 That's some fine logic you're employing there.

Quote

On this very forum I've been attacked and labelled as a sexist, misogynistic, rape-apologist because I refused to accept some moron's insane statistics that claimed (very conservatively) over 760,000,000 women alive today have all been raped.

Two issues there.  First, you shouldn't be called such things if you can provide reasons for why you cast doubt on that claim.  But if you simply refuse to accept evidence put forward without disqualifying the evidence or providing your own, then you might want to ask why you innately reject such a supposition.  One of the problems with rape statistics is that rape can be lumped in with sexual violence and reporting differs from country to country.  So is it possible for a significant number of women on this planet have been raped?  Sure.  It's reported that one-quarter of American women have been the victims of sexual assault.  That's roughly 31.5 million women.  The U.S. represents 3 percent of the planet's population.  So do the math.  Is it possible?  Sure.  But can we know with absolute certainty, well, again, not really and it depends on your definition of sexual assault.

Quote

These parts of society seem to be replacing humour, intelligence, communication, honesty, integrity, compassion, logic and reason with conformity, weakness and stupidity.

Really?  Have you been a comedy club these days?  I go regularly and often see comedians rip into women, visible minorities, disabled, homosexuals, transexuals, etc.  I see some people complaining about Chapelle's jokes on trans individuals, but that didn't seem to stop him winning a grammy this year for the same jokes.

Anyway, a lot of your response doesn't speak much to the points raised in the article.

[Graeme]

12 minutes ago, downzy said:

Depends on how you define political correctness.  

About 90% of the time, political correctness can be defined as "not being a cunt to other people". 

[downzy]

29 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

The whole thing is off-base, that last bullet point especially. I've listened to hours of the guy's talks or interviews, and that article paints a very narrow perspective of Peterson.

Some of his biggest talking points are around 'compelled speech' and 'equality of outcome', and he's very logical with his arguments. But the article doesn't give his fully explained opinions, just some 'controversial quotes'. It's like they watched the interview he did with Vice and tried to put that tone into an article.

What are your thoughts on compelled speech/C16, and equality of outcome? 

Fair enough.  Perhaps some of the summary points I've included do the article a disservice by omitting some of the context.

I'd be curious if Peterson takes exception to the push to stop using the n-word.  Isn't demanding the end of using that word an example of compelled speech? 

I would need to hear examples of equality of outcome.  I'm supportive of equality of opportunity, as amorphous as that might be.

As for C16, I'm fine with it.  You do realize it's limited to government employees, right?  No one is going to come and arrest or fine you because you call a trans person by their previous gender in a private conversation.  Want a job with the government?  Well, then step up to the 21st century, just like those in the 20th century were required to curtail racial or sexual slurs while working for the government.    

Just now, Graeme said:

About 90% of the time, political correctness can be defined as "not being a cunt to other people". 

Yep.

I do think there are examples and instances of people taking things too far.  

But for the most part, it's simply a matter of respect for others who look or act a little differently than oneself.

[Ace Spade]

55 minutes ago, downzy said:

Fair enough.  Perhaps some of the summary points I've included do the article a disservice by omitting some of the context.

I'd be curious if Peterson takes exception to the push to stop using the n-word.  Isn't demanding the end of using that word an example of compelled speech? 

I would need to hear examples of equality of outcome.  I'm supportive of equality of opportunity, as amorphous as that might be.

As for C16, I'm fine with it.  You do realize it's limited to government employees, right?  No one is going to come and arrest or fine you because you call a trans person by their previous gender in a private conversation.  Want a job with the government?  Well, then step up to the 21st century, just like those in the 20th century were required to curtail racial or sexual slurs while working for the government.    

Yep.

I do think there are examples and instances of people taking things too far.  

But for the most part, it's simply a matter of respect for others who look or act a little differently than oneself.

Yet the PC crowd can't seem accept the opinion of anyone but themselves. De platforming, YouTube videos being taken down, people losing their jobs over "wrong" speech, actual "hate speech" laws. They even just arrested a man in England for making a "Hitler pug" satire video...Seems almost totalitarian.

 

[DieselDaisy]

It is one of my biggest hates, political correctness, but I'm too engulfed with the Australian cheating scandal right now to get involved in any other serious debating. 

[Len Cnut]

There is a valid argument to be had about political correctness but the problem is it gets sort of commandered by a bunch of UKIPers and right wing chappies who think it basically think the entire thing is about the right to call a black man a n!gger on the street when you walk past him. 

[action]

When we speak about numbers like "90%", "1/2" etc..., like we have access to a super computer collecting data on the mindsets of the whole world population (quite a feat. i dont even know myself!) it's always good to have some healthy self-relativism. take a step back, and use the brain god gave you. it's not an easy thing to do, and i'm the first the admit so. wise people are few and far between.

 

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Honestly, I tend to think of people like that as swamp people who are universally hated. I think I'm a bit sheltered from that sort of thing. Off the top of my head the only racist I can think of ever encountering was an old bitch who looked at me assuming I was part of the club and started ranting about interracial marriage in front of a Maori guy. I gave that bitch a bollocking lol...pretty tamely though she was like 75.

I couldn't give a fuck about it to be honest.  I mean obviously its a terrible thing but I'm not really someone with a fire in my belly about this kinda stuff, fuck em, their funeral not mine. 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I wish I cared as little as you do tbh. (not sarcasm)

I worry about shit too much. It's exhausting.

Thats basically it, the exhausting bit is why you stop.  And like...I dunno, I just have a low tolerance for repetition, and its just everywhere now 'racism racism racism', is this racist, is that racist, I mean don't get me wrong, its not to be ignored or anything but...I'd just rather not be involved.  There's something to be said about being on the outside looking in and not...investing yourself in things all the time.  Its probably good that everybody doesn't think like that but the way I see it i got three score and ten years on this earth, there's gotta be something more interesting to be obssessing about, I don't think its the end of the world if someone does or says or thinks something racist, its just another fuckin' stupid thought out of the billions of possible ones a human being can have.

[action]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Thats basically it, the exhausting bit is why you stop.  And like...I dunno, I just have a low tolerance for repetition, and its just everywhere now 'racism racism racism', is this racist, is that racist, I mean don't get me wrong, its not to be ignored or anything but...I'd just rather not be involved.  There's something to be said about being on the outside looking in and not...investing yourself in things all the time.  Its probably good that everybody doesn't think like that but the way I see it i got three score and ten years on this earth, there's gotta be something more interesting to be obssessing about, I don't think its the end of the world if someone does or says or thinks something racist, its just another fuckin' stupid thought out of the billions of possible ones a human being can have.

we all need to be more like Izzy

[Len Cnut]

You don't require a placard or to be part of some kind of debate or some sort of obssessive interest in combing over history and culture trying to weed out things that you might be able to fuckin' attach to racism in some kind of vague six degrees of seperation way, just shut your fuckin' mouth and go about your life treating people right, thats fighting racism as much as waving your willy about in some debate tryna prove how right on you are.

[Gracii Guns]

[soon]

I'll say this - as a poor, male in Canada if anyone is going to draw me to the dark side its Lauren Southern. 

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, soon said:

I'll say this - as a poor, male in Canada if anyone is going to draw me to the dark side its Lauren Southern. 

 

Quote

 in which she distributed flyers saying "Allah is a Gay God" in the English town of Luton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern#cite_note-40

Haha. I think Len is from Luton.

[Len Cnut]

17 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Christ you're old. I think that's my problem tbh. I haven't yet grown as jaded and shriveled as you, old man.

I've been like this all my life young man   When you grow up idolizing Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten you're not really imbued with an optimstic outlook on life   Thats why punk was such a beautiful thing, the older I get the more life corroborates its fundamental lessons.  Truly, it is all a load of bollocks.

[AtariLegend]

7 hours ago, Ace Spade said:

They even just arrested a man in England for making a "Hitler pug" satire video...Seems almost totalitarian.

You mean a guy that appears in Tommy Robinson videoes rants about political correctness and gassing the Jews?

Yeah, very funny.

Edited March 27, 2018 by AtariLegend
Appalling spelling errors8

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

You mean a guy that appears in Tommy Robinson views rants about political correctness and gassing the Jews?

Yeah, very fun.

Oh he was one of them?  Oh.

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

I used to have that exact same haircut.  In fact, and I'm fuckin' embarassed to admit this, the exact same padlock and chain thats round his neck.  And by exact I mean the very fuckin' same brand, their called Rabbit padlocks and they have a big R on em   To the layman its not really much of a reference point but it meant something to me   Ahh them halcyon days standing on street  corners with cans of tramps piss, looking bored and spitting

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

1. Well, can you explain how you define it? In my mind political correctness is extreme, bureaucratic, oppressive, micromanaging to a damaging degree, destroying critical thinking, debate, freedom of speech etc.

This standard definition fits the bill: "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

Notice how the definition says "considered as taken to extremes."  It does not say "taken to extremes."  I think that's where the major source of the problem lies.  It would seem that a growing number of people feel the attempt to avoid expression or actions that exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of socially disadvantaged people has gone to extremes.  The veracity and intensity of this sentiment has morphed into the notion that the concept of socially disadvantaged or discriminated is a myth or shouldn't be considered when designing policy or in social engagement.  This denial or diminishing of disadvantaged or discrimination is what, at least to me, is the heart of what Peterson riles against.  

I'm sure you would agree that not all forms or expressions of political correctness are extreme and damage critical thinking or censure debate and freedom of speech?   

Quote

2. I didn't intend to try and say the article describes all white men as idiots. By white men I just meant the young white men demographic they're talking about. My fault for not being specific.

Again, I would be careful in how you're categorizing or understanding how the article addresses Peterson's supporters.  Yes, it is a fact that most of Peterson's supporters are white men, but the article doesn't suppose that all white men are inclined to agree with him.  An analogy could be used with the GNR fanbase.  In the 80s and 90s, most of GNR's fanbase in North America and Europe were white men (lesser degree today).  That doesn't mean that all white men are GNR fans or that we can assume that the white male demographic are GNR fans.  The same logic applies to the alt-right and race/gender grievances against movements towards greater respect for non-white and male individuals and groups.  I'm a white man and I know many of other white men who do not subscribe to Peterson's worldview and as such the criticism or analysis within the article of Peterson and his supporters would not apply to me.   

Quote

3. A spade's a spade. You expect me to waste my energy being academic and intellectual when describing these idiots saying/doing idiotic things? However, I suppose if I indulge myself with being blunt all the time I bring it on myself to an extent and it's probably fair for you to call me out on being lazy/brutish or whatever.

Sorry, but that's some very lazy and unserious commentary you've got going there.  Fine to be blunt, many consider my conversational style antagonistic and blunt as well.  But come on, proving the stupidity of people you disagreeing by saying they're stupid is circular logic at its most bare.  There are examples of progressively minded individuals taking things too far, but that doesn't invalidate efforts to identify and help bridge  disenfranchised groups and individuals.  It reminds me of when people would disparage the civil rights movement due to race riots or the few indefensible ramblings of some of the movement's most nefarious actors.  

Quote

4. Myself and others did provide reasons and we dismantled their claims through argument/debate. They flip-flopped between saying over 1/2, over 1/3, over 1/4 of all the women on the entire planet are raped. Sorry, but that's mentally unbalanced. However, I wasted my time reading some of their statistics for the sake of fairness and low and behold...it was bullshit. They were claiming things like if a college girl gets drunk at a party and fucks a drunk college guy...if she regrets it the next morning - that counts as rape. Mate, that's fucking mental. Ironically, they're actually infantilizing women and turning them into helpless fools with no responsibility for their own actions.

5. Here's the thing, if that many women are sexually assaulted...isn't that horrific enough? Why the need for the insane hyperbole "HALF OF ALL WOMEN ON THE PLANET ARE RAPED!"? I have reached the conclusion that it is because they don't really care that much about women. They don't care at all about men. What they care about is playing the victim/getting attention and having a topic to get self-righteous about. All this goes far beyond me or other white men being offended and irritated - it undermines feminism(the proper real kind) because actual bigots/retards will read their bullshit and then have ammo to clumsily disregard all women's issues.

I think both sides are missing the point and instead of agreeing on the large scale problem of sexual assault that's largely targeted towards women you bicker about insignificant specifics.  Does it really matter if it's one quarter or one half of the female population?  Regardless of whatever statistic you source, the one constant amongst them all is that the problem is horrific and widespread.  To use a GNR example, people use to argue how many copies of Chinese Democracy sold, whether it be two million or five million.  In the end, what does it really matter if the album sold in the millions?  Again, it feels like you're picking on this one specific to undermine the very real and undeniable plague that is sexual violence against women.  Just because there are women out there potentially speaking hyperbolically about the extent of sexual violence (since the problem is huge regardless of what metrics you use) should in no way undermine the core tenets of feminism.  That's just crazy.  Essentially what you're saying here is that you're less likely to support the concept of equality amongst men and women because there are people out there who might inflate rape numbers?  

Quote

If that's what it is 90% of the time then 90% of the time no sane/decent person would have issue with it.

And that's the problem.  People who take issue and seem to have a visceral response to political correctness seem obsessed with the ten percent and act like it's the ninety percent.  Political correctness manifests itself in a myriad of ways, most of them I would argue beneficial overall to the society at large.  I do agree that there are some who take things too far, become intransigent, and loose perspective.  But they aren't the majority.  And I would not consider members of the trans community to be apart of the lunatic fringe of the political correctness lot.  They're simply asking others to refer to them with their chosen gender.  What does it really matter to the other person.  What is the cost in calling someone a she if she was originally born a man?  Do I think people in the trans community can take things a bit too far?  Sure.  Watch Ricky Gervais latest standup on Netflix.  He does a good job of rounding off the edges of some of the discussion and explains why laughing about the issue isn't the same as disrespecting trans individuals.  I think we should be able to laugh about everything so long as it's in the right context and does not come from a place of malice or ill will.  

[downzy]

8 hours ago, Ace Spade said:

Yet the PC crowd can't seem accept the opinion of anyone but themselves. De platforming, YouTube videos being taken down, people losing their jobs over "wrong" speech, actual "hate speech" laws. They even just arrested a man in England for making a "Hitler pug" satire video...Seems almost totalitarian.

I agree, some of it can be taken a little too far.  The Hitler pug is definitely an example of satire, even if it's in bad taste and kind of dumb.  But a crime, that's getting a little nuts.  

But again, i would be careful in lumping everyone into one cohesive group.  I consider myself a supporter of political correctness when applied appropriately.  I accept that others have opinions that differ than my own and willing to engage in a discussion about said differences (part of the reason why I started this thread).  But that doesn't mean I agree with all efforts to curb all speech deemed offensive or hurtful.  Again, depends on context and intent.  

I do agree that corporations and public employers have the right to fire employees based on both public and private speech.  That's generally the intent of recent laws that seek to give grounds to employers for terminating employees who attempt to hurt or disparage others.  You and I should have a right say what we want, but the freedom of speech also comes with consequences.  

[Len Cnut]

Quote

 But that doesn't mean I agree with all efforts to curb all speech deemed offensive or hurtful.

I dunno man, I think free speech should be just that, complete and total.  I don't think there's such a thing as speech thats hurtful in that it, in and of itself, can do damage.  Its people who act on it that do the damage, as in go out and do some violent shit.  Other than that, shit, if we live in a hateful world then there's got to be a reason for that and you don't work anything out by supressing points of views, you kinda empower them actually, by acting like they're something to be afraid of when really the solution is to hear everybody out.  You don't have to agree but you can't solve a problem by hiding from it. 

There's nothing new under the sun and there's nothing under the sun that we should be afraid of to where we can't approach it with reason and tackle it sensibly.  Censorship, repression, that shit is pointless.  I think part of this has to do with an elite in society that deem the rest of or a large portion of society and thick and also potentially dangerous...but hey if thats what we are as a species then thats what we are, its got to be dealt with.

I think, personally, nothing should supercede freedom of speech, freedom of expression...even if whats being expressed is ugly.  Dialogue is the road to solutions, there is no such thing as a righteous monologue in this context, where one voice gets the deciding vote on what should or shouldn't be put out there.