Why the change in direction? now you want to know if we approve of snitches?
I thought the question had to do with our reaction to information that had been revealed.
Unh unh. Not playing.
i think this is the particular issue In which case, while it likely wasn't meant for broadcast, I'll bet it was made to be shared. Buncha fools.
I'm missing context here, re the canadian episode/situation, perhaps from my own sloppiness.. was reacting to the question. Will reread.
The Girl has just posted the context . . . i was responding to what an MP said in the Commons today, specifically his remark that that was " . . . not something which should be said in public, should not be said in private." I think private speech is not something which anyone else has a right to censor, and i think that private speech should remain private, barring criminal conspiracy.
And by the way, i left the context out, because the content of the video referred to was not my point, the remark of the MP was my point. Given that this was all revealed due to a video tape, i'd say it ceased to be private speech as soon as someone picked up the video camera and turned it on.
I don't understand, Set. If someone said "your nose shouldn't be picked in public, and you shouldn't pick it in private, either" how would that connote public knowledge of the private nose-picking?
Perhaps what the MP meant was that such language should never be used by anyone, not that he wished to publicize or to censor his rival's actual private speech.
Or am I altogether off base? I didn't check the context...
I'll still say, yes, of course, but will reread the thread and the specific posts.. I do get going on my own horse through the garden at times (reference to Cutter's Way). Will recheck.
Well, Wy, once again, the "context" is not the point, but since people seem to think it is: a gentleman who is a parliamentary secretary (i originally identified him wrongly as an MP), which is equivalent to an Assistant Secretary in an American executive department, was among several people on a 1991 video tape making truly unwise statements. In his case, he made disparaging remarks about homosexuals. He apologized (and rather abjectly) today. Another MP rose to condemn what he had said, and to state that such remarks should not be make publicly, and such things should not be said in private.
I was not referring to the "context" incident, so telling you about all of that does not provide context. The only matter i am interested in is whether or not anyone has the right to say what one can or cannot say in private.
Setanta wrote:
I was not referring to the "context" incident, so telling you about all of that does not provide context. The only matter i am interested in is whether or not anyone has the right to say what one can or cannot say in private.
I think what people are referring to was the context of the latter comment, not the original vidoetaped comment.
It can be taken in any of several ways. He could be expressing his opinion of what he finds to be morally acceptable for himself in both public or private speech or he could be referring to what should be legally allowed for anyone.
But yes, you have the the right to say what ever you'd care to say in private and I have an equeal right to express my opinions. What I don't have is any standing to force you to bend to my will and abide by my moral standards.
I fear, in an abstract sort of way, the society we live in. One is constantly faced with strictures people would like to impose upon us. The Political Rectitude Police want to control not just public behavior or speech, but private behavior or speech, and that makes them thought police. And there is a Political Rectitude Police on the right as much as on the left--try making any case for gun control legislation, or suggesting any solution to illegal immigration which isn't complete exclusion (yeah, right, you're gonna do that) or deportation.
The religious battle to force their beliefs on us, the Diet Nazis battle to control what we can and can't eat (the rather hefty young lady--dress size 16--who became Miss Surrey has been unrelentingly attacked in the press in England)--it all seems so endless to me.
I fear for our eventual right to speak our minds, even in private. Orwell's 1984 was a satiric excoriation of socialism--what he didn't see is that the thought police could just as easily arise in a "free" society of capitalist and alleged democrats.
I wouldn't use the word "fear" but I empathize with your frustrations. I do think it is a minority of the overall population that pushes these sorts of things but they are there - and they are much louder on the 'net than other mediums but I tend to think that it is all part of a cyclical pattern in which the net gain over time is a big fat zero.
In the day of instant information all discussions seem to end up with far extremes totally polarized and screaming about the end of time or the downfall of mankind using slippery-slope arguments.
Nah. I reacted to the original question and then forgot when I saw posts that confused me about being able to comment.
I'll go with my original reaction, and murmurs thereafter, which were fairly serious. What, I was sentient in the early fifties, sort of an old child, and have life observations about that, which would be private should I ever want to go there. I don't, but I sure get Sets' view.
I think of 1984 all the time. The public cameras now in use here remind me.
There was a news article about 3rd grade, nine year old children, plotting to kill their teacher that kind of reminded me of the way Maxwell's coworker's child was proud to be an informant.
I believe in the right to express your beliefs privately. Everyone needs to have a private life where they can be themselves. I work in a school and sometimes am corrected for non political correct speak-over the top for the most part I believe. Particularly irritating when one is told to sound more enthused over changes that are obviously inconvenient.
I believe we should have a right to speak as we wish, in private. I also believe it is the nature of the human animal to "rat us out" if they so desire. Like anything in life, nothing we say or do is without consequence.
edgar wrote :
Quote:Like anything in life, nothing we say or do is without consequence.
i think that's the way it is and we might as well get used to it .
(edgar : we must both be getting older ... but i'm not necessarily getting any wiser ... perhaps there is still some hope :wink: ) .
hbg
hamburger wrote:edgar wrote :
Quote:Like anything in life, nothing we say or do is without consequence.
i think that's the way it is and we might as well get used to it .
(edgar : we must both be getting older ... but i'm not necessarily getting any wiser ... perhaps there is still some hope :wink: ) .
hbg
I speak from experience. I am entirely to open with people, including relatives, and constantly pay for it.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:who's down with OPP?
Not what you think, Bear . . . Ontario Provincial Police . . . which is the same as the state troopers . . .
BBB
It appears that the older I get the less constrained I am about speaking my mind privately and publically. I guess old farts don't give a damn anymore. I suspect it has something to do with being retired and not being intimated by employers and colleagues, etc.
BBB
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:It appears that the older I get the less constrained I am about speaking my mind privately and publically. I guess old farts don't give a damn anymore. I suspect it has something to do with being retired and not being intimated by employers and colleagues, etc.
Did you leave out the 'id' deliberately or was it a Freudian slip?
Re: BBB
lezzles wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:It appears that the older I get the less constrained I am about speaking my mind privately and publically. I guess old farts don't give a damn anymore. I suspect it has something to do with being retired and not being intimated by employers and colleagues, etc.
Did you leave out the 'id' deliberately or was it a Freudian slip?
nope, just a typo while having a senior moment.
BBB
