Blog 4 Jordan Day

Visitor of the day


  • You
    from

Brag Stats

  • Comments:25,004
  • Articles:2,000
  • Article Hits:12,459,805
  • Unique Visitors:2,000,438
  • Rss Subscribers:3,052
  • Comment Subscribers:2,530
  • Spammers:136,315
  • Generated :757,671 spams
  • Monitoring:3,942,477 spam IPs
Powered by Qwaider Shield

Recent Comments

Check out the latest pictures on Sweetestmemories

« Microsoft political muscle, Reintroducing SurfaceHelp me decide, TOWELHEAD vs LAKEVIEW TERRACE »

Free Speech Hypocrites

  • By: Qwaider

  • On:Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:11:11 PM
  • In:Thoughts
  • Viewed: (5432) times

    • Currently 4.6/5 Stars.
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5

    Rated 4.6/5 stars (121 votes cast)

    Hypocrisy in the Free speech arena appears to be prevalent. We cry for free speech, yet we deny it to others. How more hypocritical can anyone get?

    Let's assume that I self proclaim myself the custodian of virtue, family values even if these thoughts are the popular ideas of a society that is skimming its own version of the dark ages. How could people who self appoint themselves -also- as  the guardians of "female sexual liberation" and "Gay civil rights" feels it's imperative that they are deal with the rest of the society as if it's a bunch of idiots who don't even know what they're doing while s/he knows it all. Completely missing the point that they're in fact want to improve this society, not make it worse by adding another narrow minded view. Even if they thought that it's right, or progressive.

    The fact that no one appointed me as a curator of virtue, no one appointed anyone else to be the voice of the "oppressed" minority, but it's good to be represent the diversity of the whole society in many ways and in many colors. So that the combinations of these narrow views might end up with a broader vision for the whole society.

    Just as these minorities have the right to speak out so do the majority of people who don't appreciate being bombarded with material that is unethical, unsuitable for all ages or offensive to the whole society, which has every right to reject foul language, and immoral conduct. People have children that look up to them and expect them to make the right decisions for them.

    The issue here is not Gay's rights or actually women's sexual liberty at all. The issue is, branding ANYONE who objects to a specific line of language, conduct or behavior as backward or oppressor of free speech. In fact, the minute free speech crosses other people's rights. It's no longer free speech.

    Free speech is a two way street. Just like minorities have the right to be heard, same applies to the majorities, with the added weight of democracy behind the masses. The new is allowed as much a chance as the traditional, the young and the old. Everyone needs to have a say, and then people can make up their minds as long as the dialogue progresses in a respectful manner.

    Branding everything traditional as backward and flat out wrong is really nothing more than child's play, juvenile and immature at best. When you couple this with the stupidity of the rest of the barking pack that rapidly arrive to hail anything "just cuz" without even realizing what the problem is, what the circumstances and what position they are taking. Exactly the pack mentality!

    The West is JUST getting to understand certain concepts like Gay-acceptance, when people in ultra-conservative Middle East are already in bed with these ideas, and leaving behind centuries of tradition, religion and culture. This is not saying that culture is right; it might just not be ready for such a major shift. It would have been more important if we had eliminated more prudent issues than to bother with what goes in people's bedrooms. Issues like the democracy, social welfare, equality between races, genders and social classes. We have a long way to go, skipping all our problems and focusing on what relates to sex alone is completely missing the bigger picture. (Exactly the narrow view I mentioned above)

    Let's go to the other issue, opportunists, who are indistinguishable from mercenaries but equally hypocritical. Just look all around you to find them everywhere; let me give you a very clear example of one such retarded and cowards mentality.  The minute someone they hate is being attacked, they jump to support the opposite point. Sometimes they might be true believers of it, but they would become excessively vocal when it's some specific person on the other side of the equation. Exactly what I talked about in the pack mentality.

    Let me be the first to admit that I'm not one of the people who would sugar coat crap for people. I don't comment anonymously to stay off people's hate-radar. I take the issues face on.  Granted, I'm not the favorite of many people. But I take pride in maintaining my integrity, honesty, straightforward approach towards people, and community service. Most importantly, I don't really hold grudges against people. In fact, I rarely take a matter personally. And even though I might be the worst critic of one issue, I might be the biggest supporter of another one by the very same person. However, people do turn things personal. It doesn't matter how many million things you agreed on in the past, it's a single disagreement that breaks the whole thing.

    People just hate people who disagree with them, I guess, that's a universal constant. However, the only people who never disagree with you are hypocrites. Social chameleons, who think of nothing more than their own self image to make sure they continue to be favorites.

    Evidently, people who disagree with you are the ones who actually keep you honest, and focused on the big picture. They provide the fabric that helps everyone expand their universe and vision. It helps us accept diversity and understand "others" that are unlike us.

    We can listen, understand, and learn from people who disagree with us, if it wasn't for the greatest barrier of all... Our own ego...  Our own pride!

    This ego turns great ideas we have to a single sided narrow view, and becomes completely insensitive to other views denying others similar rights. Consciously or not, that's the hallmark of hypocrisy.

    You just can't have free speech when you deny it to others.

    Other Memories Documented on September 10
    « Microsoft political muscle, Reintroducing SurfaceHelp me decide, TOWELHEAD vs LAKEVIEW TERRACE »

    Memories....

    يا زلمه مش عارف اعبر..خلص إنسا. يعني شو بدك تقنع ناس مفكرين إنو احنا عايشين بديموقراطيه؟ حرية اللهم نفسي، الستاتس كو نافع ناس كثير، وهذول الناس عندهم بور وسحيجه..ما علينا ، المهم احنا واحة أمن وإستقرار في محيط مليء بالأزمات، ولا لأ؟
    فكرك بنصير نفكر ولا راح نضلنا طول عمرنا ماشية؟  
    والله الماشية بتنحسد هالأيام
    مش عارف ليش صار جاي على بالي كبده..أكيد من سيرة المواشي وجوع رمضان.
    والله بدها كبدة و معلاق مرتّب. خلّيها للعيد
    In a compromise between Free-speech and common decency, I think F. could have wrote what he wanted within reason had he at least placed a reasonably worded warning describing the type of content to follow. At which point anyone who continued reading will do so fully aware of the consequences.
    About the Kibdeh, don't forget you still have an open invitation for Raqgabat Ma7shiyeh whenever you're next in amman :)
    YA BAYYYAEEEEAA! Bamoot fil Raqbat el maa7shyyeh
    • #8
    • جمال السعدي
    • Windows Internet Explorer
    • Said
    • On: 9/11/2008 2:23:27 AM
    موضوعك كتير حلو ومقنع وبدل على افاق واسعة
     
    • #9
    • جمال السعدي
    • Windows Internet Explorer
    • Said
    • On: 9/11/2008 2:36:41 AM
    dear Hani Obaid
    is your invit for every one or just for Qwaider only.....?
    شكرأ اخ جمال و اهلا و سهلا بك
    Akh Jamal I don't normally invite strangers. Although I've never met Qwaider, I've read enough here to the point that I don't consider him a stranger. I hope that answers your question.
    • #12
    • Roger B.
    • Windows Firefox Browser
    • Said
    • On: 9/11/2008 8:22:12 AM
    "as long as the dialogue progresses in a respectful manner."

    As in this "respectful manner"?
    "لا يمكن يكون في قصة اسخف او ارذل من هيك! يا زلمة استحي على دمّك! عيب عليك هيك كلام. امّك ما بتقرأ؟ اختك ما بتقرأ هيك حكي؟ يعني لشو بدك توصل؟
    بكفيك سخافة... القصة سخيفة.. و الأسلوب ضعيف.. و حضرتك مريض .. بكفيك قلة حيا و خلي عندك شوية شرف و دم
    يا اخي في اطفال بتقرأ على الإنترنت.. في ناس محترمة.. حاول انك تحترمهم و لو شوي"

    Look in a dictionary for "hypocrisy".
    I just had to paste this man, nothing personal!!!

    Roger B.
    Thank you Roger!

    Qwaider, actually I don't hold grudge either, and I have never tried to shut off any opinion at my blog, even when it has been way beyond freedom of speech and turned into a personal insult. I don't moderate messages, you know that.

    Even when you posted your message on my blog that is more of a direct insult towards me rather than a critisism for the post, I didn't delete it and I didn't forbide you of commenting on my blog. I haven't even deleted you from my blog roll either. I just insulted you back. I have the right for that, no? So don't try to imply that I have tried to shut you up because I haven't. I am all for voltaire saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

    I wouldn't call for social tolerance and sexual liberation and at the same time suppress people's freedom to express themselves, but I would use my own rights to shoot back.

    I also have to comment on your point of prioritizing of issues as of your accusation for people calling for sexual liberation to skip all of our other problems and focusing on this one to be not right. I say that we can't place priorities for a society living in a normal condition. If we are to tackle one issue at a time, we would be all working to defeat poverty for years and never succeed and leave all of our other problems aside, just because we have a more important issue at hand. Things doesnt go this way in societies. We are in no un-normal conditions. We are not in war, we have no famine and we are not suffering of any natural disaster. We are living in a stable country and are developing ourselves in every possible department. We can't all build the same corner of a building. We can't all hold the same stone. Each plant from his position and each work for what he thinks he can help in.

    Another thing, you can't claim to defend morals, but you can claim to defend your own set of morals. You have admitted in a previous post of yours that morals are relative. My set of morals differ than yours, and I have the right to defend mine. So don't play this card.

    That is all. You just can't disguise in a voice of reason when you are far away of it. I had to give my 2 cents.
    I forgot one other point:

    "when people in ultra-conservative Middle East are already in bed with these ideas, and leaving behind centuries of tradition, religion and culture"

    People in the west has been living in a conservative society not so far ago. Women have only gained their sexual liberation back in the sixties of last century. Gays have gained ground for their cause in the past 20 years.

    They had traditions and they had religion and they had culture. And what they had have never been really different of what we still have today!

    What they did is that they reasoned the shortages and dismissed what is standing against what we call now a human right. They progressed and moved on, and we are progressing as well but in a slower pace.

    I just hate it when people try to camouflage social development under the name of cultural conflict and fake identity.
    • #15
    • KJ
    • Windows Firefox Browser
    • Said
    • On: 9/11/2008 11:08:59 AM
    Observer, what's your definition of social development?

    If so called culture and fake identity did not exist then why are people so different to begin with? Why would we be having any conversation if we all thought in the same manner, held the same values, and did everything the same?

    This isn't peace, this is boredom. And someone would rebel and mass murder everyone. Human nature tells us to be different and unique YET "belong to the same".

    You're missing the point of social development in that development comes from many aspects be it individual-social, individual-individual, social-social or whathaveyou. When you want to socially develop you have to assess the current social situation against the culture the country is based on and try to see what areas can be given more liberties and what areas have been too strict for no valid reason. It doesn't truly matter if the whole world thinks of a country as backwards simply because it has a tradition and culture it is trying to uphold. It is merely our own egos self monitoring and we think that different is cooler or better.

    Do you see people going to the Amazonian tribes that have been discovered some time ago, and telling them what they're doing is wrong?

    Do you see the US minding people walking around barely dressing? No but they do mind nudity and nudists which is a form of freedom of speech. They do mind it in Turkey when a woman in college wants to wear a 7ijab. Did everyone in other countries voice their opinions and tell them they're backwards? Yes they did, but a country has its rules and its red lines.

    You may argue when a culture finds it normal to kill women and chop off their heads. This is where you have the country's religion to back up the culture. When there is no solid proof for it then it is a cultural error and corrective measures are to be taken.

    Your theme for a good number of your posts is that sex, creativity and social openness and progression are all related. Basically what you're saying is that sexual frustration and limitation leads to lots of psychological problems and social problems and that our women should be more liberated so that (in the end) our men can have sex without worrying about anything (and the girl doesn't have to worry about having some fun too). While partially true (relating to bottled up feelings), the opposite argument is as flawed as this one. Controlled sex and sex education are just things people tend to ignore. When you have hormonal people who are willing to go to lengths to get laid (and have the freedom to do so), they wouldn't be thinking too much as sex is a basic human drive and actually comes before drinking in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

    I was not surprised when I read your recent stories because I have an idea of how you can get with posts from previous posts. You've been slowly introducing your ideas and you've gained some resistence, friends as well as enemies.

    However you cannot also preach for Paulo Coehlo and social tolerance and then insult Qwaider back. You not only insulted him on that post but you took it to another level and dedicated a whole post about it and gave him a shoutout in yet another post. It was obvious that there is a grudge against the guy because you have had a huge amount of resistance from him and others in your previous posts and you beat around the comments and wrapped things up and moved on.

    To me that didn't register and it hurt your credibility as a person who claims he doesn't hold grudges and read Coehlo's works. Maintaining an argument within a post is one thing but lashing out your hatred is another. Even if Qwaider started it you have control over your own actions and you could have just kept it there.

    That's all I have to say for now
    kJ, well I didn't say that there isn't different cultures, and identities. I said that we fight our social progression under the name of protecting our culture which is wrong in my opinion.

    As for social development, in abstract it is having a society progressed from one state to a better one, in our own society and in my opinion, social tolerance, social freedom, gender equality and sexual liberation are essential for our progression.

    I don't call for a one unified culture as well. I agree, it would be boring for all of us to be the same. In the contrary, I call to respect and celebrate our differences.

    Having said that, it doesn't mean that we have one homogenous culture in the Arab world or even in Jordan. We have a set of sub cultures, and even if we take one the we call the culture of the majority, it hasn't been the same through our history. Cultures are not a static entities. They do evolve. There are a lot of factors that affect a culture. Scientific discoveries or inventions can be an example. You can measure the internet effect on people around you. You can even measure it on yourself.

    I can see people among the amazonian tribes importing new technologies and ways of living to improve their lives. I can also see people in the USA calling for the freedom of nudity. I can also see people in Turkey asking for the right of women to wear what they want.

    As for my quarrel with Qwaider, the other two posts were more to me against the mentality he represented in his comment to me rather than a reposnce to him. Yes, I snapped out to him in my comment of that very post because he was very dis-respectful with his comment, but my other two posts were not based on a personal grudge. And yes, I wouldn't be writing here today if I had no tolerance for other opinions when they are presented in a debatable way.
    Roger
    Which part of my honesty you don't get? That's being honest, unbiased and completely true to the ideas.
    1) the story was weaker than a spider's web
    2) The story was indecent and had a lot of explicit wording not suitable for the general public.
    3) The story didn't respect the readers. So why should I respect it? After repeating the very same foul language three times. It was about time I spoke. Being hypocritical is what I would have done had I shut up and said nothing when I totally believe this is crap
    4) The story portrays a bunch of lunatics in the society as being "THE Society" so pardon me if I object in my own way
    5) The Style is pathetic at best!

    Observer
    There is no disguise here. I'm not far from reason. You are, and you're so delusional. But I'm sure the pack of barking dogs that roll around you aren't allowing you to hear the voices in your head as they shout to you with that.

    KJ,
    Thanks, that was very deep insight, and a very interesting.
    You hit the nail on the last part where you mentioned something interesting. How there was specific targeting of someone. So it wasn't only response there was also singing out the person who was behind the objection. Again, with the rest of the barking dogs hailing and cheering.

    Observer2
    My mentality, believe it or not, is shared with many others. And your respect to it, is the root of understanding how to rise up with the whole society to deal with future challenges. You don't go and bang your head against it. You find commonality, and work your way from it.
    But it's obvious you have a long way to go
    "As for social development, in abstract it is having a society progressed from one state to a better one,"

    Who decides if it is better? Is it you? You have to understand that you represent a tiny minority, as such you are in no position to decide what is better for the society.

    And why is sexual liberation so important to you? People can do whatever they want in their own space, no one will come knocking on your door making sure that you are not havin sex! Also you are in no position to preach to people what is "better" for them. And the hypocrisy's backbone is that some actually believe that we live in a "form" of democracy! The status quo for them is just too precious that they can't see beyond their nose.

    And yes, there are many causes more important than sexual liberation.
    ولكم شو بدكم تنجزو من كل هادا السجال في الكلام البياني المنمق،طيب مش لو تلعبو سوا سوى بكون احسن الكم. زهقنا من الكلام الكبير من كتر ما أستمعنا لخطابات باراك اوباما،وابصر يمكن كله يروح بوش.
    والله يا حاتم يا خوفي انو يروح بوش وماكين..هلمشحر اوباما مش عارف من وين يتلقاها..بس خيو ما أتوقع إنو راح يخليها تروح بالساهل، الزلمه حدق وهاظ اكسلرود بندوق مصفى..
    انتو يا جماعة الخير تحشيش

    لشو بدنا نوصل؟ يمكن توصل رسالة للشباب المتحمّس ان احتمال يكون في طرق للوصول الى قلوب و عقول المجتمع مختلفة شوي عن الأسلوب المتبع حاليا

    بعدين النفاق الإجتماعي مش جايب همة هالأيام ... الله بيعين
    قال شو، مهند جاي يحكي لنا وين اوباما تبعنا،يا زلمه هو واحد زي اوباما بمشي سوقه عنا، احكي لنا وين الحجاج ابن يوسف الثقفي تبع نا مش وين اوباما.
    يعني برأيك اخ حاتم، ما رح تزبط معنا بالمرة؟
    والله بصراحة احكيللك انه رايح يكون في نجاح بس هاده النجاح رايح يكون نجاح فردي مش نجاح مجتمعي، يعنى انا وانت ومهند ونسيم وباقي الشباب الطيبه رايحين بدون شك انه ننجح في حياتنا بس للأسف هاده النجاح مش رايح ينعكس على العامه ومش رايح حد يستفيد منه الا الاءفراد نفسهم.هذا راي والله اعلم.
    يا قويدر ابيش أمل..كلها ملاعين حرسي.
    • #26
    • جمال السعدي
    • Windows Internet Explorer
    • Said
    • On: 9/13/2008 4:51:24 AM
    يا اخوان كل اربع سنوات بندخل بهالدوامة وبالاخير ما حد منا مستفيد اشي والشاطر منهم بحاول يكسب اسرائيل . طيب وين جماعات الضغط العربية اللي ممكن يحسبوا حسابها في يوم من الايام....؟ متى سيكون لنا دور ويحسبونا حساب ...؟ لانه اللي شايفة ما حدا ذاكرنا لا بخير ولا بشر.....!!! فكوا عنا يا
    You too can have your Memories Documented

    Country:

    HTML has been disabled but if you wish to add any hyprlinks or text formating you can use any of the following codes: [B]bold text[/B], [I]italic text[/I], [U]underlined text[/U], [S]strike through text[/S], [URL]http://www.yourlink.com[/URL], [URL=http//www.yourlink.com]your text[/URL]

    Whisper (your comment will not be displayed)

    Please refer to Commenting policy


    Notify me of follow-up comments by email
    « Microsoft political muscle, Reintroducing SurfaceHelp me decide, TOWELHEAD vs LAKEVIEW TERRACE »
    Read by:
  • Guests(13)-
  • |
  • Guests(7)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(2)-
  • |
  • Guests(3)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(2)-
  • |
  • Guests(7)-
  • |
  • Guests(3)-
  • |
  • Guests(87)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(283)-
  • |
  • Guests(440)-
  • |
  • ياسمين حميد-
  • |
  • Guests(8)-
  • |
  • Guests(8)-
  • |
  • Guests(3)-
  • |
  • Guests(10)-
  • |
  • Guests(16)-
  • |
  • Guests(14)-
  • |
  • KJ-
  • |
  • MD-
  • |
  • Guests(21)-
  • |
  • Guests(147)-
  • |
  • Guests(71)-
  • |
  • Guests(11)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(12)-
  • |
  • Guests(17)-
  • |
  • Guests(13)-
  • |
  • Guests(9)-
  • |
  • Guests(37)-
  • |
  • Hani Obaid-
  • |
  • جمال السعدي-
  • |
  • Princess N-
  • |
  • Roger B.-
  • |
  • Shaher-
  • |
  • The Observer-
  • |
  • Guests(26)-
  • |
  • Guests(11)-
  • |
  • Guests(4)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(6)-
  • |
  • Guests(14)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(4)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(204)-
  • |
  • Guests(6)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(9)-
  • |
  • Guests(18)-
  • |
  • Guests(10)-
  • |
  • Guests(16)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(126)-
  • |
  • Guests(31)-
  • |
  • Guests(60)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(6)-
  • |
  • Guests(3)-
  • |
  • yaser-
  • |
  • Guests(2)-
  • |
  • Naser-
  • |
  • Guests(2)-
  • |
  • Guests(2)-
  • |
  • Guests(8)-
  • |
  • Guests(67)-
  • |
  • anon-
  • |
  • Guests(3411)-
  • |
  • hamede-
  • |
  • Hareega-
  • |
  • hatem abunimeh-
  • |
  • mab3oos-
  • |
  • Mohanned-
  • |
  • Mohanned-
  • |
  • nobody-
  • |
  • انس-
  • |
  • Guests(2)-
  • |
  • Guests(3)-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guest-
  • |
  • Guests(2)-