Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

(H1) To Disagree or Not to Disagree

Because we live in the marvelous land of the free, one of the rights we are blessed with is that of the freedom of speech. While this allows us to freely express our thoughts without the government censoring us or locking us up, this does not mean that we are not subjected to the court of public opinion and that we are protected from people disagreeing with us, loudly and vocally.
Recently on campus, this right to the freedom of speech has been used by a few men to express their views regarding religion and the fact that we are all going to Hell. Now since there are people on campus who disagree with them, they also have the right to express their views. But is it really best to voice this dissent to these men? There's a theory in psychology that when people actively discourage the views of someone, that person becomes more set in what they believe in. This is what drives organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church and likewise what drives these men.
So voicing your dissent against people like these to their faces, especially if you do it forcefully, just drives them to continue their hate-filled speech. So should we really confront these people? While we are driven to want to "correct" these people and move them to our side, we just fuel their own thoughts. Maybe we should look for calmer and more reasonable methods to try and effect change in these people, such as through the act of trying to ignore them. But this method will never work unless everyone does this as a collective, and human nature makes this nearly impossible.
Either way, while we may agree with some and disagree with others, what is really the right method to go about confronting people and trying to change strongly-held thoughts and opinions?


  1. I agree that entering in an argument with individuals like this can be redundant. However, if no one ever does they clearly are not gong to be stopping. Also, although he is protected by Freedom of Speech, Tennessee has a law agains harrasment which is definded as "Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose: (A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or (ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; . . .". I do not in anyway agree with him being aloud to harass students. Although there is an argument that the 1st amendment would over-rule this law in the Supreme Court it has yet to do so. There is a strong argument for the 14th Amendment protecting and supporting this law. (H1)

  2. I agree. By directly attacking these people and their opinions, we are just making them defend their opinions stronger and making them believe them even more.

  3. (H3) Attacking people is not the way to go about trying to change someone's opinion, it will only turn them off to their opinion. The best way is to share your information and allow them to ask questions if they have any and do their own research.

  4. While I agree with you that we may just be adding fuel to the fire, I don't believe that was the intent of many who sought out this man to disagree. There was a group of guys blaring Rick Astley and singing along. I think think hem and many others that were there were not there to disagree with the man, but to show love to who he showed hate. I think they wanted to show the people of our campus that despite that man they are all loved for who they are. And for that reason I think they should speak louDer than ever.