Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Political Correctness

188 replies to this topic
Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#121

Posted A week ago

What would Tchuck think about people being prosecuted for offending Trump? There are even people bordering on threatening him with death, such as Cathy Griffin. And though Cathy Griffin was widely shunned for what she did, as far as I'm aware, she was free to express herself in that manner, under free speech.

People are offending Trump and his followers consistently on this very forum. And it is the right of people to do so. Colbert does so on national tv week in and out. But naive liberals like Tchuck think offense only applies to when they are offended. They are too naive and ignorant to consider that all these laws could be used against them.

  • Mister Pink, Caysle and Dealux like this

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    Cyberpink 2018

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None
  • Best Poster in Music 2017
    Best Poster [Music] 2016
    Best Poster [Music] 2015
    Best Poster [Music] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Music] 2013
    Best Contributor [Music] 2012

#122

Posted A week ago Edited by Mister Pink, A week ago.

They are too naive and ignorant to consider that all these laws could be used against them.

 

This is what I'm talking about. And that's what I'm scared of. One moment you can express a view, then there's a shift in societal views or there's a new leader in governing the state then all of a sudden your committing hate-crimes. It's the principle of freedom of expression. It would take just one really conservative government to start censoring stand-up comedy, movies, TV shows, video-games under hate-speech laws because someone will get offended by violence shown in the video games or films. 

 

Imagine you can't kill any cops in GTA because it's an expression of "hate-speech" against the police. Politicians cant be ridiculed, hate-speech. Institutions can't be criticized. Hate speech. 

 

Imagine if those Universities students that think cultural appropriation is hate-speech get into power? Seriously. No more dressing up as any other culture other than your own, based on the colour of your skin. I wonder, does this apply to white people born in Japan? Is it cultural appropriation of a white kid born in Japan dresses up as a sumo wrestler? 

 

96b8806b6705a2fbb0adf24eb6ddd43f.jpg

 

Cringeworthy PC-gone-madness. Next Paddy's Day, I'm going to go around berating anyone without an Irish passport wearing green and stupid paddy cap.   

  • Caysle likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#123

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

Yes, exactly. And that is why modern societies need a radical amount of free speech. Tchuck is also wrong about hate speech being illegal, if he is talking about the United States. Where I live, in the Netherlands, there are in fact laws against 'group insult', which they used to prosecute Wilders. In the United States there are no such laws. Right now the Netherlands is also abolishing laws against insulting the king. I'm opposed to 'group insult' anti hate speech laws. They really only work in favor of the people they are used to prosecute, because then they can use a victimhood narrative, where they are brave freedom fighters that are being prosecuted. Hate speech laws are stupid and don't work in modern countries.

But really free speech is complex. Because as I have said in earlier posts, I'm in favor of banning swastikas from the public sphere, because it is a threat to public order. That is especially the case in countries that were occupied by the Nazis, and where jews have been sent to death camps. But similarly someone could argue Muhammed cartoons undermine public order, because of the threat of radical violent Islam. I found it hard to base me being in favor of banning swastikas from public areas on a genuine principle. Or someone could argue swastikas are used by Hindus with an entirely different meaning. As a radical liberal, you should be in favor of people being free to march with swastika banners in the streets.

An issue with free speech is that it gives people a large amount of space to be unreasonable, hateful, and divisive. Freedom helps eroding cohesion. Part of the reason why modern societies are so ideologically polarized, why there is so much hate between 'liberals' and 'conservatives', is because they are so radically free, and secularized. Anything other than a large amount of free speech is outdated and horribly oppressive. But free speech is also part of the increasing atomization of individuals in society.

 

In modern society people are supposed to find happiness through sheer individualism, which is a delusion. We have no other option but liberalism, and modern societies that have rejected liberalism, fascist and communist, have all been horror shows. But under radical freedom and individualism human beings are increasingly lost and without purpose. But maybe I've been reading too much Rousseau..

  • Caysle likes this

Dacelo
  • Dacelo

    Don't sweat it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia
  • Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner

#124

Posted A week ago

Literal kindergartners understand that words have consequences and certain things shouldn't be said, so it's always funny to me that supposed adults think that actually having to think about what you say equals the thought police being out to get you and 1984 literally being made real.

 

Hateful ideologies being spread and discussed has real world consequences; just look at Dylan Roof. His exposure to white supremacist ideology lead to nine people being killed. It's all well and good to be an outsider and say 'just debate these ideologies' but radical, hateful thoughts do not want to be debated, and any attempts will not be met with any worthwhile discussion in good faith. At a certain point a thought crime becomes a manifesto, and therein lies the problem with unfettered free speech.

  • Tchuck and ten-a-penny like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#125

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

Literal kindergartners understand that words have consequences and certain things shouldn't be said, so it's always funny to me that supposed adults think that actually having to think about what you say equals the thought police being out to get you and 1984 literally being made real.

Yeah, except, as pointed out. You probably only want the words of your political enemies to have consequences. If your allies say "Trump is Hitler" or "all white people are racist", you probably won't consider this in need of 'consequences', because your idea of hatespeech is not based on any genuine principle. It is based on your desire to prosecute your political opponents under the law.
 

Hateful ideologies being spread and discussed has real world consequences; just look at Dylan Roof. His exposure to white supremacist ideology lead to nine people being killed.

This is as sophisticated an argument as saying "you see how people being able to buy knives has violent consequences?! Knives should be forbidden!" Yes, ideas are very powerful, and can be dangerous. Is this a sufficient reason to ban ideas? No.
 

It's all well and good to be an outsider and say 'just debate these ideologies' but radical, hateful thoughts do not want to be debated, and any attempts will not be met with any worthwhile discussion in good faith.

Many people don't debate their ideas in good faith, but that's not an argument to ban them from speaking.
 

At a certain point a thought crime becomes a manifesto, and therein lies the problem with unfettered free speech.

This one you should elaborate on. I really have no clue what you are intending to say.

  • Mister Pink and Caysle like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    you never had the makings of a varsity athlete

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#126

Posted A week ago

Hate speech laws will eventually be used in support of power. Wilders wasn't prosecuted to protect Muslims but to stop encroachment on established power from the right flank. In the American South they're bringing in all sorts of laws to protect the police's feewings and to make hurting them a hate crime. If this chugs along eventually the rich will be a protected group as well. 

 

 

In modern society people are supposed to find happiness through sheer individualism, which is a delusion. We have no other option but liberalism, and modern societies that have rejected liberalism, fascist and communist, have all been horror shows. But under radical freedom and individualism human beings are increasingly lost and without purpose. But maybe I've been reading too much Rousseau..

Did you seriously just refer to ML regimes as 'Communist' and the West as having 'radical freedom and individualism'? And here I thought people were confused and depressed because of social isolation and mind-numbing work, no it's because of the extreme freedom we apparently have. 

  • Tchuck, Triple Vacuum Seal, ten-a-penny and 1 other like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#127

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

And here I thought people were confused and depressed because of social isolation and mind-numbing work, no it's because of the extreme freedom we apparently have. 

Well, I argued people are unhappy because of social isolation. Individualism becomes atomized, and people lose a sense of having a place in society as a whole. That is what my point was. And our degree of individualism is caused by our wealth and freedom.
 

Did you seriously just refer to ML regimes as 'Communist'

You can consider them fascist, or state capitalist dictatorships if you desire that, but it's not really relevant to what I'm saying. Whether there has ever been an industrialized modern communist society is irrelevant here. We are not in the "not real socialism trope" topic.

  • Caysle likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    you never had the makings of a varsity athlete

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#128

Posted A week ago

 

And here I thought people were confused and depressed because of social isolation and mind-numbing work, no it's because of the extreme freedom we apparently have. 

Well, I argued people are unhappy because of social isolation. Individualism becomes atomized, and people lose a sense of having a place in society as a whole. That is what my point was. 

Right, but the social isolation comes from the nature of the work we're expected to do, not the state's commitment to 'radical freedom' or individualism as a political ideal. 

 

 

 

And our degree of individualism is caused by our wealth and freedom.

Wealth and freedom cause people to drift apart? How?

 

 

 

You can consider them fascist, or state capitalist dictatorships if you desire that, but it's not really relevant to what I'm saying.

I agree with Stalin that they had 'state monopoly Capitalism.' State Capitalism is what they called the period from the establishment of the Soviet Union until the nationalisation programs of the 1930s. 

 

 

 

We are not in the "not real socialism trope" topic.

Stalin reckons state monopoly Capitalism can be called 'socialism' if it's run for the benefit of workers, but at that point 'socialism' becomes a meaningless term that includes Western countries as long as the parliamentary left is in power. 

  • Tchuck, Triple Vacuum Seal, ten-a-penny and 1 other like this

Dacelo
  • Dacelo

    Don't sweat it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia
  • Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner

#129

Posted A week ago

 

This one you should elaborate on. I really have no clue what you are intending to say.

I'm saying that if you just let people who constantly talk about how evil (X minority or race) is for ages and ages, eventually what people refer to as 'thought crimes' will become real crimes. Another example - the challenger that ran over a woman at Charlottesville. Another example of radical ideology resulting in death. White supremacists, neo-nazis and other ideologues aren't bloody LARPers, they're not pretending to be edgy for fun, they legitimately believe this sh*t and it results in deaths.

 

 

Yeah, except, as pointed out. You probably only want the words of your political enemies to have consequences. If your allies say "Trump is Hitler" or "all white people are racist", you probably won't consider this in need of 'consequences', because your idea of hatespeech is not based on any genuine principle. It is based on your desire to prosecute your political opponents under the law.

Trump is not a minority, and while bringing comparisons between him and Hitler is over-dramatic, it's not hatespeech. Being able to criticise authority like the president is actual free speech, harassing minorities or calling for genocide on the internet is hatespeech. 

 

 

This is as sophisticated an argument as saying "you see how people being able to buy knives has violent consequences?! Knives should be forbidden!" Yes, ideas are very powerful, and can be dangerous. Is this a sufficient reason to ban ideas? No.

I don't think 'ideas' should be banned, and blanket statement-ing what I'm saying is silly - I think that espousing hateful ideology should be met with consequence. A knife is useful outside of harming other people. White nationalist rhetoric can only harm people. There would be literally no negative consequence if white nationalism had never existed.

 

 

Hate speech laws will eventually be used in support of power. Wilders wasn't prosecuted to protect Muslims but to stop encroachment on established power from the right flank. In the American South they're bringing in all sorts of laws to protect the police's feewings and to make hurting them a hate crime. If this chugs along eventually the rich will be a protected group as well. 

I don't know if this was directed at me but I absolutely don't agree with police being protected from criticism, and the fact that having a police officer feel hurt by what you say can lead to your arrest is an example of an infringement on free speech that I actually disagree with.

  • Tchuck likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    you never had the makings of a varsity athlete

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#130

Posted A week ago

 

 

Hate speech laws will eventually be used in support of power. Wilders wasn't prosecuted to protect Muslims but to stop encroachment on established power from the right flank. In the American South they're bringing in all sorts of laws to protect the police's feewings and to make hurting them a hate crime. If this chugs along eventually the rich will be a protected group as well. 

I don't know if this was directed at me but I absolutely don't agree with police being protected from criticism, and the fact that having a police officer feel hurt by what you say can lead to your arrest is an example of an infringement on free speech that I actually disagree with.

 

Of course you don't, but laws protecting police from criticism are premised on laws protecting actual marginalised groups. The issue is that power has no reason to restrict itself to a list of targets that you and I personally oppose, and every reason to protect itself by (mis)using these laws as precedent. 

  • Tchuck, Eutyphro, Caysle and 3 others like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#131

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

Right, but the social isolation comes from the nature of the work we're expected to do

Though I obviously grant that low wage repetitive work can be alienating, and more so if you are overqualified for it, the idea that social alienation as a phenomenon in capitalist societies is caused by the nature of work is not plausible to me. Work in many capitalist societies is also a social fabric really. It is more often a social fabric than alienating, which is exactly why automatization will cause massive alienation. Because automatization will make people feel useless, which will alienate them.
 

Wealth and freedom cause people to drift apart? How?

Imagine two scenarios where you are dropped on an island with someone you hate, like a Tory, or JBP. In one of the scenarios you have such massive resources on this island that you can succeed on your own. In the other scenario resources are so scarce that you are necessitated to cooperate to survive. In which scenario will you cooperate?

 

I'm saying that if you just let people who constantly talk about how evil (X minority or race) is for ages and ages, eventually what people refer to as 'thought crimes' will become real crimes.

So do you have evidence that curbing freedom of speech saves lives? Because otherwise this is bullsh*t. As far as I'm aware, most terror attacks occur in societies with low levels of freedom of speech. Curbing freedom of speech has thusfar proven a failed anti-terror measure.
 

Trump is not a minority, and while bringing comparisons between him and Hitler is over-dramatic, it's not hatespeech. Being able to criticise authority like the president is actual free speech, harassing minorities or calling for genocide on the internet is hatespeech.

Calling for genocide is inciting violence. Inciting violence should be illegal, yes I agree. But if we stick to a relevant example, Geert Wilders didn't incite violence. As far as his rhetoric has been violent, it's been very veiled, and vague. Furthermore, 'minority' is a term you can inflate as much as you like. Are fat people also victims that need to be protected? How about short people? Asian people? Middle aged virgins? Cross-eyeds? Bald men? Surely all those groups are victims? How about people with low IQ? Where can people apply for official victimhood™?
 

A knife is useful outside of harming other people. White nationalist rhetoric can only harm people. There would be literally no negative consequence if white nationalism had never existed.

Yeah, except that's completely false. Whether far right ideas are harmful depends entirely on the context and how they are interpreted by individuals. If someone studies far right ideas, and grasps their danger, then obviously that is good. Being aware of far right ideas and their danger is obviously superior to being ignorant of them.

  • Caysle likes this

Dacelo
  • Dacelo

    Don't sweat it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia
  • Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner

#132

Posted A week ago

 So do you have evidence that curbing freedom of speech saves lives? Because otherwise this is bullsh*t. As far as I'm aware, most terror attacks occur in societies with low levels of freedom of speech. Curbing freedom of speech has thusfar proven a failed anti-terror measure.

I just had an example...? Dylann Roof straight up states in his manifesto that he was 'awakened' by a conservative site that was filled with black on white crime statistics along with other over-dramatised stuff about how England and the rest of Europe is under siege by brown people.

 

And I'm specifically talking about white nationalism's death toll here, not radical Islam, but from what I can tell in my admittedly limited knowledge is that the terror attacks claimed by ISIS and other Islamic groups usually involve an individual being convinced privately rather than someone stumbling onto an Islamic site and thinking 'these guys have got it all right' and going to run a truck through a market.

 

Calling for genocide is inciting violence. Inciting violence should be illegal, yes I agree. But if we stick to a relevant example, Geert Wilders didn't incite violence. As far as his rhetoric has been violent, it's been very veiled, and vague. Furthermore, 'minority' is a term you can inflate as much as you like. Are fat people also victims that need to be protected? How about short people? Asian people? Middle aged virgins? Cross-eyeds? Bald men? Surely all those groups are victims? How about people with low IQ? Where can people apply for official victimhood™?

I didn't know who Geert Wilders was but I looked him up and he wants to ban the quran, surely he isn't the best example to use if he himself is trying to ban freedom of expression?

 

And I don't see why the definition of minority is where you want to be pedantic, I don't agree with harassing any of those people, but I believe that (and am thankful for my country's) basic laws that protect historically victimised people from being targeted for what is beyond their control are a good thing and disagree with the argument that they're a slippery slope.

 

 

 

A knife is useful outside of harming other people. White nationalist rhetoric can only harm people. There would be literally no negative consequence if white nationalism had never existed.

Yeah, except that's completely false. Whether far right ideas are harmful depends entirely on the context and how they are interpreted by individuals. If someone studies far right ideas, and grasps their danger, then obviously that is good. Being aware of far right ideas and their danger is obviously superior to being ignorant of them.

Yes, and whether or not black people, lgbt people, jews etc. deserve to live depends on an individual's interpretation... Far right ideals that center around wiping out minorities are 100% inherently harmful, I don't really see how this can be debated? 

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#133

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

I just had an example...? Dylann Roof straight up states in his manifesto that he was 'awakened' by a conservative site that was filled with black on white crime statistics along with other over-dramatised stuff about how England and the rest of Europe is under siege by brown people.

Which as an example doesn't prove curbing free speech protects lives, apart from the sheer complexity of defining specific 'illegal' opinions, and that being fundamentally dangerous to the rights of everyone. An obvious likely side effect of harshly criminalizing the right is that it will escalate their radicalization (and that of any other extremist group for that matter) in stead of curb it.

I actually just read part of Dylann Roofs manifesto, and the type of oversensationalized black on white crime stories he may have read on a white nationalist website, and it scarred me a bit psychologically. Jesus, those pages are horrible.
 

And I'm specifically talking about white nationalism's death toll here, not radical Islam, but from what I can tell in my admittedly limited knowledge is that the terror attacks claimed by ISIS and other Islamic groups usually involve an individual being convinced privately rather than someone stumbling onto an Islamic site and thinking 'these guys have got it all right' and going to run a truck through a market.

Not really. Many young muslim men get radicalized online.

 

I didn't know who Geert Wilders was but I looked him up and he wants to ban the quran, surely he isn't the best example to use if he himself is trying to ban freedom of expression?

Aren't you trying to ban freedom of expression? And you have freedom of expression while trying to ban freedom of expression? Isn't that silly?

 

And I don't see why the definition of minority is where you want to be pedantic

It's not pedantic. It's a fundamental issue. Victim is a vague subjective notion. It's ludicrous to opine the state should decide who the official victims are, and then ban opinions criticizing the official victims in whatever may seem like an 'unfair' way. It is completely and utterly ridiculous.
 

Far right ideals that center around wiping out minorities are 100% inherently harmful, I don't really see how this can be debated?

Do you see how you are completely missing my point?

  • Caysle likes this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#134

Posted A week ago

See this doesn't apply to certain groups:

 

 

Bad ideas can be deconstructed with logic, reason and debate.

 

Of course bad ideas can be deconstructed with logic, reason, and debate. However, people with such extreme views usually aren't open to logic, reason, and debate. Look at the myriad folks who decided to stop vaccinating, the myriad folks who believe they are superior to others based on arbitrary characteristics. You can very easily demonstrate to them that they are wrong. But it doesn't work. They'll dig their heels in, consider you a shill for whatever group they hate, and go about their way. 

 

How do you deal with that when they begin endangering the rest of us? Antivaxxers are not endangering those who cannot have vaccines due to actual problems. If you try to engage them with logic, reason, and debate, it won't do anything. What do you do then? Just shrug it off, hope they see the err of their ways, and let it be? In the mean time, vaccination rates will go down, more people will suffer, all of this because of some sh*tstains that couldn't be arsed to change their minds?

 

 

Seriously though, how do you measure what people are going to be offended by? How do you gauge that? How is going to police what is and what isn't offensive?

 

That's the issue, isn't it. How do we decide what is offensive and what isn't. That's why I say "You are free to say whatever you wish; others are free to pursue you in court if they deem themselves to have a case". To me, you should be free to say whatever you wish. Whatever you wish. And other people are free to challenge you if they see fit. And then it'll be up to the courts and the jury of your peers to see if they agree with you or disagree with you. Simplest way to deal with things.

 

 

That's essentially thought-police stuff right there man. "Harmful action" is the key here. This reminds of the woman that beat her husband to death because he was having a dream of being with another woman. I get it though. There is a need to monitor threats and neutralize them before they happen, I'm just worried that once laws are in place controlling speech, the goal posts can be moved to suit a government or tyrannical leader and next thing you know people can be locked up for "hate speech" unduly so. 

 

Governments can move the goalposts to do whatever they wanted without any laws needing to be in place, though. Same for tyrannical leaders. People can already be arrested and locked up for any reason the government wants. That wouldn't change with stronger enforcement of hate speech laws.

 

I guess we just see the world in very different ways. I see the rise of the far right, the liberty they are given, the validation of their thoughts as something completely dangerous and a path to disaster. Certain things are so fundamentally hateful that we can universally agree should be repressed. Racism being one of them. Nazis deserve to be punched, not given a platform for debate.

 

 

What would Tchuck think about people being prosecuted for offending Trump? There are even people bordering on threatening him with death, such as Cathy Griffin. And though Cathy Griffin was widely shunned for what she did, as far as I'm aware, she was free to express herself in that manner, under free speech.

 

If they are offending him based on his race, his religion, or whathave you, knock yourself out, begin prosecuting them, I don't give a sh*t. Threatening him with death is also wrong, and people should be prosecuted for death. You may wish him harm, but to go ahead and threaten him with it is obviously crossing the line. It is very easy to offer valid criticism of him without having to descend to hate speech.

 

 

People are offending Trump and his followers consistently on this very forum. And it is the right of people to do so. Colbert does so on national tv week in and out. But naive liberals like Tchuck think offense only applies to when they are offended. They are too naive and ignorant to consider that all these laws could be used against them.

 

Naive liberal? sh*t son, you clearly do not know where I stand. And I'm not "naive and ignorant" to consider these things could be used against me: I KNOW they can be used against me, which is why I tend not to practice hate speech, specially not in a public place.

 

I see people offending him and his followers consistently. I don't see them appealing to hate speech, though. The moment they do, they lose my support. Simple as that. But for the most part, they are offending his character, his ability as a president, his career, and pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. And challenging his supporters in their continue support of such a president. 

 

I'm offended you called be a dirty liberal, though. You'll be first in line to the gulag when the revolution comes!

  • Mister Pink likes this

Dacelo
  • Dacelo

    Don't sweat it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia
  • Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner

#135

Posted A week ago

Aren't you trying to ban freedom of expression? And you have freedom of expression while trying to ban freedom of expression? Isn't that silly?

I'm only 'trying to ban freedom of expression' if you define freedom of expression as "let me call people ni**er without consequence'. I just find it funny that your example of a victim of free speech being under attack is himself trying to attack muslims and ban a book.

 

 

It's not pedantic. It's a fundamental issue. Victim is a vague subjective notion. It's ludicrous to opine the state should decide who the official victims are, and then ban opinions criticizing the official victims in whatever may seem like an 'unfair' way. It is completely and utterly ridiculous.

This is why I say that people are disingenous - disguising hatespeech as just 'opinions' is 101 to getting people on your side when you're trying to market yourself as a free speech warrior and not just a hateful individual (not calling you a hateful individual btw, just pointing out patterns). Because saying 'I want to be able to say black people are dogs and deserve to be shot and gays should be hung' doesn't have the same attractiveness as 'I just want free speech, bro! I'm a freedom fighter!'
 
I'll list out the specific laws for you that we have here and you'll see it's not 'vague' or 'subjective', it's pretty clear on what isn't okay.
Spoiler

 

 

Do you see how you are completely missing my point?

No, I really don't. You stated that 

 

 

Whether far right ideas are harmful depends entirely on the context and how they are interpreted by individuals. If someone studies far right ideas, and grasps their danger, then obviously that is good. Being aware of far right ideas and their danger is obviously superior to being ignorant of them.

I'm not saying to burn history books for god's sake, it's entirely possible to learn and be aware of far right ideology without giving them a platform where they can discuss how much they want to lynch people. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    Cyberpink 2018

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None
  • Best Poster in Music 2017
    Best Poster [Music] 2016
    Best Poster [Music] 2015
    Best Poster [Music] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Music] 2013
    Best Contributor [Music] 2012

#136

Posted A week ago Edited by Mister Pink, A week ago.

 

Of course bad ideas can be deconstructed with logic, reason, and debate. However, people with such extreme views usually aren't open to logic, reason, and debate. Look at the myriad folks who decided to stop vaccinating, the myriad folks who believe they are superior to others based on arbitrary characteristics. You can very easily demonstrate to them that they are wrong. But it doesn't work. They'll dig their heels in, consider you a shill for whatever group they hate, and go about their way. 

 

How do you deal with that when they begin endangering the rest of us? Antivaxxers are not endangering those who cannot have vaccines due to actual problems. If you try to engage them with logic, reason, and debate, it won't do anything. What do you do then? Just shrug it off, hope they see the err of their ways, and let it be? In the mean time, vaccination rates will go down, more people will suffer, all of this because of some sh*tstains that couldn't be arsed to change their minds?

 

Agreed about the anti-vaxxers and their "logic." I'll still think they can choose to reject science if they should so, please. My regret is that kids are potential victims here but that's an unfortunate consequence of me upholding my principles. And, we on the left make these consequences work, all the time. For example, I'm pro-choice on the abortion issue. Unfortunately, a potential life is aborted but I can live with that the same way that I think people have the right to be stupid. It's Darwinism at work! :p

 

I also think that information can be made available to anyone and if anyone chooses to believe thrash they read, then it's their prerogative.  If you want to believe the Earth is flat, that's fine. Just don't expect to garner any respect from anyone with an IQ over 70. 

 

 

 

That's the issue, isn't it. How do we decide what is offensive and what isn't. That's why I say "You are free to say whatever you wish; others are free to pursue you in court if they deem themselves to have a case". To me, you should be free to say whatever you wish. Whatever you wish. And other people are free to challenge you if they see fit. And then it'll be up to the courts and the jury of your peers to see if they agree with you or disagree with you. Simplest way to deal with things.

 

Ok, I think we can start to agree here. Sounds very reasonable. 

 

 

Governments can move the goalposts to do whatever they wanted without any laws needing to be in place, though. Same for tyrannical leaders. People can already be arrested and locked up for any reason the government wants. That wouldn't change with stronger enforcement of hate speech laws.

 

I guess we just see the world in very different ways. I see the rise of the far right, the liberty they are given, the validation of their thoughts as something completely dangerous and a path to disaster. Certain things are so fundamentally hateful that we can universally agree should be repressed. Racism being one of them. Nazis deserve to be punched, not given a platform for debate.

 

Yes, we disagree here. But respectfully so. By principle, I don't think a Nazi should be punched no matter how deplorable I think their ideology is. I don't believe in violence at unless it's in self-defense or pre-emptive self-defense (and you could argue that punching a Nazi is pre-emptive self defence and I'll say show me the evidence that this person was about to commit a crime or cause violence), obviously under a lot of scrutiny and last resort when all discourse is exhausted, generally speaking.  If you want to be violent for the things you hate then expect to be on the receiving end of violence when you are a desire of hate for someone else. Two wrongs don't make a right an all that. If you believe that punching a nazi is OK then you've just negated your point about due process, taking people to court and having a  judge and jury decide. 

 

 If a Nazi just had the wrong thoughts, leave them be. Just hope they can educate themselves and get out of their extremist views. We are all human and that's what we share in common with Nazis. And by virtue of the fact we are all human, we all have the capacity to be a Nazi on some level. As soon as someone breaks the law, report them, let the law handle it. Vigilantism is a dark path. I grew up not far from violence where drug dealers get knee-capped by the IRA. There's no judge, jury, chance of rehabilitation, instead, one might be crippled for life, parents and family mentally scarred, suffering post-traumatic stress. Whether or not those young men were guilty or if a Nazi is guilty of having the wrong thoughts, everyone deserves their day in court to plead their case, not subverting justice with vigilantism. Say if I disagree with your thinking, is OK for me to punch you? 

 

And by the way, worryingly, anyone center or just slightly right of center is a Nazi these days. I've seen it with my own eyes. Having an opposing view, a different view can have you labeled a Nazi. I've seen good guys, old-skool liberals that hold true liberal values get thrown under the Nazi bus by regressive sensitive university students. 

 

Eutypro

But really free speech is complex. Because as I have said in earlier posts, I'm in favor of banning swastikas from the public sphere, because it is a threat to public order. That is especially the case in countries that were occupied by the Nazis, and where jews have been sent to death camps. But similarly someone could argue Muhammed cartoons undermine public order, because of the threat of radical violent Islam. I found it hard to base me being in favor of banning swastikas from public areas on a genuine principle. Or someone could argue swastikas are used by Hindus with an entirely different meaning. As a radical liberal, you should be in favor of people being free to march with swastika banners in the streets. 

 

 

Good points and I struggle here too. I think we have hindsight in our favour here and was originally leaning in favour of it being banned. Then I thought about all the times when I enjoyed the realism of having such a controversial symbol, in games like Wolfenstein or TV shows like Father Ted.  I don't think the swastika should be banned at all. I think someone can march down the street giving nazi salutes if they please. However, one can't control the reaction people might have to that. If someone is stupid enough to do that, I think they can if they please. I also think nobody should be violent towards that person either. You can protest them. Condemn them. Ostracize them. Until they break a law beyond hurting someone's feelings then I think the police should be able to move them on for public order restoration and all that. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#137

Posted A week ago

 

Agreed about the anti-vaxxers and their "logic." I'll still think they can choose to reject science if they should so, please. My regret is that kids are potential victims here but that's an unfortunate consequence of me upholding my principles. And, we on the left make these consequences work, all the time. For example, I'm pro-choice on the abortion issue. Unfortunately, a potential life is aborted but I can live with that the same way that I think people have the right to be stupid. It's Darwinism at work! :p

 
I also think that information can be made available to anyone and if anyone chooses to believe thrash they read, then it's their prerogative.  If you want to believe the Earth is flat, that's fine. Just don't expect to garner any respect from anyone with an IQ over 70. 

 

And it's all well and fine, until their stupidity and ignorance begins endangering others. Then what are we to do? Just stand idly by and go "aww shucks, if only they'd listen to reason!". Nah, f*ck that. I agree extremely with "no jab, no pay" laws as they are made in Australia regarding antivaxxers. Don't want to vax because of your unfounded beliefs? Fine. You also lose access to X benefits until you do. This is what I stand by. Thus why I don't think restricting certain things is bad. Make antivaxxers illegal unless they have a proper medical reason to do so. Same with hate speech.

 

 

 If a Nazi just had the wrong thoughts, leave them be. Just hope they can educate themselves and get out of their extremist views. We are all human and that's what we share in common with Nazis. And by virtue of the fact we are all human, we all have the capacity to be a Nazi on some level. As soon as someone breaks the law, report them, let the law handle it. Vigilantism is a dark path. I grew up not far from violence where drug dealers get knee-capped by the IRA. There's no judge, jury, chance of rehabilitation, instead, one might be crippled for life, parents and family mentally scarred, suffering post-traumatic stress. Whether or not those young men were guilty or if a Nazi is guilty of having the wrong thoughts, everyone deserves their day in court to plead their case, not subverting justice with vigilantism. Say if I disagree with your thinking, is OK for me to punch you? 

 

And I'm fine with that. You wanna have your racist thoughts? Go ahead. You wanna think of yourself as superior to others? You're free to do so. Nothing wrong with that.

Bring them over to the public side of things, though? Yeah, that's where other people can exercise their freedom of speech to shut you down. Or punch you, if you're a nazi. Being a nazi is not about disagreeing with one's thinking: it's about being a terrible piece of sh*t scum of a human being that you glorify one of the most horrendous regimes in the history if mankind. 

 

As I said, you wanna be a nazi in your private life? Feel free to do so. The moment you bring it to the public, yeah, there will be consequences. I won't go out punching nazis because it's illegal to do so. But I'll shed no tear and offer no support to nazis that have been punched because f*ck those people.

 

 

And by the way, worryingly, anyone center or just slightly right of center is a Nazi these days. I've seen it with my own eyes. Having an opposing view, a different view can have you labeled a Nazi. I've seen good guys, old-skool liberals that hold true liberal values get thrown under the Nazi bus by regressive sensitive university students. 

 

Yep, that is very true. Both the left and the right are guilty of reducing the opposite side to a caricature of what it actually is. I myself was thrown under the bus by other lefties because I refused to support certain oppressive views that they have. It's all utterly ridiculous. I don't think everyone on the right is a nazi, just like not everyone on the left is a commie. It's just that there's clearly actual nazis out there, and they are extremely easy to identify, and yet we still give them platforms to hold their rallys and what not, because it's technically not hate speech unless they are actively claiming for jews/blacks/muslims to be executed, which they still do sometimes but boys will be boys!

  • Coin likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#138

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

 

Aren't you trying to ban freedom of expression? And you have freedom of expression while trying to ban freedom of expression? Isn't that silly?

I'm only 'trying to ban freedom of expression' if you define freedom of expression as "let me call people ni**er without consequence'. I just find it funny that your example of a victim of free speech being under attack is himself trying to attack muslims and ban a book.

So you want to prosecute people for calling other people 'ni**er'? Would this also count for 'honky' and 'cracker'? I think not. What you are not aware of is that this would institutionalize perpetual victimhood. You are institutionalizing black people as a category as being intrinsic eternal victims in this manner. Or maybe you are aware of it and have a savior complex where you want to be the savior of pathetic inferior victims with fragile feelings.
 
The reason I defend the freedom of speech of people who oppose freedom of speech, is because their freedom of speech is also my freedom of speech, and that of society as a whole. And clearly you are opposed to freedom of speech. The fact that you support freedom of speech for those you agree with doesn't make you a supporter of free speech. Whether you support the freedom of speech of those you despise does.
 

This is why I say that people are disingenous - disguising hatespeech as just 'opinions' is 101 to getting people on your side when you're trying to market yourself as a free speech warrior and not just a hateful individual (not calling you a hateful individual btw, just pointing out patterns).

Wilders and hate spewing 'free speech warriors' do the same thing you are doing really. He is saying "the opinions of me and my allies are opinions, the opinions of my opponents are hate". "All white people are racist"? Not hate. "Black people are lazy". Official victim status recognized, categorized as eternal intrinsic category of victim, hate speech confirmed..
 

Because saying 'I want to be able to say black people are dogs and deserve to be shot and gays should be hung' doesn't have the same attractiveness as 'I just want free speech, bro! I'm a freedom fighter!'

In the cases of these examples, what is practised in most free countries is that if someone vents such opinions in a private area in front of decent people, or on the internet in exhange with decent people, they are widely shunned by others, abandoned by others, and this is their punishment. If they vent these as public slogans, they are inflammatory urges towards violent action, and thus illegal. Letting someone rot away with their extremist views in loneliness is a much more effective anti radicalisation plan than harshly prosecuting them giving them reason to pretend being oppressed victims that are justified in their freedom struggle for bigotry. If you would be Dutch, and would have seen Wilders speeches in court, you would be aware of how prosecuting him glorified him.

 

I'll list out the specific laws for you that we have here and you'll see it's not 'vague' or 'subjective', it's pretty clear on what isn't okay.

It's not clear at all. What constitutes discrimination and hate is generally incredibly arbitrary. The line is incredibly blurry on what the outlawed modes of speech are. Legitimate illegal cases of speech are when someone calls in a false bomb threat, or when false information can be proven to have lead to concrete reputation damage for an individual person. And there are more limits of free speech. Free speech is not absolute.

I'm not saying to burn history books for god's sake, it's entirely possible to learn and be aware of far right ideology without giving them a platform where they can discuss how much they want to lynch people

People learn about dangerous views much more successfully and productively in the freedom to entertain them than with them being outlawed. Steven Pinker argues that a significant amount of radicalization is caused through the censorship of ideas that are actually true.

 

 

What would Tchuck think about people being prosecuted for offending Trump? There are even people bordering on threatening him with death, such as Cathy Griffin. And though Cathy Griffin was widely shunned for what she did, as far as I'm aware, she was free to express herself in that manner, under free speech.

If they are offending him based on his race, his religion, or whathave you, knock yourself out, begin prosecuting them, I don't give a sh*t. Threatening him with death is also wrong, and people should be prosecuted for death. You may wish him harm, but to go ahead and threaten him with it is obviously crossing the line. It is very easy to offer valid criticism of him without having to descend to hate speech.

So "all white people are racist" should be an illegal form of speech according to you? Glad to have that cleared up then. That is at least slightly consistent. In practice though, I'm sure you'll also argue for institutionalizing victimhood, as Dacelo is arguing for.
 

Naive liberal? sh*t son, you clearly do not know where I stand. And I'm not "naive and ignorant" to consider these things could be used against me: I KNOW they can be used against me, which is why I tend not to practice hate speech, specially not in a public place.

No, you're not realistic about how they could be used against you. The only leftists thusfar having a grasp of this are Melchior and the leftists who liked his post.
 

I see people offending him and his followers consistently. I don't see them appealing to hate speech, though. The moment they do, they lose my support. Simple as that. But for the most part, they are offending his character, his ability as a president, his career, and pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. And challenging his supporters in their continue support of such a president. 

Maybe you should look at the Yokel and Diablos posts, and change 'Trump supporters', 'conservatives' and 'Republicans', for 'black people'. Diablo literally argued Republicans should get shot. So you haven't really thought this one through.
 

I'm offended you called be a dirty liberal, though. You'll be first in line to the gulag when the revolution comes!

I didn't call you 'dirty'. I don't have anything against liberals. I'm actually generally on the liberal side of issues if you want to believe it or not. But your ideas on free speech indicate a lack of critical thought that is quite usual among naive leftists who want to defend fragile victim groups who are too worthless to defend themselves from mean words. What it is is an arrogant pathological savior complex, that looks down on 'minorities' and other predesignated weaklings.

 

Mister Pink:

Good points and I struggle here too. I think we have hindsight in our favour here and was originally leaning in favour of it being banned. Then I thought about all the times when I enjoyed the realism of having such a controversial symbol, in games like Wolfenstein or TV shows like Father Ted.  I don't think the swastika should be banned at all. I think someone can march down the street giving nazi salutes if they please. However, one can't control the reaction people might have to that. If someone is stupid enough to do that, I think they can if they please. I also think nobody should be violent towards that person either. You can protest them. Condemn them. Ostracize them. Until they break a law beyond hurting someone's feelings then I think the police should be able to move them on for public order restoration and all that.
 

I appreciate your Zen attitude to letting people march with swastika banners bro.. But really, I'm not in favor of it. But maybe I'm not as spiritually evolved as you are. I can imagine a society with shared values and solidarity where people could watch others march with swastikas, and let them do it as if they were Ghandi and far above it. But our societies are far too fractured and polarized to achieve such a feat.

Furthermore, a swastika in a creative product is different than a swastika in a public area in a white nationalist march.

Holy sh*t what a long f*cking post..

  • Caysle likes this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#139

Posted A week ago Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, A week ago.

I just had an example...? Dylann Roof straight up states in his manifesto that he was 'awakened' by a conservative site that was filled with black on white crime statistics along with other over-dramatised stuff about how England and the rest of Europe is under siege by brown people.

 
To be fair, the Dylann Roof episode had little to do with free speech and a lot to do with unresolved racial tension in a region of America where massive racial crimes against humanity have gone unatoned. Repressed racial tension has been a distraction from/stand-in for class tension in US politics for ages now. The borader danger of white supremacist rhetoric largely stems from this more so than unfettered free speech. Tougher state-imposed limits on what people can and cannot say is an ineffective half measure that will only validate the fascist position in the long run.


We all seem to agree on the purpose behind restricting hate-speech. The disagreement is in the means. Outlawing the speech is too little too late because it fails to address the attitude behind the speech. To blunt the effects of hateful anger, we'd have to eliminate the fear and social desperation behind it.

  • Melchior likes this

Dacelo
  • Dacelo

    Don't sweat it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia
  • Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner

#140

Posted A week ago

 

In the cases of these examples, what is practised in most free countries is that if someone vents such opinions in a private area in front of decent people, or on the internet in exhange with decent people, they are widely shunned by others, abandoned by others, and this is their punishment. If they vent these as public slogans, they are inflammatory urges towards violent action, and thus illegal. Letting someone rot away with their extremist views in loneliness is a much more effective anti radicalisation plan than harshly prosecuting them giving them reason to pretend being oppressed victims that are justified in their freedom struggle for bigotry. If you would be Dutch, and would have seen Wilders speeches in court, you would be aware of how prosecuting him glorified him.

The thing is that they don't rot away in loneliness. They either find other groups that are looking for 'trouble loners' and tell them that all their problems are because of the blacks/jews/cultural marxists/whatever and then they either end up doing something horrible or they start spouting it to more people and begin the cycle anew.

 

 

So you want to prosecute people for calling other people 'ni**er'? Would this also count for 'honky' and 'cracker'? I think not. What you are not aware of is that this would institutionalize perpetual victimhood. You are institutionalizing black people as a category as being intrinsic eternal victims in this manner. Or maybe you are aware of it and have a savior complex where you want to be the savior of pathetic inferior victims with fragile feelings.

 
The reason I defend the freedom of speech of people who oppose freedom of speech, is because their freedom of speech is also my freedom of speech, and that of society as a whole. And clearly you are opposed to freedom of speech. The fact that you support freedom of speech for those you agree with doesn't make you a supporter of free speech. Whether you support the freedom of speech of those you despise does.

See what I said below on the honky/cracker thing, because they absolutely don't hold equal weight.

I don't support unfettered free speech like a lot of Americans and the like, no. I don't put that much value on people's right to be hateful and I think that having consequences for being hateful isn't intrinsically a slippery slope to the government having infinite ability to jail you for being critical of them.

 

 

Wilders and hate spewing 'free speech warriors' do the same thing you are doing really. He is saying "the opinions of me and my allies are opinions, the opinions of my opponents are hate". "All white people are racist"? Not hate. "Black people are lazy". Official victim status recognized, categorized as eternal intrinsic category of victim, hate speech confirmed..

If you disregard, I don't know, all of history then you may put equal weight on both of those statements but to me there's a bit of a difference, especially in the intent of each statement.

 

It's not clear at all. What constitutes discrimination and hate is generally incredibly arbitrary. The line is incredibly blurry on what the outlawed modes of speech are. Legitimate illegal cases of speech are when someone calls in a false bomb threat, or when false information can be proven to have lead to concrete reputation damage for an individual person. And there are more limits of free speech. Free speech is not absolute.

 

 

I'm not saying to burn history books for god's sake, it's entirely possible to learn and be aware of far right ideology without giving them a platform where they can discuss how much they want to lynch people

People learn about dangerous views much more successfully and productively in the freedom to entertain them than with them being outlawed. Steven Pinker argues that a significant amount of radicalization is caused through the censorship of ideas that are actually true.

 

The laws are pretty clear to me and to most Australians. Maybe we just fundamentally disagree that the best way to learn about hateful ideologies and their effects is to allow them to fester until the next hate crime. Steven Pinker's use of NK as an example of 'communism' is kind of laughable, btw, and not a fact at all, but that's for another thread.

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#141

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

The thing is that they don't rot away in loneliness. They either find other groups that are looking for 'trouble loners' and tell them that all their problems are because of the blacks/jews/cultural marxists/whatever and then they either end up doing something horrible or they start spouting it to more people and begin the cycle anew.

They do rot away in loneliness. Since recently the far right are thriving again due to political polarization and cultural developments toward widespread nihilism and relativism, which results in people seeking refuge in absolutism and extremism. But in my country, the Netherlands, far right marches are just incredibly marginal and pathetic. Apart from maybe PEGIDA, which is maybe more significant, but still quite marginal. The NVU is an absolute irrelevant joke, and criminalizing them would be dangerous and stupid. You don't get rid of the right by banning them. You don't fight ideas with criminalization in free countries.

You can read Triple Vacuum Seals comment, or I can argue for the umpteenth time that criminalization escalates extremist radicalization, but it would make noone better off. Free speech doesn't cause hate crime. I remember sivispacem with a good post a while back how harsh crack down on a range of historical extremist groups escalated their use of violent attacks. Consider orthodox muslims: they truly hate homosexuals, non muslims, women etc.. All kinds of hateful ideas you want the state to crack down against. But not every radical muslim is a violent jihadi. A small minority is. And not everyone on the far right is violent. In fact, the overwhelming majority are not. If you really want to drive these groups towards murder and towards moving underground and off the radar, ban their speech. Next day it might be your speech being banned though.

Also notice that criminalization feeds into the extremists self narrative that they are struggling for freedom under oppression. But you are not understanding or replying to the content of counterarguments at all, but attempting to win an argument by boring others with repitition. There is often a 'last word' fight in silly discussions such as these, which I think is the sole reason you are posting, because you completely fail to engage with counterarguments.

  • Caysle likes this

Dacelo
  • Dacelo

    Don't sweat it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2016
  • Australia
  • Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner

#142

Posted A week ago

I'm not trying to 'win' the argument, or anything for that matter - just tired of people fighting for the right to hate but never doing anything when that hatred inevitably boils over into actual violence. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#143

Posted A week ago

I think that espousing hateful ideology should be met with consequence. 

 

I wholly agree with this. People don't actually benefit from the freedom to be hateful, and that includes the perpetrators. Allowing hateful speech just enables those who engage in it to live in their own misery and anger. It's amoral on both sides.

 

In the United States, we have a group called the 'Black Hebrew Israelites' and they have a few factions that go out and 'carry their message' into the streets. I'm not sure if they're in Australia or Europe but they are easily the most vile, racist, and hateful group operating in the US today. They literally stand in front of facades on street corners, screaming to white men 'we're gonna enslave you', and to white women 'we're gonna rape you' and to children 'we're gonna kill you'. No one is benefiting from that freedom, so why have it? It only hurts people, and people who intentionally hurt people need to be removed from society. That's the whole idea behind prisons.

 

But still, if people are to strive for the truly perfect society that can hopefully be achieved in the not-so-distant-future, people need to expand their horizons beyond 'x y and z are racist'. If the goal of any speech is to cause pain, whether it be some kind of threat (which is already illegal) or a personal insult it needs to be handled with a law. For instance, criticizing Obama's policies is entirely different from a personal attack against him. One is borne out of concern while the other is out of malice. Currently there are no legal mechanisms in my country to address this but hopefully there will be one day. As of now, it sounds like this is something both the far left and the far right agree on so surely it can engulf the rest of the spectrum in time.

 

Anyways, as it pertains the United States, I think freedom of speech is only part of the problem. The larger priority that needs to be addressed is the issue of the first amendment it its entirety. This includes freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. All of these are issues that need to be resolved and since I've spent enough time on speech I'll just run through the others briefly.

 

Freedom of religion looks better on paper than it does in practice. This freedom leads to men like Applewhite persuading 39 people to commit suicide, or Jim Jones poisoning 900+. Religious compounds where rape, molestation, and forced marriages occur are not some kind of myth. They actually exist out in remote areas. Then we have people in more mainstream religions becoming radicalized until they shoot up a gay night club or Planned Parenthood clinic. The government needs to take a more proactive role in the religious practices of its citizens.

 

Similarly, freedom of the press really just creates a cesspit that allows for the proliferation of privatized propaganda. Examples of this are all around you. No one really knows what's true because you can find comparably credible sources for any narrative you want to suit. Again, the state needs to be more proactive to stop this spread of misinformation.

 

The freedom of assembly is demonstrably causing more harm than good. Very little is achieved by people standing in the streets, blocking traffic, other than delaying totally innocent, powerless citizens. If you're behind the wheel and you want to get from A to B it really doesn't matter what views the person blocking you is advocating for, you're late either way. This 'freedom' which is really more of a privilege, has been abused to death. It's in need of a modification.  

  • Tchuck, Eutyphro and Caysle like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#144

Posted A week ago

 

No, you're not realistic about how they could be used against you. The only leftists thusfar having a grasp of this are Melchior and the leftists who liked his post.

 

I didn't know you know exactly the way my mind works and the things that I know. I know how they could be used against me. If you don't think so, I don't give a sh*t.

 

 

Maybe you should look at the Yokel and Diablos posts, and change 'Trump supporters', 'conservatives' and 'Republicans', for 'black people'. Diablo literally argued Republicans should get shot. So you haven't really thought this one through.

 

I know English is not your first language, so it may do you good to actually read what I write. I clearly stated:

 

 

The moment they do, they lose my support. Simple as that.

 

So there you go. And also it helps to put things in context. Not that I'd expect you to understand what context means since you keep coming up with ridiculous comparisons. 

 

 

I didn't call you 'dirty'. I don't have anything against liberals. I'm actually generally on the liberal side of issues if you want to believe it or not. But your ideas on free speech indicate a lack of critical thought that is quite usual among naive leftists who want to defend fragile victim groups who are too worthless to defend themselves from mean words. What it is is an arrogant pathological savior complex, that looks down on 'minorities' and other predesignated weaklings.

 

The dirty was something I added, because I despise liberals the way they have become. I'm not even making a point about "defending fragile victim groups", so I don't know where you got that from. For me, it's about basic human decency. If your views are that certain groups are inferior to others due to their race, then you are a piece of sh*t person and your views are sh*t. 

 

And acknowledging that minorities et al have been subjugated by whities over the course of our history as a species is a far cry from having an arrogant pathological savior complex.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#145

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

 

I think that espousing hateful ideology should be met with consequence. 

 

I wholly agree with this. People don't actually benefit from the freedom to be hateful, and that includes the perpetrators. Allowing hateful speech just enables those who engage in it to live in their own misery and anger. It's amoral on both sides.

 

In the United States, we have a group called the 'Black Hebrew Israelites' and they have a few factions that go out and 'carry their message' into the streets. I'm not sure if they're in Australia or Europe but they are easily the most vile, racist, and hateful group operating in the US today. They literally stand in front of facades on street corners, screaming to white men 'we're gonna enslave you', and to white women 'we're gonna rape you' and to children 'we're gonna kill you'.

There are means to criminally prosecute for all these direct threats you list without hate speech laws though. Out of all people someone such as you, who opined 'white people as a race need to be protected', should be aware of the grave threat hate speech laws are to your speech. But once again, just as those on the other pole of political opinion, you dream of this tool to prosecute your political opponents.
 

No one is benefiting from that freedom, so why have it? It only hurts people, and people who intentionally hurt people need to be removed from society. That's the whole idea behind prisons. 

Except as I pointed out, out of all people, someone quite far right such as you is strongly benefiting from it. In the rest of your comment you go on quite much longer on the theme of the danger of people being free. The theme in your comment is really, if a freedom can be used for something bad, then people shouldn't have it.

What I would say to this is that the very essence of freedom is that you can use it for evil. Without the freedom to do evil there is no freedom at all. On the premise that we do not deserve the freedom to do harmful things, we all deserve to be in prison. Abolishing freedom to completely rule out the possibility of someone with bad intentions using freedom for harm, is like using a flamethrower to cut your lawn.

We could very well move to a 1984 like future where an AI determines, just like you, that human beings are simply too fallible and malicious to deserve freedom, and that is a dystopian future I wish to avoid.

Generally I found your post well argued and written, but I think the argument you are making is catastrophically wrong.

 

For me, it's about basic human decency.

Which is a reasonable position to have, and I think I got somewhat riled up due to being bored by Dacelo. But personally I'm on the libertarian side on the topic of free speech. This doesn't mean I have no understanding of the harm people can do under this freedom. But the freedom is too fundamental to abolish. Abolishing it does more harm, and escalates harm more, than can be prevented by abolishing it.

  • Caysle and Chiari like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#146

Posted A week ago

Diablo literally argued Republicans should get shot.

fuck you that's not what I said.

we've been doing this for what; almost 2 years now?

 

almost 2 years you've been spreading this fucking fake news.

I made an obviously sarcastic one-sentence post about how it's "too bad" the shooter missed. I went on to elaborate that - when you're a public figure who supports objectively discriminatory and inflammatory legislation - you probably shouldn't be surprised when people are pushed into radical responses.

 

I never said "literally" said that Republicans "should get shot."

stop repeating this bullshit you fucking liar.

 

thanks.

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#147

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

all because the GOP would rather stoke historical racism and fear mongering and cry about losing an election than actually attempt to help govern the country. they should be strung up by their heels, slashed at the wrists, and allowed to bleed out dry on the Capitol steps for all of us to watch; you know the kind of treatment truly befitting of treasonous traitors. but I digress...

 http://gtaforums.com...t/?p=1069339075

I'm not even going to look up the post about the shooting incident, because I think you are a stupid asshole that I'm not going to waste time on. I'm also not going to debate this further with you and derail the thread if you reply to this post. Really, you should have been permabanned many times by now. But you seem to have carte blanche. Good luck with that.

  • Caysle likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#148

Posted 6 days ago Edited by El Diablo, 6 days ago.

thanks for admitting your Straw Man bullshit.

you can't be bothered to look up the post because we all know you're wrong. apology accepted. except now you've chosen a completely different comment... and also taken it out of context... again. you really suck at this but it's nice to see you backpedaling on the original comment. I'll bite real quick.

 

traitors should be killed.

the legal penalty for treason is death.

by and large Republicans are gross hypocrites.

by and large Republicans are not upholding their oath of office; much more concerned with scoring short-term political points without solving any long-term issues. this constitutes treason.

what I said is that traitors should be killed.

and then I got flowery with the language.

 

I still never said that "Republicans should get shot."

I'm still not advocating a policy. I'm merely illustrating the frustrations that citizens clearly have when their representatives do not represent them and in fact make their lives worse.

 

you wanna' keep this up?

try again, pal.

_________________________________________________________

additional thoughts

 

hey, at least we're on topic, right?

 

this is political correctness run amok.

this is political correctness killing language.

this is political correctness killing dialogue.

 

you have to parse every word as if every word stands alone on its own thesis.

this is not how language works. language is the body of the statement. it's context. it's the shared human understanding of sarcasm, hyperbole, facetiousness, and an element of truth. sometimes it's tongue in cheek. sometimes it's literal. but given the way you've applied the word, you apparently don't understand what "literally" means. because I've never "literally" advocated for immediate violence against anyone or anything specific. have I talked in harsh rhetorical terms about the betrayal and corruption and decadence of our own politicians and leadership and those ignorant masses who support them? of course. does this literally mean I'm arguing for public executions?

 

unfortunately we've arrived at the point where I must be put on trial and answer this question with a serious face... just to appease the autistic frustrations of the Word Police who need to make sure that every single word and phrase is neatly wrapped up into a perfectly discernible package completely void of expression or imagery or metaphor or imagination. the answer was clearly "no" but in your rush to hate me you've happily glossed over all of the preceding and surrounding historical context which would have clued you into this. you've completely ignored it. or consciously decided that you don't care because now your cards are on the table. you think I'm a stupid asshole and your bias is glaring. your blinders are up. to be fair I've never thought you were a stupid asshole. to be fair? not too long ago we used to agree on a lot more issues than we seem to lately. and I'm consistent as fuck. so I'm not sure what's happened to you :breadfish:

  • Tchuck and Cebra like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#149

Posted 6 days ago Edited by Eutyphro, 6 days ago.

 

hey, at least we're on topic, right?

I guess right? I used you as an example, but really I don't find you even mildly interesting. But considering we are on topic, I can respond without derailing the thread, which you are not worth.
 

thanks for admitting your Straw Man bullsh*t.

Haha, you are an incredibly silly troll.
 

I still never said that "Republicans should get shot."

I'm not even going to repeat what you did say about how they should be killed, because of how truly utterly reprehensible it was. You implied it was better if Republicans got shot. You really did say it. But in fact, I really don't give a f*ck. I used you as an example of inflammatory language from the left spectrum. My example completely stands, and Tchuck is an utter hypocrite and imbecile for liking these inane rants of you that completely prove my point.

 

this is political correctness run amok.

 
this is political correctness killing language.
 
this is political correctness killing dialogue

I'm killing language? I'm killing dialogue? Lol. I'm doing the opposite. I'm citing your literal words. I'm starting dialogue. I'm arguing for your right to be a completely unreasonable cretin. I don't really think this right necessarily has to be executed on this very forum though.

I don't really want to drag this on so any mod is free to step in. This thread is not worth being wasted on you.

  • Caysle, John Smith and Chiari like this

Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#150

Posted 5 days ago Edited by Chiari, 5 days ago.

traitors should be killed.

the legal penalty for treason is death.

by and large Republicans are gross hypocrites.

 

And the legal definition of treason isn't 'having conservative values'. Refusing to penalize economic success, provide 'free healthcare', support mass immigration and legalize recreational drug use is not treason. They're also not hypocrites. An example of hypocrisy is calling me a white hood for no reason, and then turning around and saying that blacks who defy your idea of blackness are Uncle Toms- like you did with Clarence Thomas. 

 

 

I'm merely illustrating the frustrations that citizens clearly have when their representatives do not represent them and in fact make their lives worse.

 

No, you're not. You're venting your irrational, misplaced anger to an audience. Almost nobody feels the way you do about conservatives except for your equally hate-filled peers. I advocate a policy that could restrict your speech, and no, it would't affect me in the same capacity as you. I don't make psychotic statements like 'these people I don't like should be strung up by their heels and slashed at the wrists so I can watch them bleed out'. That's deranged and a psychologically stable person doesn't say things like that. You have fantasized about the use of sexual molestation against the child of a debate opponent just so he could 'learn something'. It's wrong, and there needs to be laws in place to protect the public from hateful people like you.

 

I still never said that "Republicans should get shot."

 

You said it was a shame they survived after they were shot. Again, this is evil. You act like politicians who don't share your beliefs aren't people. They are. There's no difference between what you said and saying something like 'it's a shame some people made it out of WTC before it collapsed'. 

 

this is not how language works. language is the body of the statement. it's context. it's the shared human understanding of sarcasm, hyperbole, facetiousness, and an element of truth. sometimes it's tongue in cheek. and I'm consistent as fuck. 

 

 

Perhaps you are completely devoid of social skills so I'll give you a pointer. Sarcasm, facetiousness, hyperbole etc, don't translate well in writing. I assume you believe what you write; if you don't, don't write it. Here's the historical context: you are consistently angry and you consistently use nasty, violent language against people you don't like.You pride yourself in being an asshole. I mean, you actually go out of your way to spell around the censor just so you can be even more shocking. It's childish, edgy behavior. The state should muzzle you. If my right to free speech evaporates alongside yours I'll call it a big win.

  • Eutyphro, Caysle and John Smith like this




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 1 anonymous users