Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

People against freedom of speech and opinion more now.

Page 14 of 20 [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

20 Dec 2020, 4:30 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well it's just when it comes to cancel culture it's not just speech that is being censored like certain words, but people are being cancelled for their opinions too, which is different than speech. censorsing certain words and slurs is one thing, but censoring thought is quite another I think.


Who is censoring thoughts? Is that even possible?

Also, why should anyone be forced to be around or hear from someone, who says things that encourage hate and violence? Maybe, if one doesn't want to be banned from social media platforms or get fired or potentially publically humiliated maybe they should not say things that cause that reaction.

There is a difference between saying something inappropriate and encouraging hate, I do not think someone should be cancelled for the former. As for the latter...I think it is good if society makes it clear that kind of stuff isn't going to be tolerated.


Oh okay, but people are banned from platforms for expressing thoughts, that don't even encourage hate, or at least there doesn't seem to be any due process to determine if any hate was caused from it.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Dec 2020, 4:34 pm

ironpony wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well it's just when it comes to cancel culture it's not just speech that is being censored like certain words, but people are being cancelled for their opinions too, which is different than speech. censorsing certain words and slurs is one thing, but censoring thought is quite another I think.


Who is censoring thoughts? Is that even possible?

Also, why should anyone be forced to be around or hear from someone, who says things that encourage hate and violence? Maybe, if one doesn't want to be banned from social media platforms or get fired or potentially publically humiliated maybe they should not say things that cause that reaction.

There is a difference between saying something inappropriate and encouraging hate, I do not think someone should be cancelled for the former. As for the latter...I think it is good if society makes it clear that kind of stuff isn't going to be tolerated.


Oh okay, but people are banned from platforms for expressing thoughts, that don't even encourage hate, or at least there doesn't seem to be any due process to determine if any hate was caused from it.


The notion of hate lacks a concrete barometer. Whether your speech gets labelled as hate becomes a living roll of the dice. You simply can't predict outcome with scenarios such as these.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

20 Dec 2020, 4:44 pm

And that's just it, I think there needs to be some due process or rules as to what constitutes dangerous opinions and what doesn't it.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Dec 2020, 4:49 pm

ironpony wrote:
And that's just it, I think there needs to be some due process or rules as to what constitutes dangerous opinions and what doesn't it.


Here is the catch. It is literally impossible.

I sometimes always found it ironic that thought police won't publish a whole comprehensive book with an exhaustive list of what you can say or cannot say.

Unfortunately, such an enterprise has yet to properly materialize.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

20 Dec 2020, 5:04 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, but people are banned from platforms for expressing thoughts, that don't even encourage hate, or at least there doesn't seem to be any due process to determine if any hate was caused from it.


I might need some actual examples, but my knowledge of actual banning from platforms generally have a breaking of Terms of Service, it isn't just that they expressed their thoughts. It should be their own fault that their opinion may be some form of harassment or telling really bad lies that could do harm.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,297
Location: Right over your left shoulder

20 Dec 2020, 5:37 pm

Deltaville wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Hollywood_Guy wrote:
Jakki wrote:
Freedom to punch someone in the nose is physical assault and is significantly different than verbal abuse .
But there still needs to be reasonable consequences for ones own actions . 8O . I feel .

Benito Musselini s. Government was considered Left wing fascist. I have read ,What has changed , the words , the ideas.? The degree to which one applies these ideas ?


Fascism and communism are almost similar but with different window dressings. :D


Not really, they are actually more opposite.


Theoretical political science: the more extreme left and right you go the more the two look more or less the same.


The horseshoe principle is a common Whig/centrist talking point but I'm not so sure it's true.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

20 Dec 2020, 7:38 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
As for freedom of speech, it's a bit odd that the people that say there's too much censorship are often the same individuals who have a long list of things they don't want talked about - like nazis, or racism, or bigotry. In that same vein, people who whine about "PC language" are usually just upset cos they can't keep using their favorite slurs without consequences.

An assumption about a group of people.

uncommondenominator wrote:
Whenever society progresses, there are those that complain.

True

uncommondenominator wrote:
Sadly, a lot of people don't seem to know where their rights begin and end.

A product of schools deemphasizing civics.

uncommondenominator wrote:
The main reason "progressives" seem to "push censorship" is cos that's the nature of progress. "Ending slavery" and "treating black people like equals" are both "progressive ideas". Progress. Social progress. Society moving forward. The only reason some people might see it as a "forced agenda" is if they genuinely believe that black people are NOT equal, and therefore do NOT deserve to be treated equal - therefore treating them equally is merely a political agenda, rather than something black people genuinely deserve.

More assumptions and frankly character assassination against people that prefer free expression over censorship.
Bigots use "free speech" as a tactic to promote thier bigotry and some people just can't stand any change. But not all change is good and if the going assumption is that free expression advococy is a code for bigoted codgers that needs to be neutered, opposition to bad change does not happen.

uncommondenominator wrote:
"Progressive" just means willing to embrace new ideas. The difference is whether you see the new idea as a real thing to be embraced for valid reasons, or merely as a political agenda with no factual basis or merit. Traditionalists love their tradition, and are loathe to give it up. Look at how some people freak out if you say "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas".

As you said "Progressive" the literal word and the "Progressive" is a description for political movement(s) that at one time stood for eugenics are different things. At the time opposing eugenics was seen as against progress and keeping the traditional barbaric system. Again all change is not good.

uncommondenominator wrote:
When people complain about free speech being stifled, ask for specific examples of what they'd want to be able to say - like really specific, and watch them dance and dodge actually revealing what they really want to be able to say. Much like how civil war "states rights" really just means "slavery", "muh free speech" often just means "bigotry".

Again assumption about the motives about most people complaining about censorship. One must consider that at least in some cases the non bigoted nice person who does not want to offend is the person that is going to come off as defensive, or hiding something.

uncommondenominator wrote:
Tolerance often gets misrepresented where in order to be "tolerant", one must be tolerant of ANY AND ALL IDEAS EQUALLY. Which sets up a paradox. To tolerate even all intolerance is to allow more intolerance than would be present if the only thing not tolerated was greater intolerance. It's sort of like saying, "I believe in freedom, even the freedom to bully, even if bullying takes everyone else's freedom away, protecting the freedom to bully is more important than protecting everyone else's freedom to not be bullied". You're sort of handing power over to the bullies in the name of "tolerance".


If the only thing not tolerated is intolerance, I'd say you're doing pretty good - and even then, nobody says it has to be an all-or-nothing affair. It's much like the bully-bully paradox, where a bully claims that stopping them from bullying is also bullying, and therefore should also be seen as bad - but the paradox is that only the second bullying is bad, but the first bullying is ok still, so to be against bullying, you have to allow bullying...

Bullying and speech are not the the same thing. Bullying is a behavoir in which speech is often used. As far as the bully paradox yes it could argued that bullying to fight bullying is the lesser of two evils but the lesser of two evils is still evil. Personally I think way too often the fact the use of certain words is victory for the bullies.


_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

20 Dec 2020, 8:00 pm

Deltaville wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Hollywood_Guy wrote:
I do share the idea that restriction on freedom of expression and "canceling", even for hateful, unpopular, or politically incorrect expressions, could be a potentially existential threat for human society.


How do you feel hateful speech should be dealt with? Should forums like this one be forced to provide a platform for that garbage.


How dare you be so intolerant.

:D



I enjoy being intolerant. I enjoy being intolerant against the KKK and against misogynists', against racists, against homophobia and against transphobia, against anyone who is intolerant of anything that is harmless.

I fail to understand why the right wing thinks we should tolerate harassment and hate. What if someone believed it should be okay to bully and single out autistic people so they will act more NT? But we should be tolerant right? :wink:


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

20 Dec 2020, 8:08 pm

Hollywood_Guy wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
People use the term "cancel culture" whenever a person is "cancelled" for a reason they disagree with. Acting like people are "canceled" for minor arbitrary reasons or because of simple "differences of opinion" is just part of the illusion of the narrative.

When people agree with the reasons for "cancelling" someone, they just call it "holding that person responsible for their actions", or a "boycott". But as soon as they don't like the reasons for it, it gets branded "cancel culture".

People still care greatly about freedom of speech. But most people don't fully understand how freedom of speech works. So you get idiotic statements like "this is AMERICA, I can say whatever I want, so SHUT UP!" - and completely fail to see the irony.

There's also those who believe "freedom of speech" somehow is meant to protect them from the consequences of their speech. Many times people have invoked the cry of "cancel culture!" because a person got fired for saying things a person should get fired over.

For the most part, the only "freedom of speech" people are more against today is the "freedom" to say outdated bigoted ideas and not be treated like an outdated bigot as a result of saying them.

Nobody's mindset changed. People collectively still want freedom of speech. They just aim to use (or subvert) it differently.


Okay, whatever. Consider this thought experiment, what if what you said today is considered normal and granted but in 50 years from now, it also gets considered outdated or bigoted?

And the fact that a lot of people seem to want to find bigoted stuff in anything no matter the nuance or context. That's like a witch hunt.




Back in the 1990's it was totally acceptable to be homophobic, but guess what humans evolve we learn more and become more understanding.

When Bill Clinton did the Don't Ask Don't Tell law, this was considered a good thing and considered left wing because it was so gay people could have more human rights to join the army or military. They just were not allowed to ask them of their sexual status. Now we know better now. They shouldn't stay hidden just to get human rights as straight people. We can talk about out partners but that would mean gay people would have to try harder not talking about themselves too much or they can reveal they are gay without actually saying "I'm gay." If your partner has a male name or you use he pronouns, then that was a dead giveaway you were gay.

As we learn more, things will become bigoted because we know better now. Think of how acceptable it is for a young child to be grossed out and say cortical things about another kid with a disability, that is because they don't know any better so a grown up needs to explain it to them about how some people have more limitations than others and not everyone has a body that works properly the way it is supposed to. But if an adult had that same attitude, yep a bigot they are because they should know better and should have already learned to be tolerant of differences and keep their thoughts to themselves and their feelings if they are so negative of something they have no control over.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

20 Dec 2020, 8:09 pm

ironpony wrote:
What happened to change so many people's mindset, out of curiosity?


What do you think is the reason?



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

20 Dec 2020, 8:14 pm

I'm not sure really.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

20 Dec 2020, 8:18 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
As you said "Progressive" the literal word and the "Progressive" is a description for political movement(s) that at one time stood for eugenics are different things. At the time opposing eugenics was seen as against progress and keeping the traditional barbaric system. Again all change is not good.


Probably worth noting under what system why eugenics was done. Like in terms of racial superiority in regards to something like Nazis where where it comes from a conservative place of wanting to keep a pure specimen of said race. Or seeing disabled people as a risk to how great society is because they think disabled people breeding will destroy them. Or maybe just keeping royal families noble.

Arguably there are still people that believe in forms of eugenics in that they don't like race mixing, that is conservative, not progressive. There needs to be a bit more evidence progressiveness as politics includes something rather than assigning anything that happened to it. By the same token you can designate almost anything that at one time was a common practice into conservatism. You can say that child rape is conservatism.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

20 Dec 2020, 9:09 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
As you said "Progressive" the literal word and the "Progressive" is a description for political movement(s) that at one time stood for eugenics are different things. At the time opposing eugenics was seen as against progress and keeping the traditional barbaric system. Again all change is not good.


Probably worth noting under what system why eugenics was done. Like in terms of racial superiority in regards to something like Nazis where where it comes from a conservative place of wanting to keep a pure specimen of said race. Or seeing disabled people as a risk to how great society is because they think disabled people breeding will destroy them. Or maybe just keeping royal families noble.

Arguably there are still people that believe in forms of eugenics in that they don't like race mixing, that is conservative, not progressive. There needs to be a bit more evidence progressiveness as politics includes something rather than assigning anything that happened to it. By the same token you can designate almost anything that at one time was a common practice into conservatism. You can say that child rape is conservatism.

There was an anti-immigration tinge to it in America. The Nazis were both inspired and influenced by American eugenicists but they took it a lot farther. The American version was couched in positive terms such as "better baby' and "fitter family" contests. The leading progressives of the era such as Theodore Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger supported it.

Today the problem is "consumer eugenics" such as the emerging gene-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9.


_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.


Hollywood_Guy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,283
Location: US

20 Dec 2020, 9:16 pm

I believe people have a right to associate with their culture as well. Ideally speaking, if you are traditionalist and want to be in a nation that remains largely traditional, that should be allowed to exist as long as they leave other countries that think otherwise alone to do as they wish. Ditto with the other side. I just think America and possibly Europe need to break up and separate at this point.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Dec 2020, 9:40 pm

ironpony wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well it's just when it comes to cancel culture it's not just speech that is being censored like certain words, but people are being cancelled for their opinions too, which is different than speech. censorsing certain words and slurs is one thing, but censoring thought is quite another I think.


Who is censoring thoughts? Is that even possible?

Also, why should anyone be forced to be around or hear from someone, who says things that encourage hate and violence? Maybe, if one doesn't want to be banned from social media platforms or get fired or potentially publically humiliated maybe they should not say things that cause that reaction.

There is a difference between saying something inappropriate and encouraging hate, I do not think someone should be cancelled for the former. As for the latter...I think it is good if society makes it clear that kind of stuff isn't going to be tolerated.


Oh okay, but people are banned from platforms for expressing thoughts, that don't even encourage hate, or at least there doesn't seem to be any due process to determine if any hate was caused from it.


Do you have any particular examples? I probably would not agree with someone getting banned if their thoughts don't encourage that.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

21 Dec 2020, 12:44 am

ironpony wrote:
I'm not sure really.


Correct, because there isn't one reason.

Many of the arguments about cancel culture appear to be originating from the right targeting the media and higher education institutions as breeding grounds for left-wing "WOKE" SJWs. The right argue that these groups influence government policy and private companies.

It's the fear of saying something that will get you cancelled. Ironically the left aren't immune to this culture.
https://www.complex.com/music/2020/12/n ... rry-styles