Limiting speech that can be offensive to minorities

Post Reply New Topic

Yes but they can occur in a bubble. If you don't have a means for dialogue or debate, then it is like a pressure chamber.

The same law that would limit controversial ideas, can also limit ideas that challenge them. If an idea is so dangerous it needs to be limited, then they can use that to legitimise that idea in their eyes, because they can play the victim. It does have the effect of de-legitmising the counter argument becuase they can't make it stand up on its own.

So, if an avid, say, consumer of liberal blogs, goes out and murders Dick Cheney and cites said blogs for inspiration, would you be calling for Daily KOS and Huffpo to be indicted and accusing them of hiding behind the first amendment?

That depends if the blogs instigate violence or not, as well as if there is a political motive for the attack by the attacker not simply if they read the blog but its not connected to their motive. Now back to IRL instead of hypotheticals. There is plenty anti-abortion rhetoric coming from politicians themselves, we even have a state representative here in Colorado who tried to justify the attack on the Colorado Springs planned parenthood.



Make what you want of it, but I don't think this is the kind of rhetoric that should be broadcasted by politicians.

So if a person feels autistic advocates that are pro cure are harmful to the autistic community they should not be allowed to say that because somebody might take them up on it and attack autistic pro cure advocates?. If a person feels the neurodiverse movement is harmful to autistics they should not be allowed to say they because somebody might read it and assassinate a Neurodiversity advocate? If this logic is followed there would quickly be no discussion of one of the most important issues to the community at all.

If I say something and someone else uses what I said and decides to kill someone, it was that person who made that decision for themselves. I think that adults should be responsible for their own decisions. I just don't understand blaming society or groups because of an individual doing something stupid or evil.

One liability the internet has, is that it leaves credulous people susceptible to the seduction of fringe crazies who they normally wouldn't ever get to hear about.

Pre-internet, you could always go to the library and read things written by Marx or Hitler, but there was a literacy barrier to that. Someone had to actually be inclined to read these things, and this kept away most of the guys who lack maturity. Now that ideas can be accessed instantly without effort, presented in video form or on a web forum, in bite sized chunks, in simple language; we get more thoughtless mimicry.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 08 Dec 2015, 2:36 am, edited 9 times in total.

While the political right has its moments, this is mostly a strategy of the left, as they've been going on about "eliminationist rhetoric" causing people to commit violence for some time, which they define as anything they disagree with that's put forcefully. That's what you have to look at it as, a strategy, otherwise you'll end up thinking a lot of people are really stupid.

Would you not attribute slavery as a product of society? Violence against women? Violence against LGBT+ people? Like it or not, most people don't have the time to think deeply enough to develop their own morality or ideology. When one sees a pattern of violence, such as the far-right terrorists targeting Planned Parenthood, it is unrealistic to dismiss such a pattern as "the irrational actions of individuals." Divorcing society from the violence it produces only spares societal guilt, not human lives.

Who is doing the limiting?

Anyone can be offended by anything.

I have offended Christians by quoting Bible Verses.

Now Assault, the threat of doing bodily harm is a Law. It can also apply if no individual was targeted, but a group was.

Calling people Politically Correct idiots does not threaten any individual or group. It is possible Idiots could sue for slander.

You don't even have to say the N word to come off as racist. Just use somethign that is merely phonetically similar like niggard or niggle and that will do the trick for those looking really hard for an opportunity to be offended.

I just got that for saying sand people, and sand religion. Sand is only half a word.

A Black man said, my son said his first half word. What was it? Mother.

Until this election is over, expect those with no political platform to shill and slide on every issue.

Minorities are defined as those who will lose the next election.

Oh, so we're going with there's a scientific consensus of 99% that the Colorado guy was a terrorist instead of a nutter? I must have missed that memo.

Guess I'm a 1 percenter.

I don't care what their intent was. If another Aspie was listening to it, they would feel more threatened than if the person had chosen insults unrelated to neurology.

Besides, I kind of doubt you'd call someone a 'ret*d ass-pie' as an insult unless you hated Aspies and cognitively disabled people in general.

Nah, people say things they don't mean in the heat of the moment all the time, they're just looking for whatever they think will piss off or hurt the other person the most when they're angry.

We have lost our word. Over at 4chan Aspie and Autist are used as words pointing out people missing the obvious.

Anon, your Autist vision could be cured if you would leave the house sometime.

It is something of an insult, but used correctly, you are a very intelligent person, except where you are totally not.

It is mild compared to what everyone is called.

Media, first it was Autism, then the subset of Aspergers, then "Aspie" and now showing up as he had an aspie moment.

We should have Trademarked it.

i've found this to be true.

i wonder how many people are apprehensive about pronouncing the country whose capital is Niamey?