17 Dec 2020, 5:32 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I just feel that the consequences have gotten out of hand, and people are being punished for having opinions or saying things that aren't even hate speech.
If you say things that make you seem like an as*hole people will treat you accordingly. That's not a violation of one's freedom of speech.And this:
by Randall Munroe
Note: The mouseover text reads: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
17 Dec 2020, 5:35 pm
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
17 Dec 2020, 5:36 pm
Pepe wrote:
I was saying that freedom of speech has its limits and is governed by the context. 
As Fnord pointed out, shouting "FIRE" in a theatre is not on.
As Fnord pointed out, shouting "FIRE" in a theatre is not on.
You don't think that creating conspiracy theories that an election that was closely monitored is somehow illegitimate with no evidence is essentially shouting fire in a crowded theatre, where a certain might really be wanting to create a civil war? Or maybe denying climate change that most experts say is a thing is something similar when things are only going to get worse with nothing done?
Pepe wrote:
I was also making the point that not all social systems embrace integrity.
Well, actually, I think most don't.
Peter Ridd was viciously attacked for pointing out the *truth* about how his co-worker ignored the correct procedures when assessing the health of The Great Barrier Reef.
The person he was referring to was following the left-wing narrative, rather than embracing professional integrity.
Peter Ridd was punished unjustifiably, imo, by the university, for pointing this out.
Well, actually, I think most don't.
Peter Ridd was viciously attacked for pointing out the *truth* about how his co-worker ignored the correct procedures when assessing the health of The Great Barrier Reef.
The person he was referring to was following the left-wing narrative, rather than embracing professional integrity.
Peter Ridd was punished unjustifiably, imo, by the university, for pointing this out.
Great swaths of the reef are bleached? You can see pictures that show how much it has deteriorated in a short time.
Some quick lookups of Peter Ridd shows that his soul goal with climate denial is to slow research by calling for equal funding climate change denialism. Some of his facts don't even make sense, like his claim about coral reefs being fine because they can adapt to warmer temperatures, but there is photo evidence that shows he is spreading dangerous lies.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 Dec 2020, 5:36 pm
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I think people whine and complain a lot about 'muh free speech' for the wrong reasons...some of the 'opinions' people have been shamed for are quite harmful. And to my knowledge those people haven't been arrested for what they said, just have found the public and perhaps online platforms now would prefer to keep their distance. Freedom of speech does not mean you don't have to face the consequences of what you say....
Yes.
Free speech is free to express.
Your physical freedom, not so much.
Ask Nelson Mandela.
What was their context and meaning of that? I am confused how exactly that ties into my post.
I was saying that freedom of speech has its limits and is governed by the context.
As Fnord pointed out, shouting "FIRE" in a theatre is not on.
I was also making the point that not all social systems embrace integrity.
Well, actually, I think most don't.
Peter Ridd was viciously attacked for pointing out the *truth* about how his co-worker ignored the correct procedures when assessing the health of The Great Barrier Reef.
The person he was referring to was following the left-wing narrative, rather than embracing professional integrity.
Peter Ridd was punished unjustifiably, imo, by the university, for pointing this out.
Does sound like he has some kind of questionable connections:
'Ridd’s speaking tour has been hosted by regional branches of the sugarcane growers peak body, Canegrowers, and the Australian Environment Foundation, a charity set up by the rightwing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs, with strong links to the agriculture and fossil fuel industries.'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ng-science
So I do have to question what his motives really were, and seems the larger scientific community finds what he says on the reef to be inaccurate.
17 Dec 2020, 5:39 pm
Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I just feel that the consequences have gotten out of hand, and people are being punished for having opinions or saying things that aren't even hate speech.
If you say things that make you seem like an as*hole people will treat you accordingly. That's not a violation of one's freedom of speech.And this:
by Randall Munroe
Note: The mouseover text reads: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
If the people who are in a position to ban are biased/unethical, that doesn't mean that the person who is shown the door is an A$$hole.
This concept is not rocket surgery.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 Dec 2020, 5:41 pm
Pepe wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well on a side note, why do people take twitter seriously? Twitter is just a joke, that wants to ban people for saying anything, so why do people still take it seriously, as if their is some redemption left in it?
I don't use Twitter.
I am not a twit, after all.
But I have heard too many things, from people I respect, not to see Twitter other than a social sewer, and largely a left-wing echo chamber.
I wonder why Trump spent so much time on there then, I thought he hated all things left wing.
I never have had any interest in twitter, because of its terrible cluttered format looks like a headache.
17 Dec 2020, 5:43 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I think people whine and complain a lot about 'muh free speech' for the wrong reasons...some of the 'opinions' people have been shamed for are quite harmful. And to my knowledge those people haven't been arrested for what they said, just have found the public and perhaps online platforms now would prefer to keep their distance. Freedom of speech does not mean you don't have to face the consequences of what you say....
Yes.
Free speech is free to express.
Your physical freedom, not so much.
Ask Nelson Mandela.
What was their context and meaning of that? I am confused how exactly that ties into my post.
I was saying that freedom of speech has its limits and is governed by the context.
As Fnord pointed out, shouting "FIRE" in a theatre is not on.
I was also making the point that not all social systems embrace integrity.
Well, actually, I think most don't.
Peter Ridd was viciously attacked for pointing out the *truth* about how his co-worker ignored the correct procedures when assessing the health of The Great Barrier Reef.
The person he was referring to was following the left-wing narrative, rather than embracing professional integrity.
Peter Ridd was punished unjustifiably, imo, by the university, for pointing this out.
Does sound like he has some kind of questionable connections:
'Ridd’s speaking tour has been hosted by regional branches of the sugarcane growers peak body, Canegrowers, and the Australian Environment Foundation, a charity set up by the rightwing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs, with strong links to the agriculture and fossil fuel industries.'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ng-science
So I do have to question what his motives really were, and seems the larger scientific community finds what he says on the reef to be inaccurate.
First I heard about it.
What you have presented came *after* he was sacked.
The original scenario stands unblemished.
17 Dec 2020, 5:45 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well on a side note, why do people take twitter seriously? Twitter is just a joke, that wants to ban people for saying anything, so why do people still take it seriously, as if their is some redemption left in it?
I don't use Twitter.
I am not a twit, after all.
But I have heard too many things, from people I respect, not to see Twitter other than a social sewer, and largely a left-wing echo chamber.
I wonder why Trump spent so much time on there then, I thought he hated all things left wing.
I never have had any interest in twitter, because of its terrible cluttered format looks like a headache.
Well, Trump is a twit, hence his involvement with twitter.
Please remember, I am an Australian and I am talking using an Australian context.
Twitter, in Australia, seems to be largely/overwhelmingly a left-wing echo-chamber.
Twitter, here in Australia, went in meltdown despair, so I heard when The Labor Party lost the last election.
Last edited by Pepe on 17 Dec 2020, 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
17 Dec 2020, 5:48 pm
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
17 Dec 2020, 5:49 pm
17 Dec 2020, 5:50 pm
Fnord wrote:
Why do people defend the abuse of Free Speech?
Why do people defend muzzling freedom of speech and thought?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 Dec 2020, 5:53 pm
Pepe wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well on a side note, why do people take twitter seriously? Twitter is just a joke, that wants to ban people for saying anything, so why do people still take it seriously, as if their is some redemption left in it?
I don't use Twitter.
I am not a twit, after all.
But I have heard too many things, from people I respect, not to see Twitter other than a social sewer, and largely a left-wing echo chamber.
I wonder why Trump spent so much time on there then, I thought he hated all things left wing.
I never have had any interest in twitter, because of its terrible cluttered format looks like a headache.
Well, Trump is a twit, hence his involvement with twitter.
Please remember, I am an Australian and I am talking using an Australian context.
Twitter, in Australia, seems to be largely/overwhelmingly a left-wing echo-chamber.
Twitter, here in Australia, went in meltdown despair, so I heard when The Labor Party lost the last election.
Well, yeah I cannot say I know much about the goings on of Twitter in Australia, and what I know of Twitter in the U.S is just screenshots I see on reddit.
That said the labor party sounds good at least on paper, so could be people were disappointed for good reason but I suppose I'd have to look more into what the Australian Labor Party stands for exactly to be sure.
Last edited by Sweetleaf on 17 Dec 2020, 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
17 Dec 2020, 5:55 pm
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Why do people defend the abuse of Free Speech?
Why do people defend muzzling freedom of speech and thought?
Because they have the freedom of speech to...defend limiting free speech.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,116
Location: Right over your left shoulder
17 Dec 2020, 5:57 pm
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I just feel that the consequences have gotten out of hand, and people are being punished for having opinions or saying things that aren't even hate speech.
If you say things that make you seem like an as*hole people will treat you accordingly. That's not a violation of one's freedom of speech.And this:
by Randall Munroe
Note: The mouseover text reads: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
If the people who are in a position to ban are biased/unethical, that doesn't mean that the person who is shown the door is an A$$hole.
This concept is not rocket surgery.
Insisting the cops/refs/whoever was unfair is a common complaint when one is facing consequences for their actions, it doesn't always mean those claims are true even if they are some of the time or hypothetically could be in some situation.
This concept also isn't rocket science.
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
17 Dec 2020, 6:00 pm
Pepe wrote:
If the people who are in a position to ban are biased/unethical, that doesn't mean that the person who is shown the door is an A$$hole.
This concept is not rocket surgery.
This concept is not rocket surgery.
What does biased/unethical mean? Is a scientist biased/unethical if they by actual facts instead of taking the bible into consideration, to a religious person?
A lot of the times of these topics are things the people did not care about, missed most of the research, and then they point to some old textbook and ask why there is not more faith in that textbook over all the studies. Ignoring the fact that these old textbooks often had oversimplifications, and questionable facts themselves for possibly political reasons.
17 Dec 2020, 6:04 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Why do so many people get angry about differences of opinion |
28 Mar 2025, 9:33 pm |
| Opinion on Love On Thr Spectrum Season 3 |
13 Apr 2025, 9:03 am |
| Talking to People |
30 Apr 2025, 6:15 pm |
| Is it all about networking with people? |
27 May 2025, 1:24 pm |
