Page 3 of 8 [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,697
Location: Reading, England

21 Jun 2015, 4:25 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
...AspieUtah's answer was "because some people don't think it's racist unless it breaks the law".

The Charleston shootings broke the law.

Ergo....

The inevitable trial will focus largely on the actions of the accused, not his speech, written or verbal, unless it is relevant to prove motive and premeditation. But, watch for others including any defense lawyers to argue that his speech cuts both ways what with his black friends who have already stated that he never spoke with them as he apparently did with his white friends. Any admitted or tested drug use will make it easier for the defense to argue the influence of such use (legal and illegal) as a mitigating factor to show that he enjoyed a diminished capacity to conclude right from wrong at the moment of his alleged acts. Now, little of this changes what appears to be conclusive evidence: that he was witnessed committing murders. So, I suspect that the trial will focus largely on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, not guilt.

Right. I'm just not really seeing a line of argument that fits with the discussion.

Ana said "why are some people denying that this is racist?"

You said "some people don't think it is racist unless it breaks the law" (slightly strange position as racist speech is not illegal in the US)

The issue is not his speech so much as his actions, the murders. As murder is illegal, his actions clearly broke the law - so, following from your statement, it is possible his actions were racist.



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

21 Jun 2015, 4:30 pm

Jacoby wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
He was a racist who was largely influenced by White Nationalists. You can tell because he parrots their ideology.

To deny or minimize the association raises some doubts about character. But even Republicans now have no choice but to admit it.

It's irresponsible to simply paint him as a single bad person when so many people actually AGREE with him. They might not agree that killing is right but they still agree with everything else he says.


It's wrong to paint him as a single bad person as opposed to what? Do you believe there was a conspiracy here, that he was getting assistance from someone else? I want to understand why this happen without regard to scoring points for a political agenda. The fact that some people agree with some things he said doesn't mean anything, what he said without the violent act attached to it is just stupidity and stupidity isn't against the law. By most accounts, Roof was a troubled isolated young man and even in his manifesto one of the repeating themes was his critique of other white nationalists and white people in general so I get that he didn't feel at home any where. This is just me trying to understand why this happened like everyone else.


I had a similar reaction when I first heard of the news but then I took a look myself at some online hate groups and was rather "enlightened" by some of the comments I was reading. Over and over and over again, people agreeing with his words but condemning his actions (they get to claim the moral high ground while simultaneously "understanding" why he did what he did).

I'm not explaining this well, just take a look for yourself.

Just as one example, read the article here and THEN read the comments.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/ ... e-killing/



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,697
Location: Reading, England

21 Jun 2015, 4:37 pm

If anything, he's an agent of stochastic terrorism.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

21 Jun 2015, 10:03 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
The question is "why do some people pretend that the Charleston shootings were not racist?"

AspieUtah's answer was "because some people don't think it's racist unless it breaks the law".

The Charleston shootings broke the law.

Ergo.


You've missed the point of his answer. They're downplaying the racial element on mainstream ideological grounds. For a very thorough breakdown, watch Sargon's response to TYT:



He went on to rip into Fox News too:




Quote:
And your second paragraph again seems unrelated to anything I have said. Racially-motivated violence is violent racism; you might not think that violence is worse when it is racist, but presumably you can agree that racism is worse when it is violent.


And I'm sure you'll agree that anyone who is capable of gunning down 9 people in a church is not your typical racist. Whilst his upbringing, environment, etc are all contributory, the primary factor here is that Roof is almost certainly mentally unhinged. If the goal here is to prevent future mass shootings, it is far more important to discover what traits (if any) he shares with other mass shooters. If the goal is to pursue a specific political narrative, then the mainstream media and their adherents can carry on. In doing so, however, they're using the corpses of Roof's victims as a soapbox.

Quote:
By "throw your arms up in the air and wail", I am referring to people bemoaning criticism of speech on the grounds that "freedom of speech" exists, using "freedom of speech" as a justification for saying any rubbish they want.


That's exactly what freedom of speech is. If freedom of speech is freedom only to say those things that you agree with, it's not freedom of speech at all.

Quote:
"Dies" was clearly somewhat metaphorical.


Hence my request for clarity.

Quote:
The Communist Party of America could probably be fairly said to have "died" because it has few or no elected public officials. Similarly, pro-Stalin views are "dead" in America because the vast majority will rightly denounce him and his sympathisers. That doesn't mean there are no members of the Communist Party or no Stalin sympathisers (and before anyone objects, I'm not conflating the two), they simply have no mainstream traction - if anything, the opposite.


So by "Dies" what you actually meant was "Has a diminished voice". The Communist Party of America is an organisation that still exists. Their ideas might not have much of a platform, but freedom of speech is not entitlement to a platform for your speech. Whether or not pro-Stalin views are diminished in terms of espousal, there is no restriction on pro-Stalin speech, save those restrictions which reply to all other speech.

Quote:
"Reprisal" - non-violent, legal actions, specifically things beyond simply expressing disagreement, taken by private individuals or organisations. Boycotts, petitioning sponsors, pressuring employers (or potential employers), voting them out of elected office, taking action to trigger a resignation, publicly shaming... I don't consider all of these to be ethical courses of action in all situations, but they are actions that are often taken against people who make unpopular speech.


Why would anyone desire immunity from lawful, non-violent reprisals for practitioners of ANY free speech? Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard, agreed with, voted for, nor does it grant you tenure at your place of employment.

Quote:
In order for unpopular opinions to be expressed freely, you would need to remove the disincentives for expressing unpopular opinions, such as potential public shaming, loss of employment, boycotts, and so forth. If anyone has ever looked at hate sites like Stormfront or some subreddits, you'll see people posting a wide variety of horrific opinions with the veil of anonymity and protection from moderators. By offering people the same protection in public life, more unpopular opinions could be expressed.


Not at all. You're conflating freedom from consequences with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech grants you the right to say what you want, when you want (with obvious exceptions in most legal systems). Freedom of speech does not grant you the right to be free of the consequences of exercising it. If the relative unpopularity of your ideals prevents you from speaking about them, that decision is one you are making for yourself in order to avoid said reprisals. Choosing to remain silent is freedom of speech too.

Quote:
I'm not arguing against freedom of speech.


You criticised "Laissez-Faire" (shall we instead use "unconditional"?) free speech on the grounds that some people are hypocrites. It's rather like criticising the absolute human right to vote because some voters are stupid. The problem is with your justification - there are numerous superior arguments against unconditional free speech.



iBlockhead
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

21 Jun 2015, 11:43 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Why is it whenever something stands atop the tallest building and screams RACISM!! ! ! at highest volume and it's absolutely clear to anyone who happens to have two brain cells that's what it is but Republicans will downplay it or act like it's not. Why are Republicans so scared of calling something racist when it's so obvious that's what it is. They would get a lot more votes if they had the guts to call it for what it is instead of pretending like it doesn't exist.

Republicans are already downplaying Charleston shooter Dylann Roof's clearly racist ideology:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... n-shooting

I would like to hear from one Republican's mouth, and that includes talking heads like Limbaugh and Hannity, Dylann Roof is a racist and was motivated to kill by his own racist ideology. What is so difficult about that? I would feel so much better about them if they could at least face reality!


It is difficult because of Roof's support for the Apartheid government.

Jesse Helms, Reagan, and numerous conservatives wanted to keep the Apartheid regime alive. Plus, Jack Abramoff might get brought up, which is the last thing a politician (on either side) needs for trying to distance themselves from Washington.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

22 Jun 2015, 1:28 am

Hey Walrus, you should check this one out, it's long, but I think you'd like it:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/14/fearful-symmetry/


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,697
Location: Reading, England

22 Jun 2015, 10:16 am

adifferentname wrote:
You criticised "Laissez-Faire" (shall we instead use "unconditional"?) free speech on the grounds that some people are hypocrites. It's rather like criticising the absolute human right to vote because some voters are stupid. The problem is with your justification - there are numerous superior arguments against unconditional free speech.

No, I didn't, actually. I criticised the hypocrisy, not unconditional free speech. I think that's a legitimate strategy.

I will say that it gives undue weight to popular opinions, and opinions expressed by people with the power to avoid reprisal. You can view that as a feature or a bug. My point boils down to the possibility that some regulation of speech, be that banning certain expressions or protecting the expression of some others, might actually lead to freer speech than "free market" speech would. Even if it's just "everyone on WrongPlanet agrees not to call for autistic extermination and not to bully people in silence".

@Dox - loved the blog post and didn't realise comments sections could be that good. Things were articulated that I'd long felt without quite being able to express, there were fresh perspectives, some things resonated hard and some made me have a good hard think. It was thoughtful, reflective and even-handed. Thank you for sharing.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

22 Jun 2015, 11:15 am

Not racist, but #1 with racists.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,541

22 Jun 2015, 12:14 pm

xenocity wrote:
It's quite simple actually...

The majority of the Republican votes come from the deep South, who has kept them viable as party since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When LBJ signed the bill into law on July 2, 1964, the South felt betrayed by Democrats and switch to backing the Republicans.

Literally the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the single act that realigned the U.S. political system to its current form.
Republicans were desperate to stop the bleeding of voters to the Progressive Democrats that had been going on since 1932.
In order to remain viable against the Democrats the Republicans decided to run with open arms in the Deep South to get these newly disenfranchised former Democrats who were willing to make peace with Republicans in order to stop the Democrats and North's plans for full integration.
The South previous hated the Republicans for the War of Northern Aggression and freeing the Slaves.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 literally ended 100 years of solid backing of the Democrats in the South.

When Election Day, 1968 happened, the South overwhelming voted for Nixon, allowing him to finally become president.

If the Republican Party comes out against Racism and actively fights it, they will lose the South which is their biggest voting block.
This will essentially hand the Democrats an outright majority in Congress for generations to come, until a new party rises up to challenge them if not drive the South back into Democrats hands.

The Republican Party has to take these stances to ensure their voting block:

1) Hate all minorities
2) Hate all gays
3) Hate all disabled people
4) Hate the poor
5) Hate the middle class
6) Support war
7) Support businesses
8) Support tax cuts
9) Push for ending Social Security and other social programs

If the Republicans switch their tune on any or all of these issues, they will lose the South, effectively killing the party for good.


"That's" a fact, OVERALL, and as a person who lives in the deep south in a red state area now can tell ya; in work, school, church or play; one of the best ways to get 'voted off the Island' is to start voicing dissent about the hate against gays, poor MENTALLY ILL panhandlers, wars, tax cuts, businesses rights, expanding social welfare; BUT overall, other than mental illness, disabilities are considered off the table of dissent at work, school, church and play; BUT BLACKS ARE STILL A CLEAR AND PRESENT TARGET OF RACISM, in the corners of 'red neck' play land almost every place one goes.

I guess 'cause I look like a 'tough white dude', another so-called 'tough white dude' comes up to me in line, waiting to go dance, last week, just to tell me the old black joke about why Stevie Wonder can't read; 'cause he is black'.

I assessed this dude's IQ at well below Stevie Wonder's IQ; he didn't have a clue; as my response befuddled him and went right over his head. I do the same thing at the First Baptist of up North, in the county, family 'holy' get togethers with conservative Republican Fundie, in-law associated folks, when they make fun of blacks, poor mentally ill panhandler 'type' folks, and do 'homophobie' 'type' stuff.

Wit conquers ignorance every now, at least in the 'shallow' Republican Red State South.

But again; ON the table for the other stuff, particularly at work, if ya wanna keep your job and be promoted.

And no; it's a good ole' boys closed-door policy thingy; the law doesn't do MUCH OF A thing to help behind closed 'boardroom' doors. The laws of tribalism and shared beliefs rule the same as they do throughout human history. And as 'Ted Talk' shows this Conservative opposing Liberal leaning thingy, goes far beyond just culture; it is an innate issue per more open minded folks who are not as averse to new experiences and DIFFERENT VS more closed-minded folks who are more closed to new experiences, including different.

Black folks=much darker pigment of skin when they arrive as slaves WITH a much different indigenous culture.

White folks of the conservative leaning pre-disposition, back then, still go,
OH MY GOD, 'I'M TERRIFIED';
THAT'S DIFFERENT.

Meanwhile, open-minded folks can see theses folks are fully human;
just a little more 'tan', with a much different indigenous culture.

There are going to be racists and discrimination,
in general, as long as there is different
and conservative thinking
minds that are not open
to DIFFERENT.

THAT'S just part of human nature and PART OF WHY there are laws to control that; as left unfettered, conservative thinking minds will MOST DEFINITELY VOTE DIFFERENT OFF THE ISLAND, if given the opportunity, as 'free' closed-minded thinking folks to do just THAT..:)

Anyway; just to prove I am not too 'estranged' here 'in the land' of 'same thinking' folks, here is the proof for THAT..:)



And YES, 'even' here, it's highly predictable of who will or who will not get all bent out of shape when I use NOVEL ways of
communication. There is a 95% rate of Introversion in the huge informal Poll that Fnord starts here; that still holds up in other polls, as well, as my understanding is that poll no longer works; and yes, Introversion is directly related to a spectrum of closed-minded thinking opposed to Novel ways of doing stuff; however that is a generality, and exceptions most definitely do apply.

And generally speaking, this particular environment has not been one, overall, friendly to folks who are truly different; not surprising but ironic in a way; per the meme of Autistic leaning folks thinking differently; well, here at least, they are averse to change, overall; and that at core is a 'same of thinking', ironically, AS 'different way of thinking', in the extreme of analytical ordered mind that refuses to move outside of established boundaries of doing NOVEL stuff in most areas of life.

There are hands on folks and follow the rule folks; I for one can do both.
And no, I'm not suggesting I am the only one who can 'DANCE' that; smiles..:)

Oh and by the way; if Fundie Christians truly 'feel' how 'liberal minded' God IS
they will likely vote GOD off the ISLAND.

AND in a symbolic way,
'they', long ago, do THAT ALREADY.

Oh God; THAT is frigging delicious irony and one that goes straight over 'their head', most often,
even if I say it straight to their face; as that is a symptom of the issue as well. Racism is
a symptom of a closed mind; the same kind of closed minds that chopped penises off
of great works of RENAISSANCE CULTURES AS ALL THEY COULD see is the penis
and not the rest of the work of human art. Terrified over a Penis; now that
is truly strange BUT fear that 'their wives' might just LIKE
DIFFERENT A LITTLE MORE; and yes, in many cases
they do; and now we have lots of white women
interested in well equipped black
males; and to be clear, equipped
with self-esteem; as black
males have the highest
levels of self-esteem measured
by science, per any other ethnic demographic in the U.S.;
main factors cited are confidence in sexual prowess and ability to
defend oneself in a fight; yes, the protector stereotype and successful
reproducer is still a real innate meme that works in attracting the opposite sex.

But like I said;

GOD AKA NATURE
IS A FRIGGING LIBERAL THINGY;
at least, OVER
ALL..:)

Racism is just a symptom of an 'inferiority complex', of
humans who deep down 'assess' themselves as lesser,
and wanna get rid of the competition; and this
has been going on as long as Nature aka GOD
has been going
on, as well.

I just sit back and watch
the PREDICTABLE play of life;
as it is ordered and ruled by
Nature AKA
GOD..:)

BUT Yeah, I learned my self-esteem lessons
from both my feral cats and
my 'jock black friends'
back in the real
tough
school
of survival..:)

No one, no matter how 'smart' they think they are in terms
of Standard IQ fools Mother Nature AKA GOD; for those
who 'think' they do, there are real nature consequences;
Nature will have 'her' way with human nature and the
symptoms of that are directly correlated with
human misery, suffering, and premature
DEATH; AND little boys with big
guns in black churches
who are afraid they
alone are
not enough;
without 'a
Gun'; and to be clear; 'Gun' here used as metaphor for tool extension of human being.
AND are out to prove they are someone; where the black
males just strut by in a confident smooth manner
that 'says'; I know I am a fearless
male; 'FU', if you don't
like it 'cause on
top of that;
now I am
free and
no longer
'slave' to 'your'
weakness..:)

But I for one; have no problems reading body language
or expressing it now that I learn in the real hard knocks of life what it
truly means to be a fearless loving animal of Mother Nature AKA Human;

Yes, 'I am a black SPIDER man'
in Spirit NOW; and yes,
'black' 'wins'
in 'that'
'Indigenous
SPIRIT WAY' of life..:)

IT IS no wonder that the new youth of
'Red Neck Land' listen to Rap so
much now, to me;
they just wanna
Social Role and
Culture AND
RAP has that..:)

Back to Nature AKA GOD, baby;
proven to work; time and
time, always
NOW..;)

And to be clear I have the
Monologue kinda Autism;
I talk long and FOCUSED
when allowed to
express myself
FREELY..:)

NO Twitter
land
for me..:)

And yeah; humans have
been a long story telling
oral tradition animal;
long before this
quick byte and bit style
of OMG,
I'm 'terrified'
and 'lost'
'Doctor';
TL; DR
comes
to limit
human
minds even
more in oral tradition
AND INNATE Propensity,
in much greater instinctual
and intuitive potential
OVER
all
as
HUMAN BEING..:)



And yeah; if GOD has a theme song for Human Nature at core;
yes, REAL HUMAN NATURE;
it will be this song;
and it will terrify
the pants
off of Fundie Christian
'RED NECK' folks that tHEIR GOD
is both
'black'
in indigenous
SPIRIT
LIKE India's
'KALI'
and
FRIGGING
LOVES
SEX, WITH A VARIETY
OF LOVING
NURTURING
WOMEN.

YES, the irony
is both delicious,
deadly,
AND
SAD..:(
But 'like' so-called Jesus
says; THE TRUTH OF NATURE
WILL BE A
WAY
TO SET
'YOU'
FREE!..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

22 Jun 2015, 1:19 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
@Dox - loved the blog post and didn't realise comments sections could be that good. Things were articulated that I'd long felt without quite being able to express, there were fresh perspectives, some things resonated hard and some made me have a good hard think. It was thoughtful, reflective and even-handed. Thank you for sharing.


No problem, I learned about this guy on Facebook, of all places, after being accused of plagiarizing him without ever having heard of him, and every time I read one of his pieces I feel like my brain is being hacked a little bit. I think you were one of the people who really liked his "I can tolerate anything but the outgroup" that I linked a few months back, and I highly suggest browsing through his archives when you've got some time, as he is a bit long winded. One of the articles that really struck home for me was him musing about how he's not conservative by any means, but finds himself dismissing conservative misbehavior as dinosaurs on the way out, while going on Glenn Beck style rants about liberals silencing dissent and thought-policing anyone who sets a toe out of line through online shaming and boycott calls, a feeling I'm very familiar with. It's odd reading for me in a way, as I've found that the way I approach things intellectually is very different from how most people do, including other autistics, where this guy is not only engaging the same way, but he's much better at it, and a better writer to boot, not a combination I'm used to encountering.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

22 Jun 2015, 1:36 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
No, I didn't, actually. I criticised the hypocrisy, not unconditional free speech. I think that's a legitimate strategy.

I will say that it gives undue weight to popular opinions, and opinions expressed by people with the power to avoid reprisal. You can view that as a feature or a bug. My point boils down to the possibility that some regulation of speech, be that banning certain expressions or protecting the expression of some others, might actually lead to freer speech than "free market" speech would. Even if it's just "everyone on WrongPlanet agrees not to call for autistic extermination and not to bully people in silence".


While I'm on a roll, you also might like this one, which explains one way of trying to avoid slippery slopes when crafting speech regulations:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_f ... ry_slopes/

Obviously, I'm not in favor of any regulation on speech, but I found the argument very interesting.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

23 Jun 2015, 12:39 am

The_Walrus wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
You criticised "Laissez-Faire" (shall we instead use "unconditional"?) free speech on the grounds that some people are hypocrites. It's rather like criticising the absolute human right to vote because some voters are stupid. The problem is with your justification - there are numerous superior arguments against unconditional free speech.


No, I didn't, actually. I criticised the hypocrisy, not unconditional free speech. I think that's a legitimate strategy.


If your target is hypocrisy, why bring it up at all? As you posted it in response to myself and AspieUtah, I can now only assume that you're labelling one or both of us hypocrites. If that's not your intention, you've wasted a great deal of energy on nothing at all. Unless, of course, the point of the exercise was simply to sharpen the claws of mental acuity, which I'm actually all for. If the latter, there are superior topics of debate for us to tackle than free speech.

Quote:
I will say that it gives undue weight to popular opinions, and opinions expressed by people with the power to avoid reprisal. You can view that as a feature or a bug. My point boils down to the possibility that some regulation of speech, be that banning certain expressions or protecting the expression of some others, might actually lead to freer speech than "free market" speech would. Even if it's just "everyone on WrongPlanet agrees not to call for autistic extermination and not to bully people in silence".


Asking everyone on WP not to call for autistic extermination on WP wouldn't infringe on any individual's freedom of speech. It would, however, completely eradicate the possibility that someone could freely post an articulate, logically consistent argument for why we should exterminate autistics. If such an argument were presented in a 'non-hateful' manner, I'd personally have no problem allowing it to stand and be picked apart by the neurologically atypical minds of PPR. You can't challenge ideas from inside a bubble.

Bullying is hard to define, relying as it does on subjective interpretation, and probably can't be considered a freedom of speech issue.

Dox47 wrote:
Obviously, I'm not in favor of any regulation on speech, but I found the argument very interesting.


What are your views on slanderous/libellous speech, incitement to violence, etc?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

23 Jun 2015, 1:21 am

adifferentname wrote:
What are your views on slanderous/libellous speech, incitement to violence, etc?


I'm generally okay with them if they're very narrowly tailored, especially incitement, as partisans of all stripes would just love to label each others hyperbole as "incitement".


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

23 Jun 2015, 1:23 am

adifferentname wrote:
Asking everyone on WP not to call for autistic extermination on WP wouldn't infringe on any individual's freedom of speech. It would, however, completely eradicate the possibility that someone could freely post an articulate, logically consistent argument for why we should exterminate autistics. If such an argument were presented in a 'non-hateful' manner, I'd personally have no problem allowing it to stand and be picked apart by the neurologically atypical minds of PPR. You can't challenge ideas from inside a bubble.


I agree, and have long lobbied for such a policy regarding opinions considered racist, homophobic, etc, as I feel that engagement is preferable to suppression, but I'm usually overruled on that one.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

24 Jun 2015, 5:15 am

Dox47 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
What are your views on slanderous/libellous speech, incitement to violence, etc?


I'm generally okay with them if they're very narrowly tailored, especially incitement, as partisans of all stripes would just love to label each others hyperbole as "incitement".


Aye. I consider slander/libel under the category of "free speech with consequences". Incitement laws should (and generally do) apply to directly inspired violence, e.g. an individual or group who rouse a mob to cause harm to another person or property.