Tolerance for the intolerant???
01 May 2021, 5:46 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.
Are you in support of censorship or not?
Are you in support of censorship or not?
Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.
I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.
Yes it was. You just don't like the fact my answer was nuanced rather than a simple yes or no. I don't think a binary answer is appropriate when discussing freedom of speech. My answer explains why.
Either you understand the reason for the First Amendment or you don't. It's as simple as that. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. You either understand why hate speech should be protected speech or you don't.
Ive seen nothing but verbal gymnastics from you.
And I've seen nothing but over-simplification from you.
It's not a binary debate. Context is important.
If you ban free speech then serious wrongs in society could go unreported and there would be no justice.
On the other hand there are things which are not appropriate for most, arguably ALL, people all of the time. I gave snuff movies as one example - rape, animal abuse, child abuse, torture, sadism are others. Not fine even among those who love such topics, in my view - definitely not fine if blasted out at everybody else on prime-time TV.
The problem here, which you aren't addressing at all, is the inherent contradictions of the debate. If you allow complete free speech with no limits then for all the positives (freedom, enlightenment, justice etc.) you will also have to cope with the negatives (libel, slander, aggression, grotesqueness, provocation, misinformation, manipulation, exploitation etc.).
Conversely if you attempt to ban all the dangerous extremes there's a good probability you'll also rule out a lot of the cutting edge material that's actually positive - art, philosophy, innovation, troubleshooting, counter-cultural information, alternative viewpoints, anti-corruption investigations, and anything else that goes against the status quo.
So what's your answer to that paradox, then, Mr. All-Or-Nothing?
To my mind some degree of censorship is inevitable to stop the innocent from being traumatised, to stop dangerous extremists and psychopaths from getting a platform, and to prevent fraud and exploitation. But any censorship needs to be delicately done, and totally independent of other social, economic and political forces and institutions (religion, big business, politics etc.). Ensuring that remains the case would need to be a 24/7 concern. But it always comes back to the same problem: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Incidentally, I say that as someone who doesn't have a First Amendment.
There's an irony here in discussing something in "yes or no" terms, that was an amendment. The American implementation of freedom of speech is essentially BS - you have the right to say anything you want, but if it's anything different from the white, Christian, male, capitalist doctrine then there'll be hell to pay. So despite all the moralistic posturing and the wonders of the First Amendment there's actually very little freedom at all, unless you're a fan of getting lynched. You can say whatever you like, provided you fit in. What sort of freedom is that?
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Your question is idiotic in its simplicity, so no. I refuse to answer in the manner you require, because that can never be accurate. Ergo your question is a waste of time, as are your expectations.
The reality of it is far more complex. I note that you continually refuse to engage with that truth. Your loss.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,495
Location: Long Island, New York
01 May 2021, 6:01 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.
I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.
I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.
I disagree. There are people here and elsewhere who think Autistic people are superior to NT’s. At times the NT’s are dumb, only care about social hierarchical, that Autistics have superpowers etc thinking have been rampant here. I have no problem calling them Aspie or Autistic supremacists. They do not have any power they are usually one person with a computer. Their supremacist beliefs are usually an overcorrection to our lack of power.
And that's why they're irrelevant, they don't have the power to accomplish anything towards creating an autistic supremacist power structure so they can't actually do anything but preach an ideology that can't possibly be implemented.
Ideology is meaningless if it can't accomplish anything, that's why I focus on soft white supremacism instead of Atomwaffen Division types. The AWD types won't likely accomplish anything because even other avowed white supremacists want nothing to do with them. They might be a terrorist threat but they're not a substantial threat to civil rights.
They are not irrelevant, in the minds of some Autistic supremacists stigmatize and define the entire neurodiversity movement making things more difficult for said movement.
If Atomwaffen Division succeeds in their goal of blowing up nuke plants I am not going to care that they did not succeed in their goal of making America Nazi Germany 2.0. That situation indirectly would be a nightmare for rights. Do 9/11, the Patriot Act act, and profiling Muslims ring a bell?
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
01 May 2021, 6:08 pm
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.
Are you in support of censorship or not?
Are you in support of censorship or not?
Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.
I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.
Yes it was. You just don't like the fact my answer was nuanced rather than a simple yes or no. I don't think a binary answer is appropriate when discussing freedom of speech. My answer explains why.
Either you understand the reason for the First Amendment or you don't. It's as simple as that. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. You either understand why hate speech should be protected speech or you don't.
Ive seen nothing but verbal gymnastics from you.
And I've seen nothing but over-simplification from you.
It's not a binary debate. Context is important.
If you ban free speech then serious wrongs in society could go unreported and there would be no justice.
On the other hand there are things which are not appropriate for most, arguably ALL, people all of the time. I gave snuff movies as one example - rape, animal abuse, child abuse, torture, sadism are others. Not fine even among those who love such topics, in my view - definitely not fine if blasted out at everybody else on prime-time TV.
The problem here, which you aren't addressing at all, is the inherent contradictions of the debate. If you allow complete free speech with no limits then for all the positives (freedom, enlightenment, justice etc.) you will also have to cope with the negatives (libel, slander, aggression, grotesqueness, provocation, misinformation, manipulation, exploitation etc.).
Conversely if you attempt to ban all the dangerous extremes there's a good probability you'll also rule out a lot of the cutting edge material that's actually positive - art, philosophy, innovation, troubleshooting, counter-cultural information, alternative viewpoints, anti-corruption investigations, and anything else that goes against the status quo.
So what's your answer to that paradox, then, Mr. All-Or-Nothing?
To my mind some degree of censorship is inevitable to stop the innocent from being traumatised, to stop dangerous extremists and psychopaths from getting a platform, and to prevent fraud and exploitation. But any censorship needs to be delicately done, and totally independent of other social, economic and political forces and institutions (religion, big business, politics etc.). Ensuring that remains the case would need to be a 24/7 concern. But it always comes back to the same problem: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Incidentally, I say that as someone who doesn't have a First Amendment.
There's an irony here in discussing something in "yes or no" terms, that was an amendment. The American implementation of freedom of speech is essentially BS - you have the right to say anything you want, but if it's anything different from the white, Christian, male, capitalist doctrine then there'll be hell to pay. So despite all the moralistic posturing and the wonders of the First Amendment there's actually very little freedom at all, unless you're a fan of getting lynched. You can say whatever you like, provided you fit in. What sort of freedom is that?
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Your question is idiotic in its simplicity, so no. I refuse to answer in the manner you require, because that can never be accurate. Ergo your question is a waste of time, as are your expectations.
The reality of it is far more complex. I note that you continually refuse to engage with that truth. Your loss.
Judas Priest! How hard is it for you to admit that you believe there should be restrictions to free speech?
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
OutsideView
Veteran
Joined: 4 Oct 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,022
Location: England ^not male but apparently you can't change it
02 May 2021, 3:46 am
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
_________________
Silence lies steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House. And we who walk here, walk alone.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
02 May 2021, 4:20 am
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
Also, hate speech is not protected speech and if anything there are important reasons that it should not be protected.
_________________
We won't go back.
02 May 2021, 8:45 am
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
No, reads like someone who is frustrated at someone who is fancing all arpund the issue.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
02 May 2021, 8:48 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
Also, hate speech is not protected speech and if anything there are important reasons that it should not be protected.
Hate speech is protected speech in the U.S. under the First Amendment, as well it should be.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,495
Location: Long Island, New York
02 May 2021, 10:26 am
VegetableMan wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
Also, hate speech is not protected speech and if anything there are important reasons that it should not be protected.
Hate speech is protected speech in the U.S. under the First Amendment, as well it should be.
Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech? - lawyers.com
Quote:
There’s no exception for hate speech under the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of expression, unless the speech is direct, personal, and either truly threatening or violently provocative.
the Court hasn’t recognized an exception for hate speech, unless it falls under one of the other kinds of unprotected expression.
Courts have generally found that the First Amendment protects speech if it causes only emotional injury, no matter how offensive it is. In one case, the father of a military veteran sued the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress after church members picketed his son’s funeral with hateful, antigay signs. The Supreme Court found that the First Amendment protected the picketing. The Court focused on the fact that the signs (like “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”) mainly addressed public issues. (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).)
Courts have regularly struck down speech codes at public colleges and universities that barred racist or discriminatory comments.
The rules are somewhat different for K-12 public schools. Courts have allowed more limits on students' freedom of expression than on college students or adults in other settings, as part of balancing students’ rights with schools’ responsibility to ensure that children have a safe learning environment.
The First Amendment doesn’t give people the right to make direct, personal threats of immediate violence. This can include intimidating symbolic actions like burning a cross that are meant to make specific victims fear for their lives, even if the cross-burners don’t actually plan to carry through with the threat (Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).)
In one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent cases on hate speech and the First Amendment, the High Court struck down a federal law prohibiting registration of trademarks that may disparage any "persons, living or dead." An Asian rock group challenged the denial of a trademark for its name, "The Slants" which it had chosen to "reclaim" the derogatory term for people of Asian descent. The Supreme Court said the law was an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights. (Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017).)
the Court hasn’t recognized an exception for hate speech, unless it falls under one of the other kinds of unprotected expression.
Courts have generally found that the First Amendment protects speech if it causes only emotional injury, no matter how offensive it is. In one case, the father of a military veteran sued the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress after church members picketed his son’s funeral with hateful, antigay signs. The Supreme Court found that the First Amendment protected the picketing. The Court focused on the fact that the signs (like “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”) mainly addressed public issues. (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).)
Courts have regularly struck down speech codes at public colleges and universities that barred racist or discriminatory comments.
The rules are somewhat different for K-12 public schools. Courts have allowed more limits on students' freedom of expression than on college students or adults in other settings, as part of balancing students’ rights with schools’ responsibility to ensure that children have a safe learning environment.
The First Amendment doesn’t give people the right to make direct, personal threats of immediate violence. This can include intimidating symbolic actions like burning a cross that are meant to make specific victims fear for their lives, even if the cross-burners don’t actually plan to carry through with the threat (Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).)
In one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent cases on hate speech and the First Amendment, the High Court struck down a federal law prohibiting registration of trademarks that may disparage any "persons, living or dead." An Asian rock group challenged the denial of a trademark for its name, "The Slants" which it had chosen to "reclaim" the derogatory term for people of Asian descent. The Supreme Court said the law was an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights. (Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017).)
The U.S.A. has a much broader interpretation of free speech than most countries. Hate Speech laws are common the “western world”.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
02 May 2021, 11:16 am
Who gets to determine what is hate speech and what is not? One thing most of us understand is that political correctness has advanced to an absurd level. It's an overcorrectuon for centuries of oppression against certain races and cultures. That understandable. However, the negative aspects of this type of censorship are glaringly obvious. What happens when we wake up one day and we've created a society where everyone has the right to not be offended by ANYTHING?
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
OutsideView
Veteran
Joined: 4 Oct 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,022
Location: England ^not male but apparently you can't change it
02 May 2021, 11:54 am
VegetableMan wrote:
What happens when we wake up one day and we've created a society where everyone has the right to not be offended by ANYTHING?
I imagine people would get fed up with it and things would swing back the other way.
_________________
Silence lies steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House. And we who walk here, walk alone.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,575
Location: Right over your left shoulder
02 May 2021, 12:47 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
Who gets to determine what is hate speech and what is not?
The courts.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
02 May 2021, 4:40 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
No, reads like someone who is frustrated at someone who is fancing all arpund the issue.
It's an illogically simple question, hence you won't get a yes/no answer, because that's inappropriate.
Let's try another one as an example.
Do you believe in violence to solve disputes? Yes / No.
02 May 2021, 5:38 pm
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
No, reads like someone who is frustrated at someone who is fancing all arpund the issue.
It's an illogically simple question, hence you won't get a yes/no answer, because that's inappropriate.
Let's try another one as an example.
Do you believe in violence to solve disputes? Yes / No.
The answer to your question is no, I don't.
Don't waste my f*****g time any further with your verbose evasions of the question.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,575
Location: Right over your left shoulder
02 May 2021, 5:43 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
No, reads like someone who is frustrated at someone who is fancing all arpund the issue.
It's an illogically simple question, hence you won't get a yes/no answer, because that's inappropriate.
Let's try another one as an example.
Do you believe in violence to solve disputes? Yes / No.
The answer to your question is no, I don't.
Don't waste my f*****g time any further with your verbose evasions of the question.
Does getting angry when you're cornered ever actually give you an out, or is it just a panic response?
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
02 May 2021, 5:46 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.
Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.
Is it just me or does this post read like "I believe in free speech. Say what I want you to say or shut up!"?
Also, hate speech is not protected speech and if anything there are important reasons that it should not be protected.
Hate speech is protected speech in the U.S. under the First Amendment, as well it should be.
I guess technically its protected to an extent, but very easy for it to cross over to inciting violence which is illegal. Seems more often than not hate speech crosses over to inciting violence.
_________________
We won't go back.
