Freedom of speech vs Respecting other people's feelings

Post Reply New Topic

I disagree.
PPL don't have a right to be irrational if they are unjustly damaging others.
Ppl don't have a right to shun 'you' if they want to maintain a reputation of having personal INTEGRITY.
And ppl need to develop emotional discipline so they can look through the emotional discomfort.

Was it a personal attack?
Was it a general personal philosophy?
Is the person being judgemental?
Is the person engaging in gross virtue-signalling?

There is much to consider before taking things personally.
Critical thinking helps.
Emotional discipline helps.
Embracing reason rather than feelings helps.
But this is a post-modernism era where the scientific methodology is humiliated and emotionalism is elevated to a dogmatic dictate.


https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... -modernism

What has society become?
Thankfully, I am halfway out the door, and I am not coming back to this madness.

The caffeinated skunk has spoken.

freedom of speech

If you want the Truth, never talk to a politician.
Politicians are professional liars.
It is simply a part of their job description.

Religion is an emotion-based philosophy.
There are dangers involved that need to be considered.

Heuristic:
Criticise any Christian-based religion you want.
Avoid criticising some religions that aren't.
"Pragmatism" rulz.
Dishonour before death. Hooah!

But at what cost?
The destruction of their credibility...
The destruction of their integrity...
The humiliation of their intellectual capacity that is intolerant of a different opinion.

And to hell with the Truth...
"Glory to the narrative!"

What ever happened to the disciple of: "Let us agree to disagree",
Comrade?

Glory to caffeine!

The Civil rights act that I mentioned does not refer to public lynchings, those were illegal anyway. That act prohibits discrimination when it comes to freedom of association based on race, sex or other. What we are talking about is the possibility to expand that to freedom of speech. If someone cannot fire an employee based on his skin color, or deny services for a gay wedding, then that can be expanded to someone not being able to fire an employee based on his beliefs. Based on the same logic that this civil rights act uses.

Again I remind you that I believe in freedom of association and that those laws should be repelled altogether. But if you like them you should consider Nades' proposition.

Who are you to decide which form of mob harassement is worse. It's like comparing murder with domestic violence and hinting that domestic violence is not that bad after all.

Again and again you keep using the word shunning which is a personal predisposition of the members of the harassing group instead of the words getting fired or getting denied your ability to provide for yourself, which is the resault of shunning. It's like calling a murder, "trigger pulling". That's intelectual dishonesty from your part. Also what the woke mob does is not just shunning. Shunning is passively avoiding something, the woke mob actively stalk, harass and call for punishment.

Clearly you've forgotten this line from earlier:



You tried to compare being fired to being lynched, let's not lose sight of that. Apparently the two are equal in your eyes.



If one posts hate speech, they aren't fired for their beliefs, they're fired for potentially harming their employer's interests.

Further, don't you support 'right to work' legislation? If I can fire you for no reason whatsoever, I can fire you for posting hate speech online.



How much consideration do I owe something I don't support?



Murder being worse than non-murderous violence doesn't make non-murderous violence acceptable. That's a really dishonest take.



I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to call shunning shunning anymore.

You're again comparing being denied interactions with being shot, and yet somehow I'm intellectually dishonest?
What next, if I get tired of responding to you will you complain that I've hurt you?

Every single point you pretend to be replying to doesn't make any sence. At this point you are running around in circles in the hope I will eventually get tired replying to pointless arguments and you will be the last one to stand. This is beyond intelectual dishonesty, it's pathetic. But this is what you get reduced to when you try to deffend indefensible positions. It doesn't worth my time to even consider reading your replies at this point.

Translation, you've ran out of talking points.

Are you unable to address where I've pointed out that you're comparing unequal things? Or were you just hoping it would go unnoticed? Go back and read your own posts, they're full of dishonest comparisons of dissimilar things.

You repeatedly rely on those sorts of comparisons and when it's pointed out you reduced yourself to you're a dumb dumb rather than addressing those criticisms of your ideas. How can your argument be persuasive when it's flaws are so obvious and your response to those flaws being pointed out is to just call me stupid?

It's all just emotional hyperbole backed up by insults.

"Talking points", a trolls logic. Give me a break.

Let's try this again, from where the analogy started:

Most reasonable people would agree that being lynched (being tortured to death in public, let's not lose sight of that) is much worse than being fired because you made some ignorant or hateful comments. Remember, that's your analogy, not mine.



If "the woke mob" (or anyone else) engages in criminal harassment, they should be criminally liable. Much of what you're describing isn't harassment, criminal or otherwise and you're trying to frame things as though the most extreme examples of social backlash are the norm.

If someone is in an 'at-will' state and gets canned for posting their Klan robes online the real issue is at-will employment, not "the woke mob".

They might have protections to some extent if they're not in an area with at-will employment.

Freedom of speech in principle. In reality, there are some nuts out there who have no qualms getting violent over "the wrong words." Be safe.

I'm going to have to disagree with this, because yesterday I realized there is no political faction with more inconsistencies and differences than Nazis or modern Nazis, or at least none that I am aware of.

First of all Nazis did not call themselves Nazis, they were called Socialists. Some believe Hitler was a queer and 25% of the Nazis were queers. Some neo-nazis will claim this is just fake news, but the next part I am almost absolutely sure of. Nazism rose to power in 1933 and it wasn't till 1934 when Himmler committed treason, did Nazism become associated with a low-brow "og not like gays" movement. Hitler was either a gullible fool or just afraid of Himmler so he went along with it. Nazism was originally about segregation not extermination, Hitler wanted to deport Jews originally, other countries refused. This is not to say Hitler was a saint, he was still guilty of murder, but it is to say that Nazism is far more nuanced than just a troglodyte "ban the gays" idealogy. For instance nazis had several anti-war profiteering policies and other humanitarian policies. That is not to excuse all the bad stuff nazis done, but to say that its more nuanced than just some barbarian idealogy. For instance, Richard Spencer is pro-white if only they are upper class whites.

That being said, I don't view totalitarianism and eugenics as objectively bad, just only on American soil. I don't feel Nazism is an ideal fit for totalitarian policies. For instance, there are some Jews who in some ways have good genes, so inflexible anti-jew policies don't seem particularly logical or practical. And eugenics can be accomplished in ethical ways without any bloodshed, such as forced sterilizations. Forced sterilizations can be good, but it should be more nuanced than a criterion based solely on if someone happened to have Jewish ancestors or not.

No, there is no nuance to Nazism. It's a depraved stance. Anyone who ascribes to it should be rejected and shunned. It is true that Nazism isn't consistent, but this isn't a mark in their favor.

The only notable LGBT Nazi was Ernst Rohm. Hitler only kept him around because he was useful in organizing some of the street thugs; once that was no longer important, Hitler had him killed. There's no evidence that Hitler himself was gay. It's a known fact that LGBT individuals were targeted in the mass murder of his regime.

Forced sterilization is a crime against humanity because it has a long history of being used to persecute minorities.

Re: the poll—

Totally false dichotomy: you can believe in absolute freedom of speech while greatly respecting the feelings of others and exercising personal discretion in how you communicate.

Ultimately, when speech is stifled by use of force rather than moderated according to individual choice (or at least mutual agreement in an equal group), it is a move by the powerful against the less powerful. That doesn't mean that's it's necessarily done with a malevolent intent, but it is an oppression, and the normalisation of speech mandates enable further ill-intentioned censorship.

Recent years have seen unprecedented levels of political censorship for reasons which often include claims of 'harmful' opinions. I'm not talking exclusively about ideas that are straightforwardly odious, like Nazism (which barely exists in 2023 outside of some East European countries), but about nuanced subjects that should be subject to debate. This is the result of accepting censorship.

100% agreement.



I think the issue of power dynamics becomes more complicated when the speech being stifled is being used to advocate harms against less powerful people or peoples. It's further complicated when only non-violent approaches are used because it's harder to frame that as force being used.

A large body of people insisting on talking over a speaker are effectively stifling them, but it's hard to insist that's oppression because the individuals within that group are both entitled to express disagreement and not obliged to listen to all of what the speaker is saying before doing so. (They might be being rude, but that's still allowed afaik.)

In other situations it's simply one bloc using effective criticisms to harm the influence another bloc (or influential figure within said bloc) holds. People within the latter bloc will often insist that counts as their speech being stifled when the reality is they're just less popular. Loss of influence or reputation often gets conflated with censorship.