In no particular order:
That’s all for this month.
Previous:
Ah....the good old 'Freedom of Speech" 'thing'....you know...that doesn't apply on a private forum managed under its own code of practice...[TOU]
Too much of the concept of "Freedom of Speech" is bandied around by those ignorant of its reality [or lack of].
You know...like 'College safe places' that don't exist in the real world.
Reality? America couldn't even call it 'Flying High' ....had to name it 'Airplane' instead.
The truth is .......out there.....
Freedom of speech only implies the freedom not to be locked up, killed, or otherwise impeded by the law for what you say.
It in no way frees you from the consequences of what you say.
Your employer doesn't like what you say? Not covered.
The media won't report on what you say? Not covered.
A forum bans you for being an ass-hat? Not covered.
The joy of capitalism is that you can vote with your feet. Don't like it? Move employers, read different news, or find a new forum. Freedom in action.
Yes, what adamb1011 said...
Except of course...there will still be occasions when you'll get locked up too...
A thick skin or not, civility is not incompatible with freedom of speech...
SJW's are self righteous censors, who are either too self absorbed or disingenuous to understand that their tactics and methods are anti-free speech.
Not all black people are African...
And not all African people are black.
Nobody is throwing people in jail or executing them for using the word black. Hence not anti free speech.
Again, unless you are getting jailed or shot, there is no right to "free speech".
Now, are "SJWs" censors? Probably. "Safe spaces" is clearly a load of bollocks - at least the way it is used today. Anyone who feels the need to isolate themselves from broader society, and impose their views rather than convince others to change clearly have an authoritarian mindset.
But to an extent, we all surround ourselves with our own implicit biases. And it's getting worse. "Safe spaces" is just the logical extreme of a trend that's been happening for a while on both sides of politics.
The NRA is basically the republican version of the same idea. A bunch of people gathered together to insulate themselves against the overwhelming evidence that the ready availability of assault weapons hugely increases the likelihood and death toll of mass shootings. Australia is a case in point.
I have a good friend who I commute with. We are opposites when it comes to our political views. We have heated discussions for sure but we never ever resort to insults. We stay on point. We respect each other and what I see from some is a lack of respect towards each other. Say what you will about the issue. Get heated. Get angry but do not attack the other person personally. That I think is freedom of speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/arts/television/fire-jesse-williams-for-bet-speech-petition-says-but-hes-not-worried.html
Personally, I think what he said is divisive and batshit insane, but he has every right to say it without people losing their mind and calling for his job, or being swatted, or threatening stuff being sent in the mail.
People that think speech is not being threatened and only the gubmint gives you right to speech against the gubmint are ignorant of what is going on, or tacitly support it. We are moving past the impolite speech into the realm of banning people that don't hold the same opinions as they do. Facebook is turning into a joke, banning conservatives for nothing while allowing pictures of police officers getting their throats slit by black lives matter protesters, pages with "KILL DONALD TRUMP" are allowed to stay until multiple sites reported it in the headlines. Comics can't tell jokes anymore without being mobbed, artists can't write or create what they want without getting mobbed and harassed, scientists can't wear a shirt created by a woman friend, speakers are blocked on campuses for wrong think, and way to many 'mob rules' people are just fine with this apparently.
Congratulations, three straw men in a row...
and a [redacted] man can wave a gun around on twitter making terrorists threats and that's just fine while Milo gets banned for saying "Feminism is Cancer". People are thrown out of spaces for legally filming liberals in action, while they allow conservatives stages to be stormed and taken over because they don't like the 'speech.
All you [redacted] are [redacted] [redacted]...
EDIT:
Make malicious personal attacks, defamatory statements, or other behavior deemed unacceptable by Stardock's administrators;
to many people and social media sites take this as 'whatever I do not like' but are quite fine when that same behavior is applied to people they deem undesirable. They are called hypocrites.
Actually on the contrary, people have every right to call for his job. That's free speech in action. Whether they should do it is a different matter. Like you I don't think so.
Now threatening stuff is illegal and for good reason. It's no longer "free speech" once you threaten or imply violence.
As for the evil government, you Americans luckily have a constitution, enforced by the law, that guarantees free speech. Most countries don't. For example, in Australia it's implied, and assumed, but nowhere is there any document that guarantees free speech.
But at the same time, understanding what your constitution does and doesn't say is important. It doesn't say anything about private organisations banning, firing, or discriminating against people over what they say. It doesn't prevent banning someone from something because of their opinions. Like Australia, this just becomes implied - essentially it's just impolite, but not against the law.
But funnily enough, I broadly agree with you. The mob has started to dictate what is and isn't acceptable, which is dangerous. But that mentality exists on both sides of politics. Both sides want to directly force changes upon the lifestyles of the other. People have stopped trying to influence each other with words and arguments and resorted to just trying to ban people they don't like from existing in their lives. This won't end well.
But free speech is not the term to use here. I believe what you really mean is civil discourse, and there's a big difference. Free speech is a hard won right. Civil discourse is something that is assumed but not protected.
And if you think this issue exists on one side of politics only, then you need to wake up. Gay marriage is a classic example - the religious right trying to impose their view of marriage on the broader population. Sounds eerily familiar to say, the crazy left attempting to impose their view on what can and can't be said at a university campus.
Both sides are guilty.
Ps: I think you should read up on what a "straw man" is.
We've long since wiped our ass with the Constitution on free speech.
Hate crimes are essentially normal crimes just like any other, where the prosecution goes through your history, determines you to have acted because of racism based on things you said, and then gives you that extra time for those words. If you shoot up a women's strip club, whether you can be shown to have said misogynist things or not will impact the severity of your punishment. Being an emotionally unstable throwback could get you more time in prison than the actual crime if you really suck and happen to miss them all. It's written to be indirect, but it's a work around to punish thought that can't stick with an honest court ruling, regardless of how repulsive the victims of such an injustice are. Just one of the many aspects of our country that depresses the hell out of me and causes me to look forward to the impending doom of civilization.
True, I have a lack of respect for marshmallows who can't handle an argument on the internet without getting pissy, and dismiss everything out of hand while they use cherry picked statistics as if they mean something. It's okay though, I don't respect myself either because I'm an asshole with little use for people in general.
While I'm hardly one to say the religious right doesn't try to impose their views on the broader population, what sounds eerily familiar to the crazy left is how after having gay marriage rammed down our already restricted by the need to get a license in the first place lives, we're now expected to participate in such affairs, not just allow them.
I find just the idea of being hit on by another dude creepy and exceedingly gross, but I don't give a flying fuck what they do with themselves so long as they leave me alone. Trying to force a church to host their wedding, or a caterer to run the party, is exactly what the poor religious right was afraid of, enforced normalization. Now we're being pushed to accept mentally ill men and women in the opposite gender bathrooms, which is insane, and we're still going to get the bad end of it. I'm just glad I don't want kids and my fondness for cooking came with the understanding that I'd never be fast enough to make money.
Other than the odd freak that goes after abortion clinics, can you show me any mob violence from conservatives? Look up Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos doing university talks and the often violent mobs outside and inside. Look at the gauntlet Trump supporters have to run when going to or from a rally. Conservatives do it with voting, and time honored proper protesting, not violence and intimidation like we see from the left all to often.
this is all to common now for the left only.
and I will continue to use my freedom of speech and call it 'free speech'. To much language policing...
I could have guessed that would be the response.
Doing a quick Google search of any trump rally would show the right is just as bad as the left. Or pickets at abortion clinics. There's plenty of videos of right wing Christians saying and doing loads of other stupid and offensive stuff.
Time to take the blinkers off.
Ps, both of you sound pretty insecure about gay people. There's no enforced normalisation - just treating people in a somewhat reasonable way and staying out of their lives.
What? Who?
I dont give a damn what grown adults do in their bedroom. What I do care about is states rights. If a state chooses to to allow gay marriage, all the power to them, but states should have the right not to have feral over reach.
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
It's almost the same with gay marriage as well, especially in the [redacted] community
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/08/holdouts-blacks-oppose-gay-marriage-4151-in-new-pew-poll/
Why is it overreach? When the state signed up to the federation and the constitution, which rules over both state and federal laws, they also agreed to be bound by the ruling of federal courts as they decide whether any law, state or federal, satisfies the constituition.
So there's been no overreach. The fact the state disagrees is really tough luck. If they disagree that badly they can always secede.
That's just following the constitution and the rule of law.
Well, fine. Turns out there are religious people on both sides that seek to regulate the lives of others.
As I said, both sides are as bad as each other.
That fact that there are still sides is both a blessing and a curse.
I feel very secure, just cranky. One of the many current issues is that a queer couple can wander from cake shop to cake shop, waiting till one refuses to cater their wedding, and then sue them for discrimination. Win or lose, they're still fucked with legal bills, lost work, and a media circus destroying their business. This is the typical result of anti-discrimination laws. Whether you feel it's immoral or not, anyone should have the right to refuse service without being attacked by their government, and we don't. That is far more in your life than an argument over whether a pointless piece of paper we're being forced to have in the first place should change a millennia old definition.
myfist0 ...you have efficiently turned this thread political.
It now must be relocated into the correct Forum [Politics] as the Forum's owner [and the thread's OP] prohibits such in this forum section.
Perhaps you might not feel the weight of Frogboy's wrath.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tort reform is desperately needed. Our current tort law system was contrived in order to force all businesses into the corporate mold. This was the goal of the proto-progressives in the 19th Century. The old common law used to forbid arbitrary punitive damages. I.e., the court considered its job to be that of restoring equity. You hurt someone - you compensate them. Punitive damages were instigated as part of the theory that the over-arching role of the court was to enforce social norms. Not only should you pay back the victim of your actions or inactions, which became a secondary consideration, but you should become an example of what happens when you are BAD. Justice became not about equity but about enforcing the mores of whoever was in power. Effectively, civil law was transformed into criminal law.The Proto-Progressives (whose descendants gave us WW1, compulsory public education, prohibition, the New Deal, etc.) were aiming at a truly fascist model of politics and the economy, in which businesses became creatures (children) of the state. They thought that that would put them in control of the resulting mega-state. WRONG! It actually left the 0.1% running things, because they could use their wealth and power to stack the agencies who were supposed to be regulating these LTDs. Anyway, that's why we have the current system. You can try to operate outside the corporate model, but if you do, you're running a serious legal risk, as there is no feasible other way to limit your liability to catastrophic punitive damages in some crazy lawsuit.
Thanks to bringing this up. It is important.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
