Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday November 23 2015, @12:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the our-precious-little-snowflakes dept.

Turns out all of you who thought millennials were fascist little turds were 40% correct.

American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.

And this is why you should not be allowed to vote until you're mature enough to consider the consequences of your actions.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 23 2015, @12:37AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @12:37AM (#266699) Journal
    I see 12% of the "Silent Generation" (70-87 years old) were also fascist little turds by the same metric. Just because people are mature enough to consider the consequences of their actions, doesn't mean that they do.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 23 2015, @02:19AM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:19AM (#266752) Journal

      Forgive me for remaining firmly planted on your lawn but 60-40 is a massacre in our society.
       
      Headline should be "Millenials Massively in Favor of Free Speech."
       
      Pretty sure actual flat-earthers still pull 30% on opinion polls...

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @03:37AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:37AM (#266788) Homepage Journal

        My take on it was more of "Why the hell was anyone in favor of it?" Something is decidedly fucked up when anyone in the US thinks limiting objectionable speech is a good thing.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 23 2015, @03:59AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @03:59AM (#266803) Journal

        Forgive me for remaining firmly planted on your lawn but 60-40 is a massacre in our society.

        Eh, I'm more concerned by the age bracket trend from sharply in favor of free speech to only weakly in favor of free speech for our youngest adults. Now maybe it's just an age thing, but I'm concerned here that we'll start seeing future generations in favor of pulling the First Amendment.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday November 23 2015, @01:03PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @01:03PM (#266964)

        Pretty sure actual flat-earthers still pull 30% on opinion polls...

        Ah that is the real insight, those kids have recently survived 12 to 18 years of hard core left wing indoctrination where might makes right and you can think whatever you want but in school non-left wing speech will get you severely punished, only one political extreme is acceptable. Campus speech codes and safe spaces and riots and firing administrators for not signalling hard enough, etc. And despite that intense left-authoritarian political indoctrination, only 40% of the population has fallen for it.

        Its shocking how unpopular censorship is; the same people have been incredibly successful pushing agendas for gay marriage or being trans. Probably because censorship is obviously morally and ethically wrong to most people so only the weakest most spineless people will support it, whereas there's nothing really wrong with gay folks having to suffer thru marriage just like us straight guys (why should only gay guys have the privilege of no societal pressure to get married?), or a microscopic minority of people having the bell curve outlier very extreme plastic surgery desires by definition isn't much of an issue for 99.9999% of the population.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:04AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:04AM (#267307) Journal

          12 to 18 years of hard core right wing indoctrination where might makes right and you can think whatever you want but in school non-Fox News speech will get you severely punished, only one political extreme is acceptable.

          FTFY, you bloody fascist wannabe yellow-bellied sap-sucking chickenhawk pseudo-intellectual. (Oh, in case you do not know how to use a dictionary, pseudo- means "fake". You're welcome.)

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:32PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:32PM (#267417)

            I guess the teachers union is different where you live? I thought it was pretty much a national standard for the whole .edu system to wave the hammer and sickle with some obvious exceptions (Brigham Young Uni, etc)

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:28PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:28PM (#267601) Journal
            40% willing to squash free speech because racism is "hard core right wing"? Yea, right.
            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:51PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:51PM (#267643) Journal

              Yeah! Right! You got a problem with that? National Front, David Duke, British National Party, Donald Trump, Likud, and Hitler, just for example's sake. Fine fellow travellers on the hard right!

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:40PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:40PM (#267688) Journal
                Yes, because you are doing a non sequitur. 40% of young adults in the US (and large numbers elsewhere) aren't eager to squash free speech because they are BNP members or equivalent.
        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:20PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:20PM (#267484) Journal

          Leftists generally promote "direct action" -- ie, deal with the problem yourself instead of calling in the government thugs.

          You're probably thinking of *right* wing extremists.

      • (Score: 2) by fnj on Monday November 23 2015, @04:47PM

        by fnj (1654) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:47PM (#267044)

        Forgive me for remaining firmly planted on your lawn but 60-40 is a massacre in our society.

        I cannot comprehend this view. 60-40 means you have 5 people at the table, 2 of them think all redheads should be tortured and mutilated, and the other 3 disagree. That is not remotely the nays massacring the ayes.

        What is deeply shocking is that any more than 1 out of maybe 20 or 30 rational citizens should hold this opinion on free speech. One is forced to conclude that a massive proportion of citizens are NOT rational, and should NOT be allowed to participate in making any decisions, such as elections.

        Of course, contemplating possible mechanisms by which one might deny them such participation can only be met with a similar degree of horror.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:41AM (#266700)

    We all know kids are morons, we being all of us older than the stupid kids, for we were once dumnass kids ourselves, and some of the kids themselves.

    You know, if the libertarian "Reason", the lefty "Daily Beast," and even that crazy Jew Dershotwitz all agree that them kids are fucking morons, there just might be something there.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:49PM (#267046)

      that crazy Jew Dershotwitz

      Please kill yourself, bigot.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:14PM (#267227)

        You first, dumbass.

  • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:48AM (#266701)

    Not a millenial but gen X and I agree. Used to be people had some decency, these days it seems a lot of people hide behind 'freedom of speech' to blurt out racist hatespeech every chance they get. Speech like that doesn't create anything positive at all so, if those 'adults' can't behave, I agree that the law should make them.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:51AM (#266703)

      How old are you?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Monday November 23 2015, @12:53AM

      by Sir Finkus (192) on Monday November 23 2015, @12:53AM (#266704) Journal

      But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

      ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

      I'd make my own argument, but I can't it put it more eloquently or succinctly.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:01AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:01AM (#266901) Journal

        You have it fairly clearly stated, but you've sidled around yet another important part of the question. What about those alternative views that are neither right, nor wrong? Simply alternative points of view? As a thought experiment, take any two or three of the great philosophers, and remove their works from the human experience. I don't really care which philosophers - pick three for yourself. Or, use a random number generator to remove some.

        What happens to the body of knowledge that we refer to as philosophy? It really doesn't matter if you remove the wisest, most widely accepted philosophers, or you remove discredited people who are almost universally despised - the result is pretty much the same. Avenues of thought have been shut down, and we no longer possess the knowledge derived from them. Worse - if you could go back in time and remove those avenues of thought, later philosphers wouldn't have ahd that thinking on which to build.

        Now, I'm way out there, exploring alternative worlds - and no one can prove or disprove anything way out here.

        Then again - philosophy.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by nyder on Monday November 23 2015, @12:57AM

      by nyder (4525) on Monday November 23 2015, @12:57AM (#266706)

      I'm gen X and I don't agree. Freedom of Speech means you can say what you want. While I don't care to listen to hate speech, I support their right to say what they want.

      The problem with censoring some speech is that sooner or later it will be abused.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @01:04AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:04AM (#266709)

        The problem with censoring some speech is that sooner or later it will be abused.

        Censoring speech is an abuse in and of itself. The "First they came..." argument seems to promote selfishness, because it's like arguing that you only care about censorship because it might affect you personally at some point. But I care even if others are censored and the censorship will not ever threaten me.

        • (Score: 2) by turgid on Monday November 23 2015, @09:24PM

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:24PM (#267177) Journal

          The "First they came..." argument seems to promote selfishness, because it's like arguing that you only care about censorship because it might affect you personally at some point.

          Indeed it is. It is designed to explain to the selfish and apathetic why their selfishness and apathy is a bad thing by making its effects plain to themsleves, and to twist that selfishness and apathy around into a motivating force that will benefit all, as a side-effect.

          I hope that makes sense. It's late...

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:22AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:22AM (#267281)

            I agree with you, and agree that it can be a useful argument to make, but I think it is sad that they're so selfish and apathetic at all.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 23 2015, @02:37AM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:37AM (#266764)

        I'm gen X and I don't agree. Freedom of Speech means you can say what you want. While I don't care to listen to hate speech, I support their right to say what they want.

        I agree as well, but if someone gets punched in the nose for being offensive I'm going to laugh, not help.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @03:46AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:46AM (#266797) Homepage Journal

          You sir are a font of truth and wisdom. I tip my hat to you for summing up my own position so succinctly.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fnj on Monday November 23 2015, @04:55PM

          by fnj (1654) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:55PM (#267048)

          if someone gets punched in the nose for being offensive I'm going to laugh, not help

          Please sit down and ask yourself, is the speaker offending, or is the offendee taking offense? Sticks and stones. He who responds with physical violence to one who is doing no more than verbalizing is ALWAYS the one who is at fault.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by termigator on Monday November 23 2015, @05:11PM

            by termigator (4271) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:11PM (#267058)

            Agreed. Being offended can be very subjective, and allowing violence as a reaction to something verbal is not acceptable.

          • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 30 2015, @03:33AM

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday November 30 2015, @03:33AM (#269583)

            Please sit down and ask yourself, is the speaker offending, or is the offendee taking offense?

            There is a line anyone with a scrap of sense does not cross and you know it. Donald Trump being offensive making ignorant comments about Mexicans is one thing, one walking into a crowd of Hispanics and starting to shout racial slurs towards them is quite another thing. I would expect Trump to be called out for his ignorance, and I would expect the idiot spewing slurs and deliberately inciting violent emotions in close quarters to get their ass kicked. Free speech does not mean free from consequences, and if one refuses to ponder the possible results of what they are about to say they should not themselves be offended when someone reacts in a manner that escalates the situation.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Monday November 23 2015, @05:28AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:28AM (#266838)

        Do you include AC trolls on SN in this?

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @01:01AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:01AM (#266707)

      So you want to silence people who say things that you don't like or don't conform to your subjective standard of "decency". You are a threat to democracy and free society. People should be allowed to say as many 'indecent' things as they please. Furthermore, any speech can be considered to be 'indecent', since that is entirely subjective. But even if you only limit censorship to groups like the WBC, you are still reprehensible for censoring people who say things you don't like. None of this speech has caused you tangible harm.

      these days it seems a lot of people hide behind 'freedom of speech'

      They're not 'hiding behind' freedom of speech; that's the entire point of freedom of speech, you moron. It's to protect you from government thugs who seek to silence you.

      Why not just move to North Korea? The government there will better scratch your authoritarian itch.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:47AM (#266725)

        The government there will better scratch your authoritarian itch.

        Which is what many of these people do not realize. Freedom of speech means they can say stupid things or whatever they want. Including 'i want you to shut up'. If you limit peoples speech it means someone *ELSE* will decide what you say. People like to pretend they are special an will be the ones in charge.

        With our current gov would you *really* want to give them power to silence people? Do you assume they would agree with you? What if they dont? I know I disagree with many of my representatives. They disagree with me. They are greedy dicks who would do or say anything to get more power and/or money.

        It is like the fascination people have with zombies. They all believe they will be the ones holed up in some building with a mountain of bullets. More than likely they would be the ones outside going 'braaaaaaaaains'.

        We are not the 1% of the 1%. We are the plebeians.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @02:02AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @02:02AM (#266733) Homepage Journal

          They all believe they will be the ones holed up in some building with a mountain of bullets.

          Speak for yourself. My zombie plan is to get bitten and live the good life eating tasty, tasty brains.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday November 23 2015, @04:46AM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @04:46AM (#266822)

            If you're going to do that, at least plan it out a little. Be prepared! Bullet-proof helmet would be a must in that scenario. You'll want to increase your chances of surviving any resistance from the living. Damaging your vocal cords or something seems useful. That way they won't hear you moaning/shouting as you come for them.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday November 23 2015, @05:35AM

              by captain normal (2205) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:35AM (#266843)

              Naw..the only way to stop a zombie is to blow them apart. Anything less than a 12 gauge shotgun won't stop the already dead.

              --
              When life isn't going right, go left.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:40AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:40AM (#267267)

                double tap

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:52AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:52AM (#267294)

              thats.... brilliant

              The problem is you need to eat like a steady diet of brains and all... But if your face is covered you cant. Maybe something like a reverse Hannibal Lector mask.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by jmorris on Monday November 23 2015, @06:58AM

            by jmorris (4844) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:58AM (#266876)

            Hope you live in a Red State then. Blue brains are abnormal, small and almost certain to taste terrible.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Monday November 23 2015, @02:06AM

          by jdavidb (5690) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:06AM (#266735) Homepage Journal

          People like to pretend they are special an will be the ones in charge.

          One of the most important revelations of my life was that I should not be in charge.

          I don't even believe I should be partially in charge of other people's decisions. You make your decisions, and I will make mine.

          --
          ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:05AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:05AM (#266902) Journal

          "People like to pretend they are special an will be the ones in charge."

          Uh-huh. I've said the same thing about the New World Order, globalization, and the One World Government. We have boatloads of buffoons who ASSume that they are going to be running things when all that shit settles out. There are going to be a lot of disappointed losers if/when the New Age comes about.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 23 2015, @04:39PM

          by Freeman (732) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:39PM (#267042) Journal

          There are plenty of zombie movies / shows where the average person comes out on top. A mountain of bullets? Way to ring the dinner bell. Seriously, though, Free Speech is a double edged sword. It cuts both ways. Though, there is a fine line between spouting bigoted view points and applying those bigoted view points in a way that imposes on the freedom of others.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:26AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:26AM (#266758)

        > They're not 'hiding behind' freedom of speech;

        Of course they are. The fact that you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to use it to be an asshole. Seems that whenever someone is criticized for saying asshole things the very first go to defense is "but but but freedom of speech! don't censor me!" "I'm not insulting you, I'm just exercising my constitutional rights!"

        The fact that so many people choose to use it to be an asshole is why you are seeing so much support for censorship. It didn't come out of nowhere, it was earned. The problem here isn't the people who are supportive of censorship, it is the people who were assholes just to be assholes so much that they convinced all those people to support censorship.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @03:36AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:36AM (#266787)

          Of course they are. The fact that you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to use it to be an asshole.

          No it doesn't, but where did I say it did? The person I replied to advocated for government thugs censoring people who say things they don't like, and said that bad people hide behind freedom of speech. They totally misunderstand the purpose of freedom of speech, so I merely informed them that the purpose of it is to protect you from being censored by the government.

          The fact that so many people choose to use it to be an asshole is why you are seeing so much support for censorship

          Because these people are unprincipled authoritarian cowards who pretend like they care about freedom, but when they are actually put to the test, their support for freedom vanishes? Sounds about right.

          In times of peace, freedom still needs to be protected, but it is in less danger. It is in times of strife and war that we need to be the most vigilant when it comes to defending our liberties. You see governments constantly using terrorist attacks as excuses to violate our fundamental liberties. And we see people like you seemingly advocating for censorship when you hear speech you don't agree with. You're a freedom fighter until freedom benefits someone you don't like.

          The problem here isn't the people who are supportive of censorship

          100% false. If you *choose* to react to people saying things you don't like by being an authoritarian piece of garbage, then that is entirely your fault. You can't blame other people for your own decision to respond to speech you consider bad by sending government thugs after them.

          This is like the ridiculous logic that terrorists were responsible for the Unpatriotic Act and the generally disgusting response to the 9/11 attacks by the government. No, the people who wrote it and voted in favor of it were responsible for it. You choose how you respond to a situation.

          The people who are threatening our fundamental liberties are the censorship-happy authoritarians. To say otherwise is to reject the notion of personal responsibility. Own up to your beliefs and stop blaming everyone else.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:54AM (#266824)

            You've proven time and time again you have zero comprehension of how real people function. You've got some sort of sheldon-cooper vision of how humans ought to behave -- denying millenia of history. Try thinking about people as humans instead of robots before spouting off about how the world ought to be rather than how the world actually is.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @05:10AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:10AM (#266832)

              No actual rebuttal to my comment, I see.

              You've proven time and time again you have zero comprehension of how real people function.

              How so? Since you weren't very specific, I can't precisely correct your misunderstanding.

              denying millenia of history.

              I do not deny history. I look at history and come back with powerful reasons to oppose authoritarianism. Maybe you should look at history. Countless tragedies happened in the past. Not only should we be aware of them, but we should learn from history and improve society as time goes on.

              If the ignorant authoritarians above actually looked at history and cared about freedom, they would be opposing censorship, not advocating it.

              Try thinking about people as humans instead of robots before spouting off about how the world ought to be rather than how the world actually is.

              Whether it's humans or robots we're talking about, I value freedom over security and think censorship is intolerable. How I think about people in your delusions doesn't actually affect my position on freedom. If I stopped thinking of people as robots (Which I don't do anyway.) and thought of them as people, would I suddenly become a censorship-happy authoritarian? If so, that doesn't sound like a good thing. There is seemingly no point to your nonsense.

              • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:17PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:17PM (#267060)

                > No actual rebuttal to my comment, I see.

                Don't confuse being too damn tired of arguing with a broken record to bother anymore with actual acquiescence. You've demonstrated a powerful ability to ignore any logic or facts that contradict your unexamined beliefs. You never engage or consider, you only shout. You haven't won the argument, you've only chased off anyone willing to have a conversation with you.

                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @05:48PM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:48PM (#267077)

                  I didn't say anything about 'winning'. I merely pointed out that there was no rebuttal. If you're so tired of arguing with me, maybe you should consider not making more useless posts with even less actual content than usual. Vague accusations of me ignoring logic or facts and having unexamined beliefs (Here? Elsewhere? Everywhere?) certainly aren't going to get anywhere and aren't going to make you less tired.

                  You've demonstrated a powerful ability to ignore any logic or facts that contradict your unexamined beliefs.

                  You have not given me any reason to believe that. Maybe you're just a person who disagrees with my values and logic, so you pretend that I ignore logic and facts that contradicted my supposedly unexamined beliefs. Maybe you're a person who doesn't understand the concept of value-based arguments, and at one point tried to get me to change my beliefs by pointing out details I don't even base my beliefs on. I don't know.

                  You never engage or consider, you only shout. You haven't won the argument, you've only chased off anyone willing to have a conversation with you.

                  I did respond to the comments above. Perhaps it's not that I have ignored logic or facts, but that they had terrible arguments and an abysmal understanding of history.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:12PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:12PM (#267153)

                    > Maybe you're just a person who disagrees with my values and logic, so you pretend that I ignore logic and facts

                    The lack of self-awareness is powerful in this one.

                    >> You never engage or consider, you only shout.
                    > I did respond to the comments above.

                    Responding is not engaging. All you ever do is shout back. You are a paragon of extremism. Trying to talk with you is like trying to talk to a westboro baptist. So much confidence all built on ignorance.

                    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @08:45PM

                      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @08:45PM (#267163)

                      The lack of self-awareness is powerful in this one.

                      To lack self-awareness, I would first have to not be able to conceive of the possibility that someone might think that about me, but I did.

                      Responding is not engaging.

                      I engaged and responded, from my point of view. Please tell me The One True Way of engaging someone.

                      All you ever do is shout back.

                      Prove it.

                      And since you're an AC and I don't really know what other comments you have made, I could say that all I know about you is that you make baseless accusations. It's so easy to do so when you disagree with the person you're speaking with. Not only have you claimed that I have "ignored" facts and logic, but that I haven't even attempted to engage anyone (probably using some subjective standard of "engage" so that no matter what I do or how I respond, it's impossible for me to do so). I might claim that others are being illogical, but I do no not say that they are not attempting to engage me at all.

                      You are a paragon of extremism.

                      What qualifies as extreme in your view or anyone else's view is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the validity of the position itself. That's why I do not care about these accusations of extremism: They're meaningless.

                      I just "engaged" you, in my view. Did I "shout back"? Is communicating or disagreeing necessarily shouting back or not engaging someone? If so, that applies to your comment as well. Please, define your terms, because otherwise I will not be able to conceive of a way to meet your standards even if I wanted to.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:51PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:51PM (#267165)

                        All you ever do is shout back.

                        Prove it.

                        You just wrote this in response to Tork:

                        I don't believe that speech can cause harm, or at least not any type of "harm" worth worrying about.

                        Utter dismissal that anything you don't believe in is of any import at all.

                        I engaged and responded, from my point of view. Please tell me The One True Way of engaging someone.

                        The "one true way" to engage is to take people's points into consideration rather than flat-out deny them. All you ever do is dismiss and then repeat your own beliefs. When someone engages with your beliefs and asks you for elaboration, background, explanation, etc all you do is turn away and dismiss their questions as not worthy and beneath you. Shouty and unexamined to the tee.

                        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @09:29PM

                          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @09:29PM (#267179)

                          Utter dismissal that anything you don't believe in is of any import at all.

                          How is that just shouting back? So in your view, I have to share other people's values and care about what they care about, or I am just shouting and not engaging at all?

                          The "one true way" to engage is to take people's points into consideration rather than flat-out deny them.

                          I flat-out deny them because they are either not important to me, or I think they are factually wrong. Others can do the same.

                          All you ever do is dismiss and then repeat your own beliefs. When someone engages with your beliefs and asks you for elaboration, background, explanation, etc all you do is turn away and dismiss their questions as not worthy and beneath you.

                          Oftentimes, it comes down to a battle of values. If someone values safety highly, they might be in favor of mass surveillance. Of course, since I value freedom over safety, trying to present me evidence that mass surveillance increases safety would be futile even if it was true, because I don't base my beliefs on the effectiveness of the surveillance in the first place. Instead, I base it on the fact that privacy is an important basic human desire, mass surveillance is too easily abused, and such surveillance threatens democracy itself. The fact that it may or may not stop terrorism sometimes is irrelevant to me. If someone doesn't share my values at least a little, then there is almost no hope.

                          But to say that I don't elaborate at all is false. Telling people that I value freedom over safety is a way of elaborating. Telling people that I don't trust the government due to the countless atrocities committed by governments throughout history is a way of elaborating. Informing people that I oppose their censorship standards partly because they are subjective and therefore impossible to actually follow is elaborating. Maybe that's not enough elaboration for you or it doesn't count somehow, but I don't know what to do.

                          What do you expect of me? I'm not going to discard my values for you or anyone else.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:46PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:46PM (#267185)

                            I flat-out deny them because they are either not important to me, or I think they are factually wrong. Others can do the same.

                            Yes others are free to be just as shouty and dismissive as you! Yay for freedom, boo for critical thinking!

                            But to say that I don't elaborate at all is false. Telling people that I value freedom over safety is a way of elaborating.

                            No, that's just repetition. That's the opposite of elaboration. You put in a lot of typing but it is all unexamined repetition of nothing more thoughtful than, "You are wrong, I am right."

                            What do you expect of me? I'm not going to discard my values for you or anyone else.

                            I don't expect anything of you anymore. You've proven time and again that analysis, critical thought and above all the ability to consider anyone else's perspectives are beyond your reach. You bring no insight, just one-sided ideology. And that is the definition of extremism.

                            Look at how you phrased your last sentence - its all about your personal ideology which has no room for anything but shouting it out over and over and over again. You are your own worst enemy. Who wants to give any consideration to someone who thinks giving consideration to anyone that disagrees with them is surrender?

                            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @10:03PM

                              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @10:03PM (#267194)

                              Yes others are free to be just as shouty and dismissive as you! Yay for freedom, boo for critical thinking!

                              Yeah, again, what do you expect me to do? This is somewhat similar to telling Richard Stallman to stop caring about the ethical arguments for free software and to instead just care about the technical merits; of course he's going to reject that, since he doesn't base his beliefs on the technical benefits that free software can have. I don't think that's because of a lack of critical thinking. I at least try to understand *what* my opponent believes and *why*, even if I end up rejecting their reasoning flat-out. You don't seem to be able to do the same, or at least you are not doing so now.

                              No, that's just repetition.

                              Yes, "repetition" which elaborates on my values. There was more than just that sentence, too.

                              But if I see countless people saying X, then there will be some repetition in my replies. That doesn't affect the validity of what I'm saying or mean that I am not elaborating, however.

                              You put in a lot of typing but it is all unexamined repetition of nothing more thoughtful than, "You are wrong, I am right."

                              You could easily oversimplify everything and say the same thing about all of your comments, just as you did here.

                              And that is the definition of extremism.

                              Your vague opinions about me seem pretty extreme.

                              Who wants to give any consideration to someone who thinks giving consideration to anyone that disagrees with them is surrender?

                              Straw man. I said that I would not change my values, not that I would not at least consider what they have to say. Even if I end up rejecting what they have to say, that doesn't mean there was no consideration at all.

                              And it seems to me that you're not doing a very good job of elaborating about what your own standards are and how, precisely, one could meet them. Which is kind of funny, because you keep saying how you expect nothing of me and are too tired of me to bother seriously arguing with me, so I don't see the point of all these comments and vague accusations.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:17PM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:17PM (#267196)

                                > Straw man. I said that I would not change my values, not that I would not at least consider what they have to say.

                                The day you do that is the day hell freezes over. FYI "consider" does not mean "read and reject."

                                > I don't see the point of all these comments and vague accusations.

                                Turnabout is fair play. Content free repetition of my beliefs without a shred of consideration given to your position. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

                                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @10:24PM

                                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @10:24PM (#267204)

                                  The day you do that is the day hell freezes over. FYI "consider" does not mean "read and reject."

                                  I think it's pretty clear at this point that unless I agree with your positions, you're going to say I haven't considered anything or engaged with anyone. If that's how you define those terms, there is nothing I can do.

                                  Turnabout is fair play. Content free repetition of my beliefs without a shred of consideration given to your position. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

                                  Truly amazing. However, I would still say that you have considered my positions; it's just that you rejected them.

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:27PM

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:27PM (#267205)

                                    > I think it's pretty clear at this point that unless I agree with your positions, you're going to say I haven't considered anything or engaged with anyone. . If that's how you define those terms, there is nothing I can do.

                                    the lack of self-awareness is strong in this one!

                                    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @11:06PM

                                      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @11:06PM (#267223)

                                      Actually, I never claimed that you didn't engage with me or consider my positions.

                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:41PM

                                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:41PM (#267234)

                                        That's right. You just redefined "engage" and "consider" to something so shallow as to be meaningless as a way to avoid actual engagement as spelled out for you so that you could dismiss any criticism without thinking about it. Just like you redefined "elaboration" to mean repetition.

                                        And, despite the fact that the only "position" I've mentioned is that the sum of your argument is that people are robots when they aren't, you decided to dismiss what I've said as hypocrisy, that I'm insisting on agreement when that tact is literally the entire sum of your posts: "You are wrong, I am right." Repeat (aka 'elaborate').

                                        That is the lack of self awareness I was referring to. Not your literalist complaint.

                                        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:03AM

                                          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:03AM (#267238)

                                          That's right. You just redefined "engage" and "consider" to something so shallow as to be meaningless as a way to avoid actual engagement as spelled out for you so that you could dismiss any criticism without thinking about it.

                                          You simply redefined it to be something so specific and arbitrary that nothing I do could possibly satisfy you so that you could dismiss any criticism without thinking about it.

                                          Just like you redefined "elaboration" to mean repetition.

                                          Nope, check again. All I said was that repetition doesn't necessarily mean it's not elaboration.

                                          And, despite the fact that the only "position" I've mentioned is that the sum of your argument is that people are robots when they aren't

                                          Value-based arguments seem to be beyond your ability to comprehend, and you come up with all these straw men as if it will bolster your own arguments. Yes, I think people are "robots"; sure.

                                          that I'm insisting on agreement when that tact is literally the entire sum of your posts: "You are wrong, I am right."

                                          Speaking of repetition and a lack of self-awareness...

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:20AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:20AM (#266908) Journal

              "denying millenia of history"

              Millenia of history demonstrate that Anal is right on all counts. Freedom is ephemeral. If you won't stand up for an asshole's freedom, you won't have any freedom yourself.

              The tree of freedom must be watered with the blood of martyrs and tyrants from time to time. Your tyrannical blood will feed that tree just as well as the blood of a martyr.

          • (Score: 2) by termigator on Monday November 23 2015, @05:24PM

            by termigator (4271) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:24PM (#267067)

            > In times of peace, freedom still needs to be protected, but it is in less danger. It is in times of strife and war that we need to be the most vigilant when it comes to defending our liberties.

            i think we need to be just as vigilant in times of peace. It is during peace that people get complacent, making it easier for those that want to limit our rights. Those that have not experienced censorship are less like to appreciate the abuse it can have on society

            An analogy: Would those against vaccines still be against them if they lived in the times before vaccines were available?

            Many people cannot fully understand an issue unless they directly experienced it.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:21AM

              by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:21AM (#267330) Homepage

              Becoming complacent and then panicking over the wrong things are why times of peace lead to times of war. :(

              --
              And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:38AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:38AM (#266789)

          ISIS is trying to murder us all because they think we are behaving indecently. They think we are the assholes. Who is right? Who decides which people get the right to speak and which people don't? That is the problem the first amendment solves.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:50AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:50AM (#266823)

            > ISIS is trying to murder us all because they think we are behaving indecently.

            Don't be so reductionist. ISIS is a multifaceted reaction to a lot of things. Some of the rank-and-file believe in some sort extreme religious purity, much of the rank-and-file believes in a pay-check others believe adventure and camaraderie. The leadership believes in power - power that the lost as a result of de-baathification. Real life if is complicated, if you reduce it to simplistic one-off motivations you guarantee failure of analysis.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday November 23 2015, @07:42AM

              by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday November 23 2015, @07:42AM (#266886)

              You are correct, real life is complicated, however if you can't see the point you responded to then you will probably not understand this one: prohibiting offensive speech is an oversimplification of life and will roll a huge number of interactions into one result, censorship and punishment. You want to punish "hate speech" but what happens when the people in charge throw your speech on to the banned list? Will it be a violation then?

              On a more pragmatic note, banning certain speech will simply push it underground to become less visible. Thus racists and violent extremists will not get pushback from society and are more likely to develop repressed emotions that will be vented through heightened violence. Like any of the "wars on stuff" it will only generate more problems instead of stopping them.

              --
              ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday November 23 2015, @06:31AM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @06:31AM (#266866)
          What I find peculiar about this dicussion is that the reason we maintain free-speech is that speech has power. That power is already regulated. Shouting 'fire' in a theater, libel, etc. Saying we shouldn't regulate it implies the speech isn't worth that much. I don't agree with that. No, I don't want government censorship, but I also don't want smaller groups of people kept down by spreading the notion that they're somehow an enemy. We've already learned this lesson. Do a Google search for Superman 'slap a Jap' and you will see what I mean.
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday November 23 2015, @06:54AM

            by jmorris (4844) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:54AM (#266875)

            Sigh. This passes for intellectual these days?

            Shouting 'fire' in a theater, libel, etc.

            Doesn't take much Googlefu to find plenty of solid work on these topics. You can't directly harm others. You can certainly shout "Fire" in plenty of contexts. Doing it in a crowded venue in an attempt to cause a panic and murder folks is not one of them. Of course if there actually IS a fire you can shout it in as dense a crowd as you like, the deaths from the stampede likely lower than from smoke inhalation... or at least a plausible enough reasoning to escape legal consequences.

            You can't tell a pitchfork wielding mob, "There he is, lets kill him!" You can't plan a murder. It isn't the speech so much as the deeds or the obvious intent thwarted by law enforcement that get you put away.

            I'll leave exploration of the legal theory of libel for you and Google.

            Do a Google search for Superman 'slap a Jap' and you will see what I mean.

            That is war. That is how we do war. Which is why we should be very careful about getting into one, because once you start you had damned well be ready to HATE hard enough to maintain the will to win.

            THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
            by Rudyard Kipling

            It was not part of their blood,
            It came to them very late,
            With long arrears to make good,
            When the Saxon began to hate.

            They were not easily moved,
            They were icy -- willing to wait
            Till every count should be proved,
            Ere the Saxon began to hate.

            Their voices were even and low.
            Their eyes were level and straight.
            There was neither sign nor show
            When the Saxon began to hate.

            It was not preached to the crowd.
            It was not taught by the state.
            No man spoke it aloud
            When the Saxon began to hate.

            It was not suddently bred.
            It will not swiftly abate.
            Through the chilled years ahead,
            When Time shall count from the date
            That the Saxon began to hate.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:21PM (#267063)

              THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
              by Rudyard Kipling

              It was not part of their blood,
              It came to them very late,
              With long arrears to make good,
              When the Saxon began to hate.

              This passes for intellectual these days?

              s/[[:upper:]]*/THE BEGINNINGS [kiplingsociety.co.uk]/
              s/Saxon/English/

              Don't blindly copy everything you read off the edgy alt-right blogosphere.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday November 23 2015, @06:46PM

                by jmorris (4844) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:46PM (#267112)

                I picked that one because it more perfectly carried the message I intended and in a very short form suitable for the age of twitter. That being slow to hate is good, but once the time has come hate is a vital war material at least as valuable as bullets and bombs. Then when it is over you have to let it go. Look at the most recent example, WWII. During the war we went all in and sowed and then harvested hate against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and they are no more. But then we let it go. Germany is today a cornerstone of both the EU and NATO while none doubts the love for all things Japan here in the US just as none should doubt our resolve to come to their aid should (this is for you China) an aggressor menace.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @07:23PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @07:23PM (#267129)

                  Did you even read my post? What I meant is that there are errors in how you quoted the poem, most likely because you just copied it off someone else. The title is not "The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon" but "The Beginnings", and all occurrences of "Saxon" should really be "English". See the linked source or on Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] (last chapter).

                  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:56AM

                    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:56AM (#267306)

                    Yes I punched in a few words and let Google do the finding. Interesting that they would change things like that, no excuse for something like that. Although it really doesn't change the meaning between the original and the one I found. I do lurk on the NRx areas though and yes that is where I had most recently seen that poem. I will have a bit of sport with then should it get posted again in such an adulterated form now that I am aware of it. Most of em are Spergs and will react poorly. :)

                    The whole story that poem closes is pretty brutal.

                    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:31AM

                      by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:31AM (#267333) Homepage

                      Might have been inserted from another that's probably got older variants:

                      The Saxon is not locked in with you; you are locked in with the Saxon.

                      --
                      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Monday November 23 2015, @07:28AM

            by Sir Finkus (192) on Monday November 23 2015, @07:28AM (#266884) Journal

            Funny thing about the whole "fire!" in a theater thing. The phrase originated as argument put forth by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to justify one of the worst First Amendment rulings in American history. Look here for more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]

            The tl;dr is that some socialists handed out leaflets during World War One encouraging men to resist the draft, and were convicted for "obstructing" the draft process.

            It's amusing that such a phrase from such a terrible ruling has become such a huge part of our vernacular, and it should give people pause before using it. With some twisted logic, it can really be used to justify any censorship you want.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 23 2015, @08:38AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Monday November 23 2015, @08:38AM (#266893) Journal

              So you are saying it should have been "Shouting 'Peace' in a crowded war effort" ? Uncle Sam, et cetera. Well, if only the USA had something like the Official Secrets Act the Brits get to use, instead of the Mightly Buzzard principle.

              • (Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Monday November 23 2015, @09:42AM

                by Sir Finkus (192) on Monday November 23 2015, @09:42AM (#266914) Journal

                So you are saying it should have been "Shouting 'Peace' in a crowded war effort" ? Uncle Sam, et cetera. Well, if only the USA had something like the Official Secrets Act the Brits get to use, instead of the Mightly Buzzard principle.

                It was a shitty analogy by the Justice, and it's usually a shitty analogy whenever it is brought up in an argument. I'd almost go so far as to call it a strawman.

            • (Score: 2) by fnj on Monday November 23 2015, @05:01PM

              by fnj (1654) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:01PM (#267049)

              Funny thing about the whole "fire!" in a theater thing. The phrase originated as argument put forth by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to justify one of the worst First Amendment rulings in American history. Look here for more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]

              Score:maximum possible, cuts right to the point

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:25AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:25AM (#266910) Journal

            You make a decent point - but the courts in the US have ruled time and time again, that when a freedom must be infringed upon, that infringement must take the least oppressive form possible to accomplish the goal.

            So, you can ban some fool from shouting fire in a theater, but you can't stop that fool from discussing fire, or singing about fire, or even performing with fire in his show. You CAN prevent him from setting homes on fire, but if he's fascinated with fire, he has the right to talk about and play with fire, until the fire kills him.

            • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Monday November 23 2015, @04:03PM

              by redneckmother (3597) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:03PM (#267027)

              Agreed. I'm a bit concerned about the current sensitivity to discussions about explosives evidenced by individuals in airports, though.

              --
              Mas cerveza por favor.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @05:21PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:21PM (#267064)

            What I find peculiar about this dicussion is that the reason we maintain free-speech is that speech has power.

            The reason I want free speech is because communication is something that is perfectly natural to human beings, is an inevitability, isn't something that causes tangible harm to others, and is required in order to challenge the status quo. It would be extremely unjust if merely communicating to express your thoughts could result in you being punished. Sorry, but you had the wrong thoughts, so you need to be punished. Sorry, other people chose to react to your speech in harmful ways, so we're going to punish you for the actions other people took because we do not believe in personal responsibility.

            Saying we shouldn't regulate it implies the speech isn't worth that much.

            No, it doesn't. The value of any particular speech is subjective, and it causes no tangible harm. There is simply no reason to allow government thugs to censor others. This does not imply anything about its objective worth, because such a thing doesn't exist. People either choose to listen to it and accept it or they don't. Speech has as much "power" as others choose to give it.

            You could use this logic with anything that is currently unregulated. It's just another weak argument for authoritarianism.

            No, I don't want government censorship, but I also don't want smaller groups of people kept down by spreading the notion that they're somehow an enemy.

            If you don't want censorship, then what are you advocating here? Fighting speech you consider bad with speech you consider good?

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday November 23 2015, @06:09PM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @06:09PM (#267089)
              What I want is to have my cake and eat it, too. I want no censorship and I want races/ethnicities/sexual-orientations etc to not be oppressed by said freedoms. I did not offer an answer, I don't have one. This really shouldn't be a discussion of censorship, it should be about responsibility. Until that's ironed out the simplistic answer of specifying what people can or can't say will be tempting... exactly what we're seeing now.
              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @06:42PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:42PM (#267106)

                Tempting to the unprincipled, perhaps. But do you know what else is/was tempting to many people? Unconstitutional mass surveillance to 'protect' us from terrorists, slavery, putting Japanese-American citizens in camps, molesting people at airports, and countless other such things. It's always the unprincipled people who throw away everyone's liberties when they become the slightest bit uncomfortable.

                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday November 23 2015, @06:46PM

                  by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @06:46PM (#267110)
                  Right, and nowyou are going to the other extreme and ignoring the harm that causes. That's what we're learning, here, extremes are bad.
                  --
                  🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @08:00PM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @08:00PM (#267146)

                    Argument to moderation. What is "extreme" is subjective, and whether something that can be considered "extreme" is bad or not depends on what it is. Merely calling something "extreme" (by your own subjective standards) isn't a very effective tactic, or at least not on me. I don't know about you, but I'm not foolish enough to 'compromise' away our liberties and our constitutional form of government merely so that I don't appear "extreme" in the the eyes of authoritarians.

                    and ignoring the harm that causes.

                    Ignoring the harm *what* causes? Defending our fundamental liberties and constitution?

                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday November 23 2015, @08:05PM

                      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @08:05PM (#267150)
                      The harm that speech can cause. Or, in other words, the very power that you seek to protect. The reason you're seeing people willing to compromise on their liberties is that harm is being done. You've gotta address that or you'll always have opposition.
                      --
                      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @08:32PM

                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @08:32PM (#267159)

                        The harm that speech can cause.

                        I don't believe that speech can cause harm, or at least not any type of "harm" worth worrying about. Not libel, slander, threats, or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. When speech appears to cause harm, a more logical person will recognize that it wasn't the speech that caused harm, but the actions of people who reacted to the speech in harmful ways. By criminalizing certain speech, we are rejecting the notion of personal responsibility and creating a society where people do not have to think for themselves about whether any particular speech is worth listening to.

                        You've gotta address that or you'll always have opposition.

                        I've addressed the matter when it comes to speech; authoritarians just don't share my values or sense of personal responsibility. As for mass surveillance, it would be unjust and intolerable even if it did work.

                        There is no way that we will ever *not* have opposition, even regarding things like mass surveillance. You can pretend to be in favor of freedom all you want, but your devotion will only truly be put to the test when a situation comes about that makes you uncomfortable. In this case, it's offensive speech. In the case of privacy, that's usually after a terrorist attack. Fickle, unprincipled people will always be willing to surrender everyone's liberties in the name of safety; they are a cancer upon society that we cannot seem to get rid of. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say. The sooner you realize this, the better.

                        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday November 23 2015, @09:53PM

                          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:53PM (#267189)

                          When speech appears to cause harm, a more logical person will recognize that it wasn't the speech that caused harm, but the actions of people who reacted to the speech in harmful ways. By criminalizing certain speech....

                          Except in many cases, including libel, it's the actual speech that does cause the harm. The most damaging, especially in recent months, is the spread of mis-information that is causing hate to brew. Yes, acting on it is illegal, but it won't matter once something fills it with justification. We're seeing this play out right now. Sooner or later it's going to be a 'treat the cause, not the symptom' sort of answer. I do not support limits to free speech, I'm just warning you that taking a hard-nosed "principled approach" ain't helping you. That's what this whole article is about.

                          Fickle, unprincipled people will always be willing to surrender everyone's liberties in the name of safety; they are a cancer upon society that we cannot seem to get rid of.

                          You challenged me on my use of the word 'extreme' earlier, this a perfect example of what I was talking about. "Speech is bothering you? Well that's not the problem and you should be put down for even wanting to discuss it." If you value your principles so much you should consider taking a different tact when presented with a specific topic, preferably one where you actually discuss what the problem is and work to get it addressed. That doesn't mean compromising on your principles, it just means acknowledging no system is perfect and moving on to make the discussion continue. Yes, speech is powerful, and yes it does have to be used with responsibility. De-valuing it when it suits you doesn't make the threats to it go away.

                          --
                          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @10:21PM

                            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @10:21PM (#267202)

                            Except in many cases, including libel, it's the actual speech that does cause the harm.

                            How so?

                            I'm just warning you that taking a hard-nosed "principled approach" ain't helping you. That's what this whole article is about.

                            What should I do instead? These people are going to be anti-free speech no matter what, it seems. If the only solution is to make 'bad' speech go away somehow (without government intervention) so that they feel comfortable and stop supporting tyranny, then we are screwed, because that will never happen. These people seem so fickle, unprincipled, and oversensitive that even the slightest provocation seems to send them into a censorship-happy rampage. I don't see a sensible solution to this.

                            You challenged me on my use of the word 'extreme' earlier, this a perfect example of what I was talking about.

                            I challenged you because what you consider "extreme" does not actually affect the validity of the position itself. It's just irrelevant. What is "extreme" to you may be perfectly normal to someone else.

                            If you value your principles so much you should consider taking a different tact when presented with a specific topic, preferably one where you actually discuss what the problem is and work to get it addressed.

                            What do you mean? It seems to me that the entire problem here is that my values are irreconcilable with theirs. As long as that is the case, freedom of speech will be in danger. I don't view censorship as a valid solution to speech that is bothering someone. Offense is subjective, and anything can be offensive to someone. Offense is also taken, not given. I can't possibly control whether or not you get offended by something, as that is just how you feel about what you see or hear.

                            The problem as I see it is that some people are willing to discard fundamental liberties to make themselves more comfortable. It has led to countless reductions in liberty. We need to espouse the value of freedom in order to have any hope of counteracting this, but even that seems ineffective.

                            Yes, speech is powerful, and yes it does have to be used with responsibility.

                            That depends on what "powerful" means. What do you mean "have to be"?

                            De-valuing it when it suits you

                            I don't recall doing this.

                            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:02AM

                              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:02AM (#267237)

                              How so?

                              Really? Even after the 'fire in a theater' example? Okay. Are you aware that a well crafted story brought to the public could get you fired from your job? Have you ever been beaten up by a bully because he was lied to? Has anybody ever accused you of wrong-doing without any evidence?

                              What should I do instead? These people are going to be anti-free speech no matter what, it seems.

                              Heh. I'm sorry, I just find that statement funny. If you're arguing with someone and you dig your heels in, they will, too. Of of curiosity: Are you actually encountering anti-free speech people as opposed to people who are just asking for the silence of others? I personally haven't, so if my scope of experience doesn't overlap with yours then I'm afraid I cannot help you and you're free to skip the rest of this paragraph. What I have seen are people that are against specific behaviors and aren't even really connecting them to First Amendment rights. For example: Every single time anybody complains about "SJWs". They're not discussing their rights, they want the harm they perceive to stop. It's a case-by-case thing, solve that particular problem.

                              I challenged you because what you consider "extreme" does not actually affect the validity of the position itself. It's just irrelevant. What is "extreme" to you may be perfectly normal to someone else.

                              If that were true there'd be no practical definition of the word extreme.

                              It seems to me that the entire problem here is that my values are irreconcilable with theirs.

                              You should talk to them about it, not with your arms crossed.

                              It has led to countless reductions in liberty.

                              There are lots of cases where liberties are infringed upon due to that liberty.

                              That depends on what "powerful" means. What do you mean "have to be"?

                              Let me ask you a question: What is it about Free Speech that motivates you to take a principled stand?

                              I don't recall doing this.

                              Okay. Well the good news is your answer to my question about why you value Free Speech may help straighten this discussion out. With this topic it is very common to maximize the power of free speech, for example: describing anybody who doesn't see that as being a cancer. Then to minimize the importance of speech, denying the existence of libel and so forth. kicking the can down the road in terms of what actual harm was caused. It will help you a lot to retain some consistency when talking about this, otherwise you'll circular debates with all these free-speech-haters will continue. We both know that Freedom of Speech is a right that's worth dying for, the problem is that you've got people hiding behind it to violate the liberties of others. You're gonna want to address that problem instead of dismissing it like you are now.

                              --
                              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:33AM

                                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:33AM (#267249)

                                Really? Even after the 'fire in a theater' example?

                                Yes. [soylentnews.org] The real problem with the 'fire in a crowded theater' example is that it places blame on the speaker--who caused no physical damage themselves--instead of on the people who chose to panic in response to the speech and caused physical damage.

                                Are you aware that a well crafted story brought to the public could get you fired from your job?

                                Yes, but who caused the damage? The speaker, or the ones who chose to believe a story without evidence and fired me from my job? The speaker didn't decide in the end to fire me; they have no such power.

                                Have you ever been beaten up by a bully because he was lied to? Has anybody ever accused you of wrong-doing without any evidence?

                                Again, the speaker is not the one who does the damage, because they have not taken any physical action against you. They can't even do damage to your reputation; the people who choose to accept their speech and then lower their opinion of you do that.

                                Of of curiosity: Are you actually encountering anti-free speech people as opposed to people who are just asking for the silence of others?

                                Yep. Here's an example. [soylentnews.org] Notice the part that says "if those 'adults' can't behave, I agree that the law should make them. "? What else would that mean? I've encountered such people online and off.

                                If that were true there'd be no practical definition of the word extreme.

                                There is no objective standard of what qualifies as "extreme". Sorry. And even if there were, it would not affect the validity of the position itself.

                                You should talk to them about it, not with your arms crossed.

                                Meaning? You seem to think that there is only one way to go about convincing others. Some people are convinced by people who act 'kind' during the conversation, and others can be convinced by a more hostile approach. It depends on the person.

                                There are lots of cases where liberties are infringed upon due to that liberty.

                                Even if that were true, and I recognized the mysterious liberties that you say are infringed upon, I would still say freedom of speech is more important. It's a basic human need/desire to communicate. But I don't recognize the right to not be offended, or any other such silly 'right', if that is what you mean.

                                Let me ask you a question: What is it about Free Speech that motivates you to take a principled stand?

                                I take a principled stand just about everywhere, not just with freedom of speech. I simply do not want the government encroaching on our liberties simply because some people are 'bad'. The idea of innocent people being punished along with the guilty disgusts me and we should avoid that wherever possible. Communication is also completely natural for humans, and the idea of not being able to say something because others could take offense to it or react to it in harmful ways is just silly; that's not anything you made happen, but something they chose to do. Additionally, we've seen in the past that the government often abuses its powers and the amount of disallowed speech will gradually increase until it affects many more people than was originally intended, but I don't like that argument as much.

                                With this topic it is very common to maximize the power of free speech, for example: describing anybody who doesn't see that as being a cancer.

                                Define "power". I don't see how that maximizes it.

                                Then to minimize the importance of speech, denying the existence of libel and so forth.

                                I do not deny the existence of libel, but the idea that the speakers themselves cause harm.

                                I "maximize" the importance of being able to speak freely (i.e. you won't be punished by the government), and reject the idea that speech can harm others. This has nothing to do with the content of the speech itself, "power", or any other such thing.

                                the problem is that you've got people hiding behind it to violate the liberties of others.

                                Elucidate on what these liberties are and how some people use freedom of speech to violate them.

                                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:58AM

                                  by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:58AM (#267257)

                                  instead of on the people who chose to panic in response to the speech and caused physical damage.

                                  Do you understand what 'panic' means?

                                  Again, the speaker is not the one who does the damage, because they have not taken any physical action against you. They can't even do damage to your reputation; the people who choose to accept their speech and then lower their opinion of you do that.

                                  The speaker's intent was to harm you, and evidence or not there are plenty of cases where damage may have been caused forcing the firing to be necessitated.

                                  There is no objective standard of what qualifies as "extreme".

                                  Yes, there is. The person more extreme than you would be shooting people who speak up against free-speech. Not too likely.

                                  You seem to think that there is only one way to go about convincing others.

                                  Just the opposite, actually. I'm suggesting that your approach of only using one way is contributing to your frustration.

                                  I would still say freedom of speech is more important.

                                  That is perfectly fine! But right now you don't even seem to understand that there are cases where differing liberties collide. How would you even begin to explain how that principle works in a situation like that?

                                  Define "power". I don't see how that maximizes it.

                                  What's funny about your answer to my question about what you see in Free Speech is you completely skipped over what value it actually brings to American society. Your own answer would answer this particular question. Is this because you really do not know why people have taken bullets to protect it, or is it because you've taken a defensive stance in this discussion?

                                  This has nothing to do with the content of the speech itself, "power", or any other such thing.

                                  It has everything to do with it, otherwise censorship wouldn't be such a horrible word.

                                  Elucidate on what these liberties are and how some people use freedom of speech to violate them.

                                  We've gotta get you understanding what the value of free speech actually is before we can get to this question. I think you're underestimating the importance of this right, which in light of recent events is rather peculiar.

                                  --
                                  🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:15AM

                                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:15AM (#267264)

                                    Do you understand what 'panic' means?

                                    Yes, and guess who chose to panic or *did* panic?

                                    The speaker's intent was to harm you, and evidence or not there are plenty of cases where damage may have been caused forcing the firing to be necessitated.

                                    It doesn't matter what their intent was. If someone intended to harm me by saying "hello", that would be silly and ineffective. The ones who do the damage are the ones who take harmful actions against you, not merely speak of you.

                                    Yes, there is. The person more extreme than you would be shooting people who speak up against free-speech. Not too likely.

                                    Elaborate about what your 'objective' standard of "extreme" is and tell me why it's objective. Even if the example you gave is not objectively "extreme".

                                    Just the opposite, actually. I'm suggesting that your approach of only using one way is contributing to your frustration.

                                    There is no frustration. This is just my approach. Others take a different approach. I can't take one approach and then immediately switch to another one, because I have no idea which one will be effective, and it usually takes quite some time before you know whether it was, if you find out at all.

                                    That is perfectly fine! But right now you don't even seem to understand that there are cases where differing liberties collide. How would you even begin to explain how that principle works in a situation like that?

                                    I can imagine situations where liberties collide, but I disagree that speech can harm others, so I don't see how liberties are colliding in this case. What liberties?

                                    What's funny about your answer to my question about what you see in Free Speech is you completely skipped over what value it actually brings to American society. Your own answer would answer this particular question.

                                    I asked you to define "power" because I do not know how you define it. Therefore, I couldn't have known that my own answer was apparently an answer to that question because the definition of "power" that you're using is unclear.

                                    It has everything to do with it, otherwise censorship wouldn't be such a horrible word.

                                    I value the legal right to speak freely. Any "power" or value any particular speech has is subjective. Regardless, I don't think the mere utterance of the word "censorship" is horrible or harms anyone.

                                    We've gotta get you understanding what the value of free speech actually is before we can get to this question. I think you're underestimating the importance of this right, which in light of recent events is rather peculiar.

                                    I have no idea what game you're trying to play, but I almost certainly value the legal right to speak freely more than you, given what you've said about libel, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

                                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:50AM

                                      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:50AM (#267270)

                                      Yes, and guess who chose to panic or *did* panic?

                                      Yes, that's exactly how it works: "This is an appropriate time for me to panic." Heh.

                                      It doesn't matter what their intent was.

                                      It most certainly does! Especially since it is often used as a defense!

                                      Elaborate about what your 'objective' standard of "extreme" is and tell me why it's objective.

                                      *sigh* I did.

                                      Therefore, I couldn't have known that my own answer was apparently an answer to that question because the definition of "power" that you're using is unclear...

                                      ... Right. Defensive it is. *sigh* The best part is remark came along after a debate about what 'extreme' means. Heh.

                                      ....but I almost certainly value the legal right to speak freely more than you, given what you've said about libel, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

                                      Almost certainly? You can't (...won't?) even describe the value it has. You value it so much yet you cannot articulate why it has that value... and for some reason that's my fault?! Blimey.

                                      --
                                      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:20AM

                                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:20AM (#267280)

                                        Yes, that's exactly how it works: "This is an appropriate time for me to panic." Heh.

                                        I don't care what their thought process is or even that it might be totally unconscious. The speech itself cannot magically force people to do something; their brain does that one way or another, not the speech. I do support the right of the theater owners to throw out the speaker, however, since it is private property.

                                        It most certainly does! Especially since it is often used as a defense!

                                        No, it doesn't; not in this case. This is about speech, not something like murder where physical harm is involved. Since I reject the notion that speech can harm others, telling me that someone might intend to harm others with certain speech is about as meaningful as telling me about how someone might intend to harm others by imagining they're on fire. There are people like that, but I do not think either causes direct harm, so there's no cause to stop people from doing those things.

                                        *sigh* I did.

                                        How was that objective? You didn't explain that; you merely gave me an example of someone who you would view as more extreme than me. That doesn't tell me why such a standard is objective. When I look at the actual definition of the term "extreme", it seems entirely subjective and up for interpretation as to what even qualifies.

                                        ... Right. Defensive it is. *sigh*

                                        How is asking you to define a term that you're using "defensive"? I would recommend not making arbitrary assumptions about my state of mind that are entirely irrelevant to the validity of what I say unless you would like me to do the same.

                                        Almost certainly? You can't (...won't?) even describe the value it has.

                                        I thought we went over this. Did you want me to tell you how the right to speak freely enables you to tell others about your ideas, and that without it, others might not be able to consider certain ideas that are censored and opportunities for society to improve might be lost? What kind of description are you looking for?

                                        You value it so much yet you cannot articulate why it has that value... and for some reason that's my fault?! Blimey.

                                        It's not that I can't articulate why ("why"?) it has that value, but that you aren't paying attention. I don't know where fault comes in.

                                        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:46AM

                                          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:46AM (#267286)

                                          I don't care what their thought process is or even that it might be totally unconscious.

                                          Ummm... you should. Seriously.

                                          Since I reject the notion that speech can harm others...

                                          This is a good point to mention that you had asked about extremes earlier.

                                          How was that objective?

                                          You're seriously asking how an unattainable point of reference doesn't illustrate the degree of your view? When in doubt, deny all terms ... I guess.

                                          How is asking you to define a term that you're using "defensive"?

                                          It becomes defensive when my attempt to learn more of your insight so I could communicate back to you in your terms is intentionally dismissed.

                                          What kind of description are you looking for?

                                          One that actually answers the question of why you'd be willing to die for that right. Or.. to put it another way, one that I have already asked you about: The power it actually holds.

                                          It's not that I can't articulate why ("why"?) it has that value, but that you aren't paying attention.

                                          No, you're dodging it.

                                          --
                                          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:07AM

                                            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:07AM (#267290)

                                            Ummm... you should. Seriously.

                                            This is a good point to mention that you had asked about extremes earlier.

                                            Okay...

                                            You're seriously asking how an unattainable point of reference doesn't illustrate the degree of your view? When in doubt, deny all terms ... I guess.

                                            What I'm asking is how it was objective. How can I objectively determine what is and is not extreme?

                                            It becomes defensive when my attempt to learn more of your insight so I could communicate back to you in your terms is intentionally dismissed.

                                            You say that it was intentionally dismissed as if you know my intentions. I am asking you to define your terms so I can understand what you mean; that's all. If you view that as "defensive", so be it.

                                            One that actually answers the question of why you'd be willing to die for that right. Or.. to put it another way, one that I have already asked you about: The power it actually holds.

                                            Yeah, but I tried to do just that already, and gave a number of reasons why freedom of speech is important to me. Or was that a mere illusion on my part?

                                            No, you're dodging it.

                                            If you say so.

                                            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:23AM

                                              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:23AM (#267291)

                                              What I'm asking is how it was objective. How can I objectively determine what is and is not extreme?

                                              Okay, I've got an idea: Describe to me someone who has the exact opposite point of view as you, then describe to me someone who you feel is sort of on your side but has taken it to such a high level that you cannot support it. In other words: Describe to me the worst anti-freedom-of-speech person you have encountered then describe to me someone who supports freedom-of-speech, but to such a point of ridiculousness that you don't want to associate with him.

                                              I am asking you to define your terms so I can understand what you mean;

                                              I'm trying to, you're avoiding it.

                                              Or was that a mere illusion on my part?

                                              Apparently so. What you gave was a vague answer about not silencing ideas to help society. You have expressed a lot of emotion towards those who disagree with you, but when it comes to describing why you're so passionate to defend it you have all the enthusiasm of a student in detention filling out an essay question about a book he didn't read.

                                              --
                                              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:28AM

                                                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:28AM (#267302)

                                                Okay, I've got an idea: Describe to me someone who has the exact opposite point of view as you, then describe to me someone who you feel is sort of on your side but has taken it to such a high level that you cannot support it.

                                                Now you're asking me for my opinion about a subjective matter, whereas I asked for something objective.

                                                Someone who has the exact opposite point of view as me might be someone who supports banning all speech. I can't imagine someone on my side who takes it to such a high level that I cannot support it except for people who would murder those who support censorship, but in that case, I don't think they're free speech advocates.

                                                I'm trying to, you're avoiding it.

                                                Well, it's fine even if you don't want to.

                                                Apparently so. What you gave was a vague answer about not silencing ideas to help society. You have expressed a lot of emotion towards those who disagree with you, but when it comes to describing why you're so passionate to defend it you have all the enthusiasm of a student in detention filling out an essay question about a book he didn't read.

                                                So you want me to write an essay, or what? It is true that I expressed serious disagreement with some people here, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to write you an essay expressing ideas which you should be able to understand with the short answers given if you've ever read about the concept of freedom of speech before. It's not my job to do trivial research for you about the benefits of freedom of speech. No one here is writing an essay or has written an essay or a huge post; not me, and not you. I don't expect that from you when I ask you to define your terms, so why do you expect it from me? I might do so if this were a more serious place of discussion, but it isn't.

                                                You've already said that you're opposed to limiting speech to some extent. That leads me to believe that you are at least understand that being able to speak freely is beneficial, and you know why. From that, you should have some idea of what my "vague" answers meant. So what's with this nonsense? If you were someone who had never heard of the concept of freedom of speech, you would have an excuse. But that isn't the case, so I don't understand this. You expect me to explain things that you probably already understand in detail when not even you have done this. I could easily pick out tons of things you've said and say that they were too vague even when I actually did understand them. Like it or not, I gave my answers; that you did not find them to be sufficiently detailed is of no consequence.

                                                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:53AM

                                                  by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:53AM (#267305)

                                                  Now you're asking me for my opinion about a subjective matter, whereas I asked for something objective.

                                                  Yeah, yeah, I'm such a jerk for trying to establish the scale needed to clearly answer your question.

                                                  I can't imagine someone on my side who takes it to such a high level that I cannot support it except for people who would murder those who support censorship, but in that case, I don't think they're free speech advocates.

                                                  So if there are two sides where you are at one end and everybody else is at the other, then we have our achieved our objective definition of 'extreme'. You. We have made progress, thank you for cooperating this time.

                                                  So you want me to write an essay, or what?

                                                  ... huh? Are you really so desperate to dodge the topic that you'd try to pin that little work of fiction on me? You described people who oppose your view as 'cancer'. When asked to talk about why you feel that way, we got vague mumblings from you instead of a nice clear sentence with a similar enthusiasm behind it. I wanted you to really answer my question, I never said anything about it being lengthy, it just needed to not be half-assed. Remember that part of this is about answering a question you had asked earlier and I'm using the exact same approach that yielded results from your question of extremes. When you stop fidgeting you'll finally get there!

                                                  From that, you should have some idea of what my "vague" answers meant.

                                                  Funny, I would have figured that you'd appreciate my attempts to not put words in your mouth. So let's try again: In ten words or less, I only have to spell that out because you're intentionally being obtuse, like writing an essay to explain why you don't want to write an essay that you were never asked to do, what is it about Free Speech that you would be willing to kill for, this time with some sort of specific detail about why it matters to you, something on the same level as what you said about the cancer-people you'd like to kill, but not long like an essay, but enough to paint a clear picture of why it's so valuable to you, it could be a brief mention of something that has happened with recent events and why it was important, it could be a sentence detailing how uncle Sam bit your sister, just something that gives some meaning to why you want to go to the extreme of a group of people in society being killed... or exiled... or whatever it was you actually meant.

                                                  --
                                                  🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:23AM

                                                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:23AM (#267313)

                                                    So if there are two sides where you are at one end and everybody else is at the other, then we have our achieved our objective definition of 'extreme'.

                                                    How is everyone else on the other "end"? What if I were to say that everyone else is extreme? When it comes to beliefs, there is no "end", so this is just silly. How can you clearly define an "end" here?

                                                    That was only my subjective view. I'm not sure why you think you can come up with an objective standard of what qualifies as "extreme" (a subjective term) from that.

                                                    ... huh? Are you really so desperate to dodge the topic that you'd try to pin that little work of fiction on me?

                                                    It was but a question.

                                                    And desperation is not something I am feeling here. Just boredom.

                                                    When asked to talk about why you feel that way, we got vague mumblings from you instead of a nice clear sentence with a similar enthusiasm behind it.

                                                    If that's how you interpreted it, I don't know what to say.

                                                    I never said anything about it being lengthy, it just needed to not be half-assed.

                                                    Well, those are your standards, and I don't know how to meet them.

                                                    like writing an essay to explain why you don't want to write an essay that you were never asked to do

                                                    I don't view that as much of an essay.

                                                    The main issue here is that I don't even know what you will or won't accept as an answer, so it seems to be futile to me. If you're going to accuse me of being intentionally obtuse, then maybe I could say the same about you. Furthermore, my interest in this conversation has been dwindling for some time now. Why would I want to repeat myself?

                                                    just something that gives some meaning to why you want to go to the extreme of a group of people in society being killed... or exiled... or whatever it was you actually meant.

                                                    What the fuck are you talking about? This is what I mean. Why even go through the effort of trying to explain this to you when you so fundamentally misunderstand so many of the things I have said?

                                                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:49AM

                                                      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:49AM (#267323)

                                                      What if I were to say that everyone else is extreme?

                                                      Seeing as how you've defined the range, that'd be just fine.

                                                      Well, those are your standards, and I don't know how to meet them.

                                                      Yes, I got that from your previous post, that's why I clarified it more than enough for you to try again.

                                                      If you're going to accuse me of being intentionally obtuse, then maybe I could say the same about you.

                                                      You could, but then I would point out that I have answered your questions in multiple ways until the answer was finally reached, whereas you've half-assedly answered only once and have done nothing but argue with even trying to ever since. That wouldn't be so bad except I need your answer to that question to answer something you asked. You're either intentionally fighting with me on it or your understanding of your principles is very shallow. I know you're a smart guy so I'm not inclined to believe the latter.

                                                      Why even go through the effort of trying to explain this to you when you so fundamentally misunderstand so many of the things I have said?

                                                      I asked myself that question after your essay-writing nonsense. Anyway, you did say that. If you'd like to clarify your statement I'd be more than happen to accept the correction.

                                                      --
                                                      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:13AM

                                                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:13AM (#267328)

                                                        Seeing as how you've defined the range, that'd be just fine.

                                                        Amazingly objective.

                                                        Anyway, you did say that.

                                                        Where? "Fickle, unprincipled people will always be willing to surrender everyone's liberties in the name of safety; they are a cancer upon society that we cannot seem to get rid of. "? That was referring to the tendency of people to hold authoritarian views and how this still holds true even today. I don't know how you took that as advocating that people be killed or exiled.

                                                        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:15AM

                                                          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:15AM (#267329)

                                                          Whoops.

                                                          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:25AM

                                                            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:25AM (#267331)
                                                            You described them as being cancer and mentioned getting rid of them...?
                                                            --
                                                            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                                            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:54PM

                                                              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:54PM (#267584)

                                                              And the most reasonable interpretation of that to you was that I wanted them literally killed or exiled?

                                                              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:20PM

                                                                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:20PM (#267628)
                                                                Not sure how many people are welcoming of cancer. Oh and I did ask for clarification.
                                                                --
                                                                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                                                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:22PM

                                                                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:22PM (#267698)

                                                                  Well, it was just meant as a generic insult.

                                                                  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:29PM

                                                                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:29PM (#267702)
                                                                    Ah, so they're not a incurable disease that is a threat to society at large, they're just sorta jerks?
                                                                    --
                                                                    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                                                    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:12PM

                                                                      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:12PM (#267716)

                                                                      They are a threat to society, but it's not exactly a shocking insult to see.

                                                                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:18PM

                                                                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:18PM (#267720)
                                                                        So they're more like chicken pox? Or herpes?
                                                                        --
                                                                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                                                        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:21PM

                                                                          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:21PM (#267724)

                                                                          They're like faceless men.

                                                                          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:33PM

                                                                            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:33PM (#267729)
                                                                            Ah... so if they're faceless, they cannot speak, they cannot watch, they cannot smell... generally harmless then?
                                                                            --
                                                                            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:36AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:36AM (#266892)

          . It didn't come out of nowhere ...

          Like most things, including the Nazis. You are the asshole.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:16AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:16AM (#266907) Journal

          "doesn't mean you have to use it to be an asshole."

          Alright - someone is an "asshole". How the fuck does that affect you? The crazy old bastard on the street runs at the mouth all day, "Fuck the Muslims, Jews should be hanged, Niggers should be hoeing the cotton and kept in cages, queers should be bludgeoned to death, Russians need to be shot . . . " and on and on he goes, spewing hatred against anyone and everyone.

          HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOU? And, why do you have the right to silence the miserable old bastard?

          Stop going to your sensitivity classes, and take a course in Chopper's "Harden the Fuck Up" classes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc [youtube.com]

          NOTE: Chopper Reid, as funny as he comes across, was a hardened criminal who served "hard time" in Australia's toughest prisons. He was really not a likeable guy. I would really have disliked him, had I met him. But, I would find his company preferable to a bunch of whiney little bitches who want to silence all "assholes".

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:44PM (#267075)

          obligatory xkcd https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:56PM (#267080)

            Except that that comment appears to be advocating actual censorship by the government, so I'm not sure that xkcd applies.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:11AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:11AM (#266711)

      s/racist hatespeech/things I don't like/
      s/'behave'/agree with me/

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:39AM (#266723)

      You are very very wrong. Hate speech is exactly the kind of speech that we need to protect because the best way for societies to build immunity to bad ideas is to be exposed to them in manageable quantities.

      • (Score: 2) by fnj on Monday November 23 2015, @05:09PM

        by fnj (1654) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:09PM (#267056)

        Hate speech is exactly the kind of speech that we need to protect because the best way for societies to build immunity to bad ideas is to be exposed to them

        Truth. This is the weakness of the militant social justice pansies. Creating an atmosphere where everyone is afraid to express their feelings and opinions is not an admirable or desirable goal.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Monday November 23 2015, @01:55AM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:55AM (#266731) Homepage Journal

      The thing is, I can get away from people who say offensive or obnoxious things. And I do it regularly for certain classes of speech that I will not put up with.

      What I can't do is get away from our democracy that says that everything will be great if only we can get more voter turnout from all these ignorant people out there. This generation has been educated to believe that speech ought to be limited just as the generations before them were raised to believe that "majority vote" equals "self government."

      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
      • (Score: 4, Touché) by mhajicek on Monday November 23 2015, @02:15AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:15AM (#266744)

        How about reasonable, common sense limitations on dangerous speech? I propose that if you want to say something potentially offensive you must submit to a criminal background check and endure a short three-day "cooloff" waiting period. /sarcasm

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Monday November 23 2015, @03:36AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @03:36AM (#266786) Journal
          I quite agree. But I'll have to be the one in charge of deciding what is dangerous speech. Most people just don't know how to power trip responsibly and it would be wrong to thrust that burden upon them.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:30AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:30AM (#266912) Journal

            You're modded funny - I call it insightful. You've summed up the problem with censorship in a nutshell. "No one can be trusted to govern speech, so I'll have to do it." And, every sumbitch who clamors for censorship is thinking the exact same thing, whether they admit it or not.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:41AM (#266767)

      According to this poll, 40% of people think "racist hatespeech"* is offensive and should be banned. 60% think the idea of censoring/punishing speech is offensive. You advocated censoring speech. Looks like the majority thinks your opinion is the offensive one, so it's you who should be censored and punished.

      * I like how you made that one word. An Orwellian Freudian slip?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:19AM (#266781)

      You're a blithering fucking idiot, and I'd like to hulk smash your stupid face. God I love freedom of speech!

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 23 2015, @03:40AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @03:40AM (#266793) Journal

      Not a millenial but gen X and I agree. Used to be people had some decency, these days it seems a lot of people hide behind 'freedom of speech' to blurt out racist hatespeech every chance they get. Speech like that doesn't create anything positive at all so, if those 'adults' can't behave, I agree that the law should make them.

      And you're free to say that. Have a nice day.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:30AM (#266816)

        This thread has been interesting, it caused some cats to immediately grow a thick tail, arch their backs and start hissing. Instead of disagreeing and conquering my viewpoint, they resort to name calling. Mmh let's see, I'm a facist, a little turd, a moron, a piece of garbage and a fucking idiot. One of those kittens would even like to hulk smash my stupid face. What a sophisticated and mature discussion. Did it cause me to rethink my opinion, not at all.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:40AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:40AM (#266819)

          It looks to me like people insulted you *and* debunked your nonsense, but you have chosen to dishonestly pretend that everyone just insulted you and didn't respond to your arguments at all.

          • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday November 23 2015, @01:21PM

            by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:21PM (#266970)

            That was my take, but that's how you justify censorship. Ignore the people with anything relevant to say and ONLY point to the people not being constructive, or dismiss the relevant parts of a point to make it SEEM like people aren't being constructive.

            If you can demonstrate people ONLY abuse free speech then you can justify taking it away. It's extremely dishonest.

            Personally the only people I think should lose they're freedom of speech are those that advocate for limiting / censoring freedom of speech, because it's obvious they don't understand the slope they're pushing the rest of society down.

            Once it's gone, we'll never get it back. Tolerating a relatively small number of bigots is a small price to pay to avoid a future where someone can make ANYTHING out to be sexists, homophobic, racists and have you arrested for discussing or arguing unapproved topics.

            --
            "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday November 23 2015, @04:09AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:09AM (#266809)

      How, as a democracy, can we expect to ever make ourselves better if we can't talk about our problems
      because one side of the argument's opinion is illegal to express?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:33AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:33AM (#266817)

        It isn't about forbidding an opinion. An opinion can be voices in a normal adult way. There no need to be offensive or abusive, even if it's 'just' words. Offensive words ARE offensive. Abusive words ARE abusive too. There is no need for them other than to be offensive or abusive. They do not voice an opinion. They do not add to a debate.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @04:56AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:56AM (#266826)

          An opinion can be voices in a normal adult way.

          1) Whether an opinion can be voiced in an "adult way" doesn't mean it should be illegal to not voice it in such a way.
          2) That standard is totally subjective. What is a "normal adult way" and why should I or anyone care about your personal definition?

          Offensive words ARE offensive. Abusive words ARE abusive too.

          Both of those are subjective.

          There is no need for them other than to be offensive or abusive.

          Plenty of things are unneeded and yet we are allowed to do them. You didn't need to make that comment. In fact, some might find your comment to be threatening or totally worthless. Censorship is also technically unnecessarily, and its only purpose is oppression.

          They do not voice an opinion.

          Non sequitur. You can voice an opinion and be "offensive" and "abusive" at the same time.

          They do not add to a debate.

          You don't get to decide what is or is not objectively valuable to a discussion; that's subjective.

          That's the issue: Authoritarians can't point to any tangible harm caused by whatever speech they think is "offensive" or "abusive", yet they still advocate for government thugs to get involved. So not only are their standards of what should be allowed totally subjective and therefore impossible to truly follow, but worse still, they want to make activities that do not create any actual victims illegal. You have no right to have government thugs silence others merely because you find certain speech to be "offensive" or "abusive".

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:14AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:14AM (#266835)

            "You can voice an opinion and be "offensive" and "abusive" at the same time."

            You can, but it doesn't mean you're required to. I can say I don't agree with your stupid fucking opinion you motherfucking facist piece of shit, or I can say 'I don't agree with your opinion' and it's the same useful content: I don't agree. Did I need to call you names? Was that absolutely necessary? I don't think so, in fact, I think using offensive or abusive words has no place in an adult discussion. It's childish. No matter how you want to rationalize this away. Decent people (of course, you're going to shout SUBJECTIVE) know this. They don't talk like that in public. But if more and more people don't know that, and their definition of a discussion is to shout and act like children, calling eachother names, then the grownups should step in and take teir precious freedom of speech from them. Because they are being a nuissance. That's why.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @05:33AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:33AM (#266839)

              You can, but it doesn't mean you're required to.

              I agree completely.

              Did I need to call you names? Was that absolutely necessary?

              No, but I addressed the issue of needs in my comment: "Plenty of things are unneeded and yet we are allowed to do them. You didn't need to make that comment. In fact, some might find your comment to be threatening or totally worthless. Censorship is also technically unnecessarily, and its only purpose is oppression."

              I don't think so, in fact, I think using offensive or abusive words has no place in an adult discussion. It's childish.

              Well, all of that is totally subjective. I know you're probably getting tired of hearing how your standards don't have any objective value, but if that is the case, maybe you should stop proposing those standards.

              No matter how you want to rationalize this away.

              It's called using logic, no matter how you much want to "rationalize" (I love how this word is used by intellectual cowards.) this away.

              Decent people (of course, you're going to shout SUBJECTIVE) know this.

              Wow, you predicted my response! Could that be because it's the factually correct objection to what you said, or because you are simply wise beyond compare and I am no match for you? This is just like when the bible predicted that people would disagree with it. Truly amazing!

              But if more and more people don't know that, and their definition of a discussion is to shout and act like children, calling eachother names, then the grownups should step in and take teir precious freedom of speech from them. Because they are being a nuissance. That's why.

              True Adults know that comments such as yours are childish, abusive, threatening, and offensive. They need to be censored off the face of the Earth using the power of the government. Say goodbye to your precious freedom of speech!

              You're just lucky that people who care about freedom of speech aren't the sort of people who would actually advocate having the government punish you for making such ignorant comments. I will respect your right to freedom of speech, even if you use it to threaten my and other people's rights. It's a shame that you are too cowardly to respect others' rights when you are faced with things that make you uncomfortable. How does it feel to be pathetic?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:52AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:52AM (#267324)

                > Well, all of that is totally subjective.
                You like saying that when you don't have any real arguments other than stating you're right, and then you call me an intellectual coward. It's just reducing everything to the absurd. Yes, mr Pumpernickel, in the end, *all* things are subjective. People have agreed, however, to objective standards for things. One of them is the meaning of words.

                >or because you are simply wise beyond compare and I am no match for you?
                This appears to be correct. I am wise beyond what *you* can compare, and *you* are indeed no match for me. This is true because I said so. And everything you will argue against it, is, you know, subjective, man.

                >True Adults know that comments such as yours are childish, abusive, threatening, a
                Did too!

                >It's a shame that you are too cowardly to respect others' rights
                Where did those rights come from in the first place? Wouldn't that be the government? What makes you think anyone is naturally entitled to anything?

                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 25 2015, @04:52AM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @04:52AM (#267873)

                  You like saying that when you don't have any real arguments other than stating you're right,

                  No, I like saying that when your standards are totally subjective, because it's true. Such standards are totally unworkable in the real world (if we limit the discussion to effectiveness) because they depend on the viewpoints and sensibilities of the people interpreting the laws and the speech in question. Even things like the Miller Test are heavily criticized for these reasons and more. All sorts of limitations on speech throughout history have been disastrous; particularly ones as vague as those you are suggesting. They always end up affecting many more people than the ones who created the rules were intending (due to vagueness and subjectivity) and used as a weapon against political enemies.

                  That you sadly do not seem to understand the concept of subjectivity and how it applies to your proposed standards will make any discussion difficult. I'm sorry you don't find stating the truth to be a real argument.

                  and then you call me an intellectual coward.

                  Censorship supporters are intellectual cowards.

                  Yes, mr Pumpernickel, in the end, *all* things are subjective.

                  No, I don't think so. That seems like you're stating that as a fact to me.

                  People have agreed, however, to objective standards for things. One of them is the meaning of words.

                  It doesn't matter how you define the words. Offense is necessarily subjective, and the same will almost certainly be true of any definitions of 'abusive'. This will be true unless you redefine the words and make them so narrow as to be effectively useless, making your rules incapable of having the effects you want them to have.

                  And everything you will argue against it, is, you know, subjective, man.

                  If you're trying to pretend that I think everything is subjective, that is foolish because I don't believe that. Your standards of what to censor are vague and subjective, however. It's amazing how you can have this haughty attitude when you're the one promoting the violation of basic human rights.

                  Where did those rights come from in the first place?

                  I think they are essentially a result of society agreeing to not punish someone who takes certain actions, such as speaking, and even going to the effort of protecting the activity (possibly from more than just the government) and adding all sorts of checks and balances (such as due process) for those who would want to stop the person from engaging in that activity. A lack of government in certain situations, maybe. Of course, even if the status quo does not recognize a certain right, that doesn't mean you can't fight to get it recognized.

                  But it is irrelevant where the rights "come from". This has nothing to do with whether the government violating freedom of speech is a good idea in practice (it's not) or ethical (it's not).

                  What makes you think anyone is naturally entitled to anything?

                  I don't believe in natural rights. I believe that certain rights are good for people to have, and freedom of speech is one of the most basic. However, since you don't even believe in a right as basic as freedom of speech in the 21st century, I seriously recommend you move to North Korea, where the government will happily strip you of every right you have or think you should have. I mean, really, isn't that easier in the end than the gradual process of completely ruining existing countries?

                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:02AM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:02AM (#267874)

                    What is "offense"? If someone experiences some negative emotion after witnessing someone else's speech, someone else who witnesses the same speech might not experience those feelings or experience them to the same degree. What offends one person will not necessarily offend another person. Hence, it is subjective.

                    You might say that "abusive" speech is speech that the speaker intended (hard to prove someone's intentions, really) to cause offense. Regardless of the speaker's intent, the listeners do not have to become offended. Whether they become offended or not depends on their own sensibilities, their interpretation of the speech, and whether or not they can even understand it. The speech itself has no ability to make someone become offended; offense is taken, not given. And even if some speech is offensive to a number of people, that does not mean it has no value; the value of the particular speech is subjective and what one person gets out of it may be different than what another person gets out of it.

    • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @05:05AM

      by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:05AM (#266831)

      I agree with the sentiment that there is too much hate speech, but I don't think the solution should come from the government. That gives far too much power to the establishment - sapping the ability for society to change. Saying "this is a problem, and the government should fix it" is stopping your thinking at the first solution that comes to mind.

      A better solution (though I don't think even this is the ideal one) is economic boycott of the media that gives these imbeciles a grandstand, that puts them on the air in the name of "presenting both sides". On such issues as "can muslims be citizens" or "are gay people all pedophiles" or "is the earth round", there's only one position that deserves news time - the one that isn't utterly retarded. Vote with your wallet - don't watch it. If they're ad-supported, find out who's paying for ads, and let them know they'll be losing customers by being associated with it. This is a soft attack on hate speech - if it's widely considered "hateful" but is ultimately the way of the future, it will get through eventually, but it will severely curtail extremely minority positions.

      The closest I would want the government to get to such things is simply cutting off benefits to media organizations that focus too much on hate speech. First we'd need a solid definition of hate speech, and then if you spend more than, let's say, 10% of your airtime promoting such speech, you disqualify yourself for things like "nonprofit status" or "license to use public frequencies". This is already done to a lesser extent on other things - if a church starts preaching specific politics (eg. saying "this is the Reformed Southwest Midway Universal Orthodox candidate for President"), they usually lose their nonprofit tax exemptions. I think a similar system could be adapted towards reducing hate speech, although it would need quite a lot of work to make sure it has no unwanted side effects (eg. we don't want to penalize people who are constantly mocking hate speech, like Stephen Colbert or John Oliver).

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday November 23 2015, @06:18AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:18AM (#266859)

        Boy I really can't see how you can still breath with all the smoke from the strawmen you are burning.

        A better solution (though I don't think even this is the ideal one) is economic boycott of the media...

        So I assume you will be ok when we, we who are at least half the country btw, return the favor and boycott your biased media that represents at best 10-20%. Reputable polling does put the very liberal/progessive numbers that low you know. It is only through your control of the 'commanding heights of the culture' like the mass news media that you punch so far above your weight. You guys open the boycott floodgates and -your- media have two bad options. One they piss you off and ignore your demand or two they tear away the very last figleaf that they hide behind to deceive the low info voter that they are still journalists doing informative reporting. So do you feel lucky punk?

        On such issues as "can muslims be citizens" or "are gay people all pedophiles"

        So who is arguing those? If we ignore those strawmen there are related issues though we can discuss. You won't like those though.

        Can a person be a believing Muslim and a loyal American? I would say no. The civic duties inherent in Islam are incompatible with swearing to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. How can somebody who believes that Mosque and State should be one also uphold the prohibition on religious tests for public office? There are of course many more equally problematic conflicts. There are people I'd say are good Americans who profess a belief in Islam but the majority of Muslims would call them apostate. Can Islam be 'reformed' into a less intolerant and noxious religion like Catholicism was changed during the Enlightenment? Perhaps but that is a long term project.

        I'd also say the same for Progressives, that one can be a Progressive or an American but not both since they demand opposite policies. For example Progressives all seem to hunger for the power to censor all opposition which an American knows is out of bounds.

        Is pedophilia more common in the gay community? The fact NAMBLA has existed out at the edge of the gay movement for decades, never openly embraced in public but never shunned either along with the crime stats make it a question worthy of debate.

        although it would need quite a lot of work to make sure it has no unwanted side effects

        You openly talk about carefully calibrating a hate speech law to silence people you don't like while allowing your fave haters to keep on hatin. Almost a textbook example of the problem with progresives. No actual principle other than Will to Power.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:38AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:38AM (#266913) Journal

        Sounds reasonable. But, take a step back, and look at your post again. You're still advocating for censorship, albeit in a far less obnoxious and forceful way. "Don't like what XXXX has to say? Punish him financially - take his business away!"

        I'm not arguing with you, really, I'm just pointing that out. Hell, I do it myself. I don't support Microsoft with my money. I don't support Intel. In fact, I badmouth both of those every chance I get, to induce other poeple to boycott/censor them.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:41PM

          by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 23 2015, @09:41PM (#267184)

          That's a fair point, and one of the reasons why I don't think it's the ideal solution. It's simply better than the first solution everyone comes up with, "make it illegal". My point was that additional thinking could generate superior ideas.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:36AM (#266869)

      "I disprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall

      I only wish you reciprocated that belief.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 23 2015, @08:13AM

      by frojack (1554) on Monday November 23 2015, @08:13AM (#266891) Journal

      Time to grow a skin son.

      Tolerance is a two way street.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by melikamp on Monday November 23 2015, @12:56AM

    by melikamp (1886) on Monday November 23 2015, @12:56AM (#266705) Journal

    Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups

    I personally find that offensive, just as any statement to the effect that my freedom of expression should be limited just because someone got offended. In fact, there is a welll-defined minority of people who care about the freedom of expression, and they are all offended by statements like these. So I think those four-in-ten Millennials could not be less consistent if they tried.

    What I think should be limited is the speech of non-persons, and first of all the governments and the corporations, especially those that can afford to talk much much louder than any one person or even a minority.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:15AM (#266714)

      What I think should be limited is the speech of non-persons,

      That's pretty robophobic of you. #simulatedlivesmatter

      • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:26AM

        by melikamp (1886) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:26AM (#267315) Journal
        I personally do not discriminate against robots or robot-human hybrids of any kind. A human-sized robot is a person (past some intelligence mark, I suppose), and it deserves all the freedom of speech it can comprehend. It shouldn't matter whether a body is made of carbon or silicon.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:10PM (#267407)

          robots or robot-human hybrids

          The correct term is 'Silicon-American'.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:54AM (#266730)

      Yale's student paper had a great take on this, one of the best anywhere ever, some say.
      Here: http://yalerecord.org/2015/11/16/if-our-free-speech-isnt-in-jeopardy-then-why-wont-my-ta-let-me-spend-all-of-class-yelling-fuck-brian-at-brian/ [yalerecord.org]
        Seems that all that "free speech" was basically just being an ass, much like being "Not Politically Correct" just meant you were a Nazi or Racist, or did rather strange things to members of the animal kingdom.

      Oh, and Fuck Brian!!!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Monday November 23 2015, @02:10AM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:10AM (#266741) Homepage Journal

      Right, this statement is essentially a threat. While I do believe in freedom of speech, I do believe that if anybody threatens to do something they don't have the right to do (i.e., commit aggression against somebody else's rights to life, liberty, or property), that a proportionately forceful response is appropriate. In other words, say what you want, but if you point a gun at me and threaten to shoot me, then somebody is within their rights to take your threat seriously and shoot you down. In this case we are dealing with a threat against other people's right to liberty. That shouldn't be tolerated.

      Of course, every election is a threat against people's rights.

      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:56AM (#266825)

        But what if we were offering to "Fuck Brian" in a loving, nurturing, supportive sense? You see, it is all about these namby-pamby nattering nabobs of negativism who naturally default to a claim of victimhood just because someone offers to fuck them. It actually could be a compliment, rather than a threat, sort of like "You shore gots a purty mouth!". Or just poking fun, like when the KKK says they kill all "F**king ***gers", because, you know, they kid! And the same here, when all our advocates of free speech say, "Fu**ing SJWs!", all us SJWs just know that they are only blowing off steam, and don't really hate all of us, their fellow Soylentils. . . unless they do. . . and are just waiting for the right time to snap, like the Roof guy, that Oklahoma bomb guy, or these ISIS guys in Paris. OMG, you mean, they might actually be serious? As in seriously deranged, and believe the crazy things they say? Well, that does put a whole new spin on it, doesn't it. Yes, I am in favor of free speech, so these assholes can be not censored, but apprehended, incarcerated, and fucked in the ass before they act on their terribly political incorrect views. See you in the showers, Mighty Buzz!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:09AM (#266710)

    [this comment was removed to preserve save space]

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:19AM (#266716)

    Who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    *AND* Voting is a right that should be reserved for people who regularly engage in offensive speech.

    - The Senile Buzzard

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:23AM (#266717)

      Sounds like you got offended! Quick! To the Censorship-Mobile!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:28AM (#266718)

      Completely, utterly wrong. Everyone under 35.279164 is a moron.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:28AM (#266719)

    And this is why you should not be allowed to vote until you're mature enough to consider the consequences of your actions.

    Only the people who think the way you think should be allowed to vote. Nothing fascist about that at all.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:29AM (#266720)

      Nobody should be allowed to vote. Bring back the dictatorships!

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @02:06AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @02:06AM (#266736) Homepage Journal

      *Whoosh*

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:18AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:18AM (#266751)

        > *Whoosh*

        Really? Every post you've ever made has been about how stupid liberals are and whining about censorship.

        I think the real "whoosh" here is the fact that you can't see yourself for what you really are.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @02:33AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @02:33AM (#266760) Homepage Journal

          Yup, really. People often do not get my sense of humor. I kind of thought advocating fascism in the same breath as condemning it was a rather good bit of comedy.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:37AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:37AM (#266763)

            Standard MO of a bully. When anyone calls them out for their loathsome behavior, then it's always, s'matter, cancha take a joke!?

            Hahaha NOBODY was laughing you moron.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @02:44AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @02:44AM (#266768) Homepage Journal

              Bully? Citation needed. Until then, go sit in your safe space, cry-bully.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday November 23 2015, @05:55AM

                by captain normal (2205) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:55AM (#266850)

                Arguing with ACs is like trying to convince a fence post. Very few ACs are above being trolls.

                --
                When life isn't going right, go left.
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:45AM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:45AM (#266916) Journal

                  Well, we DO have a better quality AC troll here than in some other places. SN is such a healthy place, we grow relatively healthy trolls!

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:05PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:05PM (#267005)

                  That's pretty bigoted, you anonyphobe!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:58AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:58AM (#266923)

                > Bully? Citation needed. Until then, go sit in your safe space, cry-bully.

                It is very rare that a [citation needed] post ends up being the citation requested itself.
                So... congratulations?

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @11:32AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @11:32AM (#266936) Homepage Journal

                  Bullying = disagreeing with someone now? And here I thought I was going to have to give you a swirlie. Take your oversensitive ass back to kindergarten. This is the real world where bullying requires actual exertion of force of some sort not just hurting your feelz.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:02PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:02PM (#267050)

                    >>> Until then, go sit in your safe space, cry-bully.
                    > Take your oversensitive ass back to kindergarten.
                    >
                    > Bullying = disagreeing with someone now?

                    Yes that's exactly what it is.

                    > This is the real world where bullying requires actual exertion of force

                    This is a website. And the OED says you are wrong: [oxforddictionaries.com]

                    bully (noun)
                    1. A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
                    example: Many coaches are professional bullies and intimidators.

                    That you don't have much power doesn't stop you from constantly trying to intimidate.

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @09:52PM

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @09:52PM (#267188) Homepage Journal

                      Grow a pair of your preferred reproductive organs. If you can't argue on the Internet without becoming intimidated, that is a flaw in you not in the rest of the world. Rest assured the world will never adapt to suit your pansy-assed desires.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:02PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:02PM (#267193)

                        > If you can't argue on the Internet without becoming intimidated,

                        Just because you fail to intimidate doesn't mean you aren't trying to do so. But you go ahead and feel great about yourself for having an excuse to shit on people because you think they are wrong. After all, that's what it is about for you - any excuse to be an asshole to people you don't like.

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:42AM

                          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:42AM (#267253) Homepage Journal

                          Sweety, I don't give a happy damn if you're intimidated or not. Strike that, I'd prefer you aren't and give me a good argument in return. I'm not going to moderate myself down because some people are just pussies though.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:56PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:56PM (#270839)

                            > Sweety, I don't give a happy damn if you're intimidated or not.

                            Of course you do. That's the entire reason you are such an ass to people. It makes you feel so superior to put down people you judge to be stupid.

                            > , I'd prefer you aren't and give me a good argument in return.

                            Actions speak louder than words. This stuff is all about you puffing up your ego and you are one of those zero sum guys who knows in their bones that you can't get ahead if you aren't pushing someone else down.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:40AM (#266765)

            > People often do not get my sense of humor.

            A reputation is earned.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @04:25AM

            by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:25AM (#266815)

            The thing about comedy is that it's supposed to be funny.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:44AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:44AM (#266915) Journal

          Boy are you fucked up now. Liberals whine and play victim cards. That's what they do.

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:00AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:00AM (#266924)

            > Boy are you fucked up now. Liberals whine and play victim cards. That's what they do.

            So now you are accusing buzzard of being a liberal? That's low.
            Poor misunderstood buzzard, no one ever gets his jokes...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:06AM (#266737)

      Only people who support Trump, Carson, or Cruz should be allowed to vote.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday November 23 2015, @01:33AM

    by meustrus (4961) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:33AM (#266721)

    So the summary provides a false dichotomy: either you think government should be able to limit hate speech, or hate speech is OK. Neither of which I agree is true. The actual article provides the actual poll question which is similar:

    Regarding "statements that are offensive to minority groups", you either believe that:

    1) Government should be able to prevent people from saying these things, or
    2) People should be able to say these things publicly.

    Which isn't as bad as the summary suggests. But it's still wrong. I believe, and suspect many of those polled believe, that people should NOT be able to say these things publicly, but not necessarily due to government intervention.

    Of course this raises the real question, which is: why does the poll presuppose that government intervention is the only way to prevent hate speech? It's not about just this one poll. It's about an entire mindset in society right now that the only way to effect social change is through government action. Which is really because we want the world to be a better place, but we don't personally want to make that happen, so we appeal to the grand institution over which we have some measure of control to do it for us. Well guess what. "The Government" is not some great big magic machine. It's us. You don't like hate speech? Go stop it yourself. Be the goddamned Batman of race relations if you have to. Just don't give the office drones more unchecked power to "protect" us from whatever they guess is what we want to be protected from.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:30AM (#266864)

      For better or worse, "government" is how people organize themselves.

      If society wants to reduce offensive speech, it is going to be governemnt doing that almost by definition.

      If our governance structures are not ideal, it is up to us to change them.

      "Governement" can mean everything from: listening to the church, to an anarchist collective deciding what to do.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:49AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:49AM (#266919) Journal

        "For better or worse" our forefathers recognized that government should be very strictly bound by the people. You are arguing to unleash government on the people with powers that it never had.

        You don't foresee any unintended consequences?

        You're making the very mistake discussed above. You ASSume that this empowered government is going to like you and your opinions. You ASSume that you'll be one of the people in charge. And, you're a damned fool.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:42PM (#266956)

          I live in a country where hate-speech is already illegal.

          The reason it is illegal is that hate-speech often leads to genocide.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fnj on Monday November 23 2015, @05:36PM

            by fnj (1654) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:36PM (#267072)

            I live in a country where hate-speech is already illegal.
            The reason it is illegal is that hate-speech often leads to genocide.

            Yet letting someone know you hate them harms no one, while genocide is the most heinous of crimes. Hate speech should be dealt with by massive disapproval, not outlawing it. If you can't muster a large majority against victimization of race-identified target groups, your society is deeply flawed and outlawing hate speech won't fix it. It will only suppress the expression of evil feelings while they continue to simmer. You CAN'T outlaw feelings.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 23 2015, @01:42AM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:42AM (#266724) Journal

    Okay, so at 30 I may be a bit old for this demographic, but am technically still in it. And I say not just no but hell to the fuck no. The entire POINT of freedom of speech is that unpopular and sometimes even hateful things can be said--and this is coming from someone who has received threats to "rape me straight" on more occasions than I care to count.

    Freedom of speech means government may not crack down on speech it doesn't like. It does not, however, mean you get an audience for your bullshit. Whatever little proto-fascists from my age groups are supporting this need to harden the hell up...and their opposite numbers, the ones who troll and then whine about "butbutbut muh FREE SPEECH!" refer to the previous sentence.

    Christ I wish they taught civics in high school. Even I didn't get it but I damn sure went looking for the old material...

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:14AM (#266742)

      Christ I wish they taught civics in high school.

      What makes you think they would teach civics any better than they teach anything else? High schools offer an abysmal quality education.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @02:41AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @02:41AM (#266766) Homepage Journal

        And yet it's still better than college nowadays. At least in highschool they don't try to tell you that drunk sex is always rape and that you should segregate yourselves by race to give yourself a safe space.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:46AM (#266796)

          Well, both are garbage. But as for that Social Feces Warrior nonsense? I'm sure it will be coming to high schools and below soon enough if that nonsense isn't nipped in the bud.

          Also, drunk sex isn't always rape. The narrative is usually that the male can't be raped even if he was drunk; to them, the logic only applies to females.

          • (Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 23 2015, @04:12AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:12AM (#266810) Journal

            Uuuugh, don't even get me started on the Tumblr feminists. Never had I been so ashamed to have ovaries. A little consistency from them would be nice; drunk sex is rape in ALL cases because one party cannot consent, end of story.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday November 23 2015, @06:34AM

              by jmorris (4844) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:34AM (#266867)

              drunk sex is rape in ALL cases because one party cannot consent

              What about when both are drunk? The typical pattern is people go to parties, get drunk and screw. The innovation now is that the female, and only the female, can at any time from waking up until graduation decide she didn't like the sex and declare it rape. There is even a case where a woman blew her boyfriend's roommate while she was pretty drunk and he was totally blotto. Eventually the truth somehow came out and she threw the rape card to get out of the problem. He was expelled and I think facing criminal charges. Her sworn testimony is that the poor bastard was wasted and probably not lying when he says he doesn't remember any of it. So you have a guy with a ruined life for a hummer he doesn't even know for sure he ever got.

              And let us be a bit judgemental. If a girl goes to a party and gets wasted, didn't bring a girlfriend to help her get home, goes off with some dude who is almost certainly just as impaired, why is it axiomatic that it is the guy's fault? If we can't engage in a little constructive slut shaming can we at least agree they are equally (ir)responsible? Better still, why is that the FEMINIST position? I, as a reactionary hater, should be the one making the argument that women aren't fully responsible for their actions and that is why the old patriarchal rules were good and that we should return to them. But no, the feminists seem to want to beat me to it but somehow have their cake and eat it too, holding that women can't individually make responsible decisions but women in general must be given a dominate political position in society.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @07:20AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @07:20AM (#266882)

                Now I am all worried that jmorris might be, um, in a family way, after going home with some guy when they were both sloshed. Things happen, eh, mate? So who claims rape in a same-sex encounter? jmorris needs to know, stat!

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 23 2015, @05:22PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:22PM (#267065) Journal

                I would agree both parties are equally responsible for this. I hate what third-wave feminism has done to the movement; all these stupid goddamn overprivileged daddy's-money tumbler college kiddies who've never had anything worse than catcalling done to them are threatening to scupper the entire movement.

                Equality means equality of risk and responsibility. I am a feminist, and therefore I am responsible for my actions, just as much as any man is responsible for his. And getting drunk and fucking is stupid in the first place.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 23 2015, @01:53AM

    by jdavidb (5690) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:53AM (#266729) Homepage Journal

    Frightening. Surprising in a way, and yet not so surprising. Once upon a time I thought it was the old who were fascist. Now I'm an old fart and a believer in freedom, and the kids coming up want to clamp down on everything.

    To be fair, I was a fascist little turd not so many years ago, so maybe there is some hope.

    Figures like this are a good reason why I think everybody ought to be allowed to secede. Some things should not be subject to a majority vote.

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:47AM (#266798)

      I believe part of it is a lack of hardship. People that don't experience hardship in a meaningful way don't realize the imperfections of existence and what we must do to live with it. Millenials in general did not experience even the hardships of the recession, they were too young, most in college. They have never seen, felt, or experienced the effects of a real war. Sure they think they have, but drone strikes half way around the world and a soldier casualty rate lower than the suicide rate stateside does not impress compared to Vietnam.

      They just haven't been bit by reality yet and thus spend most of their time on things that hold no power over reality like hate speech, safe spaces; gender, sexual and racial politics. It is frightening how soft and vulnerable people that have never experienced hardship are. I hope they learn to understand before they create the next fascist state themselves or lay prone to daesh in the name of equality.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by captain normal on Monday November 23 2015, @06:08AM

      by captain normal (2205) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:08AM (#266855)

      Don't trust anyone under 30.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Weinberg [wikipedia.org]

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Monday November 23 2015, @02:09AM

    by ilPapa (2366) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:09AM (#266740) Journal

    are just no good.

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ilPapa on Monday November 23 2015, @02:16AM

    by ilPapa (2366) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:16AM (#266745) Journal

    More than 40% of Americans are OK with this:

    Forty-four percent of poll participants said the civil liberties of Muslims should be restricted, with 27 percent of respondents favoring mandatory registration with the government, the survey said. Twenty-six percent said authorities should monitor mosques, while 29 percent supported undercover law enforcement infiltrating Muslim volunteer and civic groups.

    I wonder if the 44% of Americans who believe the civil liberties of Muslims should be restricted is in some way cancelled out by the 40% of Millennials who believe in limiting offensive speech.

    It shows that when you put pressure on a society, on a cohort, shit starts to break down. It leads to people looking for solutions in some rather dangerous places. Capitalism, your chickens have come home to roost, because make no mistake, both of these startling statistics are caused by economic pressures.

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.
    • (Score: 2) by albert on Monday November 23 2015, @05:34AM

      by albert (276) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:34AM (#266840)

      We are unlikely to do any of that stuff. Of course, this means that future generations will be Islamic and will reject free speech. They will obviously reject the rights of Christians, atheists, homosexuals, and... well generally the liberal-minded sorts that allowed the complete establishment of Islam in the USA.

      Your ideals can not survive. They fail at self-preservation.

      • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @05:38AM

        by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:38AM (#266846)

        Our ideals are infectious. We'll have converted them to secularism and liberty long before they can cow us into forfeiting our culture.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by albert on Monday November 23 2015, @06:07AM

          by albert (276) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:07AM (#266853)

          It's pretty terrifying to think that you might not be trolling, and that there are certainly many people who actually believe that secularism and liberty are ensured victory in a culture war.

          The only two places I can think of that recovered from Islam are Spain (centuries ago, with much violence) and Israel (also much violence, and not really even complete).

          Egypt was once a Christian nation. Today in Egypt, being a Christian is pretty damn miserable. Being an atheist is surely worse.

          Paris, where liberty and secularism really got going, now has a band of Islamic areas that are arguably no-go zones for the police and where sharia is somewhat enforced. Conversion, if it happens at all, is going the other way.

          Look, secularism doesn't provide for killing apostates. Anybody can abandon secularism without risk of death, and many do. This is one-sided. The end result is going to be Islam.

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday November 23 2015, @01:14PM

      by isostatic (365) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:14PM (#266967) Journal

      Is like to think it was the same 40%, as both are fascist viewpoints. sadly i suspect they are diametrically opposed meaning 80% of Americans are fascist.

      But that's hardly new or surprising for a country that harps on about "freedom" and how great their military is.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:18AM (#266749)

    And this is why you should not be allowed to vote until you're mature enough to consider the consequences of your actions.

    It is usually difficult to disagree with oneself. Well done.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @02:37AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @02:37AM (#266762) Homepage Journal

      Yup, that's what I was going for. It's great when you can mock both the left and the right in one submission.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @03:03AM

        by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:03AM (#266777)

        And that's why you are, unquestionably, my least favorite person on this site. Worse than the spambots, even, because at least the spambots have an excuse for their idiocy and single-mindedness.

        You don't care about being right. You just want to prove everyone else wrong. You don't even care about the truth, about facts - you care about factoids, ammunition you can use to gun down any other viewpoint. I'm not even sure you *have* a position on anything. I'm sure if the study had found "100% of Millennials favored removing all existing limits on free speech", you'd have been bitching about how they're destroying America by giving power to the Westboro Baptists and the KKK.

        I'm sure you think you're just so fucking smart, don't you? You can find fault with anything. Like every other cynical bastard, you get off on looking smarter than the mob by condescendingly pointing out the flaws in it. Guess what? Any position will have flaws if you describe it in two sentences. And I have never once heard you have a positive take on anything - I've never seen you say "that's actually a good idea" or even "well, X is a problem but you can fix it with Y". It's always "this is wrong, you suck".

        I went through a phase like that once. I grew out of it before I graduated from fucking high school. Grow the fuck up, get out of your mom's basement and learn how to live in the real world, dude, not in some platonic ideal.

        You don't even grasp statistics right. Four out of ten Millennials supporting censorship means six out of ten against - so the average Millennial is in fact opposed to censorship. Yet you feel free to slander an entire generation. There were similar numbers for groups such as "non-white Americans" - are you going to say that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are fascist turds? Or Democrats, at 35%? Women, at 33%? I wouldn't bet money you even read past the headline, so maybe you didn't even know those figures yet.

        What about the actually-interesting fact that desire for censorship trends downward with education? College graduates were at 22%, college non-graduates at 29%, and high-school or less at 31%. That seems extremely interesting to me. But that inexorably suggests a solution, a means to reduce support for censorship, and we all know you won't go within ten feet of a solution.

        I've long gotten tired of your shit. I'm not the only one. I think you know that, because I've noticed you've been acting like an even bigger ass lately.

        How about you turn that ultra-critical eye towards yourself, see what problems you can find?

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @03:33AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:33AM (#266784) Homepage Journal

          You don't pay much attention then. It's not at all hard to figure out I'm very much about liberty. This is where essentially every political view I have comes from. If you see me shitting on the left more it's only because they've taken fascism to a whole new level compared to the right; doesn't mean I dig on the right.

          As for the rest of your whine-fest? You don't like me or my style? Boo-fucking-hoo. Witness my tears. I mock society rather than help because I do not want a society like you want. I'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground and start over than ever see you and people like you's dreams achieved. If that butthurts you, tough shit.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:44AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:44AM (#266795)

            It's not at all hard to figure out I'm very much about liberty.

            It sure seems that you're about shitting all over anyone who gets in your way.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @03:51AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:51AM (#266800) Homepage Journal

              Think about my stated position and then consider what it takes to actually get in my way. Yeah, you have to pretty much be advocating fascism. Other things I'll argue over but only in a detached, academic sort of way. If you're not actually harming me or my liberties, I really don't care that much.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:00AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:00AM (#266827)

                > Yeah, you have to pretty much be advocating fascism.

                For your own personal butthurt definition of "facism."

          • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @03:58AM

            by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:58AM (#266802)

            Where did I ever say what kind of society I want? Now you're just assuming that because I disagree with you on one thing (being a flaming asshole), I have to disagree with you on everything else (freedom of speech).

            Well, turns out Saturday morning cartoons lied to you, because people can disagree on some things but agree on others.

            • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday November 23 2015, @07:13AM

              by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday November 23 2015, @07:13AM (#266881) Journal

              gman003, I couldn't reply to him and cc you on here. I'm replying to this note of yours so the system will ping you. Thought you might want to read my comment [soylentnews.org].

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @12:04PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @12:04PM (#266950) Homepage Journal

              You obviously want one where I'm expected to be diplomatic and compromise with people trying to destroy my liberty. Fuck that.

              I'm not interested in a world where I have to slowly decline into slavery so you won't need Preparation H. I want a world like where people get together and decide that the most important words they can say are "Don't tread on me" and then put that on their flag. I want a world where when someone says "Give me liberty or give me death" they are celebrated rather than put on a terrorist watch list. I want a world where authoritarian pieces of shit are called authoritarian pieces of shit. Loudly, publicly, and repeatedly. I do not want quarter or even courtesy given to fascism.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @01:48PM

                by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:48PM (#266978)

                I want one where you aren't a retard. You don't have to compromise your principles, you just need to not attack everyone who even slightly disagrees with you.

                Hell, part of the reason you're so goddamn annoying is that the causes you claim to support aren't bad ones. But you're such a massive cock about it that you're probably doing more harm than good.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @03:20PM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:20PM (#267014) Homepage Journal

                  Poor word choice, "retard". Not for SJW reasons, just for inaccuracy.

                  I'll cop to being a massive cock about it though. I'm not interested in civility with my enemies. Normally I'm not one to quote Rand but she's spot on with "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit". I'm not interested in losing less; I'm interested in winning.

                  I also have a very low tolerance for foolishness on matters of import. If you think or say something bloody stupid, I will point it out in such a way that others will hopefully not wish to be associated with such a foolish notion. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit for the intellectual honesty to change their position once it's been shown to be untenable though.

                  Either way, I'm not going to stop mocking those who I think need or deserve mocking. Shame is a valuable tool that has been used to correct thought and behavior for thousands of years and it is a sword I intend to wield whenever I see it as appropriate. If any of the above makes you think I'm an asshole, so be it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:09PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:09PM (#267055)

                    > I'm not interested in losing less; I'm interested in winning.

                    You seem content to win the battle and lose the war.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Common Joe on Monday November 23 2015, @07:09AM

            by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday November 23 2015, @07:09AM (#266878) Journal

            I mock society rather than help because I do not want a society like you want. I'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground and start over than ever see you and people like you's dreams achieved.

            gman003 offered a way to better yourself. Your response was not a suggestion for a way to improve himself nor a counterpoint. I'll rephrase what you just said: You want to censor him and burn down anyone like him who doesn't agree with you. Your words.

            It's not at all hard to figure out I'm very much about liberty.

            You said this one breath before telling gman003 that you'd like to burn his dreams to the ground. (I don't know what his dreams are. Just repeating you.) I'd say it's pretty clear that you are not about liberty.

            Sometimes you have really insightful things to say, but I agree with gman003. You are unable to see anyone else's point of view and unfeeling towards anyone else's misfortune. The whole point of Soylent News is to have a rational discussion with other rational people. Please add some rationality to your words.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @11:35AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @11:35AM (#266938) Homepage Journal

              gman003 offered a way to better yourself. Your response was not a suggestion for a way to improve himself nor a counterpoint. I'll rephrase what you just said: You want to censor him and burn down anyone like him who doesn't agree with you. Your words.

              You lot really don't have much in the way of reading comprehension, do you? I said do and say what you like but I will be working and speaking against you.

              You said this one breath before telling gman003 that you'd like to burn his dreams to the ground.

              Liberty does not mean getting what you want; it means the freedom to try.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:56AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @09:56AM (#266922) Journal

          Nice rant, man. You should get it copyrighted and published.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:24AM (#266783)

        Reminds me of this: http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html [vgg.com]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:18AM (#266750)

    I expect you could get 40% of any living generation to support comparable limits on free speech, if you word the question right.

    Phrasing it as about "public statements that are offensive to minority groups" is good for Millennials, but not so good for older groups; if you want to get them, you'll have to change it to suit. You might talk about indecency/vulgarity/profanity, or you might talk about "treasonous" (i.e. insufficiently jingoistic) statements in "wartime" (i.e. any time) -- Americans have a long history of proudly supporting oppression on these bases. For best results, you'll word the question so that people can take it either way (just like, in TFA, they left out the identity of "minority groups" to be protected), applying it to whatever expression they'd like to put on jackboots and stamp out, so that you'll have bitter enemies both supporting it, each believing it will be used to shut the other one up.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:24AM (#266755)

      40% of Anonymous Cowards agree: those pesky registered users just have to be silenced.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:32AM (#266759)

      > I expect you could get 40% of any living generation to support comparable limits on free speech, if you word the question right.

      In 2006 a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning failed to pass the senate by 1 vote.
      A CNN pool a month beforehand showed 56% of the population supported it.

      http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/flag.burning/ [cnn.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:39AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:39AM (#266790)

        Except that it would then need ratification by the states, so it wasn't as if 1 vote was all that stood between freedom of expression and censorship.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:04AM (#266830)

          What part of 56% do you fail to understand?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:15AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:15AM (#266836)

            That falls short of the necessary amount, and there is no guarantee that the government follows popular opinion.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:19PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:19PM (#267061)

              What part of 40% do you fail to understand?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:23AM (#266754)

    Is this because the towel heads want to be able to sue for racism when their self serving sexist pedo honouring religion is talked about?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:05AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @03:05AM (#266778)

    We love big brother.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by cmdr_tofu on Monday November 23 2015, @03:39AM

    by cmdr_tofu (5669) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:39AM (#266791)

    I'm not a millenial and I am not a lawyer, and I support the right of every offensive group to speak their opinions freely as long as they are presented as opinions.

    However, if slandering an individual is illegal, slandering group should be illegal.

    For instance if a Republican presidential candidate makes disgusting statements like:
    “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

    Rather than saying "In my opinion, when Mexico sends its people..." the burden of proof should be placed on the speaker to either defend those statements or retract them. The language above might be ambiguous (although the implication is that Mexican government is actively sending known rapists and criminals the USA), but we've all heard defamatory statements made and presented as fact.

    I think that kind of speech should be limited, but the first amendment does not protect slander. It looks like we already have laws for this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law), but maybe the political will to go after offenders is not there :(

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @03:52AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:52AM (#266801)

      However, if slandering an individual is illegal, slandering group should be illegal.

      That doesn't follow. Just because X is illegal doesn't mean Y should also be illegal. Maybe X shouldn't be illegal to begin with.

      I think that kind of speech should be limited, but the first amendment does not protect slander.

      I just went and read the first amendment, and I can't seem to find that part. Are you by chance referring to the fake version created by the deeply authoritarian courts? If so, there is your problem.

      • (Score: 1) by cmdr_tofu on Monday November 23 2015, @11:18AM

        by cmdr_tofu (5669) on Monday November 23 2015, @11:18AM (#266933)

        You are correct that it's not spelled out in the first amendment. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding it is a part of English common law that is understood and that courts do not grant slander first amendment protections:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Defamation [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @05:07PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:07PM (#267053)

          That's exactly what I mentioned. The courts do not follow the constitution.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:21PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:21PM (#267156)

            That's exactly what I mentioned. The courts do not follow the constitution.

            By that line of reasoning, the courts have never followed the Constitution from the very inception of the Republic. I am not a lawyer either, but my understanding is similar to cmdr_tofu's; the courts have been using English common law as precedent ever since before the Constitution was written. Perhaps your understanding of the Constitution is flawed?

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:33AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:33AM (#267283)

              By that line of reasoning, the courts have never followed the Constitution from the very inception of the Republic.

              Yes. The founders and judges are human, and therefore subject to the corrupting influence of power just as much as anyone else. Constitutional violations are not made better merely because the courts or the founders agree with them.

    • (Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 23 2015, @04:07AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:07AM (#266808) Journal

      Fallacy of composition. Groups are made of people but they are not themselves individuals. I agree that people ought to damn well be challenged to back their bullshit up when they make a sweeping generalization like that, and in an ideal would it SHOULD be a political career-ender.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:54PM (#267168)

        Fallacy of composition. Groups are made of people but they are not themselves individuals. I agree that people ought to damn well be challenged to back their bullshit up when they make a sweeping generalization like that, and in an ideal would it SHOULD be a political career-ender.

        I agree. It amazes (and disappoints) me that a certain political party has so many candidates who are making such horrendous sweeping generalizations that SHOULD HAVE instantly ended their political careers. But they still keep climbing in polling! Frankly, it speaks volumes about this particular party. What is even more disappointing is that I used to be registered with that party. No more. I didn't leave the party so much as the party left me.

        • (Score: 1) by cmdr_tofu on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:26AM

          by cmdr_tofu (5669) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:26AM (#267359)

          I agree with both of you. Not just generalizations, but blatantly provable factually incorrect statements. This should have ended their careers, but in the money-marketing political machine it did not. This is wherelegal action should occur.

          In my opinion it should not be legal to present lies as fact, whether or not it is a safety claim about a food or product you are selling, or a blatantly manufactured crime statistic, or statements about all Jersey City Muslims cheering 9-11.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 23 2015, @04:17AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:17AM (#266814)

      However, if slandering an individual is illegal, slandering group should be illegal.

      Heh. Conversely, I would argue that slandering an individual shouldn't be illegal, either. I refer you to the "People Shouldn't Believe Any Old Shit Somebody Tells Them but Actually Do Research" principle.

      Cf. Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990 [knowyourmeme.com]

      Also see my signature below \/

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1) by cmdr_tofu on Monday November 23 2015, @11:26AM

        by cmdr_tofu (5669) on Monday November 23 2015, @11:26AM (#266934)

        You can do real damage to someone through slander. I don't know if that Glenn Beck thing was interpreted as a joke or something serious. The person himself seems like a really terrible joke, but I think I would support his right to challenge that website and have it taken down if the site owners could not substantiate their claims.

        Would you want to protect the rights of individuals to falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theatre? Or to make false statement about their product?

        Personally, I find the KKK (and many other groups) offensive. Even so, I wouldn't censor their opinions. However I still think free speech should have some limits.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 23 2015, @05:28PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:28PM (#267069)

          Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and maybe making false statements about products, is putting people's physical lives at risk, not their reputations. The whole "my right to swing my fists ends at your face" idea.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 1) by cmdr_tofu on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:29AM

            by cmdr_tofu (5669) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:29AM (#267360)

            Damaging someones reputation can get them fired or prevent them from boarding a plane and cause them serious financial and personal damage. That can lead to risk of physical damage especially if they like eating every day, going to the doctor, and sleeping indoors.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:46PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:46PM (#267542)

              Maybe, but it shouldn't. Either they really did the thing, in which case that action brought the trouble on themselves; or they're falsely accused, in which case people should do the research and not punish them based on false information.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 1) by cmdr_tofu on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:16AM

                by cmdr_tofu (5669) on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:16AM (#268196)

                If it's truthful it does not meet the definition of misinformation. If it is misinformation being used to destroy your reputation, defending yourself might be very expensive. Not everyone has the resources or skills to do so. That is why we have anti defamation laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law [wikipedia.org]

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 26 2015, @06:44AM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday November 26 2015, @06:44AM (#268254)

                  Misinformation vs. Disinformation...

                  In any case I'm not denying that libel is damaging. I'm saying it shouldn't be, if people stopped and thought for a second.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                  • (Score: 1) by cmdr_tofu on Sunday November 29 2015, @02:16PM

                    by cmdr_tofu (5669) on Sunday November 29 2015, @02:16PM (#269428)

                    I think you underestimate the power of marketing. Sure no matter how much money someone spends, they are not going to convince a rational thinking person that the moon-landing was faked as part of secret conspiracy.

                    But that drug X cures condition A better than drug Y? Or that the seatbelts in this a particular vehicle work reliably. I think you are arguing that there should be no laws against the spreading of misinformation. I think what's you'd find in that situation is a misinformation "arms race", where any truth on claims where someone stands to profit from misinformation would be exhausting (more so than now) to find.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @05:30PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:30PM (#267070)

          You can do real damage to someone through slander.

          The speech itself is not harmful; other people's actions after hearing it may be, however.

          Would you want to protect the rights of individuals to falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theatre? Or to make false statement about their product?

          Yes [soylentnews.org], and yes. I would especially like to see people stop using that first analogy.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:15AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:15AM (#267773)

            Of course it is.

            You're probably one of those people who also believes that guns don't kill people, people do. Let me clear this one up, they both don't, it's the bullets that do. No seriously.

            What if I command my German Sheperds to bring you to me? You want to blame the dogs for hurting you? That's just as silly. People who speak to hurt others are responsible. They are free to speak, but they are not free of responsibility for their actions.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:24AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:24AM (#267879)

              You're probably one of those people who also believes that guns don't kill people, people do. Let me clear this one up, they both don't, it's the bullets that do. No seriously.

              Maybe, but you could go farther than that, couldn't you?

              What if I command my German Sheperds to bring you to me? You want to blame the dogs for hurting you?

              Yes, unless you could somehow classify them as tools similar to a gun for this purpose.

              People who speak to hurt others are responsible.

              People who speak to hurt others are ineffective. It's always someone or something else that inflicts the actual harm, whether they are using tools or not.

              They are free to speak, but they are not free of responsibility for their actions.

              Okay, now regardless of whether or not you agree with my positions on free speech, this is complete bullshit. Freedom of speech means the ability to speak freely and not be punished by the government. If you are punished by the government for particular speech, you don't have free speech in that instance. Otherwise, what would the purpose of freedom of speech be? Using that logic, you could say that people in North Korea have just as much freedom of speech as people in the US.

              So no, they are not free to speak in those cases. They merely have the ability to speak, which is different.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:06AM (#266806)

    And this is why you should not be allowed to vote until you're mature enough to consider the consequences of your actions.

    Spoken like a true fascist.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:15AM (#266812)

    Do not ever tell me what I can or can't say
    You (candy asses) have the right to be offended.
    I have the right to offend.

    Suck it up cupcakes.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:03AM (#266829)

      I'm sure the opposite of your statement is also true... so go fuck yourself!! =)

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Monday November 23 2015, @09:48AM

    by tfried (5534) on Monday November 23 2015, @09:48AM (#266918)

    I think the key problem is quite simply confusing "it is legal to say XY" with "it is ok to say XY". And this very basic misunderstanding is all too common on both sides of the argument, today.

    You're already presenting the "it's wrong to say this, so it should be illegal to say this"-fallacy, here. But on the other side it's quite common to use "it's my/our bloody right to say this" as an excuse for not thinking about whether what you're saying (or what the racist you're cheering to is saying) is even remotely acceptable.

    Hate speech is hate speech, and if you care about living in an open and democratic society, you should call it that, and oppose it, vehemently. The 40% did get that part right. Going from a good conviction to a savage dogma is pretty much what adolescents have been feared for in all eras. Now just teach them - by example - that you can oppose hate speech without calling for the government, and there's actually considerable reason for hope in this story.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:30PM (#267037)

      +1

      Making something illegal because it is deemed unacceptable is not necessarily wrong (for the lack of a better word).

      Many laws were put in place to protect the children, the elderly, the poor, consumers, minority groups, etc. However, these laws protect these groups from actual, measurable, tangible, objective harm; say, a monopoly by a company. The recurrent theme here is "position of power". If a group is exercising its power to take advantage of another, there is an injustice and it is illegal.

      The problem with free speech is its nature. Say, someone on the street says you're ugly, you'll keep walking and ignore the person. Say, the majority constantly says that you're ugly, you start to feel the harm. When, precisely, that becomes an attack (in the targeted) sense should be left to the courts to decide. One should generally consider the stupidity potential of humans to determine whether it is targeted or not. And if some group doesn't make you feel welcome enough, well nothing really forces you to stay...

      The Darwin-inspired approach on TFA, however, is that millenials are living the well-known period dubbed "the identity crisis" and are particularly fragile to others' comments... Olders could offer emotional support rather than belittle their experience.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 23 2015, @03:44PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:44PM (#267024) Journal

    This again? You could have copied & pasted both sides to this from BBS discussions 30 years ago, and I'm sure from dead tree versions from long before that. The only thing that has changed at all is whose speech was trying to be disallowed. In college, it was political correctness. In the 00's it was anyone who questioned Dick Cheney. In the 80's it was anyone who didn't want to nuke Iran and/or Russia. In fact the only constant no-no, in America, at least, was anyone who questioned anything that Israel does. Well, those are the overt repressions of free speech, anyway. There's a much more powerful subtextual restriction on free speech that's also been constant.

    You could use a catch-all term to sum up those subliminal, subtextual restrictions like "taboo." In the 1950's it was taboo to talk about sex and communism, for example. In the 80's it was taboo to talk about gays. Race is another taboo. And the taboos restrict free speech much more effectively than overt measures to ban "hate speech." When you break taboos, people gasp and look at you with shock. Your neighbors whisper about you, your friends shun you, your family disowns you. It invites much more intense social pressure than merely saying forbidden words, for which you can almost find compatriots.

    Some might think taboos are natural, but they're not. They're just as deliberately constructed as overt restrictions on free speech are. To get a sense of what goes into making something a taboo, look at the enormous, multi-decade effort Zionists have put into rendering questioning Israel a taboo subject. They haven't quite managed it, but nearly. But then, they're trying to graft a taboo onto foreign soil. Most people who craft taboos work with groundwork that's already been laid by others.

    So to my mind those taboos are to be fought as vigorously as those who would ban words or phrases because they make them feel uncomfortable, angry, or sad. And the best way, the only way, is to use words and reasoning with mettle.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.