SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @01:01AM
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
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
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
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
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.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:40AM
double tap
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:52AM
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
Hope you live in a Red State then. Blue brains are abnormal, small and almost certain to taste terrible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @11:37AM
Hot sauce, yo.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Monday November 23 2015, @02:06AM
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
"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
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
> 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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
"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
> 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
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
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
> 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
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday November 23 2015, @06:54AM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:21PM
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 23 2015, @08:38AM
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
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.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Monday November 23 2015, @05:01PM
Score:maximum possible, cuts right to the point
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:25AM
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
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
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @06:42PM
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @08:00PM
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 23 2015, @08:32PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Whoops.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:25AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:54PM
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:22PM
Well, it was just meant as a generic insult.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:29PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:12PM
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:21PM
They're like faceless men.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:33PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:36AM
Like most things, including the Nazis. You are the asshole.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @09:16AM
"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
obligatory xkcd https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:56PM
Except that that comment appears to be advocating actual censorship by the government, so I'm not sure that xkcd applies.