Freedom of debate

Cloud_Strife said:
People want to complain about being "cancelled" for their views, even though it's within living memory that even being openly gay or trans would lead you to losing your job or prevent lawful employment full stop.
Click to expand...
It will surely hinder the rate or progress if no bad things are allowed to be fixed until other bad things that were previously fixed have passed out of living memory. Maybe we could just crack on with improving things?
 
Cloud_Strife said:
And if the "bad things" are the existence of gay and trans people in the minds of other people @Manfred Belheim?
Click to expand...
I can't even really parse this as a response to what I said. You said you didn't want to hear about people complaining about bad things happening to them, when other bad things that happened to other people are still within living memory (implying they no longer happen). I responded to that. Are you wanting to talk about something completely different now?
 
Can you explain how cis or straight endlessly debating aspects of gay or trans life represents an improvement of things when we're seeing active measures to exclude both, emboldened by said "debate"

Trying to think of an example of debating whether trans or gay people are delusional or not that hasn't emboldened freaky ass bigots but struggling
 
I know this isn't an RD thread Cloud, but please try and make a minimal effort. I'm making a point about how limiting free speech to "nice things only" is completely at odds with the concept of free speech in the first place. I don't think it's a particularly controversial or even original statement, it's actually just fairly basic and fundamental to the argument. Quite why you're wanting to be so childish as to basically respond with "go on then, say rude words, I dare you" is beyond me, but I don't really want to be engaging with such nonsense I'm afraid.

Your other post, though marginally better, is still falling some way short of being an honest response to what was actually said, so I'll just bid you good day and talk to the grown ups if that's okay with you.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
You can't really support free speech if you think that though.
Click to expand...
I think you should have picked on @Nick723's full line.

Nick723 said:
I think we agree that bigotry should not be allowed (even when considering free speech). But we probably disagree as to what constitutes bigotry.
Click to expand...
I bolded it as I find it key to what @Nick723 means with this.

Risking getting on @Cloud_Strife black list again
Not (violent) bigotry: "I think we should have a 3rd bathroom for you folks"
(Personally I am unsure here, we are all adults here and children can be taught, just wash you hand afterwards!)

Violent, hateful bigotry: "You have no place in society if you use that bathroom, I will hunt you down for it because X or Y"
I don't think this should be allowed, should you be prosecuted for this? Idk...but maybe the authorities should a better look at your internet history maybe.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
I know this isn't an RD thread Cloud, but please try and make a minimal effort. I'm making a point about how limiting free speech to "nice things only" is completely at odds with the concept of free speech in the first place. I don't think it's a particularly controversial or even original statement, it's actually just fairly basic and fundamental to the argument. Quite why you're wanting to be so childish as to basically respond with "go on then, say rude words, I dare you" is beyond me, but I don't really want to be engaging with such nonsense I'm afraid.

Your other post, though marginally better, is still falling some way short of being an honest response to what was actually said, so I'll just bid you good day and talk to the grown ups if that's okay with you.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you feel that way
 
Ordnael said:
I think you should have picked on @Nick723's full line.
Click to expand...
Well no because my whole point is that if you restrict "bigotry", wherever you're drawing that line, then that isn't free speech, it's restricted speech. Unless you're defining outright calls for violence or personal attacks or targetted harassment as bigotry, but if you are then you're twisting the meaning of the word. Nice fluffy speech doesn't need defending in the first place, the whole point of allowing free speech is that it's free.

I don't think this should be allowed, should you be prosecuted for this? Idk
Click to expand...
Well in the context of state enforcement, what would "not allowed" mean? It surely can only mean prosecution or some other sort of direct sanction against the person saying it. And "I will hunt you down" is an example of a threat, not being bigoted.
 
How will freedom of speech survive if people aren't allowed to scapegoat minorities and whip up violence

Having been on the recieving end i'd strongly recommend against allowing it, but I'm sure the trade offs are worth it if you're not at risk

All it costs is your humanity
 
Its seems there is some conflation between fundamentally different types of free speech:
  1. The government using its monopoly on violence to suppress speech, eg. Sami Hamdi in the US and the Palestine Action prosecutions in the UK.
  2. A third party service using its power to suppress speech, eg. Apple and Google suppressing ICE information and this place restricting topics of discussion
I think 1. is always bad and 2. has to be allowed. Somewhere half way between is if ones employer is allowed to sack you for said speech. That is a much more nuanced question, and while I have a lot of problems with the detail of the Grainger criteria I think the general idea is roughly right.

The really important point is that we have unprecedented practical free speech, in that anyone can put something on the internet and if they do it right there is very little any state can do, cf. dark net markets. If you are a journalist then it is going to be difficult to make your speech anonymous, but other people can and I think should, as shown by current events.
 
Arguably, the sole purpose of government is to put limits on individual freedoms. Of course that makes it very important that you excercise control of your government so that those limits agree with your personal preferences.

That seems to be the problem in the US, that a single party, not even a majority, gains control of the government and henceforward can simply dictate what opinions can be expressed.

www.vrt.be

Florida blacklists Belgian universities due to their position on Gaza | VRT NWS: news

The University of Ghent (UGent), the Brussels’ French-medium Free University (ULB) and the University of Liège (ULiège) are among a number of universities that the US state of Florida has put on to a blacklist. The Sunday freesheet 7/7 reports that the universities have been blacklisted as they...
www.vrt.be www.vrt.be

The decision prohibits public institutions in Florida from cooperating with or investing in organisations “that engage in (....) boycott campaigns against Israel or territories under Israeli control”.
Click to expand...

How will we survive here in Old Europe without the magnificent contributions of the state of Florida to the scientific theory :D
 
Last edited:
Snowygerry said:
How will we survive here in Old Europe without the magnificent contributions of the state of Florida to the scientific theory :D
Click to expand...
Despite the swamps and alligators, I think Florida actually has some quite well-regarded universities.
 
I was looking, apparently the Florida Inventors Hall of Fame was founded in 2013. Fairly certain they did not invent sliced bread or warm water over there then :)

floridainvents.org

About Us - Florida Inventors Hall of Fame

Our Story By encouraging discovery, the Florida Inventors Hall of Fame supports a culture of creativity that fuels innovation, drives economic growth, and encourages investment in Florida. The Florida Inventors Hall of Fame is a state-wide initiative dedicated to honoring and celebrating Florida...
floridainvents.org floridainvents.org
 
Manfred Belheim said:
Well no because my whole point is that if you restrict "bigotry", wherever you're drawing that line, then that isn't free speech, it's restricted speech. Unless you're defining outright calls for violence or personal attacks or targetted harassment as bigotry, but if you are then you're twisting the meaning of the word. Nice fluffy speech doesn't need defending in the first place, the whole point of allowing free speech is that it's free.


Well in the context of state enforcement, what would "not allowed" mean? It surely can only mean prosecution or some other sort of direct sanction against the person saying it. And "I will hunt you down" is an example of a threat, not being bigoted.
Click to expand...
I was trying not to mix freedom of debate with freedom of speech but apparently they overlap too much to make a distinction. And now we are debating what bigotry means for one might not mean the same for someone else and I think that is fair. No need to go "your idea of bigotry is technically wrong" and that's "stupid".

I experienced lack of freedom to debate on the colonialism thread...it didn't felt just like a limitation of my speech, it felt like "your thoughts on this are so wrong you are not even allowed to participate" and I still don't feel I was particularly aggressive or abusive...at least not any more to whom I was debating with but he got allowed to keep participating and I didn't...but alas life is unfair...but I just can't seem to put up with it quietly!
 
Here on the CFC your freedom is certainly limited - as it should be, it is a private domain no different from my family home, while you can come and express your opinion, I will excercise my freedom to throw you out on your bum if your opinion offends me.

There will be no debate on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
What can the Democrats do?
12 13 14
Replies
266
Views
9K
danjuno
danjuno
P
Feedback on Civilization VII: Crises, Ages, and Strategic Freedom
Replies
4
Views
514
Psytoxin
P
Dhoomstriker
Congress, Stop Supporting Censorship! KOSA Threatens Free Speech in the US
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Dhoomstriker
Dhoomstriker
Z
Civlike game idea randomly ejected into cyberspace
Replies
10
Views
1K
zuzim
Z
Klaus Hergersheimer
Rise of Nations
Replies
11
Views
935
Patine
Patine
Back
Top Bottom