Hxstory

[gay_Aleks]

Once a thread is reduced to where a party (any party, whether wrong or right) has to post ragecomics, I believe that it's, well, over. Or, at least, it should be.

But it won't, will it?

 

[Ryika]

Nazi expresses his opinion that Jews are filth and should be killed.

Jew gets intimidated, complains.

Ryika: Hey buddy, this is your problem, that guy was just expressing an opinion.

Accurate characterization of your views or am I being unfair here?

No, you're being stupid, as always. The notion that Jews should be killed is obviously a call for violence and should be illegal.

But thanks for making sure Godwin's law is kept intact.

 

[Lexicus]

No, you're being stupid, as always. The notion that Jews should be killed is obviously a call for violence and should be illegal.

Come now, you're above ad homs.

I'm glad you recognize that there are some opinions where those who hear them can be intimidated without it being their fault.

But thanks for making sure Godwin's law is kept intact.

I'm going to start lobbying for a new fallacy, the argumentum ad godwinii lex. Godwin's law isn't even appropriate here as there is no Nazi comparison at all. I was simply using them as an example to illustrate the principle - which you apparently agree with - that the expression of some opinions is unacceptable and that this has nothing to do with free speech at all.

I am sort of curious, though, what if we remove the "should be killed" bit? Would it be okay for a Jew to be intimidated by a Nazi simply expressing his opinion that Jews are filth without calling for them to be killed? Or would this be the Jew's fault still?

 

[Ryika]

I'm glad you recognize that there are some opinions where those who hear them can be intimidated without it being their fault.

No, I do not recognize that. The reason for why people are rightfully intimidated is not the fact that he's stating an opinion, but rather that he's advocating for violence against these people. The fact that he's stating it as an opinion is not the problem here.

A few examples:

"I think Jews should be killed."
-> Should not be covered by free Speech.

"Jews should be killed!"
-> Should not covered be by free Speech.

"I dislike Jews."
-> Should be covered by free Speech.

/edit: (Added "Should be" to make clear that that's my opinion)

As you can see, the consistent bit is the call for violence, not the stating of an opinion.

I am sort of curious, though, what if we remove the "should be killed" bit? Would it be okay for a Jew to be intimidated by a Nazi simply expressing his opinion that Jews are filth without calling for them to be killed? Or would this be the Jew's fault still?

Well, the interesting question is whether the Nazi should be allowed to say that. That solely depends on whether you thing hate-speech should be forbidden. I personally am undecided here.

As for the original question: It is understandable that the Jew is being intimidated by that.

 

[Senethro]

No, I do not recognize that. The reason for why people are rightfully intimidated is not the fact that he's stating an opinion, but rather that he's advocating for violence against these people. The fact that he's stating it as an opinion is not the problem here.

A few examples:

"I think Jews should be killed."
-> Not covered by free Speech.

"Jews should be killed!"
-> Not covered by free Speech.

"I dislike Jews."
-> Covered by free Speech.

As you can see, the consistent bit is the call for violence, not the stating of an opinion.

So you acknowledge that there are limits to free speech, its just that you want it to be you who draws them. And anyone who disagrees with them is an easily offended wuss.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The subject is the limits of free speech Manfred. Examples of extreme positions are useful in examining where we might draw the boundaries of permissible speech.

I hope you can see that.

Equating "expressing an opinion" with "wanting to remove someone's political and legal rights" is ridiculous.

I hope you can... no of course you can't.

The latter is not a natural and inevitable extension of the former, it's a completely different proposition.

 

[Lexicus]

"I dislike Jews."
-> Covered by free Speech.

As you can see, the consistent bit is the call for violence, not the stating of an opinion.

Oh, so it would be a Jew's fault for being intimidated by someone ranting about how Jews are filth so long as he refrained from mentioning violence.

Gotcha

So you acknowledge that there are limits to free speech, its just that you want it to be you who draws them. And anyone who disagrees with them is an easily offended wuss.

We'll pass that over in silence, I wanted to focus on the "it's always your fault if you're intimidated by an opinion" thing.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh, so it would be a Jew's fault for being intimidated by someone ranting about how Jews are filth so long as he refrained from mentioning violence.

Gotcha

The beauty of a three word sentence is that it's so quick and easy to read and hold in one's mind in its entirety that it's really easy to see when someone completely misquotes it like that. I can see the strings.

 

[Ryika]

So you acknowledge that there are limits to free speech, its just that you want it to be you who draws them. And anyone who disagrees with them is an easily offended wuss.

No, I do not want to be the one who draws them, society should draw the line. I merely give my opinion on where those lines should be drawn in my opinion and argue against the people who assert that "There is a problem!" as a totality.

But yes, obviously there should be some limits to free speech. However, something as banal as "I think being trans is a mental illness that should be treated." (to get back to the beginning) is certainly not something I would even come close to thinking about limiting.

 

[Senethro]

Equating "expressing an opinion" with "wanting to remove someone's political and legal rights" is ridiculous.

I hope you can... no of course you can't.

The latter is not a natural and inevitable extension of the former, it's a completely different proposition.

I didn't say it was. Please stop punching at shadows here.

 

[Arakhor]

But yes, obviously there should be some limits to free speech. However, something as banal as "I think being trans is a mental illness that should be treated." (to get back to the beginning) is certainly not something I would even come close to thinking about limiting.

You're right. It shouldn't be illegal to say that, but it should be illegal to discriminate against people based on that belief and you certainly should expect to get called out on it if you offend someone by saying that.

 

[Ryika]

Oh, so it would be a Jew's fault for being intimidated by someone ranting about how Jews are filth so long as he refrained from mentioning violence.

Gotcha

No, you're being stupid, as always.

But my actual stance on this depends on a lot of factors. I would certainly understand a Jew being intimidated by a Nazi on a Nazi-Rally yelling that into a microphone. I would not understand him being intimidated by a Nazi saying that in a television-interview. (Not that that has anything to do with free speech)

So as with all events where there's a potential for violence the police should be present to make sure everybody is save. It is not the speech that is the problem.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It's really inconsequential if someone is intimidated or not. The line between free speech and illegal speech is defined by specific words, context and intent.

The feeling of intimidation is an involuntary response to a perceived threat. And everyone has different thresholds for what is rational to fear and what isn't. We shouldn't really care about it from a legal stand point and I'd be wary of any approach to free speech limits that rely on personal feelings.

 

[Senethro]

You're right. It shouldn't be illegal to say that, but it should be illegal to discriminate against people based on that belief and you certainly should expect to get called out on it if you offend someone by saying that.

I sign up to this.

 

[Ryika]

You're right. It shouldn't be illegal to say that, but it should be illegal to discriminate against people based on that belief and you certainly should expect to get called out on it if you offend someone by saying that.

Oh, certainly. That's the beauty of free speech, everybody can give their opinion and people can then decide what sounds reasonable and what doesn't. Ideally people who say particularly untrue things will make themselves look bad in the process - but of course given that we don't have a way to without fail detect lies and distortions that does not always happen.

 

[BvBPL]

This is exactly why the cartoons had to be shown by the media throughout the free world. To spread the risk. ... The only way to combat this madness and to restore free speech is to spread the risk and publish pictures like this everywhere. The jihadists can attack single events or news outlets, but they can't attack everyone. Only this way can we make it clear that free speech is not negotiable.

We've tried fighting the terrorists with our tanks, and our bombs, and their bombs, and their guns, that the time has come to try a new tactic: choice paralysis. By making every institution seem a "legitimate" target to terrorist madmen, we will ensure they are never able to make a decision as to where to strike next. This has worked for Israel for fifty-odd years and it has endured countless attacks, so of course it would work for the rest of the West.

In your head.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I didn't say it was. Please stop punching at shadows here.

Oh I'm sorry. So this:

"Ugh, noone should be offended by free speech, even when that speech is advocating for the removal of their political and legal rights." - A white dude on the internet

WASN'T meant as a paraphrasing of the post that you quoted directly before writing it (and which didn't say anything of the sort)? Forgive me, I don't know how I could possibly have jumped to that wild conclusion.

Maybe if you don't want people punching at your shadows you shouldn't construct them out of punch bags perhaps.

 

[Hygro]

We've tried fighting the terrorists with our tanks, and our bombs, and their bombs, and their guns, that the time has come to try a new tactic: choice paralysis.

ahaha that's neoliberalism in a nutshell.

 

[BvBPL]

I always knew there was something funky about Funky's avowed conservativism.

 

[Ryika]

We've tried fighting the terrorists with our tanks, and our bombs, and their bombs, and their guns, that the time has come to try a new tactic: choice paralysis. By making every institution seem a "legitimate" target to terrorist madmen, we will ensure they are never able to make a decision as to where to strike next. This has worked for Israel for fifty-odd years and it has endured countless attacks, so of course it would work for the rest of the West.

In your head.

That's not what he meant. By having 10.000 targets you reduce the risk for every single target. It does not reduce the risk that there's an attack against one of the targets, it merely spreads the danger of that one target being a specific newspaper.

The goal of that is not to prevent terrorists from attacking a newspaper, the goal is make posting these cartoon an easy thing to do. Which works because if you're just 1 of 10.000 newspapers posting it you'll not have much of a problem, the danger will merely be an afterthought - the risk of an attack specifically targeting your newspaper is (if we ignore the size of the newspapers and all other factors for a moment) 1 in 10.000. If you're the only newspaper posting these cartoons however you're setting yourself up as a prime target, the chance of being chosen as the target of an attack is 1 in 1.