[RD] What does free speech mean?

[CurtSibling]

Regarding the OP:

Is this free speech in terms of the law, or the unofficial court of the offended?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Regarding the OP:

Is this free speech in terms of the law, or the unofficial court of the offended?

There's an unofficial court of the offended?

 

[Zardnaar]

So hypothetically you could espouse anti semetic talking points as long as you skirt around the "solution" to the "problem".

Depends how anti semetic they are. For example BDS has been called anti semetic but boycotts have been used vs South Africa and you can't really claim Israel is entirely innocent in regards to the Palestinians.

Doesn't the USA draw the line at targeting some specifically against an imminent and targeted threat?

So they can't say let's go beat up Cloud/trans people Jews etc but they can say things like defend ourselves against blah blah blah?

If you're in a soapbox in a park it's fine if you put that soapbox outside someone's house not so fine?

 

[Dekker]

There's an unofficial court of the offended?

Did you not read BCs posts.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What is the functional difference between claiming that certain groups are parasites/a drain on society and openly advocating for their removal?

I must confess, i tire of this Jordan Peterson like path that so many tread; where they'll lead people up to the door (Trans people are damaging/destroying society, Jews are Parasites that control the world economy, Muslims are destroying Western civilization, Black people are inherently lesser) but stop just short of advocating for any "solution" (usually removal of those groups).

Some people might not be able to pick up on the implications, but the bigots certainly do, they use it in justifications for their attacks, physically, legally and socially; the Mosque Shooter in New Zealand literally had "Remove Kebab" on his gun,a reference to the extermination of Bosniak Muslims in the Yugoslavian Civil war.

This is why i take issue with the depiction of transpeople, specifically transwomen, as being ugly abominations, barely-passing and with the veiled implication that they are predators, I don't think i need to link any examples but i will if i need to, these depictions are dangerous and can incite negative reactions to transpeople, hell there are still places where people will use "transpanic" as a defense.

I see no functional difference between those who openly peddle it and those that commit it; just because you yourself haven't committed any physical acts does not make your hands any cleaner, if you propogate such hatred and bigotry, be it for money or internet-based clout, you are just as complicit and you should be judged for it.

We only have to look at the depictions of certain groups and the attached stigma/bigotry to see the real life impact of this; Jews were (and online still are) portrayed as avaricious beings wholely concerned with money and dominating others, LGBT people are portrayed as deviants and associated with pedophilia, PoC are associated with crime, laziness (but also taking jobs?) and being on welfare, etc.

These are all demonstrably harmful and have been used as "justifications" for punching down on these groups and enacting harmful policies designed to be so, for the purpose of othering them.

A fundamental flaw in the allowance of these "opinions" or views is that they enable people to continue the cycle of hatred; it is better to not allow bigotry to spread because the inevitable result will be violence and suffering, history has shown us this time and time again and only the truly naive will ignore history.

 

[CurtSibling]

There's an unofficial court of the offended?

I meant is this free speech from the viewpoint of official laws, or what is acceptable in civil circles of political correctness?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I meant is this free speech from the viewpoint of official laws, or what is acceptable in civil circles of political correctness?

Let's be real here, what you are refering to by "political correctness" is a general disdain for what was considered acceptable within the last 10-20 years; forms of racism, sexism, transphobia etc that were acceptable but now aren't.

That you cannot make your jokes that punch down on others without the risk of being judged for it, is not some form of oppression as you seem to think it is.

 

[Zardnaar]

What is the functional difference between claiming that certain groups are parasites/a drain on society and openly advocating for their removal?

I must confess, i tire of this Jordan Peterson like path that so many tread; where they'll lead people up to the door (Trans people are damaging/destroying society, Jews are Parasites that control the world economy, Muslims are destroying Western civilization, Black people are inherently lesser) but stop just short of advocating for any "solution" (usually removal of those groups).

Some people might not be able to pick up on the implications, but the bigots certainly do, they use it in justifications for their attacks, physically, legally and socially; the Mosque Shooter in New Zealand literally had "Remove Kebab" on his gun,a reference to the extermination of Bosniak Muslims in the Yugoslavian Civil war.

This is why i take issue with the depiction of transpeople, specifically transwomen, as being ugly abominations, barely-passing and with the veiled implication that they are predators, I don't think i need to link any examples but i will if i need to, these depictions are dangerous and can incite negative reactions to transpeople, hell there are still places where people will use "transpanic" as a defense.

I see no functional difference between those who openly peddle it and those that commit it; just because you yourself haven't committed any physical acts does not make your hands any cleaner, if you propogate such hatred and bigotry, be it for money or internet-based clout, you are just as complicit and you should be judged for it.

I think we mostly disagree with what to do about it.

In the modern era we're going to have terrorist attacks no matter what. It's easy enough to go underground or use discord or private chats or even in game chats on a PS4.
They're gonna say that crap no matter what. Most if them won't cross that line, the ones that do would likely do it anyway. School shooter, Nazi, Islamic terrorist doesn't matter.

Access to guns is a big part of it. American culture us a big part of it. Social media makes everything worse. Throw in economic distress. Immigration as well.

 

[Gorbles]

I meant is this free speech from the viewpoint of official laws, or what is acceptable in civil circles of political correctness?

To define that, you'd first have to define "political correctness", itself in its modern / current usage being a creation (co-opting?) of right-wing design.

This is the issue, you see. A lot of our discourse around these things are loaded with conservative bias from the offset, because these terms are conservative terms, often used pejoratively against left-of-centre and otherwise (culturally) progressive types. The original left-wing origins of "political correctness" predate the Internet as we know it, and certainly aren't used with any regularity anymore.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I think we mostly disagree with what to do about it.

In the modern era we're going to have terrorist attacks no matter what. It's easy enough to go underground or use discord or private chats or even in game chats on a PS4.
They're gonna say that crap no matter what. Most if them won't cross that line, the ones that do would likely do it anyway. School shooter, Nazi, Islamic terrorist doesn't matter.

Access to guns is a big part of it. American culture us a big part of it. Social media makes everything worse. Throw in economic distress. Immigration as well.

It's not a case of "disagreeing what to do about it" it's a case of some people actively burying their heads in the sand because the solution makes them uncomfortable.

I'll lay it out straight here;

Allowing bigotry, in any forms, through any medium, is antithetical and harm to the rights and well being of minorities and women.

It's not a case of "if" it is, it's a case of "how much harm does it do" and we only have to look at the news this year alone, to see that the harm it does is resulting in people suffering and dying. Attempts to explain it away do nothing to help those harmed or the families left behind, at best it comes across as detached from the on-ground perspective of minorities and at worst it gives the abusers some leeway and shields them whilst people play "whataboutism".

Portrayal of Jews as greedy parasites is harmful.

Portrayal of transpeople as being ugly predators is harmful.

Portrayal of PoC as being inherently criminal, dumb and feckless is harmful.

To disagree with this is to ignore the very real lived experiences of people in the past, present and undoubtedly future.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not a case of "disagreeing what to do about it" it's a case of some people actively burying their heads in the sand because the solution makes them uncomfortable.

I'll lay it out straight here;

Allowing bigotry, in any forms, through any medium, is antithetical and harm to the rights and well being of minorities and women.

It's not a case of "if" it is, it's a case of "how much harm does it do" and we only have to look at the news this year alone, to see that the harm it does is resulting in people suffering and dying. Attempts to explain it away do nothing to help those harmed or the families left behind, at best it comes across as detached from the on-ground perspective of minorities and at worst it gives the abusers some leeway and shields them whilst people play "whataboutism".

Portrayal of Jews as greedy parasites is harmful.

Portrayal of transpeople as being ugly predators is harmful.

Portrayal of PoC as being inherently criminal, dumb and feckless is harmful.

To disagree with this is to ignore the very real lived experiences of people in the past, present and undoubtedly future.

There are other countries with very strict laws such as Germany. The extreme right just uses it says something else. Can't use Swastika they use the old Imperial flag.

We don't have the technology for thought police. And even if we did who gets to use it?

Economic distress drives extremism. What people do about it is cultural for the most part.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

There are other countries with very strict laws such as Germany. The extreme right just uses it says something else. Can't use Swastika they use the old Imperial flag.

We don't have the technology for thought police. And even if we did who gets to use it?

Economic distress drives extremism. What people do about it is cultural for the most part.

Would you say that the desire of society as a whole to dissuade and prevent the formation and proliferation of pro-pedophilia rhetoric is a form of "thought policing"?

 

[Zardnaar]

Would you say that the desire of society as a whole to dissuade and prevent the formation and proliferation of pro-pedophilia rhetoric is a form of "thought policing"?

Different situation. No one likes pedophiles,like it or not facism is political.

Even here theoretically fascists are entitled to their views. In the US they have the Constitution.

 

[CurtSibling]

Let's be real here, what you are refering to by "political correctness" is a general disdain for what was considered acceptable within the last 10-20 years; forms of racism, sexism, transphobia etc that were acceptable but now aren't.

That you cannot make your jokes that punch down on others without the risk of being judged for it, is not some form of oppression as you seem to think it is.

Cloud, two words: Be nice.
Act civil, and give me respect, and I will return in kind.

Alternatively, put me on ignore. You'll feel better for it.
Good day.

Now, on topic:

Using the Western societies as a backdrop, I think that people should be able to say what they wish within the framework of established laws.
In the everyday society sphere, a person should aim to be civil (Cloud, take note) and modify their speech, based on their surroundings.

What the person wishes to convey does not always have a ready audience.
Also, there must be respect for other people's views, within reason.

And yes, I have made screw ups, outside of my normal satire.
That said, I would never null the free speech of even those who loathe me.

This is why I make sparing use of the block on various social media sites.
I tend to use it when a person is hating, or losing their cool, as a time out.

Never to shut them up, per se.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Cloud, two words: Be nice.
Act civil, and give me respect, and I will return in kind.

Alternatively, put me on ignore. You'll feel better for it.
Good day.

So for context I'm a transwoman, does that help you to understand why i take issue with what has been said?

Here's a personal pledge; when you change your views on transpeople and their depiction I will treat you with the respect you claim you deserve, but in no way are you some neutral party in this nor are you a casualty of friendly fire.

Our views on the topic are diametrically opposed, it is just that you have the luxury of not having to confront, be the witness off or bear the brunt of the end result of your views, whilst i do not.

Different situation. No one likes pedophiles,like it or not facism is political.

Even here theoretically fascists are entitled to their views. In the US they have the Constitution.

So again i ask; is the societal curbing of pedophilia and pro-pedophilia rhetoric a form of "thought policing"? I don't want deflection or whataboutism Zardnaar.

 

[CurtSibling]

So for context I'm a transwoman, does that help you to understand why i take issue with what has been said?

Here's a personal pledge; when you change your views on transpeople and their depiction I will treat you with the respect you claim you deservem but in no way are you some neutral party in this.

To me, you are a fellow human.

I've never gave a dang what people do with their own bodies. Why on earth would I care?

If you refuse to understand that, put me on ignore, as advised.

 

[Zardnaar]

So for context I'm a transwoman, does that help you to understand why i take issue with what has been said?



So again i ask; is the societal curbing of pedophilia and pro-pedophilia rhetoric a form of "thought policing"? I don't want deflection or whataboutism Zardnaar.

It's a anti social behavior banned anywhere with a basic level of decency.

I wouldn't call fascism nice either but theres laws protecting parts of it even if they have to use dog whistles in certain countries.

Your questions stupid because it's apples and oranges. What's acceptable will vary by society. If you can get to 75% supermajority you can change the first amendment.

I'll give you a counter example. We don't have a constitutional right to free speech. We do have an act of parliment with most of the rights of various people protected.

However it can be revoked by a simple act of parliment. If that happens it can easily be open season on the gays or whatever.

Free speech to me us a necessary evil. It's not perfect but better than the alternative.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's a anti social behavior banned anywhere with a basic level of decency.

I wouldn't call fascism nice either but theres laws protecting parts of it even if they have to use dog whistles in certain countries.

Your questions stupid because it's apples and oranges. What's acceptable will vary by society. If you can get to 75% supermajority you can change the first amendment.

Is the societal curbing of pedophilia and pro-pedophilia rhetoric a form of "thought policing"?

If it is, why do you claim that be acceptable but not so in the case of bigotry when the results of such have been made more than clear, if not how can you hold a double standard by applying it to bigotry?

I want you to answer this question because i find it interesting that on one hand you are willing to dismiss some of my concerns as "thought policing" but on the other hand you are willing to make exceptions/ignore it when it comes to topics that might tangentially involve people who look like you, after all what decent person wants pedophilia to be advocated? No one does, but the same should also be applied to bigotry.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

To me, you are a fellow human.

I've never gave a dang what people do with their own bodies. Why on earth would I care?

If you refuse to understand that, put me on ignore, as advised.

It's not a refusal to understand your point CurtSibling, it's merely me acknowledging that your actions are inconsistant with the words you type.

You must understand that your actions have consequences and that you cannot simply shield yourself with vague platitudes about acceptance when there is evidence, that i have seen with my very eyes, that contradicts that.

 

[Dekker]

Different situation. No one likes pedophiles,like it or not facism is political.

Even here theoretically fascists are entitled to their views. In the US they have the Constitution.

And who likes fascists but fascists? You yourself like to assume there are less than 100,000 fascists in the U.S, white supremacist neo Nazis that advocate final solutions and actively go out and harm minorities, even murder, and these crimes are increasing. Still that's a dar smaller number than likely pedophiles and yet you think their views should not be treated in the same manner? Remember, no pedo is arrested for just being a pedo, they must commit crime. No one is saying Nazis should be arrested for just being hateful pricks. But the US Constitution does not protect Nazis advocating for concentration camps and final solutions, so how and why do you keep defending this idea?