thewhyteboar Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 It is every citizen’s duty to punch Nazis in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3xB0t Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 4 minutes ago, Uaarkson said: People should be able to say whatever the fuck they want however the fuck they want to say it, as long as it isn’t a threat and isn’t actively harming someone, and it doesn’t matter if you think it’s productive discourse or not. The freedom to say it is key What if it encourages violence, without being outright threatening? Is it still okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3xB0t Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 1 minute ago, thewhyteboar said: It is every citizen’s duty to punch Nazis in the face. Or to at least roll one’s eyes at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 1 hour ago, S3xB0t said: It’s probably ignorant to ask this question, but would it really be so bad to tighten up our free speech laws a little bit? I abhor the vitriol that spills from such human garbage as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and MAGA asswipes. Why should we as a society have to tolerate that? It’s not helpful. It’s not discourse. It’s holding us all back to let that toxicity foul up the airwaves and cables that bring us content. Perhaps someone more well versed in civil rights can explain it to me. 45 minutes ago, Uaarkson said: Letting government decide what constitutes free speech is generally bad news bears You may want to ban hateful words, but when the next guy is in power, he'll likely be able to ban words or concepts that you support, or at least think would be stupid to ban. For instance, the word "cisgender" is banned on Twitter, because Musk believes it to be a slur and derogatory. Do you want people like Musk sitting in a government office deciding what is and what isn't allowed to be said? I doubt it. The government needs to keep it's damn dirty hands off of your speech. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 42 minutes ago, S3xB0t said: What if it encourages violence, without being outright threatening? Is it still okay? 43 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: It is every citizen’s duty to punch Nazis in the face. @S3xB0t, should the government prosecute @thewhyteboar for encouraging violence, even though they are not outright threatening people? Or would it be ok because it would be against people you (rightfully) disagree with? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3xB0t Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: @S3xB0t, should the government prosecute @thewhyteboar for encouraging violence, even though they are not outright threatening people? Or would it be ok because it would be against people you (rightfully) disagree with? Fair enough. I’m glad I don’t live in Brazil, at any rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Such a dumb ass American perspective. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3xB0t Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 I think what I find most frustrating is Musk’s “free speech absolutism” because the term is just a really thin veil for him pushing his narrative. That is, the one that would see Trump re-elected and continue the nasty narrative we’ve been subject to since 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 3 minutes ago, S3xB0t said: I think what I find most frustrating is Musk’s “free speech absolutism” because the term is just a really thin veil for him pushing his narrative. That is, the one that would see Trump re-elected and continue the nasty narrative we’ve been subject to since 2016. Musk is a dumb chud who is surrounded by yes-men. Everyone who is in his orbit is too afraid to call out his bullshit and clear hypocrisy concerning free speech absolutism. We won't need governments to ban the platform to silence him, because he's doing a fantastic job of running it into the ground financially. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Even the founders didn’t give a shit about every single right in the bill of rights it’s kind of stupid to run with free speech or whatever absolutism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Under Elon Musk, Twitter has approved 83% of censorship requests by authoritarian governments | International | EL PAÍS English ENGLISH.ELPAIS.COM The social network has restricted and withdrawn content critical of the ruling parties in Turkey and India, among other countries, including during electoral campaigns Musk actually loves authoritarian anti-free speech laws, especially if they come from India and Turkey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 @S3xB0t The, it’s my right to do whatever I want others be damned is a dipshit American perspective and after the pandemic I have zero desire to hear their nonsense anymore. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3xB0t Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 @TUFKAK I see it from both sides. For free speech, yes, now that some others have explained it makes sense to say what you wanna say and not have the government have a hand in it. When it comes to public health, though…fuck no. Get vaxxed, get masked, stay home…it should be legal to enforce whatever needs to be enforced. And vaccine denialism can’t be protected by free speech when the fucking evidence is there to refute it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakoo Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Well it looks like it actually went through. People are now reporting that Xitter is blocked for them in Brazil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 3 hours ago, S3xB0t said: It’s probably ignorant to ask this question, but would it really be so bad to tighten up our free speech laws a little bit? I abhor the vitriol that spills from such human garbage as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and MAGA asswipes. Why should we as a society have to tolerate that? It’s not helpful. It’s not discourse. It’s holding us all back to let that toxicity foul up the airwaves and cables that bring us content. Perhaps someone more well versed in civil rights can explain it to me. Quote Liberal theorists say more speech is the First Amendment remedy for hate speech The traditional liberal position is that speech must be valued as one of the most important elements of a democratic society. Traditional scholars see speech as a fundamental tool for self-realization and social growth and believe that the remedy for troublesome speech is more speech, not more government regulation of speech. For example, liberal theorist Nadine Strossen, relying to some degree on John Stuart Mill’s connection between speech and the search for truth, argues that restricting hate speech will mask hatred among groups rather than dissipate it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3xB0t Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 25 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said: In other words, we need to hash shit out to find the best way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 6 minutes ago, S3xB0t said: In other words, we need to hash shit out to find the best way forward. Or more people need to speak up to drown out the hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 1 hour ago, S3xB0t said: @TUFKAK I see it from both sides. For free speech, yes, now that some others have explained it makes sense to say what you wanna say and not have the government have a hand in it. When it comes to public health, though…fuck no. Get vaxxed, get masked, stay home…it should be legal to enforce whatever needs to be enforced. And vaccine denialism can’t be protected by free speech when the fucking evidence is there to refute it. The “it’s my right” is the argument of a child; we live in a society where rights are curtailed daily and nothing is absolute therefore I have zero issues with certain speech being limited as a result be it via societal pressure or legislation. I’m an adult, my responsibilities are far more important than my rights which is something most Americans miss because they’ve twisted freedom into “do whatever I want without any repercussions.” The pandemic is a great example as the actions of those morons directly contributed to harm at an individual and societal level because they valued their desires over everything else. Which is the same free speech argument we’re currently having. Americans are not responsible enough to be trusted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 7 hours ago, TUFKAK said: The “it’s my right” is the argument of a child; we live in a society where rights are curtailed daily and nothing is absolute therefore I have zero issues with certain speech being limited as a result be it via societal pressure or legislation. I’m an adult, my responsibilities are far more important than my rights which is something most Americans miss because they’ve twisted freedom into “do whatever I want without any repercussions.” The pandemic is a great example as the actions of those morons directly contributed to harm at an individual and societal level because they valued their desires over everything else. Which is the same free speech argument we’re currently having. Americans are not responsible enough to be trusted. Okay, I’ll bite. Who, then, gets to decide what constitutes free speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 The manner in which other countries have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 1 hour ago, TUFKAK said: The manner in which other countries have? Donald Trump, assuming he wins the election in November. He gets to decide which speech gets limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 16 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Donald Trump, assuming he wins the election in November. He gets to decide which speech gets limited. Terrible example because the courts won’t constrain him in nearly any manner or matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 12 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said: I don't believe this philosophy works in the era of social media with algorithmic boosting that is motivated by financial interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 I don't see how there is any way to control free speech that isn't a slippery slope or easily corruptible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 4 minutes ago, Reputator said: I don't see how there is any way to control free speech that isn't a slippery slope or easily corruptible. Leftists and rightoids can't see the forest for the trees. Thinking that only the other side should get censored will absolutely lead to your own side getting censored in the future. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakoo Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 The “you wouldn’t like it if the other team is in charge” is such a bs argument. I mean bitch please that is already going on and has been for a long time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPCyric Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 14 hours ago, TUFKAK said: @S3xB0t The, it’s my right to do whatever I want others be damned is a dipshit American perspective and after the pandemic I have zero desire to hear their nonsense anymore. As an American I totally agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 17 hours ago, Uaarkson said: People should be able to say whatever the fuck they want however the fuck they want to say it, as long as it isn’t a threat and isn’t actively harming someone, and it doesn’t matter if you think it’s productive discourse or not. The freedom to say it is key Yes but freedom of speech doesn't mean free from consequence. You have the right to say whatever you want... and people can and WILL react to the shit you say. Words have consequences. The internet has spoiled a whole generation into thinking that words have no meaning when they do. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Also, there's a huge difference between an individual's right to say whatever, and a corporation artificially inflating very specific types of opinions using an algorithm. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Just now, Xbob42 said: Also, there's a huge difference between an individual's right to say whatever, and a corporation artificially inflating very specific types of opinions using an algorithm. But SCOTUS said corporations are individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 18 minutes ago, Jason said: But SCOTUS said corporations are individuals. A group of people, whether they are a corporation or a union or a club, or a political party, have the same right to speech as an individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 15 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: A group of people, whether they are a corporation or a union or a club, or a political party, have the same right to speech as an individual. Yet they don't have the same liabilities as individuals... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said: Yes but freedom of speech doesn't mean free from consequence. You have the right to say whatever you want... and people can and WILL react to the shit you say. Words have consequences. The internet has spoiled a whole generation into thinking that words have no meaning when they do. Yeah there's sort of this "Free market" self-regulating side to free speech, I guess you could say. And besides the consequences, opposing sides are just as free to counter whatever you say, and fact check, etc. More information and discussion is a much better counter than thought suppression. Case in point Twitter before Musk wasn't outright deleting most misinformation, but they were actively fact checking and letting viewers decide. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said: Yet they don't have the same liabilities as individuals... And don’t pay the same taxes as individuals either 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 3 hours ago, mclumber1 said: A group of people, whether they are a corporation or a union or a club, or a political party, have the same right to speech as an individual. Reason 2,647,543,129 that libertarian brain is oh so smooth. 5 hours ago, Reputator said: I don't see how there is any way to control free speech that isn't a slippery slope or easily corruptible. Yeah but this is being said as we’re actively zooming down a different but equally steep hill while absolutely glazed in astroglide. Hate speech and misinformation flourish and are boosted to a degree that would have been impossible to comprehend even twenty years ago. “Dunno if we can do anything about it without consequences,” rings so hollow when the status quo has resulted in more than half of republicans thinking the election was stolen, shitloads of people who don’t present in line with traditional gender roles get targeted with harassment, doxxed, and sometimes killed or driven to suicide, etc. The consequences are here. I’ve yet to see convincing arguments that stuff like Germany’s laws against antisemitism and Holocaust denial are bad beyond reflexive American opposition to regulation… which is in of itself didn’t come out of nowhere 2 hours ago, Reputator said: More information and discussion is a much better counter than thought suppression. Citation needed. Also referring to moderation as thought suppression is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. 5 hours ago, chakoo said: The “you wouldn’t like it if the other team is in charge” is such a bs argument. I mean bitch please that is already going on and has been for a long time. Also this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.