No I’m pretty sure those are actual problems. I do not believe, for example, that people with megaphones should be free to tell the masses that Donald Trump won the 2016 election.
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you aren’t)
The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary “I was offended” type of offenses.
I don’t think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.
The repercussion to bad speech and ideas is inherent to the current paradigm of the internet: downvotes and ostracization.
Maybe they will wind up on their own forum saying despicable shit, but they were probably going to do that anyway. Bad ideas love a vacuum away from prying eyes and outsiders.
Yeah, fair, definition can be hard. But to give an example that I think is pretty clear cut: people standing outside of a mosque/synagogue/church arguing that those [certain people] deserve to be dead or put in labor camp.
You could argue that those are just words, and be correct, but for the individuals that are targeted it’s not just words. They know for a fact that those words and ideologies do turn in to actions.
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech.
Stuff like “gay people are unnatural and should be corrected” and “drag queens/trans people/[insert bogeyman here] are pedophiles coming for our children” and “n***ers oughta be whipped”
My point is that it’s a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of “hate”. Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)
For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.
Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.
They aren’t censored for believing those things are sinful. They’re being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren’t them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don’t, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?
While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for “no reason” then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.
What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.
Of course I have. Because it was declassified. And that means it’s no longer a conspiracy theory.
Also, if someone posts something online you think is dumb, do you really think it should just be deleted? Do you think that helps anyone?
Tell me with a straight face that you have never even thought about blocking a single other social media user. Tell me you think troll comments like “What’s a major turn off when dating?” “If she’s black” should not be removed by moderators.
Every ounce of energy a person spends watching their back, making sure their fellow man isn’t out to get them, hardening their armor against the thousands of people trying to find a removed, find the one thing they can say that gets them to have a mental breakdown just because they think it’s funny watching them have a mental breakdown, is an ounce of energy they don’t spend creating, caring for each other, making the life of their fellow man just that little bit better, and unapologetically being themselves.
But if you’re so insistent that words on a screen can’t affect you unless you let them, Mr. Forumite, I guess you won’t mind if I end this conversation by telling you to go to the hardware store and buy a rope and a bucket, providing exhaustive instructions for how to tie a noose, and telling you to end your worthless life before you ruin anyone else’s, because your parents clearly never loved you and there’s no way anyone else who’s sane ever will.
So you believe that, since there are a large number of people who can be easily manipulated by words into believing or doing certain things, and there likely always will be, words may as well inherently have power and we should be careful with how we use them, but you simultaneously believe that the solution to this is just to make everyone grow thicker skin?
For the record, though, I don’t believe anyone should kill themselves, or anything that I said about you personally in the second paragraph. Quite the opposite, in fact. I only said that to make the point that “just words on a screen” can do horrible things to the right people, which I’m glad you seem to understand.
I’m just going to throw in a bit at the end of this thread here, as I find the conversation fascinating.
This is how fascism starts. “We have to control speech for your own good” becomes “hateful speech comes from [insert group]” becomes “we have to stop them.”
We are all being weaponized by the internet. Free speech is important. You don’t fight fascism with more fascism, you fight it with better ideas.
Nah. Koresh, Jones, Manson, they weren’t yelling at people through a megaphone on the street corner. They were smart and knew how to manipulate people. Scientology, Mormons, same thing. I guess this argues against my original point, but how are you going to stop these people but still allow for free speech?
Although the actual implemented measures are still privacy and free speech violation and arbitrarily enforceable laws and less oversight for government and police.
Just because the wrapper says less made up things doesn’t sadly make the package any different.
I don’t disagree. I do believe that censorship of any kind is a very slippery slope. I’m just tired of the right-wing narrative that people telling them that their opinions are not welcome in certain spaces is censorship.
It should also include “disinformation”, “hate speech” and “conspiracy theory”.
No I’m pretty sure those are actual problems. I do not believe, for example, that people with megaphones should be free to tell the masses that Donald Trump won the 2016 election.
Removed by mod
But hate speech is never good, is it?
Removed by mod
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you aren’t)
The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary “I was offended” type of offenses.
I don’t think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.
The repercussion to bad speech and ideas is inherent to the current paradigm of the internet: downvotes and ostracization.
Maybe they will wind up on their own forum saying despicable shit, but they were probably going to do that anyway. Bad ideas love a vacuum away from prying eyes and outsiders.
Removed by mod
Yes, absolutely. We should all be concerned with the source of our ideas and even our memes, as dumb of a concept as that is.
What is hate speech?
Yeah, fair, definition can be hard. But to give an example that I think is pretty clear cut: people standing outside of a mosque/synagogue/church arguing that those [certain people] deserve to be dead or put in labor camp.
You could argue that those are just words, and be correct, but for the individuals that are targeted it’s not just words. They know for a fact that those words and ideologies do turn in to actions.
I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech.
Removed by mod
Stuff like “gay people are unnatural and should be corrected” and “drag queens/trans people/[insert bogeyman here] are pedophiles coming for our children” and “n***ers oughta be whipped”
My point is that it’s a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of “hate”. Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)
For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.
Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.
They aren’t censored for believing those things are sinful. They’re being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren’t them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don’t, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?
Removed by mod
While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for “no reason” then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.
What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.
Of course I have. Because it was declassified. And that means it’s no longer a conspiracy theory.
Tell me with a straight face that you have never even thought about blocking a single other social media user. Tell me you think troll comments like “What’s a major turn off when dating?” “If she’s black” should not be removed by moderators.
Removed by mod
Every ounce of energy a person spends watching their back, making sure their fellow man isn’t out to get them, hardening their armor against the thousands of people trying to find a removed, find the one thing they can say that gets them to have a mental breakdown just because they think it’s funny watching them have a mental breakdown, is an ounce of energy they don’t spend creating, caring for each other, making the life of their fellow man just that little bit better, and unapologetically being themselves.
But if you’re so insistent that words on a screen can’t affect you unless you let them, Mr. Forumite, I guess you won’t mind if I end this conversation by telling you to go to the hardware store and buy a rope and a bucket, providing exhaustive instructions for how to tie a noose, and telling you to end your worthless life before you ruin anyone else’s, because your parents clearly never loved you and there’s no way anyone else who’s sane ever will.
Removed by mod
So you believe that, since there are a large number of people who can be easily manipulated by words into believing or doing certain things, and there likely always will be, words may as well inherently have power and we should be careful with how we use them, but you simultaneously believe that the solution to this is just to make everyone grow thicker skin?
For the record, though, I don’t believe anyone should kill themselves, or anything that I said about you personally in the second paragraph. Quite the opposite, in fact. I only said that to make the point that “just words on a screen” can do horrible things to the right people, which I’m glad you seem to understand.
Removed by mod
I’m just going to throw in a bit at the end of this thread here, as I find the conversation fascinating.
This is how fascism starts. “We have to control speech for your own good” becomes “hateful speech comes from [insert group]” becomes “we have to stop them.”
We are all being weaponized by the internet. Free speech is important. You don’t fight fascism with more fascism, you fight it with better ideas.
deleted by creator
Should that homeless guy on the corner with a megaphone be allowed to tell people he is Jesus?
You’d think the answer would be “of course he should” until you realize that basically every cult that has ever existed has started that way.
Removed by mod
Nah. Koresh, Jones, Manson, they weren’t yelling at people through a megaphone on the street corner. They were smart and knew how to manipulate people. Scientology, Mormons, same thing. I guess this argues against my original point, but how are you going to stop these people but still allow for free speech?
Although the actual implemented measures are still privacy and free speech violation and arbitrarily enforceable laws and less oversight for government and police.
Just because the wrapper says less made up things doesn’t sadly make the package any different.
I don’t disagree. I do believe that censorship of any kind is a very slippery slope. I’m just tired of the right-wing narrative that people telling them that their opinions are not welcome in certain spaces is censorship.
There will be Poppins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg
At first I thought you said puppies :(
What do you want to say that is categorized as “hate speech”?🔪🦢