Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darvi]

it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets

This sentence contradict itself.

Company A starts burning down rainforests to produce more coffee. Company B uses sustainable agriculture practices. You switch from brand A to brand B. This is considered "voting with your wallet"

Politician A suggests we should start murdering babies. Politician B suggests that's a bad idea. You donate all your money to politician A because you hate babies. This is NOT considered voting with your wallet as the phrase is traditionally used.

Do you understand the difference?

The difference is that the former affects politics only indirectly.

[Criptfeind]

How much child slave labor is Company B using in this example?

[Descan]

The muslim thing isn't slanderous (it'ss not a bad thing), though, and you have to give more leeway for political speech, just to show that you're not using it for censorship.

But being from Kenya is? 

Am kidding.

[BurnedToast]

How much child slave labor is Company B using in this example?

They use *all* the child slave labor, but it's OK because you hate children almost as much as you hate babies.

The difference is that the former affects politics only indirectly.

If you want to be pedantic, then I suppose everything indirectly affects politics.

[Graknorke]

The muslim thing isn't slanderous (it'ss not a bad thing), though, and you have to give more leeway for political speech, just to show that you're not using it for censorship.

But being from Kenya is? 

Am kidding.

Well yeah, it's saying he got his position illegitimately, which I believe would be illegal probably.

[Vector]

Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

[BurnedToast]

Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.

[Phmcw]

Company A starts burning down rainforests to produce more coffee. Company B uses sustainable agriculture practices. You switch from brand A to brand B. This is considered "voting with your wallet"

First there is not a lot of difference between the two, second you may not afford to do it, third it''s only important if the price difference is rather small. If it's big, every big chains will have to buy the rainforest destroying coffee.


I vote with my vote and would forbid the first coffee. Simple and efficient, and doesn't ask me to understand the production process of every damn thing I consume.

[Descan]

Uh huh. So because the pain isn't physical it doesn't matter, despite it having a real, detrimental effect on people's quality of life and ability?

[LordSlowpoke]

Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.

i'm going to approve this and specifically this post

especially since it means jack shit when i approve things

keep up the good posts

[Helgoland]

Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.

What if I start riling people up against the Turks (the biggest minority in Germany), telling them to burn down their houses and drown their children? I haven't hurt anyone myself...
Not that I necessarily agree with what Vector had in mind - she was a wee bit unspecific - but it's  more complicated than 'Free speech reigns surpreme'. As I said in the bodily autonomy debate: It's always about weighing different rights and interests against each other.

[BurnedToast]

Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

The question is who else they'll hurt in the process.

If they hurt people directly, via assault etc then we already punish that.

If they hurt people's feelings - too bad, nobody promised anyone a world where everyone agrees on everything. They have as much right to believe what they believe as you have to believe what you do.

What if I start riling people up against the Turks (the biggest minority in Germany), telling them to burn down their houses and drown their children? I haven't hurt anyone myself...
Not that I necessarily agree with what Vector had in mind - she was a wee bit unspecific - but it's  more complicated than 'Free speech reigns surpreme'. As I said in the bodily autonomy debate: It's always about weighing different rights and interests against each other.

In my opinion? I think the people that burned down the house should be punished for that, but I'm not sure I'd say you committed a crime unless you specifically ordered them to do it.

Obviously there's a lot of grey area around what is considered ordering someone to do it, but I don't personally think the act of suggesting that you would be happy if the turks were burned out of germany should automatically be illegal on it's own

[Ogdibus]

You don't even need to make a direct suggestion in order to incite that sort of thing.  If you say that they are horrible enough times, people will believe it.  You won't just get violence, you'll get oppressive laws that will eventually affect people outside of the intended group.


I don't think we even have a good legislative answer to this.  Censorship will slow the spread of hate, but make it hard to find, and freedom to engage in hate speech spreads hate faster.  The more it spreads, the faster it spreads.  That's probably why there are people that push for cultural changes instead.

[Phmcw]

I don't think we even have a good legislative answer to this.  Censorship will slow the spread of hate, but make it hard to find, and freedom to engage in hate speech spreads hate faster.  The more it spreads, the faster it spreads.  That's probably why there are people that push for cultural changes instead.

Good, rational information and education is the answer. FYI what we have currently is flag waving and circlejerking.

I lost a tremoundous amount of respect for the press those last weeks, seing how readily they'd misrepresent things and attack peoples based on their alignement, but at the same time, I thinl we have, more than ever, tools to spread actual informations and reflexions.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I lost a tremoundous amount of respect for the press those last weeks, seing how readily they'd misrepresent things and attack peoples based on their alignement, but at the same time, I thinl we have, more than ever, tools to spread actual informations and reflexions.

Agreed, the active discrimination against Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral individuals is one of the most pressing issues in our society today, outweighing almost all others.