Print

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

[Darvi]

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.

Help, I'm being oppressed!

[Graknorke]

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.

Well then if you convince people that a group is horrible you win at the social game. You are more convincing than the people arguing against you. Congratulations. That's how free speech works.
The way I see it there's really two ways you can go:

• Have no restrictions on what opinions people can express. This is probably the more practical options for reasons I'll go over later. The only way saying something could be criminal would be if you were directly commanding crimes to be commited. This goes up to even saying that a group deserves crimes being commited against them, so long as you're not actually telling somebody to do it.
• Have full on control of what people say. There are limited opinions that can be expressed publicly, anything else is some sort of crime. Education is geared towards ensuring these ideas are dominant.

The one I think I would like the best is the second, because of course I'm going to want the ideas I think are best to have to be the ones everyone holds (and you would be a bad person not to). But on the other hand, it has the problem of being inflexible. If you decide that actually those aren't the best things for everyone to think there's nothing that can be done to fix it. Wheras with the first there's more chance for undesirable opinions to exist but it is somewhat more flexible and easier to implement.
Anything in between the two positions is ultimately unsustainable to justify. See: the free speech arguments we have every other month.

[Darvi]

False dichotomy much?

[Graknorke]

False dichotomy much?

Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.

[Darvi]

Ah.

The same goes for anything in between though, if you're consistent with the exceptions.

[Ogdibus]

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.

Good information is still judged subjectively by the people that receive it.  All the tools that you can use to spread truth are also used to spread lies.  The deciding factors will be controlling access to those tools, and the amount energy that they are willing and able to commit to their ideals.

-snop-

I meant that neither the extremes, nor a compromise would work because the problem cannot be solved by passing laws.  Laws might be able to help a little, but nothing more.

[Reelya]

I'd be really skeptical of legal frameworks to prevent unwanted speech. Legal sanctions on one group always spill over to unrelated people, no matter what "they" promise when the laws are enacted.

For example, the state of Queensland, Australia ("our Alabama" as I like to call it) initiated sweeping anti-biker laws to curb organized crime, despite the fact that bikers commit only a tiny % of organized crime. I wouldn't be surprised if stopping and searching dudes in suits would net more illicit dealings.

These laws criminalized 3 or more "bikers" from hanging out in public. The promise as always is that these laws would only hurt "gangs", but of course the police HAVE to stop any 3 dudes who look remotely "tough" just to check that they're not members of some gang. This has included people who have beards, people who wear Sons of Anarchy T-Shirts, basically anyone "rough looking" now can be legally harassed.

Some woman went to jail because she was walking along the street with her husband, who was an ex-biker or something, they ran into his brother (or her brother I forget) and stopped to say "hello". Police then swooped down and arrested all 3 under the new anti-gang laws for "illegal assemblage", because it criminalizes assemblages of gang members or "associates". And this has been legally interpreted to mean "family members".

[Helgoland]

Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.

Why is theoretical justification necessary? The important thing is that it works, not that it's consistent.

[Graknorke]

Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.

Why is theoretical justification necessary? The important thing is that it works, not that it's consistent.

Generally when you're making laws and national policies you need to explain to people why you're doing it.

[Helgoland]

Not at all. I acknowledged that you don't have to work at those extremes, but they are the only ones that can be given a justification that has internal consistency.

Why is theoretical justification necessary? The important thing is that it works, not that it's consistent.

Generally when you're making laws and national policies you need to explain to people why you're doing it.

''Cause it works' is usually a sufficient explanation.

[Graknorke]

''Cause it works' is usually a sufficient explanation.

But it won't work for everybody. Nothing works for everybody. So you have to explain to those who it would affect negatively why it's a good thing.

[Helgoland]

''Cause it works' is usually a sufficient explanation.

But it won't work for everybody. Nothing works for everybody. So you have to explain to those who it would affect negatively why it's a good thing.

'Cause it works! If someone doesn't accept that explanation no other explanation will placate them, unless they're an orthodox Marxist - and fuck those guys, I still can't believe they ruined the NEP.

[Antsan]

 
Yeah, "'Cause it works" is the reason people give who
-don't know the reason themselves
-are too lazy to explain their reasoning
-are afraid that their reasoning is wrong
-know that it works differently than they propose, thus hiding what "it" actually works for

So, no. If that should be sufficient we can go back to monarchy. Less overhead for the same effect.

[Sheb]

Well, if you don't know why something work, but know from experimental data that it does, why should you be afraid to use it? After all, we only figured out how aspirin work a few years ago.

[Frumple]

Um, because long term or unidentified side effects (especially in regards to niche cases, like certain portions of the population with particular genetic oddities, and suchlike) are a thing? When something works, but you don't know why, it's entirely possible (and, from what I understand historically, incredibly likely) you're getting a lot more than just "what works". Which is why one should be leery of poorly understood processes, even if they're currently functioning.

Hell, wasn't misuse of aspirin killing and/or strongly increasing likelihood of death/complication for a while? It was working, but, y'know, doing other stuff. And people kicked it because of that.

Mind you, in that case, it's barely arguable that it wasn't worth it anyway, but... reason for concern, yes.