Print

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

[wierd]

NJW2000, No speech is without action, or cause to action. your argument is absurd on that basis.

EG, my tagline, "I eat small children", has a specific intent toward irony, which incites a mental action. Simple declarative statements invoke action in this way.  Your major contention is that it [hate speech] causes a NEGATIVE action-- which is an opinion. (A very supportable opinion, but still an opinion.)

It is not that I do not understand what speech is, and what it does.  It is that I understand that opinion is not something I want associated with dogmatic correctness. That is to say, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.

[Helgoland]

Performativity is a glorious concept.

[Neonivek]

... y'know, y'all are going pretty hard on something I'm not sure I've ever seen actually happen.

Ok ok...  I could argue and provide examples of just that happening... But I think that is moot given that the point of what I said only used it as an example.

That censorship doesn't have to be direct to what is being censored.

Really annoys me when people don't get the distinction between the "speech" in "freedom of speech" and "hate speech". "Speech" is not really counted as an action until it's slander, hate speech or incitement to violence, but in those cases it is an action.

Ok now here is the thing about "Hate Speech" and where people get confused.

All our rights and freedoms come with responsibilities and limitations. We have the freedom of association but we cannot use that association to be complicit in crimes. It does protect us, however, from being associated with criminals and protects us from being harassed or arrested on those grounds (among other things).

The Right to Free Speech more broadly is the right to your thoughts and the right to express said thoughts. This includes bigoted and hateful speech including, by definition, hate speech.

This is because legal hate speech and the definition are separate. In fact MOST places define Hate Speech mostly as "inciting violence towards a group".

For example in Canada one person was arrested for a form of Hate Speech (Legal hate speech is different... but this was definition hate speech which went under another law). Now if he was spouting this on the sidewalk, posted it in a forum, brought it up in city hall, or even possibly put it on TV... He would have got away with it. It was because he was a teacher and those were his students and his students did not have the right to leave, they were a captive audience.

[TempAcc]

Me thinks a major part of the problem rests on the fact that "hate speech" has been deformed into a terrible buzzword that can literally be made to mean anything. Yes, hate speech isn't free speech, but hate speech is a definition that got so arbitrarily inflated that people will label anything they don't like as hate speech, and get away with it. Hell, its currently the most favoured way of silencing opponents.

Look at Sam Harris, for example, easily one of the smartest and most reasonable atheist intellectuals of today, who was repeately called a bigot and a racist for his "hate speech", said "hate speech" being his very sound and well grounded criticism of Islam, and his criticism of other atheist intellectuals that love to throw daggers at christianity and other religions but suddenly become silent in regards to islam, even when islamic terrorism is so endemic, raising the banner of "islamophobia" whenever criticism pops up. Hell, Dawkins himself got banned from atheist events because of his opinions on current day feminism and islam.

The atheist community got hijacked by social justice dweebs and is now little more than a gathering of people demanding safe spaces and unwilling to actualy debate anything, all while bending over to people like Linda Sarsour, which is incredibly ironic and hilarious.

[NJW2000]

wierd, I said that hate speech is considered an action. That's the basis on which the law removes someone's right to free speech.

Naturally, all speech is an action/involves action. But not all speech involves actions that are relevant to the law. Hopefully like your usertext.


@Neo, I'd probably agree, though in the UK, anything legally defined hate speech is illegal, wherever. So not covered by freedom of speech.

[Neonivek]

@Neo, I'd probably agree, though in the UK, anything legally defined hate speech is illegal, wherever. So not covered by freedom of speech.

This is because Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from actively and maliciously harming others through your speech.

It is part of the responsibilities and limitations... Rather than being "unrelated".

The UK's Hate Speach laws does NOT prevent people from expressing hateful views (Well Ideally). It is there to prevent you from harassing people or inciting others to harass people.

[wierd]

The actual crime, is not the speech. The crime is incitation to violence.

However, this subtle point is often lost. 

Take for instance, if I discuss the origin of the word "nigger."  I am not calling anyone a nigger, or implying that anyone is one, or should be held in a state of social contempt for one. The basis of the communication is CLEARLY focused on the etymological origins of the word itself. There is no incitation to violence in this discussion.

However, efforts to stamp out hate speech, will make the use of the word impossible, such as via automatic filters, or automatic dispensation of punative measures, such as mutes or bans.  This is censorship, devoid of any legal footing.

For some, ANY MENTION of the word in question is intolerable, even discussing the word itself in a vacuum. The use of the word itself is considered "hate speech", no matter the context.

Incitation to violence is illegal for the same reason that burning crosses, lynch mobs, and vigilantes are illegal.  However, banning speech, is absurd.  There is a subtle disconnect between an utterance, and its intent.  Like for example, my tagline, which is indeed pure irony. (The use of words other than their literal intention.)

Many people would find the following video to be straight up "profanity", for instance, despite the obvious ironical context it presents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSEXgQ58AoM

This is the danger of dogmatism in regard to punative measures for the use of language. It creates whole areas of discussion that are not permitted, because of one particular aspect of communication with those words.

Further, there is the far greater danger: That this is OK.

[McTraveller]

It's also amusing that people only think that governments can censor - I'm actually more worried about the other institutions with that power - namely the media.  Essentially any organization that controls communication has the power to censor.

It's really scary how people are applauding Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. for their actions to prevent certain types of speech.  I don't care if it's hateful speech or whatever - it's dangerous to give any enormous gatekeeper of information the power to decide what information is and is not acceptable.

[pisskop]

fuckest


P:


well, I mean id love to talk your ear off about censorship and its role, and the various types and harm unofficial censorship can cause and the  effect it has on pop society, but frankly I cannot begin to proper draft it up into something that looks academic and doesnt meander.

[TempAcc]

fuckest

Greater wisdom has never been seen.

[hops]

I used to strive to look feminine so that straight dudes would like me, but then I realized that a) I'm not anime b) I don't really give a fuck about what straight dudes think of me.

Gwyndolin's exact gender is a matter of lore speculation.

I'm pretty sure dude's just a bunch of snakes down here.

[TempAcc]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is the real reason to why people join the blades of the darkmoon.

[scriver]

I don't get it.

[Frumple]

The emptiness of the spoiler speaks to the emptiness of their soul, scrive. It turns their edge inwards, as they become lords of the sharpness of the dark side of the moon.

[Neyvn]

While reading a Manga I had a moment of clarity.

As we all know, the Meaning of Life is 42.
42 in Japanese is considered a bad omen due to the way it could be read.
Shi Ni.
In Japanese "Shi Ni" means "To Die."
So The Meaning of Life is. To Die...