Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Is hate speech free speech and Should we kill it?

  1. Top | #11
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,698
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    You take away one person's right of free speech then you endanger all peoples right of free speech.
    This is a fallacious slippery slope claim. Countries already put limits on speech without turning into Airstrip One, which shows that there is in fact a reasonable, sustainable middle ground where people are freely allowed to speak out against the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    All one has to to is meander into someone more influential than you's cross hairs and suddenly you don't have a voice.
    You should read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky. Their Propaganda model postulates that news must pass through a series of filters before it is allowed to be published:
    - The medium's owners must not object
    - The medium's sponsors and advertisers must not object
    - The medium's information sources must not object
    - The medium's audience must not object
    - (From the Cold War era) The medium must not put communists in a positive light

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

    So even without government censorship, media in a liberal society still censors and marginalises people for a variety of reasons that have fuck all to do with truth and the common good, and often work against those values.

  2. Top | #12
    I am here! just_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    This is a fallacious slippery slope claim. Countries already put limits on speech without turning into Airstrip One, which shows that there is in fact a reasonable, sustainable middle ground where people are freely allowed to speak out against the government.
    We are not talking just about government. We are talking about ideals that don't set right with the private entities who control the flow of information and rhetoric. Just look at how many people whose lives have been upturned by a mere thoughtless statement they made decades ago.


    You should read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky. Their Propaganda model postulates that news must pass through a series of filters before it is allowed to be published:
    - The medium's owners must not object
    - The medium's sponsors and advertisers must not object
    - The medium's information sources must not object
    - The medium's audience must not object
    - (From the Cold War era) The medium must not put communists in a positive light

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

    So even without government censorship, media in a liberal society still censors and marginalizes people for a variety of reasons that have fuck all to do with truth and the common good, and often work against those values.
    When has the status quo ever been acceptable in a liberal society? The status quo is what conservatives embrace, not liberals.
    HE WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT IN THE PROCESS HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER. AND IF YOU GAZE LONG ENOUGH INTO THE ABYSS, THE ABYSS GAZES INTO YOU.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. Top | #13
    I am here! just_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Can't see how any atheist/agnostic could be in favor of banning "hate speech" as the theists would quickly have our heads.
    Hate speech is banned in Australia, and atheists are free.
    You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.
    HE WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT IN THE PROCESS HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER. AND IF YOU GAZE LONG ENOUGH INTO THE ABYSS, THE ABYSS GAZES INTO YOU.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. Top | #14
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,698
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    This is a fallacious slippery slope claim. Countries already put limits on speech without turning into Airstrip One, which shows that there is in fact a reasonable, sustainable middle ground where people are freely allowed to speak out against the government.
    We are not talking just about government. We are talking about ideals that don't set right with the private entities who control the flow of information and rhetoric.
    The remainder of my post actually referred to those private entities, which in practice refers to mass media companies and publishers.

    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    Just look at how many people whose lives have been upturned by a mere thoughtless statement they made decades ago.
    Like who? I'm not aware that there are many cases at all.

    I can think of a handful of people who were held to account for racist, homophobic or misogynistic things they said in the past, and I think that's fair. But these cases were more than "a mere thoughtless statement".

    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post

    You should read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky. Their Propaganda model postulates that news must pass through a series of filters before it is allowed to be published:
    - The medium's owners must not object
    - The medium's sponsors and advertisers must not object
    - The medium's information sources must not object
    - The medium's audience must not object
    - (From the Cold War era) The medium must not put communists in a positive light

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

    So even without government censorship, media in a liberal society still censors and marginalizes people for a variety of reasons that have fuck all to do with truth and the common good, and often work against those values.
    When has the status quo ever been acceptable in a liberal society? The status quo is what conservatives embrace, not liberals.
    I am using liberal to refer to liberalism. "Liberal" has a different meaning in North America that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

  5. Top | #15
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,698
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Can't see how any atheist/agnostic could be in favor of banning "hate speech" as the theists would quickly have our heads.
    Hate speech is banned in Australia, and atheists are free.
    You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.
    In Australia, we've been giving white supremacists a platform on TV and radio--both government and commercial--and this contributed to the recent terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which was perpetrated by an Australian.

    So I find it hard to believe that denying Nazis a platform will lead to even more violence.

    I cannot believe this idea that extremism gets stronger if we bury it. We have ample evidence that extremism thrives when we give its proponents a platform, so we should stop doing that.

  6. Top | #16
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,772
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,985
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post

    You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.
    Keeping certain speech out of public eye isn't censorship. it's keeping in line with some language has shown to be harmful to societies so it's being banned in the name of common decency. A bit like banning one from yelling fire in a theater when they want candy. The Smothers Brothers did a bit like that once on their TV program back in the seventies.

    Since terrorism is a marginal viewpoint i'm happy to hear is is considered marginalized. What gets me is giving press to lies because they are lies. Who wants lying to be a part of common discourse? Popping up is to be surprised. yes acts of terrorism popping up is surprising. But, are they popping up because such are being suppressed. That's a tall jar to fill.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,750
    Rep Power
    11
    A few months ago when Monica Lewinsky came up on a cable news show a man used the word blow job in mixed company on the show. When I grew up that would be outragus and scandous even in general mized company.

    T
    What is acceptable;e has changed. If you are old enough to member the Smothers Brothers Show they were heavikly seored for things that today are common.

    Today what constitutes hate speech is anything that makes anyone uncomfortable. A politician used the word lynch to describe his situation and it was termed into racial issue because blacks were lynched. To me lych mob means vigilante justice. No specific race.

    It is getting so that people in public an not say anything.

    Also what about anti white hate speech? It is there as well. It is small, there is a Latino group fostering the idea that all of European ancestry go back to Europe. Should that be banned from social media?

    All attempts in modern history at creating morality be suppression failed and resulted in lack of freedoms we value. Soviet, Chinese, Cuban communism.

    We are seeing it today on campuses, rejection of spacers deemed politically incorrect.

  8. Top | #18
    I am here! just_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    I can think of a handful of people who were held to account for racist, homophobic or misogynistic things they said in the past, and I think that's fair. But these cases were more than "a mere thoughtless statement".
    There is nothing fair about judging actions of the past by today's standards and how dose anyone other than they in which manner they were given. Many atrocities have happened in the past because they were considered the norm. People have the right to make mistakes in their past, just as long as they learn in the intervening years that they were mistakes and make amends for them. This "Gottcha politics don't allow for redemption and those people who have regretted their actions most likely will punishing themselves internally more than any others.


    I am using liberal to refer to liberalism. "Liberal" has a different meaning in North America that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
    I can only respond to what I take as liberalism and only to that which was I grew up in. This wacka-a-mole mentality is nothing more than people today gloating over the fact that people's mindsets of the past aren't the same as those of today and the only reason we have the mindsets we do today is because we've benefitted by 20-30 years of social growth and understanding.
    HE WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT IN THE PROCESS HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER. AND IF YOU GAZE LONG ENOUGH INTO THE ABYSS, THE ABYSS GAZES INTO YOU.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

  9. Top | #19
    I am here! just_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post

    You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.
    Keeping certain speech out of public eye isn't censorship. it's keeping in line with some language has shown to be harmful to societies so it's being banned in the name of common decency. A bit like banning one from yelling fire in a theater when they want candy. The Smothers Brothers did a bit like that once on their TV program back in the seventies.

    Since terrorism is a marginal viewpoint i'm happy to hear is is considered marginalized. What gets me is giving press to lies because they are lies. Who wants lying to be a part of common discourse? Popping up is to be surprised. yes acts of terrorism popping up is surprising. But, are they popping up because such are being suppressed. That's a tall jar to fill.
    No. It is being banned to make those who don't wish to go through the ugliness of confronting nastiness where it is found. You don't destroy sick ideals and outrageous attitudes by banning the language.

    I don't think I said terrorism is marginalized. I think I said that speech that is marginalized may become terrorism. What you call lies can very well be another persons Gospel truth. You can't change their minds unless you confront them. Even if you can't reach them, you may be able to reach those growing up in that environment by making them think when their parents are dead set against thinking at all.
    HE WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT IN THE PROCESS HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER. AND IF YOU GAZE LONG ENOUGH INTO THE ABYSS, THE ABYSS GAZES INTO YOU.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

  10. Top | #20
    I am here! just_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post

    You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.
    In Australia, we've been giving white supremacists a platform on TV and radio--both government and commercial--and this contributed to the recent terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which was perpetrated by an Australian.

    So I find it hard to believe that denying Nazis a platform will lead to even more violence.

    I cannot believe this idea that extremism gets stronger if we bury it. We have ample evidence that extremism thrives when we give its proponents a platform, so we should stop doing that.
    I try not to use the term extremism. That's a political dog whistle that has lost it's potency due to over use. Political parties have used that to characterize the opposition in every way.

    Hate speech is the product of deeply disturbed minds. It is those who are under the influence of such speech that you need to reach. I'm not talking just the public but the most important people of all are the children that is growing up under parents with this affliction of the mind. If we ever have the chance to change the world we need to change the minds of the children who will otherwise grow up thinking what their parents teach them.

    This can't be done by censorship. It has to be done by dialog.
    HE WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT IN THE PROCESS HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER. AND IF YOU GAZE LONG ENOUGH INTO THE ABYSS, THE ABYSS GAZES INTO YOU.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

Similar Threads

  1. Where does Free Speech End?
    By Don2 (Don1 Revised) in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 10-26-2017, 11:26 PM
  2. musings about hate speech, hate crimes and free speech
    By repoman in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-27-2017, 07:34 PM
  3. Je Suis Muslim: Muslims use free speech to protest free speech
    By Metaphor in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-25-2015, 01:21 AM
  4. Hate Speech laws in the UK and anonymous image boards
    By repoman in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-02-2015, 05:49 AM
  5. The case for hate speech
    By Axulus in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-11-2014, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •