|
Post by GamerL on Aug 18, 2016 18:31:27 GMT -5
I hate to be cynical but it's pretty clear to me that most people are hypocrites when it comes to this issue and really think that free speech only covers speech they like.
I find so much of what's going on today pretty ironic when you compare it to what was going on in the 00's, an era that seems to have fallen down a memory hole for most people, back then liberals were pretty harsh in their criticism of Bush, many saying just about any awful thing they could think of about him (he's literally the next Hitler, he was actually the one behind 9/11 etc) and this buttpained conservatives pretty good (they practically wanted Michael Moore locked up for treason for making Fahrenheit 9/11) but liberals used free speech in their defense.
Of course today if you say something liberals don't like free speech sure won't work in your defense anymore, in fact what happens now is if you don't toe the line you'll likely lose your job as what recently happened with Kurt Metzger or at least have people make sure to try to ruin your reputation.
That seems like a sorry situation to me, imagine if people were getting fired for speaking out against Bush and the Iraq war tens years back, do you really want to live in a world where it's considered acceptable to fire someone by default if they say the "wrong" thing? Because who gets to decide what is the "right" and "wrong" thing to say? You may agree with it now but will you always agree with it?
Bottom line if you take free speech seriously then yes, you do have to put up with people saying things you may not like, that doesn't mean you have to agree with them or that you can't voice disagreement, but people should be able to say something without fear of ruining their lives.
|
|
|
Post by JDarkside on Aug 18, 2016 20:34:55 GMT -5
you'll likely lose your job as what recently happened with Kurt Metzger or at least have people make sure to try to ruin your reputation. Kurt Metzger's idea of satire was to respond to a male comic being kicked out of a group after multiple women accused him of rape via saying "if women said it it must be true!" Which is something you normally hear from people defending actual rapists. So uh yeah, if you want to define and defend free speech, you eventually have to draw moral lines. Society reacts to that speech because people don't live in bubbles, and then society decides what happens in reaction. If you want to say awful things, don't say it publicly and there's far less chance you'll be judged for your awful behavior. This is why we have laws against libel and slander, not all speech is acceptable in a society. The trick is to realize what the point of going to far is. You also view the political spectrum far too simply. if you looked at the left for more than a nanosecond, you'd see it's mostly a shit ton of bickering nerds and baby boomers arguing about what issues and causes should be focused on most. Unfortunately, the right is in a worse situation, where we now have Conservative intellectuals admitting that they've been avoiding the awful truth of how the party reached a turning point with whipping up racists in the south during the growth of the civil rights movement. And when you start looking at other countries, shit gets crazy. I mean, there are multiple European countries with outright nazi parties.
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Aug 18, 2016 21:19:28 GMT -5
you'll likely lose your job as what recently happened with Kurt Metzger or at least have people make sure to try to ruin your reputation. Kurt Metzger's idea of satire was to respond to a male comic being kicked out of a group after multiple women accused him of rape via saying "if women said it it must be true!" Which is something you normally hear from people defending actual rapists. So uh yeah, if you want to define and defend free speech, you eventually have to draw moral lines. Society reacts to that speech because people don't live in bubbles, and then society decides what happens in reaction. If you want to say awful things, don't say it publicly and there's far less chance you'll be judged for your awful behavior. This is why we have laws against libel and slander, not all speech is acceptable in a society. The trick is to realize what the point of going to far is. You also view the political spectrum far too simply. if you looked at the left for more than a nanosecond, you'd see it's mostly a shit ton of bickering nerds and baby boomers arguing about what issues and causes should be focused on most. Unfortunately, the right is in a worse situation, where we now have Conservative intellectuals admitting that they've been avoiding the awful truth of how the party reached a turning point with whipping up racists in the south during the growth of the civil rights movement. And when you start looking at other countries, shit gets crazy. I mean, there are multiple European countries with outright nazi parties. What he was disagreeing with is the fact that the victims didn't go to the police first and being a total asshole about it, sure, but did he really deserve to instantly lose his job over it? Maybe, maybe not, my point is it unsettles me to think that it's increasingly becoming the status quo that if you say something controversial you're instantly canned.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Aug 19, 2016 1:26:26 GMT -5
if self-regulation can't work because people are stupid, external regulation can't work either because who else can regulate us if not other people? and who's to say personal goals and feelings are inherently illogical? this assumes the existence of an objective goal we should strive for - what is this goal? And now you understand the root of all my problems.
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Aug 19, 2016 4:06:45 GMT -5
It's funny that when americans discuss something online they always have to make a distinction between right-left/liberal-conservative. I'm glad we don't have that culture in the Netherlands nearly as much. Not to toot my own horn, but just saying.
The "problem" with free speech is that pretty much everyone in the western, 1st world agrees that it's important, but most people would also agree that there are limits, and that some things are just not okay, or even dangerous in the worst cases. But as long as we don't agree on what that second category encompasses, we will always keep having discussions about free speech. And since we're never ever going to agree on it, it'll be something that we will see and have to suffer through the rest of our lives.
So in other words, you can't really define free speech, unless you want to got the literal route and literally say that being able to say everything and anything is free speech, in which case this thread is kinda pointless.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Aug 19, 2016 4:33:47 GMT -5
Yeah, if there's one thing that annoys me as an American its that pretty much, everything becomes political.
A cartoon episode has a plot you totally hate? It's liberal propoganda! (unless you're a liberal, then its suddenly conservative propoganda).
I WISH I was making that example up. I also wish that there weren't times where it honestly does seem like children's shows have gotten political.
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Aug 19, 2016 4:56:15 GMT -5
It's funny that when americans discuss something online they always have to make a distinction between right-left/liberal-conservative. I'm glad we don't have that culture in the Netherlands nearly as much. Not to toot my own horn, but just saying. Tell me about it, it sucks but that's the just the way it goes in America, everything has been boiled down the left/right dynamic and it's almost impossible to get people to see beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by JDarkside on Aug 19, 2016 4:57:44 GMT -5
Yeah, if there's one thing that annoys me as an American its that pretty much, everything becomes political. A cartoon episode has a plot you totally hate? It's liberal propoganda! (unless you're a liberal, then its suddenly conservative propoganda). I WISH I was making that example up. I also wish that there weren't times where it honestly does seem like children's shows have gotten political. Welcome to media, dude. It's all inherently political in some way.
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Aug 19, 2016 5:57:11 GMT -5
Welcome to media, dude. It's all inherently political in some way. It's not, but people will make it political or make it seem political.
|
|
|
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Aug 19, 2016 10:19:02 GMT -5
Yeah, if there's one thing that annoys me as an American its that pretty much, everything becomes political. A cartoon episode has a plot you totally hate? It's liberal propoganda! (unless you're a liberal, then its suddenly conservative propoganda). I WISH I was making that example up. I also wish that there weren't times where it honestly does seem like children's shows have gotten political. Welcome to media, dude. It's all inherently political in some way. the idea that everything is political is political
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Aug 19, 2016 20:35:29 GMT -5
The idea that "everything is political" may technically be true, but something can be political without hitting you over the head with it's message.
To use some random examples, look at the Spielberg movies Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, both movies definitely have post Watergate mistrust of authority (mayor Vaughn in Jaws, the secretive, dishonest Government in Close Encounters of the Third Kind) but Spielberg doesn't hit you over the head with it and it's very easy to watch the movies without the political subtext being apparent.
In today's environment it's increasingly becoming that everything has to have a hit you over the head obvious political message, you can't just have entertainment meant for everyone but something that's meant to push a specific agenda or world view, it's exhausting.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Aug 19, 2016 20:51:13 GMT -5
It's funny that when americans discuss something online they always have to make a distinction between right-left/liberal-conservative. I'm glad we don't have that culture in the Netherlands nearly as much. Not to toot my own horn, but just saying. The "problem" with free speech is that pretty much everyone in the western, 1st world agrees that it's important, but most people would also agree that there are limits, and that some things are just not okay, or even dangerous in the worst cases. But as long as we don't agree on what that second category encompasses, we will always keep having discussions about free speech. And since we're never ever going to agree on it, it'll be something that we will see and have to suffer through the rest of our lives. So in other words, you can't really define free speech, unless you want to got the literal route and literally say that being able to say everything and anything is free speech, in which case this thread is kinda pointless. When you only have a two-party system, the party that controls pop-culture gets exclusive domain over what is acceptable virtue (because all things must eventually become political). So yeah, that's what sucks about the US.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Aug 19, 2016 20:55:39 GMT -5
Let's debate like gentle(wo)men. Would contribute right now but am on phone with awkward controls. Please don't be jerks to each other. I come to this site to relax, not fight. Despite me already responding to this before, I don't understand why this even needs to be up for debate. Once you start saying that a government can jail someone (or financially ruin them) for saying something that someone else might find offensive, you open up the door to... ...never mind, I don't need to fight against "It could never happen here" arguments.
|
|
|
Post by JDarkside on Aug 19, 2016 21:21:23 GMT -5
We kind of already do, though (see libel and slander). There's never been free speech in society in the definition that you can say whatever without repercussion. About the only thing I want to add into the punishable group is genuine hate speech, because right now we have a US political candidate whipping up actual literal nazis, and that could have been avoided if we, as a society, mostly agreed that maybe we shouldn't let people suggest that camps should be brought back or that the Holocaust didn't actually happen or had numbers inflated (which has already started happening in the Trump camp, thought that would take at least one more month).
And this sort of shit has repercussions. It's not that I don't like what's being said, it's that it's stirring up people into doing horrid things and actively pushing back a nation's cultural evolution. I've already had to deal with a good few racist nutbags threatening violence, and it started coming about when Trump started spewing hate speech.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 21:32:45 GMT -5
Despite me already responding to this before, I don't understand why this even needs to be up for debate. Once you start saying that a government can jail someone (or financially ruin them) for saying something that someone else might find offensive, you open up the door to... ...never mind, I don't need to fight against "It could never happen here" arguments. I might be misinterpreting your meaning here, but I have to admit that I think it's problematic to take away someone's livelihood just because you don't like their beliefs. Even if that person's beliefs are reprehensible. Everyone deserves the ability to be able to pay their bills. Having said that, if someone with beliefs that are centered upon oppressing someone else (women, LGBT individuals, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc.), and uses the money and influence they have from their job to further those ends...well a line kind of has to be drawn. I'm one of the most hate-filled people around, but I'm of the firm belief that you can't try to actively fuck with other people. Dislike any group you want for whatever reasons you want, whether they're legitimate or just outright bigotry. Just don't try to hold anyone down in the process.
|
|