|
|
Post by Allie on Aug 19, 2016 21:41:11 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. You actually got it perfect. In other words, yeah, I have some issues with not being as accepting as I need to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Aug 20, 2016 0:43:30 GMT -5
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). personally, I don't get banning of Holocaust denial. not only because I'm pro-free speech but also because it's an incredibly dumb conspiracy theory that just doesn't hold when countered with basic historical facts. I think when it's banned, denialists can present themselves as martyrs for truth being oppressed by the government but when it's allowed, the bullshit becomes immediately visible. the same goes for all the other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience - you won't convince true believers (and scammers, given how a lot of pseudoscience is made for profit) but for people who could get under their influence, I think refutation is better than silencing. BTW I really hope nobody misrepresents this post and tries to call me a nazi. |
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Aug 20, 2016 1:14:42 GMT -5
You're not a Nazi, but sometimes I wonder if I am.
One thought I've been having is that if freedom of speech is a right/privilege, then ignorance should NOT be. Education and knowledge should not be optional, they should be enforced. Like to use the Holocaust denier thing... if I may go into fantasy some more, if I were a god I would make all those people sit in hyperbolic time chambers and study World War II for years (being in such a chamber, only a day would pass on the outside). Oh, when they come out they could still deny the Holocaust all they want... just they'd do it with full knowledge that they're lying through their teeth.
Therein, of course, I go back to my previous woes. As we understand the world right now, this would have to be enforced by other humans, and they wouldn't care about pure facts/truth but instead pushing an agenda, so it would just make the situation worse. And if there is a god, he either is an idiot or just doesn't care.... it's also possible he's exactly the kind of asshole who would take my suggestion but then twist it and add things just to make it look bad so that I would learn "humility."
As the world is right now, there's really no fixing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Aug 21, 2016 4:44:11 GMT -5
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). personally, I don't get banning of Holocaust denial. not only because I'm pro-free speech but also because it's an incredibly dumb conspiracy theory that just doesn't hold when countered with basic historical facts. I think when it's banned, denialists can present themselves as martyrs for truth being oppressed by the government but when it's allowed, the bullshit becomes immediately visible. the same goes for all the other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience - you won't convince true believers (and scammers, given how a lot of pseudoscience is made for profit) but for people who could get under their influence, I think refutation is better than silencing. BTW I really hope nobody misrepresents this post and tries to call me a nazi. I actually agree completely, making Holocaust denial illegal is counterintuitive, it only serves to allow deniers to point to it as "evidence". People will believe any fucking thing, literally anything, making something nutty like Holocaust denial illegal only encourages the paranoid bastards. I love the irony though of the fact that most Holocaust denial is spouted by neo Nazis were view Jews as subhuman vermin, so why wouldn't their boy Hitler want to try to wipe them off the face of the Earth? And yet Holocaust denial is one of the core tenets of neo Nazism and white supremacy even though these people would love nothing to more than to enact a second Holocaust, so why do they deny the first so vehemently? |
|
|
|
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Aug 21, 2016 5:06:51 GMT -5
it has two purposes: first, it seeks to portray nazis as less evil - after all, according to this conspiracy theory they didn't want to kill people, they 'only' wanted to deport them (I say 'only' because forced deportations were still pretty fucking horrible and usually resulted in large numbers of people dying). the second one is to enforce the more general 'Jewish world domination' theory which in many ways is a founding myth of nazism. of course, this is the more intellectual version for internet nazis who love to write lengthy articles about how this or that is 'white genocide'. for your average skinhead dumbass, it's a bit more like 'it didn't happen but it should have'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elvin Atombender on Aug 21, 2016 10:59:32 GMT -5
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). personally, I don't get banning of Holocaust denial. not only because I'm pro-free speech but also because it's an incredibly dumb conspiracy theory that just doesn't hold when countered with basic historical facts. I think when it's banned, denialists can present themselves as martyrs for truth being oppressed by the government but when it's allowed, the bullshit becomes immediately visible. the same goes for all the other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience - you won't convince true believers (and scammers, given how a lot of pseudoscience is made for profit) but for people who could get under their influence, I think refutation is better than silencing. BTW I really hope nobody misrepresents this post and tries to call me a nazi. I think it's a very solid reasoning and that in some cases banning something only makes the problem worse, but what happens if somebody with enough power and/or money starts usings conspiracies and/or pseudoscience for their personal gain? I am not talking about, for example, Alex Jones profiting off conspiracy theorist to sell supplements, but of cases in which outlets able to reach a major part of the public start spreading and supporting misinformation. For example, in my country a sizable part of mainstream media started taking a very strong anti-science stance in the last couple years, which resulted in decables such as the Stamina controversy (to sum it up, a quack doctor came up with a non-existant medical treatment method and with the help of a popular TV show that backed him in order to attract audience he managed to have his method tested in several hospitals and came dangerously close to obtain public funding.). Or think about Donald Trump, who before running for president used the birther movement as a "test drive" for his political career and concluded that racism was a good enough foundation to build an electoral campaign on. Letting nutjobs stay undisturbed in their corner and ignoring them works great but only if there are few of them and there's nobody powerful enough to use them. |
|
|
|
Post by JDarkside on Aug 21, 2016 11:46:45 GMT -5
On top of that, three out of four presidential candidates are trying to attract anti-vaxxers, who's beliefs are leading to hundreds of death and counting. This crazy shit doesn't stay in a bubble, it eventually affects everyone. You need only look at the sheer damage global warming deniers have caused to realize that maybe we need to fucking do something about this. Like, our planet is dying because we have a strange obsession with letting idiots talk as if they were experts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maciej Miszczyk on Aug 21, 2016 13:35:59 GMT -5
Or think about Donald Trump, who before running for president used the birther movement as a "test drive" for his political career and concluded that racism was a good enough foundation to build an electoral campaign on. Letting nutjobs stay undisturbed in their corner and ignoring them works great but only if there are few of them and there's nobody powerful enough to use them. I'm not talking about letting nutjobs stay undisturbed, I'm talking about challenging them at an intellectual level and debunking their claims. I don't think censoring Trump would help anything - after all, one of the recurring themes in his campaign is that he's speaking out against the establishment in politics and media. he more or less said that if he loses it means the elections are rigged. actually censoring him would just prove his point. plus, there is one big problem with excluding nutjobs from debates: there is no definition of nutjob we can universally agree on. like, we would probably all agree that nazis are nutjobs, and I hope we'd say the same thing about the left-wing totalitarians. but then a lot of people would say libertarians are nutjobs (a lot of people on the left say they're as bad or even worse than fascists) but I lean towards libertarianism/classical liberalism so I obviously wouldn't put myself under the same label as nazis and stalinists. and that's not the only thing that would be controversial to classify: what about anarchists? what about radical black identity/black supremacy groups (I'm not talking about BLM, I mean stuff like Nation of Islam or Nuwaubians or New Black Panthers)? what about religious fundamentalists of different flavors? I'm afraid that with the radicalization of political debate, after you (not you specifically, a general 'you') get rid of everyone you consider a nutjob, you might be left talking only to yourself. I think it's best to treat free speech the way we treat other rights: as something that should be respected even if it has negative consequences because the alternative is far worse. 'free speech but not for radicals' sounds a lot like 'fair trial but not for terrorists'. On top of that, three out of four presidential candidates are trying to attract anti-vaxxers, who's beliefs are leading to hundreds of death and counting. This crazy shit doesn't stay in a bubble, it eventually affects everyone. You need only look at the sheer damage global warming deniers have caused to realize that maybe we need to fucking do something about this. Like, our planet is dying because we have a strange obsession with letting idiots talk as if they were experts. I'm speaking from experience. when I was in high school, I bought global warming denial for the very reason it seemed that such ideas were suppressed for political reasons and people were likely to dismiss their claims without debunking it. I then educated myself and did some research to find out that yes, global warming is real - but I wouldn't have this problem in the first place if people who knew better used arguments (it's not like they don't have them - science is on their side) instead of condescension. |
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Aug 21, 2016 16:09:10 GMT -5
I'm not talking about letting nutjobs stay undisturbed, I'm talking about challenging them at an intellectual level and debunking their claims. That sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me. The thing about a lot of these kind of things, for example anti-vaccination movement and global-warming-deniers, is that they go against what most people accept. They are well aware of the beliefs of the opposite side. And an increased awareness kind of program will come across as just as propaganda-like as censorship, I believe. I'm not saying that 'censoring' is always the best solution, but in some cases (like not allowing radical imams a platform) it is better than the alternative (so, no censorship). Although the proper reaction to anti-vaccination movements is to make not vaccinating your kids punishable by a lenghty prison sentence or taking away your kids. |
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Aug 21, 2016 17:43:00 GMT -5
personally, I don't get banning of Holocaust denial. not only because I'm pro-free speech but also because it's an incredibly dumb conspiracy theory that just doesn't hold when countered with basic historical facts. I think when it's banned, denialists can present themselves as martyrs for truth being oppressed by the government but when it's allowed, the bullshit becomes immediately visible. the same goes for all the other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience - you won't convince true believers (and scammers, given how a lot of pseudoscience is made for profit) but for people who could get under their influence, I think refutation is better than silencing. BTW I really hope nobody misrepresents this post and tries to call me a nazi. I think it's a very solid reasoning and that in some cases banning something only makes the problem worse, but what happens if somebody with enough power and/or money starts usings conspiracies and/or pseudoscience for their personal gain? I am not talking about, for example, Alex Jones profiting off conspiracy theorist to sell supplements, but of cases in which outlets able to reach a major part of the public start spreading and supporting misinformation. For example, in my country a sizable part of mainstream media started taking a very strong anti-science stance in the last couple years, which resulted in decables such as the Stamina controversy (to sum it up, a quack doctor came up with a non-existant medical treatment method and with the help of a popular TV show that backed him in order to attract audience he managed to have his method tested in several hospitals and came dangerously close to obtain public funding.). Or think about Donald Trump, who before running for president used the birther movement as a "test drive" for his political career and concluded that racism was a good enough foundation to build an electoral campaign on. Letting nutjobs stay undisturbed in their corner and ignoring them works great but only if there are few of them and there's nobody powerful enough to use them. That's a very good point as well, but the way I see is Holocaust denial falls into the category of political conspiracy theory like "the Government shot JFK" or "9/11 was an inside job" which in those cases making illegal only encourages it. But when it comes to something like anti-vaxx which is something that can have real medical consequences, then no, it should be stricter when it comes to something like that. I mean yes, obviously free speech has limits (the whole "you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater being the most common example) but I think it's something that we should be very, very cautious about. |
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Aug 22, 2016 9:40:56 GMT -5
That's a very good point as well, but the way I see is Holocaust denial falls into the category of political conspiracy theory like "the Government shot JFK" or "9/11 was an inside job" which in those cases making illegal only encourages it. But when it comes to something like anti-vaxx which is something that can have real medical consequences, then no, it should be stricter when it comes to something like that. I mean yes, obviously free speech has limits (the whole "you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater being the most common example) but I think it's something that we should be very, very cautious about. What is the end game for a 9/11 or JFK conspiracy theorist? At best a prosecution for Bush administration members or government officials. But ultimately it's kind of vague. The Nazis happened, the Holocaust happened. The goal of outlawing Holocaust denial is to prevent it from happening again. Ultimately you can never squash ideas. But you can deter radicalization, which is what I imagine was the point of this law. I don't know enough how much this has actually quashed this type of sentiment over the years, but there's a sound logic there. |
|
|
|
Post by stealthRUSH on Aug 30, 2016 2:10:21 GMT -5
Freedom of speech: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
At the end of the day facts don't care about your feelings, shoutout to Ben Shapiro, and putting any limitations on the term defeats the meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by paperchema on Aug 30, 2016 3:08:06 GMT -5
That's a very good point as well, but the way I see is Holocaust denial falls into the category of political conspiracy theory like "the Government shot JFK" or "9/11 was an inside job" which in those cases making illegal only encourages it. But when it comes to something like anti-vaxx which is something that can have real medical consequences, then no, it should be stricter when it comes to something like that. I mean yes, obviously free speech has limits (the whole "you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater being the most common example) but I think it's something that we should be very, very cautious about. What is the end game for a 9/11 or JFK conspiracy theorist? At best a prosecution for Bush administration members or government officials. But ultimately it's kind of vague. The Nazis happened, the Holocaust happened. The goal of outlawing Holocaust denial is to prevent it from happening again. Ultimately you can never squash ideas. But you can deter radicalization, which is what I imagine was the point of this law. I don't know enough how much this has actually quashed this type of sentiment over the years, bout there's a sound logic there.left] I've met some far left people who are convinced 11-S was an inside job so to have an excuse to invade Iraq and get dat oil for corporations. |
|
|
|
Post by Échalote on Aug 30, 2016 5:45:24 GMT -5
Freedom of speech: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Who knew that this thread could have ended on its 2nd post if only someone looked up the shallowest definition ? |
|
|
|
Post by JDarkside on Aug 30, 2016 8:58:58 GMT -5
Freedom of speech: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Who knew that this thread could have ended on its 2nd post if only someone looked up the shallowest definition ? I love how people think people reacting to horrible things you say is censorship and not just more free speech reacting to speech. No wait, I don't love that at all. |
|
