YayaChibi said: Gan_water said: Aw you ain't heard about the hit? That's k tho. Nah fam I ain't educated I just shitpost so it says a lot plz help me lol lmao Hmmm, as your lawyer I reccomend you listen to at least 3 Bob Marley albums, that should sort you out. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| I read through part of this thread, and it just reeks of the internet generation, when you get more of your views from hyperpartisan blogs than traditional sources, which you reject but you lack the education that allows you to have the bearings to reject it in the first place. Half of you saying liberal this-conservative that have no idea, I bet, what liberal or conservative ideologies even are. Someone said liberals want racism against white people, which is blatant oversimplification to the point of straw man caricature. It makes you seem ignorant Hoppy, not a good look. Someone else said he disagreed with his professor and that's why he was marked down. But it didn't occur to him that he got marked down cause his views are all over the place and not grounded in socio-historical reality. So the problem is we can't have a legitimate discussion about open-mindedness and tolerance until we understand what open-mindedness and tolerance is about within the respective ideologies -- the ideology of the American forefathers AKA classical liberalism. And until you get to that basic understanding, any discussion with you is a waste of everyone's time, because it would be like trying to explain multiplication to a 12 year old... who has never been to school. P.S. I bolded that because some of you think all forms of liberalism are born by feminists in the 21st century durrr. P.P.S To answer your question, I listen to and process what everyone says. I don't accept them if your views are shit. |
katsucatsMay 14, 2018 4:56 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
YayaChibi said: People tend to say passive aggressive shit like this when they want to diss someone, but think of anything intelligent. You're not that original though.Someones really into the thread lol lmao |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: That's quite the Accusation.I read through part of this thread, and it just reeks of the internet generation, when you get more of your views from hyperpartisan blogs than traditional sources, which you reject but you lack the education that allows you to have the bearings to reject it in the first place. Someone else said he disagreed with his professor and that's why he was marked down. But it didn't occur to him that he got marked down cause his views are all over the place and not grounded in socio-historical reality. While that is also a Possibility, I wouldn't exclude the Existence of being marked down simply because the Interpretation didn't fit with the "official" one. Teachers want to make Life easier for them, too.So the problem is we can't have a legitimate discussion about open-mindedness and tolerance until we understand what open-mindedness and tolerance is about within the respective ideologies -- the ideology of the American forefathers AKA classical liberalism. Alright, then tell us more about it and how it relates to Phenomenon of staying silent because someone fears negative Consequences upon telling what they have on Mind. P.P.S To answer your question, I listen to and process what everyone says. I don't accept them if your views are shit. Which Question were you referring to?GamerDLM said: So instead of thinking that someone could be a Fit right away, they have to be changed through the regular Contact with them, first?I mean you're free to try otherwise but then you run a much greater risk of alienating people who could have potentially filled those roles. To me it almost seems like a person in that scenario just wants to avoid the responsibility of ending a relationship more so than starting one. So they chose an aggressive approach, jump to conclusions, and will likely spend more time trying to find those individuals as a result. I don't understand what you mean by that. Why would anyone wanting to avoid the Responsibility of ending a Relationship choose an "aggressive" Approach? Besides, ending a Relationship isn't as hard as keeping one. You could just stay passive and disinterested, after all.I can't say that's the wrong option but I would say that person should expect those results. But a slight addition I would wager there is also a higher risk to their reputation if they take on that role which will alienate entire groups of people not just that one relationship/friendship that didn't pan out. Other than weird exceptions like people who travel regularly. What has Traveling to do with it and which Role "which will alienate entire groups of people not just that one relationship/friendship that didn't pan out" do you mean? I don't quite understand the Context here. |
Noboru said: GamerDLM said: So instead of thinking that someone could be a Fit right away, they have to be changed through the regular Contact with them, first? I mean you're free to try otherwise but then you run a much greater risk of alienating people who could have potentially filled those roles. If you didn't think they were a fit when you asked them out you haven't spent enough time getting to know them. Otherwise this has nothing to do with changing people, it has to do with figuring them out, specifically what they're comfortable with. If you aren't willing to give somebody that level of time I don't think you deserve to be in a relationship. To bring back your topic of religion you shouldn't just blatantly say "I only date Christian girls" why not start with something simple like asking them about their family life. They might say they grew up in a religious household which then opens that as a topic for discussion. Since when is dating a race? Noboru said: To me it almost seems like a person in that scenario just wants to avoid the responsibility of ending a relationship more so than starting one. So they chose an aggressive approach, jump to conclusions, and will likely spend more time trying to find those individuals as a result. I don't understand what you mean by that. Why would anyone wanting to avoid the Responsibility of ending a Relationship choose an "aggressive" Approach? Besides, ending a Relationship isn't as hard as keeping one. You could just stay passive and disinterested, after all.If a person has no issues with ending a relationship then why are they trying to force somebody to identify any potentially complicated aspects immediately even if it's uncomfortable for the person they're with? They choose that aggressive approach because they're impatient, they view that person more as an object who has to fit their mold. If they're fine with a relationship despite finding out the person doesn't fit their ideal personal mold then there's no reason to even have this discussion. Because it just falls under the "don't be a dick" rule. Noboru said: I can't say that's the wrong option but I would say that person should expect those results. But a slight addition I would wager there is also a higher risk to their reputation if they take on that role which will alienate entire groups of people not just that one relationship/friendship that didn't pan out. Other than weird exceptions like people who travel regularly. What has Traveling to do with it and which Role "which will alienate entire groups of people not just that one relationship/friendship that didn't pan out" do you mean? I don't quite understand the Context here.If a person is spending a limited amount of time in a location, will rarely if ever return, but still desires an active relationships or friendships why should they care what bridges they burn along the way? They have nothing to lose in that scenario since worst case scenario they probably aren't ever going to see those people again anyway. To answer the other question if a person is actively creating uncomfortable situations for people in either a dating setting or while trying to befriend people then they build up a reputation for that which will cause people to avoid them. How that takes shape or the speed at which it happens depends on a variety of factors such as where they live. |
| Well if you take your time getting to know them before drawing a conclusion that they should this or that instead, we all could live in harmony. Sometimes you just gotta smile and wave boys, smile and wave. |
| People do things in life because they think it has value for people.. openness is just one trait that people think will do that... Personally I agree, I don't think there's any complicated alt reason for it, it's just cool to explain things in a way that lets other people have a say. |
| @GamerDLM So if it's about figuring People out, wouldn't it be better to figure out sooner than later about where you stand? It doesn't have to be just about the Girl being Christian; there could be other Standards as well, like - not dating a Vegetarian if you like to eat Meat - not dating someone who smokes, if you detest Smoke - not dating someone, who doesn't move much if you like to move around much Naturally, there is a Time and Place to talk about Things. For Example, it would be very awkward to suddenly talk about the inner Feelings right upon meeting someone for the first Time. However, if there happens to be a Situation in which you could open up and talk what's on your Mind, I don't think that one shouldn't be allowed to say anything they wanted to say. If anything, then it would be even better imho, because you can get to know how a Person ticks by how they react when you disagree. You can see whether or not your Relationship is so shallow that it can't even last one Argument right away. See the following little Sketch: It's all about being able to find People to whom you can truly be open minded. f a person is spending a limited amount of time in a location, will rarely if ever return, but still desires an active relationships or friendships why should they care what bridges they burn along the way? Burning Bridges sounds quite harsh. I value Loyalty/Faithfulness over everything else, though I recognize that there are also Limits for it, at least for most People.A Tourist might only temporary see People, however, their Reputation could be damaged if it happens to get leaked. The more People know, the higher the Risk. To answer the other question if a person is actively creating uncomfortable situations for people in either a dating setting or while trying to befriend people then they build up a reputation for that which will cause people to avoid them. How that takes shape or the speed at which it happens depends on a variety of factors such as where they live. I had to read this multiple Times, but I think, I now know what you were referring to. Are you referring to People who blurt Things out right away, disregarding the current Flow of Conversation and how the other Party feels? If yes, then I can see how something like that could be regarded negatively. Do you mean "race" as in a Contest in which at least two People compete against each other about who can reach a Goal faster? If so, |
| Freedom of speech means you already have the right and don't have to worry about these conundrums. There's no point telling a religious man to stop telling you to stop telling someone on the internet to stop. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| @Noboru No I mean race as in why are you treating building relationships like you're being timed for an event. Most of what you said though falls in line with what I was saying. It's fine to have deal breakers when it comes to friendships or relationships but every example you gave are pretty easy topics to figure out without resorting to controversial discussions that make people uncomfortable. Especially the last one because it just sounds like you want to know a persons interests/hobbies which is a really broad simple topic. A time and place for everything is pretty much exactly what I was saying, but the next part I disagree with. You shouldn't be trying to start arguments just as a test of loyalty early on. Again there's plenty of time to find out if a person is open minded if that's a feature that appeals to you, it's not a timed event and you said it yourself ending relationships in your opinion was easy. Edit: Although I think we're drifting from the root topic a bit so I'll try to bring it back with the focus on a proper time and place. Because that mentality pretty much directly applies to the discussion, in that there are proper times and places for discussions. It doesn't matter how open minded people who you're interacting with are if you don't measure what discussions are appropriate. |
GamerDLMMay 15, 2018 1:26 PM
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: I really can't do anything if you decide to intolarate my intolerance of murder. Other than give a confused look, I guess. Being intolerant of murder is something we should tolerate. And on the other side of things, intolerance against things like race is something we should not tolerate. The phrase "intolerance should not be tolerated" is basically and over-simplified version of "intolerance, that is harming others, should not be tolerated". But that sentence doesn't have that nice of a ring to it, therefore the former one is used as a catchphrase. Another thing with the paradox of tolerance, is that if we tolerate everything, tolerance will end up decreasing. Whether that is good or not depends on you, but I'd prefer the world to be more tolerant. In a nutshell; it is okay to be intolerant of stuff that hurts someone, and it's okay to intolerant of the intolerant. But hey, it's just my opinion. Also, I gotta say, that on one account I'm a bit hypocritical of this thinking, and that's religion. But that's not what the thread is about, just making a point that I'm not oblivious to my weak points. We should be intolerant of those who don't tolerate free speech. This includes people of different races or religions that don't respect free speech or Western values. I see you're trying to bring race into this debate. I do agree that to some extent, free speech is something that should be protected. Having it to the point of tolerating hate speech brings us back to the paradox of tolerance, hence we don't need to tolerate hate speech. |
Kuroko-chan said: I thought that a limited open minded Society would be better fitting, because there are Things with which People can be open minded about without facing negative Backlash from their Community, but not all Things. What you can be open about might depend on your Environment.The problem is not that we live in a limited open minded society. The problem is that we live in a close minded society. That's a difference. @GamerDLM No, I don't argue for getting into a deep Relationship as soon as possible. I just like to know possible bad Sides about someone better sooner than later, before I get too attached. At this Point, I have to correct my own Statement, since it wasn't accurate enough: Ending a Relationship is easy if you want to end it. If however you get too attached and then get to know more about the other one that makes you dislike them or that makes the other Person dislike you, then wouldn't it be better to dislike or be disliked before you feel too attached towards the other Person? At the very least, it could lessen the Pain if it's done before you feel too much. Surely, there are plenty of other Deal-Breakers, but I cannot think of better ones right away. Because that mentality pretty much directly applies to the discussion, in that there are proper times and places for discussions. It doesn't matter how open minded people who you're interacting with are if you don't measure what discussions are appropriate. The Problem with that is that there aren't any generally applicable/universal Criteria that can clearly say when a Conversation with Person X at the Location Y around Z o'Clock is appropriate and when not.btw: Doesn't "open minded" first and foremost refer to the Characteristics that you do not have to hide anything, since you can put your Mind openly for everyone to get to know what you're thinking and feeling inside? It's quite different from "Tolerance" that is still simultaneously being discussed here. |
| @Noburu First the first question not really, I think gaining any experience socially even if it doesn't turn out ideal is still worthwhile. Because even if it's a situation like the one you described it's good for a person to be able to measure their own limits of how much they're willing to put up with the maintain a relationship. How they go on to use that experience pretty much depends on the person and how well they're able to introspect. For the second part that's the challenge of social behavior. But no that's not the definition of open minded. Open Minded generally means you're open to new experiences and information it doesn't have anything to do with distributing information. Tolerance is a person's ability to handle information or behavior which they disagree with. Openness might be more what you're thinking of since it's more of a measure of frankness or a person who is unreserved. To kind of bring the two together though I would say factors like the internet have made people incredibly open minded but has ruined their tolerance. If it's just general information or trivia most people are genuinely curious and want to learn more which something the internet has provided. But it's also allowed people to build bubbles where they can reject any information that counters their prior beliefs with minimal effort. |
| @CondemneDio @deg karl popper "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." The paradox DOES NOT suggest silencing those with views you see as intolerant or even ones that are indeed intolerant, unless necessary. |
Killaclown said: @CondemneDio @deg karl popper "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." The paradox DOES NOT suggest silencing those with views you see as intolerant or even ones that are indeed intolerant, unless necessary. can you counter the alt-right for example with rational arguments? no they still go on even if their scientific racism is proven to be just the old social darwinism that is dangerous mindset |
deg said: its not about countering them by changing their minds, it's being able to counter it so we dont become an intolerant society, if we are to force our beliefs before its necessary then we have already failed in being a tolerant society.Killaclown said: @CondemneDio @deg karl popper "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." The paradox DOES NOT suggest silencing those with views you see as intolerant or even ones that are indeed intolerant, unless necessary. can you counter the alt-right for example with rational arguments? no they still go on even if their scientific racism is proven to be just the old social darwinism that is dangerous mindset |
Killaclown said: deg said: its not about countering them by changing their minds, it's being able to counter it so we dont become an intolerant society, if we are to force our beliefs before its necessary then we have already failed in being a tolerant society.can you counter the alt-right for example with rational arguments? no they still go on even if their scientific racism is proven to be just the old social darwinism that is dangerous mindset the alt-right is open to speak today anyway, the problem is that they resort to trolling and not open to actual rational discussion heck they use pseudoscience too if they can argue with civility at least then ye no doubt they can have their freedom of speech but no they even hate political correctness anyway |
degMay 15, 2018 3:27 PM
deg said: they are mostly open to speak right now, though there are those that keep trying to silence them (even resorting to violence and other crimes) and I've noticed that "paradox of tolerance" thing be used to defend these actions, but it doesn't actually support these type of actions but everyone keeps using it lol.Killaclown said: its not about countering them by changing their minds, it's being able to counter it so we dont become an intolerant society, if we are to force our beliefs before its necessary then we have already failed in being a tolerant society. the alt-right is open to speak today anyway, the problem is that they resort to trolling and not open to actual rational discussion heck they use pseudoscience too if they can argue with civility at least then ye no doubt they can have their freedom of speech but no they even hate political correctness anyway What does hating political correctness have to do with the right to free speech? If people only have free speech when they use it for things you dont disagree with then it's not free speech. |
Killaclown said: deg said: they are mostly open to speak right now, though there are those that keep trying to silence them (even resorting to violence and other crimes) and I've noticed that "paradox of tolerance" thing be used to defend these actions, but it doesn't actually support these type of actions but everyone keeps using it lol.the alt-right is open to speak today anyway, the problem is that they resort to trolling and not open to actual rational discussion heck they use pseudoscience too if they can argue with civility at least then ye no doubt they can have their freedom of speech but no they even hate political correctness anyway What does hating political correctness have to do with the right to free speech? If people only have free speech when they use it for things you dont disagree with then it's not free speech. if you are talking in public you do not use emotional arguments like anti political correctness words especially if you are a public figure that can influence a lot of people hate arguments will just lead to the fight fire with fire scenario and that will go nowhere just like majority of toxic arguments on the internet and that is the reason im here on a forum like MAL that have rules against toxicity |
deg said: all of that just seems like your personal preference, which is fine if that's how you feel, but you still have no right to force your views on others. I think you may have the wrong idea of what political correctness is btw, you still can say some messed up things and still be politically correct, a lot of times it just depends on the "victim" of those words (like it being more politically correct to say anti Male things than anti female).Killaclown said: they are mostly open to speak right now, though there are those that keep trying to silence them (even resorting to violence and other crimes) and I've noticed that "paradox of tolerance" thing be used to defend these actions, but it doesn't actually support these type of actions but everyone keeps using it lol. What does hating political correctness have to do with the right to free speech? If people only have free speech when they use it for things you dont disagree with then it's not free speech. if you are talking in public you do not use emotional arguments like anti political correctness words especially if you are a public figure that can influence a lot of people hate arguments will just lead to the fight fire with fire scenario and that will go nowhere just like majority of toxic arguments on the internet and that is the reason im here on a forum like MAL that have rules against toxicity Well personally I do kind of enjoy the toxicity of the interwebz, it can be quite entertaining when it's not taken too far. |
Killaclown said: deg said: all of that just seems like your personal preference, which is fine if that's how you feel, but you still have no right to force your views on others. I think you may have the wrong idea of what political correctness is btw, you still can say some messed up things and still be politically correct, a lot of times it just depends on the "victim" of those words (like it being more politically correct to say anti Male things than anti female).if you are talking in public you do not use emotional arguments like anti political correctness words especially if you are a public figure that can influence a lot of people hate arguments will just lead to the fight fire with fire scenario and that will go nowhere just like majority of toxic arguments on the internet and that is the reason im here on a forum like MAL that have rules against toxicity Well personally I do kind of enjoy the toxicity of the interwebz, it can be quite entertaining when it's not taken too far. well we are talking about toxicity in the context of rational arguments, can you really call it rational argument if its toxic? |
deg said: probably not, but toxic is a vague term so I guess it depends on what you would consider toxic. You can have a rational argument even if you perhaps said something mean about a group of people for example, or you can have something that is just considered toxic as in its toxic to a rational argument like I would argue political correctness certainly is at times since it tends to value emotions over logic and even favors ppl based on race or sexKillaclown said: all of that just seems like your personal preference, which is fine if that's how you feel, but you still have no right to force your views on others. I think you may have the wrong idea of what political correctness is btw, you still can say some messed up things and still be politically correct, a lot of times it just depends on the "victim" of those words (like it being more politically correct to say anti Male things than anti female). Well personally I do kind of enjoy the toxicity of the interwebz, it can be quite entertaining when it's not taken too far. well we are talking about toxicity in the context of rational arguments, can you really call it rational argument if its toxic? |
Killaclown said: deg said: probably not, but toxic is a vague term so I guess it depends on what you would consider toxic. You can have a rational argument even if you perhaps said something mean about a group of people for example, or you can have something that is just considered toxic as in its toxic to a rational argument like I would argue political correctness certainly is at times since it tends to value emotions over logic and even favors ppl based on race or sexwell we are talking about toxicity in the context of rational arguments, can you really call it rational argument if its toxic? just social darwinism (science base discrimination like racism, sexism, ageism) is considered toxic already |
deg said: yes it can be toxic at times, though luckily we live in a society that does not need to resort to extreme measures to keep that kind of thinking from being the majority thought or law.Killaclown said: just social darwinism (science base discrimination like racism, sexism, ageism) is considered toxic already probably not, but toxic is a vague term so I guess it depends on what you would consider toxic. You can have a rational argument even if you perhaps said something mean about a group of people for example, or you can have something that is just considered toxic as in its toxic to a rational argument like I would argue political correctness certainly is at times since it tends to value emotions over logic and even favors ppl based on race or sex |
-Placeholder- said: deg said: just social darwinism (science base discrimination like racism, sexism, ageism) is considered toxic already That's not what social Darwinism is. And Science has shown that black people have lower IQ. That's pretty reasonable for grounds for discrimination in certain areas. "Toxic" is just a pejorative term. never the less social darwinism is using natural selection/evolution/survival of the fittest to be discriminatory ye what if blacks have low IQ does not make it an excuse to discriminate or dehumanize them (racism) |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: I see you're trying to bring race into this debate. I do agree that to some extent, free speech is something that should be protected. Having it to the point of tolerating hate speech brings us back to the paradox of tolerance, hence we don't need to tolerate hate speech. "Hate speech" is protected under free speech. There is nothing under the "paradox of tolerence" that justifies violating free speech. It's extremely silly to say that it violates the paradox of tolerance to be intolerant of people from different countries who aren't tolerent of Western values, like Muslims. I disagree. A freedom that empedes someone elses freedom is not acceptable. This goes both ways. Enough free speech is good. Too much or less is bad. @Killaclown Combating ideas with ideas is the ideal situation, but it won't always work. Letting people like Hitler have their freedom resulted in the biggest shitfest in human history. |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: I disagree. A freedom that empedes someone elses freedom is not acceptable. This goes both ways. Enough free speech is good. Too much or less is bad. @Killaclown Combating ideas with ideas is the ideal situation, but it won't always work. Letting people like Hitler have their freedom resulted in the biggest shitfest in human history. Free speech is absolute or it doesn't exist. It is design to protect people with unpopular opinions, so when you say "I support free speech, except in case of these unpopular opinions" you're just undermining free speech as a whole. I maintain my right to point out the negative effects of mass immigration on Western countries. Also, free doesn't impede freedom. It may impede your freedom not to be offended, but my right to free speech trumps your right not to be offended. Real freedom are negative liberties, positive "rights" which you must force others to provide you aren't true rights, they are just entitlements. If that's your opinion so be it. I don't really care enough to argue about it. I think it's not a on-off-switch, but a spectrum. |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: If that's your opinion so be it. I don't really care enough to argue about it. I think it's not a on-off-switch, but a spectrum. Free speech is meant to protect unpopular opinions. If absolute free speech doesn't exist then unpopular opinions will be banned, which defeats the purpose of free speech. In the UK and Europe, people are arrested for Facebook posts and jokes. That's what happens when you don't have an absolute right to free speech protected under a constitution. And if that's how you see it, I advocate abolishing free speech as you see it. Tough luck. |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: And if that's how you see it, I advocate abolishing free speech as you see it. Tough luck. At least you are honest in that you're against free speech. I'm not againts it. I'm against it if we go by your definition of it. Deal with it. For example, if I go by the definition that is most relevant to me, that being the one in Finlands law, hate speech is not free speech, and neither is "blapshemy" (which I think is bullshit). |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: I'm not againts it. I'm against it if we go by your definition of it. Deal with it. For example, if I go by the definition that is most relevant to me, that being the one in Finlands law, hate speech is not free speech, and neither is "blapshemy" (which I think is bullshit). You're not for free speech. You're for the restriction of certain types of speech that go against your opinion. Deal with it. I abide the rules of the land. I am pro-free speech, and it is within my right to proclaim it. D e a l w i t h i t |
paradox of tolerance says the opposite thing plus you are thinking in all or nothing (black and white thinking) here and we all know that kind of thinking is wrong |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: I abide the rules of the land. I am pro-free speech, and it is within my right to proclaim it. D e a l w i t h i t You're anti free speech. Deal with it. If you think it's like that, Iäm going to take it as a compliment. Thanks :) deg said: paradox of tolerance says the opposite thing plus you are thinking in all or nothing (black and white thinking) here and we all know that kind of thinking is wrong He's too far up his own ass to understand it. Just let the troll starve. |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: If you think it's like that, Iäm going to take it as a compliment. Thanks :) He's too far up his own ass to understand it. Just let the troll starve. Lol, it's funny how salty you're getting simply because I'm point out you're not in favour of free speech. Not salty. You're just having the trouble understanding that maybe your definition is not the one used by other people, or globally etc. |
-Placeholder- said: CondemneDio said: If that's your opinion so be it. I don't really care enough to argue about it. I think it's not a on-off-switch, but a spectrum. Free speech is meant to protect unpopular opinions. If absolute free speech doesn't exist then unpopular opinions will be banned, which defeats the purpose of free speech. In the UK and Europe, people are arrested for Facebook posts and jokes. That's what happens when you don't have an absolute right to free speech protected under a constitution. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance Just so you know this also happens in paradise, and nobody has drawn their guns against it. Also. I like the term UK and Europe, sounds funny. |
GamerDLM said: I can only partially agree here, but it depends on the Severity. For Instance, if a Child touches the Stove once he or she learns not to do it again. So if it doesn't hurt much to get shut down and/or to become disappointed by someone so that you'd shut them down instead, then you might learn from Experience.First the first question not really, I think gaining any experience socially even if it doesn't turn out ideal is still worthwhile. Because even if it's a situation like the one you described it's good for a person to be able to measure their own limits of how much they're willing to put up with the maintain a relationship. However, if the Pain lasts, it could be like a Car Crash or just some minor Fraction. Things you wouldn't want to experience, not even to learn from them. For the second part that's the challenge of social behavior. But no that's not the definition of open minded. Open Minded generally means you're open to new experiences and information it doesn't have anything to do with distributing information. Tolerance is a person's ability to handle information or behavior which they disagree with. Openness might be more what you're thinking of since it's more of a measure of frankness or a person who is unreserved. You're right; that's how "open minded" is being mostly used. It doesn't make it logical, though, since it isn't anywhere indicated just from "open minded" alone that it is towards something. "I'm open" and "I'm open minded" are the same to me, just as "I'm open to Criticism" and "I'm open minded about Criticism". Why only "open" defaults to the Standard and "open minded" implies an Object is the odd Part here.To kind of bring the two together though I would say factors like the internet have made people incredibly open minded but has ruined their tolerance. If it's just general information or trivia most people are genuinely curious and want to learn more which something the internet has provided. But it's also allowed people to build bubbles where they can reject any information that counters their prior beliefs with minimal effort. I concur. Moreover, it's easy to get trapped in a Filter Bubble on the Internet. |
NoboruMay 16, 2018 11:38 AM
CondemneDio said: no one said it would always work, but until it's not working we shouldn't abandon it.@Killaclown Combating ideas with ideas is the ideal situation, but it won't always work. Letting people like Hitler have their freedom resulted in the biggest shitfest in human history. |
-Placeholder- said: Fijure said: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance Just so you know this also happens in paradise, and nobody has drawn their guns against it. Also. I like the term UK and Europe, sounds funny. The US protects freedom of speech through a constitution, but like other things, the state doesn't always follow the constitution perfectly. But it's a lot better to have a constitution than to not have one. Also, the Guardian is a trashy news source. I can't be bothered to figure out which news sources you consider reliable so here is a google search on the dudes name and you can find one you like. https://www.google.dk/search?q=Rakem+Balogun&oq=Rakem+Balogun&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i60&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Most other countries have freedom of speech in their constitution as well, doesn't mean it's strictly upheld. I'm not defending what's happening in the UK btw, that country has serious problems, but this whole "Europe is authoritarian, only in America do we have true freedom yada yada" is just wrong and needs to stop. |
Killaclown said: CondemneDio said: no one said it would always work, but until it's not working we shouldn't abandon it.@Killaclown Combating ideas with ideas is the ideal situation, but it won't always work. Letting people like Hitler have their freedom resulted in the biggest shitfest in human history. True that. Personally I'm so close to saying it won't work, at least with certain types of people. |
More topics from this board
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
828 |
by Crawlie
»»
44 minutes ago |
|
» Why aren't Americans rioting over the fact that McDonalds is now a Luxury Item?vasipi4946 - Yesterday |
27 |
by Lost_Viking
»»
47 minutes ago |
|
» Celeb crush ( 1 2 )literally_boba - Jul 6, 2021 |
56 |
by pludel2
»»
55 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Which of these 6 sets of values sounds like you the most?IpreferEcchi - May 28 |
7 |
by IpreferEcchi
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» do you still live with your parents?FruitPunchBaka - May 29 |
35 |
by traed
»»
2 hours ago |