DigiCat said: I want employers to hire who they want to hire without being penalized after the fact by making it hard to fire said worker. If the employer wants to take a chance, they should be able to with little burden.Excuse me what? Btw you're confusing skill with qualifications and time on the job, but anyway, the point you're making is that you want people to be hired "just to give them a chance" even though there might be someone else far better at the job? Skill can't be directly observed. It has to be inferred. Qualifications and time on the job are one way people signal their skill and talent. You will increase the importance of qualifications and previous time on the job when you penalize employers for making bad hiring decisions. DigiCat said: Again, in the US you can fire someone for basically any reason so long as you didn't fire them on the basis of a protected characteristic. You can want things to work otherwise, but that doesn't mean that's how it works.Not how property renting works, again, same as with employment, if you don't like the tenant, don't rent to him in the first place, once you have a contract, i am sorry, unless your tennent breaches contract or breaks the law you are stuck with them Also, you're affirming that Jewish landlords should be forced to keep neo-Nazi tenants so long as they couldn't figure out they were a neo-Nazi ahead of time and the neo-Nazi is polite when he goes outside? |
starflutter said: 149597871 said: People should remember that freedom of speech mainly refers to the right to criticize your government without being silenced or punished by it, in which case, I fully agree that preserving it is important. However, it does not give you the right to hate speech, incite violence, break the law, or say "whatever you want wherever you want" as that would in itself violate the rights of other individuals or private entities. If someone posts something dumb on Twitter and gets banned by the platform or canceled by the community because of it, then it is not a freedom of speech violation. I agree that freedom of speech rights only extend so far as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. I just think that the concept of "hate speech" itself has been heavily distorted and dramatized nowadays. Often certain things are perceived as hate speech that aren't. But yes, true hate speech deserves proper punishment. I'm just saying that liberals have gone too far in wanting the government to punish people merely for believing in something different than they do. Also, like I have stated several times, I agree that private companies don't have to protect everyone's opinions. I don't expect my government-protected right to apply on a privately run website. However, I don't like to use apps like Twitter anyway. They shut down healthy discussion and alienate people from each other. Twitter is not for healthy debates, it's a place where people just try to ratio and one-up each other. It is hostile by design. What I'm truly advocating for is people hearing each other out in real life; the internet culture has impacted real life too negatively and talking to old people helps me understand this is not normal. Yeah, I only used it as an example. I don't use Twitter either, other than for professional purposes since you often have no other choice. Places like MAL are much better because of the ability to post longer and more elaborate messages and the lack of likes/downvoting/etc. makes them less of an echo-chamber. I generally agree with your final sentence. RobertBobert said: 149597871 said: The possibility of getting consequences due to controversial takes does not violate freedom of speech. But public persecution of "wrong opinions" is already their censorship.People should remember that freedom of speech mainly refers to the right to criticize your government without being silenced or punished by it, in which case, I fully agree that preserving it is important. However, it does not give you the right to hate speech, incite violence, break the law, or say "whatever you want wherever you want" as that would in itself violate the rights of other individuals or private entities. If someone posts something dumb on Twitter and gets banned by the platform or canceled by the community because of it, then it is not a freedom of speech violation. Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if the censorship doesn't come directly from the government but from the public or a private entity, then there is no legal basis for the constitutional rights to apply since the constitution is made to control the actions of the government, not the people. Whether that's morally right or wrong would be a different topic, of course. |
MalchikRepaid said: You support North Korea, no? What does the bastion of free speech and free press have to teach the west about freedom of speech?Frostwork said: 100% in agreement with you. The West has become its own worst enemy. There are chances that the West can improve itself and let's hope that the change will happen.Well, since we're talking about current west here - there's no freedom of speech in your countries, period. Therefore nothing to preserve, case closed. |
Freshell said: Would you also be fine with employers refusing pregnant or married people? Anybody can get a divorce or abortion if she wishes to work such a job.Lucifrost said: I disagree. I really don't care if a job opening said I must agree with the employer on some political issue in order to work with them. Beliefs aren't immutable characteristics like race is and should be treated differently.I didn't say anything about Nazis. I was discussing whether employers should or shouldn't be able to fire people for any reason. I agree it's probably enough to ban disclaimers such as "Blacks need not apply," but I believe diversity of thought deserves the same accommodations as diversity of race. Job listings should not say "communists need not apply" or "libertarians need not apply." |
| その目だれの目？ |
Lucifrost said: After thinking it over, this would be a case where I'm fine with it to some extent just because it would affect most women (marriage is usually seen as a plus for a man anyway.) So fair enough that you got me on a case where I do not only hold the belief merely for immutable characteristics.Freshell said: Would you also be fine with employers refusing pregnant or married people? Anybody can get a divorce or abortion if she wishes to work such a job.I disagree. I really don't care if a job opening said I must agree with the employer on some political issue in order to work with them. Beliefs aren't immutable characteristics like race is and should be treated differently. MalchikRepaid said: Yeah, you sound really concerned about free speech. 😏Freshell said: Maybe the West should be like Singapore, Chinese-majority country that has a Islamic-leaned legal system. Restricted civil rights for the physical and mental safety of the citizens.You support North Korea, no? What does the bastion of free speech and free press have to teach the west about freedom of speech? The Virgin Article 14 of the Singapore constitution: The right of freedom of expression should never be exercised on the basis that opinions are expressed in hermetically sealed vacuums where only the rights of those who ardently advocate their views matter. That is entirely inappropriate. Freedom of expression when left unchecked may reach a point where protest, criticism and expression culminate in nuisance or something even more serious. The law inevitably has to intervene then. vs The Chad First Amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
starflutter said: As one blogger in my country said, the value of freedom of speech is that "you can immediately see who is a moron." In the sense that by what a person says, you can already assess who they are. While during the restrictions, you can think that a person is a good guy, although he is simply afraid to violate moral standards.RobertBobert said: The possibility of getting consequences due to controversial takes does not violate freedom of speech. But public persecution of "wrong opinions" is already their censorship. Here we already come to the conclusion that people confuse the possibility of getting criticism for their opinion and the possibility of being harassed in an attempt to shut you up. Freedom of speech apparently does not extend to objective and unequivocal incitement of hatred or incitement to illegal things. Although, of course, there are maximum radicals who believe that freedom of speech should allow any insult to morality. True, such people adhere to this only as long as morality is controlled by people from the opposite camp. A great example is provocateurs and trolls like James Gunn, who abruptly turned into moralists when society began to support their morality. Right on, great post with a balanced perspective! I’m pleasantly surprised we can agree on things so much. I agree that we should challenge said insults to morality. I’m not sure if people are just assuming I don’t have morals or something because I do. To be honest, I’m an emotional person who gets heavily offended by hate speech. But I expose myself to things I don’t like because I’d rather know what kind of bigotry we are up against out in the world. I see a self perpetuating cycle wherein people with extreme opinions are relegated to their corners of the internet. Their isolation among each other further fuels their hatred. Again, I’m not advocating for nationalizing the internet. I’m saying that we need to challenge the culture of echo chambers and try listening to each other, especially in real life. I’ve engaged in online echo chambers before and that was bad for my psyche. I feel happier when I have open dialogues about contemporary events with people I care about in real life. |
 |
149597871 said: Yes, there is also public pressure. Both literally and the fear of people themselves that they will be pressured into speaking certain thoughts. That is why there is an effect when real referendums and elections show more support for controversial candidates and initiatives than public polls.starflutter said: I agree that freedom of speech rights only extend so far as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. I just think that the concept of "hate speech" itself has been heavily distorted and dramatized nowadays. Often certain things are perceived as hate speech that aren't. But yes, true hate speech deserves proper punishment. I'm just saying that liberals have gone too far in wanting the government to punish people merely for believing in something different than they do. Also, like I have stated several times, I agree that private companies don't have to protect everyone's opinions. I don't expect my government-protected right to apply on a privately run website. However, I don't like to use apps like Twitter anyway. They shut down healthy discussion and alienate people from each other. Twitter is not for healthy debates, it's a place where people just try to ratio and one-up each other. It is hostile by design. What I'm truly advocating for is people hearing each other out in real life; the internet culture has impacted real life too negatively and talking to old people helps me understand this is not normal. Yeah, I only used it as an example. I don't use Twitter either, other than for professional purposes since you often have no other choice. Places like MAL are much better because of the ability to post longer and more elaborate messages and the lack of likes/downvoting/etc. makes them less of an echo-chamber. I generally agree with your final sentence. RobertBobert said: The possibility of getting consequences due to controversial takes does not violate freedom of speech. But public persecution of "wrong opinions" is already their censorship. Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if the censorship doesn't come directly from the government but from the public or a private entity, then there is no legal basis for the constitutional rights to apply since the constitution is made to control the actions of the government, not the people. Whether that's morally right or wrong would be a different topic, of course. |
|
starflutter said: My understanding of the paragraph is that people may not say things the government dislikes. I think I will be avoiding Singapore.Wow, all due respect to Singapore but that is some convoluted wording |
| その目だれの目？ |
starflutter said: Well, in the end, this led to many real Nazis not even trying to hide anymore, just saying "we are meta-ironic, the word Nazi does not make sense", while this label is considered less and less threatening, as people are used to it used just like that in banal disputes. Although I still found times when even right-wing radicals felt deeply offended after being accused of Nazism.RobertBobert said: As one blogger in my country said, the value of freedom of speech is that "you can immediately see who is a moron." In the sense that by what a person says, you can already assess who they are. While during the restrictions, you can think that a person is a good guy, although he is simply afraid to violate moral standards. Important wisdom and truth right there. A society with too much censorship lends itself to deception. I'd rather people not lie about who they are. I want to know if someone is a genuine, honest-to-god hateful person so I can remove them from my life based on my personal standards. And then if they actually go out and act on said views by committing criminal activity, they can face the consequences. That's my point of view, speaking for myself. The very word Nazi has also started to be thrown around so much that it has been divorced from its original meaning for many. Twitter users use the word Nazi as an insult to mean "someone with opinions I don't like." |
|
starflutter said: I take it you have seen some variation of this meme.The very word Nazi has also started to be thrown around so much that it has been divorced from its original meaning for many. Twitter users use the word Nazi as an insult to mean "someone with opinions I don't like." |
| その目だれの目？ |
MalchikRepaid said: By British inspired freedom of speech, don't you just mean actual freedom of speech? It's not so free if you keep adding limitations, now is it?Freshell said: I don't know, but it's a great British-inspired approach to understand that the freedom of speech is a very dangerous thing and shouldn't be used about it.The Virgin Article 14 of the Singapore constitution: I'll trust a country that has a high standard of living (Republic of Singapore) over a failing developing country (the United States of America). Thank you very much. Also, if whether a country was developed or not was what mattered, wouldn't you support South Korea over North Korea? ;) |
| Yes, freedom of speech, that is, the right to not be aggressed upon by government for your words and lawful actions is a good thing. I find it despicable that anyone would advocate for someone to be arrested, charged, and their name run through the mud for the heinous crime of saying things . vasipi4946 said: Like it's 100% legal for people to say they are veterans when they aren't. Yeah no shit, but context matters. It's not like you can actually get veterans benefits or anything like that, lest you potentially get charged with fraud. |
DreamWindowJul 13, 2023 8:30 PM
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
starflutter said: nothing new there, people also get called "communist" for no particular reason, if you are on the Internet you get called names, thats all there is to it... btw just because some twitter users might use a word a certaon way (the i dont like you kinda way) does not mean that the word itself d loose its meaning, the word Nazi in particular has been studied for decades an its well known by nowRobertBobert said: As one blogger in my country said, the value of freedom of speech is that "you can immediately see who is a moron." In the sense that by what a person says, you can already assess who they are. While during the restrictions, you can think that a person is a good guy, although he is simply afraid to violate moral standards. Important wisdom and truth right there. A society with too much censorship lends itself to deception. I'd rather people not lie about who they are. I want to know if someone is a genuine, honest-to-god hateful person so I can remove them from my life based on my personal standards. And then if they actually go out and act on said views by committing criminal activity, they can face the consequences. That's my point of view, speaking for myself. The very word Nazi has also started to be thrown around so much that it has been divorced from its original meaning for many. Twitter users use the word Nazi as an insult to mean "someone with opinions I don't like." |
 |
MalchikRepaid said: Freshell said: Singapore runs on 19th century British legal rulings that was the mainstream norm in their colonial territories, including Hong Kong with their provisional legal system. Don't apply mid-20th century American (sorry, redneck style) logic to old British political ideas, which also influenced today's legal understanding in Quebec. You wouldn't understand them.By British inspired freedom of speech, don't you just mean actual freedom of speech? It's not so free if you keep adding limitations, now is it? Also, if whether a country was developed or not was what mattered, wouldn't you support South Korea over North Korea? ;) South Korea's freedom of speech protects racism and racist remarks. Hence the lynching of Chinese people and Southeast Asians became legal in many rulings in South Korea. Would you want that? Oh cool. I guess America has more free speech than all of those locations then. We're pretty great huh? And you started off saying there's no free speech here. Anyway, I'm wondering how a country has more free speech if it has more restrictions on speech? Enlighten me. |
MalchikRepaid said: Don't forget to add the Dandy.Yeah, keep on dreaming Yankee Doodle-er. MalchikRepaid said: 😏 North Korea is the legal successor of the People's Republic of Korea (1945-46) and the provisional Korean government in China at that time under the patronage of Kim Gu. There is a reason that the US military (that has the rights to direct South Korea's military conflicts) doesn't invade North Korea because it's the only constituionally-approved legal Korea. MalchikRepaid said: I'd ask you to make a $50 dollar bet on this, but you might actually believe it, and I don't want to take advantage of the mentally ill.Don't lie to yourself. You know that your country is going to be gone in 2-3 years. |
starflutter said: its more common to find fascists than to find actual nazis, fascists have less requirements, if you find some idiot who atually believes that his country was great in the past, that might makes right, that religion should be a part of the goverment an just a few more things you indeed found a fascist, just not a nazisilversaint said: nothing new there, people also get called "communist" for no particular reason, if you are on the Internet you get called names, thats all there is to it... btw just because some twitter users might use a word a certaon way (the i dont like you kinda way) does not mean that the word itself d loose its meaning, the word Nazi in particular has been studied for decades an its well known by now Yeah, real Nazis are a thing and they unquestionably suck. I think that's something the vast majority of reasonable, thinking adults in the world would agree upon. But some people really exaggerate things now. Things like "You are a literal fascist" get said so much that the words lose impact. I think it is important to emphasize writing in schools because people need to know words have meaning and think about more about the meaning behind what they say. And that way they can be more discerning when confronted with misinformation. Maintaining a healthy skepticism is necessary. I've been called things like "commie" too hah. I get misinterpreted by people all around the political spectrum because I don't define myself as anything specific currently. So I can take it... I already know it's going to happen because people can get uptight when they hear a perspective they're not used to. |
|
| I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. As long as it isn't an incitement to violence, I think people should be legally allowed to say whatever they want. Private companies are a different matter. I do favor freedom of speech on social media just because it's become the closest thing we have to a public square online. I also think hate speech should be legal. The issue with banning it is who gets to define what is hate speech? I'd rather the hateful people out themeselves anyway as it makes it easier to know who not to associate with. |
| That really depends on how far the definition of freedom of speech is stretched. I'd say it makes more sense as a liberty rather than a freedom. I sure wouldn't want things like libel to be inconsequential and I think people should have a certain degree of privacy rights. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
starflutter said: Freshell said: Agreed that freedom of speech is important. In fact, a lot of freedoms are important. I'll list a few: - Freedom of speech in the form of people being able to say hateful, bigoted things - Freedom of speech in the form of telling others that someone said hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of owners of online platforms to remove hateful, bigoted opinions from their website if they don't want to host it - The freedom of employers to not employ people they don't want to employ, like people who say hateful, bigoted things - The freedom of landlords to not house people they don't want to house, like people who say hateful, bigoted things As I hope we can all agree, freedom and freedom of speech are very important. Of course, if you want more than freedom but also want people to not do things that harm your livelihood based on a sort of respect for discourse, you are not actually asking for freedom of speech. You're asking for tolerance. I think there is room for more nuance here. What one considers "hateful and bigoted" varies. Personally, I have been called such things when I wasn't being malicious and was simply expressing something that's uncomfortable for many people to hear. Of course I agree that people should be allowed to say they don't like what someone else said. I can't contest such a simple statement. I'm not asking for tolerance but simply trying to spark an open dialogue and asking internet users to consider something outside of their pre-established, often sheltered world views. Did you even read the entire post? I said it's fine if an online platform wants to remove me because my opinions don't align with their personal values. I don't believe in forcing private companies to keep hateful users on there. In my humble opinion, it is inhumane to deprive a person of housing because you don't like what they said online. Like I said in previous posts, it depends on the severity of the opinions they posted. If it's truly threatening others' lives then yes, those people should face legal consequences. Doesn't matter if you're being malicious or not. If a society that you belong to finds that what you say and or do is cancerous to their society, it is the most basic tribal instinct to expel you from that society. It's literally so easy to just not be an asshole. That's all it comes down to. Doesn't matter what society you're apart of. Every group of people wants to live a certain way. Every single culture or race on earth lives this way. There will never be a society in where that humans, in our current state, are capable of absolute acceptance, regardless of whether it is perceived as "bigoted" or factually correct. |
DigiCat said: If you need to have a protracted conversation with someone, in a public space where their ability to influence others like them is protected by law, before you figure out that they're peddling misinformation and nonsense, then perhaps it would be wise to work on your own self awareness.Knowing they're idiots? Why give the chance for something like that to happen when instead you can make it clear that it's not going to be entertained in the first place, saving everyone's time and sanity? |
 |
Freshell said: I want employers to hire who they want to hire without being penalized after the fact by making it hard to fire said worker. If the employer wants to take a chance, they should be able to with little burden Why? Why should the employee be the only one that risk getting penalized? Freshell said: You will increase the importance of qualifications and previous time on the job when you penalize employers for making bad hiring decisions. Absolutely untrue, being incompetent is a valid reason to fire someone Freshell said: Also, you're affirming that Jewish landlords should be forced to keep neo-Nazi tenants so long as they couldn't figure out they were a neo-Nazi ahead of time and the neo-Nazi is polite when he goes outside? Ok i'll flip the script a bit, why would a neo-nazi want to rent from a jewish person in the first place? Wouldn't a bigotted neo-nazi be disgusted by the fact he's paying a jewish landlord to live in that house? So if instead of going "oh my god i'm renting to a neo-nazi" the jewish landlord sees it this way "not only am i taking his money, but the mear fact i'm his landlord is probably torturing him" i fail to see how that's not a win win situation, plus because you can't controll how others feel, that little revenge isn't considered herrassment and so is legal AF |
traed said: I think that any freedom should have logical boundaries. Just like the first amendment doesn't give you the ability to have a wild west in the middle of the street.That really depends on how far the definition of freedom of speech is stretched. I'd say it makes more sense as a liberty rather than a freedom. I sure wouldn't want things like libel to be inconsequential and I think people should have a certain degree of privacy rights. |
|
silversaint said: Mussolini described fascism as a merger of state and corporate power.its more common to find fascists than to find actual nazis, fascists have less requirements, if you find some idiot who atually believes that his country was great in the past, that might makes right, that religion should be a part of the goverment an just a few more things you indeed found a fascist, just not a nazi |
| その目だれの目？ |
Lucifrost said: Mussolini had many bullshit opinions that he d later change at any moment, particularly after he was rescued by Skorzeny towards the end of th war, when he became another puppet of the nazi regime an fascism became whatever his boss told him fascism wassilversaint said: Mussolini described fascism as a merger of state and corporate power.its more common to find fascists than to find actual nazis, fascists have less requirements, if you find some idiot who atually believes that his country was great in the past, that might makes right, that religion should be a part of the goverment an just a few more things you indeed found a fascist, just not a nazi that aside, you saying that fascism has little (or nothing) to do with that dumb myth that the past was glorious an we should go back to it? gotta say im not sure what you were arguing there, that fascism is only about union of state and corporate power? Mussolini said many things an then he d change his views on them all the time an no one could question him about that, he was the leader |
|
| @silversaint I didn't mean to say your description of fascism was wrong. You simply overlooked a key point. |
| その目だれの目？ |
| Freedom of speech is one of the core pillars of how to create a good society. If go back to recent times when things went wrong, we could find that one of they key moments where things went south was when people were cool with restraining its freedom of speech, because that will affect the freedom of ideas. Im totally against all that stuff of course, against restraining laws that prohibit just the mere talk about ideas, the punishment of doing it and even everything that it is to condemn the feared "Hate speech". What people kind of don't see is that "Hate speech" it a concept so etheric, so blurry that it is always manipulated to make someone the bad guy by default, there is no a definition of it. A good example of how people can even comprehend what they so desperately are against (Hate speech) is that I once ask a guy on a discussion about it, we politely (/s) told me that hate speech was all messages that promote violence. He, in the same message, told me that he would open my skull and write the definition. Truly a mark on stone definition. The truth is that "Hate Speech" is just a tool a concept used by some people to easy gain power, if you can manipulate what hate speech is, then you can define what you can censor. In the early 1900 hate speech was talking crap about your country, or just some stuff that could made ethic group "equal" to your glorious country (Germany, UK, Italy, France, etc). Now it is if someone dares to say that people are born women or men, you can lose your job or, in some peoples fantasies, get in jail. I have seen this Paladins of social media defend all laws against hate speech and then share "funny" videos of Russians getting killed on the frontlines and claiming that they hope more Russians got obliterated on a drone strike. Which leads me to my next point: the control of the masses. It sounds conspiracy, but it is true, today with centralized social media it is REALLY easy to just control what people can think or not. You just need to censor/ban the other opinions. "What do you mean Biden still have cages of kids? Ban", "Detransitors are telling people that the trans procedures are terrible and that they need to think is better? Ban". And sadly they already discover a fair better way to control the freedom of speech, propaganda. By me creating a "good guys/ bad guys" narrative people will act like moral cops and regulate all other users just to feel that small amount of power, give them the "Hate speech" tool, and they will be implacable, everyone will follow him because if they not they will become the "bad guys" and lose social acceptance in the best scenario, some far worse stuff in others. Think what you want about the Ukrainian-Russian conflict (this is not the current topic, but before the moral cops jumps I personally side with Ukraine) but current media/people have managed to de-humanize all Russians and people just grab videos of soldiers violently dying and add some comical music and share it openly. The worse is that others will just like that, share it again and made some comments about how all Moscow should be on fire and everyone equally dead as the video he just saw. And this behavior is Ok and not condemned or banned in any way, but burn a flag or say some forbidden word and you are not gonna see the end of the discussion. So at the end of the day we must let everyone say what they want, yes some people will say offensive/stupid crap, but this is real life you have to manage it (aka ignore it). Some people will argue that some of these situations go to violence, but those are totally different crimes. We can't let them just control what we can say/think/share because we will be thinking what they want to think. Remember when you couldn't post anything related to COVID if it wasn't in the same direction of what OMS said? And now we know they made some mistakes (understandable btw, it was a new virus and new information was discovered every day). Yes, freedom of speech will bring some bad stuff with it, but the other option is far FAR worse |
 |
| Personally I think MAL needs to stop taking down things users say for being "controversial" |
| In the end, all girls are like the rose bride |
DigiCat said: I don't feel like going into depth on what I'm getting at with at will employment, mostly because I had an extended dialogue on that topic recently where my attempts to explain the reasoning went underappreciated. But I'll state my general position and you can agree or disagree: Overly stringent job protections harm workers who have little experience or low qualifications. Employers may have been willing to hire an extra person with low experience would simply be less willing to take on that risk once they have to deal with some kind of bureaucracy of proving they had a good reason to fire them. So I am generally for at will employment so the low skilled have a fairer shake at finding work.Freshell said: I want employers to hire who they want to hire without being penalized after the fact by making it hard to fire said worker. If the employer wants to take a chance, they should be able to with little burden Why? Why should the employee be the only one that risk getting penalized? Freshell said: You will increase the importance of qualifications and previous time on the job when you penalize employers for making bad hiring decisions. Absolutely untrue, being incompetent is a valid reason to fire someone Freshell said: Also, you're affirming that Jewish landlords should be forced to keep neo-Nazi tenants so long as they couldn't figure out they were a neo-Nazi ahead of time and the neo-Nazi is polite when he goes outside? Ok i'll flip the script a bit, why would a neo-nazi want to rent from a jewish person in the first place? Wouldn't a bigotted neo-nazi be disgusted by the fact he's paying a jewish landlord to live in that house? So if instead of going "oh my god i'm renting to a neo-nazi" the jewish landlord sees it this way "not only am i taking his money, but the mear fact i'm his landlord is probably torturing him" i fail to see how that's not a win win situation, plus because you can't controll how others feel, that little revenge isn't considered herrassment and so is legal AF As for the neo-Nazi situation, it may be an unlikely situation, but it isn't beyond comprehension. Perhaps the neo-Nazi wants to live in a major city with a housing shortage because of job opportunities relevant to their skill set. Either way, if a landlord found themselves in such a situation, regardless of how likely it is, why force them to stay in it? Some Jewish landlords could perceive the situation the way you describe and find that their satisfaction extracting money from a neo-Nazi is favorable. Some of them may not derive such satisfaction even with that perspective being pointed out to them. I say leave things to a matter of consent. |
| Real talk the major deciding factor of what is allowed or not is Material Conditions. In the 1800's Industry needed resources so that's why Colored people were considered sub-Human cause they all had the wonderful minerials. The reason why everyone has such a kneejerk reaction to Racism nowadays is because Corporations NEED customers...and the almighty dollar doesn't discriminate. Also the reason why every Western Government isn't Racist is because a Black Transgender can come up with a new neat thing that will help you like a new type of computer...it's like how Nazi Germany shot itself in the foot making all the people like Albert Einstein go to America. So if you don't want Racism make it so that Material Conditions don't allow Racism. |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart!  |
| Also the reason for stuff like Populism and whatnot we are seeing is because there is a conflict between the National Bourgeois and the International Bourgeois and stuff like that. Fix the Material Conditions. |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart! |
Freshell said: I don't feel like going into depth on what I'm getting at with at will employment There already is "at will employment", but that doesn't mean you get to unjustly fire people! You do realize that normally when you apply for a job you get a trial period where the employer gets to evaluate your skills (regardless of qualification or experience) and see if you're the rigt fit for that job? That is when employers get to decide "yes you're hired" or "no i'm sorry you're not right for this job", if a company decides to forgo this step and hire people blidly or based on a piece of paper, then tough shit for them, it was there will to forgo that step and they have to take responsibility for that, there are laws that protect employees from unjust termination Freshell said: Overly stringent job protections harm workers who have little experience or low qualifications And like it is up to the company to decide whether to have trial periods or not, it is also up to them if they want to set a minimum requirement of qualification and/or experience, this is part of what you call "at will employment", are you willing to employ someone with zero job experience or not? |
| Freedom of speech is important because we have better odds of uncovering better ideas when people are not harshly disincentivised from uttering them. Likewise, we also have better odds of uncovering worse ideas when people are not harshly disincentivised from uttering them. It cannot be guaranteed that any given point, the best idea available wins out, there is definitely precedent against it. But, on a larger time scale, most would agree that the ideas that stand the test of time are those that are better. Look at the world 400 years ago, vs 300 years ago vs 200 years ago vs 100 years ago vs today. It's like the economic growth of a nation with sound policies, it sometimes goes up, it sometimes goes down, but in the long-term, it goes up. DigiCat said: There already is "at will employment", but that doesn't mean you get to unjustly fire people! It is not at will if you have to keep them employed at your company against your will. That's kinda, how words work... DigiCat said: And like it is up to the company to decide whether to have trial periods or not, it is also up to them if they want to set a minimum requirement of qualification and/or experience, this is part of what you call "at will employment", are you willing to employ someone with zero job experience or not? His point was very simple. Do you or do you not agree, that, if you make it harder to fire, employers will be more stringent in their hiring—since they'll be stuck with the employee they pick sans very good reasons—making it harder for entry-level workers to be hired? |
AuronJul 14, 2023 3:06 PM
 |
DigiCat said: Under at will employment, there are some limitations on firing, but you can nonetheless fire someone for no reason at all. That's why it's called at will. You just can't fire them for reasons like "They were black, and I don't like black people."There already is "at will employment", but that doesn't mean you get to unjustly fire people! You do realize that normally when you apply for a job you get a trial period where the employer gets to evaluate your skills (regardless of qualification or experience) and see if you're the rigt fit for that job? That is when employers get to decide "yes you're hired" or "no i'm sorry you're not right for this job", if a company decides to forgo this step and hire people blidly or based on a piece of paper, then tough shit for them, it was there will to forgo that step and they have to take responsibility for that, there are laws that protect employees from unjust termination |
| The venerable Shoe0nHead summarized this topic well. This post shall be lengthy, so to those who quote me, do the forum the courtesy of only quoting the part you are replying to. starflutter said: I personally believe there is a value to verbal rebellion and questioning of authority in a free society. Nothing is more important than liberty. Freedom of speech in the west is dwindling If you meant some other countries in the west, that is certainly true...but would you care to elaborate on what you mean for our country? It is important to let extremists show themselves for who they are. There’s no better way to judge a political movement than by looking at what its own adherents say. Said judgment is important. I wish more people understood this. People’s lack of judgment and discernment in their voting contributes to crumbling societies. Voting is the tip of the iceberg. Most of the time, those with extreme views do not seek political office. I might feel personally offended by what someone says because of my own life experiences but I don’t want to take away their right to say it. I don’t think we should need to rely on the government to punish people for what they say. Too many are infantile little wannabe dictators who can't handle being offended. It crosses the line when it goes into actual, real-life violence. But many internet posts do not equate to violence. Indeed, speech is not, never was, and never will be violence. I’m tired of always feeling like I have to add a disclaimer at the end of every opinion I ever state. That’s just how it feels, as in walking on eggshells to say just about anything now in many places. Don't compromise and don't water yourself down for anyone. deg said: im for 90% power of free speech but not 100% or absolute free speech due to hate speech, disinformation like fake news that destroys democracy, impersonation, defamation, etc The first two things are everyone's right to think, feel, and express those thoughts and feelings...and the last two are already crimes. so ye go ahead nationalize social media so they can be subject to protection of free speech too at the same time subject to regulation protecting the bad effects of too much free speech Preposterous. Bringing social media under direct government control would only lead to more censorship and other violations of civil liberties, especially when it comes to privacy. (Not to mention the fact that these websites are global phenomena rather than only for citizens of one country.) TibetanJazz666 said: If you believe that most people come from a good place then why would you either insult their intelligence or confuse them by wanting them to put up with reprehensible people having a platform. What is the value in having a discourse with or letting idiots express themselves? Because freedom of expression is the natural right of every person. Those you dislike have just as much of a right to free speech as those you like. I think you are the reprehensible one for failing to comprehend this. I don't want to live in a society where someone has the right to tell me they want to, for example, abuse my child, and I don't imagine many people would either. If someone came up to you and told you they intend on abusing your child, that is a criminal threat, going well beyond mere speech. Judgement or discernment is hardly something people can be taught and even less something they can be incited to exercise - they already have enough incentives. Isolating Nazis or whatever has hardly eradicated their existence and well before the internet, especially in countries where freedom of speech is something valued, groups inciting race violence have a deep history. So? Many of them were prosecuted for the actual violent crimes they committed. The only way you can have a meaningful application of freedom of speech is by having it enforced by the government, and needing someone to enforce a liberty is a paradox. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States literally makes it illegal for the US government to make laws restricting speech. In a way, it is the very lack of government enforcement that makes free speech possible. I understand that's a technicality and that this policy is ultimately upheld by the government...but how else would any civil liberties be protected? Without laws defending speech, the government would be free to punish anyone they please for saying anything they disapprove of. If you want self regulating societies then the last thing you'd want is a law making freedom of speech a "right" - once people have the enforcement of cultural values into their own hands then they'll be glad they don't have a disembodied authority dictating things for them in such a direct manner. Freedom of speech is simply whether the government punishes you for your speech. It does not refer to other forms of social consequences. Rights are natural. (In this case, extending from our nature as conscious social creatures.) Although they can be protected under law, they cannot be granted by any authority or law. (If something is granted by a law, then it is a privilege, not a right.) Basically, human rights already existed, and governments can either respect them or violate them. PopArt said: It seems fair to me to treat nazis with the same dignity and respect that they treat jews and minorities. So...gas chamber or rap battle? heh 149597871 said: However, it does not give you the right to hate speech, Bullshit. Hate speech is free speech. So-called hate speech can be practically anything anyone dislikes. Hate speech laws are just an excuse to stifle expression and crush dissent, and it's inexcusable. It does not even legally exist in the US. (Thank goodness.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States "Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment." You advocate violence against people for their thoughts and choice of words. Shame on you. You don't get to dictate what people think and feel, nor how they express their speech. Hate (simply strongly disliking someone or something) is just as much of a natural part of life as love. Deal with it. incite violence, This depends on how imminent and likely the violence would be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action If it is more generalized violence, it can potentially be protected speech. In fact, the right to overthrow a tyrannical government is enshrined in the US Constitution itself. Erm...I agree with the rest of your post I didn't quote. starflutter said: I agree that hate speech (such as shouting slurs at someone in public and verbally abusing them) should not be protected and that’s where the line is drawn. In the US, harassment can be a crime, but hate speech in itself is not. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/9520/what-distinguishes-hate-speech-from-harassment-in-the-us I don’t believe in protecting flat-out hateful people, that’s not what I’m trying to say and what people seem to have misinterpreted me as saying. I would urge you to reflect upon your prior statement and reconsider whether you stand by it: I might feel personally offended by what someone says because of my own life experiences but I don’t want to take away their right to say it. I don’t think we should need to rely on the government to punish people for what they say. Also, read this to get a feel for why it's important that "hate speech" (which can be virtually anything) is protected. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/hate-speech-legal starflutter said: In my humble opinion, it is inhumane to deprive a person of housing because you don't like what they said online. That depends on whether it's before or after they moved in. Landlords reject applications for all sorts of reasons. starflutter said: I agree that freedom of speech rights only extend so far as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. I just think that the concept of "hate speech" itself has been heavily distorted and dramatized nowadays. Often certain things are perceived as hate speech that aren't. But yes, true hate speech deserves proper punishment. What is true hate speech? What punishment would that be? starflutter said: However, I don't like to use apps like Twitter anyway. They shut down healthy discussion and alienate people from each other. Twitter is not for healthy debates, it's a place where people just try to ratio and one-up each other. It is hostile by design. I mostly use Twitter to keep up with music artists I like. In that capacity, it's been a positive experience. starflutter said: What I'm truly advocating for is people hearing each other out in real life But you're seemingly not willing to hear them out when they're "verbally abusing" others. Abuse is an ambiguous thing, you know. Frostwork said: Well, since we're talking about current west here - there's no freedom of speech in your countries, period. Therefore nothing to preserve, case closed. How so? Can you provide evidence for this claim? Let's set aside Europe (which does restrict speech in many instances) and focus on the US. Do you have evidence that there is literally zero freedom of speech in the US? How about all the millions of people who say any number of things, yet don't get imprisoned or fined for it? That would prove you wrong, would it not? (Again, legally speaking, freedom of speech is whether the government punishes you for your speech. It does not refer to private entities and general social consequences.) Here are charts (supported by endless data) and other info showing that western nations have the highest freedom of speech in the world. (Whereas Russia is often near the bottom of the rankings. I hope you are not suggesting that Russia has better freedom of speech...which is about as far from the truth as you can get.) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/freedom-of-expression-index https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-country-comparison/ starflutter said: To be honest, yes, it does often feel this way contrary to what the law says. It feels stifling and oppressive. In light of what I just shared, how can you agree with her that we do not have any freedom of speech in the US? DigiCat said: Now on the jobs part, if you're a bigot on the job and get customer complaints, that is a valid reason for termination, but being a dick online or in your own home should never cost you your job Well...some jobs hold prestige, with the employees having an online presence as part of their work. In these cases, their online activity is more or less in their job description. (I do concur with you otherwise.) DigiCat said: Of course it should be illegal! Employers fire employees all the time for a myriad of reasons. Even if their real reason was over political beliefs, they can just cite other reasons. By the way, you do not have a right to work at any company. That is a privilege. They are the ones who hire you, on a voluntary basis, and in turn hold the power to let you go. (I know some companies offer contracts that limit what they can fire someone over, but I'm speaking generally here.) If you want real job security, start your own business. MalchikRepaid said: 100% in agreement with you. The West has become its own worst enemy. Then what is your response to the information I provided above about how western nations are the ones with the highest freedom of speech? There are chances that the West can improve itself and let's hope that the change will happen. But you oppose free speech and other civil liberties. It's misleading for you to talk about "improvement" right after acting like the US and so on don't have free speech. starflutter said: Yeah... we need to take responsibility for our own downfall What downfall? Be specific. I'd love to get out of here and go elsewhere to take a breath of fresh air. But it's not currently possible for me. I've considered expatriating to another country when I'm wealthier (I'm even subscribed to the Sovereign Man newsletter that specializes in the topic)...but most of the options are worse overall. starflutter said: Wow, all due respect to Singapore but that is some convoluted wording Read it more carefully. It's saying that free speech is bad and that they do not allow it. MalchikRepaid said: I don't know, but it's a great British-inspired approach to understand that the freedom of speech is a very dangerous thing and shouldn't be used about it. Restricting speech is far more dangerous than permitting it. It puts people's physical freedom and very lives at risk. Just look at history and the brutal consequences when free speech (and liberty in general) was not respected. I'll trust a country that has a high standard of living (Republic of Singapore) over a failing developing country (the United States of America). Thank you very much. The US is among the 25 most developed nations...and (by some metrics) the wealthiest and most advanced. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/developed-countries https://www.globalcitizensolutions.com/what-is-the-richest-country-in-the-world https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/5-most-advanced-countries-in-the-world-in-2023-1134538/5/ As for standard of living...the US is far higher than Singapore. GG. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country StarfireDragon said: Yes, freedom of speech, that is, the right to not be aggressed upon by government for your words and lawful actions is a good thing. I find it despicable that anyone would advocate for someone to be arrested, charged, and their name run through the mud for the heinous crime of saying things . Well said. Despicable is an apt descriptor for authoritarians...but calling them "people" is a bit too generous, for they are lower than dogs. MalchikRepaid said: South Korea's freedom of speech protects racism and racist remarks. Hence the lynching of Chinese people and Southeast Asians became legal in many rulings in South Korea. Words and actions are separate things. Are you sure lynching is currently legal in South Korea? (Source, please.) Freshell said: Oh cool. I guess America has more free speech than all of those locations then. We're pretty great huh? And you started off saying there's no free speech here. Anyway, I'm wondering how a country has more free speech if it has more restrictions on speech? Enlighten me. Freshell said: I'd ask you to make a $50 dollar bet on this, but you might actually believe it, and I don't want to take advantage of the mentally ill. I love seeing you pwn people. :D silversaint said: its more common to find fascists than to find actual nazis, fascists have less requirements, if you find some idiot who atually believes that his country was great in the past, that might makes right, that religion should be a part of the goverment an just a few more things you indeed found a fascist, just not a nazi There's also a looser (and possibly more frequently used) meaning of fascists and fascism: "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control" "any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc that may be characterized as excessively prescriptive or authoritarian" MalchikRepaid said: There is a reason that the US military (that has the rights to direct South Korea's military conflicts) doesn't invade North Korea because it's the only constituionally-approved legal Korea. The reasons are more practical than that. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-america-would-never-actually-go-and-invade-north-korea-83531 https://globalaffairsexplained.com/america-invade-north-korea/ Don't lie to yourself. You know that your country is going to be gone in 2-3 years. There is no evidence to support your claim. Since you like North Korea so much, it would be hilarious if this was a veiled threat of NK nuking the US. MalchikRepaid said: Whatever. I don't like to touch slave-owning American presidents' heads FYI, the founding fathers of the US hated slavery and wanted to free their slaves...but institutional complications prevented them from doing so. on your unsanitary money. Is Canadian money really much cleaner than in the US? Many of us don't even use physical cash anymore either. Malkshake said: I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. As long as it isn't an incitement to violence, I think people should be legally allowed to say whatever they want. Private companies are a different matter. I do favor freedom of speech on social media just because it's become the closest thing we have to a public square online. I also think hate speech should be legal. The issue with banning it is who gets to define what is hate speech? I'd rather the hateful people out themeselves anyway as it makes it easier to know who not to associate with. Based. I'm unsure how free speech would be "enforced" across all social media platforms, though. MalchikRepaid said: Whenever Americans say "respect the freedom of speech", it's very often "respect that we are imposing our American culture and social values to you, regardless of your opinion". That's something to worry about, right? What do you mean by imposing? If everyone has freedom of speech, you are also free to state your opinion. We're not forcing you to believe anything. TibetanJazz666 said: If you need to have a protracted conversation with someone, in a public space where their ability to influence others like them is protected by law, before you figure out that they're peddling misinformation and nonsense, then perhaps it would be wise to work on your own self awareness. "If you need to hear what someone has to say before knowing what their positions are, you should be a better mind reader." Why give the chance for something like that to happen when instead you can make it clear that it's not going to be entertained in the first place, saving everyone's time and sanity? "Why let people have opinions when you can throw them in prison for it instead?" If they were not addressing you personally, it's none of your business what other people say to begin with. If you don't like what they said, either respond with a rebuttal or walk away. Balisong98 said: Silly Americans think they have freedom of speech! This has got to be the funniest shit I seen all darn day. And what evidence do you have that we don't? KenaiPhoenix said: Freedom of speech is one of the core pillars of how to create a good society. If go back to recent times when things went wrong, we could find that one of they key moments where things went south was when people were cool with restraining its freedom of speech, because that will affect the freedom of ideas. Im totally against all that stuff of course, against restraining laws that prohibit just the mere talk about ideas, the punishment of doing it and even everything that it is to condemn the feared "Hate speech". What people kind of don't see is that "Hate speech" it a concept so etheric, so blurry that it is always manipulated to make someone the bad guy by default, there is no a definition of it. A good example of how people can even comprehend what they so desperately are against (Hate speech) is that I once ask a guy on a discussion about it, we politely (/s) told me that hate speech was all messages that promote violence. He, in the same message, told me that he would open my skull and write the definition. Truly a mark on stone definition. The truth is that "Hate Speech" is just a tool a concept used by some people to easy gain power, if you can manipulate what hate speech is, then you can define what you can censor. In the early 1900 hate speech was talking crap about your country, or just some stuff that could made ethic group "equal" to your glorious country (Germany, UK, Italy, France, etc). Now it is if someone dares to say that people are born women or men, you can lose your job or, in some peoples fantasies, get in jail. I have seen this Paladins of social media defend all laws against hate speech and then share "funny" videos of Russians getting killed on the frontlines and claiming that they hope more Russians got obliterated on a drone strike. Which leads me to my next point: the control of the masses. It sounds conspiracy, but it is true, today with centralized social media it is REALLY easy to just control what people can think or not. You just need to censor/ban the other opinions. "What do you mean Biden still have cages of kids? Ban", "Detransitors are telling people that the trans procedures are terrible and that they need to think is better? Ban". And sadly they already discover a fair better way to control the freedom of speech, propaganda. By me creating a "good guys/ bad guys" narrative people will act like moral cops and regulate all other users just to feel that small amount of power, give them the "Hate speech" tool, and they will be implacable, everyone will follow him because if they not they will become the "bad guys" and lose social acceptance in the best scenario, some far worse stuff in others. Think what you want about the Ukrainian-Russian conflict (this is not the current topic, but before the moral cops jumps I personally side with Ukraine) but current media/people have managed to de-humanize all Russians and people just grab videos of soldiers violently dying and add some comical music and share it openly. The worse is that others will just like that, share it again and made some comments about how all Moscow should be on fire and everyone equally dead as the video he just saw. And this behavior is Ok and not condemned or banned in any way, but burn a flag or say some forbidden word and you are not gonna see the end of the discussion. So at the end of the day we must let everyone say what they want, yes some people will say offensive/stupid crap, but this is real life you have to manage it (aka ignore it). Some people will argue that some of these situations go to violence, but those are totally different crimes. We can't let them just control what we can say/think/share because we will be thinking what they want to think. Remember when you couldn't post anything related to COVID if it wasn't in the same direction of what OMS said? And now we know they made some mistakes (understandable btw, it was a new virus and new information was discovered every day). Yes, freedom of speech will bring some bad stuff with it, but the other option is far FAR worse I'm only quoting this because I agree and want to make it more visible. :] Curlybrace101 said: Personally I think MAL needs to stop taking down things users say for being "controversial" That's what happens when a website values money from advertisers more than its users. |
SmugSatokoJul 14, 2023 4:45 PM
 |
| If you can say a thing in the face of a police officer, national television and your parents without being put in jail, then by all means speak. |
More topics from this board
» What will you never achieve or get despite wanting it badly and it being a dream of yours?Daemon - Oct 8 |
32 |
by ymiriii
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
» All of you who learned English as a 2nd language, is your accent clear or thick?fleurbleue - 5 hours ago |
20 |
by Exhumatika
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» are there any "Hikikomori" here like me? ( 1 2 )Ymir_The_Viking - Yesterday |
52 |
by BilboBaggins365
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
» Do the well-known stereotypes associated with people from your country actually apply to you? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Oct 8 |
72 |
by Auron
»»
36 minutes ago |
|
» Isn't it technically impossible to prove other people exist?memeticmeme - 4 hours ago |
9 |
by memeticmeme
»»
44 minutes ago |