|
If you think the constitution should never be amended that's pretty hardcore
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
The Constitution is perfect as is. Somebody just got 27 coffee stains on it every so often. The Articles of Confederation were just a goof
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
I think the way it works is that the day the constitution was written, then True America was born, and we have been slowly moving away from that since. It's a lot like Lord of the Rings with the world slowly sliding away from perfection, except replace the Elves with Christians and the Orcs with foreigners and Sauron with Communism. The giant eagles are still the same however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:If you think the constitution should never be amended that's pretty hardcore I wouldn't go that far. You're plain making GBS threads yourself if you think getting rid of the 1A would involve purely political fighting though, no matter what the process for amending it technically is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wouldn't go that far. You're plain making GBS threads yourself if you think getting rid of the 1A would involve purely political fighting though. You don't have to get rid of the first amendment to create hate speech laws though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think the way it works is that the day the constitution was written, then True America was born, and we have been slowly moving away from that since. This analogy works pretty well if you imagine Rivendell as being a gated community and orcs working the forges of Isengard as the modern day working class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wouldn't go that far. You're plain making GBS threads yourself if you think getting rid of the 1A would involve purely political fighting though, no matter what the process for amending it technically is. is this like how if they come to grab your guns other people who totally aren't you are going to start sniping at federal agents
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
what part of "the rights of the people to post inane, vitriolic garbage on the internet more or less constantly shall not be infringed" is lost on you euro nanny-statists
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wouldn't go that far. You're plain making GBS threads yourself if you think getting rid of the 1A would involve purely political fighting though, no matter what the process for amending it technically is. Amending is not getting rid of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Rather than viewing hate speech laws as a curtailment of rights why not frame it as the creation of new individual rights and the protections associated with them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:screech at strawmen 90% of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:is this like how if they come to grab your guns other people who totally aren't you are going to start sniping at federal agents Pretty much. My biggest criticism of fellow gunners is that their attitude many times devolves into "I buy more guns to protect my other guns" which is pretty loving pointless IMO. kustomkarkommando posted:You don't have to get rid of the first amendment to create hate speech laws though? Badger of Basra posted:Amending is not getting rid of. The First Amendment protects any/all political speech that doesn't create imminent violent threats. If you overrule that you've gotten rid of the 1A in the colloquial sense of the word, if not the literal one. The end result is the same, that you would've created an utterly unprecedented situation in U.S. legal theory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Pretty much. My biggest criticism of fellow gunners is that their attitude many times devolves into "I buy more guns to protect my other guns" which is pretty loving pointless IMO. There is a lot of speech beyond violent threats that isn't protected by the first amendment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:90% of this thread. 90% of this thread was calling natetimm a moron and regardless of your position on this i think we can all agree that natetimm is a dumbshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There is a lot of speech beyond violent threats that isn't protected by the first amendment. Good thing I specified political speech then. kustomkarkommando posted:Rather than viewing hate speech laws as a curtailment of rights why not frame it as the creation of new individual rights and the protections associated with them? The right to not be offended? Can't see how that might go wrong. The way that's going to work out in practice in the U.S. is that criticism of Christianity is banned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Good thing I specified political speech then. Calling gay people abominations is not political speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
its kind of troublesome, op, that you lump the idea of humans being deserving of dignity in with Lmao Tumblr Fee-Fees
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The right to not be offended? Can't see how that might go wrong. The way that's going to work out in practice in the U.S. is that criticism of Christianity is banned. A lot of countries hate speech laws are structured around the right to dignity and protection from degrading and humiliating treatment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Calling gay people abominations is not political speech. I don't see why not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:A lot of countries hate speech laws are structured around the right to dignity and protection from degrading and humiliating treatment. Those people just need to suck it up and realize their feelings aren't as important as my right to yell racial slurs in public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
like i know this is internet where the baseline assumption is that everyone is a poorly socialized mutant, but when you carry those attitudes out in public it kind of doesnt really jive with the idea of society being a thing that exists
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
I think hate speech laws should be evaluated on a case by case basis based on context rather than with overarching policies and dogma, but that's just my humble opinion
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:like i know this is internet where the baseline assumption is that everyone is a poorly socialized mutant, but when you carry those attitudes out in public it kind of doesnt really jive with the idea of society being a thing that exists op is american tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Calling gay people abominations is not political speech. Should I just take your word for it? kustomkarkommando posted:A lot of countries hate speech laws are structured around the right to dignity and protection from degrading and humiliating treatment. And I'm telling you how it'd be implemented in America regardless of what anyone on somethingawful.com would want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:I think hate speech laws should be evaluated on a case by case basis based on context rather than with overarching policies and dogma, but that's just my humble opinion I'm not sure I approve of the creation of the Federal Bureau of Fee-fees and the thousands strong fee-fee agents that it would employ. But that's just my opinion as a real American.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Should I just take your word for it? hey whats the lotto numbers while you're at it
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I guess I would appreciate some kind of response to my last post since it does contain the assertion that there are better approaches to protecting vulnerable people from messages that might induce them to harm themselves, than laws regulating speech Well I was going to do it when I got home tonight, but if you're going to be bitchy about it, then I suppose I don't have anything better to do on my lunch hour. SedanChair posted:I've never told anybody that. That's just the way I look at it for myself. I do have a reputation for being particularly unflappable in the face of verbal abuse, though. That's great... for you. But not everyone is you, and verbal harassment can and does cause harm, and pretending that it doesn't just because you are unflappable is the height of willful ignorance, especially considering your profession. But, I know that later on in your post you acknowledge this, so I'm not going to spend any more time on the subject. SedanChair posted:And when kids come to me and tell me that they have been verbally abused, I might tell them that the person who told them that was wrong, that they were acting out of fear or insecurity. That they have value and uniqueness and talent, and that they can accomplish the goals we've discussed. It just depends on the kid. Good, I'm glad to hear that. I believe you probably do good work to the best of your abilities in an extremely high-stress job. I do know one person who works for the State of Michigan in DHHS focusing on child custody and foster care, and even from my limited understanding I know that social work involving children and teens is incredibly difficult, so I don't want to disparage your career. You're not a bad person, even if you are an on the Internet. So I hope you didn't take my comment too personally, looking back when I woke up this morning I felt a little bad about it. But, whatever, enough treating you like a human being, let's get back to Internet slap-fighting. SedanChair posted:And some people in my position tell kids "no one has the right to tell you that" but I don't, because the truth is they do have the right. However, they don't have that right in my facility. If kids verbally abuse other kids under my supervision, they need to either knock it off or leave. But I don't have any control over what gets said to them when they walk out the door, or how they react to it. They're going to be on their own. They are going to have to suck it up, even though it's not helpful for me to tell them that. Ok, yes, I agree that people do have that right, however should they have that right? Now, disclaimer, there are about a million things that need to change about other laws and our criminal justice system before we even begin to think about implementing Hate Speech laws. But putting those aside and assuming they're solved, and I think they can be solved although I don't immediately know exactly how, why should you have the right to go out of your way to verbally degrade and attack someone's dignity? In general you have a freedom of movement to go wherever you please, but you don't have the freedom to bodyslam me out of the way to get to wherever that is. Your freedom is limited from causing harm to my wellbeing through it's exercise. So why doesn't that apply to speech as well? Is it because the harm that speech causes isn't visible and is harder to measure than the harm of a cut and a broken bone? That's fair, but harm is still harm. If you put a gun in front of someone and then started verbally and emotionally abusing them non stop until they take that gun and kill themselves then you're the one that killed them, even if you didn't pull the trigger and even if you never actually told them to kill themselves or even that they should be dead. SedanChair posted:Verbal and emotional abuse affects people because they are vulnerable. I am not particularly vulnerable because I have many resources to draw upon. I am financially independent. I have friends and family who accept me. I have a support network. I have a fair amount of training and education. These are the tools we need to give people who are at risk for self-harm and suicide. I absolutely, positively, 100% agree with this. We do need to give people the tools to help them deal with verbal and emotional abuse as best as they can. But that doesn't preclude also trying to minimize occurrences of said abuse as well. Because not everybody is going to be able to have access to support at all times, nor is everyone going to be equally adept at retaining and implementing training and education, especially not people who are the most vulnerable, including those with mental illnesses like clinical depression, BPD, ect. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I believe we can take steps to prevent abuses without instantaneously transforming in fascist Italy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:And I'm telling you how it'd be implemented in America regardless of what anyone on somethingawful.com would want. Well its easy to attack laws that don't exist when you define their contours yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
fee-fee fo fum i smell the caremad of an englishman
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I'm not sure I approve of the creation of the Federal Bureau of Fee-fees and the thousands strong fee-fee agents that it would employ. I know youre using the word in jest but the first hate speech law we need to implement is to brutally prosecute anyone who unironically says "fee-fees" as an insult for crimes against language
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:I know youre using the word in jest but the first hate speech law we need to implement is to brutally prosecute anyone who unironically says "fee-fees" as an insult for crimes against language This is the best argument I've seen to close the thread so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Perhaps, recognising the potential applications of a law inconsistent with its aims, we could draft it in such a way to avoid these applications. Wait, I forget the 120 character limit for all laws!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It certainly shows a tendency for non-American posters to prefer hate speech exceptions to freedom of speech. I like how, for someting to be cool and good™ to an American, all you have to do is to affix "freedom of" to it
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:In light of which countries do have hate speech laws in reality, it's pretty fuckin' weaksauce to basically go "Oh yeah well those evil right wingers would do it, which is why the most right-wing Western nation has hate speech laws OH WAIT" Since you're going to do this kind of pants-making GBS threads failure of logical thought I'll mention two cheap retorts: 1) Your nation puts gay people in camps, tried to shut down the entire government over a false video of Planned Parenthood selling babies for fun and profit, shoots black people with wild abandon, has mass shooting death counts typically associated with warzones. Clearly it us with hate speech laws who are the dystopias.  2) You know who didn't pass any hate speech laws?  DeusExMachinima posted:Should I just take your word for it? What is the political reasoning for considering gay people inhuman? Flowers For Algeria posted:I like how, for someting to be cool and good™ to an American, all you have to do is to affix "freedom of" to it I think the Patriot Act is the greatest example of "put a sticker on this turd and see if they'll believe it's chocolate."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
quote:What is the political reasoning for considering gay people inhuman? 1) Considering it's not a belief I hold, I couldn't tell you. 2) Burden of proof is on you to rationalize the existence of new government powers. Hop to it. Starting assumption is that it is protected speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1) Considering it's not a belief I hold, I couldn't tell you. 2) Burden of proof is on you to rationalize the existence of new government powers. Hop to it. Starting assumption is that it is protected speech. What is protected speech?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
it's really frickin funny to me that people legitimately think that the gradual erosion of their rights is going to come from hate speech litigation and not the endless parade of patriot acts and domestic surveillance initiatives
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1) Considering it's not a belief I hold, I couldn't tell you. 2) Burden of proof is on you to rationalize the existence of new government powers. Hop to it. Starting assumption is that it is protected speech. so are you going to defend literally anything you say in this thread, or are you just going to keep going "no you're wrong, prove to me that you're right but you can't, because you're wrong"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Personally I don't see how anyone could draw a correlation between political speech and inciting violence against people deemed to be inferior. BTW I'm watching Hotel Rwanda tonight, anything I should know going in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I believe we can take steps to prevent abuses without instantaneously transforming in fascist Italy. I don't. Once we start to tinker with what kinds of speech can be allowed beyond explicit threats, we open ourselves to it being turned back on us when fascist movements gain power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:32
|
|