|
Dazzling Addar posted: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 or, like, correlation of speech with money which gradually squelches the validity of their non-rich speech into non-existence...
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. And on what basis do you come to that conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:What is protected speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Literally The Worst posted: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" If you're the one who wants to make a new law, the burden of proof really is 100% on you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
so we really should just expect you to keep rambling about fee-fees as unto a paranoiac, then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If you're the one who wants to make a new law, the burden of proof really is 100% on you. so did you actually post this looking for debate, because i hate to break it to you guy, posting a thread to go "this is why i'm right and you're wrong. oh you explained your views? they're still wrong and so is your explanation" makes you jrode. not exactly conducive to a dialog
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Well we all know Mussolini came to power on a promise of hate speech legislation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Well we all know Mussolini came to power on a promise of hate speech legislation. And Hitler came to power and Germans stayed in their homes and grumbled for the better part of a decade 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Well we all know Mussolini came to power on a promise of hate speech legislation. I just will never understand this slippery slope mentality. Just prior to the Civil War were southern senators saying "Once we start to tinker with what kinds of property can be allowed, we open ourselves to it being turned back on us when fascist movements gain power."? We're people saying that if you outlawed owning negroes then it was just a short skip and a jump to outlawing ownership of everything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:so did you actually post this looking for debate, because i hate to break it to you guy, posting a thread to go "this is why i'm right and you're wrong. oh you explained your views? they're still wrong and so is your explanation" makes you jrode. not exactly conducive to a dialog Alright, let's rewind for a second. This subthread got started because this got posted: DeusExMachinima posted: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. Badger of Basra posted:There is a lot of speech beyond violent threats that isn't protected by the first amendment. DeusExMachinima posted:Good thing I specified political speech then. Badger of Basra posted:Calling gay people abominations is not political speech. Badger made the claim that expands government power. Burden of proof is on him (or you, if you agree).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:if you outlawed owning negroes then it was just a short skip and a jump to outlawing ownership of everything? I wish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:so did you actually post this looking for debate, because i hate to break it to you guy, posting a thread to go "this is why i'm right and you're wrong. oh you explained your views? they're still wrong and so is your explanation" makes you jrode. not exactly conducive to a dialog Seriously, i think OP just read about Brandenburg on wikipedia and decided he had to let everyone know how about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I just will never understand this slippery slope mentality. Just prior to the Civil War were southern senators saying "Once we start to tinker with what kinds of property can be allowed, we open ourselves to it being turned back on us when fascist movements gain power."? We're people saying that if you outlawed owning negroes then it was just a short skip and a jump to outlawing ownership of everything? Considering that's the very heart of conservative beliefs then yes, they were. When you believe literally any change is an inherent evil because things are just grand the way they are then you do tend to be on the wrong side of history a hell of a lot and people do tend to think you're insane. To conservatives everything beyond living in mud huts and going to out hunt animals and rape being the primary means of perpetuating the species has been a terrible, terrible mistake and the sooner we can get back to those traditional values the better society will be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Alright, let's rewind for a second. This subthread got started because this got posted: and you still made this thread just to tell people they're wrong, jrode jr
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
What actions can be taken for the betterment of society based on the idea that "gay people are abominations"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And on what basis do you come to that conclusion? Same as yours I guess, just a feeling. I suppose you'll point to many European countries that have successfully put these laws in place but 1) history isn't over yet and 2) I don't think we have the same political culture as Europe, or the same threats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:and you still made this thread just to tell people they're wrong, jrode jr I'm willing to consider I might be wrong as soon as I hear something besides "NO YOU PROVE WE SHOULDN'T MAKE A LAW!" Gravel Gravy posted:What actions can be taken for the betterment of society based on the idea that "gay people are abominations"? Betterment of society from whose perspective? The people who genuinely believe it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Same as yours I guess, just a feeling. I suppose you'll point to many European countries that have successfully put these laws in place but 1) history isn't over yet and 2) I don't think we have the same political culture as Europe, or the same threats. No, I'm not going to point to anything because I really don't feel the need to defend myself against a vague, undefined future of "suddenly, facism!". So good talk, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm willing to consider I might be wrong as soon as I hear something besides "NO YOU PROVE WE SHOULDN'T MAKE A LAW!" so again you post a thread saying you're right people chime in with their opinions you just go "well you're wrong anyway because i'm right qed bitches" while also crying about commies/pinkos like its 1937 good discussion glad you posted it
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
I feel we could draft better hate speech legislation, and mitigate its possible future use by fascists, by not pretending it has to be race blind, or gender blind or whatever. If there was a law that made denying any sort of war crime into hate speech, I'm sure it would have been used by neo-fascists in Germany at this point, but the law made Holocaust denial prohibited hate speech, as it was correctly based in historical reality and social conditions. But good luck getting laws like that regarding black people or gay people passed in the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:
Any perspective. What political actions could reasonably taken based on the political idea that "gay people are abominations"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, I'm not going to point to anything because I really don't feel the need to defend myself against a vague, undefined future of "suddenly, facism!". So good talk, I guess? I guess I shouldn't act like these movements are yet to come, they're already here. And they don't give a poo poo about free speech: Kim Davis and Terry Jones don't give a poo poo about free speech, they only cares about themselves and getting to say whatever they want, and do whatever they want. They wouldn't say a peep if we banned Muslims from proselytizing in public because of Islam's treatment of women, or if we passed a law stating that advocating for abortion is hate speech and terroristic threats against babies. They'd be all for it. The enemies of the American right wing should stand up for free speech because without it, we would be restricted from expressing all the wide range of currently unacceptable ideas that leads to real progress. America leads the world in moral character because of this absolute freedom of expression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Yes, I know the case. I'm asking what the political reasoning is behind calling gay people inhuman. If you don't know, and can't tell me, but still advocate the defence of it as protected speech, it comes across as an interesting juxtaposition of 'I don't understand what it means' and 'it must be fundamentally protected' which is insufficient rationale for a sensible position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yes, I know the case. I'm asking what the political reasoning is behind calling gay people inhuman. If you don't know, and can't tell me, but still advocate the defence of it as protected speech, it comes across as an interesting juxtaposition of 'I don't understand what it means' and 'it must be fundamentally protected' which is insufficient rationale for a sensible position. We must protect that political speech based on the hypothetical that gay people are actually subterranean mole people embedding themselves into our society in order to enact a gradual take over of the world's precious gemstone supply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I guess I shouldn't act like these movements are yet to come, they're already here. And they don't give a poo poo about free speech: Kim Davis and Terry Jones don't give a poo poo about free speech, they only cares about themselves and getting to say whatever they want, and do whatever they want. They wouldn't say a peep if we banned Muslims from proselytizing in public because of Islam's treatment of women, or if we passed a law stating that advocating for abortion is hate speech and terroristic threats against babies. They'd be all for it. Yes, and I wouldn't support banning proselytizing in public or advocating for abortion being hate speech either. So I'm not going to defend those positions either. And if the right wing does try to pass those laws, then I will stand up against them. But the American right doesn't need hate speech laws already in place to try and get those things outlawed, so I have absolutely no reason to fear that outcome in the slightest, nor have you given me a convincing reason to do so. And I sure as hell don't think that we lead the world in moral character. I don't know who does, but it's not America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I feel we could draft better hate speech legislation, and mitigate its possible future use by fascists, by not pretending it has to be race blind, or gender blind or whatever. If there was a law that made denying any sort of war crime into hate speech, I'm sure it would have been used by neo-fascists in Germany at this point, but the law made Holocaust denial prohibited hate speech, as it was correctly based in historical reality and social conditions. But good luck getting laws like that regarding black people or gay people passed in the US. The problem is that while that may be all well and good, you've legitimized the concept of speech restrictions as something to be politically decided. Even if you passed the most "progressive" and well-thought-out hate speech legislation imaginable by fiat right now it still probably wouldn't be worth undermining that societal norm. You don't need to imagine future fascists- we already don't have any issue passing blatantly unconstitutional legislation regarding flag burning now, and if gay and black people have their dignity legally protected why wouldn't we take a few reasonable steps to prevent unnecessary affronts to the religious sensitivities of the majority of our populace? The American culture wars are insanely toxic, and letting you translate political victory into an opportunity to use the state to bludgeon your political opponents for their speech doesn't seem like something that would end well. The progress that has been made over the last century has been hugely aided by the fact that criminalizing criticism of contemporary social mores has never been something that was legally supportable. If you look back over the past century or two you can easily see many occasions where declaring things everyone knew to be true as legally sacrosanct would have been disastrous. We'd be arrogant in the extreme to think we're any different. Free speech and open debate have been very good to us as a society so far, and moving away from it because it puts some small constraints on maximally promoting the cultural values we currently favor is shortsighted, undemocratic, and illiberal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And I sure as hell don't think that we lead the world in moral character. I don't know who does, but it's not America. We led the way on women's rights and gay rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
LGD posted:If you look back over the past century or two you can easily see many occasions where declaring things everyone knew to be true as legally sacrosanct would have been disastrous. We'd be arrogant in the extreme to think we're any different. Free speech and open debate have been very good to us as a society so far, and moving away from it because it puts some small constraints on maximally promoting the cultural values we currently favor is shortsighted, undemocratic, and illiberal. Ok I'm with your reasoning up until this point - even though accepting restrictions on speech is a bridge that's already been crossed , but this starts to sound like a "well maybe we'll decide differently, 'let's not be hasty" argument w/r/t the inherent humanity of black people, gay people, Muslims, etc. I'm absolutely not trying to suggest you'd condone that but I guess you can see why I don't consider that a reasonable, uh, reason to provide protections against inflammatory rhetoric now. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Ok I'm with your reasoning up until this point - even though accepting restrictions on speech is a bridge that's already been crossed , but this starts to sound like a "well maybe we'll decide differently, 'let's not be hasty" argument w/r/t the inherent humanity of black people, gay people, Muslims, etc. I'm absolutely not trying to suggest you'd condone that but I guess you can see why I don't consider that a reasonable, uh, reason to provide protections against inflammatory rhetoric now. I don't see why it should be a requirement to impose restrictions on people's expression of who they do or do not consider to have humanity. And frankly most expressions that we have discussed in this thread do not rise to that level, they are disapproval of a lifestyle or judgment in religious terms. We should be free to express approval or disapproval of any belief or behavior out there. To say "you are despicable because you married someone of the same sex" should be no different than to say "you are despicable because you are of this or that religion" or "you are despicable because of the policies you support." You can say a person's sexual orientation is different from their beliefs, but what evidence of that will you provide to someone who doesn't agree with you? It's a matter of opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We led the way on women's rights and gay rights. New Zealand was the first nation to grant women's suffrage a full 27 years before America, the Soviet Union legalized abortion in 1920, Mexico in 1931 and Iceland in 1935, and I really hope I don't need to give you the laundry list of nations that beat America on gay rights by a country mile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We led the way on women's rights and gay rights. Is this the same kind of leading that you did in other fields, such as the various World Wars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:New Zealand was the first nation to grant women's suffrage a full 27 years before America, the Soviet Union legalized abortion in 1920, Mexico in 1931 and Iceland in 1935, and I really hope I don't need to give you the laundry list of nations that beat America on gay rights by a country mile. They only beat us on gay rights because we brought it up in the first place. I'm not saying that the laws we pass lead the world, just our ideas. (And you have to not be New Zealand to lead, you have to matter) Abortion is a separate issue, and I can definitely see the world reversing on it multiple times throughout history. We have decided that the rights of women outweigh those of the unborn, but that is arbitrary and could change. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted: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 Erosion of rights can come from more than one direction at a time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:They only beat us on gay rights because we brought it up in the first place. I'm not saying that the laws we pass lead the world, just our ideas. (And you have to not be New Zealand to lead, you have to matter). Abortion is a separate issue, and I can definitely see the world reversing on it multiple times throughout history. We have decided that the rights of women outweigh those of the unborn, but that is arbitrary and could change. When I was five I had an idea for a rocket ship that would travel to Alpha Centurai, to the best of my knowledge I'm not the world leader in interstellar travel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We led the way on women's rights and gay rights. South Africa adopted a constitution that criminalised discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the 90s and legalised same sex marriage over a decade ago, considerably before America. I bring that up cause the same constitution established hate speech laws that would make an American's head spin. Edit: well I messed that post up kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Laws, laws, laws. Where would any of it be without the gay culture of the United States?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Passing laws is kind of important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Laws, laws, laws. Where would any of it be without the gay culture of the United States? Other nations had gay people, you know. We didn't invent hot dude-on-dude action. Other than your say so, what's your evidence that gay rights wouldn't exist without America?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't see why it should be a requirement to impose restrictions on people's expression of who they do or do not consider to have humanity. And frankly most expressions that we have discussed in this thread do not rise to that level, they are disapproval of a lifestyle or judgment in religious terms. We should be free to express approval or disapproval of any belief or behavior out there. To say "you are despicable because you married someone of the same sex" should be no different than to say "you are despicable because you are of this or that religion" or "you are despicable because of the policies you support." You can say a person's sexual orientation is different from their beliefs, but what evidence of that will you provide to someone who doesn't agree with you? It's a matter of opinion. Eh, that stuff about "lifestyle" is such a figleaf. The people supporting stuff like the "kill the gays" bill or ranting about how gay people are pedophiles aren't making denouncements because of an action like marriage, they're saying "you are despicable because of who you are, because of a part of you that is intrinsic," or, for example, saying that you're despicable because of something it would be a moral affront to suggest someone alter: "Muslims are unfit to live in a democratic society." And really the question of proving it's about their beliefs rather than an intrinsic quality is in my mind moot when you're talking about eradicating an oppressed people from society. If someone's saying "lgbt people are rapists" then the logical mechanism they've used to arrive at that point is less important than the harm it causes people. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
i think that, at the absolute bare minimum, eliminationist rhetoric is an example of political speech that serves no useful purpose in society beyond being provocative, and as such can be suppressed
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i think that, at the absolute bare minimum, eliminationist rhetoric is an example of political speech that serves no useful purpose in society beyond being provocative, and as such can be suppressed Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:27
|
|