|
natetimm posted:You would be wrong, then. Not being insulted is not a basic human right. How about suggesting that they should be massacred by the navy?
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. Okay. Let's pretend that there's three kinds of speech out there, all dependent on your own personal moral compass: Bad Speech, Good Speech, and Neutral Speech. Let's say that you want to convince a person, or a group of people, that Good Speech is something that you support and believe they should strive for, while Bad Speech is the opposite. How would you go about doing that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I would honestly like to ask what good you think either are doing because this past week I watched a sitting senator try to get people to trend something from c-span. Social media is going to reinforce whatever your personal philosophy is. If you're a pessimist or you intently focus on the things you hate more than the things you like, you're going to hate it. If you're into being pissed off and righteously angry, there are websites and agents all through social media willing to feed that reality to you. Even with being as critical of Tumblr and some of the dumb poo poo they come up with there, I don't think it makes Tumblr an objectively bad place, either. Most of those sites are completely built around you personalizing exactly what you want to see, so if you constantly hate what you're seeing, you really don't have anyone to blame but yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Obviously sites getting rid of comment sections isn't really a free speech issue, and natetimm is dragging a lot of dumb Gamergate baggage into here, but the calls for getting rid of Section 230 (and its equivalents in other countries) are a serious issue. It's arguable whether these very forums would exist at all without it. Also, the idea that hate speech laws will only be used against the "bad guys" is ludicrous. In practice, hate speech, blasphemy, etc. laws are used against whoever isn't in power at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Okay. Let's pretend that there's three kinds of speech out there, all dependent on your own personal moral compass: Bad Speech, Good Speech, and Neutral Speech. I refuse to operate within that paradigm because it allows for too much potential of abuse. You can't regulate good and bad because they aren't objective things, for the most part. It's almost all opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I refuse to operate within that paradigm because it allows for too much potential of abuse. You can't regulate good and bad because they aren't objective things, for the most part. It's almost all opinion. So, presumably, all laws are bunk, then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Once something becomes political or religious in the US it is Sacred and cannot be violated. This is why I'm a Robo-Eisenhower-Socialist and Satan Lord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you're a pessimist or you intently focus on the things you hate more than the things you like, you're going to hate it. If you're into being pissed off and righteously angry, there are websites and agents all through social media willing to feed that reality to you. Except that websites are a huge monopoly that stamp out competing voices, right? Get it straight. Your argument isn't based on anything except "websites have an obligation to host my threats against the surface dwellers" and the justifications for that shift back and forth like the tides that spawned you. Also Sharkie posted:If you have a website, say a list of the best sewage outflow tunnels leading from the beach into the subterranean heart of Los Angeles, are you violating people's free speech and their basic human rights if you don't host comments? natetimm posted:I refuse to operate within that paradigm because it allows for too much potential of abuse. You can't regulate good and bad because they aren't objective things, for the most part. It's almost all opinion. How about this statement: "Black people are inferior to white people and should be enslaved"? Is calling this statement "bad" an error, as your above statement suggests you believe? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Except that websites are a huge monopoly that stamp out competing voices, right? Get it straight. Your argument isn't based on anything except "websites have an obligation to host my threats against the surface dwellers" and the justifications for that shift back and forth like the tides that spawned you. Also You are a weirdo with some kind of oceanic fetish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:You trying to pin him down with taking a coherent position is an abrogation of his right to shitpost all the time. Fascists. really the question at this point is if he has a consistent ideological underpinning or if he's just looking to get pissy at cultural marxists on behalf of comment sections i mean as funny as it would be if he actually had some kind of argument it's probably even funnier that he's just getting high blood pressure over the stalinistic thought policing that is not being able to blast racial slurs on the local news website
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, presumably, all laws are bunk, then? No, it's just that the justification for writing them has to go beyond "this is good because we say so" and "this is bad because we say so".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Vox never had comments to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, it's just that the justification for writing them has to go beyond "this is good because we say so" and "this is bad because we say so". Well, generally, at least in theory, it's because "we as a people have decided that this thing is harmful to us and the society we want to promote so we want a law to stop people doing it" So "it's bad because we say so and this is why we say so". Which is entirely consistent with the idea that a society can say "we think that speech abusing or promoting the abuse of minorities is bad, and we don't want people to be able to do it, because we think that all people should be able to enjoy the privilege that the majorities in our society enjoy not to walk around being told they're the scum of the earth on account of their race or sexuality." OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are a weirdo with some kind of oceanic fetish. I'll knock out references to your littoral nature and malformed crustaceal body if you address my points. Right now you're not giving me much to work with except to wonder Popular Thug Drink posted:if he has a consistent ideological underpinning or if he's just looking to get pissy at cultural marxists on behalf of comment sections
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
possibly the funniest scenario is that natetimm thinks he's skewering a bunch of coward liberals with his insanely profound truth bombs his continued desire to go to bat for the sacred integrity of literal shitposting as a mechanism to advance democracy indicates that he is likely just high as hell on his own farts, and his inability to disengage from this absurd dogpile indicates a compulsion to be right by all means necessary even if it comes down to pumping out pureed secondhand arguments and buzzwordy jargon about ethics there's really not many other reasons for someone to argue so sincerely and repeatedly that people remove comment sections because they're afraid of dissent boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:possibly the funniest scenario is that natetimm thinks he's skewering a bunch of coward liberals with his insanely profound truth bombs You are a shining example of a bad faith poster who boils every person with an opposing viewpoint down into some sort of caricature you've taught yourself to intensely hate. Also, anyone who regularly posts in D&D accusing someone of being high on their own farts is projecting all over the motherfuckin' place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are a shining example of a bad faith poster who boils every person with an opposing viewpoint down into some sort of caricature you've taught yourself to intensely hate. Also, anyone who regularly posts in D&D accusing someone of being high on their own farts is projecting all over the motherfuckin' place. yeah, but you think people are scared of the shining truth of comment sections. most people regard comments as a horrible pit full of misspelled anger but you, because you are apparently a lone genius, see them for what they really are - a rising manifesto of glory akin to copeland's fanfare for the common man so now i'm just wondering if you think this is some kind of clever troll or you, against all odds, really are this ill informed
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, it's just that the justification for writing them has to go beyond "this is good because we say so" and "this is bad because we say so". I laid out pretty early how hate speech laws are designed and what there purpose is, to imply that all sides belong at the table while advocating that the private table should be either chopped up or filled with unbagged dog poo poo for everyone's societal benefit is terrible at best. I warned about bullshit pedantry. Unlike with first past the post voting, the option of " Do Nothing" or "Provide No Support for" are reasonable positions. Private and public entities exist for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah, but you think people are scared of the shining truth of comment sections. most people regard comments as a horrible pit full of misspelled anger but you, because you are apparently a lone genius, see them for what they really are - a rising manifesto of glory akin to copeland's fanfare for the common man You are posting this in a comments section.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I refuse to operate within that paradigm because it allows for too much potential of abuse. You can't regulate good and bad because they aren't objective things, for the most part. It's almost all opinion. You do realize that just about everything anyone does, from the steps they take to the laws they enact to the comments they make on internet comedy forums, is based upon what they subjectively believe to be good or bad or worth their time, right? Human society wouldn't exist without regulating good and bad. Unless your idea of a proper government is one that requires mere adherence to the laws of physics and thermodynamics, arguing that morality shouldn't be a factor in societal regulations is insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I laid out pretty early how hate speech laws are designed and what there purpose is, to imply that all sides belong at the table while advocating that the private table should be either chopped up or filled with unbagged dog poo poo for everyone's societal benefit is terrible at best. Can you show any objective benefit to hate speech laws to society at large other than personal feelings of self-satisfaction? Do you think anyone in those countries is actually less racist now because of them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are a shining example of a bad faith poster who boils every person with an opposing viewpoint down into some sort of caricature you've taught yourself to intensely hate. Also, anyone who regularly posts in D&D accusing someone of being high on their own farts is projecting all over the motherfuckin' place. Natetimm stop talking to yourself
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are posting this in a comments section. wait, so by comment section you think people mean "the internet as a whole"? are you not aware of the definition of comment section as apparently everyone but you defines it or are you just so drat desperate to not get clowned in a d&d slapfight here that you're willing to pretend you don't know
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are a shining example of a bad faith poster who boils every person with an opposing viewpoint down into some sort of caricature you've taught yourself to intensely hate. Also, anyone who regularly posts in D&D accusing someone of being high on their own farts is projecting all over the motherfuckin' place. I can understand why you'd be concerned with people boiling you down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:You do realize that just about everything anyone does, from the steps they take to the laws they enact to the comments they make on internet comedy forums, is based upon what they subjectively believe to be good or bad or worth their time, right? Human society wouldn't exist without regulating good and bad. The question is whether or not you are using objective measures to support your morality or are just going along with what feels right or the herd mentality at the time. All kids of heinous poo poo has been done in the name of personal or societal morality, and I think appealing to the masses for the sake of popularity is contrary not only to the fundamental rights we enjoy, but also to the underpinnings of society itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
pretending you're suddenly unaware of the definition of terms previously used in an argument is a bold and unorthodox debate tactic, i commend your ability to think on your feet and adapt to new circumstances
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Can you show any objective benefit to hate speech laws to society at large other than personal feelings of self-satisfaction? Do you think anyone in those countries is actually less racist now because of them? Note the use of the word "objective", an ancient word of power that screens him from ever having to accept any examples if someone tries to engage him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Note the use of the word "objective", an ancient word of power that screens him from ever having to accept any examples if someone tries to engage him. Yeah, having to prove your point can be a real bitch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Note the use of the word "objective", an ancient word of power that screens him from ever having to accept any examples if someone tries to engage him. if you put any effort into meeting his requirements he'll suddenly have a touch of amnesia and claim that you weren't conforming to his particular and unique definition of objective the man's a maverick i tell you, he's unstoppable
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Can you show any objective benefit to hate speech laws to society at large other than personal feelings of self-satisfaction? Do you think anyone in those countries is actually less racist now because of them? Do you think the point of hate speech laws is to make people less racist, or to make it so the targets of that racism don't have to deal with it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Yeah, having to prove your point can be a real bitch. Can you prove your point from earlier about why there's a fundamental difference regarding how the lack of comments violates free speech based on whether your publication is in print, on air, online, etc.? You just asserted it then refused to address arguments against it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
You have the inalienable right to be as offended as you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
natetimm posted:Can you show any objective benefit to hate speech laws to society at large other than personal feelings of self-satisfaction? Do you think anyone in those countries is actually less racist now because of them? Well I would guess objectively people subject to hate speech in countries with hate speech laws could objectively call the cops and get the person abusing them objectively arrested for being an objective oval office. DeusExMachinima posted:You have the inalienable right to be as offended as you want. I would like the inalienable right to shoot katie hopkins in the head for being an abomination. E: Objectively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Do you think the point of hate speech laws is to make people less racist, or to make it so the targets of that racism don't have to deal with it? The point of hate speech laws is to dress up authoritarian actions as being for your own good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The question is whether or not you are using objective measures to support your morality or are just going along with what feels right or the herd mentality at the time. All kids of heinous poo poo has been done in the name of personal or societal morality, and I think appealing to the masses for the sake of popularity is contrary not only to the fundamental rights we enjoy, but also to the underpinnings of society itself. What in the world could possibly qualify as an objective moral yardstick?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The point of hate speech laws is to dress up authoritarian actions as being for your own good. I think this is your subjective take and not objective reality
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The point of hate speech laws is to dress up authoritarian actions as being for your own good. Actually, it isn't! The point of hate speech laws is to both a) reduce the amount of racism a minority in your country has to deal with and b) demonstrate that the state itself is against racism and hateful speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:What in the world could possibly qualify as an objective moral yardstick? Proof of some beneficial effect. A reduction in crime, perhaps? At this point all they're enforcing is people's hurt feelings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Actually, it isn't! The point of hate speech laws is to both a) reduce the amount of racism a minority in your country has to deal with and b) demonstrate that the state itself is against racism and hateful speech. This is the party line for the useful idiots. Conrgats on buying it. You can do both of those things without violating another person's rights, it's just a lot harder and you don't get to feel as self-righteous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
natetimm posted:This is the party line for the useful idiots. Conrgats on buying it. You can do both of those things without violating another person's rights, it's just a lot harder and you don't get to feel as self-righteous. What is natetimm's wondrous policy for protecting minority groups from hate speech?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:07
|
|