|
natetimm posted:. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say. Oh no, not being able to leave comments on a site sounds awful, have any particularly egregious examples?
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
natetimm posted:Google being held liable for info its search engine returns: None of those links are about "prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
natetimm posted:There's an entire movement going on right now to gut commets sections and lots of sites are on board with it. Vox turned off their commets, for example. Oh, you mean like featured in the breitbart.com expose The Left's War on Comment Sections? Who cares? And what does that have to do with free speech? natetimm posted:I'm saying that encouraging laws that hold sites legally responsible for the comments of their users is bad, though. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It further cements the means of communication into the hands of billion-dollar media outlets and limits the amount of pushback they receive. The entire point of the internet is to facilitate the communication of ideas between people, if you let a select few organizations lock down the traffic and the discussion, it just goes back to being similar to TV and the samey news culture that surrounded it. It's both sides of the aisle shrugging as their options are more and more limited because someone is convincing them it's screwing over someone they don't like. It's not in anyone's best interests, really. Do you agree with breitbart.com that it's a cabal of feminists and anti-racists that are behind this dastardly plot to not provide a space for people to call each other retards at the end of articles? And newspapers not being forced to print every letter someone sends them: is that a similar threat to free speech?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I'm saying comments , not the uploading of things like child porn. You don't see how things like holding google responsible for things they link to that could be potentially defamatory is bad? How much talking do you think SA would permit if it were forced to be held legally responsible for the statements of its posters. How many times has noted forums drama queen Effectronica threatened to kill someone over politics on this site? How long would management let controversial topics continue if they had law enforcement or lawyers beating down their door every time he did it? It already is natetimm. Popular Thug Drink posted:so you're saying we should bring back LF natetimm posted:I think the people cheering on their elimination are obviously interested in maintaining their opinions and views as the sole output of their respective sites, but I don't think it's limited to the left wing. Breitbart itself was known for deleting opposing opinions and hating gamers before their new tactic of embracing comments and gamers, so I'm not dim enough to believe they're doing anything but promoting their own self-interest. However, studies have been done showing that comments left either in support or critical of online articles can cause the reader to have a negative view of the article. It's a real statement on how stupid some outlets think their readership is that they must be protected from contrary opinions. It's reaching an almost religious fervor at this point. I suggest, and hear me out, that newspapers not being forced to print the many dozens of letters I write each day about how natetimm is a shambling crabmonster is not a crusade of "religious fervor" against free speech. But I guess you disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
"Tonight on ABC it's Modern Family! But first here are hundreds of videos of people calling for the destruction of disgusting, stalk-eyed crabmonster natetimm, because to not provide them a platform is a threat to free speech. Buckle in folks cause this is going to last for hours." -- a thing natetimm believes is good, and necessary. natetimm posted:Your comparison to newspapers is dishonest because the amount of time, effort and resources required to do what you're describing is astronomical, while doing it on a site is much easier. Again, that's the entire point of the internet, to make communication cheaper and easier. Reinstalling the old system of dominant media presenting their more slanted than ever coverage unopposed isn't good for anyone. Webspace isn't free as in beer. And apparently you're fine with compromising your view of free speech as long as it involves a lot of work or whatever, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Man, you really have to twist that goalpost in a knot and move it down the street to take those shots, buddy. If people want to take shots at your pitted and slime-crusted shell as you move down the street on your spidery legs, is it a violation of free speech for websites to ban comments about it? How about if they share links to artwork depicting it? Also you haven't explained how that's moving the goalpost. natetimm posted:I live at the beach and surf, swim or hike almost every day. I will admit to sitting in a dark apartment with all the blinds drawn at the moment, but it's hot a gently caress here. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me. Wait I thought the reason not having to publish comments was not a threat to free speech when done by newspapers because there's significant expense and effort involved. While websites don't have that expense and effort therefore they should protect free speech by publishing comments. Now, you're telling me that websites have a monopoly on the market. How can you have a monopoly on something as cheap and effortless as a website? Please clean the human flesh from your monstrous claw and use it to clumsily hunt-and-peck out your reasoning behind this. natetimm posted:If this is truly a problem for you in your life, I recommend chilling out because it's not really a problem. But not being able to go to any random website and write about the pleasure I would get in plunging a trident through the brittle shell of a loathsome crab endowed with a malignant parody of a human mind is a problem, right? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Emotional harm counts, but not enough to put people in jail over it. If emotional harm counts the why do you trivialize it by calling it "hurt feelings" and "being offended"? And with natetimm posted:Think of the children! in response to child suicide?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
natetimm posted:How does turning it into a trans issue help the other kids who were bullied to death that don't have some sort of protected status? Why even draw the distinction if it's obviously an issue impacting people beyond their status in modern identity politics? Why not craft comprehensive reform to help all of them instead of continuing to beat the ideological drum about your own pet issues? This is some real "transgender children....lucky duckies!" poo poo right here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Does it matter whether or not if it was hate speech if the kid ends up dead either way? Wouldn't you want to do the thing capable of helping the most kids? Gee natetimm, why would anyone doubt that you just really, honestly care about all children, including transgender ones, and that you just earnestly believe that...  Welp it looks like you're just afraid of having repercussions for saying poo poo like that and the well-being of transgender people doesn't even show up on your radar, so drop the act you stupid bigot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Hahaha, sorry for thinking that not wanting to have sex with a trans person doesn't make me a bigot. I have no problem identifying them as whatever gender they please and interacting politely and respectfully until someone goes off on the "you're a bigot if you won't gently caress them" tangent. Using social pressure to try and press people into sexual relationships they are uncomfortable with is creepy and rapey, whether or not it's done for supposedly progressive ideals. It's unfortunate medical science doesn't have the answer, but it also doesn't change the reality of the situation. "Frankensteined," really? edit: Care to address that? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:lol another case of an idiot (natetimm) believing a site has been taken over by the sjw conspiracy. aka any site that has a majority women userbase that are tired of being harassed. There's a study that when women speak more than 30% of the time in a group, men felt that the women were taking over the discussion, even though obviously the men were speaking more. There's probably a similar effect going on online.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Its a section. Where you make comments. On a website. This definition is too broad to be useful, as it would include imageboards and web-based chatrooms. I'm at least glad you tacitly admitted to being a bigot instead of trying this type of lazy and bad reasoning with that "frankensteined" comment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
LGD posted:Openly acknowledging and confronting bad/harmful ideas in the public sphere is a better way to deal with them than using the state to bludgeon anyone advocating them into submission, even if it takes longer. It ensures that ideas we adopt as a culture have legitimacy and have lasted through their strongest possible critiques, and it means that advocates of currently unpopular positions have a reason to continue engaging with the system and society at large rather than turning to other means (i.e. violence). I disagree. I think the marketplace of ideas is a fallacy, good ideas do not necessarily drive out bad, and people don't hold ideas because they see they've won out through logical debate and critique.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
LGD posted:They miss it because it's not actually true, and pretending otherwise is dishonest. Such laws are not designed to directly persuade people, but that doesn't mean they're not designed to enact social change (or, more frequently, social stasis). Minorities aren't legislatively granted dignity, the laws operate by retroactively punishing anyone found to have made statements demonstrating unacceptable opinions. Minorities are only granted protection from having to hear hostile opinions by using an implicit threat of force to cow any person or organization that bears them animus into silence. A law that declares certain thoughts unacceptable to voice (and by extension unacceptable to hold) can't have any purpose except enforcing a certain social programme. The US already does that. What would be the additional harm in extending "you can't advocate to destroy the US government" to "you can't advocate to destroy gay people"?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Also no you can reject the marketplace of ideas and not reject our modern system of governance because we are not an Athenian democracy for that very reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
I like the thread title because it correctly suggests that one of the goals of hate speech is to marginalize and drown out the free speech of its targets. For this reason people that cherish the free exchange of ideas should oppose the proliferation of hate speech and support government policies that curb it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 03:42
|
|