First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply No to Free Speech with Social Justice?
Sogno- 
45726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16

pansyforyourthoughts wrote:

Here you go: .


that's cute
18906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/30/16
First...
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves”
― Abraham Lincoln
Then,
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Finally,
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
― Thomas Jefferson

munruo 
65 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16
Freedom without equality is the dumb backwards path towards pretending you haven't always been free that never succeeds until it succeeds for all. Any discussion or wording can become a foundation for a re-beginning point in evaluation of anything. Laws be imaginarily made for anyone that believes in them also work much like the problem with patents occurring, creativity blocks.
Any engineer now has to, if they stick a broken system, avoid the pitfalls of all the patents that are becoming more and more oppressively restricting shapes that one may use in their designs, like smart phone shapes. This occurring with language has been around ever since anyone began telling you language. While feeding others their language has become a foundation point that keeps societies together, before that individuals knew that language is creativity itself. Feeding others language has also begun to use hidden meaning to convince individuals to suffer in order to figure out the lacking awareness that is in the language being fed. While this helps keep individuals in denial of the lies they must overcome to freedom, in the engineering field it is still obvious that creativity is literally being attacked for all.
Won't ever matter which topic, which idea, or anything anyone ever says new language is apart of our evolution. Giving individuals words to speak also is apart of individuals being so unhappy with themselves they seek trans-paths. Free language means the end of rule, or overcoming all delusions.
There is not a country that is actually free nor has any country been made yet that is free, this is still a possibility for countries to manifest only by ceasing to tell others anything other than knowledge is free because knowledge is us and any control of anyone is an attempt to stagnate all creativity for everyone. Freeing individuals to understand they are knowledge also means the last country, like America began a trend to ending rule it has never been a country that spreads freedom, only a slave system that claims freedom. Freedom doesn't cost anyone anything, its end of cost.
6646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 10/30/16
I fully believe that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. However I do agree with what the professor is saying. And if the bill would simply criminalize acts of violence or actual discrimination against people confused about their gender I would support it.

But like he said the bill goes too far I think and intrudes into language regulation. Given these people are trying to increase pronouns from a reasonable 3 (he, she, it) to like 50 (hyperbolic, but possibly true) made up words and conceptions with no logical or consistent basis for their use (some people even want to be called he one day and she the other) it is a reasonable concern that is ripe for exploitation by the perpetually angry SJWs.

I am not aware of any Canadian workplace protections for political speech in regards to employment laws. There are a few US states that have laws protecting workers from firing or other consequences because of political speech. Could be something to consider for future legislation.
1152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Spokane, Washingt...
Offline
Posted 10/30/16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGpZSefYvwM

When this smokin fine damsel can do what she just did so easly, ya kinda wonder how much power they have in canada.

Sad thing is, although I do agree with the social justice stuff, I don't agree with how far and rediculious they have taken it.

I hope that America doesn't get so sjw heavy that they accually try to remove the term mother and father from legal documenting and replacing it with such forced terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzKHSIkA7VY
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/30/16 , edited 10/30/16

ClothStatue wrote:


That's absolutely NOT my argument. My argument is that there should be freedom of speech with the government.

Individual organizations and businesses CAN and DO have their own set of ethics and what is and is not appropriate.

What I am saying is that the government should not make a law saying offensive shit.


Which is all well and good but say you're any form of lgbt in a deep red, super anti-lgbt state, with no means to leave. If people cry "free speech" as a method to refuse service to you, and it's the whole town, what do you do, especially if the vast majority of the country agrees to said policies. My whole argument is simply as a democracy we make laws with through a moral consensus, we compromise and we discuss. There is no such thing as a non-moral law, so if the guy in OP's video disagrees with the non discrimination policy, but most people disagree with him and what those laws in place, as long as those laws do not take away a person's right to free speech, which just ensures the government can't arrest or otherwise detain you for what you say, I do not see why we cannot make such laws. We can still overturn them later with enough public support, we can still petition, heck we can sue a law if we think it's that unconstitutional and if it goes up to the supreme court then they'll put it to rest.

Either way, I'm afraid I'm long out of time to keep debating today. For now I'll just agree to disagree with what we disagree with.

Oh and I just wanted to tell everyone in the debate, that I apologize if I offend or come off as rude or heated, text can be easily misinterpreted, so when it comes to discussions like this I understand it is easy for assertions to feel like they carry a lot of passion with them, but this is not the case. Thank you to everyone who took the time to debate with me. ^.^


And I'm saying that this is just about bullshit. I live in one of the most bible-thumping (and not even the love part) parts of deep east Texas. Our County Judge's daughter is a very open lesbian, walks around town arm in arm with her girlfriends (had a few), and she is active in politics like her mom and owns a prominent business in town. No one refuses any service to anyone around here for such things. BUT, guess what, there are a shit ton of ignorant assholes who say fucked up shit to her and about her, exercising their free speech. In turn, she exercises hers by telling them to get bent. You know why, because she's smart enough to realize that words don't mean a fucking thing.

Life's not fair, grow thicker skin, and grow the fuck up. (not directed at you, but everyone who's so fucking sensitive they think the law should prevent others from saying mean things to them.)

And guess what, the last time I heard about any refusal of service was from wedding photographers and they got their ass sued off.

Basically what I'm saying is: BULLSHIT. You have every right to be an asshole, as much as everyone else.

Should you be an asshole? NO, but you should grow up enough to deal with them.


Itxtli 
119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16
The Bill itself seem reasonable from what I'm reading on the internetzzz (maybe it's not the right one?), but while I may disagree with the prof, at least in America, freedom of speech matters regardless of opinion.
I personally dislike regressive leftist and bigoted conservatives, they're one of the same.
3415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:
she's smart enough to realize that words don't mean a fucking thing.
They can mean a lot, even about life or death.
To yes.. meaning or got no value.

But good speeches can always effect the outcome in a election like Obama "YES, we can!" or phrases like that.
Like martin luther king jr and his speeches was quite the proud moments and support for the people.
Even if there is much the words can not do.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16
I don't think anyone really understands the freedom of speech and the definition of restraint.

The dark web beckons for your visit.



I should clarify that such a bill is an excessive and unreasonable call for restraint---hmmm...really depends on how they enforced it. As it stands, currently, it's not very clear. I have the same concerns as Ravenstein regarding demands for other pronouns.
24690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

ClothStatue wrote:


While I'm not sure if I'd consider calling someone a piece of shit to their face something that should be protected speech, it still seems obvious that silencing that speech by threat of arrest or by threat of being fired are both equally an infringement. It seems like you're having trouble grasping the concept that there might be an underlying principle involved here. A good democracy is more than just the whims of the mob, and one's rights are more than just the privileges one is allotted by the state.


Underlying principles of a society are, again, what we interpret what kind of country we should be. A 'good' democracy is left up to the citizens to decide. Our constitution and other documents by the founding fathers were intended to be interpreted and thorough interpretation and our own moral consensus we create laws. You're were saying free speech and now you're saying protected speech, those are two very different implications.


A good democracy will be designed so as to prevent the whims of the mob from trampling over the rights of their fellow citizens. If you on behalf of the mob want to rewrite the rules so that the mob is allowed to do all the trampling it likes, I'm glad you don't hold elected office.

Laws on free speech include a concept of "protected speech". The fact that there's more than one concept here doesn't invalidate the idea of a legal concept having underlying principles. Or the idea that people have rights.
35986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Online
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16

Rowan93 wrote:



A good democracy will be designed so as to prevent the whims of the mob from trampling over the rights of their fellow citizens.


Who is the mob? The people that just don't want to use made up 'gender pronouns' or the literal mob of mentally ill people demanding people use their 'pronouns' (xem xir xey etc) or face violence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-IFcCY0m3E

3415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

PrinceJudar wrote:
I don't think anyone really understands the freedom of speech and the definition of restraint.
haha XP

regarding demands for other pronouns.
yeah its stupid, even with the "to gain the rights of a human being"... lel

"Didn't you know I am a unicorn going for happy tree friends lecture?"
"But thats only for small "cute" animals!"
"Don't I look like a small F____ CUTE ANIMAL TO YOU???!!!!"

22136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16


And I'm saying that this is just about bullshit. I live in one of the most bible-thumping (and not even the love part) parts of deep east Texas. Our County Judge's daughter is a very open lesbian, walks around town arm in arm with her girlfriends (had a few), and she is active in politics like her mom and owns a prominent business in town. No one refuses any service to anyone around here for such things. BUT, guess what, there are a shit ton of ignorant assholes who say fucked up shit to her and about her, exercising their free speech. In turn, she exercises hers by telling them to get bent. You know why, because she's smart enough to realize that words don't mean a fucking thing.

Life's not fair, grow thicker skin, and grow the fuck up. (not directed at you, but everyone who's so fucking sensitive they think the law should prevent others from saying mean things to them.)

And guess what, the last time I heard about any refusal of service was from wedding photographers and they got their ass sued off.

Basically what I'm saying is: BULLSHIT. You have every right to be an asshole, as much as everyone else.

Should you be an asshole? NO, but you should grow up enough to deal with them.


First of all, this, along with you implicating that you do not find the past civil rights movements just by dodging my earlier question about past civil rights movements, goes to show you really don't understand civil rights in America at all. You say these things about your lesbian county judge's daughter as if they were always that way. Go back 30-40 years you could barely even find a job. You wanna know why so many transgender people, both adults and children, are in the sex industry? It's because they can't find jobs because they're routinely turned away because they have no protections to keep people from turning them away because of their gender identity. Gay people for centuries hid because they lacked any social protections and the moment you were outed to your community, you were screwed, no insurance, no employers, no associates, nothing. And if your town didn't kill you outright, you're practically telling someone to live in the woods. Until we made regulations telling people they couldn't block women from jobs for their gender, that happened in virtually every field. I think you fail to recognize how defiant and widespread bigotry was, and you take for granted the results of these non-discrimination laws, as if things were always that easy for minorities and women. If you think that your Texan people progressed enough for her to even live openly because they've always been that way, you are sorely mistaken.

Ah yes, they got sued. I wonder how they built that case... Probably because we deemed it discriminatory...

I agree that being offended is not a good enough reason to create laws, and maybe I will have to disagree on this part specifically with you but I do believe that as a democracy we can, following the voting system and without intervention of the court system, the government can place laws like a business can that are more widespread. I understand that such a thing can feel like a slippery slope, but segregation breeds violence, surely you can see that. If the law was made that forcibly arrests you for saying something, that's unconstitutional.

And if the majority rules to continue in any one direction, then so be it, as long as people are not excluded from the democratic process as protected by the first amendment, that's just how it is.

22136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

A good democracy will be designed so as to prevent the whims of the mob from trampling over the rights of their fellow citizens. If you on behalf of the mob want to rewrite the rules so that the mob is allowed to do all the trampling it likes, I'm glad you don't hold elected office.


Welcome to being a minority in the United States. And actually yes, our government without a balance of ideas is easily exploitable. Imagine if congress was a 75% to 25% split, there would be suffice to say, a lot of trampling going on. But if you cannot make laws by majority approval of some kind, how do you suppose we do? We have checks and balances to slow the process, and do our best to ensure reasonable passage of laws through many channels.
5962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/31/16
Prof's mistake was not waiting until he got tenure to post his opinion.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.