First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply 73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For
runec 
40076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Rujikin wrote:
So you still lurk on these forums 18/7.


As I have touched on before I am disabled and have PTSD thanks to my previous career. So yes, I have a lot of free time on my hands.

Though 18 hours is still fairly generous given how little sleep I get around the night terrors. It's a bit closer to 20/7 to be honest.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
So you still lurk on these forums 18/7.


As I have touched on before I am disabled and have PTSD thanks to my previous career. So yes, I have a lot of free time on my hands.

Though 18 hours is still fairly generous given how little sleep I get around the night terrors. It's a bit closer to 20/7 to be honest.


You ever tried getting one of those really powerful massagers and just massage your back for a while till you dont want to move and just pass out the second you put away the massager?
27023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
Because of that, I can't actually tell at all what your position is on free speech beyond the fact that you think I'm a whiner, not from the actual words you're saying anyway, so could you perhaps clarify?

Also since you're responding to my words to the OP, I'll un-spoiler the comic I linked to as my actual response to the xkcd comic, for clarity.


Where did I imply you were a whiner? I think perhaps we're both unclear on each other's positions here(?).


When you talk about "when someone starts whining about their freedom of speech or censorship" in response to me suggesting our society has a censorship problem, you're implicitly grouping me in with the "whiners".


My position on the right to free speech is it extends as far as someone else's rights begin and that it likewise ends where inciting violence/hatred begins. Though for clarity I do not mean someone should face legal consequence for simply being a racist dickhead. If you hate the Jews, fine, you're an asshole but whatever. If you're publicly advocating for the murder of Jews on the other hand.

However, as far as censorship goes, there are legitimate reasons for censorship that are widely accepted in every free society. Are you arguing for an absolutist ( as in, all censorship bad regardless ) position on it or?


I'm inclined towards absolutism mostly because, well, I think the fact that you needed to clarify what you meant when you talked about inciting violence/hatred says something about how easy that sort of rule is to twist. If someone expresses support for an ideology that supports killing certain people - since you said Jews, let's say Nazism - is wearing a swastika armband "being a racist dickhead" or "advocating for the murder of Jews"? Anything we use to step on Nazis can be easily extended to the ideological bugbear du jour - Communism, Islamism, etc. - and the simplest way to avoid that is to have a very clear and solid principle like "censorship is always bad".

I mean, probably the human cost of making it legal to literally shout "fire!" in a literal crowded theatre wouldn't be worth it, so some restrictions, but enough people use that analogy to justify censorious BS that that's a "probably".

More important, though, are "social consequences" where people try to censor others by e.g. doxxing someone and emailing their boss to get them fired - when someone does these sorts of things but avoids breaking laws, we should at least recognize them as would-be censors, call them out, and not accept that damn xkcd comic as a justification. Sometimes people just cry "free speech" to whine against criticism, but sometimes people call their attempts at censorship "criticism", and that's bad too.
runec 
40076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/27/17

Rowan93 wrote:
When you talk about "when someone starts whining about their freedom of speech or censorship" in response to me suggesting our society has a censorship problem, you're implicitly grouping me in with the "whiners".


That wasn't my intention, I apologize. I see how it could have been read that way.

I was referring more to idiots crying free speech when they face social consequences like being fired, ostracized, booted off campuses or having their events cancelled at private venues, etc. You know, the morons you see yelling on TV about how their free speech is being violated because other people used their free speech to tell them to fuck off.

Which is the sort that the comic addresses.



Rowan93 wrote:
I'm inclined towards absolutism mostly because, well, I think the fact that you needed to clarify what you meant when you talked about inciting violence/hatred says something about how easy that sort of rule is to twist. If someone expresses support for an ideology that supports killing certain people - since you said Jews, let's say Nazism - is wearing a swastika armband "being a racist dickhead" or "advocating for the murder of Jews"? Anything we use to step on Nazis can be easily extended to the ideological bugbear du jour - Communism, Islamism, etc. - and the simplest way to avoid that is to have a very clear and solid principle like "censorship is always bad".

I mean, probably the human cost of making it legal to literally shout "fire!" in a literal crowded theatre wouldn't be worth it, so some restrictions, but enough people use that analogy to justify censorious BS that that's a "probably".


Rare is the rule of law that did not and is not still going through a gauntlet of evolution through debate and precedents. A rule is only as easily twisted as the legal system behind it. Absolutism in regards to censorship doesn't function for certain clear reasons ( yelling fire in a crowded theatre being the classic example. But also things such as obscenity laws and pornography. ). Democracy is a balance achieved through discussion and constant evolution.

Also yes, wearing a Swastika armband is being a racist dickhead and advocating for the murder of Jews. That's kind of the entire primary feature of the Third Reich. No one puts on a Nazi armband because they approved of Hitler's urban planning. Communism is a different beast as it has come in many different flavours and implementations. Whereas Nazism was a specific ideology built on Fascism with a pretty specific goal.

Islamism is pretty much right there with Nazism at this point. If you're walking around swinging an ISIS flag thats a pretty clear statement of position and intent. I would love to see how many people waving Confederate / Nazi flags complaining about free speech would be willing to go to bat for an ISIS rally.



Rowan93 wrote:
More important, though, are "social consequences" where people try to censor others by e.g. doxxing someone and emailing their boss to get them fired - when someone does these sorts of things but avoids breaking laws, we should at least recognize them as would-be censors, call them out, and not accept that damn xkcd comic as a justification. Sometimes people just cry "free speech" to whine against criticism, but sometimes people call their attempts at censorship "criticism", and that's bad too.


That's not censorship. The person who lost their job did not have their speech suppressed or prohibited. They are still completely free to express their speech. Losing their job is a social consequence of someone else expressing their free speech in response. If you get off work then immediately go out in front of your employer and start screaming about the Jews and get fired you're not being censored. You're free to keep yelling about the Jews as much as you want. But other people are free to not want to associate with you because of it.



Rujikin wrote:
You ever tried getting one of those really powerful massagers and just massage your back for a while till you dont want to move and just pass out the second you put away the massager?


If that worked I wouldn't need 3 different medications to keep me from opening my own wrists in the shower. ;p


7620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/27/17
A few of my own personal thoughts on the matter. The first is I think the poll is complete BS. anything less then 100% of Americans supporting the first amendment is garbage IMO. Now the details of what they perceive the 1st amendment... thats where I think numbers will be in flux. In my reading an interpretation of the first amendment I see freedom of speech as being very absolute, so long as it is not libel, slander, endangering national security, or inciting violence. That said there always a few minor exceptions(go tell the president to go f*** himself to his face and youll be in a windowless room for the next 5yrs with no trial to be had). That and Americans must remember that our freedoms were not free. Martin Luther was often the subject of legal, and societal reprisal for speaking on a subject that the majority was on the fence about or or against. To accept banning people from speaking at colleges funded by the US govt.(private business are fine) raises my blood pressure. I went to college to get a higher degree and get a more wide spread view of the world. Banning anyone who is not presenting lbel, slander, or directly inciting violence while claiming your about diversity and higher learning disgusts me. Thousands upon thousands of men and women have died against oppressive governments and dictators to alow us to speak as freely as we do.

On the same token if your about "free speech" you cannot really expect to go about whatever it is you believe without critique. President Trump has told more lies/exaggerations in his short time in office then any other president before him has been caught doing. He likely knows when he embellish and should accept criticism when someone calls him out on it. I believe alot of people just need to chill out and realize freedom of speech is a two way street. Runec and myself have gotten into a few disputes in the past sometimes we agree, sometimes I wonder how he/she could be such an idiot(joking.... joking sheesh). That said I enjoy the fact that on forums such as this I can be exposed to people's differing viewpoints and there is not a lot that can be done about it. To an extent freedom of speech governs itself right? If I say I hate everyone who isnt white, or straight(sexually not geometrically), or whatever its a very real chance people will not patronize my business, or associate with me publicly or socially. That doesn't mean I am banned from going places. As long as you dont slander, or incite violence directly("Kill all muslims", or "death to the fascists") say whatever you like. If everyone believes the left or the right I will know its time to leave the US as its become a dictatorship or the world has ended.
38305 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/27/17

Eighty-three percent (83%) think it is more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech than it is to make sure nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures.

Seventy-three percent (73%) agree with the famous line by the 18th century French author Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 10% disagree with that statement, but 17% are undecided.

Among Americans who agree with Voltaire, 93% rate freedom of speech as more important than making sure no one is offended. That compares to just 69% of those who disagree with the French author's maxim.


It looks to me like the results cited here say that even among those who support some restrictions on employers, landlords, public accommodations, and so forth to protect people from discrimination that support does not typically go so far as to entail support for absolutely restricting any and all speech that might offend anyone somehow regardless of its nature, scope, intent, or circumstances.

That seems obvious to me, and the results line up with my own observations.
81335 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/27/17
I am not sure what else can be said. Other than I believe that the majority of people are smart enough, NOW, to see bad ideas when they are presented. Let people speak and if they sound like morons people will just forget about them.

<_< then again maybe I give people too much credit.
8452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17

runec wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
When you talk about "when someone starts whining about their freedom of speech or censorship" in response to me suggesting our society has a censorship problem, you're implicitly grouping me in with the "whiners".


That wasn't my intention, I apologize. I see how it could have been read that way.

I was referring more to idiots crying free speech when they face social consequences like being fired, ostracized, booted off campuses or having their events cancelled at private venues, etc. You know, the morons you see yelling on TV about how their free speech is being violated because other people used their free speech to tell them to fuck off.

Which is the sort that the comic addresses.



Rowan93 wrote:
I'm inclined towards absolutism mostly because, well, I think the fact that you needed to clarify what you meant when you talked about inciting violence/hatred says something about how easy that sort of rule is to twist. If someone expresses support for an ideology that supports killing certain people - since you said Jews, let's say Nazism - is wearing a swastika armband "being a racist dickhead" or "advocating for the murder of Jews"? Anything we use to step on Nazis can be easily extended to the ideological bugbear du jour - Communism, Islamism, etc. - and the simplest way to avoid that is to have a very clear and solid principle like "censorship is always bad".

I mean, probably the human cost of making it legal to literally shout "fire!" in a literal crowded theatre wouldn't be worth it, so some restrictions, but enough people use that analogy to justify censorious BS that that's a "probably".


Rare is the rule of law that did not and is not still going through a gauntlet of evolution through debate and precedents. A rule is only as easily twisted as the legal system behind it. Absolutism in regards to censorship doesn't function for certain clear reasons ( yelling fire in a crowded theatre being the classic example. But also things such as obscenity laws and pornography. ). Democracy is a balance achieved through discussion and constant evolution.

Also yes, wearing a Swastika armband is being a racist dickhead and advocating for the murder of Jews. That's kind of the entire primary feature of the Third Reich. No one puts on a Nazi armband because they approved of Hitler's urban planning. Communism is a different beast as it has come in many different flavours and implementations. Whereas Nazism was a specific ideology built on Fascism with a pretty specific goal.

Islamism is pretty much right there with Nazism at this point. If you're walking around swinging an ISIS flag thats a pretty clear statement of position and intent. I would love to see how many people waving Confederate / Nazi flags complaining about free speech would be willing to go to bat for an ISIS rally.



Rowan93 wrote:
More important, though, are "social consequences" where people try to censor others by e.g. doxxing someone and emailing their boss to get them fired - when someone does these sorts of things but avoids breaking laws, we should at least recognize them as would-be censors, call them out, and not accept that damn xkcd comic as a justification. Sometimes people just cry "free speech" to whine against criticism, but sometimes people call their attempts at censorship "criticism", and that's bad too.


That's not censorship. The person who lost their job did not have their speech suppressed or prohibited. They are still completely free to express their speech. Losing their job is a social consequence of someone else expressing their free speech in response. If you get off work then immediately go out in front of your employer and start screaming about the Jews and get fired you're not being censored. You're free to keep yelling about the Jews as much as you want. But other people are free to not want to associate with you because of it.



Rujikin wrote:
You ever tried getting one of those really powerful massagers and just massage your back for a while till you dont want to move and just pass out the second you put away the massager?


If that worked I wouldn't need 3 different medications to keep me from opening my own wrists in the shower. ;p





So... I'd like to address a couple things in this. Not that I would say you are wrong Runec on couple points... but... I think there are some things to pull apart here and clarify upon.

1. You mention that if someone gets off work and then starts going full tilt neo-nazi in front of them they deserve to be fired.

One one hand, I cannot disagree. Fucker kinda deserves it. BUT on the other hand, I know from first hand experience that there are rules in place (at least in Canada) that protect a worker from being fired in such a manner because the boss doesn't have any control over your personal life up here. What you do off the clock is none of their business.

That being said,, going full tilt neo nazi in front of their face.... that's pushing it to a pretty ridiculous extreme. But none the less if you make it okay for a boss to have that kind of effect on your life just because of neo nazi's, well then get ready to start seeing them do similar things for lesser offenses or outright innocent actions.

My case and point in this is employers using facebook or other social media to fire their undesired employees.

We didn't put these rules of free speech (or in Canada, free expression) to protect the shittiest among us.

It's that the shittiest among us are the canary in the coal mine. When they start getting slapped around by others who act holier than thou over the basis of opinion (fact based or not), we should all be very concerned for our own rights and safety.

If you want a better look at the proof of this concept, just look up the entire history from start to finish of the USSR!

As Rujikin pointed out with the quote from Voltaire; It's not about protecting bad people. It's about using them as a shield from letting even worse people hurt you instead. Because anyone who would force you to think in a certain way is worse than ANY nazi. Group Think is evil think.

2. The Comic. Sure, people have the right to tell someone they don't like hearing anything from to fuck off. Won't disagree there.

But if you think the comic is right on this one though, well... it kind of sidesteps the real issue as well.

You can show someone you don't like the door, but your dismissal of them is not valid in any way if you did not give them the chance to make their point. To have their say. If you want to run them off the podium after the fact, by all means do. Show them the door then.

But not before, because to do so beforehand really is a trespass on their ability to speak freely, and when you do so to them, you do so to yourself as well as you set precedence for all those after you who think the same as you. You might think this is a good thing, but just wait for when you go to say something that should not be taken badly in any way, shape or form, and have it be used against you as if you are some sort of racist/sexist/classist, you name it.

If the label sticks, then so be it. But people like yourself who think this comic has it completely right need to reassess how you approach this situation. Because by allowing people to dismiss others based off of only disagreement of opinion, you are again, no better than some of the most racist and sexist people out there who won't have anything to do with the truth when it slaps them in the face.

You are the same. Just of different shade of grey.

3. The bit about medication and stuff.

If you seriously think your little joke about slitting your wrists is a-ok, then your opinions are not something you should be sharing. If you are so mentally unhealthy that you require 3 different medications to keep yourself from killing yourself, that's a huge indication to anyone with a healthy mind that your opinions should be avoided in full.

Where as before learning that tid bit I was willing to humor your opinion on things, now I disdain them because you are what the medical community would consider mentally unsound. Or unstable.

When you get your shit together in life and stop needing medication to not be suicidal, then come back and share your opinions. They might be healthier at that point. Until then though, please, keep it to yourself because you are not healthy enough to share your opinion.

4. If that frustrates you. Well, I just denied your free speech based on legitimate reasons like mental health. We do that in the world by the way. For good reason. Unlike just denying people their free speech based on opinions. in your case, you are unfit to share them in the first place due to your mental health.

You don't see asylum inmates sharing their opinions over political discussions in the real world do you? You might get an oddball now and then who gets internet access, but I can attest again to the system shutting that shit down real fast when they think it gets out of hand. Had an old roommate who was released from the asylum.

In his own words: "The mental health community wants inmates on the internet just as much as Nazi's want jews in their country." "Not because they would point out the deplorable conditions of their asylum, but because no one should be listening to the ramblings of a crazy person lest they be deemed crazy themselves."

-------------------------

So how about you worry less about the rest of the world that you can't fix, and worry more about yourself, which needs a lot of fixing.
runec 
40076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17

CrownedSonofFire wrote:
1. You mention that if someone gets off work and then starts going full tilt neo-nazi in front of them they deserve to be fired.

One one hand, I cannot disagree. Fucker kinda deserves it. BUT on the other hand, I know from first hand experience that there are rules in place (at least in Canada) that protect a worker from being fired in such a manner because the boss doesn't have any control over your personal life up here. What you do off the clock is none of their business.


Yes and no. We have better worker protections in Canada, yes. But we also have hate speech laws so no. Also, neither of those do you much good if your employee contract has any clauses regarding your off the clock conduct. Case in point: Many years back I had a coworker who was fired over her blog. Because she was going to her blog and essentially dressing down her boss and her manager as assholes day in and day out.

If what you do off the clock reflects back on your employer then they're going to have something to say about it.




CrownedSonofFire wrote:You can show someone you don't like the door, but your dismissal of them is not valid in any way if you did not give them the chance to make their point. To have their say. If you want to run them off the podium after the fact, by all means do. Show them the door then.


Actually no, the right to free speech does not guarantee you the right to an audience. An opinion does not have value by virtue of simply being an opinion. You're under no obligation whatsoever to listen to someone even if they have the right to say whatever they want. If people want to listen to you, they will. If they don't, they won't. But they have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to listen in the first place. That is not a different shade of grey.

As for the comic, it is defining what the actual right to free speech is in the US. As opposed to what some people imagine it to be.




CrownedSonofFire wrote:3. The bit about medication and stuff.

If you seriously think your little joke about slitting your wrists is a-ok, then your opinions are not something you should be sharing. If you are so mentally unhealthy that you require 3 different medications to keep yourself from killing yourself, that's a huge indication to anyone with a healthy mind that your opinions should be avoided in full.

Where as before learning that tid bit I was willing to humor your opinion on things, now I disdain them because you are what the medical community would consider mentally unsound. Or unstable.

When you get your shit together in life and stop needing medication to not be suicidal, then come back and share your opinions. They might be healthier at that point. Until then though, please, keep it to yourself because you are not healthy enough to share your opinion.


On behalf of myself and everyone else who suffers from or has suffered from PTSD, anxiety or depression you can fuck right off with this to be blunt.



CrownedSonofFire wrote:4. If that frustrates you. Well, I just denied your free speech based on legitimate reasons like mental health. We do that in the world by the way. For good reason. Unlike just denying people their free speech based on opinions. in your case, you are unfit to share them in the first place due to your mental health.


All you did was try to make a point in the most assholish way possible on a topic you don't appear to understand in the slightest if you think that anxiety/depression disorders belong in an asylum. Let alone using someone making gallows humour on the internet as a point of judgement on such a topic.





8452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17

runec wrote:


CrownedSonofFire wrote:
1. You mention that if someone gets off work and then starts going full tilt neo-nazi in front of them they deserve to be fired.

One one hand, I cannot disagree. Fucker kinda deserves it. BUT on the other hand, I know from first hand experience that there are rules in place (at least in Canada) that protect a worker from being fired in such a manner because the boss doesn't have any control over your personal life up here. What you do off the clock is none of their business.


Yes and no. We have better worker protections in Canada, yes. But we also have hate speech laws so no. Also, neither of those do you much good if your employee contract has any clauses regarding your off the clock conduct. Case in point: Many years back I had a coworker who was fired over her blog. Because she was going to her blog and essentially dressing down her boss and her manager as assholes day in and day out.

If what you do off the clock reflects back on your employer then they're going to have something to say about it.




CrownedSonofFire wrote:You can show someone you don't like the door, but your dismissal of them is not valid in any way if you did not give them the chance to make their point. To have their say. If you want to run them off the podium after the fact, by all means do. Show them the door then.


Actually no, the right to free speech does not guarantee you the right to an audience. An opinion does not have value by virtue of simply being an opinion. You're under no obligation whatsoever to listen to someone even if they have the right to say whatever they want. If people want to listen to you, they will. If they don't, they won't. But they have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to listen in the first place. That is not a different shade of grey.

As for the comic, it is defining what the actual right to free speech is in the US. As opposed to what some people imagine it to be.




CrownedSonofFire wrote:3. The bit about medication and stuff.

If you seriously think your little joke about slitting your wrists is a-ok, then your opinions are not something you should be sharing. If you are so mentally unhealthy that you require 3 different medications to keep yourself from killing yourself, that's a huge indication to anyone with a healthy mind that your opinions should be avoided in full.

Where as before learning that tid bit I was willing to humor your opinion on things, now I disdain them because you are what the medical community would consider mentally unsound. Or unstable.

When you get your shit together in life and stop needing medication to not be suicidal, then come back and share your opinions. They might be healthier at that point. Until then though, please, keep it to yourself because you are not healthy enough to share your opinion.


On behalf of myself and everyone else who suffers from or has suffered from PTSD, anxiety or depression you can fuck right off with this to be blunt.



CrownedSonofFire wrote:4. If that frustrates you. Well, I just denied your free speech based on legitimate reasons like mental health. We do that in the world by the way. For good reason. Unlike just denying people their free speech based on opinions. in your case, you are unfit to share them in the first place due to your mental health.


All you did was try to make a point in the most assholish way possible on a topic you don't appear to understand in the slightest if you think that anxiety/depression disorders belong in an asylum. Let alone using someone making gallows humour on the internet as a point of judgement on such a topic.







Comic: It's precisely because of people who think like you on this that led to how the gulags ended up in soviet russia. Do your homework before you preach. Free speech means exactly as Voltaire put it, and nothing else.

Mental health: The guy who was released from the asylum that I mentioned, we will call him Ryan. Ryan was admitted FOR anxiety and ptsd problems. His mother was a real fucking whack job and did a real good number on him. So I do have a good understanding of what kind of mindset is going on here as I was one of his only friends when he got out of the asylum.
He was healthy enough to understand that his brain was in no condition to be making sound decisions while he was in or out of the asylum due to his current state AND the medications they had him on. Not only that but he was constantly concerned with the doctors insistence that he use Clomazapam. (If I spelled it wrong, I'm sorry) It basically makes you feel drunk if you follow it to the dosage that his release was mandatory under. So he would take that and then drink because he already felt drunk. Now, I am sure that you probably aren't taking the same medication I would hope. But I also have experience with a extended family member on all sorts of anti-depressents. We'll call her Betty. Betty takes everything is the common joke. Or did. She's finally getting off most of it. But still takes a few. Her favorite back in the day was Prozak (sp?). I haven't kept up on exactly what she takes as she's rather guarded about it. But we can tell when the doc has given her new meds. She's suicidal due to extreme depression. But she's also the child of parents who drank HEAVILY, so I am sure that has some factor in it. Either way, she doesn't vote. Why? Usually too stoned off her gourd too from the drugs she does still take from her doc. Ryan always wanted to vote, and we would talk about certain things from time to time, but even he admitted to me one day that due to how drunk he is all the time he can't rightfully say he can make a sound decision.

But hey, I am sure your doc isn't giving you anything that might you intoxicated at all right? Because you know, intoxicated minds always make the best decisions.


Which leads me to the last part.

You say:

"All you did was try to make a point in the most assholish way possible on a topic you don't appear to understand in the slightest if you think that anxiety/depression disorders belong in an asylum. Let alone using someone making gallows humour on the internet as a point of judgement on such a topic. "

Well...

Quite frankly, I wouldn't have been able to make that point in the assholish way you mention if you did not offer up the information to begin with.

If you somehow figured offering it up would somehow intersect you into being more important in the conversation, well I hate to break it to you, but that shit is again, exactly the kind of shit that led to the gulags of Russia, and I won't be having any of it!

IF you really are of that mental state, and need those medications, I applaud you for taking them and not fighting your doctor like I have known others too aside from Betty and Ryan. But I only ask that you seriously reconsider if you would make the same decisions while off those medications and of a stable mind where you don't need the medications.

If you are honest with yourself, you will likely find you will end up disagreeing with yourself after the fact. Maybe even agreeing in some cases. But the medications we take and the drug we take have a very clear affect on our decision making capabilities. Not even a pot smoker can deny that, so don't even try.

That's not to say that it's all necessarily detrimental. I mean, you take those to keep from killing yourself. That's great!

But your mind was at such a place that it needed medication to fix the problem.

When it comes to things like this, I am reminded of old quotes about hypocrisy and fixing ones own house before pointing the flaws out in anothers. You will likely be tempted to say this back at me, but the whole point here is that in comparison, my mind is healthy- er... maybe. Than yours, because I don't need medication to keep from being suicidal. You do.

I think that's a fair comparison.

And quite frankly, the current groupthink of the world as per the internet culture at least is to silence those who would disagree with the common consensus even though the very basis of scientific progress, what they champion, REQUIRES that you be able to challenge the common consensus. For that you need as unfiltered free speech as possible. Yes, it has major inconveniences, but the alternative is sending us all into the neo-gulags of the future for thinking wrong.

If you cannot make the connection between these things and also think of it as a fair comparison instead of just calling me an asshole for making a very valid point, then I rest on my assessment that you are not of fit mind to make good decisions.

I don't care what part of the political spectrum you might sit on (though it is fairly obvious) your mind is not healthy if you think I am an asshole, for being correct.
runec 
40076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17

CrownedSonofFire wrote:
Comic: It's precisely because of people who think like you on this that led to how the gulags ended up in soviet russia. Do your homework before you preach. Free speech means exactly as Voltaire put it, and nothing else.


It's...precisely because of the 1st Amendment people ended up in gulags?




CrownedSonofFire wrote:Mental health: The guy who was released from the asylum that I mentioned, we will call him Ryan. Ryan was admitted FOR anxiety and ptsd problems. His mother was a real fucking whack job and did a real good number on him. So I do have a good understanding of what kind of mindset is going on here as I was one of his only friends when he got out of the asylum.


You're actually going to claim that knowing one person with PTSD issues makes you an expert on PTSD? Especially to the point of diagnosing a stranger over the internet for making a dark joke?




CrownedSonofFire wrote:He was healthy enough to understand that his brain was in no condition to be making sound decisions while he was in or out of the asylum due to his current state AND the medications they had him on. Not only that but he was constantly concerned with the doctors insistence that he use Clomazapam. (If I spelled it wrong, I'm sorry) It basically makes you feel drunk if you follow it to the dosage that his release was mandatory under.


Clonazepam is a straight up tranquilizer. I would be concerned if it was prescribed to me for any length of time as well. That's the sort of thing they would give someone having a manic episode or a psychotic break. Are you sure this friend of yours isn't actually bipolar as well?



CrownedSonofFire wrote:But hey, I am sure your doc isn't giving you anything that might you intoxicated at all right? Because you know, intoxicated minds always make the best decisions.


You really do not understand what you're talking about. You're also implying my judgement is impaired because you disagree with me on the internet?




CrownedSonofFire wrote:Quite frankly, I wouldn't have been able to make that point in the assholish way you mention if you did not offer up the information to begin with.

If you somehow figured offering it up would somehow intersect you into being more important in the conversation, well I hate to break it to you, but that shit is again, exactly the kind of shit that led to the gulags of Russia, and I won't be having any of it!


I "offered it up" because Ruji was being an arse. Our exchange had nothing to do with the topic. You're the one that brought it up in the context of this discussion. I fail to see how me responding to Ruji's prodding was an attempt at being more important in a conversation we were not even having yet.



CrownedSonofFire wrote:IF you really are of that mental state, and need those medications, I applaud you for taking them and not fighting your doctor like I have known others too aside from Betty and Ryan. But I only ask that you seriously reconsider if you would make the same decisions while off those medications and of a stable mind where you don't need the medications.


You realize you've reached a point of total absurdity where you're suggesting my differing opinion on free speech is due to medication, right?



CrownedSonofFire wrote:
I don't care what part of the political spectrum you might sit on (though it is fairly obvious) your mind is not healthy if you think I am an asshole, for being correct.


I thought you were an asshole because you were trying to use someone's mental health against them over a disagreement of opinion. Without knowing any of the specifics of said health or even much about mental health as a whole as evidenced by your own statements. That you went further and tried to imply that somehow a differing opinion from yours was the result of medical intoxication was likewise an asshole thing to do.





27023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17

runec wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
I'm inclined towards absolutism mostly because, well, I think the fact that you needed to clarify what you meant when you talked about inciting violence/hatred says something about how easy that sort of rule is to twist. If someone expresses support for an ideology that supports killing certain people - since you said Jews, let's say Nazism - is wearing a swastika armband "being a racist dickhead" or "advocating for the murder of Jews"? Anything we use to step on Nazis can be easily extended to the ideological bugbear du jour - Communism, Islamism, etc. - and the simplest way to avoid that is to have a very clear and solid principle like "censorship is always bad".

I mean, probably the human cost of making it legal to literally shout "fire!" in a literal crowded theatre wouldn't be worth it, so some restrictions, but enough people use that analogy to justify censorious BS that that's a "probably".


Rare is the rule of law that did not and is not still going through a gauntlet of evolution through debate and precedents. A rule is only as easily twisted as the legal system behind it. Absolutism in regards to censorship doesn't function for certain clear reasons ( yelling fire in a crowded theatre being the classic example. But also things such as obscenity laws and pornography. ). Democracy is a balance achieved through discussion and constant evolution.


Or, in other words, exceptions to free speech can be trusted as much as the government that gets that exception. One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens, and I prefer to extend as little trust as possible to thieves and murderers.


Also yes, wearing a Swastika armband is being a racist dickhead and advocating for the murder of Jews. That's kind of the entire primary feature of the Third Reich. No one puts on a Nazi armband because they approved of Hitler's urban planning. Communism is a different beast as it has come in many different flavours and implementations. Whereas Nazism was a specific ideology built on Fascism with a pretty specific goal.


There's a difference between someone trying on some jackboots and publishing a list of reasons the holocaust never happened but totally should, and someone who gets on a soapbox to try to get an actual pogrom started. Between someone who thinks in an abstract way that a murderous regime wasn't wrong, and someone who actually wants to kill some people in the short term. That's the only place that makes sense to draw the distinction; any ideology can be characterised as murderous if the enemies of that ideology get into power.



Rowan93 wrote:
More important, though, are "social consequences" where people try to censor others by e.g. doxxing someone and emailing their boss to get them fired - when someone does these sorts of things but avoids breaking laws, we should at least recognize them as would-be censors, call them out, and not accept that damn xkcd comic as a justification. Sometimes people just cry "free speech" to whine against criticism, but sometimes people call their attempts at censorship "criticism", and that's bad too.


That's not censorship. The person who lost their job did not have their speech suppressed or prohibited. They are still completely free to express their speech. Losing their job is a social consequence of someone else expressing their free speech in response. If you get off work then immediately go out in front of your employer and start screaming about the Jews and get fired you're not being censored. You're free to keep yelling about the Jews as much as you want. But other people are free to not want to associate with you because of it.


Do you know what "doxxing" means?
runec 
40076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17

Rowan93 wrote:
Or, in other words, exceptions to free speech can be trusted as much as the government that gets that exception. One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens, and I prefer to extend as little trust as possible to thieves and murderers.


In other words, limitations of free speech are reached through legal testing and retesting in a court of law to form a body of precedent.




Rowan93 wrote:
There's a difference between someone trying on some jackboots and publishing a list of reasons the holocaust never happened but totally should, and someone who gets on a soapbox to try to get an actual pogrom started. Between someone who thinks in an abstract way that a murderous regime wasn't wrong, and someone who actually wants to kill some people in the short term. That's the only place that makes sense to draw the distinction; any ideology can be characterised as murderous if the enemies of that ideology get into power.


I think Nazism is a pretty definitive example without any wriggle room. If you throw on that symbol you throw on everything it stands for. You can draw a distinction between really overt about it or not but the level of overt doesn't make you any less of a racist dickbag thats all for the death of Jews.



Rowan93 wrote:
Do you know what "doxxing" means?


Yes, I do. But you specifically said doxxing without breaking any laws. Which means someone was identified through publicly/legally available sources such as their public social media profiles.
Humms 
13193 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17
Oh look.... Statistics


The internet's best friend
100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 8/27/17 , edited 8/27/17
I am damned thankful to be an American at a time like this, what with all the social justice vs alt-right bullshit. I'm damned thankful that my Constitution was given a Bill of Rights that enshrined my freedom of speech and expression. I'm glad that I can speak my mind and find others sharing my views without being persecuted by tyranny.

I think that every modern nation ought to have a provision or amendment to the Constitution that permits all forms of free speech to be expressed without the violation of another person's rights, as well as the threat of government or societal crackdown.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.