MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
I'm not sure how i feel about free speech in the workplace. if i was
out in the public and heading some kkk rally does my company have a
right to get rid of me if they don't support my views or they think i don't support theirs?
I wouldn't blame them for getting rid of a person like that but also
there seems to be a bunch of witch hunts that people enjoy.
We like to cancel people.
in my old town there was a witch hunt thing over google reviews and a
bar. and people ended up making up stories that the owner sexually assaulted people. people got together online and made up stories and
even went to the court about it when he was having a license review. I was even contacted online to make up a story and show up.
Some nuts were even saying the owner was going to poison them when he
had an event where he did free booze. That's just horrible and ugly.
i think the human race is basically at war with itself. our monkey
brains and human brains can't figure shit out. ---
Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm
Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.
I disagree. I think you misunderstand what Free Speech is for. Most
do.
I don't like the "hate speech is not free speech" argument, I think its subterfuge to block political opinion, but Free Speech is not about
your right to express yourself however you want.
People think that Free Speech is about you saying what you like. The idea, the supporting philosophy for Free Speech is the need for ideas
to be challenged, and for ideas to be challenged, then there must be protection for those challenging.
Free Speech is there to ensure that people are able to hear other
peoples ideas, in particular, those which challenge the established
norms, powers and are not the mainstream position.
The purpose of Free Speech, is to ensure that YOU can hear my argument
if you want to, and ensure that I can make my argument to those who are
a willing audience. If you are blocked from hearing arguments, you are harmed. It harms you more than me, because I already know what I'm
going to say, but you don't.
Flying a swastica says nothing. It is not an argument, not a
statement, and no one is harmed, or loses out on understanding a
contrary point of view, by not being able to see one. Not that I necessarily think that ban is right, but its ont a free speech issue really.
Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6830BF65.75018.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <682DD3E1.65473.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm
Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.
Free speech is when you can SPEAK or WRITE, but not express
yourself however you want. Is expressing yourself punching
someone in the nose? That is not free speech.
People think that Free Speech is about you saying what you like. The idea, the supporting philosophy for Free Speech is the need for ideas
to be challenged, and for ideas to be challenged, then there must be protection for those challenging.
I don't disagree.
Free Speech is there to ensure that people are able to hear other
peoples ideas, in particular, those which challenge the established
norms, powers and are not the mainstream position.
The purpose of Free Speech, is to ensure that YOU can hear my argument
if you want to, and ensure that I can make my argument to those who are
a willing audience. If you are blocked from hearing arguments, you are harmed. It harms you more than me, because I already know what I'm
going to say, but you don't.
Sounds like we are saying the same thing. You should have the
ability to express yourself with your words or symbols.
Flying a swastica says nothing. It is not an argument, not a
statement, and no one is harmed, or loses out on understanding a
contrary point of view, by not being able to see one. Not that I necessarily think that ban is right, but its ont a free speech issue really.
My point in using that example is that you and I might agree that
it's a bad thing to fly, but what about when 'pop culture' says
that my Christian flag is hate speech to a subset of the
population? I could argue all day long that Jesus is the
oppisite of 'hate speech,' but that won't change someone's
mind.
So the issue becomes, who decides what is free speech/hate
speech?
Foriest Jan Smith wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 20:38:47
Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.
I've always associated freedom of speech with government rather than a private company's response to your speech. I think to assume otherwise
is kind of silly. I'd be glad if such individuals honestly suffered the social consequences (social consequences are not covered by freedom of speech, merely retaliation by government).
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
"Hate Speech" is just a mushy, vague sentiment used
to blanket-ban and smear anything they don't want discussed. Its a rhetorical device, a language construct used to sway emotion, not a descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is "hate speech".
Exactly. I remember a few years ago when it was vogue to
describe something as a 'hate crime.' Isn't all crime
hate crime? You don't love your neighbor, so you steal
their property, burn their home, kill them, etc.
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6835DA59.75086.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <68313733.65564.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
"Hate Speech" is just a mushy, vague sentiment used
to blanket-ban and smear anything they don't want discussed. Its a rhetorical device, a language construct used to sway emotion, not a descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is "hate speech".
Exactly. I remember a few years ago when it was vogue to
describe something as a 'hate crime.' Isn't all crime
hate crime? You don't love your neighbor, so you steal
their property, burn their home, kill them, etc.
descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is "hate speech".
A lot of crime is senseless, and the attacker has no prior animus towards the
victim. We do distinguish that from premeditated acts, so "Hate crime" still
doesn't make much sense, except to elevate one type of person over another.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <683768B6.15401.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <68364A9D.65619.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: free speech
By: Boraxman to jimmylogan on Wed May 28 2025 08:48 am
A lot of crime is senseless, and the attacker has no prior animus towards the
victim. We do distinguish that from premeditated acts, so "Hate crime" still
doesn't make much sense, except to elevate one type of person over another.
the reasoning behind it is they want to punish people more for
targetting and attacking someone based on their protected class.
religion, sex, race, etc ---
targetting and attacking someone based on their protected class. religion, sex, race, etc ---
I understand the intent, it just doesn't make sense. If a black
person kills a white person because they are white, is that also a
"hate crime"?
I understand the intent, it just doesn't make sense. If a black person kills a white person because they are white, is that also a "hate crime"?
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
Exactly. I remember a few years ago when it was vogue to
describe something as a 'hate crime.' Isn't all crime
hate crime? You don't love your neighbor, so you steal
their property, burn their home, kill them, etc.
Arelor wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Also, a lot of things are defined as illegal just because it suits the government, but that does not mean they are immoral. For example, tax evasion in tax heavy regimes is an act of self-defense but they will
try very hard to convince the population that it is bad because it is illegal.
The intent of the law was that a crime was perpetrated on someone
*because* of their race or other protected status.
It's the difference between "let's kill this guy because he's an
asshole" versus "let's kill this guy because he's
black/muslim/gay/trans".
But, it can be loosely applied all too often - the same way everyone
except actual domestic terrorists can be called domestic terrorists.
Josh Bailey wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Gamgee to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 08:56 pm
I'm forced to have 'British' as my nationality as legally it is
correct. However i have the right to state my ethnicity as Welsh as
that is legally recognised and also biological fact as i am nativly
from Wales. One day an Independant Wales, Scotland, England and a
unified Ireland will happen and we will all be happy and free.
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 07:52 pm
Not all of this happened in Wales specifically though? Wales is politically separate from other parts of the UK in terms of Wales having its own
healthcare in Wales that is even more free than what you can get in England.*free
Is it wrong for me to have a 'slant' of prejudice against people of color because of my life's experiences? I'm pushing 50 and the experiences keep coming and are still occuring.
Josh Bailey wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:27 pm
You don't need to pay for prescriptions in Wales or Scotland unlike England where you have to.
Quoting Foriest Jan Smith to Jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: jimmylogan to Foriest Jan Smith on Tue May 27 2025 08:29:29
But on that same note I also don't CARE if they're being forced to
take it down. People like that should feel unwelcome to have those opinions, in my opinion.
Quoting Josh Bailey to Mro <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 04:15 pm
I do not identify as British or being from the 'uk' ewww. I am Welsh
only and we have freedom of speech more than any other country,
especially America and that is the truth in my humble opinion. Diolch
yn fawr
Quoting Josh Bailey to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Gamgee to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 08:56 pm
I'm forced to have 'British' as my nationality as legally it is
correct. However i have the right to state my ethnicity as Welsh as
that is legally recognised and also biological fact as i am nativly
from Wales. One day an Independant Wales, Scotland, England and a
unified Ireland will happen and we will all be happy and free.
Quoting Josh Bailey to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Gamgee to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:28 pm
I don't know how to quote tbh on here so i won't until i know how lol.
I'm ethnically Welsh and Wales is a country so i may be in the UK physically and legally a citizen iw ould never say i was from the UK.
It would be like saying i was from North America instead of saying
Canada, or USA or mexico.
Quoting Josh Bailey to Mro <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:27 pm
You don't need to pay for prescriptions in Wales or Scotland unlike England where you have to.
I don't know how to quote tbh on here so i won't until i know how lol.
Cougar428 wrote to FORIEST JAN SMITH <=-
Quoting Foriest Jan Smith to Jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: jimmylogan to Foriest Jan Smith on Tue May 27 2025 08:29:29
But on that same note I also don't CARE if they're being forced to
take it down. People like that should feel unwelcome to have those opinions, in my opinion.
I'll never be mistaken for a moderator, but I don't seem to be able to
follow your conversation. Your reply doesn't really contain any
context for me to grab onto.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It's also depriving the body politic of money that should be used to
provide for the common good, which is why it's bad.
That would only be true if we accepted that the government has a legitimate claim to authority, which is debatable.
ie. do you think it is ethical for a political party that got in power with 23% of the votes to build infrastructure which is clearly not
needed while politicians and contractors divert 50% of the budget of
each project to their pockets?
When people condemns tax evasion they do so based on the idealized
model of what the State is and what it does represent instead of what
the government *actually is* and how it behaves in practice.
Foriest Jan Smith wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: jimmylogan to Foriest Jan Smith on Tue May 27 2025 08:29:29
But on that same note I also don't CARE if they're being forced to take it down. People like that should feel unwelcome to have those opinions, in my opinion.
I'd claim that the claim to authority is valid, but grift, while
damaging isn't a reason to deny the claim.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
@MSGID: <6842C68A.37989.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <6840E135.1714.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
Re: Re: free speech
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Arelor
on Wed Jun 04 2025 05:13 pm
I'd claim that the claim to authority is valid, but grift, while
damaging isn't a reason to deny the claim.
It is easy.
In a modern nation-state it is understood that the legitimacy of
authority comes from the fact they represent the interests of the
people, who delegates power in the government. I don't agrtee but let's follow with the argument.
If a government does NOT represent the interest of the voters then you cannot say they are using the power the people delegated on it as intended. If they are outright abusing such power and not representing
the people then they don't get to claim they work with the authority of the people and therefore nobody must take their ethical claims
seriously.
MRO wrote to Josh Bailey <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Josh Bailey to MRO on Mon Jun 02 2025 01:23 pm
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Foriest Jan Smith on Mon Jun 02 2025 03:01 pm
Free speech or the world will collapse!
you're in the uk. what do you know about free speech
Josh Bailey wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 07:52 pm
Not all of this happened in Wales specifically though? Wales is politically separate from other parts of the UK in terms of Wales
having its own Government and Parliament as a devolved constituent country. We have healthcare in Wales that is even more free than what
you can get in England.
---
MRO wrote to Josh Bailey <=-
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Josh Bailey to MRO on Mon Jun 02 2025 01:23 pm
Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Foriest Jan Smith on Mon Jun 02 2025 03:01 pm
Free speech or the world will collapse!
you're in the uk. what do you know about free speech
Wow! MRO, you often (okay, USUALLY) post things I do not agree with. But in this instance....
TOUCHE!
Well played Sir! Well played!
Sysop: | xorek |
---|---|
Location: | Los Angeles, California |
Users: | 3 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 95:25:59 |
Calls: | 12 |
Calls today: | 12 |
Files: | 1,501 |
U/L today: |
2,952 files (526M bytes) |
D/L today: |
359 files (8,192P bytes) |
Messages: | 4,774 |
Posted today: | 1 |