|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty? why should they be able to proclaim that someone else should eb denied theirs oh wait you don't answer questions, you just tell people they're wrong, never mind
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Sharkie posted: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. I don't think that current ideas regarding the basic humanity of people with different sexual identities/races will or should greatly change (an understatement, though I think how we think about sexuality will likely shift), the thing we're laughably wrong about from the standpoint of future society is something we're probably not even thinking of. The argument is about the process of public debate and the danger of allowing anyone to enshrine current modes of thought, even if we feel absolutely sure we're correct. 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). And as an aside, I think your post demonstrates why we shouldn't be so assured that we can make these judgments about what should and shouldn't be protected- one of the categories you list as wanting to protect is a religion! No matter how much you may want to protect a vulnerable minority from undue animus, a religion is something that, within the context of a culture, carries certain ideological/behavioral/factual/ethical commitments, which all may or may not be harmful. Those are not things that should ever be off the table as subjects for public discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty? why should somebody get the protection of the law to make calls to deny other life and liberty? youre replying to maxim of "the right to swing your fist ends at your neighbors nose" with "well what right does my neighbor have to put his nose in the way of my fist?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty? DeusExMachinima posted:Betterment of society from whose perspective? The people who genuinely believe it? Gravel Gravy posted:Any perspective. What political actions could reasonably taken based on the political idea that "gay people are abominations"? Still waiting, hoss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty? I believe you haven't answered my question. If you want to debate and discuss it might help to show more focus than replying to merely the latest reply. Here, a reminder: Tesseraction posted:Yes, I know the case. I'm asking what the political reasoning is behind calling gay people inhuman. If you don't know, and can't tell me, but still advocate the defence of it as protected speech, it comes across as an interesting juxtaposition of 'I don't understand what it means' and 'it must be fundamentally protected' which is insufficient rationale for a sensible position. Please consider why someone might do this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
op im gonna go ahead and say that sincere belief in a position like "kill the gays" does not make that position acceptable
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
LGD posted:I don't think that current ideas regarding the basic humanity of people with different sexual identities/races will or should greatly change (an understatement, though I think how we think about sexuality will likely shift), the thing we're laughably wrong about from the standpoint of future society is something we're probably not even thinking of. The argument is about the process of public debate and the danger of allowing anyone to enshrine current modes of thought, even if we feel absolutely sure we're correct. 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). Hate speech laws would generally cover the adherents to a religion but not criticism of the religion itself, an important distinction?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why does someone need to justify to you the subjective usefulness of their political stances in order to not be denied life & liberty? Well they probably wouldn't be denied life unless you make it a hanging offence which you probably wouldn't. And consider the rest of us being able to enjoy the right not to have to listen to people calling for the death of all the Jews. That'd be nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:why should they be able to proclaim that someone else should eb denied theirs Because they have an inalienable right to political speech. HTH. paranoid randroid posted:why should somebody get the protection of the law to make calls to deny other life and liberty? Because that call by itself isn't an imminent call for violence, ergo it passes the Brandenburg test, end of line. Ironically enough though I'd say the standard you articulated there rules out you calling for hate speech restrictions, since I see liberty as encompassing the right to publicly be a hateful rear end in a top hat. Good thing I don't think you should be thrown in jail for that, that'd suck if the country felt that way, wouldn't it? Gravel Gravy posted:Still waiting, hoss. Sorry, I missed this. I think you're setting the bar too high for what a political action is; they don't necessarily have to be someone getting discriminatory legal policy passed. Preaching on the street corner about how you shouldn't let you kids hang around gays is itself an example of a political protest, I'd argue. It doesn't necessarily have to translate into a discriminatory law in order to be inherently political. Personal conduct counts too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:44
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Hate speech laws would generally cover the adherents to a religion but not criticism of the religion itself, an important distinction? I don't think that's a meaningful distinction, since a religion is much more its practice than its theory. It's also unclear why we'd want to offer strong legal protections against criticism to people who voluntarily decided to join a group that espouses harmful beliefs simply because its a religion rather than a secular political organization. Do members of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church individually deserve state protection from "hate speech" because of their beliefs in a way that a purely political anti-gay group would not? Are members of a religion that promotes child brides people that should be protected more than NAMBLA?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well they probably wouldn't be denied life unless you make it a hanging offence which you probably wouldn't. And consider the rest of us being able to enjoy the right not to have to listen to people calling for the death of all the Jews. That'd be nice. So it's all about what's pleasant to you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Because they have an inalienable right to political speech. HTH. so because you're right, got it, thanks for contributing to this debate
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And consider the rest of us being able to enjoy the right not to have to listen to people calling for the death of all the Jews. Yeah no that's not what liberty means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah no that's not what liberty means. truly a stunning and insightful post, like all of your posts in this thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So it's all about what's pleasant to you? Hey, do you have evidence that America is directly responsible for gay rights across the globe or don't you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
LGD posted:I don't think that's a meaningful distinction, since a religion is much more its practice than its theory. It's also unclear why we'd want to offer strong legal protections against criticism to people who voluntarily decided to join a group that espouses harmful beliefs simply because its a religion rather than a secular political organization. Do members of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church individually deserve state protection from "hate speech" because of their beliefs in a way that a purely political anti-gay group would not? Are members of a religion that promotes child brides people that should be protected more than NAMBLA? Do you not think there is a difference between someone giving a speech criticising the tenants of Judaism and someone giving a speech calling Jews subhuman? Likewise someone espousing criticism of Catholicism versus someone calling Catholics degenerate traitors who should be denied the right to own property?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Because that call by itself isn't an imminent call for violence, ergo it passes the Brandenburg test, end of line. Ironically enough though I'd say the standard you articulated there rules out you calling for hate speech restrictions, since I see liberty as encompassing the right to publicly be a hateful rear end in a top hat. Good thing I don't think you should be thrown in jail for that, that'd suck if the country felt that way, wouldn't it? i have a vision of you as a child in the back seat of a car hovering your finger an inch from your siblings nose and repeating "im not touching you" in a deadpan. your parents stare straight ahead and try not to acknowledge the situation because the prospect of listening to you scream about how you WERENT TOUCHING THEM WHY ARE YOU SO UNFAIR for the next 50 miles fills them with dread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So it's all about what's pleasant to you? I would go so far as to suggest that telling people advocating genocide to gently caress right off is Objectively Good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Am I on ignore with this chucklehead or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Am I on ignore with this chucklehead or something? if you notice, he's only responding to things that he can "shut down" with "well you see the first amendment" almost like he wants a discussion as much as the people in the gunthreads who claim to want to compromise actually want compromise
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:
Ideas are meant to inspire others into action or otherwise. If we are going to call it political speech then it should be somehow applicable in politics otherwise it's you're just disturbing the peace. So how are we to apply the idea that "gay people are subhuman"? There is a big difference between suggesting that "X is sinful/going to hell" and "X doesn't legally qualify as human".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
^^Ah, I think I see. As you are aware, strict scrutiny--which the 1A is subject to obviously--requires the government to take the least invasive method of restricting rights. Jailing or fining someone for speaking their mind is more invasive than a court preventing the enforcement of and subsequently striking down a hypothetical "gays aren't citizens anymore" law on 14A grounds.Tesseraction posted:Yes, I know the case. I'm asking what the political reasoning is behind calling gay people inhuman. If you don't know, and can't tell me, but still advocate the defence of it as protected speech, it comes across as an interesting juxtaposition of 'I don't understand what it means' and 'it must be fundamentally protected' which is insufficient rationale for a sensible position. gently caress if I know the reasoning, ask someone who believes it. I understand what it is though, even if i don't understand the "logic" behind it, and what it is is political speech. That's all I need to know about it to be satisfied that it deserves protection. Literally the Worst is probably going to come away disappointed because I think we both just see the other as having the burden of proof. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I understand what it is though, even if i don't understand the "logic" behind it, and what it is is political speech. So why is it political? What is the political goal they seek?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:gently caress if I know the reasoning, ask someone who believes it. I understand what it is though, even if i don't understand the "logic" behind it, and what it is is political speech. That's all I need to know about it to be satisfied that it deserves protection. Literally the Worst is probably going to come away disappointed because I think we both just see the other as having the burden of proof. Generally if we don't understand any constructive purpose for a thing and it seems like it would actively be harmful, the considered response is to oppose it. So like, I don't see what the point of "all gays are subhuman" is as a belief. I think it's probably bad for gay people to have other people yell that in the street, so I think it's good if we stop people yelling that in the street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:gently caress if I know the reasoning, ask someone who believes it. I understand what it is though, even if i don't understand the "logic" behind it, and what it is is political speech. That's all I need to know about it to be satisfied that it deserves protection. Literally the Worst is probably going to come away disappointed because I think we both just see the other as having the burden of proof. no, i see you as not actually debating anything at all and just shutting down arguments with "well i'm right" and calling people who disagree with you commies, pinkos, and fascists you can't have a debate and expect one side to do all the work bruh. if you want a debate, engage and i'll stop pointing out that you're a cowardly little manlet who posted a thread to insult people who disagree with him under the pretext of discussing free speech. if you don't, gently caress off with your bullshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Sharkie posted: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. I don't think I said it was all driven by rational debate- a lot of it is circumstantially contingent and the effective critiques are often emotional in nature (i.e. gay marriage and social acceptance of homosexuality did not come from a place of pure logic). But if you have any sort of faith in the notion that democracy can work you've pretty much got to accept that there is some sort of marketplace of ideas, and that over time the better notions do tend to win out over time. Otherwise what are we even doing as a society?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Literally the Worst is probably going to come away disappointed because I think we both just see the other as having the burden of proof. I, however, am not requesting proof; I'm asking you to think critically about something brought up in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hey, do you have evidence that America is directly responsible for gay rights across the globe or don't you? Sure, who started the gay club scene? Certainly not Europeans. They'd love to say they did but they wouldn't even have clubs if it weren't for African-Americans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
LGD posted:Otherwise what are we even doing as a society? Evolving under pressure towards good ideas like collectivism which improve our quality of life, and then backsliding constantly once the pressure is relieved. Broadly, anyway. SedanChair posted:Sure, who started the gay club scene? Certainly not Europeans. They'd love to say they did but they wouldn't even have clubs if it weren't for African-Americans. And technically there wouldn't be African Americans without Europeans so slavery is good for gay rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:no, i see you as not actually debating anything at all and just shutting down arguments with "well i'm right" and calling people who disagree with you commies, pinkos, and fascists I did demand the other side present evidence, you're correct. That's because the other side is the one wanting more restrictions. Now, if you really think it's on people to justify why something shouldn't be illegal I don't think there's much we're going to have to say to each other anyway. OwlFancier posted:Generally if we don't understand any constructive purpose for a thing and it seems like it would actively be harmful, the considered response is to oppose it. But I do oppose it... with more speech. OwlFancier posted:So like, I don't see what the point of "all gays are subhuman" is as a belief. I think it's probably bad for gay people to have other people yell that in the street, so I think it's good if we stop people yelling that in the street. Alternate reality religious right-winger OwlFancier: "I think it's probably bad for ARE CHILDREN to have gay people be allowed to be around them in the street, so I think it's good if we stopped that from happening." The possible benefits from restricting hateful speech don't tempt me remotely enough to crack the door open even a bit for the John Hagees of the U.S. Tesseraction posted:I, however, am not requesting proof; I'm asking you to think critically about something brought up in this thread. See my above response to OwlFancier. It's not a worthwhile trade-off/risk, even if I didn't give a gently caress about political opponents' rights on principle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:But I do oppose it... with more speech. And I would like to oppose it with law. Same way I like lots of other things to be opposed with laws. I would very much like to be able to shoot politicians I find to be absolutely reprehensible on the basis they're doing serious harm to the wellbeing of my fellow citizens, but murder is illegal, I don't consider this to be an unreasonable infringement on my freedom even though it does deny me a very effective method of effecting societal change, mostly because murder is far more commonly bad than it is good, same with calling for the extermination or complete social ostracism of entire swathes of people. I can't see much productive reason to allow that. DeusExMachinima posted:Alternate reality religious right-winger OwlFancier: "I think it's probably bad for ARE CHILDREN to have gay people be allowed to be around them in the street, so I think it's good if we stopped that from happening." The possible benefits from restricting hateful speech don't tempt me remotely enough to crack the door open even a bit for the John Hagees of the U.S. I don't think that I really need to be afraid of that, partly because that itself would come somewhat close to hate speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I did demand the other side present evidence, you're correct. That's because the other side is the one wanting more restrictions. Now, if you really think it's on people to justify why something shouldn't be illegal I don't think there's much we're going to have to say to each other anyway. i'm gonna utilize my freedom of speech to call you a pussy who's afraid of engaging in actual debate and would rather defend bigots calling gay people abominations over gay people who are treated like poo poo by those bigots who call them abominations
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Sure, who started the gay club scene? Certainly not Europeans. They'd love to say they did but they wouldn't even have clubs if it weren't for African-Americans. No, no, you must have misread me. I asked for "direct evidence" not "play 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon: Gay Rights Edition".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Alternate reality religious right-winger OwlFancier: "I think it's probably bad for ARE CHILDREN to have gay people be allowed to be around them in the street, so I think it's good if we stopped that from happening." The possible benefits from restricting hateful speech don't tempt me remotely enough to crack the door open even a bit for the John Hagees of the U.S. might as well just not pass any laws then i guess. lets all lie on the floor and wait for death to claim us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
I think the US could learn a lesson or two from freedom of speech bastion Uganda. Sure it's pretty awful but I'm sure there's plenty of opportunity for opposing views... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014 quote:The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (previously called the "Kill the Gays bill" in the western mainstream media due to death penalty clauses
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
i mean most laws are pretty terrible if you presume they exist in the context of some kind of alternate timeline where everyones so incredibly gormless that the protection of peoples right to not have a hostile living situation foisted on them by incendiary rhetoric can be twisted into "no gays in my neighborhood" without getting laughed out of a higher court
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Do you not think there is a difference between someone giving a speech criticising the tenants of Judaism and someone giving a speech calling Jews subhuman? Of course there is, I just don't think its a distinction people should be trusting the state to make (especially when regulatory capture is a thing). Was the dude in the first example literal Hitler, or was he someone who made an intemperate Facebook post because his only exposure to anyone Jewish** is a particular group of child-abusing Hasids in upstate New York that funnels money from their corrupt, labor-law violating businesses directly to a particularly violent band of settlers in Gaza? That's all pretty bad, based on actual stuff that really happens and is connected to a certain cultural/religious identity (though not so conveniently grouped), and impossible to talk about in terms of an abstract "Judiasm" (which will always be the most acceptable and intellectually rigorous version) rather than a particular group of people who are behaving quite badly for what they claim are religious reasons. There are all kinds of borderline situations, and given the historical track record of restrictions on speech (especially restrictions on speech that is insulting to religious adherents) I'm much more comfortable with the notion that the religious can be subjected to some verbal bile as a result of their beliefs without any legal recourse than with the notion that we'd have a government body monitoring the public to protect the religious from insult. **Also this example isn't the best because "Jewish" isn't a clear cut purely religious identity, but it was your example so I ran with it. Honestly it probably is clearer if we change "Jewish" to "Baptist" and "Upstate New York" to "The Deep South"- the other details would be about the same LGD fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i mean most laws are pretty terrible if you presume they exist in the context of some kind of alternate timeline where everyones so incredibly gormless that the protection of peoples right to not have a hostile living situation foisted on them by incendiary rhetoric can be twisted into "no gays in my neighborhood" without getting laughed out of a higher court I guess likewise if this includes arguments suggesting a change in laws will always lead to a hypothetical fascist government. Though I suppose at least Uganda does kind of exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I guess likewise if this includes arguments suggesting a change in laws will always lead to a hypothetical fascist government. I think the "slippery slope is invalid" arguments would be far more persuasive if: a.) pretty much all historical examples of speech restrictions weren't abhorrent b.) the U.S.'s policy on speech hadn't been created as a response to such past restrictions on speech c.) the better societal norms that people are trying to enshrine with speech restrictions now didn't seem to benefit so heavily from an absence of speech restrictions in the past I mean its maybe it really is different this time, but given the respective track records I know which horse I'd prefer to back. And in the case of a country like Uganda, I feel like I know which norm (free speech vs. restrictions on socially harmful speech) would be more likely to lead to the country deciding that killing all the gays maybe isn't such a swell idea after all
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:17
|
|