|
Just make hate speech illegal like any other sane country
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
There's a spree shooting happening at UCLA right now. Was Milo's thing there today? I look forward to the reactionary response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Just make hate speech illegal like any other sane country We can't do that! We'd be hurting the feelings of poor, oppressed entitled white conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Just make hate speech illegal like any other sane country Or don't, because you can find examples of every country that has those laws using them to supressing dissenting opinions by the very minorities they're supposed to protect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There's a spree shooting happening at UCLA right now. Was Milo's thing there today? I look forward to the reactionary response. Amerikka lyfe: we react to school shootings as a form of particularly nasty weather.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There's a spree shooting happening at UCLA right now. Was Milo's thing there today? I look forward to the reactionary response. Uhhhhhhhh yeah actually, Breitbart is posting poo poo with today's date about UCLA being the last stop on his Dangerous human being tour and the protest activity that cancelled it. He was definitely there. Edit: it looks like the event was yesterday and also that Breitbart is not very timely with their reporting. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There's a spree shooting happening at UCLA right now. Was Milo's thing there today? I look forward to the reactionary response. gently caress really  i saw something about a lockdown on my phone, didnt see anything else.EDIT: apperently it was a muder/sucide. FuzzySkinner posted:I hate standing up for milo, and I hate standing up for anti-feminists. I somewhat agree with you, at least on the part where they should organize their own rally and speechs at the same time instead of going apeshit at milos dumb speech, because that plays into milos and the altrights hands. I dont however think orange girl did anything wrong. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Or don't, because you can find examples of every country that has those laws using them to supressing dissenting opinions by the very minorities they're supposed to protect. Yup and I prefer being able to identify these assholes in the open.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:Yup and I prefer being able to identify these assholes in the open. Yeah, then we can have Team Rape-should-be-legal and Team Are-you-loving-serious-right-now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I somewhat agree with you, at least on the part where they should organize their own rally and speechs at the same time instead of going apeshit at milos dumb speech, because that plays into milos and the altrights hands. I dont however think orange girl did anything wrong. i'm sure you know that entitled whiny right-wing white boys like milo get "triggered" just by people organizing counter-rallies and speeches and would act like such actions were trying to crash them anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I somewhat agree with you, at least on the part where they should organize their own rally and speechs at the same time instead of going apeshit at milos dumb speech, because that plays into milos and the altrights hands. I dont however think orange girl did anything wrong. The mere fact that feminists even exist plays into the alt-right's hands. It literally does not matter what they do, or even if they do anything at all, they will still use them as an excuse to bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
I really don't see what is wrong with civil disobedience. By all means, protest outside of his lovely venues parading all of his worst and most vile opinions. Block the doors with giant balls of students chained together. Videotape ever loving second of it and wait for the assholes to start throwing punches.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:Amerikka lyfe: we react to school shootings as a form of particularly nasty weather. Succinct as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Or don't, because you can find examples of every country that has those laws using them to supressing dissenting opinions by the very minorities they're supposed to protect. There are so manymore examples of people using free speech to suppress minorities though Face it guys, you lost your free speech privileges by letting stupid people make decisions
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:There are so manymore examples of people using free speech to suppress minorities though I guess you're right. After all, most European countries have hate speech laws, and they're all post - racial societies without a hint of racism in their politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The mere fact that feminists even exist plays into the alt-right's hands. It literally does not matter what they do, or even if they do anything at all, they will still use them as an excuse to bitch. That said, the majority of people protesting milo and company are incredibly bad at it, because the alt-right's foundations exist in the gaps unserved by Traditional, Serious, Protest. Calling him, and his ilk, misogynists/racists/whatever doesn't work because they're essentially radio shock jocks with some other gimmick on top of that. Call him a nerd, ask why his roots are always showing, and if he started wearing his shirt open because he was afraid everyone was going to realize he uses clip-on ties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:That said, the majority of people protesting milo and company are incredibly bad at it, because the alt-right's foundations exist in the gaps unserved by Traditional, Serious, Protest. Calling him, and his ilk, misogynists/racists/whatever doesn't work because they're essentially radio shock jocks with some other gimmick on top of that. Call him a nerd, ask why his roots are always showing, and if he started wearing his shirt open because he was afraid everyone was going to realize he uses clip-on ties. The Alt-right "debate" style is trying to drag everyone down to a Middle School level, then beating them with experience. Octatonic posted:Amerikka lyfe: we react to school shootings as a form of particularly nasty weather. I'm not sure it even rises to that level. At least after flooding, people demand we do something to help rather than give the good old "pray for the victims" platitudes. Geostomp fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
I think Simon might be onto something, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:The Alt-right "debate" style is trying to drag everyone down to a Middle School level, then beating them with experience. I actually can do that. They tend to be scared once I start mentioning Gulags.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Didn't the ACLU basically say that it's wrong to suppress hate speech (either with violence / authority), and the best way to fight it was to use free speech of your own to counter it? In general I find myself very skeptical of the rather extreme pro-free-speech sentiment that seems pervasive in the US. I feel like, as Americans, we're brought up with this idea that free speech is obviously inherently a good thing and that limiting it is a slippery slope to some 1984-esque dystopia, but I don't really buy that. Speech can cause very real harm, and I don't really see any practical difference between telling a rape victim she deserved it and slapping her in the face. I feel like our legal system should be fully capable of dealing with the context of individual instances of harmful speech and that punishing or banning certain things isn't going to magically lead to a world where people are hauled off to jail for an angry blog post. And even if it sometimes *did* lead to unjust punishments, isn't it still possible that the benefits of limiting such speech might outweigh the harms? Maybe they wouldn't, but I feel that it's wrong to treat "free speech absolutely must not be infringed upon" as some moral axiom. I think part of the problem is that a very large number of people (primarily white males) are in a position where there isn't any speech that can cause them harm, and they lack the empathy to really imagine what it feels like to be targeted by hateful speech. Since there are no insults that can have a great impact on them, they just imagine that it's the same for everyone else. From my own experience as an opiate addict (who has never stolen from or hurt anyone, aside from the emotional pain of my family not wanting to see me suffer), it is extremely painful to see how frequently people talk about how addicts are scum of the Earth, and I imagine it is even worse to have such words used against someone because of their sexual orientation or ethnicity. edit: I should mention that I'm not referring to citizens using violence against each other here. I can't really imagine a situation where allowing that is a good idea. I'm talking more about the government punishing certain types of speech (and maybe treating such speech as a mitigating factor if someone does use violence in response to it). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I guess you're right. After all, most European countries have hate speech laws, and they're all post - racial societies without a hint of racism in their politics. It's a step in the right direction rather than leaving it to entropy, which gets you people like Donald Trump becoming president
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:It's a step in the right direction rather than leaving it to entropy, which gets you people like Donald Trump becoming president Who isn't president. Let's compare that to the fact the next PM of the Netherlands Could be a man who has advanced banning the Koran.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Donald Trump isn't president and he's magnitudes more likely to sink the GOP than get elected. Try again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think part of the problem is that a very large number of people (primarily white males) are in a position where there isn't any speech that can cause them harm, and they lack the empathy to really imagine what it feels like to be targeted by hateful speech. There is a shitload of hateful speech targeted at white men... and I guarantee that a lot of MRA's are dipshits who think that rhetoric is aimed at them personally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:There is a shitload of hateful speech targeted at white men... and I guarantee that a lot of MRA's are dipshits who think that rhetoric is aimed at them personally. Right but I think the point is that society is structured in such a way that insults directed at straight white guys lack the weight of insults directed at minorities. Being called a honky isn't as impactful as being called a racial slur for black people. edit: Also just lol if people think that straight white guys have anywhere near the same hate, in either volume or intensity, directed at them as a random member of a minority group. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
A lot of this isn't about "free speech" though. It's students preventing horrible shits from not only expressing their views but it also prevents them from getting paid to express their terrible views. People like Milo or Condi Rice can be 100% terrible people and express all the hate filled invective they want. But having a university (or anywhere) give credence to those views by giving them a venue and paying them is just plain wrong. Let them chill out in a public area screaming their insane poo poo. That's fine, that's free speech. I wouldn't mind if someone used their own free speech to knock their teeth out, but they both ought have the freedom to do that. But getting paid and having a venue provided at the cost of students? That is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
I think that anyone wanting to speak at a public university should be required to have to do one hour of questions from anyone. Also why is he paid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Because the shitheel conservative students group that invited him used their ~*~ Title IX ~*~ funds to pay him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:There is a shitload of hateful speech targeted at white men... and I guarantee that a lot of MRA's are dipshits who think that rhetoric is aimed at them personally. Like Sharkie said, such speech carries little weight since it lacks the impact of speech targeted at minorities. Like, black people can call white honkies, but there isn't the same history (or capability) of oppression and violence there to back that up. There are a number of factors the contribute to the "effectiveness" of hateful speech, including stuff like power and how accepted by the public those views are (with something like addiction the latter is the main reason it is hurtful). While I'm sure that there are some MRA types who are delusional enough to truly believe that they're being oppressed, the problem there is more the delusion than the speech itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Was Milo the UCLA shooter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Slurs name power imbalances in a way that affirms the power the speaker has over the target. That's why people use them. It's also why you can instantly identify a useless one or an antiquated one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
But is cracker as bad as the N-word? It probably is. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Was Milo the UCLA shooter? Unfortunately, he wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Slurs name power imbalances in a way that affirms the power the speaker has over the target. That's why people use them. It's also why you can instantly identify a useless one or an antiquated one. Also succinct as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:In general I find myself very skeptical of the rather extreme pro-free-speech sentiment that seems pervasive in the US. I feel like, as Americans, we're brought up with this idea that free speech is obviously inherently a good thing and that limiting it is a slippery slope to some 1984-esque dystopia, but I don't really buy that. Speech can cause very real harm, and I don't really see any practical difference between telling a rape victim she deserved it and slapping her in the face. I feel like our legal system should be fully capable of dealing with the context of individual instances of harmful speech and that punishing or banning certain things isn't going to magically lead to a world where people are hauled off to jail for an angry blog post. And even if it sometimes *did* lead to unjust punishments, isn't it still possible that the benefits of limiting such speech might outweigh the harms? Maybe they wouldn't, but I feel that it's wrong to treat "free speech absolutely must not be infringed upon" as some moral axiom. Well I can think of a whole lot of practical differences between telling a rape victim they deserved it, and slapping them in the face. The right to free speech and freedom of association are pretty important, and that whole line of thought just seems quite authoritarian and naive, a kind of weird leftist revanchist fantasy that bad people can be purged from the body politic through a legalized consensus disapproval. Historically, this is not how these things go down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I'm sure that there are some MRA types who are delusional enough to truly believe that they're being oppressed, the problem there is more the delusion than the speech itself. The bigger issue, and the reason why hate speech laws wind up doing more harm than good, is that the courts are still full of white men, and a worryingly large number are probably going to end up being sympathetic to those arguments. Seriously, everyone here who thinks hate speech laws are a good idea, take 10 minutes and really think of the worst possible way they could be interpreted by a legal authority, because that is guaranteed to be what winds up happening sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:It's a step in the right direction rather than leaving it to entropy, which gets you people like Donald Trump becoming president But Trump's flavor of right wing populism is pretty well established in Europe already, so I'm not sure how that works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Germany gets along quite well and manages to be a free and democratic society, despite some of the strictest hate speech laws on record. Places like Turkey that abuse restrictions on free speech tend to have bigger problems so the challenges associated with restrictions in free speech are tied to other, anti democratic problems. Even then, it isn't always bad. Singapore absolutely uses hate speech laws in a political manner but even with those totalitarian abuses, Singapore is held up as an example of a a free country with many more rights than its neighbors. Even the extreme cases of abuse aren't that bad unless the situation is already hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Counterpoint: Germany gets along quite well and manages to be a free and democratic society, despite some of the strictest hate speech laws on record. Yeah I would say most Goons wouldn't be able to live three months in Singapore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Just make swirlies protected speech and it will all sort itself out
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:47
|
|
