|
Zzulu posted:My country enslaved more whities than blackies cry baby
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
A Stupid Baby posted:Let's all try to understand each other through the lens of science fiction and fantasy young adult novels this but unironically
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Your Dead Gay Son posted:Just maybe don't have a black guy who is the only character with a dialect in his dialog but for a great swathe of our history a large portion of black people spoke with a very distinct dialect. if you were writing about such a time period, it would be inauthentic not to attempt to reproduce that dialect in order to illustrate the cultural divide that existed between slavers and enslaved. why do you want to erase the historical experience of black slaves, are you a slavery apologist or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Your Dead Gay Son posted:An extreme overreach based on white people writing minorities or others as tokens or to hijack their own "enlightenment" when if you can write well rounded characters who gives a poo poo blacks cant be gonzo writers only women with dead gay sons and dads
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
I wonder how that writer of that piece would react to the Flashman books.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
I'm the person passionate about social justice but gets really uncomfortable with the idea of race mixing. Basically I'm Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali. Cigstomper58 fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:freedom of expression literally just means that the government can't punish you for saying stuff Yes yes, the same old "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private citizens or companies". Funny how this only comes up when it comes to people getting fired for saying things, but if Target starting staffing itself with slaves, somehow I don't think it would fly. Maybe, just maybe, freedom of speech is a human right, and we should all do our part to ensure that this freedom is not stolen from us by giant corporations or from one another. I believe that all people deserve a voice and all people can use that voice, regardless of whether I agree with what they say. By your logic, a business should be able to fire somebody for being Jewish, or to forbid employees from peacefully gathering in protests without any cause for umbrage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
'Bon Appétit' video of white chef explaining how to eat pho is cuisine Columbusing https://mic.com/articles/153733/bon-appetit-video-of-white-chef-explaining-how-to-eat-pho-is-peak-cuisine-columbusing#.7VtJgvOx2
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Yes yes, the same old "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private citizens or companies". Funny how this only comes up when it comes to people getting fired for saying things, but if Target starting staffing itself with slaves, somehow I don't think it would fly. oh my christ you are insufferably dumb and pop up in every thread like some horrible whack a mole game
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
I steer clear of these sorts of controversies by exclusively reading Warhammer 40,000 novels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
im gaye posted:oh my christ you are insufferably dumb and pop up in every thread like some horrible whack a mole game Turn your monitor on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
People always approach this argument on the grounds of free speech in the legal sense, but it is easier just to say that responding to 'microaggressions', committed with no intent to offend and no reasonable path to causing harm, by actually aggressing, with the intention of intimidating and ultimately silencing, is a bad thing to do and contrary to the goal of achieving a better society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:People always approach this argument on the grounds of free speech in the legal sense, but it is easier just to say that responding to 'microaggressions', committed with no intent to offend and no reasonable path to causing harm, by actually aggressing, with the intention of intimidating and ultimately silencing, is a bad thing to do and contrary to the goal of achieving a better society. except you also have posters that make up incomprehensible word salads about target using slaves while unironically name dropping voltaire and generally posting so badly your run of the mill, everyday autist (me) would still overdose on secondhand embarrassment
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Yes. There's this notion that there are "correct" and "incorrect" opinions. Some factor of people having unrestricted means to broadcast their opinion has led to a certain intellectual arrogance exerting itself as authority. No, you are not "correct" simply because you do not believe you have any racist or sexist beliefs, it is not "incorrect" if somebody makes a joke about black people or says they don't like Mexican illegal immigrants. These are YOUR beliefs versus THEIR beliefs and the First Amendment's entire purpose of existence is to establish that BOTH and ALL beliefs are permitted and allowed to be expressed. If you cannot tolerate somebody who has a belief different from you, how are you any different from those Christian Evangelicals you blame for destroying this country? How are you different from ISIS members decapitating Christians?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
A Stupid Baby posted:for more on this topic I would recommend "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain sorry my local library has banned this sick piece of racist filth
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:How are you different from ISIS members decapitating Christians? "social consequences" for speech most commonly means people responding to your speech by deciding they didn't like what you said and telling you so, and maybe after that choosing not to associate with you or, if you are a business or an artist, choosing not buy what you are selling. this is just as much a part of their free expression as the speech they are reacting to. it is not equivalent to any speech being "not allowed" do your really not understand how that is different from decapitating someone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:"social consequences" for speech most commonly means people responding to your speech by deciding they didn't like what you said and telling you so, and maybe after that choosing not to hang out with you or, if you are a business or an artist, choosing not buy what you are selling. this is just as much a part of their free expression as the speech they are reacting to. do your really not understand how that is different from decapitating someone? nah it means dogpiling and actively trying to ruin their life, and you know it. you just think you're on the "right team".
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
im gaye posted:except you also have posters that make up incomprehensible word salads about target using slaves while unironically name dropping voltaire and generally posting so badly your run of the mill, everyday autist (me) would still overdose on secondhand embarrassment Forums poster im gaye has difficulty understanding words longer than "gently caress". Apparently if you post longer than a sentence, you're making a word salad, not that I'd actually trust a goon to recognize a salad if they saw one. Earwicker posted:"social consequences" for speech most commonly means people responding to your speech by deciding they didn't like what you said and telling you so, and maybe after that choosing not to hang out with you or, if you are a business or an artist, choosing not buy what you are selling. this is just as much a part of their free expression as the speech they are reacting to. do your really not understand how that is different from decapitating someone? First, I was speaking to the attitude, which is that one person is right and one person is wrong and wrong opinions need to be silenced. Again, if the impact of making speech that people didn't like was solely just people disliking or objecting, that's perfectly fine. People ought to disagree with each other and challenge one another's beliefs. It's not okay, however, when this leads to people getting fired from their jobs because of twitter mobs, or people go around doxxing people for the purpose of trying to bring even greater public shame to them. I think that shunning and shaming people for expressing their opinions does not follow in the spirit nor particularly to the letter of freedom of speech. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
i dont get why you guys post on SA with avatars, you seem the type who should be on twitter angrily demanding that none of the awful pepe trolls be allowed to speak anonymously
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
i mean these people have the WRONG OPINIONS and we need to fix this because this election is SO IMPORTANT
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
8-bit you write like a video game vampire thats a bad thing it doesnt make you look smart
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:It's not okay, however, when this leads to people getting fired from their jobs because of twitter mobs, or people go around doxxing people for the purpose of trying to bring even greater public shame to them. I think that shunning and shaming people for expressing their opinions does not follow in the spirit nor particularly to the letter of freedom of speech. Hope that helps. I agree with the first part of this, doxxing and twitter mobs are stupid and counterproductive, but I was more getting at the idea that speech isn't free if there are "social consequences", when there will always be such consequences. But as to your second part, shunning and shaming are, themselves, expression. If you are an independent adult, the people in your life are entirely within their rights to choose that they no longer want anything to do with you, or to tell you that your opinions are terrible, etc. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:i mean these people have the WRONG OPINIONS and we need to fix this because this election is SO IMPORTANT Benevolent Fascism from future President Hillzz is very important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Yes yes, the same old "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private citizens or companies". Funny how this only comes up when it comes to people getting fired for saying things, but if Target starting staffing itself with slaves, somehow I don't think it would fly. lol he's saying that freedom of speech doesn't protect you from people calling you a retard, retard
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
I think the social consequences that usually trigger this discussion are more in the realm of large scale harassment, death threats and getting people fired, all conducted with an attitude of absolute moral superiority and self-righteousness. The reason some people object more strongly to this stuff is because they read from sources that point out that happens to completely innocent people with some frequency, and is perpetrated by people claiming to be progressive. Meanwhile the progressive side read from different sources which only point out when they are the victims of harassment, or else explicitly declares harassment to be worse depending on the identity of the victim. It would be nice if both sides could agree that harassing people is bad and condemn the behaviour regardless of the beliefs of the target. But one side attracts trolls who will do it because they know it is bad and like causing harm, and the other side has granted thought leadership status to too many people whose internet careers began by being good at cyberbullying to possibly turn back now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
i agree that twitter should be erased
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
im gaye posted:except you also have posters that make up incomprehensible word salads about target using slaves while unironically name dropping voltaire and generally posting so badly your run of the mill, everyday autist (me) would still overdose on secondhand embarrassment Lolol "incomprehensible word salads" funny how I understood literally every word of his post perfectly and it made complete sense hmmmm
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Lolol "incomprehensible word salads" funny how I understood literally every word of his post perfectly and it made complete sense hmmmm haha cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
if people use words i can't understand, that makes them dumb and stupid
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
satanic splash-back posted:if people use words i can't understand, that makes them dumb and stupid content can be incomprehensible/incoherent jfc
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
the post is perfectly comprehensible but it makes a faulty comparison because it relies on the notion that someone is making the argument "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private citizens or companies". in reality, no one made that argument. the actual argument refers specifically to the first amendment wrt freedom of expression, not the entire bill of rights, so bringing up slavery is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
if your post is so off the mark and inconsistent im going to call it incomprehensible so sorry pedants
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
you're off the mark and inconsistent
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
hey guess what most of the world doesnt give a hot gently caress about any of your amendments
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Doesn't the Bill of Rights not mention slavery?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Doesn't the Bill of Rights not mention slavery? 13th amendment
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:13th amendment Which is not part of the Bill of Rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
romanowski posted:lol he's saying that freedom of speech doesn't protect you from people calling you a retard, retard Don't be ableist, fuckboy! Earwicker posted:the post is perfectly comprehensible but it makes a faulty comparison because it relies on the notion that someone is making the argument "Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private citizens or companies". in reality, no one made that argument. the actual argument refers specifically to the first amendment wrt freedom of expression, not the entire bill of rights, so bringing up slavery is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights and all additional Amendments are of equal importance though. You can't apply limits to how the first amendment can be applied if you're not also going to apply limits to all the others. What I'm saying is, the logic isn't sound. You're saying that some freedoms aren't as important as others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
OP misspelled color
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The Bill of Rights and all additional Amendments are of equal importance though. You can't apply limits to how the first amendment can be applied if you're not also going to apply limits to all the others. What I'm saying is, the logic isn't sound. You're saying that some freedoms aren't as important as others. it has nothing to do with which freedoms are "more important" and everything to do with the actual text of the first amendment, which is specifically about types of action the government may take. That's explicitly what the amendment says. That the amendment does not address private citizens doesn't mean it is "less important", but it does mean that the amendment does not similarly restrict the actions of private citizens. Guy Goodbody posted:Which is not part of the Bill of Rights. well yes that is technically true in terms of nomenclature but the rights granted in the additional amendments are just as "real" as the first ten.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:44
|
|