Free speech and thinking or selective "sensivity"?

Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Alan Aspie, Jan 3, 2019.

  1. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't want a safe-space, so that's not an option. That's one of the many reasons why I despise those on the far-left.

    As long as it's not illegal, inciting violence, or making threats, I don't really care how "hateful" the speech is.

    One problem I became aware of is the fact that since this happens to be going one way at the moment, it's creating echo chambers. So alternative options would also become echo chambers but in the opposite direction (so, in this case, new platforms tend to be very conservative).

    Part of the reason for this is that not a lot of people were like myself and left Facebook and Twitter on principle. Most of the users who "left" didn't actually leave, but were forced off. Banned. (On a side note, the good news is this doesn't seem to be the case with Patreon, where people of all groups are leaving, most notably Sam Harris.)

    The only social media site I use is Minds, and that went decentralized and uses cryptocurrency, partly to avoid political pressure from credit card companies and banks. Anyway, that site has an incredible amount of right wing nationalists and the like. But there are also a lot of classical liberals like myself, fortunately, and libertarians, some moderate leftists, Christian conservatives, atheists, a-political artists and photographers and so on.

    But I would never deny that if you were to do a poll, as you mention, it would swing way right.
     
  2. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    911
    Location:
    London
    Genuinely confused now. You think Facebook, Twitter et al are banning conservative thinkers/thought-leaders/people for being conservative. You want somewhere where conservatives are free to talk about conservative things without needing to worry about getting banned or getting attacked by people saying they shouldn't say those things. That's the whole definition of a safe space. Somewhere it's safe to be a conservative. You said like three posts ago that the solution was to start a competitor platform, and it's one of the few things you've said I agree with you on.

    And I'm serious, both that you should do it and that I want to buy ads on it. There's been repeated threads on here recently about people worried that they're going to be banned for being right-wing despite the President Donald Trump thread existing, so there's clearly a market for somewhere like that. Conservatives feel threatened. Build somewhere they don't feel threatened. A space for them that feels, if you will, safe. Monetisation of platforms like that is pretty well understood now too, so that's a bonus.

    Capitalism, bitches.
     
    BayView likes this.
  3. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Likes Received:
    11,917
    So you don't need a safe space because you've found one. Cool.
     
  4. ITBA01

    ITBA01 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    Missouri
    The thing about these hate speech rules on Facebook and Twitter is that there's no consistency to them. You'll get people like Gavin McInnes (don't know a lot about him, so I'm not sure if he's as hateful as people say) banned, and yet people like Louis Farrakhan (a confirmed anti-semite) are allowed to spread their hatred of Jews. The only explanation I can think of is that these sites hold different groups to different standards.
     
    Foxxx likes this.
  5. exweedfarmer

    exweedfarmer Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2016
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    319
    Location:
    Undecided.
    If you have free speech, some will abuse it and shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If you have prohibited speech, you'll burn to death in the theater. There's a risk to everything.
     
    Cave Troll likes this.
  6. ITBA01

    ITBA01 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    86
    Location:
    Missouri
    There's far more risks to the latter.
     
    T_L_K and Foxxx like this.
  7. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    911
    Location:
    London
    But... it's fine to yell 'fire' if there is actually a fire. No-one's saying you shouldn't tell people about the fire. I'd go so far as to say you're actively encouraged to tell people if they haven't noticed the building they're in is on fire.
     
  8. exweedfarmer

    exweedfarmer Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2016
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    319
    Location:
    Undecided.
    If they yell fire and the listener doesn't panic, you're good to go too.
     
  9. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    The question mark suggests that I was asking a question. The question was: are you advocating that we restrict the free speech of people who, from your post...

    You seem to be objecting to people's free speech when you say:
    Late, of course, you say:
    So I'm left confused. You advocate complete freedom of speech as long as it's not illegal (because at least where I am, "illegal" covers inciting violence and making threats). Okay. I assume the "political activists" who are assassinating people's characters are doing so within the boundaries of the law? In which case... you support their right to freedom of speech. But you really don't seem to be supporting that right.

    I sense you aren't going to understand this. Let me try again.

    A says something B doesn't like. (A has said something B finds sexist or racist or whatever).
    B says something A doesn't like. (B has spoken to A's employer and informed them that B will no longer buy their product if A continues working there).

    You support one form of freedom of speech, here, but you don't support the other.

    What's the distinction?
     
    Nariac, NigeTheHat and ChickenFreak like this.
  10. Malisky

    Malisky Fuzz Overdriver Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    910
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Location:
    The Middle of Nowhere The Center of Everywhere
    I'm all in when it comes to freedom of speech. Life is already complicated and way too short to be guessing who your friends and enemies are. (Wait! Am I joking? Hm... Not sure anymore but it's not important). :p
    I think that people confuse what the real threat is when it comes to this subject. It's not "what's said" that is the threat. Words alone cannot harm anyone per say. Ideologies alone cannot harm anyone. The trouble comes when people get so caught up in proving their POV is da shit that they lose their prime intention and end up fueling meaningless, never ending debates, giving power to the image of their "soon-to-be-idols" and forgetting to properly educate themselves by researching from legitimate resources such as "A Library!"

    Some might not get it but I think nobody stated the solution to this problem more meaningfully as Merlin did (which he wouldn't be able to without freedom of speech).
     
    Iain Sparrow likes this.
  11. Iain Sparrow

    Iain Sparrow Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2016
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    828
    I support the freedom of speech, all of it.

    I've found that during those times I'm with someone who belongs to a group or political persuasion I abhor, that it's not so easy to hate the person in front of me. If I didn't know him I might be able to put a bullet into him, and not lose a wink of sleep over it. But that I do know him, makes all the difference in the world. Sometimes the people you despise aren't all that different from you.
     
    Malisky likes this.
  12. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    I support freedom of speech, too.

    I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't.

    What people are discussing, I think, is the freedom to speak and not face consequences for what you've said. Different thing.
     
    ChickenFreak and Malisky like this.
  13. Iain Sparrow

    Iain Sparrow Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2016
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    828
    I think you should expect to face the consequences of what you say, whether in real life or in your writing. What fun is freedom of speech without dire consequences?:)
     
    Malisky likes this.
  14. big soft moose

    big soft moose All killer, no filler. Contributor Community Volunteer

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    10,264
    Likes Received:
    11,300
    Location:
    East devon/somerset border
    https://mic.com/articles/190621/left-wing-news-sites-censored-on-facebook-arent-in-favor-of-banning-alex-jones-either#.qVcnNLoAz

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=left+wing+banned+from+facebook&view=detail&mid=576A08743827A61B05E5576A08743827A61B05E5&FORM=VIRE

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/19/facebook-blacklists-left-wing-site-that-praised-purge-of-infowars/
     
    NigeTheHat likes this.
  15. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    No, re-read my post. I didn't find a safe-space. I found a place where free speech is valued and you aren't banned for wrong-think or being "offensive". We're clearly defining "safe-speech" two different ways. I'm using the definition that the far-left uses. I don't think that's the definition you're using.
     
  16. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't "think" they are. They are.

    I see we were defining "safe-space" completely differently and talking past one another. I understand what you're saying now, and agree with you.

    My goal wouldn't just be to create a place where conservatives don't feel threatened. It'd be to create a place where anybody won't feel like they could be banned at any moment for wrong think. As I said, the bannable offenses being illegal activity or threats/inciting violence.

    But there's no reason why such a theoretical platform couldn't be shared by conservatives, Christians, atheists, liberals, classical liberals, libertarians, anarchists, the a-political, communists, fascists... The only people who wouldn't use it are those who want to explicitly and only associate with like-minded people. So, people seeking an echo-chamber. And that's their right to do that. I suppose other people who wouldn't like it are people who are against free speech in some way (want to silence those who "offend" them).
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019 at 10:32 PM
  17. DK3654

    DK3654 Almost a Productive Member of Society

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    724
    Location:
    Staying in my comfort zone
    But then, any laws against freedom of speech could easily be described as people 'facing consequences for what they've said'. That is how the law works, much of crime prevention is done simply through discouraging people with consequences, and certainly when it comes to speech, there aren't that many ways to actually prevent people doing something in the first place. Imprisoning people for saying something is clearly a restriction of freedom of speech, but that's 'just' a consequence.
    At what point does people facing consequences for what they've said become restricting freedom of speech? What kinds of consequences are fair in what circumstances?How does this apply to the current reality? That is, I think, the key point of discussion here.
     
    Foxxx likes this.
  18. Malisky

    Malisky Fuzz Overdriver Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    910
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Location:
    The Middle of Nowhere The Center of Everywhere
    Lol. What do you mean? All this time where you speaking "fiction"? Sorry, I didn't get that. Help me understand this concept, please. What do you mean when you say consequences? I think it's kinda inevitable, don't you think? You know... action causes reaction, etc? Or might it be that people are trying to moralize their control over consequences? Selectively so perhaps? This subject just became a dimension of its own and I got a headache already. I'm out!
     
  19. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Likes Received:
    11,917
    I read your post. It sounds like you found a place where the majority of those that you're interacting with agree with you, or at least know that they can't get away with aggressive disagreement. That sounds like a safe place.
     
  20. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    Well, traditionally, "freedom of speech" has meant the government shouldn't restrict someone's freedom, because the government has such overwhelming power that there should be restrictions placed upon it. That's where the "illegal" aspect comes in.

    If it's just two different people saying things the other doesn't agree with? It's a battle of rights. Much more complicated.

    Does Person A's right to say what they want supercede Company's B's right to run their company the way they want?
     
    ChickenFreak likes this.
  21. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    No.

    This depends on whether or not you think a concerted mob effort to pressure a business to fire somebody over an opinion is an act of violence or not on behalf of the mob, and whether losing one's livelihood is a justifiable consequence for saying there are only two genders (as an example).

    I don't know, is that within the boundaries of the law? Is it bullying, or harassment? Is one man's bigot, racist, phobic, supremacist another man's conservative? Is assassinating somebody's character with lies (or to be generous, your opinion), pressuring their employer into firing them and making a concerted attack on their livelihood and well-being via their finances, protected under freedom of speech?

    When are you speaking as a representative of your employer and when and where should you be unassociated?

    I'm not being rhetorical. I'm genuinely asking you, and anybody else.

    I don't like seeing this mob mentality where if somebody says something we don't like, we deplatform them, cut their funding like we're cutting Hitler's supply routes, and pressure their boss to fire them, and then hide behind a technicality that it isn't infringing freedom of speech.

    Let me clear that, here, I don't care who is doing it to who. I'm speaking in general, and saying that this shouldn't be normalized period. But if it isn't breaking any laws, then I don't see how you're going to restore this part of society's fabric.

    In case I'm not being clear, here is how another user put what I'm trying to get at.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019 at 10:53 PM
  22. BayView

    BayView Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,423
    Likes Received:
    11,065
    Justifiable? No, your standard was that any speech that isn't illegal is fine. There was no mention of having to justify something. And to whom would it be justified, anyway?

    I assume that if people were doing something that was illegal, they would be charged. Are you suggesting this isn't the case?

    And as long as what they're doing is legal, you're good with it, so...?

    Does your passion for freedom only extend to speech, or do you also believe the employer should have the freedom to make their own decisions in these matters? Assuming you are in favour of freedoms in general, I assume you'd fight for the employer's right to decide for themselves. No?
     
    ChickenFreak likes this.
  23. Cave Troll

    Cave Troll I'm in G-love with a Wonderful Lady. :) Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    12,400
    Likes Received:
    13,736
    Location:
    Where cushions are comfy, and straps hold firm.
    But the law protects the right to say what you wish (minus threats of harm).

    The law doesn't protect your feels, and will toss your ass in jail for burning
    down the town because your feels got hurt.
    If it did then every single person here would be in prison for breaking the law
    at some point or another.

    So no we shouldn't have speech and thought police for simply expressing ourselves
    in ways that may contradict those of others.

    Free speech for all, or no speech for anyone.
    Simple as that.
     
  24. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1,423
    Location:
    Michigan
    Justifiable, as in, is it an act of violence?


    I don't like seeing this mob mentality where if somebody says something we don't like, we deplatform them from all the major social media sites (which I've described as "the new public square, except it's private"), cut their funding like we're cutting Hitler's supply routes, and pressure their boss to fire them, and then hide behind a technicality that it isn't infringing freedom of speech. I don't see how this is conducive behavior to a society that I believe ought to value free speech. Nobody is going to speak their mind if it means losing their career and being banned from social media sites and effectively ostracized to a large degree, with no legal recourse.

    Let me clear that, here, I don't care who is doing it to who. I'm speaking in general, and saying that this shouldn't be normalized behavior period. But if it isn't breaking any laws, then I don't see how you're going to restore this part of society's fabric.
     
  25. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Likes Received:
    11,917
    Of course criticism, boycotts, and calling for firings are within the law. They're some of the most basic of political speech.

    I see a "boycott list for conservatives". Would you advocate arresting the person who put up that page?

    Didn't you mention a conservative boycott of Twitter? Who should they arrest for that one?

    So would you, for example, have outlawed the Montgomery bus boycott? Would you have sent the police to shove blacks onto buses and wrestle the fare out of their pockets? Or would you just arrest the people calling for the boycott?

    If you want people to be protected in their jobs, despite their political speech...you're going to have to create new protected classes. You can't outlaw the speech. You can make it illegal for the employers to fire the employees, because those employees will be some sort of protected class.

    Conservatives love protected classes, right?
     
    BayView likes this.

Share This Page