i suspect that this video probably isn't even the most offensive thing to have been posted on youtube. it just happens to have caused a shitstorm and so now it's 'over the line' in retrospect.
not that it wasn't clearly trying to be provocative. but the internet is chalked full of shit that has that objective.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you consider your right to say whatever you want more important than the lives of innocent people that will catch the backdraft of your words?
That's a reasonable argument for self censorship but as a law it would actually encourage violence and extremism since it makes violent groups unquestionable. Its the same logic behind "we don't negotiate with X" philosophies. Rewarding criminal actions is something legal systems need to avoid.
Originally posted by Robtard
Where do you draw the line at freedom of speech then?Should I not be allowed to protest guns and be anti-gun to ridiculous proportions cos there's a chance some (other side of the loony spectrum) gun-nut might shoot me and some pedestrians could get caught in the line of fire?
ps, I'm not a loony anti-gun type
IMO, unless it's directly inciting violence/crime, there are few other scenarios where speech should be censored. You take the good with the bad, that's the price.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a reasonable argument for self censorship but as a law it would actually encourage violence and extremism since it makes violent groups unquestionable. Its the same logic behind "we don't negotiate with X" philosophies. Rewarding criminal actions is something legal systems need to avoid.
I could be an a****** and just blow both of your points off as slippery slope fallacies. However, both of you do make a good point. That's why I stopped short of making it a law in my post.
"I don't know if I would extend that* to the law, though. More like common sense."
*That being censorship. I am comfortable enough to just leave it at self-censorship.
But I do like the idea of people becoming violent to force others to not trollfully insult something they hold dear. Maybe Mormons need to become violent every time someone has a go. 313
"But that's not very Latter-Day Saint-like, now is it?" Yeah yeah yeah...
"You wear Magic Underwear! NYA NYA!"
"WHAT DID YOU SAY? I WILL KILL YOU AND PILLAGE YOUR STOOOORRRESSSS! GET YOUR BOOK OF MORMONS AND NAME TAGS, BRETHREN! LET'S RAZE THE TOWN!!!!"
😆
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm surprised to see DDD arguing for censorship. What kind of libertarian is he?
I've always held that I have libertarian sympathies but never full blown libertarianism (or the many different flavors that come with it). I'm fairly middle with the "big four".
There was a 50-100 question research thingie I posted a couple of years back that gives you a rough idea where you fall and I was fairly close to the middle.
Originally posted by Oliver North
so, in your opinion, it is ok to offend my core beliefs because I wont murder you, but not ok to offend people who will respond using criminal means?
It is better to engage in constructive criticism then outright insult.
Originally posted by red g jacks
don't protect my feelings from being hurt, please. i'd much rather live in a society where adults are expected to be able to separate words from violence.
Tell that to my employees he got butthurt because I gave them honest, but not mean, performance reviews. You'd think I'm the devil the way they put it...and I bet some would like to kill me or at least beat me up in a dark alley.
Humans can't handle words...makes them rage.
People can handle words, it's not criticism that offends people, its when you're not revealing the whole truth that makes people upset.
The problem to which is that certain people—like dadudemon—express themselves in a very saturated manner. To him it's either black or white, there's no in-between, no shades of gray. Hence his neglect to give either negative, or positive feedback depending on the situation.
Originally posted by Astner
People can handle words, it's not criticism that offends people, its when you're not revealing the whole truth that makes people upset.The problem to which is that certain people—like dadudemon—express themselves in a very saturated manner. To him it's either black or white, there's no in-between, no shades of gray. Hence his neglect to give either negative, or positive feedback depending on the situation.
I accept this criticism and fully own up to that being one of my problems. However, contractually obligated performance metrics of a 55% resolution rate are fairly black and white: you either met the Key Performance Indicator or you missed it. I can't help it that they did not meet that when I've provided them with ample training, tons of followups for things they could have done better, a mature training process, a team of Subject Matter Experts that are available 24x7, and making myself available 24x7 (so they can call me and ask me how to fix things when no one else is around).
Sometimes, no matter what ones does, no matter how it is worded, people will reject the criticism and esteem you their enemy. There are 3 people on my team just like that: I cannot ever correct any of their actions or provide constructive criticisms without them becoming belligerent, angry, and/or upset.
IMO, that describes many of the Muslims that freak out over inappropriate portrayals of Mohammed. There will always be those types of people in every culture. It is just that...my employees cannot beat the shit out of me nor can they take any legal action against me. The apeshit Muslims? They can...because it is more acceptable in their culture to do so (the ass-beating, destruction, and murdering stuff).
I don't want to justify their actions: please don't confuse that. I just want to make it clear that sometimes, no matter how nice you are about things, some people won't accept criticism.
Archaeologist: "Mohamed was a war-chief and most likely a desert pirate."
.002% of Muslims: "What's that? You AAASSSS****! That's it! Let's get him!"
Archaeologist: "Wait, no, I was doing research and this is what independent analysis has confirmed of my archaeological research!"
See what I mean, now?
I hope that makes sense.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If that's the case, you may want to exercise a bit of censorship on your own. I don't know if I would extend that to the law, though. More like common sense.
I'm only talking about state censorship, and I'm sure you aren't suggesting the law should enforce your interpretation of common sense.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you consider your right to say whatever you want more important than the lives of innocent people that will catch the backdraft of your words?
more important in what way?
does freedom of speech legally trump the fact people might be unable to deal with the content of that speech? yes, obviously
like, in a legal context, the only "speech" with "backdraft" is stuff like fraud or slander, because the resultant harm is non-subjective and as a direct result of the words themselves (and most of the time, things like fraud and slander require that the accused know they were lying and have the motivation to do harm with their words). If I start claiming a product you a producing causes cancer and deliberately go out to harm it in the marketplace, sure, there is "backdraft" in that your product will not be as successful.
In terms of offense to speech, it requires another brain to interpret what the possible harm might be, on a subjective level. It is essentially a matter of taste, with some people being so offended, due to their tastes, that they feel they are entitled to do something about it. At best, it is special pleading.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It is NOT OK to offend your core beliefs if you feet hurt.It is better to engage in constructive criticism then outright insult.
ok, but here is the thing, I believe in free speech as much as anyone does their religion. Telling people they can't speak their mind, is to me, blasphemy. I'm not trying to be cute, this is legitimately how I feel.
Do you now have to stop saying things I find offensive? or is it only because religious people are so sensitive that they need big brother to be mommy too, and protect them from the oh-so-scary real world?