Originally posted by EmperordmbDMB, what if that speech is leading to a climate when Force is acceptably going to be used on another group purely because of who they are? As your hero JP says, he can only respect a man not afraid to physically fight with him.
Well that's one of the problems yes. The other problem is that it is disgusting to retaliate to speech with force.
Originally posted by EmperordmbDMB you are not a stupid person surely you can see it doesn't take threats of violence, just marginalisation created with words for a climate to be created where violence against the marginalised eventually isn't challenged.
Violence and threats of violence are already criminalized.If we’re taking it upon ourselves to ban speaking of any group with hate or contempt in order to prevent violence, then that’s not a tenable standard.
Originally posted by mike brownApologies for the delay on reply Mike, I've been answering quick posts and not had time or energy to sit down and reply to more thoughtful ones mate. I don't disagree the world has made great progress, but every now and again things happen we don't expect like, the Holocaust, Year zero, Somalia, Serbo/Croat, Iraq's massacre of the Shiites, Rwanda, the ongoing massacres in the CAR etc. It only takes a situation where someone has created a massive power imbalance and dehumanised the weaker group in the eyes of the stronger.
It seems to me though that it is almost inevitable regardless that you will always have hateful people around either way. I think the past century or so in this country has seen a massive amount of progress with regard to bigotry and this is all the while respecting free speech.. I don't see a reason to change this at this point in history. If anything it seems that Uber left wing policies have done more to fan the flames of nationalism and lead to the resurgence of far right extremism in the United States and Europe.With regard to conspiracy theories like the anti vax people I am thoroughly convinced that trying to clamp down on that sort of speech would do nothing but heighten their victim complex and convince them the powers that be are actively trying to suppress "the truth." That is the problem with taking an authoritarian approach to speech. The only way to wage a successful war of ideas and words is with other ideas and words.
You see, I'm not against political correctness or social justice. I just think the extremes are easy targets to vilify the moderate from people with agenda's.
I agree that words are needed to wage a war on words, but unfortunately I will always believe it is easier to appeal to the basic instincts of fifty per cent of the people, which means unfortunately somethings have to be prevented for the safety of all.
I believe it was Mark Twain that had the quote along the lines of"censorship is telling a man he can't have steak cause a baby can't chew it." That pretty much sums up my thoughts on your last sentence.
I think the problem is you are assuming it we don't make things like racism illegal that is likely to escalate to violence and genocide. I just think you are vastly exaggerating the risk of that sort of thing in our society. If the fear is that racist speech can lead to us turning the blind eye to violence, the answer is to uphold the principle that such violence is unacceptable. If the idea is that hateful ideas could inspire a random nut job to do something violent... That's sorta inevitable. All freedoms come with pros and cons. Banning the speech to prevent this is similar to banning violent video games or rap music because you are worried about the impact on the youth and the crazy. Once again taking away steak from a man because a baby couldn't chew it.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
DMB you are not a stupid person surely you can see it doesn't take threats of violence, just marginalisation created with words for a climate to be created where violence against the marginalised eventually isn't challenged.
Alright, then. Let's take your line of reasoning seriously.
You're going to jail, will be fined, and will be put on probation after release because of your hate speech against Trumper-supporters and young, celibate, men.
Now do you understand why thought-policing is dangerous and we need things like the First Amendment? It's a slippery slope.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, then. Let's take your line of reasoning seriously.You're going to jail, will be fined, and will be put on probation after release because of your hate speech against Trumper-supporters and young, celibate, men.
Now do you understand why thought-policing is dangerous and we need things like the First Amendment? It's a slippery slope.
Originally posted by Putinbot1Yeah that's just where we disagree. None of the genocides you listed happened in modern free, prosperous countries.
I think you overestimate how prone to violence against the different civilised people are. But I honestly think this argument has gone circular and we've reached an impasse. Take care Mate, i enjoyed the argument. That's me out of this thread.
Originally posted by dadudemonThat's a good distinction to make between hate and violent threats. The difference between "I hate group x" and "group x should be killed" is the same difference between " I hate the president" and "the president should be killed."
Alright, then. Let's take your line of reasoning seriously.You're going to jail, will be fined, and will be put on probation after release because of your hate speech against Trumper-supporters and young, celibate, men.
Now do you understand why thought-policing is dangerous and we need things like the First Amendment? It's a slippery slope.
Originally posted by dadudemonI covered all the opposites of that earlier DDM. It's circular now. As I stated earlier the US and some European countries have a different idea of the freedom balance. In Europe freedom of life, family and expression supersedes freedom of speech. In the US Freedom of speech supersedes freedom of expression and life for many. To be honest that's not even the whole story as most credible sources see your Freedom of the press as less than ours regardless. But not all Europe is equal and not all your states implement freedoms the same either. I'm not going to discuss it all twice though. As I stated an impasse between European freedom and US freedom has been reached.
Alright, then. Let's take your line of reasoning seriously.You're going to jail, will be fined, and will be put on probation after release because of your hate speech against Trumper-supporters and young, celibate, men.
Now do you understand why thought-policing is dangerous and we need things like the First Amendment? It's a slippery slope.
My last post on.this, when you take civil liberties, family and political Freedoms, The US doesn't make the top 25 for freedom in the most up to date and over arching study.
https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-most-freedom-in-the-world-2018-4?IR=T
It always scores well in every study for economic Freedom though.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I covered all the opposites of that earlier DDM. It's circular now. As I stated earlier the US and some European countries have a different idea of the freedom balance. In Europe freedom of life, family and expression supersedes freedom of speech. In the US Freedom of speech supersedes freedom of expression and life for many. To be honest that's not even the whole story as most credible sources see your Freedom of the press as less than ours regardless. But not all Europe is equal and not all your states implement freedoms the same either. I'm not going to discuss it all twice though. As I stated an impasse between European freedom and US freedom has been reached.
The error in your thinking is that the freedom of life is at all relevant to someone saying they hate you because you're Mormon.
mike brown already covered the best rebuttal to your point:
It's the difference between hate speech and violence speech.
Regardless of the US consistently violating it's own First Amendment continuously, the First Amendment is still one of the best approaches I've seen.