Originally posted by Surturnice adhominem attempt to derail surt, but as I've said I'm leaving that stuff to you and sticking to polite discourse.
Dude nobody trusts your judgment on speech.Honestly, if you were a free speech advocate...would YOU want someone like you in charge of deciding what is hate speech, etc. ?
Originally posted by Putinbot1reposted to get back on topic. Let's discuss politely guys.
Really? I totally question if there is such a thing as the absolute right to free speech? It existed when we were cavemen and complex human society had yet to form, and maybe it will exist when radical anarchists rule the world. But collectively, we already know and agree that such an absolute freedom does not, and cannot, exist. Slander, publicly teaching people how to make a bomb, yelling in Trafalgar Square about wanting to kill the queen: these are examples of speech that we do not condone as a society and for which there are legal repercussions. If “free speech” means the unfettered ability to say whatever one wants without facing any consequences or restrictions, it cannot exist. Or if it does, it exists in a matrix of other rights and freedoms, such as the right to physical and psychological safety
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Those aren't terms I've seen in this thread. I used the suffix safety.
So did I.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Really? I totally question if there is such a thing as the absolute right to free speech? It existed when we were cavemen and complex human society had yet to form, and maybe it will exist when radical anarchists rule the world. But collectively, we already know and agree that such an absolute freedom does not, and cannot, exist. Slander, publicly teaching people how to make a bomb, yelling in Trafalgar Square about wanting to kill the queen: these are examples of speech that we do not condone as a society and for which there are legal repercussions. If “free speech†means the unfettered ability to say whatever one wants without facing any consequences or restrictions, it cannot exist. Or if it does, it exists in a matrix of other rights and freedoms, such as the right to physical and psychological safety
Originally posted by Silent Master
Problem is, too many people use terms like physical and psychological safety to justify outlawing opinions they don't like.Hence all the people saying that saying __________ is violence.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Haha O.K. in that case do you not think, that words are what usually start violence.
^^This kids theme song:
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Laugh probably.
That would be the proper response.
This is an example of the wrong response
With very few exceptions, Speech isn't the problem. right/left snowflakes are the problem.
Originally posted by Silent MasterYou see, I'm not marginalised and am am doesn't threaten me.
That would be the proper response.This is an example of the wrong response
With very few exceptions, Speech isn't the problem. right/left snowflakes are the problem.
Originally posted by Silent MasterI don't think pronouns are the problem, it's the hate, context and history behind them. Extreme example, if a Klansman known to a black gentleman says, that's some fine ass monkey daughter you got there coon, she'd look good on my dick. He isn't threatening anyone, in his mind he might even be paying a compliment to someone he considers sub human. It's still likely to cause violence.
Feeling threatened because someone used the wrong pronoun is a sign of mental instability.The problem isn't with the word, it's with the person feeling threatened.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I don't think pronouns are the problem, it's the hate, context and history behind them. Extreme example, if a Klansman known to a black gentleman says, that's some fine ass monkey daughter you got there coon, she'd look good on my dick. He isn't threatening anyone, in his mind he might even be paying a compliment to someone he considers sub human. It's still likely to cause violence.
Okay but making racist comments about monkeys and shit isn't the same as factually pointing out just cuz you remove your dick it doesn't make you a woman.
@both of you, I'm talking in a broader context than gender politics. I personally have no problem with what any adult wishes to be deemed as, as i have said before, but, I think race, religion and direct insults are far more likely to elicit a violent reaction and I don't see that as weakness, as imp said if someone verbally assaulted his daughter he'd react and so would I, although I only have boys, I do have a grand daughter though. I think Jordan Peterson hero of the far right would agree with that reaction also.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
@both of you, I'm talking in a broader context than gender politics. I personally have no problem with what any adult wishes to be deemed as, as i have said before, but, I think race, religion and direct insults are far more likely to elicit a violent reaction and I don't see that as weakness, as imp said if someone verbally assaulted his daughter he'd react and so would I, although I only have boys, I do have a grand daughter though. I think Jordan Peterson hero of the far right would agree with that reaction also.
Yes indeed, weak minded human beings will react with violence when confronted with words they don't like. Good thing you aren't one of those types of people.
Originally posted by SurturNo, on this I'm with Jordan Peterson, if someone crosses the line in conversation, I'll fight them, as he says how could you respect a man who wouldn't.
Yes indeed, weak minded human beings will react with violence when confronted with words they don't like. Good thing you aren't one of those types of people.