Eternal Sunshine of Guy222's and Rao's Minds (v2.0)

Started by Astner186 pages
Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by ODG
I'll not entertain your attempt to rewrite the conversation.

I haven't done that. You're just too conceited to concede a mistake you've made.

Originally posted by ODG
Enacting violence is not the same as inciting violence.

I know. I never confused the two.

Originally posted by ODG
But that's the distinction you're trying to poo-poo away when it comes to hate speech.

I'm not trying to explain away anything. I don't believe in "hate speech" because it infringes on free speech.

Originally posted by ODG
I mean, can you explain the difference between assault and battery and why the law prohibits both?

Assault refers to the threat of violence, and battery to the enactment of violence. The law prohibits both to prevent Person A from enacting violence on Person B, and in case of assault it's preemptive.

It's important to understand that we're protecting Person B from Person A in the above example. If Person A simply offends Person B, and Person B threatens or enacts violence on Person A in response, then all blame is to be put on Person B.

Originally posted by ODG
Or are you goign to continue strawmanning?

If you're under the impression that I'm misconstruing your position then feel free to clarify why.

Originally posted by ODG
Surely absurd. And a notion that nobody in this thread has ever endorsed. Let me know when you're done strawmanning to justify your own intolerance and are willing to discuss your own hypocrisies.

Who exactly am I exhibiting intolerance against? I think this debate has taken more turns in your mind than it has in reality.

Adam_PoE Senior Member
Originally posted by Astner
I haven't done that. You're just too conceited to concede a mistake you've made.

Yes, you have. You initially asserted that people were being jailed for bigoted speech. When confronted with the fact that is not happening, and that right-wing legislatures have actually outlawed progressive speech, you changed the subject.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, you have. You initially asserted that people were being jailed for bigoted speech. When confronted with the fact that is not happening, and that right-wing legislatures have actually outlawed progressive speech, you changed the subject.

First and foremost, that's not what we were talking about.

Secondly, no I haven't. You're thinking of cdtm.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by Astner
I haven't done that. You're just too conceited to concede a mistake you've made.

I know. I never confused the two.

Yeah, you're just conflating the two. Because to you, unless you enact violence w/ hate speech, there's no harm in inciting violence w/ it.
Originally posted by Astner
I'm not trying to explain away anything. I don't believe in "hate speech" because it infringes on free speech.

Assault refers to the threat of violence, and battery to the enactment of violence. The law prohibits both to prevent Person A from enacting violence on Person B, and in case of assault it's preemptive.

Looking it up on the internet and regurgitating it doesn't mean that you've actually learned and assimilated the distinction within yourself. And that only becomes more evident as your completely pervert the distinction here:
Originally posted by Astner
It's important to understand that we're protecting Person B from Person A in the above example. If Person A simply offends Person B, and Person B threatens or enacts violence on Person A in response, then all blame is to be put on Person B.
"If Person A simply offends Person B by using a form of bigotry that a reasonable Person B would understand as a threat of physical harm or dehumanization, and Person B threatens or enacts violence on Person A in response, then that is a hate crime by Person A and then all blame is to be put on Person B A. "

Your b1tch dumbass is pre-assuming bad acts by Person B when it is Person A that is the actor w/ their speech and, logically, Person A should/must take responsibility for their own actions should they understand who their audience is. Otherwise, if they don't care who their audience is, then they don't care about communicating speech and are just aggrandizing their own inner belief. In which case, they should stfu and keep it to themselves.

Originally posted by Astner
If you're under the impression that I'm misconstruing your position then feel free to clarify why.

Who exactly am I exhibiting intolerance against? I think this debate has taken more turns in your mind than it has in reality.

As any poster with a little bit of history on KMC will tell you:

The irony of your last statement is too large to ignore. I'll ram it down your throat as much as your bigoted, hypocritical throat will endure and beyond, pal.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by cdtm
No problem?

Seriously though, how else could I bow out without sounding like that? I mean I could just shut up I guess, but I have my pride too you know.

If it weren't for your backhanded attempt to act like my criticisms unfairly paint all alt-right as Hitler-youth Nazis, this would have been a very mature statement.

Look back at the course of conversation. I'm not the one who brought up Nazis.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by ODG
The irony of your last statement is too large to ignore. I'll ram it down your throat as much as your bigoted, hypocritical throat will endure and beyond, pal.
GDI alright, it was unintentional but even I have to admit:

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by ODG
Yeah, you're just conflating the two. Because to you, unless you enact violence w/ hate speech, there's no harm in inciting violence w/ it.

Incitement of violence isn't hate speech. Just like assault, the laws against it are preemptive measures to prevent the enactment of violence.

If a person incites violence he's breaking the law, if he threatens violence he's breaking the law, and if he enacts violence he's breaking the law. But (in a free society) he's not breaking the law by offending someone.

Originally posted by ODG
Looking it up on the internet and regurgitating it doesn't mean that you've actually learned and assimilated the distinction within yourself.

What? Presuppose I recited something I looked up. Why would that matter? We're engaging in a discussion. What's important is that we're using proper definitions and logic, so that we can arrive at proper conclusions.

Originally posted by ODG
And that only becomes more evident as your completely pervert the distinction here: "If Person A simply offends Person B by using a form of bigotry that a reasonable Person B would understand as a threat of physical harm or dehumanization,

No. We have to distinguish bigotry from assault, because they're not the same thing.

Originally posted by ODG
and Person B threatens or enacts violence on Person A in response, then that is a hate crime by Person A and then all blame is to be put on Person B A. "

Like I pointed out, I believe everyone should have the right to hate one another, and that everyone should be allowed express that hatred in both in thought and in speech. Another way of saying that is that I'm in favor of the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech.

Originally posted by ODG
Your b1tch dumbass is pre-assuming bad acts by Person B when it is Person A that is the actor w/ their speech and, logically, Person A should/must take responsibility for their own actions should they understand who their audience is. Otherwise, if they don't care who their audience is, then they don't care about communicating speech and are just aggrandizing their own inner belief. In which case, they should stfu and keep it to themselves.

I thought you said you were in favor of free speech. But here you're clearly defending the use of violence against people who are neither inciting, threatening, nor enacting violence. This is a textbook example of an infringement of free speech.

Originally posted by ODG
As any poster with a little bit of history on KMC will tell you:


Yeah, I may respond to you tomorrow if you make any noteworthy arguments in your next reply.

Originally posted by ODG
The irony of your last statement is too large to ignore. I'll ram it down your throat as much as your bigoted, hypocritical throat will endure and beyond, pal.

You keep repeating yourself, but you failed to identify whatever group I'm supposedly bigoted against when asked.

You, on the other hand, have used both racist and transphobic slurs.

Smurph tu quoqumber

Originally posted by Astner

This is why I think Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it," is one of the most noble sentiments one can hold.

Since we're still on the topic, this is such a tired sentiment, especially when it's trotted out in this context.

Freedom of speech is important because democracy requires a free exchange of ideas. "Free" can still be "free" within reasonable limits - threats aren't protected both because violence is bad, but also because threatening violence undercuts the goal of a free exchange of ideas.

And... so does hate speech. Speech that spreads dehumanizing views of groups of people undercuts the very reason that we protect speech. Encouraging hate towards people prevents those people from participating in society. If freedom of speech protects hate speech, the result is just these precious constitutional freedoms eating themselves.

cdtm Restricted

Originally posted by ODG
If it weren't for your backhanded attempt to act like my criticisms unfairly paint all alt-right as Hitler-youth Nazis, this would have been a very mature statement.

Look back at the course of conversation. I'm not the one who brought up Nazis.

...alright, that's fair.

I was skimming off the mid conversation, clearly missed a lot of details. I also get lost in real life, literally walked right past a friend at the casino in this exact scenerio;

He was at a slot to the slight left, the bathroom was a straight line ahead, I ended up walking to the far right and he had to call after me, then admit he thought I was putting him on about my sense of direction and now knows better...

Keeping track of threads is apparently no better for me.

StiltmanFTW CBvF

Originally posted by -Pr-
I didn't sanction him. Nor do I approve of him. But if I ban him, who becomes the forum's next, most notorious bigot that should be banned. Who?

Who, I wonder...

Wonder no more...

Originally posted by ODG
Acting like your intolerance is solely limited to 5-yr old trannies is disingenuous. The internet doesn't erase your posting history.

Not unless your some pedophile who tries to get an entire thread nuked over your public embarrassment.

Originally posted by MrMind
Cough Whirley cough
ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by Astner
Incitement of violence isn't hate speech. Just like assault, the laws against it are preemptive measures to prevent the enactment of violence.

If a person incites violence he's breaking the law, if he threatens violence he's breaking the law, and if he enacts violence he's breaking the law. But (in a free society) he's not breaking the law by offending someone.

It's like you tried to argue with an imaginary poster and still failed. How you contort your own mind into reconciling such an argument with your prior statement, "I'm not interested in what they think about it."

But that's the gist isn't it? You're not actually attempting to explain the evident hypocrisy. Just trying to rewrite the conversation to avoid confronting your own self-inflicting irony.

Originally posted by Astner
You, on the other hand, have used both racist and transphobic slurs.
Oh, but the difference is I know who my audience is. And I understand that a bigoted piece of garbage like yourself won't reasonably react to terms like "n1gga" and "b1tch" as if they were threats of violence against a bigoted person like yourself. Granted, prove me wrong Swede-man. Identify as black and/or trans and remedy the situation.

Otherwise, you're just trying to pervert the protections against hate speech by acting like you're being hate speeched yourself when you're not allowed to hate speech the way you feel like. Classic self-victimization doubled over on itself like a triple-cheese burger of pointless racism.

Old school racists used to have more intestinal fortitude. They believed their own sh1t and were unapologetic about it. The new-age racists are just little b1tches too afraid to out themselves openly and want to distort classic, human, moral freedoms into excuses for themselves to justify their own irrational hatred, e.g., "Well every opinion has their own merit, why not my own hateful opinions..... reeeeeee~~~~~!!!"

As if the entire course of human history and evident wastefulness of bigotry therein haven't already proved such nonsensical hatred as pointlessly destructive and tragic.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Smurph
Since we're still on the topic, this is such a tired sentiment, especially when it's trotted out in this context.

The only reason anyone would find it tiring is if they were to disagree with it.

Originally posted by Smurph
"Free" can still be "free" within reasonable limits

This presupposes that we can universally agree on what those limits would be. A majority support isn't enough here, because it would allow the majority to oppress a minority.

Originally posted by Smurph
threats aren't protected both because violence is bad, but also because threatening violence undercuts the goal of a free exchange of ideas.

I don't see threats of violence as an exercise of free speech, I see it as a unilateral oral contract.

Originally posted by Smurph
And... so does hate speech. Speech that spreads dehumanizing views of groups of people undercuts the very reason that we protect speech. Encouraging hate towards people prevents those people from participating in society. If freedom of speech protects hate speech, the result is just these precious constitutional freedoms eating themselves.

I disagree. Unless we're talking of threats or incitements of violence this isn't an issue.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Astner: People shouldn't be punished for just mere words even if they're sourced in racism.

ODG: B1tch, stfu.

Astner: Reeeeee~~~~~! He said a bad word!!!! Someone protect me from him!!!!

ODG: N1gga, plz.

Astner: Reeeeeee~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!! Won't someone think of the delicate racists children like me from his offensive speech??????????

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

I think I broke ODG.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

^ And I think I narrowed down exactly what you are.

A closet racist who is too much of a coward to openly embrace said racism. You instead surreptitiously place blame on others with word salad prevarication over what free speech actually protects in a false bid for persecution, i.e., "All views should be protected so it's not fair for the world to look down upon my views~~~~~!!!who cares if it's thinly veiled hate speech"

If your own racist tendencies weren't the ultimate end-goal of your maneuvering, I might almost sympathize.

So how many times did the soft membranes of your brain fold over to make you feel persecuted for not being able to persecute others?

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Well, your deductive skills leave much to be desired then. So much so that I don't see a need to defend myself against your baseless allegations.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Old Man Astner: Well... I'll say pedophilic things but not because, y'know, I actually want to touch kids.

ODG: That offends me. That sort of talk should be discouraged, even stamped out, bro.

Old Man Astner: Love is love and age is just a number. Anyway, if no threat of harm is actually being expressed upon an actual child, then there shouldn't be any prohibition against discussing it. I'm just saying...

ODG: Ok, pedo.

Old Man Astner: How dare you offend me by calling me a pedo?!?!? Reeeeeee~~~~~!!!!!!

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by Astner
I don't see a need to defend myself
Edited for accuracy. 👆

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Yeah, he's broken.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

^ I too would be rendered speechlessly stupefied by how analogous your views mirror the inability to distinguish assault and battery and the simple human repulsion to racism and pedophilia.

P.S. I mean... if I were a racist or a pedophile. Which are you again?