what has me worried is that I rarely disclose that I'm female in WoW except to my guild... when other people find out they tend to be less than mature. I would rather not face a barrage of/tells and real_id friend requests from the "plz cyber?" crowd.
ok, we know John Smith, we can find out their region by looking at their server, a look at their post times and we can guess what time zone they are in, a reference to a specific ISP and you can get mighty close to knowing who a person is.
and you are totally welcome to your opinion, but without proof to back it up you are unlikely to hold much sway in an advanced discussion. "Because I say so!" tends to lose it's power shortly after university.
threats are illegal are they not? an example of restriction of freedom of speech...
Liberty > the perceived right not to be offended as I said, prove it... show me a study that shows that. You can claim that hate-speech laws turns the sky green, but unless you can prove it then it is nothing more then your opinion that your personal values for liberty is more imporant to you then someone offending you.
prove it... last I checked the US was not exactly on the top of the UN's Best Countries to Live In list... hell you've yet to crack the top ten iirc. All the countries that have held top spot, to my knowledge, have had hate-speech laws. (yes, I am aware there are other factors, such as access to medical care and not being the highes per-capita incarseration state in the world, but you get my point)
Show me a tangible, sociological advantage to allowing hate-speech, not "freedom of speech", but specifically allowing hate-speech (because as I have shown, there are degrees to freedom of speech and even the US does not have absolute freedom). You are the one claiming there is a great perk to it, so you must have proof. I will accept any study from a major peer-reviewed journal on sociology.
well let's see... you write the bill, then you get the votes. Ya, that pretty much covers it. How you go about getting the votes is always the "???" before the "profit".
seeing as how any hate-speech law would require a reworking of the 1st amendment to make it work, the version as it is written would be changed before those laws would be passed. And, as we have seen, amendments can be changed/added/removed at the will of any politician with enough clout to get the votes.
and yet, your speech is also not free. You have laws against libel/slander, threats, what you can and can not freely say and where you can and can not say it. You have MANY laws already in place to protect individuals against speech that harms them, hate-speech laws simply applies that to a group.
The irony is, were I to say "Shakrai is a no good cheat and a liar and should be shunned until he/she is homeless on the street" I could be sued for slander, but if I said "[group to which Sharai belongs] are all no good cheats and liars and they all should be shunned until they are homeless on the street." you can not touch me.
Hate-speech is not a discussion, or even an argument, it is speech of NO value other than to incite discrimination/harm against a demographic. It does not have an "up side", it doesn't pass on knowledge or open up lines of questioning, it is simply verbal diarrhea of the worst sort. There is no perk to society as a whole to allow discrimination, there is no perk to allowing the advocassy of discrimination.
and yet, it all clearly ties back to hate-speach...
I think this all comes down to a difference of opinion... you see actions as existing in a vacume away from any possibility of encouragement (or promise of reward) from an outside sourse, I see that speech can act as a motivator for people who are already inclined to action to take that step over into infringing on others (in a variety of ways, harm is not just physical violence).
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes, all Sith's eat blue cheese, everyone who eats blue cheese is a commi spy. You, therefore are a commie spy. You can never take that confession back or prove it wrong in any way.
is it perfictly legal to fire someone for being gay? yup. As someone who was out of work for 13 months I can tell you that denying someone a stable income (and things like medical benifits) can do a lot of harm.
and employment, or housing, or benefits such as tax breaks, pensions, medical coverage, etc...
there are more ways to harm a person then just attacking their body. Last I checked, there are many places and many jobs where "because you are gay" is a totally legal and valid reason to fire someone.
And no, it is not irrelevant, if it was, why the hell did you invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh right, because their leaders were telling their followers to crash planes into you... but I'm sure those speeches calling for your deaths and the promises of rewards in the afterlife for those who killed you had nothing to do with it...
and you can pretend those actions exist in a vacume with no cause until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the face that the speach that enspired those actions is in fact the cause of them being taken.
oh, and as an aside (I don't really expect you to answer this), where are your laws that prevent harm to GLBT people?
I vaguely remember one of your early famous southern politicians saying something along the lines of "[African Americans] are not people, the are property. Giving them the vote is as stupid as giving it to a horse, for they would use it about as wisely." A speach, given to your congress, used to deny rights.
let me guess... hetersexual white male? It is mighty easy to be against these kinds of laws when no one has ever tried to take away your human rights, or incite others to hurt you / your family.
and, *GASP!* they have the right to say so. Anny was never told she could not speak, nor was she told what she could and could not speak on, she WAS told to repect the laws of the country she was visiting. She knew (or damn well should have) what the laws were before crossing the border, she knew (or damn well should have) which side of those laws her speach may fall on. The fact that she totally canceled her speach rather than abide by the laws of the land shows just what she came here to do... if she was not willing or able to abide by the laws of Canada then maybe it best she not come here. You can express political views here just fine (we have our own ultra-far right nut-bars and they do quite well thanks), and if expressing her political view was what she was intending to do she could have done so just fine, but the fact that she was unable to present ANY of her speach without violating the law says a lot about why she came here in the first place does it not?
One question I would like you to ask yourself is this: Which country (accounting for population) has higher incidents of racial violence? Which one has higher rates of GLBT murders and violence? Racial Profiling? Racial discrimination?... ok, guess that was more than one, but I think my point is clear. Is it the country where, with enough money, you can buy a slot on Faux News to rant and rave about how much you hate "teh gays", or the country where, if you want to encourage bigotry, you need to use logic and not emotion and a soapbox?
Slashdot Mirror
what has me worried is that I rarely disclose that I'm female in WoW except to my guild... when other people find out they tend to be less than mature. I would rather not face a barrage of /tells and real_id friend requests from the "plz cyber?" crowd.
ok, we know John Smith, we can find out their region by looking at their server, a look at their post times and we can guess what time zone they are in, a reference to a specific ISP and you can get mighty close to knowing who a person is.
I'm sure there are many young boys who are quite confident in their orientation that find him cute as well.
and keep providing facts to back up your opinion.... oh right...
and you are totally welcome to your opinion, but without proof to back it up you are unlikely to hold much sway in an advanced discussion. "Because I say so!" tends to lose it's power shortly after university.
threats are illegal are they not? an example of restriction of freedom of speech...
Liberty > the perceived right not to be offended
as I said, prove it... show me a study that shows that. You can claim that hate-speech laws turns the sky green, but unless you can prove it then it is nothing more then your opinion that your personal values for liberty is more imporant to you then someone offending you.
The same Paul who advocated hatred and discrimination against women? Sounds really Christ-like to me... *eyerolls*
There is a reason why discrimitroy christians are called "paulians".
prove it... last I checked the US was not exactly on the top of the UN's Best Countries to Live In list... hell you've yet to crack the top ten iirc. All the countries that have held top spot, to my knowledge, have had hate-speech laws. (yes, I am aware there are other factors, such as access to medical care and not being the highes per-capita incarseration state in the world, but you get my point)
Show me a tangible, sociological advantage to allowing hate-speech, not "freedom of speech", but specifically allowing hate-speech (because as I have shown, there are degrees to freedom of speech and even the US does not have absolute freedom). You are the one claiming there is a great perk to it, so you must have proof. I will accept any study from a major peer-reviewed journal on sociology.
and yet, the christian radicals have shown the ability to do it time and time again at the state level....
No. Writing a bill does not "get you the votes".
well let's see... you write the bill, then you get the votes.
me thinks you missed a word there: you write the bill THEN get the votes, not AND get the votes.
well let's see... you write the bill, then you get the votes. Ya, that pretty much covers it. How you go about getting the votes is always the "???" before the "profit".
never said it was likely, I said it isn't a bad thing.
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th..... last I checked, all were crafted by a politician of some stripe
seeing as how any hate-speech law would require a reworking of the 1st amendment to make it work, the version as it is written would be changed before those laws would be passed. And, as we have seen, amendments can be changed/added/removed at the will of any politician with enough clout to get the votes.
and yet, your speech is also not free. You have laws against libel/slander, threats, what you can and can not freely say and where you can and can not say it. You have MANY laws already in place to protect individuals against speech that harms them, hate-speech laws simply applies that to a group.
The irony is, were I to say "Shakrai is a no good cheat and a liar and should be shunned until he/she is homeless on the street" I could be sued for slander, but if I said "[group to which Sharai belongs] are all no good cheats and liars and they all should be shunned until they are homeless on the street." you can not touch me.
Hate-speech is not a discussion, or even an argument, it is speech of NO value other than to incite discrimination/harm against a demographic. It does not have an "up side", it doesn't pass on knowledge or open up lines of questioning, it is simply verbal diarrhea of the worst sort. There is no perk to society as a whole to allow discrimination, there is no perk to allowing the advocassy of discrimination.
and yet, it all clearly ties back to hate-speach...
I think this all comes down to a difference of opinion... you see actions as existing in a vacume away from any possibility of encouragement (or promise of reward) from an outside sourse, I see that speech can act as a motivator for people who are already inclined to action to take that step over into infringing on others (in a variety of ways, harm is not just physical violence).
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes, all Sith's eat blue cheese, everyone who eats blue cheese is a commi spy. You, therefore are a commie spy. You can never take that confession back or prove it wrong in any way.
is it perfictly legal to fire someone for being gay? yup. As someone who was out of work for 13 months I can tell you that denying someone a stable income (and things like medical benifits) can do a lot of harm.
and employment, or housing, or benefits such as tax breaks, pensions, medical coverage, etc...
there are more ways to harm a person then just attacking their body. Last I checked, there are many places and many jobs where "because you are gay" is a totally legal and valid reason to fire someone.
And no, it is not irrelevant, if it was, why the hell did you invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh right, because their leaders were telling their followers to crash planes into you... but I'm sure those speeches calling for your deaths and the promises of rewards in the afterlife for those who killed you had nothing to do with it...
and you can pretend those actions exist in a vacume with no cause until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the face that the speach that enspired those actions is in fact the cause of them being taken.
oh, and as an aside (I don't really expect you to answer this), where are your laws that prevent harm to GLBT people?
I vaguely remember one of your early famous southern politicians saying something along the lines of "[African Americans] are not people, the are property. Giving them the vote is as stupid as giving it to a horse, for they would use it about as wisely." A speach, given to your congress, used to deny rights.
please, for the sake of the internet, read a history book! Hell, I will even be easy on you, read an American history book!
let me guess... hetersexual white male? It is mighty easy to be against these kinds of laws when no one has ever tried to take away your human rights, or incite others to hurt you / your family.
and, *GASP!* they have the right to say so. Anny was never told she could not speak, nor was she told what she could and could not speak on, she WAS told to repect the laws of the country she was visiting. She knew (or damn well should have) what the laws were before crossing the border, she knew (or damn well should have) which side of those laws her speach may fall on. The fact that she totally canceled her speach rather than abide by the laws of the land shows just what she came here to do... if she was not willing or able to abide by the laws of Canada then maybe it best she not come here. You can express political views here just fine (we have our own ultra-far right nut-bars and they do quite well thanks), and if expressing her political view was what she was intending to do she could have done so just fine, but the fact that she was unable to present ANY of her speach without violating the law says a lot about why she came here in the first place does it not?
One question I would like you to ask yourself is this: Which country (accounting for population) has higher incidents of racial violence? Which one has higher rates of GLBT murders and violence? Racial Profiling? Racial discrimination?... ok, guess that was more than one, but I think my point is clear. Is it the country where, with enough money, you can buy a slot on Faux News to rant and rave about how much you hate "teh gays", or the country where, if you want to encourage bigotry, you need to use logic and not emotion and a soapbox?
look at our case law, my summary of Canadian hate-speach is correct.