And saying he wants to force all current Muslims to be registered on database so they can be tracked does not sound like an illiberal assault on the civil rights of a minority group to you ?
CNN asked him how that is different from the NAZI act that forced Jews to register by the way, and he was unable to answer. When the candidate HIMSELF cannot explain how his policy is different from Hiltler's - that should at least concern you.
How about stating that he would go after the families of suspected terrorists. This is the kind of country you want to be ?
How about claiming a judge cannot give him a fair hearing because the judge is of Mexican descent ? Forget how racist it is - do you really want a president with THAT little respect for the judiciary ?
And that's just three - the guy has not said a sane thing yet.
>Can you guys and galls get it through your thick skulls that letting in military-age men of an uncertain background from the countries where radical Islam is a dominant ideology is an absolutely idiotic thing to do? What's so bad about figuring out how to make sure you're not letting in an ISIS or Al Quaeda operative?
I bet you don't even know how incredibly prejudiced you are being. You come from country X therefore you are likely to be an evil terrorist is in NO way different from 'n****s rape our women'. By the way - the vetting process before anybody gets in is close on 14 fucking years in some cases. Seriously - that's not enough vetting for you ?!?!?! The shortest period between applying for refugee status and possibly being let in ANYWHERE is 4 years - and that's JUST the UN part of the vetting, the US part still comes on top of that and is NEVER less than 3 years.
It's some seriously determined terrorists who will put themselves until 7 to 14 years of intense scrutiny hoping they won't be identified in order to maybe hurt the US a decade and a half from now. The main reason this will not be a common tactic is because it's a fucking stupid one, there are far easier ways to get into the country to commit acts of terror than disguised as a refugee. Why the hell would a terrorist use LEGAL immigration techniques ?! Yes, Trump's two signature issues actually contradict each other. The border is so porous it can't keep anybody out -but terrorists would mostly come in legally through the most vetted, most checked, most scrutinised path there is. Terrorists will default to the least likely to succeed tactic since the circular firing squad apparently. Those are some stupid terrorists.
>Radio host Marshall Gilbert was fired for voting for Prop 8
Next you're going to claim that nobody has ever been fired for being gay or for supporting gay marriage aren't you ?
Oh right, only liberals aren't allowed to fire people who don't fit in with their company values. When conservatives or churches do the same thing - that's freedom.
> I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
>This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
You mean like McCarthyism did ? That was the BAD kind - government pushed companies not to hire people who held the wrong political views (or were suspected of it). THAT was political correctness gone mad. But people excercising their right to choose whose values they want to associate with ? That's democracy and freedom in action. If you oppose that - where do you draw the line ? Can a company refuse to hire a convicted rapist ? What if they woman he raped is the CEO ? Can I refuse to buy things from a company if I have an ethical problem with some of their behaviour ? What if I dislike their political donations ? This is not a dangerous thing - this is freedom in action.
>I'm not surprised you're resorting now to a "think of the children" argument Strawman, that was NOT what I did. I showed scientific evidence of harm - and merely honestly admitted that children are more vulnerable to this harm than adults. Liar, liar pants on fire.
Though for the record. Just because a lot of 'think of the children' arguments are bullshit, that doesn't mean one can never be a perfectly valid argument. The ONLY argument for putting a fence around fishing ponds is 'think of the children'. The only argument for having a safety nett on your pool is 'think of the children'. The only argument for fucking car seats is "think of the children". None of these things are bad, and society isn't harmed by any of them -and frankly if you don't put a fence around your pond and some kid drowns in it (as happened to a friend of mine just a few months ago who had to bury their 2-year old after he wandered off during a birthday party and before they found him fell into a neighbours fishpond) - you should be charged with reckless endangerment and frankly it's insane that it isn't illegal to have a pond without a fence in the first place. That's not an unreasonable reduction in liberty for the lives it saves. "Think of the children" is only a bad argument when the proposed solution is to restrict adults from something that can easily be kept away from children. It's not a a de facto bad thing - and this wasn't even an example of either.
> Corporal punishment is not speech. And conveniently ignore that I showed you how the same study ALSO proved the same effects just from overhearing adults fight. Or is stuff people say to each other not speech now either?
> Schools which refuse to address bullying aren't speech. Sorry, wait, bullying when not involving actually beating somebody up or stuffing them in a locker or other physical assault is not speech ? How the hell is that not speech ? And how is it related to the subject ? Do you really think only OTHER KIDS will shout racial slurs at a kid ? DO you think racist adults don't ? Do you think they don't hear what adults say on the news ? Do you know how teachers in America are currently struggling with panicked kids from Muslim or Latin backgrounds crying in class because the bad man running for president told them if he wins they and their families will be deported ? Kids born in America, citizens, who have never known any other life. What delusion are you under ?
>Characterizing brain changes as "scarring" So... you are now smarter than the neuroscientists who described what they saw as scarring, a term which in the field has a very specific meaning. It means brain damage.
>are not speech. How is characterising something NOT an act of speech ? What he hell did you even try to say there?
> If that additional freedom means somehow more brain "scarring" than before in young adults So you do not classify fucking BRAIN DAMAGE as harm ? What insane level do you draw the line at then ? Is waterboarding in the same category as beach vacations to you ? And if nothing else, consider this, the science is a lot less strong on this and I'm admitting that upfront - but the researchers who did that study found an interesting pattern. The people with the most severe damage - are the ones MOST likely to defend the actions that caused it with 'my parents did that to me and I turned out fine'. The evidence strongly suggest they didn't - that the damage done to them have made them incapable of recognizing the harm it causes (brain damaged after all) and more likely to inflict that harm on others. This fits the pattern of other forms of severe psychiatric harm that often creates a pattern of repetition - for example victims of sexual abuse are far more likely to become sexual abusers than other people. And since it's permanent damage- it's not just young adults, it's ALL adults soon enough.
>I find acceptable in order to have the necessary level of free speech. There is nothi
And do not underestimate wine - it plays skyrim something gorgeous, and there are plenty of AAA-titles on Linux. Especially if you don't mind waiting a year or two (which also means buying them for a fraction of the price). It's not like the things go stale. I am enjoying the hell out of Saints Row III right now, native on Linux.
I just recently bought both all the skyrim expansions on special, haven't played it again yet - I did it JUST so that when the revamp comes out end of the month I can get it free (they cost a lot less than it will cost new), quite confident that 64-bit wine will run the new version something lovely - and that will allow me to finally install ALL the mods (which the 32-bit version never could handle well). Frankly, when Skywind is actually released -this should make it possible ot actually try it out (though I'll probably always prefer to play morrowind with OpenMW).
There are three times as many games for Linux as for Playstation and thats just on steam and not counting wine/PlayOnLinux. And all of them work better than on Windows
A Harvard study found that all spankings, no matter how mild or rare cause permanent brain damage which left lifelong visible scars in MRIs. A follow-up found the same scarring in kids who grew up with parents that abused EACH OTHER but not the children. The evidence suggests that the problem is stress hormones. These obviously spike in stressful situations such as spankings or hearing mommy and daddy attack each other. And the evidence is very strong that, in a child's developing brain - those spikes cause permanent harm. We are not evolved to experience ANY stress as children - our entire evolution is built around the premise of providing children with safe 'nests' and stress hormone spikes are never good anyway, stress kills adults after all,but in kids it is much, much worse.
Now riddle me this. Do you SERIOUSLY contend the following: 1) That hate speech do NOT regularly get lobbed at young children as well ? 2) That being targeted by hate speech would not cause significant stress ? 3) That the persistent and repeating nature of hate speech (there is no such thing as an isolated incidence) would not aggravate the effects ? 4) That children can reasonably judge which adults words to care about - and should be able to ignore the outcomes ?
Because you would have to make ALL those ridiculous claims to persist in your belief that words cannot cause real, physical harm.
Now you may declare (as you previously tried) that things which are harmful to children should not be denied adults, and generally that argument is true, but it doesn't apply to something which inevitably gets targeted at children as well. There is no fantasyland where racists ONLY shout slurs at grown ups (Who are ALSO harmed - just less so and less severely). When something is a clear and present danger to children, CANNOT be (even slightly) constrained to use among adults and does not serve any beneficial purpose - what the hell is wrong with banning it ? That is every possible criteria for a GOOD law right there.
Your philosophical belief that the electro-chemical device known as the human brain computer not be affected by outside inputs is simply utterly and completely devoid of reality. That bad inputs can cause permanent harm to it is literally the basis of three entire fields of science. If you were right - surely SOMEBODY would have figured out by now that psychology, psychiatry and neurology are ALL studying something that apparently does not exist ?
>"If you don't agree with me, you're obviously crazy." Actually no - I think you're just anti-freedom. But the people you listen to are psychopaths.
Oh and rather the circlejerk of logic with the same evidence can only ever lead to one conclusion (that's literally what logic is FOR) than the clusterfuck of whatever everybody gets to choose their own facts.
You moved the goalposts there. You claimed that hate-speech laws were either ineffective or actively contributed to the holocaust. Now you shifted your argument to "did not prevent it". Well I never claimed it did or would have. One may wonder if the hate speech laws in Weimar were merely insufficient ? Or merely insufficiently enforced ? Even outside that it's a meaningless observation. Nobody thinks hate-speech laws are a cure-all for society's ills (anybody who does is delusional). They are merely a protection against a specific set of harms. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't make the racism or the sexism go away - they just mean that, in normal circumstances, people are less subjected to it. Others may still hold those views, but they are less capable of harming you as a result. That doesn't mean "incapable" - just less capable. Preventing outcomes like the holocaust takes a lot more than hate-speech laws, but it does not follow that hate-speech laws are not an absolute necessity as a component. Just like your car needs a lot more than brake-fluid to drive, but it doesn't mean it is safe to drive it without brake fluid.
Contrary to your persistent and false belief - speech CAN harm people in real and concrete ways. Not least of which - a pattern of abusive speech causes permanent neurological damage. This is well established neuro-science. Your claim that hate-speech is not abusive is just your same-old strawman of falsely expanding what hate-speech laws are.
Here's a hint: the slippery slope argument is fallacious and any argument based on it should be ignored. It's perfectly possible to ONLY ban words that are known to harm, or contribute to a pattern of harm - without that ever expanding beyond that. Then the only remaining debate is around whether a particular word would meet that definition - for that you need strong scientific consensus. Transgender people fit into that category - the consensus is very strongly in their favour and in favour of the idea that refusal to, for example, call them by their chosen pronounce significantly contribute to severe harm towards them - up to and including death. Now perhaps in the future new evidence will cast serious doubt on that (I don't think that's likely but it could happen) - in which case the inclusion of that in some laws should be revisted. Right now, we should make laws with the best information we have available.
Any law that restricts speech should always be as narrow as possible - but that doesn't mean there are never legitimate reasons to do so. All such laws CAN be overbroad or abused. Should we get rid of libel laws because the UK's libel laws are massively overbroad and frequently used to stifle legitimate public interest news ? Or should the UK just fix their libel laws ? If Canada's hate-speech laws are, in fact, overbroad -that's an argument for narrowing Canada's hate-speech laws to a more appropriate level, it's not an argument against having any. But so far, the only 'abuse' I've seen is some bigotted Canadian professor who would rather be a criminal than show somebody the most basic level of respect of calling them by the term they wish to be known by.
That's the real issue. There is NO such thing as 'politically correct'. There is only respecting the humanity of all others, or NOT respecting the humanity of all others. There is what you call 'politically correct' and there is being a terrible person. But there is no way to be a good person, or a productive and useful member of society without also being 'politically correct'.
>Saying speech is "violence" is meaningless since speech in itself can't cause bodily injury Brain damage is bodily injury and speech can cause it. Much like smorking - one cigarette won't kill you and one person calling you a n***** won't give you brain damage. But the same thing every day over decades definitely WILL cause permanent and severe harm.
>Saying it reduces equality from the law is vapid since speech doesn't have anything to do with equality of the law So you think that judges and lawyers do not hold prejudicial views ? That their views are not, like everybody else's, reinforced when they hear others express similar views ? By reinforcing prejudicial views in judges - words can, and do, reduce equality before the law. Hell - think about it - nobody is BORN prejudiced, prejudice is memetic - and the judge that acts racist could not have become so unless they had first been infected by the racism meme. If nobody had ever expressed racist views TO the judge, the judge could never have become a racist themselves.
>Procedures and actions of the legislature, regulators, law enforcement and the courts do. All of which are done by people - who also, can ONLY, gain prejudices after being introduced to them by other people. Racism is a *very* recent phenomenon. It didn't exist at all just 500 years ago. It was only invented at the start of the age of exploration/colonisation. When greedy bastards wanted to conquer other peoples' homes and steal their resources and enslave them - but had to deal with a church and legal system that was already quite opposed to all these things (the Magna Carta had been going on 400 years old already). The best way to get around the law and the church and the social mores was to pretend that those aren't really "people" they were stealing from an exploiting (and completely contradicting the previous claim but that never stopped a greedy person spreading propaganda: that they were bringing civilization to the barbarians). That's when racism began. That was the first time racist thought was ever expressed - it started out as nothing but propaganda to get society to tolerate actions which, while it would make some people very rich, went fundamentally against the values of that society. Propaganda begat a meme which infects us and harms and shapes our society for the worse until this day.
>What I think is going on is that you are trying to censor legitimate speech No. I'm trying to cure society of a memetic plague through quarantining the worst infection vectors.
>And of course, you have yet to show that hate speech endangers people. Fire and brimmstone pastor tells people Gays caused the latest Hurricane - somebody IS going to go gay-bashing to punish them. It's incitement. It can never NOT be incitement. Regardless of whether it was intentional incitement it WILL incite. That's how it endangers people.
Right now, the law is at it's least racist since the invention of racism - a few big issues remain though. For example the targetting of black men by police. Something which comes down to police being nervous off them - because the strong meme of that 'dangerous black thug' is more powerful an influence on their perceptions of a situation than the reality of what their senses are telling them at that moment. The meme is the killer. The meme needs to be eradicated, because it's killing people. But there is more to it than that. It took enormous hardship and 500 years of the worst injustices of our civilization to get here. But if the memes are allowed to live on, if pockets of the disease are left to remain - then like a cancer it will flare up again, and in a hundred years, or two hundred years, things will be as bad as they were a hundred years ago.
Progress is not automatic - not even technological progress is automatic, it takes effort, and 99% of that effort is eradicating old and wrong-headed ways of thinking. That too, is true of technology as it is of society.
>A right to safety, equality before the law, and freedom from violence are not furthered by hate speech laws. Yes they are. That is why we make those laws. Your denial of the fact that hate speech 1) Is violence 2) reduces equality from the law and 3) endangers people Does not change these facts. They remain true no matter how many times you say they aren't.
>CANADIAN AND UK CITIZENS COME TO THE US FOR LIFE SAVING MEDICINE BECAUSE THEIR MASSIVE SYSTEM FAILS! False. It's a favorite republican myth but it's just not true. In fact less than 0.003% of Canadians go to the US for any healthcare and that consists ENTIRELY of very rich people wanting optional procedures (mostly cosmetic surgery) which is, obviously, low priority back home.
>Good grief, given 3 opportunities you still can't answer the question of how you pay for it without collapsing the economy I answered it each time. You remain too stupid to understand what I said. UBI causes increases in entrepeneurship, productivity and employment that exceeds the money spent on it. It doesn't cost you anything - it's a profitable fucking investment !
Preventing person A from removing a freedom from person B is the ONLY sane definition of defending freedom. Failure to do so is the only sane definition of anti-freedom. By comparing the liberal Americans to the GPL supporters, you only proved my point. And proved you are either anti-freedom yourself or a psychopath - the only types of people who would not instantly see that this is the only logical definition.
Holy shit... how ignorant can you be ? The US has nothing that resembles universal healthcare now - it seems you're claiming Obamacare is universal healthcare (despite there being no monopoly there). Canada and the UK and oh EVERY OTHER NON-HELLHOLE COUNTRY ON EARTH has Universal Healthcare. the US is the only one that still doesn't.
You can argue about whether Obamacare is better than before - but it has NO relevance to whether Universal Healthcare would be better - the answer is it MUST be - because America has the worst healhcare outcomes of them all, and the most expensive (and this was true BEFORE Obamacare too). They all do better with it.
But no, I didn't ignore the point - I illustrated the fallacy of ignoring the return on investment. We have overwhelming empirical proof that UBI causes economic growth that produces FAR more wealth than it costs. You don't HAVE to pay for it, it WILL pay for itself.
>You have yet to show a right of your violated by so called hate speech. Sorry, that's the way it is. I have, the supreme court has, so has the supreme courts and constitutions of the entire free world. The right to safety, to equality before the law, to freedom from violence - those are all violated by hate speech and anything that does not violate those is not hate speech and you pretending it is, is merely an attempt by you to construct a strawman by painting these laws as if they outlaw mere 'naughty' speech.
You really are immune to facts. You base your entire worldview on complete fantasies. Lets just dismantle one as an example.
>Just like it did in the Wiemar Republic? Hitler was jailed for the terrible things he said and did. That didn't stop him from gaining power Every single word in that is a flagrant lie. 1) Nothing Hitler ever said was illegal or contributed to his going to jail. He was sent to jail for high treason after a failed coup attempt in 1921. The biggest mistake the government made was to commute his death penalty to a prison sentence. In fact, he was so uncensored he wrote Mein Kampf WHILE in prison - and publsihed it.
2) No laws had anything to do with Hitler gaining power. Because his gaining of power was entirely extralegal. Contrary to popular belief the NAZIs NEVER won an election. The best they ever did was 11% in 1929. That did, however, gain them some seats in parliament. The conservative government panicked and hoped to appease and quiet the extreme fringe by giving Hitler the presidency. In theory a good move since the presidency was almost entirely a ceremonial role. The president did get to appoint the chancelor but only if the current one resigned, retired or died. Other than that - almost no real power. Except in 1930 the chancelor DID die and the closest thing to a bad law in the entire story was that the constitution did not prohibited the president from appointing himself chancelor - which is what Hitler did. The next day he brutally killed every left-wing politician in parliament. All the conservatives instantly joined the NAZIs for fear of being executed as well. The first pogrom the NAZIs ever did was to rid Germany of socialist politicians.
No truth to your claim whatsoever. None of your claims are true. And the Canadian law you are so panicked about isn't even passed yet - and there is nothing abusive about it, just right-wing press idiots like thefederalist making wild claims about how terrible it is with no evidence that it can or will be abused or that there is anything wrong with it. By the way - the law in South Africa is stricter -and if anything it suffers because the courts are not willing to enforce it strictly enough. Too many people still get away with illegal racism for example.
>Don't be stupid. Hate speech laws aren't about prohibiting khallow to say naughty things, it's about prohibiting anyone to say naughty things. It's straightforward restricting the free speech of everyone.
Bullshit. Firstly 'naughty' is a seriously excessive euphemism - which is doubly dishonest as it makes it sound as if hate-speech laws are far more broad than they ever actually are. Secondly - in a democracy hate speech laws protect the vulnerable from abuse by the powerful. That increases the freedom of the vulnerable. Objectively and measurably this increase in their freedom increases the total average freedom of society more than the decrease in the freedom of the powerful can reduce it. Thirdly while in theory democracy contains protections against dictatorship-of-the-majority in practise no hate-speech law has ever been poltiically possible to pass until a significant majority of the population rejected the discrimination against the group that was being targetted. This automatically means that any hate speech law only ever has an impact on a very small number of people - because the majority has already stopped using the word BEFORE the law was ever passed.
>And that's even before you consider the considerable abuses that the state can exploit with hate speech laws by making disagreement hate speech and hence, illegal. Since that isn't a valid example of hate speech - you will have no shortage of liberals working as your allies to overthrow such laws if they get passed. We LOVE forcing the repeal of unjust laws. If we'll do it for unregarded minorities - what makes you think we would NOT do it for ourselves ?
>We already have examples of the abuses inherent in hate speech laws in Canada and Europe Not that this has stopped the rise of Marine Le Penn - it clearly has zero impact on the actual politics. But even so - in a democracy there are ways to get rid of bad laws or get them ammended to make them better. That a law could potentially be abused is not and is never an argument against having it because ALL laws can be abused. You would have no laws whatsoever. The argument you need to prove (and haven't and cannot) is that the law has no benefits for society AND can ONLY be used in an abusive manner. Otherwise the right approach is to change the law and improve it, not to get rid of it. Slavery met those criteria. Hate speech does not come close.
>They have as much a right to say what they think as you do. That's not a given. Your right to do anything ends where my rights begin. That includes your right to say things - at the point where they intrude on my rights, they stop being your right.
>Even if we suppose that's true, we're just setting up trangenders as scapegoats for terrible laws that shouldn't exist. You're not making it even a bit better.
How the hell did you come up with that one ? You think saying "these laws harm innocent people' somehow puts the blame on the innocent people ? Do you think that the abolitionist movement was making black people a scapegoat for slavery too ?
>I think the real question here is do you think? None of that is made better with hate speech laws. It absolutely is - because firstly, such laws reduce the incidence of these events. Secondly - it sends a clear message that society does not approve of this, that the people saying these things are not representative. That may be an even more beneficial effect.
>There are consequences to bad law. You have not actually shown any evidence whatsoever that hate speech laws are 'bad law'. They tend to be very narrowly defined, and even more narrowly read by courts. Thus far their history really does not back up your claim - not in the US or anywhere else. As the UK has proven - you're more likely to get bad laws out of overly broad libel laws than hate speech laws - and the US does have libel law.
>We'll see if you start thinking first before continuing this discussion. Abuse is not speech. It very often is. Emotional abuse consists entirely of speech. But if you think abuse is NOT speech - then neither is hate-speech. No hate speech law yet has outlawed anything that isn't abusive.
Schools and bullying are the least of the problem. An entire society full of people constantly diminishing them, insulting them, denying their humanity, calling them an abomination - that's the problem. Schools are a tiny part of it.
And do you think that teenagers don't hear what adults say among each other ? Do you think they do not know when those things apply to them ? Do you think they don't read the news ? They don't know about the state governments that are making laws targetting them ?
Do you think verbal abuse is not violence ? Go speak to any survivor of domestic abuse - I've yet to meet one who didn't consider the verbal and emotional abuse the worst part. When did it become a matter of freedom to protect your right to be violent ?
I don't give a fuck what you want. I care what makes the most people, the most free. If that means you specifically have to be slightly less free so that on average more people have more freedom - that's a tradeoff every non-asshole would make.
Aaah the same fallacy that's used to claim universal healthcare is too expensive. The fallacy of not counting the return on investment. Which means you calculate what goes out but not what you save and thus you are lying about what the actual cost is. UBI, by itself, causes more economic growth than anything else ever tried. That is what pays for it and why it isn't inflationary. You may need to print the money once - the growth will outstrip any inflationary effect, and after that, you will not be printing more than the value of what is actually being produced.
In fact, UBI could be a key step toward a steady-state economy that doesn't rely on growth.
Slashdot Mirror
And saying he wants to force all current Muslims to be registered on database so they can be tracked does not sound like an illiberal assault on the civil rights of a minority group to you ?
CNN asked him how that is different from the NAZI act that forced Jews to register by the way, and he was unable to answer. When the candidate HIMSELF cannot explain how his policy is different from Hiltler's - that should at least concern you.
How about stating that he would go after the families of suspected terrorists. This is the kind of country you want to be ?
How about claiming a judge cannot give him a fair hearing because the judge is of Mexican descent ? Forget how racist it is - do you really want a president with THAT little respect for the judiciary ?
And that's just three - the guy has not said a sane thing yet.
>Can you guys and galls get it through your thick skulls that letting in military-age men of an uncertain background from the countries where radical Islam is a dominant ideology is an absolutely idiotic thing to do? What's so bad about figuring out how to make sure you're not letting in an ISIS or Al Quaeda operative?
I bet you don't even know how incredibly prejudiced you are being. You come from country X therefore you are likely to be an evil terrorist is in NO way different from 'n****s rape our women'. By the way - the vetting process before anybody gets in is close on 14 fucking years in some cases. Seriously - that's not enough vetting for you ?!?!?! The shortest period between applying for refugee status and possibly being let in ANYWHERE is 4 years - and that's JUST the UN part of the vetting, the US part still comes on top of that and is NEVER less than 3 years.
It's some seriously determined terrorists who will put themselves until 7 to 14 years of intense scrutiny hoping they won't be identified in order to maybe hurt the US a decade and a half from now. The main reason this will not be a common tactic is because it's a fucking stupid one, there are far easier ways to get into the country to commit acts of terror than disguised as a refugee. Why the hell would a terrorist use LEGAL immigration techniques ?! Yes, Trump's two signature issues actually contradict each other. The border is so porous it can't keep anybody out -but terrorists would mostly come in legally through the most vetted, most checked, most scrutinised path there is. Terrorists will default to the least likely to succeed tactic since the circular firing squad apparently. Those are some stupid terrorists.
To quote a well put summary of the issue:
It's not the word 'pussy' that got people angry, it's the word 'grab'.
That IS in fact forbidden, and rightfully so.
Liking the pussy is fine - but you ONLY get too play with pussies if you are INVITED.
>Radio host Marshall Gilbert was fired for voting for Prop 8
Next you're going to claim that nobody has ever been fired for being gay or for supporting gay marriage aren't you ?
Oh right, only liberals aren't allowed to fire people who don't fit in with their company values. When conservatives or churches do the same thing - that's freedom.
> I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
>This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
You mean like McCarthyism did ? That was the BAD kind - government pushed companies not to hire people who held the wrong political views (or were suspected of it). THAT was political correctness gone mad.
But people excercising their right to choose whose values they want to associate with ? That's democracy and freedom in action. If you oppose that - where do you draw the line ? Can a company refuse to hire a convicted rapist ? What if they woman he raped is the CEO ? Can I refuse to buy things from a company if I have an ethical problem with some of their behaviour ? What if I dislike their political donations ?
This is not a dangerous thing - this is freedom in action.
>I'm not surprised you're resorting now to a "think of the children" argument
Strawman, that was NOT what I did. I showed scientific evidence of harm - and merely honestly admitted that children are more vulnerable to this harm than adults.
Liar, liar pants on fire.
Though for the record. Just because a lot of 'think of the children' arguments are bullshit, that doesn't mean one can never be a perfectly valid argument. The ONLY argument for putting a fence around fishing ponds is 'think of the children'. The only argument for having a safety nett on your pool is 'think of the children'. The only argument for fucking car seats is "think of the children". None of these things are bad, and society isn't harmed by any of them -and frankly if you don't put a fence around your pond and some kid drowns in it (as happened to a friend of mine just a few months ago who had to bury their 2-year old after he wandered off during a birthday party and before they found him fell into a neighbours fishpond) - you should be charged with reckless endangerment and frankly it's insane that it isn't illegal to have a pond without a fence in the first place. That's not an unreasonable reduction in liberty for the lives it saves. "Think of the children" is only a bad argument when the proposed solution is to restrict adults from something that can easily be kept away from children. It's not a a de facto bad thing - and this wasn't even an example of either.
> Corporal punishment is not speech.
And conveniently ignore that I showed you how the same study ALSO proved the same effects just from overhearing adults fight. Or is stuff people say to each other not speech now either?
> Schools which refuse to address bullying aren't speech.
Sorry, wait, bullying when not involving actually beating somebody up or stuffing them in a locker or other physical assault is not speech ? How the hell is that not speech ? And how is it related to the subject ? Do you really think only OTHER KIDS will shout racial slurs at a kid ? DO you think racist adults don't ? Do you think they don't hear what adults say on the news ?
Do you know how teachers in America are currently struggling with panicked kids from Muslim or Latin backgrounds crying in class because the bad man running for president told them if he wins they and their families will be deported ? Kids born in America, citizens, who have never known any other life.
What delusion are you under ?
>Characterizing brain changes as "scarring" ... you are now smarter than the neuroscientists who described what they saw as scarring, a term which in the field has a very specific meaning. It means brain damage.
So
>are not speech.
How is characterising something NOT an act of speech ? What he hell did you even try to say there?
> If that additional freedom means somehow more brain "scarring" than before in young adults
So you do not classify fucking BRAIN DAMAGE as harm ? What insane level do you draw the line at then ? Is waterboarding in the same category as beach vacations to you ? And if nothing else, consider this, the science is a lot less strong on this and I'm admitting that upfront - but the researchers who did that study found an interesting pattern. The people with the most severe damage - are the ones MOST likely to defend the actions that caused it with 'my parents did that to me and I turned out fine'. The evidence strongly suggest they didn't - that the damage done to them have made them incapable of recognizing the harm it causes (brain damaged after all) and more likely to inflict that harm on others. This fits the pattern of other forms of severe psychiatric harm that often creates a pattern of repetition - for example victims of sexual abuse are far more likely to become sexual abusers than other people.
And since it's permanent damage- it's not just young adults, it's ALL adults soon enough.
>I find acceptable in order to have the necessary level of free speech.
There is nothi
Windows servers still get hacked MORE often despite being fewer and further between. Microsofts' record in this regard is absolutely terrible.
And do not underestimate wine - it plays skyrim something gorgeous, and there are plenty of AAA-titles on Linux. Especially if you don't mind waiting a year or two (which also means buying them for a fraction of the price). It's not like the things go stale. I am enjoying the hell out of Saints Row III right now, native on Linux.
I just recently bought both all the skyrim expansions on special, haven't played it again yet - I did it JUST so that when the revamp comes out end of the month I can get it free (they cost a lot less than it will cost new), quite confident that 64-bit wine will run the new version something lovely - and that will allow me to finally install ALL the mods (which the 32-bit version never could handle well). Frankly, when Skywind is actually released -this should make it possible ot actually try it out (though I'll probably always prefer to play morrowind with OpenMW).
There are three times as many games for Linux as for Playstation and thats just on steam and not counting wine/PlayOnLinux. And all of them work better than on Windows
A Harvard study found that all spankings, no matter how mild or rare cause permanent brain damage which left lifelong visible scars in MRIs. A follow-up found the same scarring in kids who grew up with parents that abused EACH OTHER but not the children. ,but in kids it is much, much worse.
The evidence suggests that the problem is stress hormones. These obviously spike in stressful situations such as spankings or hearing mommy and daddy attack each other. And the evidence is very strong that, in a child's developing brain - those spikes cause permanent harm. We are not evolved to experience ANY stress as children - our entire evolution is built around the premise of providing children with safe 'nests' and stress hormone spikes are never good anyway, stress kills adults after all
Now riddle me this.
Do you SERIOUSLY contend the following:
1) That hate speech do NOT regularly get lobbed at young children as well ?
2) That being targeted by hate speech would not cause significant stress ?
3) That the persistent and repeating nature of hate speech (there is no such thing as an isolated incidence) would not aggravate the effects ?
4) That children can reasonably judge which adults words to care about - and should be able to ignore the outcomes ?
Because you would have to make ALL those ridiculous claims to persist in your belief that words cannot cause real, physical harm.
Now you may declare (as you previously tried) that things which are harmful to children should not be denied adults, and generally that argument is true, but it doesn't apply to something which inevitably gets targeted at children as well. There is no fantasyland where racists ONLY shout slurs at grown ups (Who are ALSO harmed - just less so and less severely).
When something is a clear and present danger to children, CANNOT be (even slightly) constrained to use among adults and does not serve any beneficial purpose - what the hell is wrong with banning it ? That is every possible criteria for a GOOD law right there.
Your philosophical belief that the electro-chemical device known as the human brain computer not be affected by outside inputs is simply utterly and completely devoid of reality. That bad inputs can cause permanent harm to it is literally the basis of three entire fields of science. If you were right - surely SOMEBODY would have figured out by now that psychology, psychiatry and neurology are ALL studying something that apparently does not exist ?
>"If you don't agree with me, you're obviously crazy."
Actually no - I think you're just anti-freedom. But the people you listen to are psychopaths.
Oh and rather the circlejerk of logic with the same evidence can only ever lead to one conclusion (that's literally what logic is FOR) than the clusterfuck of whatever everybody gets to choose their own facts.
You moved the goalposts there. You claimed that hate-speech laws were either ineffective or actively contributed to the holocaust. Now you shifted your argument to "did not prevent it". Well I never claimed it did or would have. One may wonder if the hate speech laws in Weimar were merely insufficient ? Or merely insufficiently enforced ? Even outside that it's a meaningless observation. Nobody thinks hate-speech laws are a cure-all for society's ills (anybody who does is delusional). They are merely a protection against a specific set of harms. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't make the racism or the sexism go away - they just mean that, in normal circumstances, people are less subjected to it. Others may still hold those views, but they are less capable of harming you as a result. That doesn't mean "incapable" - just less capable. Preventing outcomes like the holocaust takes a lot more than hate-speech laws, but it does not follow that hate-speech laws are not an absolute necessity as a component. Just like your car needs a lot more than brake-fluid to drive, but it doesn't mean it is safe to drive it without brake fluid.
Contrary to your persistent and false belief - speech CAN harm people in real and concrete ways. Not least of which - a pattern of abusive speech causes permanent neurological damage. This is well established neuro-science. Your claim that hate-speech is not abusive is just your same-old strawman of falsely expanding what hate-speech laws are.
Here's a hint: the slippery slope argument is fallacious and any argument based on it should be ignored. It's perfectly possible to ONLY ban words that are known to harm, or contribute to a pattern of harm - without that ever expanding beyond that. Then the only remaining debate is around whether a particular word would meet that definition - for that you need strong scientific consensus. Transgender people fit into that category - the consensus is very strongly in their favour and in favour of the idea that refusal to, for example, call them by their chosen pronounce significantly contribute to severe harm towards them - up to and including death. Now perhaps in the future new evidence will cast serious doubt on that (I don't think that's likely but it could happen) - in which case the inclusion of that in some laws should be revisted. Right now, we should make laws with the best information we have available.
Any law that restricts speech should always be as narrow as possible - but that doesn't mean there are never legitimate reasons to do so. All such laws CAN be overbroad or abused. Should we get rid of libel laws because the UK's libel laws are massively overbroad and frequently used to stifle legitimate public interest news ? Or should the UK just fix their libel laws ? If Canada's hate-speech laws are, in fact, overbroad -that's an argument for narrowing Canada's hate-speech laws to a more appropriate level, it's not an argument against having any. But so far, the only 'abuse' I've seen is some bigotted Canadian professor who would rather be a criminal than show somebody the most basic level of respect of calling them by the term they wish to be known by.
That's the real issue. There is NO such thing as 'politically correct'. There is only respecting the humanity of all others, or NOT respecting the humanity of all others. There is what you call 'politically correct' and there is being a terrible person. But there is no way to be a good person, or a productive and useful member of society without also being 'politically correct'.
>Saying speech is "violence" is meaningless since speech in itself can't cause bodily injury
Brain damage is bodily injury and speech can cause it. Much like smorking - one cigarette won't kill you and one person calling you a n***** won't give you brain damage. But the same thing every day over decades definitely WILL cause permanent and severe harm.
>Saying it reduces equality from the law is vapid since speech doesn't have anything to do with equality of the law
So you think that judges and lawyers do not hold prejudicial views ? That their views are not, like everybody else's, reinforced when they hear others express similar views ? By reinforcing prejudicial views in judges - words can, and do, reduce equality before the law. Hell - think about it - nobody is BORN prejudiced, prejudice is memetic - and the judge that acts racist could not have become so unless they had first been infected by the racism meme. If nobody had ever expressed racist views TO the judge, the judge could never have become a racist themselves.
>Procedures and actions of the legislature, regulators, law enforcement and the courts do.
All of which are done by people - who also, can ONLY, gain prejudices after being introduced to them by other people. Racism is a *very* recent phenomenon. It didn't exist at all just 500 years ago. It was only invented at the start of the age of exploration/colonisation. When greedy bastards wanted to conquer other peoples' homes and steal their resources and enslave them - but had to deal with a church and legal system that was already quite opposed to all these things (the Magna Carta had been going on 400 years old already). The best way to get around the law and the church and the social mores was to pretend that those aren't really "people" they were stealing from an exploiting (and completely contradicting the previous claim but that never stopped a greedy person spreading propaganda: that they were bringing civilization to the barbarians). That's when racism began. That was the first time racist thought was ever expressed - it started out as nothing but propaganda to get society to tolerate actions which, while it would make some people very rich, went fundamentally against the values of that society. Propaganda begat a meme which infects us and harms and shapes our society for the worse until this day.
>What I think is going on is that you are trying to censor legitimate speech
No. I'm trying to cure society of a memetic plague through quarantining the worst infection vectors.
>And of course, you have yet to show that hate speech endangers people.
Fire and brimmstone pastor tells people Gays caused the latest Hurricane - somebody IS going to go gay-bashing to punish them. It's incitement. It can never NOT be incitement. Regardless of whether it was intentional incitement it WILL incite. That's how it endangers people.
Right now, the law is at it's least racist since the invention of racism - a few big issues remain though. For example the targetting of black men by police. Something which comes down to police being nervous off them - because the strong meme of that 'dangerous black thug' is more powerful an influence on their perceptions of a situation than the reality of what their senses are telling them at that moment. The meme is the killer. The meme needs to be eradicated, because it's killing people.
But there is more to it than that. It took enormous hardship and 500 years of the worst injustices of our civilization to get here. But if the memes are allowed to live on, if pockets of the disease are left to remain - then like a cancer it will flare up again, and in a hundred years, or two hundred years, things will be as bad as they were a hundred years ago.
Progress is not automatic - not even technological progress is automatic, it takes effort, and 99% of that effort is eradicating old and wrong-headed ways of thinking. That too, is true of technology as it is of society.
>A right to safety, equality before the law, and freedom from violence are not furthered by hate speech laws.
Yes they are. That is why we make those laws. Your denial of the fact that hate speech
1) Is violence
2) reduces equality from the law and
3) endangers people
Does not change these facts. They remain true no matter how many times you say they aren't.
>CANADIAN AND UK CITIZENS COME TO THE US FOR LIFE SAVING MEDICINE BECAUSE THEIR MASSIVE SYSTEM FAILS!
False. It's a favorite republican myth but it's just not true. In fact less than 0.003% of Canadians go to the US for any healthcare and that consists ENTIRELY of very rich people wanting optional procedures (mostly cosmetic surgery) which is, obviously, low priority back home.
>Good grief, given 3 opportunities you still can't answer the question of how you pay for it without collapsing the economy
I answered it each time. You remain too stupid to understand what I said. UBI causes increases in entrepeneurship, productivity and employment that exceeds the money spent on it. It doesn't cost you anything - it's a profitable fucking investment !
Preventing person A from removing a freedom from person B is the ONLY sane definition of defending freedom. Failure to do so is the only sane definition of anti-freedom. By comparing the liberal Americans to the GPL supporters, you only proved my point. And proved you are either anti-freedom yourself or a psychopath - the only types of people who would not instantly see that this is the only logical definition.
Holy shit... how ignorant can you be ? The US has nothing that resembles universal healthcare now - it seems you're claiming Obamacare is universal healthcare (despite there being no monopoly there).
Canada and the UK and oh EVERY OTHER NON-HELLHOLE COUNTRY ON EARTH has Universal Healthcare. the US is the only one that still doesn't.
You can argue about whether Obamacare is better than before - but it has NO relevance to whether Universal Healthcare would be better - the answer is it MUST be - because America has the worst healhcare outcomes of them all, and the most expensive (and this was true BEFORE Obamacare too). They all do better with it.
But no, I didn't ignore the point - I illustrated the fallacy of ignoring the return on investment. We have overwhelming empirical proof that UBI causes economic growth that produces FAR more wealth than it costs. You don't HAVE to pay for it, it WILL pay for itself.
>You have yet to show a right of your violated by so called hate speech. Sorry, that's the way it is.
I have, the supreme court has, so has the supreme courts and constitutions of the entire free world. The right to safety, to equality before the law, to freedom from violence - those are all violated by hate speech and anything that does not violate those is not hate speech and you pretending it is, is merely an attempt by you to construct a strawman by painting these laws as if they outlaw mere 'naughty' speech.
You really are immune to facts. You base your entire worldview on complete fantasies. Lets just dismantle one as an example.
>Just like it did in the Wiemar Republic? Hitler was jailed for the terrible things he said and did. That didn't stop him from gaining power
Every single word in that is a flagrant lie.
1) Nothing Hitler ever said was illegal or contributed to his going to jail. He was sent to jail for high treason after a failed coup attempt in 1921. The biggest mistake the government made was to commute his death penalty to a prison sentence. In fact, he was so uncensored he wrote Mein Kampf WHILE in prison - and publsihed it.
2) No laws had anything to do with Hitler gaining power. Because his gaining of power was entirely extralegal. Contrary to popular belief the NAZIs NEVER won an election. The best they ever did was 11% in 1929. That did, however, gain them some seats in parliament. The conservative government panicked and hoped to appease and quiet the extreme fringe by giving Hitler the presidency. In theory a good move since the presidency was almost entirely a ceremonial role. The president did get to appoint the chancelor but only if the current one resigned, retired or died. Other than that - almost no real power. Except in 1930 the chancelor DID die and the closest thing to a bad law in the entire story was that the constitution did not prohibited the president from appointing himself chancelor - which is what Hitler did. The next day he brutally killed every left-wing politician in parliament. All the conservatives instantly joined the NAZIs for fear of being executed as well. The first pogrom the NAZIs ever did was to rid Germany of socialist politicians.
No truth to your claim whatsoever. None of your claims are true. And the Canadian law you are so panicked about isn't even passed yet - and there is nothing abusive about it, just right-wing press idiots like thefederalist making wild claims about how terrible it is with no evidence that it can or will be abused or that there is anything wrong with it.
By the way - the law in South Africa is stricter -and if anything it suffers because the courts are not willing to enforce it strictly enough. Too many people still get away with illegal racism for example.
>Don't be stupid. Hate speech laws aren't about prohibiting khallow to say naughty things, it's about prohibiting anyone to say naughty things. It's straightforward restricting the free speech of everyone.
Bullshit. Firstly 'naughty' is a seriously excessive euphemism - which is doubly dishonest as it makes it sound as if hate-speech laws are far more broad than they ever actually are. Secondly - in a democracy hate speech laws protect the vulnerable from abuse by the powerful. That increases the freedom of the vulnerable. Objectively and measurably this increase in their freedom increases the total average freedom of society more than the decrease in the freedom of the powerful can reduce it. Thirdly while in theory democracy contains protections against dictatorship-of-the-majority in practise no hate-speech law has ever been poltiically possible to pass until a significant majority of the population rejected the discrimination against the group that was being targetted. This automatically means that any hate speech law only ever has an impact on a very small number of people - because the majority has already stopped using the word BEFORE the law was ever passed.
>And that's even before you consider the considerable abuses that the state can exploit with hate speech laws by making disagreement hate speech and hence, illegal.
Since that isn't a valid example of hate speech - you will have no shortage of liberals working as your allies to overthrow such laws if they get passed. We LOVE forcing the repeal of unjust laws. If we'll do it for unregarded minorities - what makes you think we would NOT do it for ourselves ?
>We already have examples of the abuses inherent in hate speech laws in Canada and Europe
Not that this has stopped the rise of Marine Le Penn - it clearly has zero impact on the actual politics. But even so - in a democracy there are ways to get rid of bad laws or get them ammended to make them better. That a law could potentially be abused is not and is never an argument against having it because ALL laws can be abused. You would have no laws whatsoever. The argument you need to prove (and haven't and cannot) is that the law has no benefits for society AND can ONLY be used in an abusive manner. Otherwise the right approach is to change the law and improve it, not to get rid of it. Slavery met those criteria. Hate speech does not come close.
>They have as much a right to say what they think as you do.
That's not a given. Your right to do anything ends where my rights begin. That includes your right to say things - at the point where they intrude on my rights, they stop being your right.
>Even if we suppose that's true, we're just setting up trangenders as scapegoats for terrible laws that shouldn't exist. You're not making it even a bit better.
How the hell did you come up with that one ? You think saying "these laws harm innocent people' somehow puts the blame on the innocent people ? Do you think that the abolitionist movement was making black people a scapegoat for slavery too ?
>I think the real question here is do you think? None of that is made better with hate speech laws.
It absolutely is - because firstly, such laws reduce the incidence of these events. Secondly - it sends a clear message that society does not approve of this, that the people saying these things are not representative. That may be an even more beneficial effect.
>There are consequences to bad law.
You have not actually shown any evidence whatsoever that hate speech laws are 'bad law'. They tend to be very narrowly defined, and even more narrowly read by courts. Thus far their history really does not back up your claim - not in the US or anywhere else. As the UK has proven - you're more likely to get bad laws out of overly broad libel laws than hate speech laws - and the US does have libel law.
>We'll see if you start thinking first before continuing this discussion. Abuse is not speech.
It very often is. Emotional abuse consists entirely of speech. But if you think abuse is NOT speech - then neither is hate-speech. No hate speech law yet has outlawed anything that isn't abusive.
Schools and bullying are the least of the problem. An entire society full of people constantly diminishing them, insulting them, denying their humanity, calling them an abomination - that's the problem. Schools are a tiny part of it.
And do you think that teenagers don't hear what adults say among each other ? Do you think they do not know when those things apply to them ? Do you think they don't read the news ? They don't know about the state governments that are making laws targetting them ?
Do you think verbal abuse is not violence ? Go speak to any survivor of domestic abuse - I've yet to meet one who didn't consider the verbal and emotional abuse the worst part. When did it become a matter of freedom to protect your right to be violent ?
I don't give a fuck what you want. I care what makes the most people, the most free. If that means you specifically have to be slightly less free so that on average more people have more freedom - that's a tradeoff every non-asshole would make.
I never assumed anything of the kind. I merely - using a generic explanation, pointed out the objective truth over which group is really anti-liberty.
Aaah the same fallacy that's used to claim universal healthcare is too expensive. The fallacy of not counting the return on investment. Which means you calculate what goes out but not what you save and thus you are lying about what the actual cost is. UBI, by itself, causes more economic growth than anything else ever tried. That is what pays for it and why it isn't inflationary. You may need to print the money once - the growth will outstrip any inflationary effect, and after that, you will not be printing more than the value of what is actually being produced.
In fact, UBI could be a key step toward a steady-state economy that doesn't rely on growth.
Here's just one: http://med.miami.edu/news/chan...
What ? You think it's possible to say something like that and NOT affect children ?