How am I arguing for a binary position and "demand an absolute lack of censorship" when I gave you clear limits and guidelines to limit the right?
All I can think of is that you either didn't read my comment or didn't comprehend it. You say pragmatic but you don't seem to have an argument besides some strawman in your head.
Just because tyrants have limited freedom of speech (or privacy) doesn't mean that any limit on freedom of speech is tyranny.
I did not make that argument. I have not argued for any absolute or that any limit equates to tyranny. I have said: "A government protecting speech for all is standing up for equality for all people. Speech is more dangerous than a gun because it can rally genocide. Yet, it is the most important right of a democratic society. ".
Why is your line on speech better?
Because well defined and causes harm such as libel, slander or threats of violence. Hate speech has not been well defined and/or it does not cause harm in and of itself because it requires an action to follow. You are using absolute freedom as a comparison when that would only exist in anarchy.
If historical examples are not evidence enough to protect any right, what is good evidence that any right is important and should be protected? Is it self evident? Which philosophical lens are you arguing rights? What is the moral standard you are using?
the corruption and incompetence levels of American law enforcement have been staggering.
For the drug war, there should be a distinction between federal and state enforcement because that changes who the "target" of enforcement is. That also doesn't address the goal of the drug war and it's efficacy as you are alluding to.
Finally, your argument that black markets create lower prices is anti-intuitive. Normally black markets raise the cost of goods or services because the financial model has to include the risk of being in the business.
If a drug becomes expensive the market will create alternatives. or an example take Krokodil(nasty stuff btw) Recently because of state initiatives, the black market is competing with legal markets and the black market is cheaper because less regulation (go figure).
There is some truth to that but you must also consider the lack of regulation. For example, in high school it was easier to get any illegal drug than it was to get alcohol because a drug dealer doesn't care who they sell to compared to a store owner that could lose everything. Or using dangerous and cheaper substances to "dilute" the drug to make more money.
I'm sorry but if you think it hyperbole then you have become complacent living with freedom and take it for granted.
1) inciting violence (threats) and terrorism is illegal in the US as it is in Europe. But Europe does have Hate speech laws. Hate speech in the US is protected by the 1st amendment and upheld every time it went to the Supreme Court.
2) I never said absolute freedom of speech. Libel, slander, and threats of violence are illegal. That doesn't change the fact that hate speech is protected speech and there are more protections for speech in the US than Europe.
3) We know that privacy is important through various examples of history and the abuses the government has done when privacy is not protected. Privacy is an extension of property. If you own your house the government cannot break in without just cause. If you do not know the examples in history to show you why privacy (property) and speech are important then that is your ignorance and not my dogma. We have plenty of examples of tyranny throughout history and many of them share similar characteristics in the means and operation through which they take power and hold power at the expense of the people.
Hate speech is poorly defined and "who watches the watchers". Hate speech, or any speech, in and of itself does not hurt anyone. It requires action to cause harm. I cannot harm you or your property with racial slurs or suggesting your skin color is inferior. A laudable goal (ending hate speech) by a bad law (poorly defined 'hate speech' who gets to decide definition) and failing (does not stop the rise of the 'extreme' right in Europe).
Murder is clearly defined. It causes harm as it is an action. You do not have the right to take someones life away. Outlawing it ensures that those that do this action are separated from the rest of society. The punishments are less of a deterrent as they are for society to separate those that prove they cannot participate in society.
How is it pretzel logic ? Perhaps I used poor language "universally unacceptable action". The drug war was thought of as an acceptable means to a laudable goal, does that change the efficacy in reducing drug use?
Fair enough. But a few hundred thousand for both bombs isn't enough to be "number one killer in the world". Again, they weren't eve the worst bombing runs in the war.
A government protecting speech for all is standing up for equality for all people.
We distrust the government because we do not think we are special and that the horrors of the past can happen here. What drives violence is that same in Europe as in the US because human nature. Sweeping offensive speech under the rug does not solve the problem. Outlawing offensive speech only perpetuates those that parade those believes because those people will go underground, be validated, double their resolve, galvanize their support and create a victim narrative for recruitment.
Speech is more dangerous than a gun because it can rally genocide. Yet, it is the most important right of a democratic society. If you ban speech then you undermine the foundation of democracy. Free speech does not protect speech the majority thinks acceptable. It is for the controversial and offensive which has been historically the speech that has given us more freedom and more rights and more understanding of ourselves.
There is a price to every right. The more that people forget that - the more that the price will be paid in blood.
Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
How many people do you think were killed by those 2 bombs? They weren't even the deadliest bombing runs of the war.
Do you include the many thousands/millions that didn't die from invading Japan? Seriously, check out Operation Downfall. For some perspective, Olympic estimated 766,700-815,548 personnel while Normandy landings had 156,000.
That doesn't undermine the point that outlawing something does not stop it. You could also argue that violence is a health issue too.
The fact of the mater is that if you try and ban certain speech; those people will go underground, be validated, double their resolve, galvanize their support and create a victim narrative for recruitment. Just as the drug war created a black market with cheaper prices and drug cartels that are better financed and more organized than many governments.
1) the guy was arrested. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/27/... 2) the police were not doing their job separating the group allowing violence to happen. when that happens people take the law into their own hands 3) that doesn't answer the question, how many nazi's you think were there and how many in the us 4) how is Kekistan any different than Charley Chaplin in The dictator? 5) many sported the US flag, does that mean the US flag is a symbol of nazis?
Which is interesting because as technology and culture evolved it is obvious the law has not kept up. Are memes subject to fair use? By their nature they are limited and it can be argued that they are transformative. i.e. 'feelsbadman' is more about the sadness in the picture than Pepe. It just so happened that Pepe was chosen for that emotion for that meme.
If I post a "feelsbadman" pepe on a post explaining that I was dumped by my girlfriend, is that fair use? That is the real question at hand, do memes fall under fair use? I think the courts are slowly catching up to culture and technology with examples like the h3h3 copyright lawsuit in regard to reaction channels on youtube.
Technically the Nazi's lost and there are no more National Socialists parading that platform. We used to call them neo-nazi's to distinguish it but Neo changed all that.
How would you mock identify politics? Do you think neo-nazi's like their flag used as the butt of a joke making fun of identify politics (which neo-nazi's subscribe to)? How is that any different than Charley Chaplin in The Dictator?
Kek is a proud tradition of the internet and it's high time the green skins have a flag and country to call their own! #greenlivesmatter. May kek be with you. Kek bless.
Equality under the law is not necessarily equality,
Equality under the law is what is important because then it means that any failure can be because of individual decisions. Culture is a big part of that as you alluded to with "social factors that have to be addressed". Such as single parent households and not graduating high-school. If there are instances of injustice then I will be right there with you to remedy that inequality. But when you have equality under the law individual choice must be taken into account for any outcome. Equality under the law means that the individual has legal tools to ensure opportunity is not being restricted because of their race or sex (for an example). Any talk of systemic oppression is useless because there are already legal remedies created to protect the individual that the individual can use to redeem their situation. You have to give me specifics or else it's useless rhetoric that I or anyone can nothing about.
transsexuals wanting to go to the bathroom unobtrusively as asking for special rights.
I think part of the issue is that the laws are badly written. If it is as easy to change your gender as saying so, I think there is areas of abuse particularly so if (like in Canada) gender pronouns become a legal right that if violated is tantamount to verbal assault. I generally don't care but do care about well written law.
same-sex couples wanting to marry
It's how it was done is what I have a problem with i.e. the courts. Any social change like that is handled by the courts is wrong IMO. Additionally it should never be a federal matter. Particularly how Obama got his way (not defend the law and considering that de facto means the challenge wins, do we really want a justice department that wont defend laws in court from lawsuits if they think it politically bad? ).
see disabled people asking to be able to use some facilities in the first place
Cost is the factor. At what point is the cost too high? I am not trying to be mean but if the cost is high enough that it is bankrupting schools and business then the is overburden. An example is school disability (IDEA), those costs are a large burden on smaller schools the way the law is written because per student the costs increase dramatically that can threaten the entire school. It doesn't help that the federal government has not fulfilled their end of the deal in funding. You talk about bad schooling, one part of that is because school financing.
Every issue has two sides. I need more evidence for lack of equal opportunity than unequal outcomes.
I want everyone to have equal opportunity, and opportunity is currently not anywhere near equally distributed.
Wait... You are assuming that equal opportunity == equal distribution. Why? When does personal choice influence the opportunities which in effect changes the distribution? When does culture influence the distribution? We have passed laws to ensure equal opportunity what more needs to be done in your mind? At some point, you have to allow the individual to succeed or fail and let the cards fall as they may. That isn't racist if it is unequally distributed by race. What is your measure to determine when we have achieved equal opportunity but because of individual choices have unequal distributions?
it turns out that the groups want equal treatment and aren't getting it.
You are going to have to have evidence to support that beyond statistical disparity because I have to ask; when is statistical disparity not indicative of racism? There are other factors beyond race that determine success or treatment.
Whoa there ganjadude, you need to watch how you administer non-verbal praise, facetious or not. The proper way to "clap" is to click your fingers. Clapping is an oppressive expression that shows your privilege. However many pico-aggressions you just committed before you have definitely crossed into micro aggression territory. Find the nearest minority or woman and give them $1000 to reaffirm that you are an ally to the cause and not an alt-right cis gendered sexist- racist- homophobe- xenophobe- islamaphobe deplorable.
Slashdot Mirror
How am I arguing for a binary position and "demand an absolute lack of censorship" when I gave you clear limits and guidelines to limit the right?
All I can think of is that you either didn't read my comment or didn't comprehend it. You say pragmatic but you don't seem to have an argument besides some strawman in your head.
Just because tyrants have limited freedom of speech (or privacy) doesn't mean that any limit on freedom of speech is tyranny.
I did not make that argument. I have not argued for any absolute or that any limit equates to tyranny. I have said: "A government protecting speech for all is standing up for equality for all people. Speech is more dangerous than a gun because it can rally genocide. Yet, it is the most important right of a democratic society. ".
Why is your line on speech better?
Because well defined and causes harm such as libel, slander or threats of violence. Hate speech has not been well defined and/or it does not cause harm in and of itself because it requires an action to follow. You are using absolute freedom as a comparison when that would only exist in anarchy.
If historical examples are not evidence enough to protect any right, what is good evidence that any right is important and should be protected? Is it self evident? Which philosophical lens are you arguing rights? What is the moral standard you are using?
@_@
What have I done? Don't tell my brother. I thought she was just some drunk gilf.
http://www.nooooooooooooooo.co...
the corruption and incompetence levels of American law enforcement have been staggering.
For the drug war, there should be a distinction between federal and state enforcement because that changes who the "target" of enforcement is. That also doesn't address the goal of the drug war and it's efficacy as you are alluding to.
Finally, your argument that black markets create lower prices is anti-intuitive. Normally black markets raise the cost of goods or services because the financial model has to include the risk of being in the business.
If a drug becomes expensive the market will create alternatives. or an example take Krokodil(nasty stuff btw)
Recently because of state initiatives, the black market is competing with legal markets and the black market is cheaper because less regulation (go figure).
There is some truth to that but you must also consider the lack of regulation. For example, in high school it was easier to get any illegal drug than it was to get alcohol because a drug dealer doesn't care who they sell to compared to a store owner that could lose everything. Or using dangerous and cheaper substances to "dilute" the drug to make more money.
Is the rise in right wing politics in Europe enough for you? From, Brexit, to Le Pen to the recent German elections. Europe bans hate speech yet still having problems with hate crimes https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/...
I'm sorry but if you think it hyperbole then you have become complacent living with freedom and take it for granted.
1) inciting violence (threats) and terrorism is illegal in the US as it is in Europe. But Europe does have Hate speech laws. Hate speech in the US is protected by the 1st amendment and upheld every time it went to the Supreme Court.
2) I never said absolute freedom of speech. Libel, slander, and threats of violence are illegal. That doesn't change the fact that hate speech is protected speech and there are more protections for speech in the US than Europe.
3) We know that privacy is important through various examples of history and the abuses the government has done when privacy is not protected. Privacy is an extension of property. If you own your house the government cannot break in without just cause. If you do not know the examples in history to show you why privacy (property) and speech are important then that is your ignorance and not my dogma. We have plenty of examples of tyranny throughout history and many of them share similar characteristics in the means and operation through which they take power and hold power at the expense of the people.
Hate speech is poorly defined and "who watches the watchers". Hate speech, or any speech, in and of itself does not hurt anyone. It requires action to cause harm. I cannot harm you or your property with racial slurs or suggesting your skin color is inferior. A laudable goal (ending hate speech) by a bad law (poorly defined 'hate speech' who gets to decide definition) and failing (does not stop the rise of the 'extreme' right in Europe).
Murder is clearly defined. It causes harm as it is an action. You do not have the right to take someones life away. Outlawing it ensures that those that do this action are separated from the rest of society. The punishments are less of a deterrent as they are for society to separate those that prove they cannot participate in society.
How is it pretzel logic ? Perhaps I used poor language "universally unacceptable action". The drug war was thought of as an acceptable means to a laudable goal, does that change the efficacy in reducing drug use?
There is a difference between a bad law trying to accomplish a laudable goal and failing compared to outlawing a universally unacceptable action.
Try again. If you have an analogy that actually fits I would entertain it.
Fair enough. But a few hundred thousand for both bombs isn't enough to be "number one killer in the world". Again, they weren't eve the worst bombing runs in the war.
A government protecting speech for all is standing up for equality for all people.
We distrust the government because we do not think we are special and that the horrors of the past can happen here. What drives violence is that same in Europe as in the US because human nature. Sweeping offensive speech under the rug does not solve the problem. Outlawing offensive speech only perpetuates those that parade those believes because those people will go underground, be validated, double their resolve, galvanize their support and create a victim narrative for recruitment.
Speech is more dangerous than a gun because it can rally genocide. Yet, it is the most important right of a democratic society. If you ban speech then you undermine the foundation of democracy. Free speech does not protect speech the majority thinks acceptable. It is for the controversial and offensive which has been historically the speech that has given us more freedom and more rights and more understanding of ourselves.
There is a price to every right. The more that people forget that - the more that the price will be paid in blood.
Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
How many people do you think were killed by those 2 bombs? They weren't even the deadliest bombing runs of the war.
Do you include the many thousands/millions that didn't die from invading Japan? Seriously, check out Operation Downfall. For some perspective, Olympic estimated 766,700-815,548 personnel while Normandy landings had 156,000.
That doesn't undermine the point that outlawing something does not stop it. You could also argue that violence is a health issue too.
The fact of the mater is that if you try and ban certain speech; those people will go underground, be validated, double their resolve, galvanize their support and create a victim narrative for recruitment. Just as the drug war created a black market with cheaper prices and drug cartels that are better financed and more organized than many governments.
Yea, that totally worked for the war on drugs.
1) the guy was arrested. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/27/...
2) the police were not doing their job separating the group allowing violence to happen. when that happens people take the law into their own hands
3) that doesn't answer the question, how many nazi's you think were there and how many in the us
4) how is Kekistan any different than Charley Chaplin in The dictator?
5) many sported the US flag, does that mean the US flag is a symbol of nazis?
Was everyone at Charlottesville a nazi? How many neo-nazis do you think exist in the US?
Which is interesting because as technology and culture evolved it is obvious the law has not kept up. Are memes subject to fair use? By their nature they are limited and it can be argued that they are transformative. i.e. 'feelsbadman' is more about the sadness in the picture than Pepe. It just so happened that Pepe was chosen for that emotion for that meme.
If I post a "feelsbadman" pepe on a post explaining that I was dumped by my girlfriend, is that fair use? That is the real question at hand, do memes fall under fair use? I think the courts are slowly catching up to culture and technology with examples like the h3h3 copyright lawsuit in regard to reaction channels on youtube.
I hope you look deep in your heart and find Kek to help you with your troubled life.
Kek be with you.
You're still trying to use someone else's soapbox
Then why do we still allow nazi's to get phone lines? They can use that to call each other and organize or spread their hateful ideology!
Technically the Nazi's lost and there are no more National Socialists parading that platform. We used to call them neo-nazi's to distinguish it but Neo changed all that.
How would you mock identify politics?
Do you think neo-nazi's like their flag used as the butt of a joke making fun of identify politics (which neo-nazi's subscribe to)?
How is that any different than Charley Chaplin in The Dictator?
Kek is a proud tradition of the internet and it's high time the green skins have a flag and country to call their own! #greenlivesmatter. May kek be with you. Kek bless.
Equality under the law is not necessarily equality,
Equality under the law is what is important because then it means that any failure can be because of individual decisions. Culture is a big part of that as you alluded to with "social factors that have to be addressed". Such as single parent households and not graduating high-school. If there are instances of injustice then I will be right there with you to remedy that inequality. But when you have equality under the law individual choice must be taken into account for any outcome. Equality under the law means that the individual has legal tools to ensure opportunity is not being restricted because of their race or sex (for an example). Any talk of systemic oppression is useless because there are already legal remedies created to protect the individual that the individual can use to redeem their situation. You have to give me specifics or else it's useless rhetoric that I or anyone can nothing about.
transsexuals wanting to go to the bathroom unobtrusively as asking for special rights.
I think part of the issue is that the laws are badly written. If it is as easy to change your gender as saying so, I think there is areas of abuse particularly so if (like in Canada) gender pronouns become a legal right that if violated is tantamount to verbal assault. I generally don't care but do care about well written law.
same-sex couples wanting to marry
It's how it was done is what I have a problem with i.e. the courts. Any social change like that is handled by the courts is wrong IMO. Additionally it should never be a federal matter. Particularly how Obama got his way (not defend the law and considering that de facto means the challenge wins, do we really want a justice department that wont defend laws in court from lawsuits if they think it politically bad? ).
see disabled people asking to be able to use some facilities in the first place
Cost is the factor. At what point is the cost too high? I am not trying to be mean but if the cost is high enough that it is bankrupting schools and business then the is overburden. An example is school disability (IDEA), those costs are a large burden on smaller schools the way the law is written because per student the costs increase dramatically that can threaten the entire school. It doesn't help that the federal government has not fulfilled their end of the deal in funding. You talk about bad schooling, one part of that is because school financing.
Every issue has two sides. I need more evidence for lack of equal opportunity than unequal outcomes.
I hope you have the same skepticism for CNN and NYTimes anonymous sources.
I want everyone to have equal opportunity, and opportunity is currently not anywhere near equally distributed.
Wait... You are assuming that equal opportunity == equal distribution. Why? When does personal choice influence the opportunities which in effect changes the distribution? When does culture influence the distribution? We have passed laws to ensure equal opportunity what more needs to be done in your mind? At some point, you have to allow the individual to succeed or fail and let the cards fall as they may. That isn't racist if it is unequally distributed by race. What is your measure to determine when we have achieved equal opportunity but because of individual choices have unequal distributions?
it turns out that the groups want equal treatment and aren't getting it.
You are going to have to have evidence to support that beyond statistical disparity because I have to ask; when is statistical disparity not indicative of racism? There are other factors beyond race that determine success or treatment.
Everything is racist.
One about to go on a helicopter ride.
Whoa there ganjadude, you need to watch how you administer non-verbal praise, facetious or not. The proper way to "clap" is to click your fingers. Clapping is an oppressive expression that shows your privilege. However many pico-aggressions you just committed before you have definitely crossed into micro aggression territory. Find the nearest minority or woman and give them $1000 to reaffirm that you are an ally to the cause and not an alt-right cis gendered sexist- racist- homophobe- xenophobe- islamaphobe deplorable.