Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.
I agree it's hard, but I don't think it's the case that no hate supression can be achieved or that attempting to do so results in repression. We currently have a system where hate speech is supressed and it's not repressive. It's a balancing act and always will be.
There are already limitations on freedom of speech. Speech that encourages violent acts, such as those last week, is already restricted. I don't see how "preventing such sites" is not the same thing "killing a dozen people", even as simply "an act against freedom of speech."
You're right. The limitations are there now. If you don't see them, it's only because you accept those limitations so completely that they vanish for you.
and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences
No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.
despite whatever you say you should still be legally protected from harm, like everyone else. now if some people in your community dislike you for saying shit you say, that's entirely up to them, but that doesn't give them permission to attack you through illegal means.
I'm not hating on the US. I know the UK libel laws are different. I'm just pointing out that, even the US, there are exceptions to freedom of speech. Every country does it differently, but the most important thing is that the government can't persecute you for what you say. e.g. critising it.
Free speech hasn't been taken away. There already are limitations on what constitutes free speech in the UK (and the US, and other countries, for that matter). Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited. Political protest isn't limited. The press is free to insult the government. Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"
Yeah, but nobody else understands it. That's why we have "3D" movies not "stereo movies". Because people think stereo==sound system. TFA is a consumer article and it's using the term "3D" in a way that it's audience will understand. If we ever have 3D imaging for consumers (doubtful), it'll have some other name.
It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?
Why is it a paradox? "Democracy" simple means "the rule of the people" (usually via voting) and isn't a single thing, as it's a broad definition, and varies from country to country. e.g. compare the US model to the Swiss model. Very different, but they're both democracies (they even both have "states"). So you're free to set up your democracy in a number of different ways. Most deal with freedom of speech by saying that the government won't infringe it. So the press is free and we can criticize those who rule us, etc. There are commonly restrictions designed to stop people from inciting hatred or abusing others. An individual or an organisation can sue for defamation (e.g. libel). All this seems like a reasonable compromise.
Exactly. "Freedom of speech" isn't one thing and it varies by country.e.g. in the UK, threats and abuse aren't covered by freedom of speech. There are similar exceptions in the US. Furthermore, "freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want" it means the government can muzzle your speech or regulate what the media say. If you say something silly there are still consequences.
I'm inclined to think you're right. As I recall, the decrease in high frequency hearing with age is very stereotypical, making it more likely to be age related than damage related.
I disagree. There are many instances where the government legislating on stuff is important. Off the top of my head: child labour laws, environmental pollution control, regulating where people can build to preserve wilderness areas. I believe none of those are things the US had 100 years ago, but they're all things I think most people would rather keep.
This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power.
And there is some truth to this. However, some of you (and it may not include you) seem to think that the government having less power is always better and is often the answer to problems. Neither of those things are true.
Indeed. You're a linux user, so spend at least some time trying other desktops before giving up on a distro. IMHO the biggest problem I've run into with some distros I've tried isn't choice of default GUI, systemd or anything like that, but the availability of packages. If a distro has a poor package selection then this becomes a big time waster.
You can quickly find people who have spent 30+ years learning English or German or Spanish but sucking at it
Do you think this is an issue of practice? What actually constituted "learning" in the examples you gave? Because if these people are living in the country for decades but using hand-gestures and not attempting conversation then they're not engaging in learning in all this time. To learn, you have to put yourself out of you comfort zone and practice what you're bad at.
The size of the alphabet likely isn't what makes a language easy or hard. I find it a little hard to put my finger on what makes it hard or easy, however. As an English speaker, I find Spanish and Italian fairly easy, but German hard.
I don't see why English is any more fault tolerant than other European languages. With a bit of effort you can speak any rather language badly and that's enough to communicate. I also suspect that the required minimal vocabulary size is more or less the same for most languages.
I used to have a magazine subscription which went via a third party service (IIRC) who would e-mail me my password each month along with my new edition notification. I contacted them about about it, they acknowledged the problem and two months later it was fixed. I still don't understand how someone can be so idiotic as to do this, but at least they responded and sorted their shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.
I agree it's hard, but I don't think it's the case that no hate supression can be achieved or that attempting to do so results in repression. We currently have a system where hate speech is supressed and it's not repressive. It's a balancing act and always will be.
There are already limitations on freedom of speech. Speech that encourages violent acts, such as those last week, is already restricted. I don't see how "preventing such sites" is not the same thing "killing a dozen people", even as simply "an act against freedom of speech."
You're right. The limitations are there now. If you don't see them, it's only because you accept those limitations so completely that they vanish for you.
and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences
No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.
despite whatever you say you should still be legally protected from harm, like everyone else. now if some people in your community dislike you for saying shit you say, that's entirely up to them, but that doesn't give them permission to attack you through illegal means.
I agree. But that's a different point.
I'm not hating on the US. I know the UK libel laws are different. I'm just pointing out that, even the US, there are exceptions to freedom of speech. Every country does it differently, but the most important thing is that the government can't persecute you for what you say. e.g. critising it.
Free speech hasn't been taken away. There already are limitations on what constitutes free speech in the UK (and the US, and other countries, for that matter). Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited. Political protest isn't limited. The press is free to insult the government. Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"
Yeah, but nobody else understands it. That's why we have "3D" movies not "stereo movies". Because people think stereo==sound system. TFA is a consumer article and it's using the term "3D" in a way that it's audience will understand. If we ever have 3D imaging for consumers (doubtful), it'll have some other name.
The stuff not fitting became a problem when KDE4 appeared. I don't remember the 3.X series being bad in this regard.
That is odd. You should present yourself to an auditory neuroscience lab. I'm sure they'd love to do tests (non-invasive, of course) on you.
It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?
Why is it a paradox? "Democracy" simple means "the rule of the people" (usually via voting) and isn't a single thing, as it's a broad definition, and varies from country to country. e.g. compare the US model to the Swiss model. Very different, but they're both democracies (they even both have "states"). So you're free to set up your democracy in a number of different ways. Most deal with freedom of speech by saying that the government won't infringe it. So the press is free and we can criticize those who rule us, etc. There are commonly restrictions designed to stop people from inciting hatred or abusing others. An individual or an organisation can sue for defamation (e.g. libel). All this seems like a reasonable compromise.
in any case, freedom of speech is an american phenomenon and is not automatic in much of europe.
If only we had freedom of speech in Europe
Exactly. "Freedom of speech" isn't one thing and it varies by country.e.g. in the UK, threats and abuse aren't covered by freedom of speech. There are similar exceptions in the US. Furthermore, "freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want" it means the government can muzzle your speech or regulate what the media say. If you say something silly there are still consequences.
I'm inclined to think you're right. As I recall, the decrease in high frequency hearing with age is very stereotypical, making it more likely to be age related than damage related.
Sorry, I've not been following the immigration thing: I left the US last May and haven't been reading that kind of news since.
I can see we will not agree on this one.
I disagree. There are many instances where the government legislating on stuff is important. Off the top of my head: child labour laws, environmental pollution control, regulating where people can build to preserve wilderness areas. I believe none of those are things the US had 100 years ago, but they're all things I think most people would rather keep.
This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power.
And there is some truth to this. However, some of you (and it may not include you) seem to think that the government having less power is always better and is often the answer to problems. Neither of those things are true.
People are obviously trying this sort of thing for truth detection. They're also using MRI. I believe it's still possible to fool these approaches, though (no reference, sorry, but I did read it somewhere).
Nope. I don't know anyone over 50 who knows how to build or repair a steam engine.
Why would you? Everyone over 50 was brought up with internal combustion engines, not steam engines.
This was done for the Matterhorn.
Indeed. You're a linux user, so spend at least some time trying other desktops before giving up on a distro. IMHO the biggest problem I've run into with some distros I've tried isn't choice of default GUI, systemd or anything like that, but the availability of packages. If a distro has a poor package selection then this becomes a big time waster.
You can quickly find people who have spent 30+ years learning English or German or Spanish but sucking at it
Do you think this is an issue of practice? What actually constituted "learning" in the examples you gave? Because if these people are living in the country for decades but using hand-gestures and not attempting conversation then they're not engaging in learning in all this time. To learn, you have to put yourself out of you comfort zone and practice what you're bad at.
The size of the alphabet likely isn't what makes a language easy or hard. I find it a little hard to put my finger on what makes it hard or easy, however. As an English speaker, I find Spanish and Italian fairly easy, but German hard.
I don't see why English is any more fault tolerant than other European languages. With a bit of effort you can speak any rather language badly and that's enough to communicate. I also suspect that the required minimal vocabulary size is more or less the same for most languages.
I used to have a magazine subscription which went via a third party service (IIRC) who would e-mail me my password each month along with my new edition notification. I contacted them about about it, they acknowledged the problem and two months later it was fixed. I still don't understand how someone can be so idiotic as to do this, but at least they responded and sorted their shit.