Does Free Speech Offend You?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

And this disagrees with me how? I didn't say it didn't exist in the past, and those weren't pseudo-sentient like PC is

What's psuedo-sentient?

And it disagrees with you because...

 

It's certainly gotten worse and more acceptable in recent years

I'd say it was much worse then.

[vla1ne]

the internet wasn't a thing in the past. public shaming might have been a thing, but outside of extreme circumstances, i doubt it followed you for more that a couple weeks seeing as there's only so much time that a rumor can spread before people forget when it's not recorded. the internet removes the time/range limit though. now it's instant, and depending on how viral it gets, it can hurt you for years.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What's psuedo-sentient?

And it disagrees with you because...

 

I'd say it was much worse then.

Sentient: able to perceive or feel things

Pseudo-Sentient is a mimicry of that: PC builds on itself, and adapts to make more of itself. It's pseduo cause it's a construct created by sentient beings and they don't realize that it's controlling (most of) them now

 

Nah, back then it wasn't self-replicating 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

the internet wasn't a thing in the past. public shaming might have been a thing, but outside of extreme circumstances, i doubt it followed you for more that a couple weeks seeing as there's only so much time that a rumor can spread before people forget when it's not recorded. the internet removes the time/range limit though. now it's instant, and depending on how viral it gets, it can hurt you for years.

 

Sentient: able to perceive or feel things

Pseudo-Sentient is a mimicry of that: PC builds on itself, and adapts to make more of itself. It's pseduo cause it's a construct created by sentient beings and they don't realize that it's controlling (most of) them now

 

Nah, back then it wasn't self-replicating 

"In India, public humiliation (especially of women) is still practiced, often involving stripping and beating the victim. Reasons may include (real or alleged) murder, non-payment of dowry, witchcraft, or inter-caste marriages^."

 

Still practiced meaning that's what it was like in the past as well.

Anyway that's all I've got to say on that aspect.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"In India, public humiliation (especially of women) is still practiced, often involving stripping and beating the victim. Reasons may include (real or alleged) murder, non-payment of dowry, witchcraft, or inter-caste marriages^."

 

Still practiced meaning that's what it was like in the past as well.

Anyway that's all I've got to say on that aspect.

As someone who's part Indian, the misogyny while practiced is dying slowly and steadily

 

PC cannot die, because unlike Misogeny, say it with me now

 

IT'S SELF SUSTAINING!!

[vla1ne]

"In India, public humiliation (especially of women) is still practiced, often involving stripping and beating the victim. Reasons may include (real or alleged) murder, non-payment of dowry, witchcraft, or inter-caste marriages^."

 

 

Anyway that's all I've got to say on that aspect.

then India is wrong and f***ing backwards as hell for doing so to either gender.

 

but even then, internet still amplifies it. that punishment would be relatively forgotten by the general public in a few months, but now, you can record it. so yeah, even with that, the internet/technology as a whole, makes it worse. i doubt 100 years ago that you could relive a nightmare like that in HD years after it occurred. but that's veering a bit off topic no? either way policing speech isn't going to solve said problem, so how about the efforts to curtail offensive speech be pointed towards those practices instead yes?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

then India is wrong and f***ing backwards as hell for doing so to either gender.

 

but even then, internet still amplifies it. that punishment would be relatively forgotten by the general public in a few months, but now, you can record it. so yeah, even with that, the internet/technology as a whole, makes it worse. i doubt 100 years ago that you could relive a nightmare like that in HD years after it occurred. but that's veering a bit off topic no? either way policing speech isn't going to solve said problem, so how about the efforts to curtail offensive speech be pointed towards those practices instead yes?

Pretty sure you, I and Enguin have just been saying the same thing worded differently for 4 pages now. People can't see what they don't want to see

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

As someone who's part Indian, the misogyny while practiced is dying slowly and steadily

 

PC cannot die, because unlike Misogeny, say it with me now

 

IT'S SELF SUSTAINING!!

So is Misogyny. Hatred breeds hatred.

Pretty sure you, I and Enguin have just been saying the same thing worded differently for 4 pages now. People can't see what they don't want to see

And similarly I and several others have been saying similar things as well. Interesting how you jump to "can't see what they don't want to see" though. I find that extremely rude and unhelpful.

 

Yeah I think I'm gonna have to stop posting here now. It was nice while it lasted but now it's feeling hostile.

[vla1ne]

Pretty sure you, I and Enguin have just been saying the same thing worded differently for 4 pages now. People can't see what they don't want to see

It's a topic worth discussing. i doubt many people involved in the argument changed their minds, and i'll give it 2 weeks before another one like it comes up, but as long as the discussions there, at least people reading can decide for themselves.

 

well, other than that, i think i'm done for the night. it's 3 AM and I doubt this discussion's going to go any farther tonight. even if it does, i need sleep.

 

 EDITS. because i don't feel like posting again:

So is Misandry. Hatred breeds hatred.

 there's a lot of ways you can frame that sentence. this is just one of them. hatred breeds hatred is a non argument, it's good to keep in mind so that you don't end up hating the other side of whatever argument you may hold, but it overall will not contribute to any form of discussion outside of "keep calm"

 

 

In reality, People who oppose free speech can be a subject to discrimination....It hurts....

 true, they can be, but this entire discussion was proof that that isn't the case all the time. and it definitely isn't the case on this forum. what people who oppose free speech do though, is automatically discriminate towards points that they deem "hate speech". they are attempting to shut out that side of the discussion simply because it goes against the norm. be it for better or worse, free speech is meant to promote discussion. the cons are why we have it. so that we can have an open debate about anything. It's no longer free speech if you want to use the law to shut up the other side.

.

[♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪]

In reality, People who oppose free speech can be a subject to discrimination....It hurts....

[Aix]

You guys have been saying the same thing over and over.

Main points for pro-100% free speech is:

1. Shutting people up doesn't help because: a) it antagonizes them and thus makes them feel more self-righteous. Especially with today's culture and belief in standing up for yourself, I believe a great majority of people will act this way. b) it just leaves their hateful opinions brewing in the shadows and unaddressed, doesn't actually solve the problem, whereas letting them out in the open lets you counter their opinions. c) if people agree with hate speech, it's because they already shared the sentiment. Shutting down free speech doesn't "cure" this.
2. Our modern civilization with globalization and the internet allows us to take advantage of free speech to progress as a society. The good points of free speech are being brought out now. It allows hate to be countered and reacted against.
3. Shutting down free speech is dangerous. It is very difficult to satisfiably pinpoint what is and isn't acceptable and shutting down free speech has always been abused.

Main points against 100% free speech:

1. Hateful speech does affect people's opinions. It does have a noticeable effect on people. We should decrease the chances of it causing any problems.
2. Hearing others agree with your hateful opinions will solidify your stance. Especially since confirmation bias makes you listen to those who agree with you rather than those who don't. This can make people very entrenched in their opinions, I'd say tentative racists can become extreme racists.

Dunno if I missed anything.

 

No solution is perfect here. However, I agree with free speech because, essentially, the positives outweigh the negatives. As people speak out for what they believe, we are making progress.

 

Also: http://files.explosm.net/comics/Kris/pc.png

[Maeriberii Haan]

Hateful speech will also provoke further hateful or violent responses, whether we liked it or not.

 

Ideally, humans shouldn't be bugged by such and should just ignore these hateful speech so that these speeches die out alone, but that's easier said than done. Humans have different levels of tolerance and they also have different temperaments which would react differently to something like it. It can be said that humanity's own characteristic hindered us in handling hate speech in such ways that hate speech itself become pretty disruptive.

 

100% free speech is the ideal state that should be aimed for in my opinion, but going towards that point will have many issues that cannot really be ignored. Silencing people won't make the underlying issues behind what motivates hate speech to go away, but neither really letting it brew in the open. It'll just grow in different ways whether people get silenced or allowed to voice their hate. And well, it's really hard to draw the line anyway between what should be acceptable and what's not acceptable. Especially with different people and different views regarding issues. What one group ruled as just hitting hate speech might be seen by another group as being oppressive towards their freedom of speech.

 

The issue's in a pretty grey area and I honestly don't think outright allowing 100% free speech or cultivating politically correct culture would really lead to anywhere without efforts from other sides. Like education? I think a big part of the growth of hate speech comes from lack of, or a distorted form of knowledge. Going somewhere with that might be a better bet.

 

tl;dr: 100% Free speech is ideal, but there's real issues on going to that ideal point that couldn't really be ignored. Also right now it's a grey area and we've been talking about the same things over and over and over again with just different wording.

[Snatch Steal]

1. Political correctness is "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Sounds like...being not an jabroni. You can speak freely without being politically incorrect (although there are, of course, slippery slopes with it, I will admit).

 

2. triggers don't exist kthxbye

I've been around sheet I wish I could unsee, and if the definition of a trigger is what's defined in the video, hell, I'm triggered every hour of every day. I'm glad I get exposed to this, though, and while some people are exposed to terrible things, they need to learn to be exposed to those things in order to recover.

The world isn't all hugs and kisses, no matter how much anyone wants. World peace would mean the assimilation of every human being into the same unit. While everyone has their own power struggles, this isn't really one worth fighting about.

 

This is gonna sound cringey, but America is funking beautiful, more so now than it ever has been. We've made some serious leaps, and we've fought hard for those leaps. The thing is, we can't revert. This logic is the same logic as the racists who oppressed MLK. This is the same logic as the Regulars who the pilgrims sailed away from, and built this nation so that everyone gets to have a say, no matter what kind of silliness it is.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Bottom line is it shouldn't matter if freespeech upsets YOU. If it upsets enough people it'll vanish on it's own. Aix pretty much summed this situation up

[epicmemesbro]

First off, limiting everyone's free speech won't solve anything. This will only result in reinforcing people's opinions and ideologies to an even more fringe extent and will result in gaining negative reactions from all sides. Look at countries where free speech has limitations of varying levels. In those places opposing factions have become less moderate and more demanding in their claims as well as being more hostile in their views of the opposition. Look at Sweden for example, where saying anything anti-immigrant on the internet is classified as hate speech and is outlawed. This has in no way created an undesirable effect and instead led to people against immigration to be even more brazen in expressing their opinions. Their growing far right movement is a result of Sweden's limitations on free speech.