Tocky on 20/2/2021 at 07:49
Quote Posted by nemyax
Respond all you want, I'm all for debate. But some of you guys and june glooms might lose their jobs without debate if they voiced an incorrect opinion about BLM. I would not.
Work for the Klan do you? LOL. Seriously dude stupid has consequences. Hate has consequences. It always has and always will.
SubJeff on 20/2/2021 at 08:04
Yeah. Freedom of speech is important but no one has to like what you say. If it alters the way they deal with you that's really what you're asking for, isn't it?
Pyrian on 20/2/2021 at 08:10
Quote Posted by SubJeff
I'm not talking about speaking ill of the dead.
Ooookay. "...in poor taste to be happy someone had died..."
That narrow distinction doesn't change the argument one whit. Is it still necessary (for "taste") to extend the courtesy of "not expressing happiness at someone's death" to someone who notoriously did not extend that very same courtesy? ...And if so,
why?
Briareos H on 20/2/2021 at 08:52
I really don't see what's wrong with being happy someone's dead. Just don't go bother the mourning.
lowenz on 20/2/2021 at 09:27
Quote Posted by nemyax
I'm all for debate.
It's the new way of the conservatives. Just creating "debate-oriented" strawmans :p
"Dialogue" can't really work about political power an choices (and power in general). It's only a grotesque deformation, like a monster wearing a mask.
(I'm talking about
real political positions and stances, not faked ones by professional politicians).
Nameless Voice on 20/2/2021 at 13:39
Quote Posted by Cipheron
So the argument basically boils down to the idea that Rush Limbaugh didn't say any technically illegal, despite saying some awful stuff, so that's just free speech. And on that basis, other people *shouldn't* say anything awful about Rush Limbaugh? Apparently.
It seems to be, though I was more talking about the inconsistency of saying he didn't quality as truly evil because all he did was say evil things and incite evil things, which are protected under free speech. Drawing the line that because what he did was not technically illegal, he doesn't quality as truly evil and so it is not okay to be glad he died, as opposed to someone like Hitler who directly killed people himself.
And then they always bring up the so-called "looney left" who want to "cancel" people (aka people who think that there should be consequences for what people say), all the while ignoring the very real way that leftists and socialists are routinely vilified by the right-wing press. The usual so-called-centrist spiel of "if the left do it to bigots, it's evil suppression of free speech, but it's okay that right routinely do it and far worse to the left and no one bats an eyelid."
Starker on 20/2/2021 at 17:29
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
And then they always bring up the so-called "looney left" who want to "cancel" people (aka people who think that there should be consequences for what people say), all the while ignoring the very real way that leftists and socialists are routinely vilified by the right-wing press. The usual so-called-centrist spiel of "if the left do it to bigots, it's evil suppression of free speech, but it's okay that right routinely do it and far worse to the left and no one bats an eyelid."
About that... the case can be made that is just good old American capitalism:
[video=youtube;xe16MdERJxw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe16MdERJxw[/video]
heywood on 20/2/2021 at 18:34
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Well, by following the line of the people who keep proclaiming that the right of free speech supersedes all others, then it wouldn't be possible. It's as ludicrous as anything else they defend in the name of free speech.
People here (and in other places) are defending things like spreading bigotry and hatred and inciting riots and lynchings as protected by free speech and I really don't see much difference between inciting a mob to kill someone, and directly ordering their death.
Don't confuse defending someone's right to free speech with defending what they say. Those are very different things. I don't see anyone here defending Limbaugh's positions.
Quote:
Trump incited a riot which lead to deaths, that should clearly be a criminal offence, yet people cite freedom of speech.
Can you prove he intended to get the mob to kill people? Beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think you can, which is why he won't be prosecuted for that. I think a far better case can be made against Trump under USC 115A— TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. I would actually like to see him charged under that chapter for trying to overthrow the elections results, but I don't think anyone will try.
Quote:
He also made someone kill themselves by drinking bleach, that's plain murder, and yet nothing is coming of it.
Now you're being absurd again.
Quote:
If ordering someone to kill someone else through your words is a crime, not because the words are a crime, but because the caused action
is, then the same should apply to, for example, racial discrimination (which is also a crime). So, someone who incited racial hatred should be criminally liable for all the acts of discrimination-by-protected-characteristic that they cause. And it's often more than just mere discrimination that these people are inciting.
Racial discrimination is not a crime. It is against the law, but it's not a criminal offense. The penalties are civil.
There is also a big difference between (1) a person saying that businesses should not hire black people, and (2) a person with hiring authority in a business refusing to hire black people. The first is just an opinion, and is protected by our Bill of Rights. The second is illegal and would be punished by a civil penalty imposed by the government, or a law suit, or both. If I was an owner or executive of a company, and I told my employees that I didn't want any black people around, then I would be punished for discrimination. It wouldn't matter whether I was doing the hiring. I violated the law with my implied instruction. Orders and instructions to subordinates are not protected speech.
Quote:
But really, tl;dr: please stop trying to use freedom of speech to excuse the inexcusable.
But nobody is doing that. You don't see the difference between defending somebody's right to speak and defending what they say?
Nameless Voice on 20/2/2021 at 19:50
Not when the people doing the defending are always
exclusively defending the "free speech" of people with bigoted opinions.
As for the specifics of the USA's laws and constitution... from what I understand, those are very problematic, outdated, and not really fit for modern times. But when I'm talking about "should", I'm not really limiting myself to what would happen with in the current framework of laws.
I don't really see much difference between a president telling people to drink bleach, and one of his supporters believing him and doing it, compared to a doctor telling a patient to drink poison. In both cases, the person is listening to someone that they consider to be a reasonable authority figure (however foolish you'd have to be to do that), and acting on advice they think is given in good faith.
Quote Posted by Starker
About that... the case can be made that is just good old American capitalism:
I like that analysis. I'm sure the people who complain about it really wouldn't, though.
heywood on 20/2/2021 at 19:58
He didn't tell people to drink bleach. This is a good example of where the "loony left" term comes from.