On January 24 2017 10:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
bomb in airport of fire in a crowded theater are examples of 'stuff that should be illegal even though it's just words coming out of your mouth', but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with hate speech or your question in hand so I'm not bringing those up. ;p
Obviously not using queer genders should not constitute hate speech. That is ridiculous. I think where it becomes difficult is when people are using speech to literally and deliberately advocate violence or other criminal acts in a way that makes it more likely that people will become violent or conduct those criminal acts. Like, I could see that it should be illegal to go to a group of criminals and give them detailed information on when a rich family is going to be out of town so burglarizing them will be easier, even if you don't actually take part in the burglarizing. Likewise I think standing in front of a group of hooligany skinheads and giving them a braveheart speech about how homosexuals are eroding the social fabric of society ending with 'there's a bunch of faggots 1 km south of here, let's all go there and fucking kill them', if that results in the group of hooligany skinheads actually going over there to murder homosexuals, then I can see how the person should bear some legal responsibility even if he didn't himself take part of the actual violence.
Advocating genocide towards black people or jews can possibly fit into this same criteria, although I kinda think it depends on the platform. Not a fan of banning that over the internet, but like, the Edward Norton from american history X before they go to the store to beat up illegals, it's so clear that his speech and his directions are what pushes the group towards their actions. So there, even if he himself had just been standing outside the store watching, I still think he could bear some responsibility.
I'm very much opposed to policing 'I hate fags and niggers' - but encouraging violence towards a group where you can logically assume that your encouragement is very likely to trigger violence against said group is a different beast. And then it becomes a somewhat difficult slippery slope, where do you draw the line - but I personally think mostly all lawmaking is like this. The pure, principled positions mostly exist in philosophy.
Then there's germany's (and like 13 other european countries) law against holocaust denial. In principle I'm opposed to that, but pragmatically, everyone who denies the holocaust does it as part of a greater (and violent) agenda, so it's not something I care a lot about.
I dont think any sane person wants neo-nazis making meetings and spreading hate, but what I'm arguing is that its a price we have to pay in order to not have the state to dictate what is and what isnt allowed.
You might think that "inciting violence" is very clear cut, however as I mentioned in Canada, it is exactly what the LGBTQ community is saying, that not adressing someone by their correct pronoun is an act of violence an that it perpetrate hatred, self-harm and many other things in non-binary people.
I think the example you are giving about the family's information isnt free speech, it is plotting a crime, it has nothing to do with sharing ideas.
For example if you were to say: " homosexuals erode the fabric of society bla bla bla" ... that is free speech, but if you say " Lets beat the shit of these homosexuals tomorrow at 6pm" now that is plotting a crime and that should be punishable by law.
In Canada its already showing the dangers, now its hate speech to not use the queer genders, and maybe its not enforced strongly today, but one day it might.
Bill C-16 hasn't passed in Canada yet and hopefully it won't. It's not as clear as the misuse of gender identity would qualify as hate speech. Right now Canada's Human Rights covers race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. They want to add in gender identity or experssion. I think they would be hard pressed to convict someone that said this "man" when the person wants to be called a "tranny" in casual conversation. My understanding of the Canadian Human Rights Act is that people are already protected from discrimination (gender identity) under the sex or sexual orientation category. There have been multiple cases in Vancouver at least that I can recall of the top of my head where someone was convicted of hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation. I personally think that freedom of speech allows me to distinguish between sensible people and the morons in society. Also although written over 50 years ago George Orwell's Politics and the English Language is one of the best things I have ever read in regards to freedom of speech and political correct terms http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
On January 24 2017 23:07 VanDerMeyde wrote:
Im not sure what the discussion here is limited to, but the dutch prime minister asked immigrants to "integrate or leave the country" today in an open letter in the newspapers.
He said the Dutch were “increasingly uncomfortable” with those who abused the freedoms they enjoyed after coming to the Netherlands, who “harass gays, or whistle at women in short skirts, or brand ordinary Dutch people racists”.
“It can’t be right for a bus driver to say: ‘I refuse to shake a woman’s hand because that doesn’t fit my belief,’” Rutte told the paper. “That’s why people are rebelling. Because the norm here is that we shake each other’s hands.”
So apparantly he is talking about the usual softer problems with muslim men. Its a bit unfair towards other groups perfectly behaving and integreted like the hindus to not be honest about who he is really addressing here in my opinion. Interesting article, politically correctness is dying in Europe now apparantly.
just paying lip service to hopefully hijack some Wilders voters imo. this is a textbook example of empty politician rhetoric.
what's he gonna do? pay the social cost in advocating for deportations? highly doubtful.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jan 25 2017 00:59. Posts 3096
I agree it's not clear cut. I'm basically saying that it can't be, that laws around hate speech are always going to be subject to arbitration, because while I agree that obviously 'homosexuals erode the fabric of society' is a completely passable sentence (and pretty much everyone would) and 'lets beat the shit out of these homosexuals tomorrow at 6' is clearly plotting a crime, which even an anarchist like you can agree is actionable. But where does 'prominent neo nazi holds a speech where he says these fucking fags are ruining society, somebody should rape them with barbed wire' - with somebody who listened raping them with barbed wire 2 hours after - fit in?
I'm all for erring on the side of free speech. And I'm not saying that it should be illegal to be a neo-nazi or that people who are neo-nazis should not be allowed to talk to other neo-nazis about how horrible jews, homosexuals and immigrants are, I also think they should be allowed to talk publicly about how horrible jews, homosexuals and immigrants are - I also think they should be allowed to parade in the streets of cities singing songs and chanting horrible slogans. But I think that in the event where these types of actions are followed by violent crime, it might in some instances be possible to argue that the violent crime would not have happened without the hate speech, and in that case it might be possible to make a criminal case out of the hate speech as well?
So it's like, yeah, I get the argument from LGBTQ community that language is connected with action and anti-gay slurs are related to anti-gay sentiments and anti-gay sentiments are related to crime against homosexuals, but I still find the idea of outlawing calling someone a faggot abhorrent - and it seems like your canadian example goes even further than that. Free speech principles are quite sacred to me, but I can also imagine situations where I think hate speech legislation is appropriate - but they do not come up often, like probably less than 1 incident per 10 million inhabitants per year type of rarity.
I also think this issue is one where now, at least for most of western society, we've progressed so far, and the wheels are in motion so to speak, that I think it doesn't need that much state intervention. In Norway (at least in urban areas) I feel that homophobes are ostracized more than homosexuals are (which I also think is appropriate), and I think employers should be free to fire people for what they deem unacceptable hate speech (capitalistic principles justify this). I don't think there's that big of a difference between our stances on this topic, honestly.
In Canada its already showing the dangers, now its hate speech to not use the queer genders, and maybe its not enforced strongly today, but one day it might.
Bill C-16 hasn't passed in Canada yet and hopefully it won't. It's not as clear as the misuse of gender identity would qualify as hate speech. Right now Canada's Human Rights covers race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. They want to add in gender identity or experssion. I think they would be hard pressed to convict someone that said this "man" when the person wants to be called a "tranny" in casual conversation. My understanding of the Canadian Human Rights Act is that people are already protected from discrimination (gender identity) under the sex or sexual orientation category. There have been multiple cases in Vancouver at least that I can recall of the top of my head where someone was convicted of hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation. I personally think that freedom of speech allows me to distinguish between sensible people and the morons in society. Also although written over 50 years ago George Orwell's Politics and the English Language is one of the best things I have ever read in regards to freedom of speech and political correct terms http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
AFAIK it hasnt passed a bill but it is in the Humans Right code, at least that how I understood it, but actually it is not relevant, the fact that it is a thing going on it proves the dangers of hate speech laws... anything can be considered hate speech and the state has the power to censor whatever they think it is.
In the same way democrats made a last push about "Fake News" in order to censor media... yeah fake news exist, but giving the state the power to chose what is fake and what isnt is terrifying.
On January 24 2017 23:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I agree it's not clear cut. I'm basically saying that it can't be, that laws around hate speech are always going to be subject to arbitration, because while I agree that obviously 'homosexuals erode the fabric of society' is a completely passable sentence (and pretty much everyone would) and 'lets beat the shit out of these homosexuals tomorrow at 6' is clearly plotting a crime, which even an anarchist like you can agree is actionable. But where does 'prominent neo nazi holds a speech where he says these fucking fags are ruining society, somebody should rape them with barbed wire' - with somebody who listened raping them with barbed wire 2 hours after - fit in?
I'm all for erring on the side of free speech. And I'm not saying that it should be illegal to be a neo-nazi or that people who are neo-nazis should not be allowed to talk to other neo-nazis about how horrible jews, homosexuals and immigrants are, I also think they should be allowed to talk publicly about how horrible jews, homosexuals and immigrants are - I also think they should be allowed to parade in the streets of cities singing songs and chanting horrible slogans. But I think that in the event where these types of actions are followed by violent crime, it might in some instances be possible to argue that the violent crime would not have happened without the hate speech, and in that case it might be possible to make a criminal case out of the hate speech as well?
So it's like, yeah, I get the argument from LGBTQ community that language is connected with action and anti-gay slurs are related to anti-gay sentiments and anti-gay sentiments are related to crime against homosexuals, but I still find the idea of outlawing calling someone a faggot abhorrent - and it seems like your canadian example goes even further than that. Free speech principles are quite sacred to me, but I can also imagine situations where I think hate speech legislation is appropriate - but they do not come up often, like probably less than 1 incident per 10 million inhabitants per year type of rarity.
I also think this issue is one where now, at least for most of western society, we've progressed so far, and the wheels are in motion so to speak, that I think it doesn't need that much state intervention. In Norway (at least in urban areas) I feel that homophobes are ostracized more than homosexuals are (which I also think is appropriate), and I think employers should be free to fire people for what they deem unacceptable hate speech (capitalistic principles justify this). I don't think there's that big of a difference between our stances on this topic, honestly.
Yeah our stances are pretty close, you are for speech laws only against the more extreme of cases like people actually inciting to physical violence, but my argument is that those people and those situations are infinitely less harmful than giving the state the power of censorship, because maybe not today but one day that power will almost certainly will be misused for very scary things like actual fascism.
Also hate speech laws give the impression to people it is ok to shut up people who have different views than you, as I said earlier Milo Yiannopolous who is kind of an idiot proved this, Campuses in the US first started banning him from speaking, when he got too famous, they came up with huge extra security fees, when students found funding to pay those protestors interrupted the speech, getting on stage etc, then the protest turned violent, beating up atendees, and in his last speech someone got shot.
This is what hate speech laws project, that what you define as hateful can be shut up by force, and Milo isnt advocating any physical violence or anything he is just a standard republican, pro-life, pro-marriage etc.
AFAIK it hasnt passed a bill but it is in the Humans Right code, at least that how I understood it, but actually it is not relevant, the fact that it is a thing going on it proves the dangers of hate speech laws... anything can be considered hate speech and the state has the power to censor whatever they think it is.
In the same way democrats made a last push about "Fake News" in order to censor media... yeah fake news exist, but giving the state the power to chose what is fake and what isnt is terrifying.
It is already a crime to use hate speech but the point of the bill is to include it in specifically.
How the law in Canada is interpretered is a little tricky. I could say something like "Your a faggot for hitting my car" but it would be hate speech to say "All faggots should die". Hate speech or hate crimes apply only when someone is targeted for who they are. While the Canadian government may pass the law it will be up to Canadian courts to apply and interpret. Its been awhile since grade 12 social studies but the Supreme Court of Canada is appointed by the Governor General who is not appointed by the Prime Minster or the government of Canada ( Canada is a Parliamentary Monarchy and a Governor General is "appointed" by the Queen). So at least in Canada the there is some hope. The Supreme Court recently forced the Government to amend laws in regards to assisted suicide. This censor ship will essentially be put to the test once the law is used and put in to practice.
On January 25 2017 12:13 Spitfiree wrote:
Its almost official, Trump wants to build that wall :D
lol well you cant deny that he is getting to work like crazy doing exactly what he promised in matter of days damn....
This wall is such a stupid idea, costing billions to build and even more to maintain and all it will do is that coyotes now will carry a longer ladder lol
On January 25 2017 12:13 Spitfiree wrote:
Its almost official, Trump wants to build that wall :D
lol well you cant deny that he is getting to work like crazy doing exactly what he promised in matter of days damn....
This wall is such a stupid idea, costing billions to build and even more to maintain and all it will do is that coyotes now will carry a longer ladder lol
Yep, he s like " fuck you, people that called me a populist, lets make all the retarded ideas a reality " hilarious from the sides, but I d be mad as hell if I were american
On November 09 2016 06:27 RiKD wrote:
I want more Wikileaks. Stronger bullshit police. Justice. Truth. Fuck the 1%.
Wikileaks supported Trump or to be more precise hated Hillary way more, in fact their hack with the emails might have been enough to sway the election, so maybe a hacker changed the course of history... interesting.
Also when you say fuck the 1% remember that the biggest campaign funders for Hillary were Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup while at the same time she claimed more regulation to wallstreet which was an obvious lie, WallStreet had Hillary in the pocket, and not Trump... they might also buy him but at least its not for sure unlike Hillary.
Also another good thing about Trumps presidency would be more stability in the middle east, the Obama administration so far is against Assad... but also against the rebels, so they bomb rebels, but when it doesnt help Assad troops, and also bombs Assads troops by mistake some times lol, and all this while Saudi Arabia is funding the rebels (ISIS muslim brotherhood etc). Trump will side with Russia and actually destroy the rebels along with ISIS, and Assad will probably reconsolidate power, and he is an absolute maniac, but far better than the religious zealots who want to overthrow him.
The republicans now have also control of the senate and the house... this is interesting, the party does not suppor Trump but even then he will have a lot more room than most presidents.
Trump is an obvious idiot but I believe many of the shit he said was just standard demagoguery, so its a mistery to me what he is really going to do, I hope he does fall into this messiah complex and doesnt sell off to special interests.
Looking back at this post, kinda lulz, especially the part about Goldman Sachs and special interests
Bolded part: surprisingly, hes doing both
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
And merely debunking falsehoods can actually entrench them deeper. Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan and the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler have conducted multiple studies that show correcting people's incorrect views about, say, the presence of WMDs in Iraq can actually backfire and make them hold their wrong beliefs even more firmly. This, it would appear, is what happens when one tries to correct Donald Trump.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
this is extremely retarded even by Trump standards
what does he expect the Mexican president to do? Commit political suicide by agreeing on paying the fucking wall?
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Contact Users: 1104 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 01:16
