Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just So We're Clear...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Isator Levi
    replied
    Originally posted by AnubisXy
    If you give those same politicians the power to start curtailing the speech of minorities they'll absolutely do it.


    The part of this that is playing the game according to their book is in the frankly baffling assumption that they won't do it until progressives give them some kind of go ahead.

    That's the weirdest thing about these conversations; the idea that authoritarians are waiting for some kind of precedent.

    And even if they shroud and obfuscate their actions behind the assertion that there's a moral equivalence, or that they're just redressing a balance, for people to concede that to them is not only faulty, it's just plain lazy.

    Right now, I'm thinking back to an extended sequence in the Illuminatus trilogy where the absurdity of this kind of thinking is illustrated by comparing it to a damn Laurel and Hardy skit. "Look what you made me do."

    Leave a comment:


  • AnubisXy
    replied
    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
    What are your courts for?
    Just look at how conservative politicians have been trying to take away or erode the power of minority votes through redistricting, voter ID laws, etc. And the courts have frequently upheld those things. If you give those same politicians the power to start curtailing the speech of minorities they'll absolutely do it. Will the court system stop them? Maybe, but after the Supreme Court upholding Trump's travel ban and other recent rulings, I have pretty much zero faith that the judicial system is on the side of minorities (in fact, one of the main reasons Black Lives Matter exists is because of systemic abuse towards minorities at all levels of the judicial process).
    Last edited by AnubisXy; 12-21-2018, 06:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isator Levi
    replied
    Originally posted by Grimmi05
    I would say one thing to do is not put those laws on the books in the first place. I wouldn't trust any politician with that power left or right.


    As Heavy Arms points out, in many instances, they're already here. A half-decent judiciary probably helps maintain their standards, as well as being able to dispute creation of legislation that might violate actual constitutional rights.

    Originally posted by Grimmi05
    There is also a lot of space between curtailing speech and just taking abuse. Counter protests at far right or supremcist events, ridicule of racists, boycotts of people or places that you feel are discriminatory
    I don't 100% agree with this standard, but I'd say it's a decent one to maintain in the face of people complaining that any of the stuff that you're describing constitutes curtailing speech.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grimmi05
    replied
    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post

    What are your courts for?

    Really, a lot of this rhetoric around the idea that it's wrong to try opposing oppressive authorities and hate groups because of the idea that they'll try doing the same back to you... it's all very defeatist. Black Lives Matter already exists because of systemic ways in which black people are oppressed in the United States, so when the response is that their agitation will result in the authorities trying to oppress them even more... well, first of all, no shit, and second, what does the proposed solution then look like? What can one expect anybody to possibly do if you keep telling them that their methods will just lead to increased pushback from the people standing above them? Roll over and take it?

    It's a silly thing to expect people to do.

    I would say one thing to do is not put those laws on the books in the first place. I wouldn't trust any politician with that power left or right. There is also a lot of space between curtailing speech and just taking abuse. Counter protests at far right or supremcist events, ridicule of racists, boycotts of people or places that you feel are discriminatory. Just calling attention to things like BLM is doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isator Levi
    replied
    Originally posted by AnubisXy View Post
    I believe if you look at the history of the United States and as well as the current political climate, there should be zero doubt that if we did have those sorts of laws in place, conservative politicians would absolutely use those laws to begin oppressing members of minority groups, especially ones protesting against systemic discrimination and injustice. Of course, we can say it's not fair if conservative politicians did start doing stuff like that, but in light of many of the things we're seeing happen in our political system right now, do we really have faith they wouldn't?
    What are your courts for?

    Really, a lot of this rhetoric around the idea that it's wrong to try opposing oppressive authorities and hate groups because of the idea that they'll try doing the same back to you... it's all very defeatist. Black Lives Matter already exists because of systemic ways in which black people are oppressed in the United States, so when the response is that their agitation will result in the authorities trying to oppress them even more... well, first of all, no shit, and second, what does the proposed solution then look like? What can one expect anybody to possibly do if you keep telling them that their methods will just lead to increased pushback from the people standing above them? Roll over and take it?

    It's a silly thing to expect people to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    The US has hate crime laws that haven't been twisted to persecute minorities and are mostly insufficient in the refusal to expand protection to groups that are suffering hate crimes but don't count because they're not written into the law as a protected class.

    Multiple countries manage to have hate speech laws without them falling into authoritarian cudgels.

    Because there's a simple thing to build into these laws: there be actual persecution based on hate involved. Hate crimes aren't based in what groups you belong to (though membership can be used as evidence), but what you actually do and why.

    Adapting our harassment laws to include "hate harassment" to have a legal response to hate speech that doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because harassment has to be legally met as well as the bigoted motivations, isn't something simple to turn into a way to oppress left groups (or right groups for that matter).

    Leave a comment:


  • AnubisXy
    replied
    It's worth remembering that many prominent (conservative) politicians, members of Congress, governors, mayors, members of the FBI, police chiefs across the country, etc, have claimed that Black Lives Matter is a hate group and that their rhetoric is hate speech. Of course, that's complete bullshit. But Republicans just spent the last two years in charge of all 3 branches of the national government, and control state level governments in many parts of the country. Do we want to give those people the power to determine what groups are "hate groups" and then prevent them from being able to speak when it's possible that they could begin weaponizing those laws against against their political foes?

    I believe if you look at the history of the United States and as well as the current political climate, there should be zero doubt that if we did have those sorts of laws in place, conservative politicians would absolutely use those laws to begin oppressing members of minority groups, especially ones protesting against systemic discrimination and injustice. Of course, we can say it's not fair if conservative politicians did start doing stuff like that, but in light of many of the things we're seeing happen in our political system right now, do we really have faith they wouldn't?
    Last edited by AnubisXy; 12-20-2018, 06:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isator Levi
    replied
    Originally posted by Grimmi05 View Post
    One, authoritarians love laws that restrict free speech. It gives them a great recruitment tool, "Come hear X! the person Y doesn't want you to hear!" and once in power just a few tweeks and suddenly its illegal to criticize the government.
    On the one hand, there's the question of what the comparative value is of the supposed taboo allure that evil people get when they're driven underground against the substantive harm that is caused by their ugly language being part of the open discourse. Personally, I don't need to know of many people who'll be actually harmed by exposure to slurs and hateful rhetoric to think that it's a better world if the kind of people who are really determined to find those things, or so bankrupt in morals or personality that they'll pursue it just because it's taboo, don't have to go digging in the mire for it.

    Originally posted by Grimmi05
    Two, the more you restrict something the more hidden it becomes. To quote Game of Thrones "when you cut out a man's tongue, you don't prove to the world you are right, you just prove that you fear what he has to say. The best disinfectant is sunlight, its better for hateful people to be known so that they can avoided or criticized or publicly proven to be the assholes that they are.
    See, this is what I'm talking about with the incoherence. Right here, you're talking about how it's better for these things to be exposed, so that they can be criticized.

    But when they're criticized, you get a lot of types who call that censorship and infringement of free speech. Those are the ones in particular that I was addressing.

    For sunlight to be a disinfectant, the thing has to at some point be disinfected. Like, I presume that's a metaphor intended to mean that ultimately we don't have Nazis anymore? I'm addressing the mindset that would respond to the desire to criticise Nazism into non-existence as though that's a terrible infringement of the inherent right of the Nazi "opinion" to exist.

    Sunlight might be a good disinfectant, but you get people who don't identify with these positions clamouring to provide them with umbrellas.

    Originally posted by Grimmi05
    One last thing, before you wish for a law to be passed imagine your worst enemy being able to use it against you.
    Setting aside the fact that most of these kinds of discussions don't actually involve people calling for laws against things such as tone-deaf portrayals of homophobia in the first place, and that it's a rather extreme take on my statement of "modernity might require our concept of free speech to adapt", I find that my life would not change appreciably if they were outlawed (except insofar as I would have fewer frustrating discussions).

    Keeping in mind that a lot of actual laws tend to be rather specific, what form would this terrifying spectre of a law against hateful language and rhetoric that can somehow become harmful to me in future even take? Again, I'm rejecting the premise that being critical of positions that call for the extermination of groups based on race or sexuality, and repressions based on gender, are morally or functionally equivalent to people making those hateful calls, or any kind of criticism of authority whatsoever. If there are two timelines, one in which it's illegal to be a Nazi, the other in which it's illegal to call out a government on any kind of excess or failing whatsoever, one of these things is preferable to the other, and they're both probably quite different structurally.

    Leave a comment:


  • TyrannicalRabbit
    replied
    All I am going to say is OP you have a tendency to talk out both sides of your mouth and leave it at that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grimmi05
    replied
    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
    I'm afraid that I must speak, because it's been something that I've been seeing for a while.

    I see that the word "authoritarianism" is being used here, but in this context and from the history I've absorbed, I find it to be used as a term for people being in opposition to hateful and harmful speech.

    But the thing is that actual authoritarianism, the kind that actually finds itself in the seat of power, employs such speech to turn the masses against scapegoats and the marginalized, as an instrument in exercising and maintaining its power.

    To deny that language, to rebuke its use and seek to rob it of its power, strikes me as often one of the key ways that the targets of authoritarianism fight back against it.

    I find the position of being opposed to authoritarianism, while also being opposed to people seeking to rebuke its tools to be ideologically incoherent.

    Freedom of speech is a fine, historically important and valuable principle, that I find to have often been co-opted by wicked people in an age where they don't have so much recourse to employ murder to repress people who dissent, who criticise, or who simply live their lives in a manner that those people find offensive (by which I mean just being who they are; opposing an openly gay couple is not morally equivalent to opposing people who participate in white supremacy rallies). I find freedom of speech to be a principle that needs to evolve to function in the modern context.


    I am going to have to respectfully disagree for a couple of reasons.

    One, authoritarians love laws that restrict free speech. It gives them a great recruitment tool, "Come hear X! the person Y doesn't want you to hear!" and once in power just a few tweeks and suddenly its illegal to criticize the government.

    Two, the more you restrict something the more hidden it becomes. To quote Game of Thrones "when you cut out a man's tongue, you don't prove to the world you are right, you just prove that you fear what he has to say. The best disinfectant is sunlight, its better for hateful people to be known so that they can avoided or criticized or publicly proven to be the assholes that they are.

    One last thing, before you wish for a law to be passed imagine your worst enemy being able to use it against you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isator Levi
    replied
    I'm afraid that I must speak, because it's been something that I've been seeing for a while.

    I see that the word "authoritarianism" is being used here, but in this context and from the history I've absorbed, I find it to be used as a term for people being in opposition to hateful and harmful speech.

    But the thing is that actual authoritarianism, the kind that actually finds itself in the seat of power, employs such speech to turn the masses against scapegoats and the marginalized, as an instrument in exercising and maintaining its power.

    To deny that language, to rebuke its use and seek to rob it of its power, strikes me as often one of the key ways that the targets of authoritarianism fight back against it.

    I find the position of being opposed to authoritarianism, while also being opposed to people seeking to rebuke its tools to be ideologically incoherent.

    Freedom of speech is a fine, historically important and valuable principle, that I find to have often been co-opted by wicked people in an age where they don't have so much recourse to employ murder to repress people who dissent, who criticise, or who simply live their lives in a manner that those people find offensive (by which I mean just being who they are; opposing an openly gay couple is not morally equivalent to opposing people who participate in white supremacy rallies). I find freedom of speech to be a principle that needs to evolve to function in the modern context.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cinder
    replied
    I'm also guilty of sharing stuff that does not really belong around here, so I can't criticize that.

    But I think the "issue" here is less about your personal beliefs and more about how you express them. People have a high degree of tolerance for political differences around here (yes, they do: only toxic crap gets called out. If that happens more lately, it's a sign of times) and I'd say nobody aims to make you change your mind, but when you share some frankly shaky opinions only to admit other people have a point once they highlight the flaws in those, and this happens over and over again, it's bound to eventually wear out patience.

    Like, we disagree on a LOT of things and I can say to have plenty of issues with what you say, but the one thing that always made me avoid any sort of dialogue with you is that I never thought it would lead anywhere aside from a pointless conflict.

    Making a whole thread about it is a bit too much, but what makes it awkward is that all old-timers can confirm we've been through this before.

    If you mean it, do it. No big deal if you don't, but you can't expect people to care much for a thread like this.

    Really though, life's already tough. We all make mistakes from time to time, but if this forum is a social circle you need (hey, I get you, trust me) at this point you do know what to do in order to coexist peacefully.

    I can assure you nobody around here hates you, so things are not that bad.
    Last edited by Cinder; 12-19-2018, 05:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • atamajakki
    replied
    Originally posted by tasti man LH View Post
    Or to be even more blunt:

    Stop apologizing for it and just do it.
    Bingo. You don’t need to announce to the world how you’re changing, or ramble about how you hate yourself. Just actually change your behavior and get on with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • tasti man LH
    replied
    Or to be even more blunt:

    Stop apologizing for it and just do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • nofather
    replied
    The off-topic threads have their reasons too, but they're mostly dead beyond the gaming, love, and hate topics.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X