Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Do you believe in unmitigated free speech?


Yes
  34% (8)
No
  34% (8)
yes - but with limits.
  30% (7)


Total Votes : 23
(last vote on : 7/25/2016 5:05:29 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


WickedsDesire -> Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 6:18:51 AM)

If so why so?
If not why not?

When does it become a hate speech and "who the fuk is Milo"

I believe in it, truly. I just don't see how it can be both ways.




Greta75 -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 6:24:23 AM)

I like to believe in total free speech.

But I accept it's not possible for our country if we want zero disruption, no racial or religious wars, no protests, etc etc. Basically if we want peace and order, we can't let everyone just mouth off at each other all the time.

I guess it's like if you are handling a whole class room of kids and if you let them mouth off at each other, and just ignore it, it would become anarchy eventually with them all beating each other up I think.

Free speech has very strong reliance on the faith that humans won't react in violence.

I think the complication now is cyber bullying. You hear of kids committing suicide just because people were slagging them off online.

I support free speech in a world where everyone is mature and can handle it maturely.




WhoreMods -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 6:55:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

If so why so?
If not why not?

When does it become a hate speech and "who the fuk is Milo"

I believe in it, truly. I just don't see how it can be both ways.


Does expecting people to accept the consequences of speaking freely somehow invalidate their freedom of speech?
Does freedom of speech protect somebody's right to bray unpleasant abuse at people on a social networking site with other users who don't necessarily want to be subjected to a load of obnoxiously foolish jibber jabber?
There's only a problem in the current case for somebody's who's dumb enough to think that neither case applies. And I'm sure this kind of stupidity is often selective enough to justify restricting somebody they dislike or disagree with's absolute freedom of speech, for the reasons that are unacceptable as an excuse to stop MileyMilo tweeting obnoxious shite.
(It's even possible that the argument that no right-leaning statement is so unpleasant that it doesn't belong on twitter could be being employed about Milo in order to nip in the bud complaints about a far more prominent and influential rightard whose spent a lot of his election campaign tweeting all sorts of bile laden bullshit at the drop of a hat...)




WickedsDesire -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 7:19:59 AM)

You either believe in or not its why I added no third option to the poll - not that both of you voted. You raise interesting points

Greta75 I chose this one - I think the complication now is cyber bullying. You hear of kids committing suicide just because people were slagging them off online. Indeed and a loss of any life is a sad thing and I do not claim the right to take that of the most heinous monsters. People are online for many a reason…If it is a liar is it not also a monster that feeds on the genuine attention of others and only good words shall it devour and is above all criticism for it is parasitic nature.

Whoremods I chose this one ( I wasn’t talking about milo I was talking about free speech) Does freedom of speech protect somebody's right to bray unpleasant abuse at people on a social networking site with other users who don't necessarily want to be subjected to a load of obnoxiously foolish jibber jabber? Some people loath/hate/dislike gays religion – they are wired that way to their very core – are you saying their opinion is invalid/flawed and therefore worthless or deliberately hateful and they should offer that to no one only rose petals.




Awareness -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 8:02:49 AM)

Any society needs to place limits on speech for the good of the body politic. However those limits must be confined to those things which threaten the nation.

Limiting free speech to prevent "hurt feelings" is totalitarian. Feelings are indefinable and can be used to justify whatever censorship you desire.

This tendency for socialists and feminists to create demand "safe spaces" is just another way of attempting to censor speech they don't like. It is infantalising and unsustainable.




JeffBC -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 9:27:01 AM)

~fast reply~
I voted "no" but that's sort of a trick question so a trick answer.

Very little (and perhaps nothing) in human terms is so starkly absolute. As I've said in other contexts, totalities are the province of mathematics more than anthropology.

Do I believe in free speech? Yes, when applied to the law (the government) but even there I'm unwilling to say, "in all cases bar none for all eternity".
Do I believe in free speech being imposed on private institutions like twitter? Grey area, needs discussion with specific examples and risk analysis.
Do I think Milo should've been banned from Twitter? Hell no. He's a lizard for sure but two people got into it on twitter and only one got banned. They both needed to grow the hell up.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 9:45:28 AM)

It would appear I added a 3rd option - what was I thinking


i have the best mind on here, do i not one who call itself awareness
have twitter banned every profile who spakes lies and welcomes those embracing said lies?




KenDckey -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 10:04:59 AM)

I believe in free speech, but within limits. Shouting fire to create panic (i.e., theater, etc) is an example of the freedom limiter. I don't about the body politic (politicians are fair game) except when t comes to threats. I don't believe that the freedom extentds necessarily to actions (SCOTUS and I disagrree on this one). If it did, murder would be legal claiming it was free speech because of some stupid reason (whatever the lawyer could dream up) or when it denies someone else of their free speecch rights (Professors that I have known have given me bad grades because I didn't agree with their assessment - Shakespere comes to min as an example).




DaddySatyr -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 10:16:16 AM)


Well, first off: the question sucks.

quote:


Unmitigated: 1. Not diminished or moderated in intensity or severity; unrelieved: unmitigated suffering.
2. Without qualification or exception; absolute: an unmitigated lie.



Fair enough, but then, one of the answers is: "yes - but with limits"

The question started off poorly, since it's an absolute (and we all know that only Sith deal in absolutes). Absolutes are almost always subject to a "no" answer.

The addition of the third option completely abrogates the "unmitigated" qualifier.

So, no answer to your poll. I will say this: Almost nothing should be "off limits" because the free and open exchange of ideas is the only way to keep a society healthy.



Michael




MariaB -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 10:37:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Any society needs to place limits on speech for the good of the body politic. However those limits must be confined to those things which threaten the nation.

Limiting free speech to prevent "hurt feelings" is totalitarian. Feelings are indefinable and can be used to justify whatever censorship you desire.

This tendency for socialists and feminists to create demand "safe spaces" is just another way of attempting to censor speech they don't like. It is infantalising and unsustainable.


Oh fuck off! I’m left wing and I’m all for free speech so long as it isn’t a guise to incite violence or law breaking. Hatred is a natural emotion that shouldn’t have to be harnessed or censored.

We all know a particular woman on here who regularly express her prejudices. In turn she gets a lot of hateful responses. So long as she can take that on the chin (which she always appears to do) I can’t help but respect her.

This isn’t a Left or Right thingy, its something that is subjective to each and every one of us.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 11:06:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Any society needs to place limits on speech for the good of the body politic. However those limits must be confined to those things which threaten the nation.

Limiting free speech to prevent "hurt feelings" is totalitarian. Feelings are indefinable and can be used to justify whatever censorship you desire.

This tendency for socialists and feminists to create demand "safe spaces" is just another way of attempting to censor speech they don't like. It is infantalising and unsustainable.


Oh fuck off! I’m left wing and I’m all for free speech so long as it isn’t a guise to incite violence or law breaking. Hatred is a natural emotion that shouldn’t have to be harnessed or censored.

We all know a particular woman on here who regularly express her prejudices. In turn she gets a lot of hateful responses. So long as she can take that on the chin (which she always appears to do) I can’t help but respect her.

This isn’t a Left or Right thingy, its something that is subjective to each and every one of us.

The problem is that most speech labelled as a guise to incite violence or lawbreaking is any speech that the left disagrees with.

Anne Coulter scheduled to speak on a college campus? Shut her down! Black Lives Matter expressing "pigs in a blanket...fry 'em like bacon"? Just a downtrodden group expressing their frustration with the system by using harsh language.




Edwird -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 11:43:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

I like to believe in total free speech.

But I accept it's not possible for our country if we want zero disruption, no racial or religious wars, no protests, etc etc. Basically if we want peace and order, we can't let everyone just mouth off at each other all the time.

I guess it's like if you are handling a whole class room of kids and if you let them mouth off at each other, and just ignore it, it would become anarchy eventually with them all beating each other up I think.

Free speech has very strong reliance on the faith that humans won't react in violence.

I think the complication now is cyber bullying. You hear of kids committing suicide just because people were slagging them off online.

I support free speech in a world where everyone is mature and can handle it maturely.


Good points, Gretta.

Yes, I actually said that.




Edwird -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 11:49:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Does expecting people to accept the consequences of speaking freely somehow invalidate their freedom of speech?


Yes, just ask Awareness.

Your free speech is not free speech anymore if you use it to call out a fuckwit for being just that when he/she says idiotic things. See, now you are suppressing free speech. Just ask him, he'll set you straight on which is what.




SunDominant -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 1:20:06 PM)

Unmitigated free speech.

However, if that speech has consequences, the speaker will suffer them.




OsideGirl -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 1:23:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

~fast reply~
I voted "no" but that's sort of a trick question so a trick answer.

Very little (and perhaps nothing) in human terms is so starkly absolute. As I've said in other contexts, totalities are the province of mathematics more than anthropology.

Do I believe in free speech? Yes, when applied to the law (the government) but even there I'm unwilling to say, "in all cases bar none for all eternity".
Do I believe in free speech being imposed on private institutions like twitter? Grey area, needs discussion with specific examples and risk analysis.
Do I think Milo should've been banned from Twitter? Hell no. He's a lizard for sure but two people got into it on twitter and only one got banned. They both needed to grow the hell up.



I'm with Jeff...

I'll also add that when I'm paying you to do a job, you don't get to have freedom of speech when you're on my time.




DominantWrestler -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 3:35:46 PM)

Does no one remember freedom fries or the social stigma at that time period with critiquing the war, the government, or the president? More so, considering the political climate of the America Revolution, the first amemndment was made more to do with free speech critical of the government than the continuation of slurs and defamation.

I'm an independent. One of my biggest issues with any person or group is hypocrisy. That is one of the reasons why both Hillary and Trump disgust me




Edwird -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 3:49:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Does no one remember freedom fries or the social stigma at that time period with critiquing the war, the government, or the president.


Rest his soul, comedian Bill Hicks:

"I was in the unenviable position of being for the war, but against the troops."

In response to all the inane "Support Our Troops!" bumper stickers at the time.





WhoreMods -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/21/2016 3:49:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler
Does no one remember freedom fries or the social stigma at that time period with critiquing the war, the government, or the president.

Apparently not given that there's people in this thread who seem to believe that only the left has any interest in restricting freedom of speech.
[sm=banana.gif]




Awareness -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/22/2016 9:10:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

Oh fuck off! I’m left wing and I’m all for free speech so long as it isn’t a guise to incite violence or law breaking. Hatred is a natural emotion that shouldn’t have to be harnessed or censored.
Well then Maria, I would respectfully suggest you haven't been paying attention.

There's an ongoing cultural authoritarianism being promoted by the left which is tantamount to censorship of viewpoints it doesn't agree with. Far from encouraging vigorous debate we now have "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions" and.... every feminist's favourite piece of misandrist legerdemain "misogyny".

I'll give you a few examples of the kinds of cultural censorship which the left regularly engages in. Under the increasingly totalitarian leftist regime, you cannot say things such as:

* Trans people are mentally ill. The vast majority have other mental illness in addition to gender dysmorphia. Their risks of suicide are 22 times greater regardless of whether they transition or not. 40% of trans people who opt for surgery regret doing so. For the vast majority, surgery does not increase their level of happiness.

Those are all FACTS, but the cultural authoritarianism of the left says that anyone who values facts over feelings is a monster.

* There is no gender pay gap. Women choose easier jobs, work fewer hours, prefer better conditions over easier pay, take less risks (because of lower testosterone) and are less aggressive in their pay negotiations (due to a lower appetite for risk). Men also constitute 95% of workplace deaths because they take the riskier jobs which - surprise, surprise - pay more.

These are all FACTS but the cultural authoritarianism of the left will not allow facts to get in the way of the narrative.

* The 1 in 5 rape (or sexual assault depending on which lie they're telling at the time) statistic is categorically false. College campuses are safer places with lower risk of rape than the general population, all of the actual statistics tell us including victims of crime surveys conducted by the FBI indicate that roughly 1 in 40 women will be raped in her lifetime.

These are all FACTS, but the cultural authoritarianism and victim-hood pyramid of the left will not allow facts to get in the way of its misandrist "men are oppressors" narrative.

* Men are at far greater risk for assault or murder than women. This is a fact. Yet the left claims that our culture is misogynist because women experience violence. We must hold "take back the night" rallies and stop violence against women despite the fact that violence against women is a far lesser problem than violence against men.

* Women are more likely to engage in intimate partner violence. 50% of intimate partner violence is bidirectional, but when it's unidirectional, the woman is the sole perpetrator 70% of the time. Lesbian relationships have the highest rates of intimate partner violence. Gay men have the lowest. These are facts.

Yet the "men are monsters" narrative of the left insists that domestic violence is about male power and control and presents misandrist concepts such as the Duluth model which attempts to claim that domestic violence is implicitly male.

If you agree with the left's stance on any of these things, you are valuing narrative and feelings over fact and are contributing to the ongoing censorship of ideas which make the left uncomfortable.


quote:


We all know a particular woman on here who regularly express her prejudices. In turn she gets a lot of hateful responses. So long as she can take that on the chin (which she always appears to do) I can’t help but respect her.
You must be the first person who's openly stated they respect Tweakabelle. That's a somewhat bizarre admission.

quote:


This isn’t a Left or Right thingy, its something that is subjective to each and every one of us.
The Right lie. The Left lies and attempts to engage in smear campaigns and censorship of anything which contradicts its dogma. They are more implicitly totalitarian and inimical to the fundamental principles which underlie pretty much all Western democracies.




MariaB -> RE: Do you believe in unmitigated free speech? (7/23/2016 1:27:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


Well then Maria, I would respectfully suggest you haven't been paying attention.

There's an ongoing cultural authoritarianism being promoted by the left which is tantamount to censorship of viewpoints it doesn't agree with. Far from encouraging vigorous debate we now have "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions" and.... every feminist's favourite piece of misandrist legerdemain "misogyny".

I'll give you a few examples of the kinds of cultural censorship which the left regularly engages in. Under the increasingly totalitarian leftist regime, you cannot say things such as:

* Trans people are mentally ill. The vast majority have other mental illness in addition to gender dysmorphia. Their risks of suicide are 22 times greater regardless of whether they transition or not. 40% of trans people who opt for surgery regret doing so. For the vast majority, surgery does not increase their level of happiness.

Those are all FACTS, but the cultural authoritarianism of the left says that anyone who values facts over feelings is a monster.

* There is no gender pay gap. Women choose easier jobs, work fewer hours, prefer better conditions over easier pay, take less risks (because of lower testosterone) and are less aggressive in their pay negotiations (due to a lower appetite for risk). Men also constitute 95% of workplace deaths because they take the riskier jobs which - surprise, surprise - pay more.

These are all FACTS but the cultural authoritarianism of the left will not allow facts to get in the way of the narrative.

* The 1 in 5 rape (or sexual assault depending on which lie they're telling at the time) statistic is categorically false. College campuses are safer places with lower risk of rape than the general population, all of the actual statistics tell us including victims of crime surveys conducted by the FBI indicate that roughly 1 in 40 women will be raped in her lifetime.

These are all FACTS, but the cultural authoritarianism and victim-hood pyramid of the left will not allow facts to get in the way of its misandrist "men are oppressors" narrative.

* Men are at far greater risk for assault or murder than women. This is a fact. Yet the left claims that our culture is misogynist because women experience violence. We must hold "take back the night" rallies and stop violence against women despite the fact that violence against women is a far lesser problem than violence against men.

* Women are more likely to engage in intimate partner violence. 50% of intimate partner violence is bidirectional, but when it's unidirectional, the woman is the sole perpetrator 70% of the time. Lesbian relationships have the highest rates of intimate partner violence. Gay men have the lowest. These are facts.

Yet the "men are monsters" narrative of the left insists that domestic violence is about male power and control and presents misandrist concepts such as the Duluth model which attempts to claim that domestic violence is implicitly male.

If you agree with the left's stance on any of these things, you are valuing narrative and feelings over fact and are contributing to the ongoing censorship of ideas which make the left uncomfortable.


Remember the saying, ‘The right to free speech belongs to those who are willing to preserve it’.
Freedom of speech doesn’t include the expression of a lie though, so when the right wing press conspire with their right wing government to promote freedom of speech as a right wing and not a left wing belief then we are bound to have the masses believing that misinformation.

Headlines which state, ‘Muslims cannot be integrated into Europe or the U.S. because those Arab bastards are raping our women and marrying their children’ isn’t freedom of speech; its merely words used to exploit the gullible masses and create a pathway to prejudice. I don’t agree with those who use the freedom of speech umbrella to create an atmosphere of suspicion and hate because I can’t have a vigorous debate based on lies; lies that can be backed up by umpteen links to main line right wing media channels.

Right wing papers hate their inferiors and by joining hands with a right wing government they’ve used fickle reporting as a meal ticket to broaden their slander on things like benefit scroungers. You don’t find the same stories in left leaning papers because the left know its merely western propaganda; they tend to stick with intelligent reporting.

I work with vulnerable adults. That includes men who have come out of domestic abuse situations and men who have been sexually abused and even raped whilst doing prison time. Men are more likely to commit suicide than women and when they do attempt suicide, men are more likely to succeed. I’m trained to fully understand the sort of trauma a mans mind goes through when his ex tries to stop him seeing his children and I fully understand the general population have held on to this antiquated view that men need to just ‘man up’. This isn’t a left or right thing, it’s a society problem, a conditioning that’s been like this for thousands of years.

I would call myself a feminist but that doesn’t mean I think women could do a lot of jobs a man does well. I appreciate most women couldn’t spend all day carrying a hod full of bricks up and down a ladder or have the required strength to hold a concrete cutter in steady hands. I don’t believe a female sniper could make a snap decision to shoot a child that is walking with something that looks like a bomb towards our soldiers. I don’t believe women should have an automatic right to keep their children in a divorce, that mother is best or that women are less capable of violence than men. Oh… and I do know female violence is on the up… massively.

That doesn’t make me right wing or left wing, it just means I understand facts.

quote:


You must be the first person who's openly stated they respect Tweakabelle. That's a somewhat bizarre admission.


I don't think I've read Tweakabelles posts. I was meaning someone else.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.125