Free Speech

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by BaronVerde » Wed, 5. May 21, 18:18

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 17:34
Lets elaborate why it's not a lie - there is no measurable data, because scienticially accceptable measurable data would looks like this:
- hate crime statistics from last 10-20 years.
- statistics with attached yearly classification and definition of all hate crimes (e.g. if year 2000 would have 100 types of defined hate crimes and year 2021 would have 600 hate crimes, or reverse)
- weight attached to every hate crime (e.g. murder > beating > calling names > something absurd like OK hand gesture).
- all data reconciled and ajdusted with above variables.

Only such data could show hard evidence if there was increase or decrease in hate against minorities.

...but even then it could be questionable, because as I mention with Sociology, you cannot reproduce the experiment to prove beyond any doubt that the thing you measure (e.g. hate) was specifically cause by the other thing (internet hate speech), because you're physically and scientifically unable to exclude milion other factors that are in effect for historic data.

Basically with sociology you're not doing science, but simply storytelling and educated guess based on historic data.

You can't be sure for final results of something so simplistic as prisoner dillema, yet you expect to figure out something for multi-milion people groups?
At best you could only prove the trend (hate increase or decrease), but there is no way to prove what is the direct cause of that hate.

That's why I avoid putting "scientific" articles in any political discussion.
All you're doing is misreading, invent random magic numbers, construe things in a way hardly worth a reply because it is unclear how the thoughts come to be. These are distractions and whataboutism. The prisoner dilemma has nothing to do with free speech, it's game theory. Sociology is a social science. In all science, there is always a doubt, that's what makes it so thrilling and what drives it. You can't even support your own statements, so why demanding evidence 'without doubt' from others ? We're already beyond that and looking into the future, with more or less concern, you're holding us back.

Going back, I wrote 'a gamer forum is hardly the place for [scientific rigour]'. Don't claim I demaned its application in here, I just asked for sources for your assertions, which you keep on failing to produce, instead, as others have mentioned, you redefine things, twist peoples words, wind and evade.

Really, there's little to discuss, no progress is to be expected. Pity.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8534
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 5. May 21, 18:29

Thanks, now at least I know what you refers to and I can reply to that.
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 17:49
I find your arguments here to be quite hypocritical considering the amount of times you've been all in for curtailing freedoms of anyone that doesn't fit into certain religious or ethnic categories. or that time you said you were afraid of women wearing a burqa even if they chose to wear it?
I don't recall curtailing religius/ethnic freedoms, other than Burka Ban discussion. There I was describing it as a public safety measure decided by Swiss in referendum.
However, you're correct that would be against Freedom of Speech, a form of censorship and I think you put this argument back then.

Lets be honest - in the end you want to censor/free different things than I, but I'm drifting towards Freedom of Speech, so I'm more likely to stop supporting Burka ban, than you to stop supporting censorship.

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 17:49
Remember that time you called police beating and kidnapping protestors "normal police work"?
I specifically said this is the same police procedure across the world, both Europe and Asian and I remember specifically mention that it's hard to find police which didn't do it (I think I put UK police as an "anomaly" example).
I never said it was "good" or "righteous" (especcially all the bad stuff I saw from "yellow vest protest")


Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 17:49
or that time you said BLM was stupid?
I never said BLM has no right to protest specifically. What I said was OPINION that it's stupid to mass gather during COVID outbreak.

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 17:49
Or that time you said there was "nothing to protest about" when the cop shot Jacob Blake 7 times point blank in the back?

Jacob Blake is great case study to get back especially after recent case with the girl who tried to stab other girl and policeman had like 0.5s to react - people say "why he didn't tazed her"? Well, jacob Blake was tazed and he didn't even slowed down.
I recall I said specifically that protesting the whole case was stupid as police was left with no option, other than possibly physically jumping several guys on him to stop him...which is now also questionable, becasue he could stop breath, am I right?
So what else? should they taze him till his hearth shut-down? Let him drive away?

Overall my opinion that something is stupid to be protested doesn't equal to denying the right to protest - that's what Freedom of Speech is about.


CBJ wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 17:43
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 17:34
Is it so hard to see that it's nothing more than privatization of censorship?
It is nothing of the sort. If the whole premise of what you say is predicated on you redefining the terms involved to means something different to what everyone else understands by them, there is nothing to discuss.
It's rich to hear about term re-definition, when other side redefine everything all the time - again that "OK sign" - no one defined it as a hate symbol just a few years ago, now it has half of the "negative connotation" definition on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_gesture

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51725
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by CBJ » Wed, 5. May 21, 18:59

You are the one who brought that symbol up, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and now you're using it as an excuse for whataboutism.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8534
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 5. May 21, 19:06

CBJ wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 18:59
You are the one who brought that symbol up, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and now you're using it as an excuse for whataboutism.
It's not whataboutism - it's a clear example how censorship can get out of control out of tiny stupid thing.
That's one of the things that Free Speech has been made to prevent.
BaronVerde wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 18:18
All you're doing is misreading, invent random magic numbers, construe things in a way hardly worth a reply because it is unclear how the thoughts come to be. These are distractions and whataboutism. The prisoner dilemma has nothing to do with free speech, it's game theory. Sociology is a social science. In all science, there is always a doubt, that's what makes it so thrilling and what drives it. You can't even support your own statements, so why demanding evidence 'without doubt' from others ? We're already beyond that and looking into the future, with more or less concern, you're holding us back.
And from this, I can tell you never have been close to actual science paper. I also see the pattern of trying to cut out the discussion with whataboutism buzz word when there in no arguments left.

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4871
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by Chips » Wed, 5. May 21, 19:26

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:06
CBJ wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 18:59
You are the one who brought that symbol up, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and now you're using it as an excuse for whataboutism.
It's not whataboutism - it's a clear example how censorship can get out of control out of tiny stupid thing.
That's one of the things that Free Speech has been made to prevent.
Okay, I'm sorry, but what censorship exactly is this? Make it super simple so I'm not able to misunderstand.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8534
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 5. May 21, 19:36

Chips wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:26
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:06
CBJ wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 18:59
You are the one who brought that symbol up, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and now you're using it as an excuse for whataboutism.
It's not whataboutism - it's a clear example how censorship can get out of control out of tiny stupid thing.
That's one of the things that Free Speech has been made to prevent.
Okay, I'm sorry, but what censorship exactly is this? Make it super simple so I'm not able to misunderstand.
One dude was kicked out of his job, because he was sitting in front of camera (back to it) and back his head in a way that looked like OK symbol at that angle.
Other dude was winning in TV show for the third time, so he made OK sign where 3 fingers should symbolize his 3 wins, now he has to appologize or he will be kicked out of the show.

Because aparently, according to Twitter nuts, OK sign is secret white supremacis symbol and everyone outside of Twitter should know this - go to the wikipedia link I provided - "negative conotation" section to know more - there is about 10 other cases described there and only two actual terrorist, who picked this symbol only after Twitter made it famous.
Last edited by mr.WHO on Wed, 5. May 21, 19:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16560
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by fiksal » Wed, 5. May 21, 19:39

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 16:41
fiksal wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 16:18
None of what you listed is "information".
Yes it is and I provided the example why it's so - you simply decided to ignore the examples, so I repeat them again.
If someone call to violence, I want to hear it loud and clear, to make sure I'm at safe distance.
That's a perfectly valid information and it's not for you do decide that it isn't.
And I repeat it again, your examples are not convincing, it is not information.

I luckily dont answer to you, so yes, it is up to me to decide what I think is information and what isnt. It's also not for you to allow it or to rewrite the existing parts of US law, for example. So drop it.

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 16:41
fiksal wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 16:18
No, that one is a poor example. It's neither censored no prohibited, nor there are any serious repercussions to it. Or name the country where it's illegal, otherwise I fail to see how it's relevant.

If you say US, you'd be very wrong, not only newly adopted upside down OK is fine to use, it's equally fine to walk the streets with Swastika, or reserve public space for yearly KKK gathering.
Da fuk is the upside down OK sign? That prove my point that no sane person can even keep up with all that Twitterdation.
You're also incorrect that in's not censored in US - if it isn't, then why there is already several case where person lost the job because of it? I recall there was a coast guard guy and recently a guy from Wheel of Fortune who had to appologize to Twitter mob.
If this in not a censorship then I don't know what the hell it is.
White supremacists have adopted this pretty recently, and they sometimes go for upside down OK. Though upside down OK was previously also a childish game. They do use both.

Either way like all other gang or secret signs or gestures, context matters. There's only a limited number of finger manipulations that can be done, some will be shared. And get a grip of yourself.

US doesnt have censorship. Period. We can discuss various businesses' and their code of conducts if you like and have actually some information about it. Recall however that US law allows restrictions on free speech, in private businesses, in Army.
And again, US law doesnt censor or prohibit white supremacist gang signs. If you meant private business then be clear about it next time.
We can discuss Poland (if I am not mistaken?) however, since there's no point to discuss US in this context, especially since you are not that familiar with US law, which of course you are under no such obligation.

"Twitterdation" is not a real organization that I can find in Google. If you have a problem with their rules, present their code of conduct then.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8534
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 5. May 21, 19:45

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:39
White supremacists have adopted this pretty recently, and they sometimes go for upside down OK. Though upside down OK was previously also a childish game. They do use both.
That's my argument - when will we get to the point You could become secret nazi by scratching your balls?
...oh I forgot manspreading is a thing, so probably soon.


It was like that during French Revolution and Soviet revolution where people were sent to guilotine and gulag simply by using a term that was fine just a few days earlier, but suddently was banned (e.g using term "Monsieur/Madame" instead of "Citizen").
It's always in the name of peace and security.
Last edited by mr.WHO on Wed, 5. May 21, 19:52, edited 1 time in total.

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51725
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by CBJ » Wed, 5. May 21, 19:48

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:36
One dude was kicked out of his job, because he was sitting in front of camera (back to it) and back his head in a way that looked like OK symbol at that angle.
Other dude was winning in TV show for the third time, so he made OK sign where 3 fingers should symbolize his 3 wins, now he has to appologize or he will be kicked out of the show.
That. Is. Not. Censorship. That is a private company deciding to let someone go because they decided that person didn't behave appropriately. You can complain that the company was over-sensitive if you like, but you cannot bring it into a conversation about freedom of speech, because it has nothing to do with it.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16560
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by fiksal » Wed, 5. May 21, 19:56

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:45
fiksal wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:39
White supremacists have adopted this pretty recently, and they sometimes go for upside down OK. Though upside down OK was previously also a childish game. They do use both.
That's my argument - when will we get to the point You could become secret nazi by scratching your balls?
That's not a real question. If you have a problem with gang signs then bring it up in writting to said gangs. I am sure we can find Proud Boy's mailing address somewhere.

There's no-one here, that I know of, affiliated with them, 4chan gang members or the like, so your complains are for no-one.
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:45
It was like that during French Revolution and Soviet revolution where people were sent to guilotine and gulag simply by using a term that was fine just a few days earlier, but suddently was banned.
It's always in the name of peace and security.
Amuse me, what is:
- the "soviet" revolution
- when did it take place (start, end)
- who was sent to "gulag" during the said revolution
- was guillotine used during the soviet revolution?
- what "term" would send one to above gulag during the revolution
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8534
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 5. May 21, 20:32

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:56
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:45
It was like that during French Revolution and Soviet revolution where people were sent to guilotine and gulag simply by using a term that was fine just a few days earlier, but suddently was banned.
It's always in the name of peace and security.
Amuse me, what is:
- the "soviet" revolution
- when did it take place (start, end)
- who was sent to "gulag" during the said revolution
- was guillotine used during the soviet revolution?
- what "term" would send one to above gulag during the revolution
Weird nitpicking, but ok:
- soviet and bolshevik is synonim in popular use, but good catch for details (Bolsehivik till 1923, Soviet till 1991).
- 1917 to (technically) 1923 , but practically till the fall of Soviet Union in 1991
- "White-faction" and unlucky innocent bystanders, later on preatty much any disenter.
- you know that I was speaking about guillotine in context of French revolution.
- Any case of use of old (tzarist-era) speak over new speak (revolutionary speak) could get you sent to gulag. You could even copy/paste the case from French Revolution and simply replace "citizen" with "comrade" and it would fit the bill.

See section History/Background:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

That's why I put both revolution together and they are not so much different.

Teladi CEO
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun, 17. Jan 21, 15:24

Re: Free Speech

Post by Teladi CEO » Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34

I had to speed run through this entire discussion so excuse me if I miss something. Before I begin let me state:

I am completely and utterly against the restrictions of freedoms and please, can we please return to civility in the discussion

Sometimes I wish (in regards to the US) the writers of the constitution were more clear in what they meant. Perhaps they could have specified on what constitutes a well regulated militia, or perhaps what constitutes free speech. What they did create was the Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution and removes What it believes is against it.

With that in mind, the definition of the constitution is constantly in flux. Yet, the basic principles still apply, you can say pretty much whatever you want. But, as will every aspect of the constitution there are restrictions... you have freedom of thought, but you can’t plan to murder someone. Is saying you hate (enter race or religion) enough to be arrested, no it shouldn’t, but saying every person of said group should burn in hell... you should probably be investigated. But, this conversation isn’t about that, we have moved into censorship.

Censorship and “cancel culture) (not on a state or federal level) is freedom of speech, it has happened throughout American history. Was Martin Luther king a member of cancel culture? Yes, he absolutely was. He boycotted things that he deemed as harmful. He definitely didn’t censor people though, but demanding someone to be censored or fired because of their actions is fine, obviously certain considerations should be made. If he said something twenty years ago... I mean come on? Does he really deserved to be fired? Free speech is guaranteed, but it doesn’t mean your speech means there won’t be ramifications for it. You just won’t be persecuted by the government.

To go to federal censor ship... if someone yells that she is going to blow the building up. She shouldn’t get off free because of freedom of speech, she just threatened to murder dozens of people. Then that, what counts as a threat? The simple answer to the question is this, if your speech can harm someone physically then yes you should be persecuted. But everyone has different ideas as to what harms them emotionally. If we took that into consideration every aspect of the freedom of speech will be gone.

Let me spit some facts:

As of early 2000s, so this info is out of date but still interesting (data gained from pew research):

33% of liberals believe that dangerous books should be censored

56% Conservatives and more moderate Democrats believe that dangerous books should be banned

All of the examples I have seen so far show that we should fear the left and more progressive groups because they want to censor us (Communists, Socialists and Nazi’s to some extent) yet, at least in the US, more people on the right believe in censorship. Perhaps we are looking the wrong way, and have missed the knife in the dark.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewres ... g/%3Famp=1

Also I am sorry, I don’t even use Twitter and I think perhaps you should pay more attention to cultural trends if you are having trouble seeing that certain symbols are now taboo.
Last edited by Teladi CEO on Wed, 5. May 21, 22:56, edited 1 time in total.
We don’t know what paradise is like, but probably it’s blue magenta, flecked with pink. But even if it’s green and red-checked we should make the most of it. -Boron saying

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by BaronVerde » Wed, 5. May 21, 22:43

Teladi CEO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34
Let me spit some facts:

As of early 2000s, so this info is out of date but still interesting (data gained from pew research):

33% of liberals believe that dangerous books should be censored

56% Conservatives and more moderate Democrats believe that dangerous books should be banned
Citation needed, and a definition of what exactly "dangerous" means here. Dangerous because of what and for whom ? Books, btw., aren't that important these days. Though I love books. Can't see the wall behind me, and it's 3*8m ...
Teladi CEO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34
All of the examples I have seen so far show that we should fear the left and more progressive groups because they want to censor us ...
I see what you're at. good that you made it clear. But you haven't named any examples. The two points may be correct or not. I am disinclined to believe them without sources. And who's 'us' ? Those who I call 'them' I assume :-) Just kidding, I don't want to divide any further.

Edit: some 'liberals', btw., in Germany and Spain are close to homo- and xenophobic groups. Quite different from the states, however united they may be, I believe ? I may be wrong ...

Am as sorry as possible :-)

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Teladi CEO
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun, 17. Jan 21, 15:24

Re: Free Speech

Post by Teladi CEO » Wed, 5. May 21, 22:55

BaronVerde wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:43
Teladi CEO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34
Let me spit some facts:

As of early 2000s, so this info is out of date but still interesting (data gained from pew research):

33% of liberals believe that dangerous books should be censored

56% Conservatives and more moderate Democrats believe that dangerous books should be banned
Citation needed, and a definition of what exactly "dangerous" means here. Dangerous because of what and for whom ? Books, btw., aren't that important these days. Though I love books. Can't see the wall behind me ...
Teladi CEO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34
All of the examples I have seen so far show that we should fear the left and more progressive groups because they want to censor us ...
I see what you're at. good that you made it clear. But you haven't named any examples. The two points may be correct or not. I am disinclined to believe them without sources.

Edit: some 'liberals', btw., in Germany and Spain are close to homo- and xenophobic groups. Quite different from the states, however united they may be, I believe ? I may be wrong ...

Am as sorry as possible :-)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewres ... g/%3famp=1

Sorry, I am editing my original post to add this as well.

My examples were based on the mention of multiple events in the discussion (Soviet Union and the French Revolution).
In the US media you can find right-wing articles claiming Democrats and other left groups are stripping them of their rights.

Here’s an example of that:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/liber ... 14330.html
We don’t know what paradise is like, but probably it’s blue magenta, flecked with pink. But even if it’s green and red-checked we should make the most of it. -Boron saying

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16560
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by fiksal » Wed, 5. May 21, 23:03

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 20:32
Weird nitpicking, but ok:
Not a weird nitpick at all, just verify the bundling of various words together into one thing, and if you know what they are
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:45
It was like that during French Revolution and Soviet revolution where people were sent to guilotine and gulag simply by using a term that was fine just a few days earlier, but suddently was banned.
for reference, my questions were
- the "soviet" revolution
- when did it take place (start, end)
- who was sent to "gulag" during the said revolution
- was guillotine used during the soviet revolution?
- what "term" would send one to above gulag during the revolution
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 20:32
- soviet and bolshevik is synonim in popular use, but good catch for details (Bolsehivik till 1923, Soviet till 1991).
I am not familiar with the "soviet" as an identifier, it's not common usage in Russian. It's not in common usage in US.

Nor it's a group that existed during the revolution.

In Russian, the revolution is called "revolution".

See for details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 20:32
- 1917 to (technically) 1923 , but practically till the fall of Soviet Union in 1991
Russian revolution, not technically, but also actually ended in 1917 and civil war ended in 1923. In fact there were two revolutions with different people taking power.

No civil war continued till 1991. Again, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
February Revolution
8–16 March 1917
March–November 1917

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
1922–1927,...1927–1953, 1953–1990, ...1990–1991

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 20:32
- "White-faction" and unlucky innocent bystanders, later on preatty much any disenter.
As you just googled, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag is a system of camps. In fact it's a name for the administration part of them.
Prisons in Russia from Tsarist time through Civil War and beyond tended to have a lot of enemies of the corresponding regimes, depending what year you pick. Had less to do "what" you said but with what side you were on. That is how wars and civil wars work.

If you mean Stalin, that's after the civil war. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin, around 1933s. That's a better example of a time when saying the wrong thing in Russia would've been bad.

If you mean 1940s, you'd find a lot of prisoners of war in prisons. See WW2, obviously.

and fyi, it's not "white faction" it's "white army", partially made of soldiers of Tsarist era army. Supporters of monarchy and the Tsar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Army

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 20:32
- you know that I was speaking about guillotine in context of French revolution.
Based on the full statement, no I couldn't make such a guess. Which is why I asked you to look up when and what the revolution actually was so that you'd not repeat that somewhere else.
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 20:32
- Any case of use of old (tzarist-era) speak over new speak (revolutionary speak) could get you sent to gulag.
I do not know what you are talking about. Something is lost in translation.
Last edited by fiksal on Wed, 5. May 21, 23:18, edited 2 times in total.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by BaronVerde » Wed, 5. May 21, 23:08

@TeladiCEO:

Here's the mentioned study, sounds reasonable to me given that it's based on data 25 to 15 years old data, but doesn't support the conclusion you draw:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... 1987-2007/

Main points:
  • The public expresses highly favorable views of many leading corporations.
  • Views of many corporations vary significantly among Democrats along class lines.
  • Americans are worried more that businesses rather than government are snooping into their lives
  • The public is losing confidence in itself.
  • Americans feel increasingly estranged from their government.
  • Young people continue to hold a more favorable view of government
  • Interpersonal racial attitudes continue to moderate.
  • Republicans are increasingly divided over the cultural impact of immigrants.
... and so on. This was 2007 and is completely unrelated to free speech, right ? My thought when I flew it over for 2 minutes: "yawn".


Ok guys, I am out, this time for real. Somebody entered with an ice cold beer and an offer I cannot resist. Have a nice one !

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Teladi CEO
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun, 17. Jan 21, 15:24

Re: Free Speech

Post by Teladi CEO » Wed, 5. May 21, 23:19

BaronVerde wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 23:08
@TeladiCEO:

Here's the mentioned study, sounds reasonable to me given that it's based on data 25 to 15 years old data, but doesn't support the conclusion you draw:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... 1987-2007/

Main points:
  • The public expresses highly favorable views of many leading corporations.
  • Views of many corporations vary significantly among Democrats along class lines.
  • Americans are worried more that businesses rather than government are snooping into their lives
  • The public is losing confidence in itself.
  • Americans feel increasingly estranged from their government.
  • Young people continue to hold a more favorable view of government
  • Interpersonal racial attitudes continue to moderate.
  • Republicans are increasingly divided over the cultural impact of immigrants.
... and so on. This was 2007 and is completely unrelated to free speech, right ? My thought when I flew it over for 2 minutes: "yawn".


Ok guys, I am out, this time for real. Somebody entered with an ice cold beer and an offer I cannot resist. Have a nice one !
Apparently in those two minutes you flew over it you missed this...

“ Since 1999, support for the idea of banning “books with dangerous ideas” from public school libraries has declined from 55% to 46% and has now fallen to the lowest level of support of the past 20 years, in contrast with the modest increase observed in concerns about pornographic material in magazines and movies. But even in the early 1990s, as few as 48% had supported banning such books. While there are relatively modest partisan differences in opinions about banning dangerous books, there are divisions within parties, especially among Democrats. Two-thirds of liberal Democrats (67%) disagree that dangerous books should be banned — and 52% completely disagree. By comparison, most conservative and moderate Democrats (56%) agree with the banning of dangerous books (and a relatively large proportion — 37% — completely agrees). Republicans are somewhat less divided, although 52% of conservative Republicans favor a ban on such books compared with 40% of moderate and liberal Republicans”
We don’t know what paradise is like, but probably it’s blue magenta, flecked with pink. But even if it’s green and red-checked we should make the most of it. -Boron saying

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16560
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by fiksal » Wed, 5. May 21, 23:25

Teladi CEO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34
I had to speed run through this entire discussion so excuse me if I miss something. Before I begin let me state:

I am completely and utterly against the restrictions of freedoms and please, can we please return to civility in the discussion
It's a little hard to say at this point what are the main points of this discussion.

Teladi CEO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34
Is saying you hate (enter race or religion) enough to be arrested, no it shouldn’t, but saying every person of said group should burn in hell... you should probably be investigated. But, this conversation isn’t about that, we have moved into censorship.
We have I suppose, to the point that there's no agreement :)


Teladi CEO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 22:34
To go to federal censor ship... if someone yells that she is going to blow the building up. She shouldn’t get off free because of freedom of speech, she just threatened to murder dozens of people. Then that, what counts as a threat? The simple answer to the question is this, if your speech can harm someone physically then yes you should be persecuted.
Yep, which police generally follows them up on that.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4871
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by Chips » Wed, 5. May 21, 23:29

CBJ wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:48
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 19:36
One dude was kicked out of his job, because he was sitting in front of camera (back to it) and back his head in a way that looked like OK symbol at that angle.
Other dude was winning in TV show for the third time, so he made OK sign where 3 fingers should symbolize his 3 wins, now he has to appologize or he will be kicked out of the show.
That. Is. Not. Censorship. That is a private company deciding to let someone go because they decided that person didn't behave appropriately. You can complain that the company was over-sensitive if you like, but you cannot bring it into a conversation about freedom of speech, because it has nothing to do with it.
This.

@mr.WHO - It's precisely why i asked the question as it was evident; the topic has gone off course and most don't seem to be getting caught up/carried away on tangents that aren't related to the subject.

The symbol is not a recognised hate symbol by Governments nor does it lead to imprisonment. Those individuals are still free to use that symbol as they wish, are they not? They weren't prevented from doing so. They won't be arrested for doing so.

Of course, their employer may determine that they didn't align with their corporate image/stance on sensitive subjects which may impact/tarnish reputation and damage their ability to recruit a diverse workforce. It may also just be due to the public response that causes them to take that action instead of actual belief too... but that's an entirely different subject, so best to leave it at that.


As said before - Free Speech is defined in your respective countries laws, and has caveats around it's application (meaning, as Amnesty International say, you can't literally say *anything* - there are legitimate curtails on the freedom). I'm gathering that mr.WHO believes there should be no curtailment.

In reality I'm sure there'd be a compromise at some point - around the most extremes of it naturally... which is kind of where the law sits funnily enough.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by Vertigo 7 » Wed, 5. May 21, 23:50

Chips wrote:
Wed, 5. May 21, 23:29
In reality I'm sure there'd be a compromise at some point - around the most extremes of it naturally... which is kind of where the law sits funnily enough.
Unless you're the president of the US, apparently.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”