Should Don Cherry Have Been Fired?

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

They can speak. 

We can speak back. 

We can all speak in public.

You ain't special. 

Nobody 'has to' listen to you in public.

In private ... you can name lizard eyeballs after antifa, chant secret curses at them, boil them and eat them or however conduct your secret covens.

Keep it secret, no problem.

In public, you'll be opposed. 

Shouting down people you disagree with and refusing to allow them to speak in public spaces is degenerate. You have a right to go around shouting the n-word in public spaces, that doesn't mean it's a good idea nor does it put you on pedestal. Having the right to do something, does not make it a good idea to do anything you have a right to do.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

37 minutes ago, jacee said:

Show me a photo of people actually listening to racist homophobe loser creeps speaking. 

You can't. 

Because they're not there.

Because their bosses would fire them if they were seen at a white supremacist rally.

Nobody wants to be associated with or listen to racist homophobe loser creeps in public. 

 

 

To be fair, I have no evidence that he's a homophobe.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Iceni warrior

[jacee]

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

Stop speaking as if you and "no one" are one and the same. You are you. You represent only yourself.

This is in direct response to Jacee's continued unilateral proclomation of what should not be tolerated:

source:https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/liberals-fail-to-practise-what-they-preach-about-tolerance-1.3995329

 

"It seems to me that it is an essential aspect of any ethics system worthy of the name that it provides a restraint not merely on others but on one’s own behaviour. If this element is absent then what is put forward as ethics is merely a cover for one’s own personal preferences – indeed it becomes a tyrant’s manifesto. Certainly, there is little credit to be obtained from complying with an ethical system that does nothing more than authorise what one would want to do anyway."

"Because it is right-thinking liberals who get to decide what speech is intolerant – and therefore exists outside the sphere of protection that tolerance requires – the result, in practical terms, is that the ethic of tolerance provides no restraint on liberals at all. It is only a restraint on the actions, speech and, ultimately, thought of their political opponents. In short, it is no ethic at all. It amounts to a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid what would otherwise be an obvious charge of hypocrisy:"....

"If tolerance is to mean anything, it means precisely that liberals must put up with speech that they regard as “intolerant” of what they like and celebrate. Otherwise they are no better than that trope to which they frequently have recourse: the hypocritical priest who refuses to practise what he preaches."

 

 

 

 

Your opinion is irrelevant.

We are discussing a point of LAW here, and the law does not prevent anyone from speaking back at racist homophobe loser creeps in public.

End of story.

Of course you are free to disagree, but nobody cares. Lol 

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

Your opinion is irrelevant.

We are discussing a point of LAW here, and the law does not prevent anyone from speaking back at racist homophobe loser creeps in public.

End of story.

Of course you are free to disagree, but nobody cares. Lol 

We are not discussing a point of law. We are discussing how counter-productive your free speech hating is, and how it makes you no better than the free speech haters you decry with labels that end in ist and phobe.

You have no moral high ground, that is the discussion. Two wrongs don't make a right, and stooping to their level doesn't make you a paragon of virtue.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[jacee]

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

We are not discussing a point of law. We are discussing how counter-productive your free speech hating is, and how it makes you no better than the free speech haters you decry with labels that end in ist and phobe.

You have no moral high ground, that is the discussion. Two wrongs don't make a right, and stooping to their level doesn't make you a paragon of virtue.

When you jumped in, Rue and I were discussing a point of law, whether people have 'the right' to speak back and drown out racist homophobe loser creeps in public.

I'm not interested in your opinion, only in clarifying the law. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by jacee

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

When you jumped in, Rue and I were discussing a point of law, whether people have 'the right' to speak back and drown out racist homophobe loser creeps in public.

I'm not interested in your opinion, only the law. 

You were talking about that, that is your go to strawman of everyone who disagrees with you, because your opinion can't stand up to any other argument. Putting words in other people's mouths and calling them White Supremacists is all you got.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

15 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

 

To be fair, I have no evidence that he's a homophobe.

Wait, I found one that ticks all the boxes

[jacee]

19 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 You have a right to go around shouting the n-word in public spaces, that doesn't mean it's a good idea nor does it put you on pedestal. Having the right to do something, does not make it a good idea to do anything you have a right to do.

I suggest that you get a legal opinion on whether you can "go around shouting the n-word" at Black people in public spaces. That may be considered 'publicly inciting hatred' (Section 319). 

I don't know. Ask your lawyer. 

[Yzermandius19]

12 hours ago, jacee said:

I suggest that you get a legal opinion on whether you can "go around shouting the n-word" at Black people in public spaces. That may be considered 'publicly inciting hatred' (Section 319). 

I don't know. Ask your lawyer. 

The fact that you think it should be illegal is proof enough that you are as anti-free speech as I claim. You simply want to make it illegal to say things that offend you or others you agree with, it's all about de-platforming your political enemies to make yourself feel better, you don't care at all about protecting speech you don't agree with.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The fact that you think it should be illegal is proof enough that you are as anti-free speech as I claim. You simply want to make it illegal to say things that offend you or others you agree with, it's all about de-platforming your political enemies to make yourself feel better, you don't care at all about protecting speech you don't agree with.

Read it again and pay special attention to the words ''inciting hatred''.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Read it again and pay special attention to the words ''inciting hatred''.

Irrelevant. What people like you and jacee claim is "inciting hatred" should not be illegal, inciting violence is already illegal, libel and slander already illegal, going any further than that is pure folly. Making people feel bad with words should not be illegal, I don't care how offensive you find the speech to be or how many people agree with you that it's offensive, none of that matters.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Irrelevant. What people like you and jacee claim is "inciting hatred" should not be illegal, "inciting violence" is already illegal, going any further than that is pure folly.

Inciting hatred can lead directly to violence and other forms of discrimination.

What you do when you use derogatory language to describe a group of people is enable others to think they are ''lesser''. Then it is a short step towards treating them differently ie discrimination.

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by Iceni warrior

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Inciting hatred can lead directly to violence and other forms of discrimination.

 

Don't care, shouldn't be illegal. Just because bad things can happen as a result of free speech, that doesn't mean free speech needs to be restricted. Inciting hatred does not always lead to violence, and people inciting hatred should not be held legally accountable for people getting violent, if they didn't incite the violence themselves.

Violent people often look for justifications for their violence, just because someone might take something you say as a justification for violence, doesn't mean you are in any way responsible for that violence.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Don't care, shouldn't be illegal. Just because bad things can happen as a result of free speech, that doesn't mean free speech needs to be restricted. Inciting hatred does not always lead to violence, and people inciting hatred should not be held legally accountable for people getting violent, if they didn't incite the violence themselves.

Driving drunk doesn't always lead to road traffic accidents, by your logic it should only be punishable when it does.

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Driving drunk doesn't always lead to road traffic accidents, by your logic it should only be punishable when it does.

Driving drunk isn't the most important constitutional right there is. Apples and Oranges.

Also the link between driving drunk and road traffic accidents is far higher than the link between offensive speech that doesn't incite violence, and violence.

Pewdiepie should not be held responsible for the actions of a mass shooter, just because the mass shooter said "subscribe to pewdiepie" before committing mass murder. By your standard, you think Pewdiepie should be held accountable for the actions of all of his fans, because he "inspired" them, I don't.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Driving drunk isn't the most important constitutional right there is. Apples and Oranges.

Also the link between driving drunk and road traffic accidents is far higher than the link between offensive speech that doesn't incite violence, and violence.

So you admit that there is a link between offensive speech and violence (or discrimination)?

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

So you admit that there is a link between offensive speech and violence (or discrimination)?

Sometimes, but it's not the fault of the offensive speech that someone got violent as a result, only if they were inciting violence should they be held legally accountable. The former is not a good reason to restrict free speech.

There wouldn't need to be constitutional protection of free speech, if it only applied to inoffensive speech, because no would want to ban that speech. The whole point of free speech, is to protect offensive speech, because it's the kind of speech people want to ban. Speech that no one wants to ban does not require constitutional protection.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Sometimes, but it's not the fault of the offensive speech that someone got violent as a result, only if they were inciting violence should they be held legally accountable. The former is not a good reason to restrict free speech.

There wouldn't need to be constitutional protection of free speech, if it only applied to inoffensive speech, because no would want to ban that speech. The whole point of free speech, is to protect offensive speech.

What is the downside of restricting incitement to hatred?

I'm not going to accept ''but freedom of speech'' as an answer.

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

What is the downside of restricting incitement to hatred?

I'm not going to accept ''but freedom of speech'' as an answer.

The downside is that people who are silenced are more likely to lash out violently than those allowed to vent their offensive remarks. Since your whole goal by banning offensive speech is to reduce violence done in the wake of it, your plan fails miserably and makes the very problem you are trying to solve worse.

Plus freedom of speech is important, and you need a good reason to infringe on it, and making the problem you want to solve worse, is not one of those reasons. That is, in fact, one of the worst reasons to infringe on free speech that you could ever come up with.

Your plan is all downside with no upside, at least free speech has an upside, even if there are a few downsides to it as well, you can't fix those downsides by banning it, that's a fools errand. That is you having far too much faith in government regulation to solve the problems of the world, and paving the road to hell with your good intentions.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The downside is that people who are silenced are more likely to lash out violently than those allowed to vent their offensive remarks. Since your whole goal by banning offensive speech is to reduce violence done in the wake of it, your plan fails miserably and makes the very problem you are trying to solve worse.

Plus freedom of speech is important, and you need a good reason to infringe on it, and making the problem you want to solve worse, is not one of those reasons.

What evidence do you have that restricting incitement to hatred leads to more hatred?

The opposite is far more logical. Offensive and derogatory language encourages people to think of others as Untermensch and therefore legitimate targets.

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

What evidence do you have that restricting incitement to hatred leads to more hatred?

The opposite is far more logical. Offensive and derogatory language encourages people to think of others as Untermensch and therefore legitimate targets.

People who feel ostracized from society are more likely to lash out at society. It's called bottling up anger and leading to a point where the pressure blows without an outlet to let off steam, shutting down their speech is closing down the best outlet they have to let off that steam. Clearly you know nothing about humans, your common sense is simply based on ignorance of human nature.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Iceni warrior]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

People who feel ostracized from society are more likely to lash out at society. It's called bottling up anger. Clearly you know nothing about humans.

Offensive speech makes the target feel ostracised from society so you are defeating your own argument there.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Iceni warrior said:

Offensive speech makes the target feel ostracised from society so you are defeating your own argument there.

The ostracized who don't have their free speech taken away will feel less ostracized than those who do. The right of people's feelings to not to be hurt is not more important than free speech, try again. Last I checked the former wasn't a constitutional right, while the latter is, and that isn't just a coincidence.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[jacee]

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The fact that you think it should be illegal is proof enough that you are as anti-free speech as I claim. You simply want to make it illegal to say things that offend you or others you agree with, it's all about de-platforming your political enemies to make yourself feel better, you don't care at all about protecting speech you don't agree with.

That's a lot of speculation and presumption. I don't agree with public speech that victimizes people because of who they are, terrorizes them in their own communities. If I heard such speech, I am likely to yell at you to shut you up, and that's not illegal. However, I don't know whether it's illegal for you to yell "n*****" at Black people in public, so I suggest that you get a legal opinion on it before putting yourself at risk. 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of 

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  • Wilful promotion of hatred

  • (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

"Willful promotion..." refers to communication other than in public - eg, flyers, online, etc. 

 

[Yzermandius19]

I don't agree with racists either, I'd probably just troll the shit out of them, but you don't see me going around demanding their speech be silenced, because muh hate speech, now do I?

What good would that do? None. Banning racist speech just makes the racists the taboo shine, and grows their popularity, would totally backfire, on top of being anti-free speech. Can't kill an idea, it's a fools errand to try.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19