Is Hate Speech Free Speech?

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Offended?  Read back through this thread, Johnny Come Lately, and point where I said I was offended.  

•  I just think that's st*pid and arrogant of him to say.
• People have a right to boycott though.  
• It doesn't change that this guy said something st*pid.
• I don't believe in people giving excuses for dumb quotes or behaviour unless they're a child.  
• Is this supposed to make me respect him or something ?  It just reinforces my view that he's an idi*t.  
•   If that's your ethic, then you believe in might makes right.  Which means groups will gang up to defeat you.  But you're against that idea so...

You certainly don't seem unaffected by his comments.

Quote

2. 😂 Now YOU sound offended.  

TBH I am.

The opposite of what Strickland believes is that schools actually should waste our taxpayer dollars and our kids' precious time by indoctrinating them about the highly practical option of ceasing to be a functioning man/woman. 

Honestly, who's the id10t? 

No doubt in this day and age kids will see enough freaks on TV, TikTok, FB and whatever else they're watching that they don't need to hear about it at school.

I get that Strickland's delivery lacked the requisite level of sensitivity for the emotional support goat generation, but he made up for that in candor, which is in short supply these days.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I just don't get your ethic.

It doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Is like the quote attributed to Voltaire-

"I may not agree with what you have to say monsieur, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And - I do not care one whit about your childhood, your family, your nieces, your wife or your ex-wife.  Why do you think anything about your personal life is relevant ?  It's not.   It's not stoic that you share your problems with your ex-with me.

........

You're LGBTQ+ - what happened in your parenting that made that happen, if you agree with Strickland ?

Hmm. This part caught my discerning eye.

It's a good question, but beware inconsistency, the hallmark of degenerate liberal thought.

More training is needed. More training.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You certainly don't seem unaffected by his comments.

He's been so affected by me, I may tell my wife I finally found someone who loves me as much as she does and let it sit there to see her reaction. 

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I get that Strickland's delivery lacked the requisite level of sensitivity

I grew up in a generation where if you made a mistake, you got roasted to high heavens for it and made sure not to do it again.

I find it ironic he keeps whining about accountability, but won't push on any for telling kids that lobbing off your nutsack isn't a mental illness. It's perfectly normal, like applying makeup.

If you're not considering unintended consequences, you can't start talking about something said that pinches because of how true that it is, in the effect it will have on kids.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I find it ironic he keeps whining about accountability, but won't push on any for telling kids that lobbing off your nutsack isn't a mental illness. It's perfectly normal, like applying makeup.

One of the things that blows me away about leftists is they'll say:

• adults should be forgiven their student loan debts because they didn't understand the consequences of taking out loans when they were 19, 20, 21 yrs old

and then the exact same people will also say:

• kids in grade 3 should be able to meet privately with school guidance counsellors to talk about gender transitioning without the parents' knowledge or consent...

I don't even know what to say about that level of stupidity. I'm gonna start telling people "You can't rob a bank to get your nuts back."

[impartialobserver]

I am a first amendment advocate to the core. Hate speech.. no matter how you define it should be allowed to exist. Besides, yelling fire in a crowded theatre.. open the door wide open and let adults make their way through the world. 

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm guessing that you mean boycotts... and are against boycotts across the board.

2. Just the one about failing as a father if his son turns out LGBTQ.  I just think that's st*pid and arrogant of him to say.

3. People have a right to boycott though.  People boycotted BUD Lite because they were associated with a trans woman.  There was a campaign and people who pushed against the company.

4. It doesn't change that this guy said something st*pid.

5. I don't believe in people giving excuses for dumb quotes or behaviour unless they're a child.  Conservatives are supposed to believe in accountability.

6. Is this supposed to make me respect him or something ?  It just reinforces my view that he's an idi*t.  But you like him.  Ok.

7. Maybe we're not.  What do you think of that ?  It sounds like you don't care.  If that's your ethic, then you believe in might makes right.  Which means groups will gang up to defeat you.  But you're against that idea so...

8. Are you saying I'm not being stoic ?  If so, tell me how much you know from my posts my relationships, my ex-wife, my upbringing.... it's like A&E Biography with you sometimes... "I believe this because I was brought up on the mean streets of asexuality.." or whatever it is.  It's baffling.  But you do you, I am just telling you my opinion.

9. The issue being it's not a function of parenting.

10. Just to clarify: do you agree with him that parenting creates gayness/straightness ?  I think that's crazy/st*pid ...

The more I hear about this face-punching roadside shootout enthusiast, the more I'm convinced that he just shouldn't reproduce. You know, just in case...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

• adults should be forgiven their student loan debts because they didn't understand the consequences of taking out loans when they were 19, 20, 21 yrs old

and then the exact same people will also say:

• kids in grade 3 should be able to meet privately with school guidance counsellors to talk about gender transitioning without the parents' knowledge or consent...

Heh, yeah it boggles the mind.

These people hate logic, however. 

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

no matter how you define it should be allowed to exist.

What about libel and slander?

 

3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Besides, yelling fire in a crowded theatre.. open the door wide open and let adults make their way through the world. 

I think the analogy is about the consequences of such speech. If someone is trampled to death, was yelling “fire” still ok in your opinion?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

the more I'm convinced that he just shouldn't reproduce.

He would be a horrible father based on what I have seen of him. 

But you never know. It may change him. I have seen career criminals turn to loving parents who turned their lives around, now having someone to live for and protect.

But have also seen some continue to mess their lives up, and literally put future generations of felons on the streets with each additional child that they had.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What about libel and slander?

Shouldn't the line of what is no longer free speech be determined by what clearly isn't? IE behaviors that are illegal for a reason?

Also, while freedom of speech doesn't equate freedom from consequences this doesn't mean one being offended by something one said should automatically carry consequences for the offending party.

In my earlier example, I feel the UFC, and companies like Netflix got it right.

It isn't a basic human right not to be offended by a viewpoint you don't agree with.

I walked downtown in my city and had a homeless person call me the N word. I asked "excuse me?" 

And he said it with far more confidence. I have a thick skin, so just smiled and kept it moving. 

At the end of the day he already lost in life. Why would I assault him and bring myself down to his level?

But am not impervious to such words, nor am I entitled to be.

Also one must have a degree of common sense in some settings.

IE he was a crackhead. 

Sean Strickland is a loose cannon who has a history of behavior showcasing he doesn't give a f***.

Dave Chapelle made his offending remarks under the umbrella of comedy.

Comedy in my opinion is one of society's checks and balances. 

I would worry about the level of freedom in a society, when a comedian has to be incredibly cautious not to offend, vs make jokes to make people laugh.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. It doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Is like the quote attributed to Voltaire-

2. It's a good question, but beware inconsistency, the hallmark of degenerate liberal thought.

1. Except, nobody says that assh0les can't speak.  Criticizing what they say is also free speech.

2. A true conservative believes in accountability, I thought.

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Except, nobody says that assh0les can't speak.  Criticizing what they say is also free speech.

2. A true conservative believes in accountability, I thought.

1. Yes, criticism is what it's all about. I criticize you, you criticize me. Then I criticize you for criticizing me.

Welcome to the forums...  

2. How should one be held accountable. I might say "I disagree with you sir" and it is in fact my very right to criticize your idea and disagree.

It is not necessarily my right to judge you though, as a thing in itself. If I say you are a rude meanie, it is passing a judgement. Which we all do but that it is still just my personal opinion. As long as I keep that in mind, no harm is done to you.

Meanwhile, by argument one might persuade, and change the other.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Welcome to the forums...  

2. How should one be held accountable. I might say "I disagree with you sir" and it is in fact my very right to criticize your idea and disagree.

3. It is not necessarily my right to judge you though, as a thing in itself. If I say you are a rude meanie, it is passing a judgement. Which we all do but that it is still just my personal opinion. As long as I keep that in mind, no harm is done to you.

4. Meanwhile, by argument one might persuade, and change the other.

 

1.  Thanks, it's nice to be here.
2. Or, beyond that, to say "I think you are disgusting".  If there's no logical basis for criticizing someone's ethic, for example if they just believe LGBTQ+ are dirty and should be k***ed then you have nothing else, do you ?  That's how a lot of people react.  Or you could not comment, and ignore.  I think that is now most societies deal with outlying opinions on the ground, although authority sometimes deals with them as a threat.  And you know what that means.
3. And nobody should believe that you're shutting people down.
4. Not going to happen.  Look what happens when I try to point out factual errors, or inconsistencies of principle.  People react like a chimp whose banana was snatched away, ie. shreiking.  If I try to play tit-for-tat, creating stupid group names in response to "groomer" or "trans ideology" then they go blue-screen and lie on the ground.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Or you could not comment, and ignore. 

Intelligent people tend to pay little to no mind to those unworthy of their time. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not going to happen. 

You sure are spending a lot of time trying to push your opinion as gospel. Not trying to insinuate anything. Honest.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Intelligent people tend to pay little to no mind to those unworthy of their time. 

2. You sure are spending a lot of time trying to push your opinion as gospel. Not trying to insinuate anything. Honest.

1. True, but the edge-case is that sometimes people are bored and need a plaything.  I wouldn't count someone 'unworthy of my time' just because they have flaws in their arguments though.
2. Sure, but what is "my opinion".  If you say I'm pushing pro-trans agendas then I'd ask for a cite.. and thereupon reserve the right to submit the discussion as evidence of my persuasion landing on deaf ears. 

The opinion that I do push more than any other is that the mechanics of public discussion are the most urgent problem before us today, and if we don't do our best to improve public discussion personally, we shouldn't complain about a dysfunctional public sphere.

[impartialobserver]

13 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What about libel and slander?

 

I think the analogy is about the consequences of such speech. If someone is trampled to death, was yelling “fire” still ok in your opinion?

Did I not lay out the exception? Read again

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Did I not lay out the exception? Read again

I read the 2nd part incorrectly.  Ignore the yelling fire part. 
 

What about libel and slander?

[impartialobserver]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

I read the 2nd part incorrectly.  Ignore the yelling fire part. 
 

What about libel and slander?

That is civil law not criminal law. You are free to say whatever but not free from the consequences..

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

That is civil law not criminal law. You are free to say whatever but not free from the consequences..

First, you’re incorrect.  In the USA, some states criminalize slander. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamation

But, if hate speech was civil law, you would be in favour of that?

Edited January 31, 2024 by TreeBeard

[impartialobserver]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

So if hate speech was civil law, you would be in favour of that?

If it fits the case of libel and/or slander.. then let the courts decide it. If the hate speech does not contain any deliberately harmful messages about a group or person.. open the doors and let them say it. Folks should be free to look as stupid as they want to. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

If it fits the case of libel and/or slander

Why just libel and slander?  You seem to be exactly in favour of what already exists and no more.  I’m wondering what’s special about those. 
 

I edited my post to correct you on slander not being criminal;  it is in many states. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sure, but what is "my opinion".  If you say I'm pushing pro-trans agendas then I'd ask for a cite..

Your opinion can go from exact wording to disagreements on context. I wasn't being specific.

I don't dig up posts in prior threads, because am losing an argument.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Your opinion can go from exact wording to disagreements on context. I wasn't being specific.

I don't dig up posts in prior threads, because am losing an argument.

Ok then, yes I concur. I post opinions on here.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok then, yes I concur. I post opinions on here.

Reluctantly    *snicker!*

 

(oh come on tell me that wasn't a fair shot!)

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Reluctantly    *snicker!*

 

(oh come on tell me that wasn't a fair shot!)

Are you saying that I hold back?

Now that I have heard before.