Freedom of thought and speech vs morality - Page 2
Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 261
  1. #51

  2. #52

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SCP View Post
    This is flawed logic in a lot of ways, and indicative of very little life experience; considering you're more or less arguing with a slippery-slope fallacy.
    What's the point of a law if it's not to be used?
    The whole premise of the law is to incite a type of self-censorship, and to intimidate those via force to use said pronouns.

    Answer me this: What's the point of said law, if it's not intended to be used eventually?

    Sure no one may have been arrested over it yet, but if the whole point is it's not meant to be used to arrest anyone anyway, then it shouldn't exist in the first place.
    An example demonstrating my point is 'The Patriot Act'.
    No one was against the idea initially because they didn't think it would actually be used against those domestically; however after it existed for some time, no one was arrested under it, and people forgot that it was something passed relatively recently, that they resigned it as being a new reality.

    The whole point I'm making here is that humans are very susceptible to normalization of new horrific realities, given enough exposure, repetition, and conditioning.
    Hence what underlines the whole concept of the 'Stockholm Syndrome'.



    Because there literally is an organized effort to shame europeans out of a culture, and heritage.
    See the statues of famous Europeans being torn down, the revision of history, and current guilt-complex being thrusted unto current-day "white" people, shaming them for "colonizing" and "slavery" that they had no part or benefit from in current day.
    Even the concept of "white privilege" is indicative of this very fact, that "white" people are being shamed for a contrived 'original sin' to otherwise erode cohesion, and promote race-mixing agendas.

    I'm curious (((shill))), how many shekels were you paid for this post?



    Oh it's "your" country now?
    It's ironic and hypocritical that you take this stance.
    You seem to imply disdain those that claim ownership of something, yet do the same yourself.

    Furthermore; stop acting like such a victim, and misrepresenting the state of affairs in the grand scheme of things.
    Objectively speaking: Canada is considered (as a whole) a very leftist country, with laws pertaining to taxation, gun control, social issues, etc...
    You know this just as well as anyone else, but you're attempting to gaslight, and make a mountain over a mole-hole because you KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on to make such a haphazard argument.

    With all due respect, you're a disgrace; you claim to morally grand-stand about "muh objectivity" or "muh critical thinking skills" yet you then betray your emotional stake, and confirmation bias by the hostile connotations therein.
    The cognitive dissonance is so real within your post, if only you took a second to re-read the nonsense you're spewing, you would see you contradict yourself in the very same paragraph.

    I could continue to list the rife hypocrisies within your crude attempt at a point, however I believe I've already made it rather clear how you come off as a triggered, bleeding-heart leftist; as it's already rather apparent without my comments detailing such.

    ./thread
    And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  3. #53

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I feel like this topic has covered the issue from the wrong angle.

    The purpose of freedom of speech is just a pre-requisite for cultivating free throught and allowing for those ideas to propagate through a society. Its not the objective but rather just something necessary to achieve the objective that is 'freedom of the mind.'

    I feel that this objective is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective. In a model of realism objective reality exists and we interact with it through our perception. With this in mind our perception of reality defines our reality. We live in a sociological meta-cognitive age where for the first time in human history we are able to understand how we make decisions as a society and influence that process. Sure as societies we still have 'freedom of speech' but we have lost our ability to correlate our beliefs to create action.

    Consider the term 'Grass-Roots.' It was just how things worked forever but then it became a term to represent a society getting together to push for needed change. The fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.

    I feel that this is true evil.

    On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.

    In politics all you hear is the 'Right vs the Left' which forces people into a mode of thought that is a false dichotomy. We keep fighting ourselves while the true evil progressively encompasses us. We debate sources of ideas without looking at the methods of propagation that actually establish our freedom as living entities within our society.

    I feel that our freedom of speech is nothing without the propagation that gives it value. Its harrowing for me to ruminate about the limited scope people even consider on this subject.

    Sometimes I regret the sacrifices I made in my life for a society that is so hellbent on anti intellectualism.
    This is very wise. Indeed, tolerance and freedom of speech is only one of the steps to freedom of thoughts. Although tolerance and freedom of speech are not to be seen as the final goal, they have to be goals and they must be achieved for freedom of thought to be possible, which is why it is very important to discuss it.

    Right vs Left is outdated, so to speak, and is obviously wrong when taken as the "whole picture". They are, at best, part of a bigger system; the way extreme right and extreme left join together in the end shows that it's not "versus" nor is it an axis. The ideology compass that includes authoritarianism and political liberalism as a vertical axis already improves the idea. Sadly, the public is generally unaware of such a distinction, and politics shown on the media are cultivating the false dichotomy and cynicism that destroys the willpower of citizens, making them unwilling to fulfill their democratic role, and eventually just not care about things such as actual "freedom of the mind", to use your wording.

    ~~

    What is the "propagation" you are talking about, and why is it so important? I don't understand that part of your post, sorry.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  4. #54

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I've only just now read the thread. I'll puke a few thoughts I've had about this topic. Several distinctions can be made about how discourse can be regulated or controlled. For the sake of conversation, I'll contrive some terms for these distinctions:

    -There is hard/reactionary control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed by some kind of punishment, either by a population or a state. For example, a state imprisoning you for espousing an opinion. A group of people getting you fired from your job via PR backlash.

    -There is soft/functional control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed in a more functional sense - nothing is done to your person, but you are excluded from expressing the ideas in key spaces or reaching key audiences. For example, you prevented from going on a news channel and listing your top ten favourite Nazi officials, or getting kicked off of social media.

    Hard control gets far more attention, because it can even (and occasionally does) apply to individuals making casual conversation. Imagine saying the wrong thing with the wrong eavesdropper and getting your job stripped from you by a twitter mob within 24 hours. The thought evokes a new kind of a social anxiety which has captured the public's imagination in recent years with "cancel culture" and the like. It's a terrifying case study in humanity's natural mob mentality that this happens.

    However, in western countries, in terms of wider societal effect, soft control of discourse is much more relevant to the "freedom of mind" Helz describes. Twitter mobs ultimately only affect a handful of individuals, and attempts in developed countries by the state to imprison or fine people for speech have been unilaterally goofy in recent decades and only given sympathy to the victims of such actions. Far greater control has been exerted in developed countries through functional control - through cable news and major websites.

    Within functional suppression, I will also make another distinction:

    -Points can be suppressed through direct omission. This is, for example, when the principal decides they don't want a top ten Nazi Officials event at their university, so the principal cancels the event.

    -Points can be suppressed through replacement. Perhaps you don't oppose freedom of speech in principle, and you would happily allow a top ten Nazi Officials segment on your news channel. However, you only have a finite number of slots in the day for segments so you decide to remove the top ten Nazi Officials segment for a segment on something more... informative. In theory you permit top ten Nazi Officials segments, but in practice you will never actually have one on your channel.

    Now, again, the former gains much more attention than the latter. Because the former is a direct middle finger while the latter is more of an "oops sorry" kind of deal. Cases of college students getting speakers deplatformed for example. However, even if the latter is much more benign than the former, they both have the same effect - no top ten Nazi Officials segments =(.

    So, on the subject of functional replacement, obviously a lot of it is happening in our cable news. Not just in what news stories are covered, but who is actually hired to cover the news stories. People who are complacent and don't question the wider narrative are hired / promoted in favour of those who are critical, so that discourse only happens within a permissible overton window. In practice, we end up with a cable news which does the bidding of big corporations and the state nearly just as much as a propaganda network in another country, but the population is far less cognizant / angry about it because it feels so much less aggressive.

    Functional replacement also happens on social media, through the use of algorithms. In recent years, social media companies have started trying to twist their algorithms to show perspectives and news stories approved by the status quo. If you watch 10 youtube videos from some independent political commentator, your recommendations will still be flooded by BBC/CNN/Fox/exc. because youtube is trying to show you "authoritative sources".

    Frankly, I also find "freedom of speech" to be a kind of crude entry-point into the larger issues. If the government were to force youtube to adopt a politically neutral algorithm and not take down political videos, that could arguably be a violation of free speech, in the same way forcing a small forum to allow people to discuss Nazism freely would be a form of authoritarianism in and of itself. The Koch brothers have spent billions funding propaganda that downplays or outright denies climate change. However, if the government were to forbid individuals or massive corporations from funding advertisement / propaganda campaigns larger than a certain financial limit, that could also arguably be an infringement of their freedom of speech. I find "freedom of mind" or "discourse control" or whatever you want to be better talking points, imo.

    Anyway, hopefully this post has more value than just a slightly more concrete version of what Helz is describing lol.
    Last edited by yzb25; May 19th, 2020 at 07:16 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  5. #55

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I've only just now read the thread. I'll puke a few thoughts I've had about this topic. Several distinctions can be made about how discourse can be regulated or controlled. For the sake of conversation, I'll contrive some terms for these distinctions:

    -There is hard/reactionary control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed by some kind of punishment, either by a population or a state. For example, a state imprisoning you for espousing an opinion. A group of people getting you fired from your job via PR backlash.

    -There is soft/functional control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed in a more functional sense - nothing is done to your person, but you are excluded from expressing the ideas in key spaces or reaching key audiences. For example, you prevented from going on a news channel and listing your top ten favourite Nazi officials, or getting kicked off of social media.

    Hard control gets far more attention, because it can even (and occasionally does) apply to individuals making casual conversation. Imagine saying the wrong thing with the wrong eavesdropper and getting your job stripped from you by a twitter mob within 24 hours. The thought evokes a new kind of a social anxiety which has captured the public's imagination in recent years with "cancel culture" and the like. It's a terrifying case study in humanity's natural mob mentality that this happens.

    However, in western countries, in terms of wider societal effect, soft control of discourse is much more relevant to the "freedom of mind" Helz describes. Twitter mobs ultimately only affect a handful of individuals, and attempts in developed countries by the state to imprison or fine people for speech have been unilaterally goofy in recent decades and only given sympathy to the victims of such actions. Far greater control has been exerted in developed countries through functional control - through cable news and major websites.

    Within functional suppression, I will also make another distinction:

    -Points can be suppressed through direct omission. This is, for example, when the principal decides they don't want a top ten Nazi Officials event at their university, so the principal cancels the event.

    -Points can be suppressed through replacement. Perhaps you don't oppose freedom of speech in principle, and you would happily allow a top ten Nazi Officials segment on your news channel. However, you only have a finite number of slots in the day for segments so you decide to remove the top ten Nazi Officials segment for a segment on something more... informative. In theory you permit top ten Nazi Officials segments, but in practice you will never actually have one on your channel.

    Now, again, the former gains much more attention than the latter. Because the former is a direct middle finger while the latter is more of an "oops sorry" kind of deal. Cases of college students getting speakers deplatformed for example. However, even if the latter is much more benign than the former, they both have the same effect - no top ten Nazi Officials segments =(.

    So, on the subject of functional replacement, obviously a lot of it is happening in our cable news. Not just in what news stories are covered, but who is actually hired to cover the news stories. People who are complacent and don't question the wider narrative are hired / promoted in favour of those who are critical, so that discourse only happens within a permissible overton window. In practice, we end up with a cable news which does the bidding of big corporations and the state nearly just as much as a propaganda network in another country, but the population is far less cognizant / angry about it because it feels so much less aggressive.

    Functional replacement also happens on social media, through the use of algorithms. In recent years, social media companies have started trying to twist their algorithms to show perspectives and news stories approved by the status quo. If you watch 10 youtube videos from some independent political commentator, your recommendations will still be flooded by BBC/CNN/Fox/exc. because youtube is trying to show you "authoritative sources".

    Frankly, I also find "freedom of speech" to be a kind of crude entry-point into the larger issues. If the government were to force youtube to adopt a politically neutral algorithm and not take down political videos, that could arguably be a violation of free speech, in the same way forcing a small forum to allow people to discuss Nazism freely would be a form of authoritarianism in and of itself. The Koch brothers have spent billions funding propaganda that downplays or outright denies climate change. However, if the government were to forbid individuals or massive corporations from funding advertisement / propaganda campaigns larger than a certain financial limit, that could also arguably be an infringement of their freedom of speech. I find "freedom of mind" or "discourse control" or whatever you want to be better talking points, imo.

    Anyway, hopefully this post has more value than just a slightly more concrete version of what Helz is describing lol.
    Also, there was another point I wanted to make about functional replacement vs functional omission - you should be wary of anyone that tells you they're having that evil raving motherfucker on their network in the name of "freedom of speech". There is almost always an opportunity cost associated with inviting one individual over another, whether that takes the form of losing a time slot or otherwise - in other words, sources of information are almost always implicitly censoring someone by propping up someone else. Why did they sacrifice time that could have been spent platforming a Holocaust Survivor to platform a Neo-Nazi? Ask yourself that. Censorship and control of information is implicit in being a powerful information source, and when your information source starts acting all idealistic and like they just want a free, unbiased discourse, you should get cynical. Because no discourse is truly free or unbiased.
    Last edited by yzb25; May 19th, 2020 at 07:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  6. #56

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    One other thing I find completely detestable is the idea that morality is subjective - and taking this idea to mean that e.g. murder may be moral in some cultures. I think this is a very dangerous idea and yet it doesnít seem to be very unpopular (do correct me if Iím wrong).
    I agree with you but that is a very complex issue. Disentanglement of the concepts of ethics, mores, norms and morals can get pretty hairy and even if you get people who are willing to approach such concepts its asking a lot to expect they will openly challenge their established belief structure.
    A very basic example would be asking a Catholic to separate the ideas of the Vatican as a power structure from the religion. No mater what aspects of cannibalism, torture, incest, rape, pedophilia, or blackmail committed by the Vatican you present; some Catholics will refuse to disentangle their religion from that power structure and see challenging the morality of the Vatican as an attack on the Catholic religion itself.

    This is not to say morality is subjective but rather that understanding morality may touch on some core belief structures most people are just not constitutionally capable of dealing with in a mature way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Do you have some examples of attempts to control perspective btw?
    Yeah. I could probably throw out a hundred with little effort. On the most basic level consider the structure of a persuasive message. It builds a narrative framing an issue from a perspective with consideration to specific connotations that all build to a pre-constructed result.
    Consider that definition I gave and tell me if I am wrong.
    If not you donít refute that definition cite pretty much every marketing campaign that has ever existed in any way as an example. The most overt these days would be things like CNN vs FOX News while the most impactful very few are even capable of recognizing. For a few popular ones I would mention-
    -Breakfast is the most important meal of the day (and why is bacon a breakfast food at all)
    -Streets belong to cars / calling people a ďmentally deficient moronĒ through the word ĎJayí became normal
    -Origins of the electoral college
    -Pretty much every rights movement ever that functions on the moral justification of equality while pushing against equality
    -Your testosterone should be checked regularly and its in need of treatment as abnormal Ďlow tí even if over 50% of men are considered as Ďlow tí
    -Jump in our Ďsell thisí pyramid scheme today because if you get 4 people to buy in after you and they get 4 people ect.. it will make you money (even though if you repeat that process 12 times it exceeds the population of the world)
    -Give to God because X scripture demands X% of your money and its Gods will you give it to me


    I think I question how this answer matters more than I want to think about the answer. I just do not believe people are capable of accepting their own bias.
    The feminist will always call the critic of the ghostbusters remake who suggests equality of alimony, child custody and prison sentence a sexist evil pig and consider any such position an immoral attack on their belief structure. But why?
    Why is this division so prominent and accepted? Why do we look at these established structures and accept them? What is it about the learned behavior that drives our nature to conform to terrible belief structures even when reason is presented against it?
    I barely understand how much I do not understand but I value the knowledge of what I do not understand over that which I do. Most of the time the question holds more value than the answer and the understanding of your ignorance is the beginning of true knowledge. This goes further but I do not think there is value in mentioning it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    And what do you mean by that exactly?
    What I mean by all that is that there is a general lack of respect for the autonomy of an individual within our society.
    When we move from creating a product to creating a need for a product we can make its wrong.
    When we convert our information systems into methods to convey ideology's it is wrong.
    When we shift from searching for the understanding of our existence to searching for how we can create whats comfortable for us that fits into whats around us is that what allows evil to exist?
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  7. #57

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    I agree that our freedom in the mind is being hurt by such large scale efforts to control perspective. I'm thinking that you're referring to political groups, companies, activists, and major religions as those behind those efforts. If that is the case, then the solutions would be to either get a stronger or bigger organization to control the bad ones (macro level?), or to run another grass-roots campaign or education system to convince the followers to not support the major groups (micro level?). I think this makes the solution kind of circular.
    I very honestly dont even think on that level. The more I understand about mass propagation the less I want to have anything to do with it. Our society can keep their kardashian drama bullshit and shove all the influence it has straight up their ass because I care about the few in my life. I have a few hundred people who regularly interact with me and at most fifty or so who are actively involved in my life. I do not care about the nonsense the world does. I care about the quality of life for the few people I care about.

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    Could you really make an ethical argument for Nazis under utilitarianism? I thought utilitarianism is about saying the moral thing to do is to maximize benefit for the greatest amount of people. Perhaps you could make one is limited in consideration. For example, a movement of the greatest benefit to Germans, but I don't think the Nazi movement benefited mankind.
    Yes and in many ways. The most simple I think someone else said at some point was Eugenics. I could carry really complex conversations on that subject into ethics boards carried out by state governments on the subject.

    A lot of it just deals with the measurement of ethics vs liability vs morality though. Im not sure if I could say anything profound on that subject. Maybe someone would look at something I said as profound there but it would just be regurgitation of existing logic models. But then again isnt that like 90% of conversations? Just walking through previously discussed concepts people at least pretend to not know to understand just to arrive at a desired conclusion which is... once again... marketing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  8. #58

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Whenever enough people ask me too.
    Throw me in on one of your games someday. I want to do one more here and you were always one of my favorite hosts : )
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  9. #59

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    What is the "propagation" you are talking about, and why is it so important? I don't understand that part of your post, sorry.
    Ideas are living things and they travel between living things. Here is a good example of it in 2 ways (Please watch that video and consider how belief structures are pushed independent of facts)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnpM7Yx05Q

    Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  10. #60

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Ideas are living things and they travel between living things. Here is a good example of it in 2 ways (Please watch that video and consider how belief structures are pushed independent of facts)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnpM7Yx05Q

    Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.
    Interesting video. I would say I agree, which I do, but that's not really what you're looking for anyway?
    Those that created and retweeted those videos were looking out so much for the message they wanted to convey, they skipped out on being skeptical of the information they were repeating. A lot of people are blind, yes.
    I can also recommend sc2mafia to watch the video, but personally I would not go out and find more videos like it. Acknowledging misinformation exists and combating it are two different things.

    I was going to respond to the Eugenics thing, but then I skimmed a page out of the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and kinda well... realized that describing myself as a utilitarian was inaccurate. I'll go do altruistic things that benefit the most people, but I don't expect other people to do so, I just hope they do. Thanks for your answer regardless.

  11. #61

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Ideas are living things and they travel between living things. Here is a good example of it in 2 ways (Please watch that video and consider how belief structures are pushed independent of facts)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnpM7Yx05Q

    Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.
    That video. Eww. Misinformation and how it becomes an issue is an interesting topic that does affect freedom in our societies, but getting every single member of a society, or even just a majority of people, to understand neutral fact-checking, and even more to actually do it, seems rather utopian. That does hurt our freedom, and it's part of the ways that can be used to control the masses; you can probably find a lot of very clear and obvious examples under nazism. Convincing people that "Poland had attacked Germany" is one.

    How do you fight this, though? The answer comes back to the previous point: improving education and quality of life will allow people to have a better judgement and more tools to fight misinformation.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  12. #62

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Whenever enough people ask me too.
    I had missed this, but I'd like that ^^
    Spoiler : Yzb's big post :
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I've only just now read the thread. I'll puke a few thoughts I've had about this topic. Several distinctions can be made about how discourse can be regulated or controlled. For the sake of conversation, I'll contrive some terms for these distinctions:

    -There is hard/reactionary control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed by some kind of punishment, either by a population or a state. For example, a state imprisoning you for espousing an opinion. A group of people getting you fired from your job via PR backlash.

    -There is soft/functional control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed in a more functional sense - nothing is done to your person, but you are excluded from expressing the ideas in key spaces or reaching key audiences. For example, you prevented from going on a news channel and listing your top ten favourite Nazi officials, or getting kicked off of social media.

    Hard control gets far more attention, because it can even (and occasionally does) apply to individuals making casual conversation. Imagine saying the wrong thing with the wrong eavesdropper and getting your job stripped from you by a twitter mob within 24 hours. The thought evokes a new kind of a social anxiety which has captured the public's imagination in recent years with "cancel culture" and the like. It's a terrifying case study in humanity's natural mob mentality that this happens.

    However, in western countries, in terms of wider societal effect, soft control of discourse is much more relevant to the "freedom of mind" Helz describes. Twitter mobs ultimately only affect a handful of individuals, and attempts in developed countries by the state to imprison or fine people for speech have been unilaterally goofy in recent decades and only given sympathy to the victims of such actions. Far greater control has been exerted in developed countries through functional control - through cable news and major websites.

    Within functional suppression, I will also make another distinction:

    -Points can be suppressed through direct omission. This is, for example, when the principal decides they don't want a top ten Nazi Officials event at their university, so the principal cancels the event.

    -Points can be suppressed through replacement. Perhaps you don't oppose freedom of speech in principle, and you would happily allow a top ten Nazi Officials segment on your news channel. However, you only have a finite number of slots in the day for segments so you decide to remove the top ten Nazi Officials segment for a segment on something more... informative. In theory you permit top ten Nazi Officials segments, but in practice you will never actually have one on your channel.

    Now, again, the former gains much more attention than the latter. Because the former is a direct middle finger while the latter is more of an "oops sorry" kind of deal. Cases of college students getting speakers deplatformed for example. However, even if the latter is much more benign than the former, they both have the same effect - no top ten Nazi Officials segments =(.

    So, on the subject of functional replacement, obviously a lot of it is happening in our cable news. Not just in what news stories are covered, but who is actually hired to cover the news stories. People who are complacent and don't question the wider narrative are hired / promoted in favour of those who are critical, so that discourse only happens within a permissible overton window. In practice, we end up with a cable news which does the bidding of big corporations and the state nearly just as much as a propaganda network in another country, but the population is far less cognizant / angry about it because it feels so much less aggressive.

    Functional replacement also happens on social media, through the use of algorithms. In recent years, social media companies have started trying to twist their algorithms to show perspectives and news stories approved by the status quo. If you watch 10 youtube videos from some independent political commentator, your recommendations will still be flooded by BBC/CNN/Fox/exc. because youtube is trying to show you "authoritative sources".

    Frankly, I also find "freedom of speech" to be a kind of crude entry-point into the larger issues. If the government were to force youtube to adopt a politically neutral algorithm and not take down political videos, that could arguably be a violation of free speech, in the same way forcing a small forum to allow people to discuss Nazism freely would be a form of authoritarianism in and of itself. The Koch brothers have spent billions funding propaganda that downplays or outright denies climate change. However, if the government were to forbid individuals or massive corporations from funding advertisement / propaganda campaigns larger than a certain financial limit, that could also arguably be an infringement of their freedom of speech. I find "freedom of mind" or "discourse control" or whatever you want to be better talking points, imo.

    Anyway, hopefully this post has more value than just a slightly more concrete version of what Helz is describing lol.


    Freedom of speech is not the whole point, indeed, but it is the most critically challenged part of freedom of mind at the moment. People are not too busy trying to survive to think about such things, nor are they unable to have access to information they need to be aware of most society-related or nation-related things, like peasants in the Middle Ages. People are letting their freedom of speech become censored in the "soft way" you just very well described. And while "freedom of mind" is the goal, it is impossible to attain without freedom of speech, which is why it has to be addressed as a specific issue. As for discourse control, it's part of freedom of speech and of its issues.

    Note that while "soft control" is insidiously, yet durably harmful, "hard control" is blatantly and strongly harmful. You cannot expect to have more than very little "freedom of the mind" in a society that does not recognize human rights (under the United Nations' definition) and makes use of force to remove divergent point of views. You may already have had that in mind, but I want to clarify that while soft control must be closely watched and fought in its abuses, hard control must also be closely watched, because it's at least as damaging as its soft version. No top ten Nazi Officials happen in both cases, but against soft control, you can still make noise and say that you were shut off. If you're in jail or in grave, you can't.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  13. #63

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    For 99% of people here living in first-world countries, your free speech won't be infringed on by the government. The only time it will be is if you're advocating for genocide or violence, at which point (IMO) maybe you should be stopped, or re-evaluate your life at the very least.

    I think free speech is good because restricting speech is restricting freedom, which I hold to be a bad thing. Freedom of thought is also good, because it leads humans to a more generally (or situationally) beneficial conclusion about a topic. Unfortunately, some people are less capable of rational thought, or don't put in the effort to educate themselves about certain topics. I don't know the solution for this while maintaining absolute free speech. If some dumbass promotes antivax ideas and ends up getting children killed, how can that be dealt with? I'd like to see concrete, practical opinions on this.

    People have been talking about marketing and media or whatever that influences thought en masse in a presumably negative way. Unfortunately, where there is free speech and gullible/irrational people, there will also be people to take advantage of them to push a narrative for profit or political motives. This is a bit of a weird thing to address because it's neither a point for or against free speech. You can say that the end result of this manipulation is stifling of free speech, but this is also almost an inevitability in a completely free society. Rather, I consider it more an argument against capitalism, because capitalism is what allows organizations outside of the government to consolidate power and resources and push opinions and ideas.

  14. #64

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I think that attempting to censor extremist propaganda can only be so effective. You canít cover all possible forms of extremism... people have been killing each other over ideals since time immemorial. Communism and fascism did not exist prior to 1860-1920. Who knows what the future holds? We may yet see the rise of a new extremist ideology at some point.

    Besides, attempting to censor it only forces the adherents to present their ideology in a seemingly acceptable way, or to even switch to a completely separate but still equally murderous ideology. Many of the Italian Fascists had been members of the socialist party, for instance.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  15. #65

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I thought I had replied to this. Guess not.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    For 99% of people here living in first-world countries, your free speech won't be infringed on by the government. The only time it will be is if you're advocating for genocide or violence, at which point (IMO) maybe you should be stopped, or re-evaluate your life at the very least.

    I think free speech is good because restricting speech is restricting freedom, which I hold to be a bad thing. Freedom of thought is also good, because it leads humans to a more generally (or situationally) beneficial conclusion about a topic. Unfortunately, some people are less capable of rational thought, or don't put in the effort to educate themselves about certain topics. I don't know the solution for this while maintaining absolute free speech. If some dumbass promotes antivax ideas and ends up getting children killed, how can that be dealt with? I'd like to see concrete, practical opinions on this.

    People have been talking about marketing and media or whatever that influences thought en masse in a presumably negative way. Unfortunately, where there is free speech and gullible/irrational people, there will also be people to take advantage of them to push a narrative for profit or political motives. This is a bit of a weird thing to address because it's neither a point for or against free speech. You can say that the end result of this manipulation is stifling of free speech, but this is also almost an inevitability in a completely free society. Rather, I consider it more an argument against capitalism, because capitalism is what allows organizations outside of the government to consolidate power and resources and push opinions and ideas.
    I may be twisting yzb25's reasoning here; if so, feel free to say it.
    His point on "soft control" is very important, and it seems to be lacking from your vision. In the societies you are talking about, the government will not use hard control. However, the government and/or the media can and do use soft control. If your point is that this soft control is inevitable, that falls into the tolerance paradox Sen brought up at the beginning of this thread. While it's impossible to completely suppress control, unnecessary and "malevolent", personal interest-driven control is to be... controlled. Because that infringes on free speech while not defending it. It only hurts free speech. If you're telling me that things like the Cambridge Analytics scandal are not hurting free speech, implying there is no reason to make laws against that, then I really wonder what your definition of free speech is.

    Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that freedom of speech is only a part of a bigger picture of general freedom, call it "freedom of the mind" if you want to. But it remains an important part of that bigger picture, and without it, the "freedom of the mind" would be impossible, so freedom of speech is necessary to address.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  16. #66

  17. #67

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I thought I had replied to this. Guess not.


    I may be twisting yzb25's reasoning here; if so, feel free to say it.
    His point on "soft control" is very important, and it seems to be lacking from your vision. In the societies you are talking about, the government will not use hard control. However, the government and/or the media can and do use soft control. If your point is that this soft control is inevitable, that falls into the tolerance paradox Sen brought up at the beginning of this thread. While it's impossible to completely suppress control, unnecessary and "malevolent", personal interest-driven control is to be... controlled. Because that infringes on free speech while not defending it. It only hurts free speech. If you're telling me that things like the Cambridge Analytics scandal are not hurting free speech, implying there is no reason to make laws against that, then I really wonder what your definition of free speech is.

    Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that freedom of speech is only a part of a bigger picture of general freedom, call it "freedom of the mind" if you want to. But it remains an important part of that bigger picture, and without it, the "freedom of the mind" would be impossible, so freedom of speech is necessary to address.
    Keep in mind I more or less agree with you. I was just putting it out there that, in a free, capitalistic society, free speech can never exist. The choice is between the government controlling speech, or corporations controlling it. I would almost always prefer governments to control it.

    I do think it's possible that free speech could exist under other economic systems, under very ideal and perhaps unattainable circumstances. A socialist economy with a benevolent government might decide to take ownership of state media and keep it as unbiased as possible. There would still be inherent, irreducible human bias, but in a perfect world, that's the only way I can see actual free speech occurring over the long term. Also, bear in mind, I don't think that will ever happen.

  18. #68

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Fair, I agree with all of this. It's a bit why I think socialism (in its stricter meaning, not communism lol) is better than full capitalism... but that's another debate, although it's related.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  19. #69

  20. #70

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Gyrlander View Post
    The lack of FM really affects the users.
    If they would sign for the game, they wouldn't be affected anymore =(


    Edit: All the stuff below is what happens when a thread degenerates... Stick to the discussion above this post if you don't want political AAAAAAA lol.
    Last edited by Marshmallow Marshall; June 5th, 2020 at 06:46 PM. Reason: For the collective sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  21. #71

  22. #72

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    USA is having fun. What's with all that social media and trumps new order? Does it suit this topic well?

    Should we blame the OP for the recent events?
    Trump's recent tantrum is a direct attack on free speech, and anyone who's a pro-free speech Republican and still supports Trump probably has too much lead in their diet.

  23. #73

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Somewhat. Twitter is trying to have their cake and eat it too. From what I have read the EO correctly calls out Twitter and social media as a whole on their bullshit. You simply can't claim to be a platform free of liabilities of the content posted, yet curate content as if you're a publisher. Social media needs to be knocked down a fair bit because the perceived notion of what most people use it for and think its for, weighed up against the direction the board members have pushed the company towards are getting further and further apart.

  24. #74

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Somewhat. Twitter is trying to have their cake and eat it too. From what I have read the EO correctly calls out Twitter and social media as a whole on their bullshit. You simply can't claim to be a platform free of liabilities of the content posted, yet curate content as if you're a publisher. Social media needs to be knocked down a fair bit because the perceived notion of what most people use it for and think its for, weighed up against the direction the board members have pushed the company towards are getting further and further apart.
    Adding a link to a page (https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384) to one of Trump's tweets is hardly curation or censorship. Even if it was, suggesting that the government should be allowed to somehow curtail or censor that is a direct attack on free speech in America. I don't understand how there's any controversy on this.

  25. #75

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I don't like Trump and I think majority of the shit he posts is dribble at best. But this path Twitter is walking down where they are claiming they know what is best and to trust them I don't like. For me it's the precedent it's setting, not so much the content that's being targeted to get the ball rolling. I wasn't aware of the mail in thing until I clicked that link. What I knew of is they basically quarantined another post of his that can't be replied to and you have to opt into viewing it (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump - linking directly doesn't show what I mean).

  26. #76

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    And yes I think the last line of his tweet was terrible, but for Twitter to step in and to force context onto what he meant by it is gross. Personally I just figured that he meant that continued extreme rioting can be met with extreme riot control, aka shooting. Now Twitter is telling me he is getting a hard on at the thought of shooting people so they had to censor his post. Honestly if people think they can riot so violently without repercussions they are delusional. Yes Trump could have worded it better but its a pretty fair point of what happens in riots.

  27. #77

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Also there was a post/thread somewhere about perception of information but I can't find it. I have lost count how many times these riots have been labeled as protests and it it's starting to annoy me. If that isn't clear manipulation of information to be framed in a certain light I don't know what is.

  28. #78

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    And yes I think the last line of his tweet was terrible, but for Twitter to step in and to force context onto what he meant by it is gross. Personally I just figured that he meant that continued extreme rioting can be met with extreme riot control, aka shooting. Now Twitter is telling me he is getting a hard on at the thought of shooting people so they had to censor his post. Honestly if people think they can riot so violently without repercussions they are delusional. Yes Trump could have worded it better but its a pretty fair point of what happens in riots.
    Twitter has a content policy that specifically bans threatening violence, which is pretty much what he was doing. People can excuse it by thinking of a multitude of possible things he "may" have meant, but I think (and many have interpreted it the same way) that it's a deliberately veiled threat of violence. In any case, Twitter has the right to do whatever they want with content on their website, which is something outlined in law and in their policy.

    This is largely irrelevant, in any case, since Trump didn't even do anything in response to Twitter hiding his tweet. He did the EO in response to Twitter's fact checking link. So I'm going to address that and not the shooting tweet, because the shooting tweet wasn't even in the cards when he freaked out and had a tantrum. In effect, he had two conflicting opinions:

    1) He expressed dismay and freaked the fuck out over Twitter putting the link on his tweet, and said that he wants to take action against Twitter for that. This is an extremely worrying statement that directly expresses his desire to remove the ability of companies and individuals to comment and call Trump out on his lies. If anyone actually supports or even excuses Trump on this, you need to take a very close look at yourself and your commitment to so-called "neutrality" and/or support of someone who has expressed desire to use legal force to censor individuals and companies.

    2) He wrote an EO that actually removes legal protections on social media sites, meaning that (should this become policy) suing websites for their content will be easier. This seems unusual since it means that websites will actually be more legally responsible for removing misleading and violent/hateful content (like what Trump posts) but is also extremely worrying given the unprecedented number of federal judge appointments Trump has made.

  29. #79

  30. #80

  31. #81

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Well that's the issue right there, you and I have interpreted what he said differently but Twitter has forced their god hand onto it to mean specifically something. I know Twitter does have the right to do what it wants with its own product but I think its bullshit they get to act like a platform where they are not liable for the content posted, then go on to curate said content to their own personal opinions. I think social media entirely is crap which is why I don't use any of the big ones. Even the Zuck commented on this saying he disagrees with Twitters policy and that social media should not act like arbiters of truth.

  32. #82

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Well that's the issue right there, you and I have interpreted what he said differently but Twitter has forced their god hand onto it to mean specifically something. I know Twitter does have the right to do what it wants with its own product but I think its bullshit they get to act like a platform where they are not liable for the content posted, then go on to curate said content to their own personal opinions. I think social media entirely is crap which is why I don't use any of the big ones. Even the Zuck commented on this saying he disagrees with Twitters policy and that social media should not act like arbiters of truth.
    You're still addressing the hidden tweet, which I think I've said like twice isn't even relevant to Trump's actions.

    It's also not very productive to address whether what Twitter did was good or bad here because they still acted within the law, and now Trump is showing a desire to restrict free speech and first amendment rights in response to this. Politeness and bullshit factor aren't relevant when it comes to free speech.

    Every single website does the same thing. So do we. Nobody here is liable if someone posts illegal content, we still delete posts containing insults and racial slurs because we think this isn't the place for it. How is Twitter morally different? If someone here makes a post saying that they think that all the cops in Minneapolis should get lynched, they'll probably have their post deleted.

    Not that any of that even particularly matters, because it's addressing the second tweet that Twitter took action on, when Trump only responded to the first.

  33. #83

  34. #84

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I mean if you want to just look at the first tweet in a vacuum, it's not that bad in all truth. The source is fair and it basically says that Trumps tweet wasn't exactly wrong but he did fluff it up. I don't care. I'd rather they didn't but they are free to push features down our consumer throats.

    My issue lies more so with the second tweet. They have taken a statement and framed it to mean specifically something. For arguments sake lets look at it where it was deemed worthy of stepping in on.

    "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"

    What if he meant by "the shooting starts" he meant "chaos starts" and by that he means he wants to 'assume control, but with the rioting it's going to get messy'.
    What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means violent rioting will be met with adequate force to subdue it, aka shooting (tear gas, non-lethal rounds and lethal rounds, whatever).
    What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means everyone not looting go shoot the looters.

    This is what I mean that they have forced context onto a statement that doesn't explicitly mean what they are saying it means. Is it absurd to think that people violently rioting and looting will be fired upon? If people find that offensive then they are straight up delusional and think actions should have no repercussions. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand when you can't face the truth.
    Last edited by rumox; May 29th, 2020 at 07:58 AM.

  35. #85

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I mean if you want to just look at the first tweet in a vacuum, it's not that bad in all truth. The source is fair and it basically says that Trumps tweet wasn't exactly wrong but he did fluff it up. I don't care. I'd rather they didn't but they are free to push features down our consumer throats.

    My issue lies more so with the second tweet. They have taken a statement and framed it to mean specifically something. For arguments sake lets look at it where it was deemed worthy of stepping in on.

    "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"

    What if he meant by "the shooting starts" he meant "chaos starts" and by that he means he wants to 'assume control, but with the rioting it's going to get messy'.
    What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means violent rioting will be met with adequate force to subdue it, aka shooting (tear gas, non-lethal rounds and lethal rounds, whatever).
    What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means everyone not looting go shoot the looters.

    This is what I mean that they have forced context onto a statement that doesn't explicitly mean what they are saying it means. Is it absurd to think that people violently rioting and looting wont be fired upon? If people find that offensive then they are straight up delusional and think actions should have no repercussions. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand when you can't face the truth.
    I'm looking at the first tweet in a vacuum because the second tweet didn't even exist until after he took action on the first one. Criticism of Trump's actions can only be looked at in context of that.

    Trump didn't issue an EO, or say that Twitter should be controlled more, because his tweet was hidden. He did it solely because Twitter put the fact check link on his tweet. All that matters here is that Trump wanted to act and use legal pressure on Twitter for putting an opinion out in public in response to a tweet containing false information.

    In response to the context thing: Trump and Trumpists in general have a habit of saying things that can be interpreted in multiple ways by different groups of people, which is quite problematic. Yes, you could argue that he might have meant one of multiple things. But with the statements he often makes, it doesn't actually matter whether there's a "sane" interpretation. To people who are rallied by calls of violence and are looking for an excuse or some sort of validation to be violent, they'll see that in Trump's tweet. He has a duty, as the leader of a country, to moderate his words and not create statements so ambiguous that they could incite violence. If 10% of his supporters earnestly see this as a call to action, does it matter that the other 90% think it isn't? I would argue the ambiguity is intentional, to give himself plausible deniability while satisfying that 10% of supporters that want to see bloodshed.

    This is illustrated by a video that Trump tweeted a couple of days ago, in which a presenter says "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". The crowd cheers and laughs, and then the presenter says something like "Of course people are gonna take that out of context, obviously I mean dead politically, not literally dead." Before he clarified, how much of the crowd do you think understood that he didn't actually say that Democrats should die? Were they cheering for that, or for the "correct" interpretation? Now that he clarified, will those people let go of the idea they cheered for, that Democrats should die?

  36. #86

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I feel like I will just go in circles talking to you. I literally said in my second post I wasn't even aware of the first tweet and my issue was with the second one so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. The EO, as much as I don't care for it either besides a line from it which sums up my opinion of social media, goes into detail about other topics not just poor Trumps fact check. But again, beside my point.

    Can Trump speak better? Yes definitely. Should Twitter impose context onto someone's statement as they seem fit? Hell no. If people go out and shoot looters because daddy Trump "told them to" based off that tweet I will be fucking surprised. Ridiculous.

  37. #87

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I feel like I will just go in circles talking to you. I literally said in my second post I wasn't even aware of the first tweet and my issue was with the second one so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. The EO, as much as I don't care for it either besides a line from it which sums up my opinion of social media, goes into detail about other topics not just poor Trumps fact check. But again, beside my point.

    Can Trump speak better? Yes definitely. Should Twitter impose context onto someone's statement as they seem fit? Hell no. If people go out and shoot looters because daddy Trump "told them to" based off that tweet I will be fucking surprised. Ridiculous.
    I bring up the first tweet because I wanted to emphasize my point there, since it was a particularly egregious attack on free speech. I suppose I tunnel visioned too hard on it.

    I don't know about Twitter imposing context to be truthful. I don't like the idea of large corporations imposing their idea of speech onto people's tweets. At the same time, I think in this particular circumstance, it was for the public good. His tweet was specifically meant to rile up violence, just like many of his past ones. I'd also be surprised if someone went out and shot looters because of it, but maybe people will be more inspired to commit hate crimes elsewhere in the nation? There's already been a visible uptick in hate crimes due to his past rhetoric, it's not unreasonable that his recent tweets would also spur more of that.

  38. #88

  39. #89

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    In any case, if Twitter was worried about Trump drones killing because of that message they would use the term that is more applicable which is incitement of violence. They didn't and used glorifying violence. Better ban all Superheroes from Twitter. Don't forget to ban Quinten Tarintino as well. It's such an irrational reason to censor someone and now a precedent has been set it's going to be inconsistent as hell with implementation. If they don't follow up with this precedent being set with future posts being hidden it's just going to feed into the spastic alt rights rhetoric.

  40. #90

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I mean if you want to just look at the first tweet in a vacuum, it's not that bad in all truth. The source is fair and it basically says that Trumps tweet wasn't exactly wrong but he did fluff it up. I don't care. I'd rather they didn't but they are free to push features down our consumer throats.

    My issue lies more so with the second tweet. They have taken a statement and framed it to mean specifically something. For arguments sake lets look at it where it was deemed worthy of stepping in on.

    "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"

    What if he meant by "the shooting starts" he meant "chaos starts" and by that he means he wants to 'assume control, but with the rioting it's going to get messy'.
    What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means violent rioting will be met with adequate force to subdue it, aka shooting (tear gas, non-lethal rounds and lethal rounds, whatever).
    What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means everyone not looting go shoot the looters.

    This is what I mean that they have forced context onto a statement that doesn't explicitly mean what they are saying it means. Is it absurd to think that people violently rioting and looting will be fired upon? If people find that offensive then they are straight up delusional and think actions should have no repercussions. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand when you can't face the truth.
    Sounds just like religions ability to get away with all the shit inside their religious books.

    No one should have to say "but he really means this" when reading something a world leader had written.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  41. #91

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Iíve just read about the riot + watched a video of what was happening. Unbelievable. And Twitter is trying to censor that? You could almost say Twitter is trying to egg people on, not Trump... the way Iím reading that tweet, if the riot continues or escalates, the police may start shooting live rounds. I agree with rumox that you have to be delusional to think that you can just get away with that kind of violence.

    Personally, is you ask me, this just shows that some people (like Warren), should probably go to jail. Itís unacceptable to be criticizing Trump when itís fajrly likely heís threatening the rioters with retaliation. I donít agree this is really an ambiguous message on Trumps part, but thatís probably just a matter of interpretation.

    Unbelievable that this could happen in the US. This wouldnít even happen here. We had a protest a few months ago, the farmers protested against something (I believe it was taxes? I donít remember exactly).
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  42. #92

  43. #93

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Why was a journalist arrested today lol

    People crying about "freedom of speech" not being allowed on a social media platform all the time. Pay attention. That's what freedom of speech being infringed is. Not a business deciding what content it doesn't want to allow on its platform.
    Last edited by BananaCucho; May 29th, 2020 at 11:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  44. #94

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I guess itís also possible he means that they wonít be able to contain the situation if it gets really ugly. But egging people on? Iím almost 100% positive that wasnít what he was saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  45. #95

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Lol. You think allowing the law enforcement to shoot the rioters is a good idea?

    Right after it started from law enforcement killing someone who didn't deserve it?

    How could you even trust them to shoot the "correct people". You want them to be jury judge and executioner?

    And you want them to arrest a politician for criticizing? Wtf?

    How amusing.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  46. #96

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Sounds just like religions ability to get away with all the shit inside their religious books.

    No one should have to say "but he really means this" when reading something a world leader had written.
    Mental gymnastics. See it in mormonism all the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  47. #97

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    If they start setting buildings ablaze and possibly kill people, something needs to be done. Live rounds might be overdoing it, but beanbags and tasers would be an appropriate response. I donít want them to arrest a politician for criticizing the tweet, because I think she actually just completely reframed his tweet. I think the fact that people are using this to further their political agenda is deplorable.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  48. #98

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    If they start setting buildings ablaze and possibly kill people, something needs to be done. Live rounds might be overdoing it, but beanbags and tasers would be an appropriate response. I donít want them to arrest a politician for criticizing the tweet, because I think she actually just completely reframed his tweet. I think the fact that people are using this to further their political agenda is deplorable.
    You think that will de-escalate the situation? It will have the opposite effect

    Can you explain exactly why you think Warren should be in jail? I'm not sure I understand your point. What crimes has she committed?
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  49. #99

  50. #100

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •