Freedom of thought and speech vs morality - Page 13
Register

User Tag List

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 261
  1. #241

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    You'll hate this, but honestly I think the riots are quite justified. Both black and white communities have been waiting for a very long time for serious reform of the criminal justice system and have been largely ignored. Even when a black president was elected with a supermajority nothing was done to resolve systemic racism (in fact, it was probably exacerbated). The destruction and theft of private property is unfortunate, and I obviously resolutely condemn anyone who hits a civilian. However, a lot of this destruction is just biting back at the companies which have been exploiting these communities for years. Remember, these people are sacrificing their own city to make a stand, not someone else's.

    The brutality of the police isn't simply another political issue. It fundamentally violates the social contract for agents of the state to illegitimately attack and harass their own citizens. It makes the police force less of a police force and more of an occupying foreign military, and erodes the duty these citizens have to uphold law and order. Property can be replaced, but lives cannot.

    Watching clips of the police crossing the line or a rioter crossing the line doesn't really capture the energy, intention or atmosphere behind these riots. It gives you the impression that these riots are just a continual spewing of inhumanity and hatred. I advise you to watch a livestream of someone actually walking around Minneapolis and talking to the general populace. Like this one: https://www.pscp.tv/w/1MnxnQDMzPoJO

    p;edit https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja/status/1265896638666518531 this is what I watched and hasn't got the obnoxious chat bs lol
    Last edited by yzb25; June 1st, 2020 at 10:07 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.

  2. #242

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Interesting, so you’re suggesting basically setting quotas to ensure that... how do I put this. Lol

    To ensure that certain groups who have something new to bring to the table come to your university. Interesting idea, I’ve never thought about that. With regards to your first point, I sort of agree with you but in this instance, the quotas weren’t meant for non-citizen Asians, but rather for Asians of all backgrounds lol. Both Asian-Americans and other Asians.
    Oh wow no that's gross lol
    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.

  3. #243

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Lmao not even undocumented immigrants. I was in the US legally on a visa and on any government form I had to mark myself as an "alien". Kinda fucked me off tbh.
    Also gross. They made my cousin go through an additional searching process at border control a few years back literally because (and he was told this) his name is Muhammad.

    p;edit he's a British citizen, lived here his whole life, white as a pastry and speaks like someone on the BBC btw lol, not that it would be justified otherwise.
    Last edited by yzb25; June 1st, 2020 at 10:04 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.

  4. #244

  5. #245

  6. #246

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    What if a social media platform was created as a public utility? It should theoretically be the bastion of freedom of speech on the internet.
    I know I said I wouldn't jump back in here, but I wanted to say that I 100% support this POV.

    There would probably still be a criteria for marking/blurring certain things "nsfw", but ad free and used as a public service and not as a means of profit would mean that it would not be allowed to be censored.

    @yzb25 yeah social media sites like Twitter and Facebook are a giant source of information, but first and foremost they are a business. Which is why they advertise. They exist to make money. Decisions they make affect advertising, so they are going to do what they feel maximizes those profits.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  7. #247

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    What if a social media platform was created as a public utility? It should theoretically be the bastion of freedom of speech on the internet.
    I'm just wondering, do you think on such a platform (or I suppose as per your argument, on social media in general) there should be no censorship in any circumstances, except where it goes against the law?

    What if, for example, someone starts posting how to make bombs using household ingredients. Maybe someone influential. What if someone posts "hey kids, mix ammonia and bleach and blow into it with a straw to make really cool crystals"? What if someone starts posting photos of underage girls in lewd-esque positions, taken without their consent, although they aren't pornographic?

  8. #248

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    1. In the Senate of the USA Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation making it illegal to distribute bomb making instructions on the internet. This legislation has rightfully been cross-examined since books aren't within the scope of this law, but in on the internet there is protection against it.

    2. I'd say that propagating false information that will lead to self harm falls under some law.

    3. If people are sharing pictures of children framed to be sexually provocative on a public medium they would possibly be the most dumbest person in existence. They are already social pariahs and resort to operating in the shadows. Also, at least in Australia, we have laws against this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Criminal Code (Qld) s 210(1)(f)
    Any indecent visual image of a child under the age of 16 years; is guilty of an indictable offence.

  9. #249

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    1. In the Senate of the USA Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation making it illegal to distribute bomb making instructions on the internet. This legislation has rightfully been cross-examined since books aren't within the scope of this law, but in on the internet there is protection against it.

    2. I'd say that propagating false information that will lead to self harm falls under some law.

    3. If people are sharing pictures of children framed to be sexually provocative on a public medium they would possibly be the most dumbest person in existence. They are already social pariahs and resort to operating in the shadows. Also, at least in Australia, we have laws against this.
    Pretty good rebuttal, I just wanted to let you know I also agree with everything you said here.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  10. #250

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    1. In the Senate of the USA Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation making it illegal to distribute bomb making instructions on the internet. This legislation has rightfully been cross-examined since books aren't within the scope of this law, but in on the internet there is protection against it.

    2. I'd say that propagating false information that will lead to self harm falls under some law.

    3. If people are sharing pictures of children framed to be sexually provocative on a public medium they would possibly be the most dumbest person in existence. They are already social pariahs and resort to operating in the shadows. Also, at least in Australia, we have laws against this.
    Fair point on the first two. They were a bit extreme maybe, though I can think of other, more moderate examples. What about someone convincing others of their genuine belief that a hurricane about to hit their city was a hoax, encouraging people to risk their lives by staying in their homes? Or maybe someone publicly posting suicide method success rates in areas with mentally vulnerable people? How about someone spreading images of a victim of violent crime in places where their family might see them?

    The third is something that has already happened in the real world. Not sure about Australian law, but there was actually a subreddit that was exactly what I described (plus even worse offshoots, like near-sexual images of dead underage girls' corpses) that didn't run afoul of US law, and was probably the first major example of reddit censoring a community that wasn't actively breaking the law.

  11. #251

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Keep in mind I more or less agree with you, but such a public utility social network would have to be designed in a fundamentally different way to existing social networks for this to work, IMO. I don't think forcing free speech on social networks with the model of Twitter or Facebook would be great, the main issue being the vast disparity in how much of a reach individual people have. I don't know what the solution for that is, though.

  12. #252

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    There are no doubt be dilemmas to address when considering a public social media platform. There are no doubt gaps when trying to apply laws that were created before the rise of social media and even the internet itself to an environment with them. I also don't want to pretend that I am an expert and have spent years researching when in reality it was a thought I had when loading my washing machine.

  13. #253

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Fair point on the first two. They were a bit extreme maybe, though I can think of other, more moderate examples. What about someone convincing others of their genuine belief that a hurricane about to hit their city was a hoax, encouraging people to risk their lives by staying in their homes? Or maybe someone publicly posting suicide method success rates in areas with mentally vulnerable people? How about someone spreading images of a victim of violent crime in places where their family might see them?

    The third is something that has already happened in the real world. Not sure about Australian law, but there was actually a subreddit that was exactly what I described (plus even worse offshoots, like near-sexual images of dead underage girls' corpses) that didn't run afoul of US law, and was probably the first major example of reddit censoring a community that wasn't actively breaking the law.
    This is already allowed on public radio. You're probably referring to the same thing I'm thinking of, no way thats a coincidence lol
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  14. #254

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    There are no doubt be dilemmas to address when considering a public social media platform. There are no doubt gaps when trying to apply laws that were created before the rise of social media and even the internet itself to an environment with them. I also don't want to pretend that I am an expert and have spent years researching when in reality it was a thought I had when loading my washing machine.
    Yeah fair enough, just trying to provoke thought on how much free speech is a good thing and what the limitations of an idea like that are. As I said, a huge issue I have both with the current system and any proposed ones is the disparity in reach a person has. If you have some social media influencer or idiot politician tweeting about some sort of crackpot theory about vaccines or whatever, they're going to reach (and convince) a whole lot more people than the scientist who conducted studies and is most qualified to talk about the topic could ever hope to reach, just because he doesn't spend his time becoming a social god. That's a form of soft free speech suppression. The two have just as much free speech, but the latter is effectively censored.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    This is already allowed on public radio. You're probably referring to the same thing I'm thinking of, no way thats a coincidence lol
    I'm actually not I pulled that example out of my ass lol.

  15. #255

  16. #256

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    That's why I wasn't that fussed about the fact check Twitter did. I didn't like that it was them doing it and I will always, always question their motive tho. If a public platform could somehow utilize a "to know more" link to credible sources of a topic a user puts forward in a fair and comprehensive matter I think anyone logical will be on board with it. How to implement that in a fair way with as less bias as possible is beyond me, but it's a good avenue to explore.

  17. #257

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    I know I said I wouldn't jump back in here, but I wanted to say that I 100% support this POV.

    There would probably still be a criteria for marking/blurring certain things "nsfw", but ad free and used as a public service and not as a means of profit would mean that it would not be allowed to be censored.

    @yzb25 yeah social media sites like Twitter and Facebook are a giant source of information, but first and foremost they are a business. Which is why they advertise. They exist to make money. Decisions they make affect advertising, so they are going to do what they feel maximizes those profits.
    I agree with this. I also like the idea of a public social media platform, if such a thing could ever survive the political attacks lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Fair point on the first two. They were a bit extreme maybe, though I can think of other, more moderate examples. What about someone convincing others of their genuine belief that a hurricane about to hit their city was a hoax, encouraging people to risk their lives by staying in their homes? Or maybe someone publicly posting suicide method success rates in areas with mentally vulnerable people? How about someone spreading images of a victim of violent crime in places where their family might see them?

    The third is something that has already happened in the real world. Not sure about Australian law, but there was actually a subreddit that was exactly what I described (plus even worse offshoots, like near-sexual images of dead underage girls' corpses) that didn't run afoul of US law, and was probably the first major example of reddit censoring a community that wasn't actively breaking the law.
    It's interesting that you bring this up. It reminds me of one time I tried to play devil's advocate in another free speech argument by suggesting the press should not be allowed to publish the identity of shooters and go into their backstories or the details of suicides and their backstories, which have been respectively shown to greatly exacerbate the rate of shootings and suicides respectively. Out of curiosity, would you also support that?

    Also, bear in mind that even if the internet provides new scale, a lot of these things are issues that already exist. Like, one could distribute graphic photos in public, mail disturbing content to the families of victims of violent crime, exc. I would be very surprised if, at the very least, there weren't already-existing laws in most developed countries that could be tweaked to include the next generation of harassment and anti social behaviour on social media.
    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.

  18. #258

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    The public social media platform thing is an interesting shout. You should try pondering other profound questions while loading your washing machine lmao

    It could, in theory, be less pervasive than social media in the retention sense. Like, social media sites carefully develop their algorithms to manipulate your emotions to keep scrolling for content. There wouldn't be the same incentive to do such a thing on a public platform.
    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.

  19. #259

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    It's interesting that you bring this up. It reminds me of one time I tried to play devil's advocate in another free speech argument by suggesting the press should not be allowed to publish the identity of shooters and go into their backstories or the details of suicides and their backstories, which have been respectively shown to greatly exacerbate the rate of shootings and suicides respectively. Out of curiosity, would you also support that?
    Ideally the press would be set up in such a way that they wouldn't have incentive to do this, in the name of getting clicks or whatever. I don't know if I'd support an actual law against this.

  20. #260

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    What do you guys think about this lmaooaoaoao

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a9545831.html
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    President Fielzanks walks up to his stage, preparing his n1 speech. In front of him, his two cronies MM and David stood. In front of him, his immaculately written n1 speech was prepared. 'Gentleman, what is the soul of capitalism?', he asked his small audience. 'Money?', MM guessed. 'Waifus?', David asked. 'No' Fielz replied, disappointed in his trash scumteam .
    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    Naz would never forget the Chik-Fil-A Sauce

 

 

Posting Permissions

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