Freedom of thought and speech vs morality - Page 5
Register

User Tag List

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 261
  1. #201

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    This is why I shouldn't read these threads. I just can't even right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    You are expressing a biased, partisan view of the situation and saying that someone should be jailed for expressing her view. This is no different from someone on the left expressing a biased, partisan view of Trumps tweet, saying that he should be jailed for expressing his view.

    This isn't fuckin North Korea. It's America. We don't put people in jail for expressing their opinion, no matter how dangerous or immoral it may be. And if it happens, it's an injustice.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    A social media platform absolutely should be allowed to have a terms of service and be allowed to censor anything that they deem to have broken said terms of service. Don't like it? Don't use them. Boycott. Find a platform that allows your speech. That's the beauty of CAPITALISM

    HOW can you say that a social media platform shouldn't be allowed to censor, but the government should be allowed to put people in JAIL based on what they say?? Thats the most ass backwards thinking I've ever seen. The 1st ammendment protects your speech from government retaliation. It does not dictate what corporations and companies decide to allow on their platforms. I thought conservatives were all about small government? Yet want the government to dictate to social media platforms how to operate?
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    If I come to sc2mafia and vote in an ongoing game that I'm not signed up for, I'm gonna get banned

    Oh noes muh free speech
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I also just find it really sus in general that you interpret "His advocacy of illegal, state-sponsored killing is horrific. Politicians who refuse to condemn it share responsibility for the consequences." as genuinely calling people to riot and loot, whereas Trump saying "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts." is actually a misunderstood statement calling for peace.
    I donít think it was a misunderstood statement calling for peace. I just donít think it Ďglorifies violenceí. Whatís so horrific about taking a stand against protests/riots that have gotten out of hand? I think this dichotomy of a message thatís either calling for peace or glorifying violence is the wrong lens to be viewing this post through.

    I think that basically what Trump said is this, and I think this is actually true because it explains his later post on how the secret service dealt with the rioters: you have to be strong - strong as in, show the minimal amount of force necessary to dissolve this riot. This, I think, is much closer to the jist of his message.
    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

  2. #202

  3. #203

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I just want to say I did pick up on a dubious doublespeak of Trump after you pointed it out oops. After his spiel glorifying the actions of the Secret Service he offered a "MAGA night" at the white house. This to me is a blatant call to his base to take action. At face value it could be two things, counter protests or violent clashing. If the MAGA gang turn up and counter protest peacefully, yay democracy. However if things turn violent I wonder if Trump could be charged with incitement. I lean towards no because he can always claim they took it upon themselves to turn violent and that he only meant peaceful protesting.

    I think that is a much more questionable tweet than the one he got flagged for, and nobody really seems to care about it. If you were to subscribe to a world where Trump is trying to incite violence, that Tweet should ring alarm bells.

  4. #204

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    I don’t think it was a misunderstood statement calling for peace. I just don’t think it ‘glorifies violence’. What’s so horrific about taking a stand against protests/riots that have gotten out of hand? I think this dichotomy of a message that’s either calling for peace or glorifying violence is the wrong lens to be viewing this post through.
    Mate I just don't see how a rational person can look at Trump's history of repeatedly doing the exact same thing over and over where he says something that could be construed as violent/calling people to action, and then goes to the press and says "whoops that's not what I meant ha ha", and not see a person who's intentionally doing that to pander to a specific group of people.

    Like do you think the man is such a fucking massive dumbass that he's incapable of speaking clearly? Pretend Elizabeth Warren had said "when the looting starts the shooting starts", would you be arguing the same thing in her favour? Like you're sitting around spouting conspiracy theories about how every Democrat is in cahoots and that CNN/the Democrats/the rioters all have ulterior secret motives and messages in everything they say but, without any evidence, you absolutely refuse to believe that the Republicans are doing the same lmao. Can you find me a Democrat politician who so consistently says ambiguous things that are considered questionable by a large number of people then goes back and says "oh wait just kidding lmaoo"

  5. #205

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I just want to say I did pick up on a dubious doublespeak of Trump after you pointed it out oops. After his spiel glorifying the actions of the Secret Service he offered a "MAGA night" at the white house. This to me is a blatant call to his base to take action. At face value it could be two things, counter protests or violent clashing. If the MAGA gang turn up and counter protest peacefully, yay democracy. However if things turn violent I wonder if Trump could be charged with incitement. I lean towards no because he can always claim they took it upon themselves to turn violent and that he only meant peaceful protesting.

    I think that is a much more questionable tweet than the one he got flagged for, and nobody really seems to care about it. If you were to subscribe to a world where Trump is trying to incite violence, that Tweet should ring alarm bells.
    Yeah holy shit I actually missed that tweet, it really does seem like some Kristallnacht shit. I wonder to what extent the Secret Service is under Trump's thumb, if things get violent would they be the type to leave the MAGA-types alone because the president ordered it? They're apparently chosen to be loyal to the president and the country, so who knows. If things get violent there, we'll truly see how much of a stride the country's made towards fascism based on those actions.

  6. #206

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I donít think itís a conspiracy, they just happen to be on the same side of the fence lol.
    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

  7. #207

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Sen View Post
    I think it's rather simple; I don't like pineapple pizza, so I can choose to never eat it, and to avoid gathering with those who eat it all day long, but I can't go from house to house shouting at people's faces so they stop eating it, invading pizza places and spitting on clients who are eating pineapple pizzas, demanding that people who like them can't live here, hiring some unskilled idiot instead of a way better candidate just because the latter eats pineapple pizza, suggesting that their houses should be taken and given to those who like "better" pizzas, or rallying others to attack them...

    As long as you aren't hurting anyone nor inciting others to do it, you should be free to say and do whatever you want. Once you start messing with other people, that's when you don't get to be tolerated anymore as you are clearly unfit to live in a tolerant society.
    HEY.

    I would like to remind everyone, or more specifically those who are repeatedly using ad hominems in this debate, the simple yet smart principle of tolerance. You're free to disagree with someone else, you're free to say it too, but you're not free to spit on clients who are eating pineapple pizzas. This thread was so pure and nice at its beginning, and the people who spit on pineapple pizza eaters are turning it into another one of those political shitfests on Internet. I am disappointed, and would like it to stop from all sides. Thank you.
    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.

  8. #208

  9. #209

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Dunno, I donít agree with that interpretation. Trump is just saying that you need to show strength to deter the rioters, in my opinion. ĎThey were cool, and if someone got frisky or [out of hand? paraphrasing]í, theyíd have at them. I donít think this is glorifying violence, especially since trump doesnít have a history of glorifying it as far as I can tell. Thatís just Trump telling people that standing by and letting rioters do what they want is not okay lol.

    it could also pander to those who are actually violent, but I donít believe Trump was consciously trying to do so. I think he should be more careful about what he posts, however.
    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

  10. #210

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I read the MAGA tweet as just MAGA tweet. Certainly not tying it to the other post about the secret service.
    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

  11. #211

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Who is being homo erectus
    Trump?
    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. #212

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    "“We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and good practice.”
    "...nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That’s when people would have been really badly hurt, at least."

    While I don't have a problem with this being interpreted as a threat, this is 100% glorifying violence. Yet, Twitter is silent on it.

  13. #213

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    I donít think this is glorifying violence, especially since trump doesnít have a history of glorifying it as far as I can tell.
    "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment peopleómaybe there is, I donít know."

    "Get him out, try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court"

    "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, ok. Just knock the hell... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

    "[referring to a Democrat protest] I woulda been out there fighting folks. I don't know if I would have done well but I would have been boom, boom, boom. I'll beat the crap out of you."

    "[referring to a protester at one of his rallies] He should have been... maybe he should have been roughed up."

    "[referring to another protester at one of his rallies] I'd like to punch him in the face I'll tell ya"

    "[referring to Bernie Sanders having his mic taken away at a speech] That will never happen with me. I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself or if other people will."

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...03147168071680

    All Trump quotes. Thoughts on your statement now?

  14. #214

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    "...but whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly come down on them, hard - didnít know what hit them."

    That's the full message.

    Ganelon the definition of glorify is basically - to honor with praise, admiration, or worship. I don't see how you can say that the Secret Service tweets are not glorifying violence.

  15. #215

  16. #216

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment peopleómaybe there is, I donít know."

    "Get him out, try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court"

    "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, ok. Just knock the hell... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

    "[referring to a Democrat protest] I woulda been out there fighting folks. I don't know if I would have done well but I would have been boom, boom, boom. I'll beat the crap out of you."

    "[referring to a protester at one of his rallies] He should have been... maybe he should have been roughed up."

    "[referring to another protester at one of his rallies] I'd like to punch him in the face I'll tell ya"

    "[referring to Bernie Sanders having his mic taken away at a speech] That will never happen with me. I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself or if other people will."

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...03147168071680

    All Trump quotes. Thoughts on your statement now?
    Dunno, the bits about the protesters are dependent on context. The bit about Sanders sounds more like a joke, and even if itís not, it doesnít seem that bad to me, just again a message of being strong.

    The Ďget him out, try not to hurt himí might be a violent message, but Iíd have to see the tweet and the context to really get an accurate picture.

    I think he has a temper problem looking at those quotes you posted though.
    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

  17. #217

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    "...but whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly come down on them, hard - didnít know what hit them."

    That's the full message.

    Ganelon the definition of glorify is basically - to honor with praise, admiration, or worship. I don't see how you can say that the Secret Service tweets are not glorifying violence.
    Theyíre glorifying the secret service, not violence. Thatís one possible intepretation.
    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

  18. #218

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    And Id still argue that the jist of the message is that you should be strong to overcome these protests, not to be violent in response. Although I can see why youíd say that the last post might be a call to violence or something. I do agree that if Twitter doesnít censor that tweet, theyíll have some explaining to do, especially since this one can be seen to be glorifying violence.
    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

  19. #219

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    You can't separate violence from it.

    "We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and good practice
    "...nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. Thatís when people would have been really badly hurt, at least."
    "...but whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly come down on them, hard - didnít know what hit them."

    All of these have some sort of violent element to them. Yes he was praising the Secret Service, so it would be glorifying Secret Service violence. That is still glorifying violence. But again interpret how you wish. That is the last I will comment on it, bed time.

  20. #220

  21. #221

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Kind of a debatable thing to be banning at times like these. Not sure if I like the idea. Although Antifa are pretty radical themselves lol. As someone once put it, they donít love the poor - they just hate the rich.
    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

  22. #222

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Dunno, the bits about the protesters are dependent on context. The bit about Sanders sounds more like a joke, and even if itís not, it doesnít seem that bad to me, just again a message of being strong.

    The Ďget him out, try not to hurt himí might be a violent message, but Iíd have to see the tweet and the context to really get an accurate picture.

    I think he has a temper problem looking at those quotes you posted though.
    Mate I'm not attacking you personally and I respect you but you gotta be pulling some actual mental gymnastics to look at those statements and be like "well maybe it depends on context". Like in what possible context could it mean anything other than violence. Even if the protester was punching people and shit, and Trump said "I want to punch him in the face", that's still violent on his part lmao.

  23. #223

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    As for Twitter not censoring his recent tweets, I think that might be due to the EO that he issued and their lawyers trying to decide on the next steps. Maybe negotiating with the white house itself. I really doubt there's some ulterior motive to only censoring one of his violent tweets and not the others; maybe as a warning, but still seems unlikely that they're playing some political game with it.

  24. #224

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I've just come across another situation where social media is over stepping freedom of speech. YouTube censored a biostatistician for raising critiques of the quarantine measure against COVID. How can we expect to have proper discourse on a subject if voices are being silenced that are against the status quo? I cannot emphasize how much I do not like this.

    Knut Wittkowski is his name.

  25. #225

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Yeah, that happened to a Dutch doctor as well (unless that’s the guy you’re talking about). YouTube has been censoring things they shouldn’t be censoring for a while now, but I don’t think they’ve ever censored someone talking about a topic this big before.

    The video I’m talking about: it got posted on BannedVids, so I’m assuming it got deleted, got this from someone on WhatsApp so I’m not 100% sure it’s legit: https://youtu.be/2nbG8WCGnCw

    To clarify what I was saying about Warren: I think that what Warren said about Trumps comment bein racist isn’t the issue; the issue is the effect it has on the riots. If she willfully and knowingly wanted to lend legitimacy to the rioters, by saying that Trump is racist and calling for violence against blacks people without condemning the riot. Now the real thing is, it is very difficult if not impossible to ascertain if she was aware of what she was saying or not, but if she is, 100% illegal.

    Btw, does anyone else find it bizarre people are rioting over the death of a black man in police custody, when a) it’s not clear that race was the issue here, or b) that the policeman in question MURDERED Floyd (it may be manslaughter we’re dealing with here), and c) the actions of one policeman don’t and shouldn’t reflect on the police force as a whole.

    I’m really not convinced that there is some systemic racism in the police force...
    Last edited by Ganelon; June 1st, 2020 at 03:17 AM.
    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

  26. #226

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Mate I'm not attacking you personally and I respect you but you gotta be pulling some actual mental gymnastics to look at those statements and be like "well maybe it depends on context". Like in what possible context could it mean anything other than violence. Even if the protester was punching people and shit, and Trump said "I want to punch him in the face", that's still violent on his part lmao.
    They are violent indeed, but the question is whether or not heís trying to send a message to his audience that violence is the answer. He later did clarify the first post (an extremely ugly post, admittedly), saying that what he really meant was that the supporters of the Second Amendment might be politically strong enough to resist gun restrictions.
    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

  27. #227

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    They are violent indeed, but the question is whether or not heís trying to send a message to his audience that violence is the answer. He later did clarify the first post (an extremely ugly post, admittedly), saying that what he really meant was that the supporters of the Second Amendment might be politically strong enough to resist gun restrictions.
    Bro, he literally said "knock the crap out of them... I will pay for the legal fees". I cannot comprehend how a rational person would hear someone saying that, regardless of the context, and not consider that to be stoking violent sentiment. If you aren't arguing in bad faith, I implore you to take a good look at yourself and consider whether you actually believe that he's not being violent or if you're just bending his words and statements to fit your pre-conceived notions that you hold for whatever reason. Especially when at the same time you consider Elizabeth Warren's tweet to be inciting violent rioting lmao.

  28. #228

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Well, to begin, police brutality is a serious issue in America. The problem isn't just limited to black people, but it does heavily disproportionately affect black people. Police are given incredible legal power in America. They can confiscate property they claim to believe was acquired illegally (and in some cases keep it). If they damage property or a police officer is charged for misconduct, the police department does not even get charged for the damages. They have lots of leeway to use excessive force (unless someone is filming them with their smartphone, a very recent development). There are lots of loopholes that allow them to escape prosecution for their brutality, too. They are given heavy legal preferential treatment. Performance is evaluated at many police stations by arrest quotas and ticket quotas, literally incentivizing them to cause trouble.

    Their unchecked power and influences have cultivated a very toxic culture among the police force, and many of them frankly behave like power-drunk animals, evidenced by all the horrifying footage of them (though some of it is admittedly taken out of context). The fear created by the 2nd ammendment doesn't help either. They behave much better in wealthier parts of America, because they know not to risk pissing off the wrong person, but in poorer areas it's a different story.

    There is also serious criminal injustice. America has the most prisoners in the world (even more than china!) and, even though whites and blacks do drugs in equal amounts, half of non-violent drug offenders are black. A lot of this is due to "systemic racism", which refers to how policies can disproportionately impact vulnerable minorities, even if the policy-makers have no racist intent, due to a history of racism. For example, stop-and-search was a policy instated in New York which allowed officers to randomly, forcefully search whoever they deemed suspicious. There may have been no racist intention, but in practice the police overwhelmingly found people of colour to be the ones who they deemed "suspicious", due to subconscious biases. Private prisons are a big industry in America, which lobby congress for rules to jail more people. And prison labour is very lucrative - they can get paid less than a dollar an hour. These additional incentives to arrest and prosecute trickle down to the officers and contribute to shit like the aforementioned arrest quotas.

    Also, systemic racism aside, there is a lot of just actual racism motivating these policy decisions. For example, the major proponent of stop-and-search in America, ex-mayor and democrat Michael Bloomberg, was literally racist and wanted to allow the police force to forcefully search black people without needing a warrant. The practice had no provable effect on the crime rate and 99% of searches found no illegal possessions, and like 90% of the 1% only found shit like weed iirc. The practice was only stopped when a court ruled it to be literally violating people's rights.
    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.

  29. #229

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Hmm, you may have a point about police brutality in general. IIRC, Surgeons, CEOs and police men have a high incidence of psychopathy relative to the rest of the population. So it would honestly not surprise me if there were some violent cops out there. Iíd also wager that the more violent ones, the ones we hear about, also have lower IQs (Iím not exactly expecting police officers to be beacons of enlightenment here).

    So are they more brutal than they should be? Undoubtedly, in some cases they are, yes. I did not know people had actually tried to impose legislation to allow the police to forcefully search black people lol. That sounds like such a dumb policy, too. Iíll say that, if Iím not mistaken, blacks do commit a disproportionate number of crimes relative to their population size, but thatís no reason to institute such a ridiculous policy lol. We should look at people on an individual basis, not based on their race lol. Otherwise thereís nothing stopping people from arresting law-abiding citizens just based on their colour. At that point it wonít even stop at colour, either. You could literally make a case that students should be searched without a warrant simply because a lot of revolutions or whatnot start on campuses, or in any case have the support of the students. Or, literally any group identity of some sort. Just pick your enemy.

    Itís kind of complicated when we start talking about subconscious racism. It is true that blacks commit more crimes, proportionally, than other groups (I believe), so itís tough to separate bias from just statistics. Do I think itís okay to charge people based on their race? Absolutely not, and like I said, thatís a very dangerous precedent that we should not set...
    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

  30. #230

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    This might be a good time for me to specify this but: if youíre a white nationalist or an ethnonationalist of any kind, or in favour of an ethnostate (note that none of these are directed at yzb; Iím just concerned that some people might mistake my talking about race in the manner that I am for nazism or something like that lol), please fuck right off and do not commend my posts or whatnot, because I despise your views lol.
    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

  31. #231

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Also, the idea of an ethnostate is dumb on so many levels lol. I have no idea why some people push it.... it a) assumes that dividing people based on their Ďraceí (usually by skin colour) is a valid form of social classification. Iím not saying that races donít exist, but itís absurd to lump, say, white Greeks with white Scandinavians or with Spaniards even. These people donít even adhere to the same branch of Christianity lol.

    b) itís completely detestable to be limping everyone based on their Ďgroup categoryí into the same pile. You should never mistake group identity for the individual lol. What the individual wants is different from what the group wants... the group isnít even well-defined as an entity with needs or desires lol.

    This is what both radical leftists and radical right-wingers get wrong.
    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

  32. #232

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Honestly, I think the main reason those extremist ideologies are still somewhat popular is because people like to use them to hide their own incompetence lol. And then thereís the odd, moral person, who supports them, although these are rare, I believe. I donít know anyone who supports radical rightism but I do know a morally good person who is a Marxist... Slavoj Zizek. That guy is a complete mystery to me lol. I donít even fully understand his views.
    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

  33. #233

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    (Actually, police should have the right to search Gender Studies students without a warrant... /s)
    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

  34. #234

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Speaking of racial policies, there is one that actually doesnít seem to be in the spotlight as much: quotas at universities lol. Asians need a higher SAT score than whites, Latinos and blacks, at Harvard, to be accepted. That is ridiculous lol. The idea of setting different SAT scores for different people is absurd. It undermines the educational system, and its also racist. But if you ask some Asian students there, some of them actually agree with it lolbecause Ďthey have to help those in needí. I think youíll help those in need by accepting people based on how intelligent they are rather than based on their race...
    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

  35. #235

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    BTW, the reason they did that is because Asians (note that I am not Asian myself, so Iím not speaking from a position of superiority or whatnot lol) have higher average IQs than either of these three groups. So they naturally have more Asian students... it really is quite grim, IMO.
    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

  36. #236

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Tying it all together, I can definitely see why Helz says we live in anti-intellectual times. It is quite depressing, but I believe better times are ahead. This corona crisis wonít be all bad lol. At the risk of comparing two things that shouldnít be compared, after the Black Death, wages rose. It is even believed by some that it contributed to the dissolution of serfdom, feudalism, pretty much the appearance of capitalism, too. We may see something similar here, especially seeing as the decision to go into isolation, which a lot of notable scientists disagreed with, was one made in haste.
    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

  37. #237

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Hmm, you may have a point about police brutality in general. IIRC, Surgeons, CEOs and police men have a high incidence of psychopathy relative to the rest of the population. So it would honestly not surprise me if there were some violent cops out there. Iíd also wager that the more violent ones, the ones we hear about, also have lower IQs (Iím not exactly expecting police officers to be beacons of enlightenment here).

    So are they more brutal than they should be? Undoubtedly, in some cases they are, yes. I did not know people had actually tried to impose legislation to allow the police to forcefully search black people lol. That sounds like such a dumb policy, too. Iíll say that, if Iím not mistaken, blacks do commit a disproportionate number of crimes relative to their population size, but thatís no reason to institute such a ridiculous policy lol. We should look at people on an individual basis, not based on their race lol. Otherwise thereís nothing stopping people from arresting law-abiding citizens just based on their colour. At that point it wonít even stop at colour, either. You could literally make a case that students should be searched without a warrant simply because a lot of revolutions or whatnot start on campuses, or in any case have the support of the students. Or, literally any group identity of some sort. Just pick your enemy.

    Itís kind of complicated when we start talking about subconscious racism. It is true that blacks commit more crimes, proportionally, than other groups (I believe), so itís tough to separate bias from just statistics. Do I think itís okay to charge people based on their race? Absolutely not, and like I said, thatís a very dangerous precedent that we should not set...
    They definitely do drugs in equal numbers. I don't know about other crimes, but I assume they are responsible for a disporportionate number of crimes due to being statistically likelier to have a lower socio-economic status. That probably feeds into the subconscious racism. It definitely exists. The police don't dare to treat a well-spoken white guy in a suit like a shabbily dressed black guy with a drawl. It's important to remember racism is still deeply embedded in American culture. They refer to undocumented immigrants as "illegal aliens" like some kind of independence day shit lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Speaking of racial policies, there is one that actually doesnít seem to be in the spotlight as much: quotas at universities lol. Asians need a higher SAT score than whites, Latinos and blacks, at Harvard, to be accepted. That is ridiculous lol. The idea of setting different SAT scores for different people is absurd. It undermines the educational system, and its also racist. But if you ask some Asian students there, some of them actually agree with it lolbecause Ďthey have to help those in needí. I think youíll help those in need by accepting people based on how intelligent they are rather than based on their race...
    How I feel about that heavily depends on their intentions, but broadly speaking I think domestic educational institutions have a responsibility to educate their own first and foremost and foreign students second, even if the presence of foreign students is wonderful for allowing diverse perspectives (like off the top of my head students in Russia tend to place much more emphasis on geometry and can bring something unique by studying math at British universities).

    I don't fundamentally oppose policies that discriminate based on race or gender. I support quotas in government because it's important that the people passing policies actually reflect the experiences and the interests of the generl population.
    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.

  38. #238

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    They refer to undocumented immigrants as "illegal aliens" like some kind of independence day shit lol.
    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.

  39. #239

    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.
    Just record yourself saying Ďaboutí or Ďeyí. Theyíll get the message. /s
    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

  40. #240

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    They definitely do drugs in equal numbers. I don't know about other crimes, but I assume they are responsible for a disporportionate number of crimes due to being statistically likelier to have a lower socio-economic status. That probably feeds into the subconscious racism. It definitely exists. The police don't dare to treat a well-spoken white guy in a suit like a shabbily dressed black guy with a drawl. It's important to remember racism is still deeply embedded in American culture. They refer to undocumented immigrants as "illegal aliens" like some kind of independence day shit lol.



    How I feel about that heavily depends on their intentions, but broadly speaking I think domestic educational institutions have a responsibility to educate their own first and foremost and foreign students second, even if the presence of foreign students is wonderful for allowing diverse perspectives (like off the top of my head students in Russia tend to place much more emphasis on geometry and can bring something unique by studying math at British universities).

    I don't fundamentally oppose policies that discriminate based on race or gender. I support quotas in government because it's important that the people passing policies actually reflect the experiences and the interests of the generl population.
    Interesting, so youíre 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, Iíve never thought about that. With regards to your first point, I sort of agree with you but in this instance, the quotas werenít meant for non-citizen Asians, but rather for Asians of all backgrounds lol. Both Asian-Americans and other Asians.
    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

  41. #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.

  42. #242

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Interesting, so youíre 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, Iíve never thought about that. With regards to your first point, I sort of agree with you but in this instance, the quotas werenít 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.

  43. #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.

  44. #244

  45. #245

  46. #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

  47. #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?

  48. #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.

  49. #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

  50. #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.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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