Shut up, you have free speech!

Moderators: I am nobody, Deku Tree

Post Reply
User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8687
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Shut up, you have free speech!

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:36 am

they say a dirty word

Does anybody actually watch MTV anymore though?...
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12507
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:02 am

I forgot to watch that in incognito and will now have Youtube suggesting it to me for two weeks. :/

Suggesting that the response to Sarkeesian's videos is limited to people making more videos and that she went to the UN over those videos is comically disingenuous. You cannot attempt to dismiss someone for having an agenda in the opening minutes of your video, then neglect to mention a storm of death and rape threats against your opposition while happily including no less than three examples of illegal responses from your opposition.

I broadly agree that buzzwords and getting people fired is unhelpful, but no one with a claim to objectivity can pretend the anti-PC side hasn't committed crimes as well.


EDIT: Though this is the kind of guy who accepts people can "defend their honor", then dismisses three gender identities as "Tumblr memes" that will end civilization. By his own logic, he really should't expect a measured response.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41031
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:20 am

Can somebody at least tell me what the thread/link is about? I'm assuming this is more GG drama?
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12507
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:29 am

It's about political correctness and brings up a number of examples that include GG, Sarkeesian, and MRAs.

User avatar
Kil'jaeden
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: in your mind

Post by Kil'jaeden » Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:37 am

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1586397, member: 34539"]I broadly agree that buzzwords and getting people fired is unhelpful, but no one with a claim to objectivity can pretend the anti-PC side hasn't committed crimes as well.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how threats on the internet by people mean much in this case. You can get those for just about anything. Last I checked, the anti-PC side is not following some religion that orders them to kill people for making them angry. There is not even one ideology, just opposition to something.

People can't respond how they want to, and you all know it. Someone donates to an anti-homosexual group, they get fired and persecuted. But you can't fire people for being pro-homosexual. That is not equal. Same with how men and women are treated in many situations. Same with anything.

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1586397, member: 34539"]EDIT: Though this is the kind of guy who accepts people can "defend their honor", then dismisses three gender identities as "Tumblr memes" that will end civilization. By his own logic, he really should't expect a measured response.[/QUOTE]

The Tumblr meme people can defend their own honor if they want to, if they have any. Saying that people can defend themselves is not an endorsement of other people. The last few minutes about how SJWs get offended for others is actually pretty accurate. I think it is a way to signal morality to their peers. Latching onto brown people, women, or homosexuals means gaining social credit for them. Well, for the straight white ones anyway.

If I have to hear the word privilege one more time... People where I am from don't know what "white privilege" is. It is some BS made up by people that are more privileged than most here. Middle class suburbs and gated communities spawn most of the SJW types and their allies. Have these people ever seen poverty before? I doubt it. I doubt they know what most of the people scraping by on low wages looks like. Or most people their own age being even poorer, with many addicted to drugs or just giving up. Sorry, the factories have gone to Mexico and half of the town is losing their job. Meanwhile, many of the jobs in the cities within 120 miles are being competed for by foreigners. I doubt they have ever been to Eastern Kentucky or West Virginia, where some people don't even have electricity in the poor counties. My own family derives from the poorest region in that area of Appalachia. Think coal miners and hillside farmers. These SJW types are an enemy as far as I am concerned.

Mansplaining is in the dictionary?I did not believe it, but there it is.
The man who is blind, deaf,and silent lives in peace.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28108
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:16 am

"Mansplaining." So just "explaining," then.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12507
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:54 am

Kil'jaeden, post: 1586968, member: 26719 wrote:I don't see how threats on the internet by people mean much in this case. You can get those for just about anything. Last I checked, the anti-PC side is not following some religion that orders them to kill people for making them angry. There is not even one ideology, just opposition to something.
A) I said committed crimes. Doxxing is a crime. You can't get around that.
B) Threats combined with doxxing, which is pretty damn common, lends credibility to the threat, and said threats are often incredibly violent. If you get a thousand of them, it isn't much consolation that 99.9% of the population would never act on it - that still leaves one person who would and knows where you live.
People can't respond how they want to, and you all know it. Someone donates to an anti-homosexual group, they get fired and persecuted. But you can't fire people for being pro-homosexual. That is not equal. Same with how men and women are treated in many situations. Same with anything.
Yeah, you can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_empl ... ted_States

Some of the grey states have employment protection in certain counties or cities, but the fact remains there are broad regions of this country where you can be fired from a private or even public job for being pro-LGBT or pro-any-number-of-things not covered by existing law.
The Tumblr meme people can defend their own honor if they want to, if they have any. Saying that people can defend themselves is not an endorsement of other people. The last few minutes about how SJWs get offended for others is actually pretty accurate. I think it is a way to signal morality to their peers. Latching onto brown people, women, or homosexuals means gaining social credit for them. Well, for the straight white ones anyway.
And I didn't say it was. I said admitting people can defend their honor, then insulting them, then ranting about how people get mad at you is irrational.
If I have to hear the word privilege one more time... People where I am from don't know what "white privilege" is. It is some BS made up by people that are more privileged than most here. Middle class suburbs and gated communities spawn most of the SJW types and their allies. Have these people ever seen poverty before? I doubt it. I doubt they know what most of the people scraping by on low wages looks like. Or most people their own age being even poorer, with many addicted to drugs or just giving up. Sorry, the factories have gone to Mexico and half of the town is losing their job. Meanwhile, many of the jobs in the cities within 120 miles are being competed for by foreigners. I doubt they have ever been to Eastern Kentucky or West Virginia, where some people don't even have electricity in the poor counties. My own family derives from the poorest region in that area of Appalachia. Think coal miners and hillside farmers. These SJW types are an enemy as far as I am concerned.
It's not a particularly meaningful concept when everyone has it terribly, no.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41031
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:19 am

Every time I see stuff like this, I am reading someone saying that we have freedom of speech which they don't understand is in a political context regarding government action against the words themselves. They don't understand the legal implications of the effect of those words having been spoken, which contextualizes it as an action. People don't get arrested for the words, they get arrested for contextualising their words as proof of criminal intent. "Freedom of Speech" is meant to protect people from scrutinizing government, not from being arrested for threating other people and businesses with illegal, violent acts.

You can also break it down into "We have freedom of speech unless you're criticising me which case how dare you oppress me." Saying you are going to do something illegal to someone or that you have done so even in a context where it is not true can be interpreted as a confession. You also had the right to remain silent, yet anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Kil'jaeden
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: in your mind

Post by Kil'jaeden » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:49 pm

Then you did not listen to it, because there was nothing about threatening people in there. I have never seen anyone try to say that free speech means not taking actual threats seriously.
The man who is blind, deaf,and silent lives in peace.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12507
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:38 pm

What are you even talking about? The video explicitly details a bomb threat against GG and neglects to mention that GG's supporters were plenty happy to use or downplay individual threats to shut down their opponents. Both are crimes, and mentioning only one is disingenuous.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8687
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:38 am

I think a majority of people in this debate realize that both doxxing and threats happen pretty majorly by third party trolls since several notable people on both sides have to deal with those all the time. Not saying it doesn't suck, just saying you can't pin it all to one side when it happens to both.[DOUBLEPOST=1455961133,1455960801][/DOUBLEPOST][QUOTE="International Space Stalin, post: 1586407, member: 25415"]Can somebody at least tell me what the thread/link is about? I'm assuming this is more GG drama?[/QUOTE]
Well to be honest I don't how much it'll affect your suggestions. It's a video by a liberal agnostic who regularly mocks other videos for comedy's sake and for the sake of political thought. I mean if you think that will mess with your stuff then okay, but just clarifying it's not like I posted a fox news link or anything.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
Kil'jaeden
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: in your mind

Post by Kil'jaeden » Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:13 am

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1587016, member: 34539"]What are you even talking about? The video explicitly details a bomb threat against GG and neglects to mention that GG's supporters were plenty happy to use or downplay individual threats to shut down their opponents. Both are crimes, and mentioning only one is disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

No one ever said that free speech means threatening to blow things up is legal. No one said that. Is that clear enough? Besides that, we heard enough from the other side about their awful suffering, so we don't need to drag that out again. It is not about that Gamergate stuff anyway. The one example was about it to illustrate how an event was shut down. I don't recall anyone doing that to supporters of Saint Zoe or Saint Anita at an event to shut it down. A lot of individual and anonymous threats and trolls, sure. But multiple bomb threats against people for being somewhere? Did that happen?
The man who is blind, deaf,and silent lives in peace.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12507
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:36 am

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1586397, member: 34539"]
Suggesting that the response to Sarkeesian's videos is limited to people making more videos and that she went to the UN over those videos is comically disingenuous. You cannot attempt to dismiss someone for having an agenda in the opening minutes of your video, then neglect to mention a storm of death and rape threats against your opposition while happily including no less than three examples of illegal responses from your opposition.

I broadly agree that buzzwords and getting people fired is unhelpful, but no one with a claim to objectivity can pretend the anti-PC side hasn't committed crimes as well.
[/quote]

I point out this guy has left out his own side's crimes.

[QUOTE="Kil'jaeden, post: 1586968, member: 26719"]I don't see how threats on the internet by people mean much in this case. You can get those for just about anything. Last I checked, the anti-PC side is not following some religion that orders them to kill people for making them angry. There is not even one ideology, just opposition to something.
[/quote]

You respond by saying threats on the internet don't mean much, which in the context of what you quoted cannot be interpreted as anything other than an objection to "both sides have committed crimes", because it has absolutely nothing to do with the first part of that sentence.

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1586976, member: 34539"]A) I said committed crimes. Doxxing is a crime. You can't get around that.
B) Threats combined with doxxing, which is pretty damn common, lends credibility to the threat, and said threats are often incredibly violent. If you get a thousand of them, it isn't much consolation that 99.9% of the population would never act on it - that still leaves one person who would and knows where you live.
[/QUOTE]

I say threats combined with knowledge of the target's location are dangerous and need to be taken seriously.

[QUOTE="Kil'jaeden, post: 1587009, member: 26719"]Then you did not listen to it, because there was nothing about threatening people in there. I have never seen anyone try to say that free speech means not taking actual threats seriously.[/QUOTE]

You suggest I haven't watched the video, because there's nothing about threats. Keeping in mind that the post that started this was me objecting to the guy's failure to mention the threats against Sarkeesian, I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell me. The second sentence is beside the point: I doubt anyone has explicitly said the threats are protected speech, but it is not at all difficult to find GG or MRA supporters who immediately claimed the threats were false flag attacks on their own movement's ability to communicate with absolutely 0 evidence to support it. People were plenty happy to deny the validity of threats that supported their message, and that's a huge piece of why people are responding the way they're shown in the video. That does not make pulling fire alarms or calling in bomb threats and less illegal, but it is an essential piece of information in a balanced discussion of this issue. As I originally said, crimes have been committed on both sides.

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1587016, member: 34539"]What are you even talking about? The video explicitly details a bomb threat against GG and neglects to mention that GG's supporters were plenty happy to use or downplay individual threats to shut down their opponents. Both are crimes, and mentioning only one is disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

I point out that the video quite blatantly covers threatening people while reiterating my original point.

[QUOTE="Kil'jaeden, post: 1587051, member: 26719"]No one ever said that free speech means threatening to blow things up is legal. No one said that. Is that clear enough? Besides that, we heard enough from the other side about their awful suffering, so we don't need to drag that out again. It is not about that Gamergate stuff anyway. The one example was about it to illustrate how an event was shut down. I don't recall anyone doing that to supporters of Saint Zoe or Saint Anita at an event to shut it down. A lot of individual and anonymous threats and trolls, sure. But multiple bomb threats against people for being somewhere? Did that happen?[/QUOTE]

You respond by accusing me of suggesting someone thought free speech meant bomb threats were legal, which is completely the opposite of everything I've said. Bomb threats, rape threats, pulling fire alarms, and mass shooting threats are all illegal and attacks on someone's free speech. For the entirely too many-th time in this thread, it is absurd to attack one side for committing these crimes while actively denying (again, his claim that Sarkeesian received only criticism) the other side's response.

And yes, mass shooting threats happened: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah ... an-threat/


I don't begin to see how anything I've said here is controversial.

User avatar
Kil'jaeden
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: in your mind

Post by Kil'jaeden » Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:53 pm

I am nobody, post: 1587053, member: 34539 wrote:You respond by accusing me of suggesting someone thought free speech meant bomb threats were legal, which is completely the opposite of everything I've said. Bomb threats, rape threats, pulling fire alarms, and mass shooting threats are all illegal and attacks on someone's free speech. For the entirely too many-th time in this thread, it is absurd to attack one side for committing these crimes while actively denying (again, his claim that Sarkeesian received only criticism) the other side's response.
That was not for you, it was for what AI said:
They don't understand the legal implications of the effect of those words having been spoken, which contextualizes it as an action. People don't get arrested for the words, they get arrested for contextualising their words as proof of criminal intent. "Freedom of Speech" is meant to protect people from scrutinizing government, not from being arrested for threating other people and businesses with illegal, violent acts.
This is a very common response, right up there with "but not freedom from consequences."
I am nobody, post: 1587016, member: 34539 wrote:What are you even talking about? The video explicitly details a bomb threat against GG and neglects to mention that GG's supporters were plenty happy to use or downplay individual threats to shut down their opponents. Both are crimes, and mentioning only one is disingenuous.
I thought you were trying to imply that the guy that made the video is fine with threats against other people for not agreeing with him. I thought you understood from the start that my post not directed toward you, and wondered what your problem was.
I am nobody, post: 1587053, member: 34539 wrote:You suggest I haven't watched the video, because there's nothing about threats. Keeping in mind that the post that started this was me objecting to the guy's failure to mention the threats against Sarkeesian, I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell me. The second sentence is beside the point: I doubt anyone has explicitly said the threats are protected speech, but it is not at all difficult to find GG or MRA supporters who immediately claimed the threats were false flag attacks on their own movement's ability to communicate with absolutely 0 evidence to support it. People were plenty happy to deny the validity of threats that supported their message, and that's a huge piece of why people are responding the way they're shown in the video. That does not make pulling fire alarms or calling in bomb threats and less illegal, but it is an essential piece of information in a balanced discussion of this issue. As I originally said, crimes have been committed on both sides.
Actually, that was for AI, not you. I thought you understood that from the start. He explicitly said something about that. Not that I expect a worthwhile response from him. I would have quoted you if I wanted to say you had not watched it. But why do you care so much about Gamergate? The video is not about that. You can go back and forth with "and they did this but they did that!" all day. It is not going to give either side of that debate any credit.
I am nobody, post: 1587053, member: 34539 wrote:You respond by saying threats on the internet don't mean much, which in the context of what you quoted cannot be interpreted as anything other than an objection to "both sides have committed crimes", because it has absolutely nothing to do with the first part of that sentence.
I thought I made it clear why I said that. You have some issue with Gamergate, and want to use "they threatened people!" to discredit one side or the other. The problem with that is that Gamergate sides are not formal doctrinal groups of any sort, and actually have very little unity at all. This means that most people on either side can honestly disavow the threats as not being their responsibility, since there is no group requirement to approve of them. The only thing uniting those groups is being for or against one thing.

The likely reason that he did not include incidents against the other side is either bias against them, or their perpetual victim card. We have heard of their suffering, but not as much about the other side's.
The man who is blind, deaf,and silent lives in peace.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12507
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:09 pm

Not really, no. I know plenty of people who supported GG's call for media reform without supporting or making threats. The ones I didn't have a problem with, however, also acknowledged that the threats were nonetheless real and a serious problem. If this guy had just said "anti-GG called in a bomb threat" and left it at that, I wouldn't have cared. But he didn't. He accused Sarkeesian of going to the UN over criticisms.

I even went back and listened to it again to get his exact quote:
For example, when Anita Sarkeesian makes a video that people disagree with, the consequences of that are that people are going to make videos that disagree with the statements she's made. She, however, disagrees she should deal with these consequences, so she has gone to Google, the UN, and Twitter and has tried to silence people who disagree with her.
It's not just he doesn't include "incidents against the other side", it's that he uses omitting them to present the consequences of those crimes as being in response to civil criticism, and then uses that to present said crimes' target as a hypocritical opponent of free speech. I've criticized Sarkeesian plenty in the past, and my response to this statement would be exactly the same even if it was about Neo Nazis - the problem is not who he's criticizing, it's that making such blatantly false statements to further a point is disgusting.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8687
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:19 pm

Seemingly the main problem that people have (And probably the main one I have) with Sarkeesian going to the UN in the first place over it is she makes it seem like it's her opposition sending them at her rather than as I said, third party individuals who are trolls, and also doesn't mention that people who oppose her get those very same threats.
She makes it seem like the big bad Gamergate is sending her the threats, when people who support gamergate get the same crap.

It doesn't necessarily mean they aren't a problem, but it does show that she's just trying to gain sympathy votes since she has nothing to stand on otherwise.
She literally did try to have her opposition silenced through law, using this to worm her way in.

ALL THAT said, the main topic here is "Is PC destroying free speech?"
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28108
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:55 pm

I don't know why anyone even takes the UN seriously when it comes to social issues anyway.

http://thegg.net/opinion-editorial/will ... nst-women/
“GENEVA (10 February 2016) – Japan’s record on women’s rights will be examined by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on 16 February. Japan has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and so is reviewed regularly by the Committee on how it is implementing the Convention.

Among the possible issues for discussion between CEDAW and a delegation from the Japanese Government are:Banning the sale of video games or cartoons involving sexual violence against women; employment equality, illegal dismissal of women due to pregnancy and childbirth; sexual harassment in the workplace; reintegration into school textbooks of issue of “comfort women”; compensation for women with disabilities sterilised against their will; effect on women, particularly pregnant women, of health programmes introduced after the Fukushima nuclear disaster; difference in pension benefits for men and women, poverty among older women.” –United Nations
"Banning anime and games involving sexual violence against women" is a ridiculous thing to suggest. First of all, it's only "protecting" women. Second, it's clearly violating creative freedoms. And finally...just how simply retarded is it that one specific type of violence (an easily arguably lesser violence compared to murder and torture--say hello to CoD and Saw for me, will you) is targeted for a ban? I don't agree at all that sexual violence is somehow worse than all other types of violence by some magical feminist default set without argument and imposed upon everyone. At least try to ban all sexual violence against all people, or ban all violence. If you're going to impose upon people then do it all the way.

^ Oh, and if it isn't obvious enough, my answer to that question is yes, PC is destroying free speech.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12931
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Contact:

Post by Random User » Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:36 am

Hahaha, the UN worried about women? They certainly weren't when their blue helmets were committing sex crimes.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”