What's more important, freedom of speech or the feelings or certain individuals/group

[Carl-Richard]

51 minutes ago, w4read said:

So therefore, what seemed like som totally useless and unnecessary provocation could turn out to be really important in order to put light on the issue. 

Light it up but don't burn it to the ground.

[Reciprocality]

Feelings presuppose the rationale by which freespeech could ever be enacted as law.

More precise we can call it 'emotions', it is with the emotions of the speaker as well as listener in mind such laws could ever be sustainable, if there were no emotions in the reciever's end to take into considerations the law would be extranous itself, as it even more obvious is with the one speaking.

There is due to extreme intricacies speech becomes hatered to degrees beyond 'opinions in and by itself', when have a statement become explicit in its prescriptions as opposed to relatively innocent descriptions? Could there even be such a thing as an opinion without underlying calls to actions, in a fatalistic sense? (i would presume the yellow types sees the connection between fatalism and a totality as its own essence)

I think the mere manifistation of a human 'neccesarily aiming' for which 'fact' to point forward is testament to some unified field *those in between, ultimatley causing implications within his 'mere' usage of any data.

Seeing that the bondraries between calls to action and opinions are this emorpheus i can hardly see how a third boundrary of good/evil can possibly be drawn so not to cause more harm then good in a more then 10 year timeframe, then again; begging the question. All under the premise that the interactions concerned the humans inbetween were on governmental property opperating as civilians as opposed to paid for their service in that exact area, to not utter the latter caveat would be hillariously destructive to the cause.

*those as in the descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy.

[The Don]

On 10/29/2020 at 2:09 PM, PurpleTree said:

Or the feelings of certain individuals who feel discriminated against?

It's called freedom of speech because what you call "hate speech" must be allowed at any cost. Otherwise, it's no longer freedom of speech.

When somebody insults you and you feel marginalized, recognize that not the insult is the problem. See that your mind is falling into the trap of the provocation.

Take this ancient (wise) advice: "Remember, it is not enough to be hit or insulted to be harmed, you must believe that you are being harmed. If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation." - Epictetus

I'm actually grateful for those who demonize and insult me. I have the chance to practice my resilience. I just don't have to feel insulted. It's up to me to decide how I respond to the way I feel.

Freedom of speech includes the so-called "hate speech".

On a side note, if someone just insulted you and you simply can't get over it, something's wrong with you. You're very sensible and not prepared for life, meaning that life can be harsh sometimes.

Edited November 5, 2020 by The Don
To add a line.

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, The Don said:

I'm actually grateful for those who demonize and insult me. I have the chance to practice my resilience.

So you mean people who get insulted for their skin color should  change their skin color? 

[The Don]

12 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

So you mean people who get insulted for their skin color should  change their skin color? 

No. With all due respect, that's a foolish argument. People don't decide the color of their skin. They can't change the color of their skin.

A person who insults someone based on the color of his skin has serious mental issues and can't be taken seriously. He's delusional.

Why would you allow a delusional, racist person to have power over you by taking personal a moronic insult?

Take my example. I've been called a white supremacist, racists, and many other names just for the fact that I promote conservative values. And that's okay. People can label me according to their understanding of reality. It's their right to paint me according to their beliefs.

With that being said, I don't have to feel hurt just because some people decided to slander me. And I don't have to restrict your rights to freedom of speech just because nincompoops exist in our societies.

We just have to not take them seriously and expose them all the time.

That's my answer to your question.

Edited November 5, 2020 by The Don
To add a line.

[Rilles]

@The Don Are you legitimizing slurs based on the fact that people should have thicker skin? Wow. 

Freedom of speech does not include hate speech, thats why its a crime in most countries. 

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, The Don said:

We just have to not take them seriously and expose them all the time.

The problem with the whole freedom of speech situation is that most people use freedom of speech or rather are quick to misuse it for hate speech, racism, propaganda and offending people for innocuous reasons, it's rarely ever freedom of speech for promoting healthy values. 

In reality you will see trolls and bullies on the internet insulting and offending people on purpose and then using freedom of speech as an excuse. 

Case in point. 

Milo Yiannopoulos 

He called a black Hollywood actor a chimpanzee or something like that and insulted her publicly on social media and then his fans in large numbers attacked her relentlessly and bullied her. 

Later when interviewed about this incident, Milo defended it by saying that it was his right to freedom of speech. 

Incidents like this remind people that often freedom of speech becomes or is used as a license to abuse people and get away with bad behavior. 

I think this is the reason that when anyone talks about freedom of speech, they're never taken seriously. 

First resolve the root problem of the abuse of freedom of speech. 

After that have a discussion on how freedom of speech can be used safely to not cause any mental or physical harm to vulnerable groups. 

That's when people will rethink freedom of speech and take it for what it's worth. 

 

[Hatfort]

Can I go to the church on Sunday and start shouting my own speepch with a megaphone while the priest says his prayers and Bible stuff? It's more important my freedom of speech, of course, so the feelings of the priest and his believers don't matter and I am entitled to make my show. Can I take a megaphon and start shouting my speech in the middle of the night in the street?

If you oppose these, you are against freedom of speech.

[No Self]

[The Don]

On 11/5/2020 at 10:22 AM, Preety_India said:

The problem with the whole freedom of speech situation is that most people use freedom of speech or rather are quick to misuse it for hate speech, racism, propaganda and offending people for innocuous reasons, it's rarely ever freedom of speech for promoting healthy values. 

So what? In a free society people take risks.

Bad people will always exist, no matter what you do. It's utopian to think that people are basically good and that someday everything will be perfect. It's just not possible.

Let's be realistic here.

Freedom of speech must be preserved.

And by the way, life is seriously not safe. No matter what you do or think, there will always be a chance to get hit by a car. You're never safe from anything.

Life is about survival and shouldn't be taken for granted.

Generally speaking, you'd be better off living life fully than being afraid all the time and not be able to enjoy the moment.

[Preety_India]

 

4 minutes ago, The Don said:

So what? In a free society people take risks.

Bad people will always exist, no matter what you do. It's utopian to think that people are basically good and that someday everything will be perfect. It's just not possible.

Let's be realistic here.

Freedom of speech must be preserved.

And by the way, life is seriously not safe. No matter what you do or think, there will always be a chance to get hit by a car. You're never safe from anything.

Life is about survival and shouldn't be taken for granted.

Generally speaking, you'd be better off living life fully than being afraid all the time and not be able to enjoy the moment.

 

What is it that you want freedom of speech for? Are you oppressed in some manner that you need it so desperately? 

What is it that you would have wanted to say that you're not allowed to say that lack of freedom of speech is not allowing you. Let's hear it. 

Because I do know that in 21st century, almost everyone has the right to say even the nastiest words. So what is it that is not allowed or censored? Let's hear it. 

Most probably it will be some racist bullshit.. 

[PurpleTree]

7 minutes ago, The Don said:

So what? In a free society people take risks.

Bad people will always exist, no matter what you do. It's utopian to think that people are basically good and that someday everything will be perfect. It's just not possible.

Let's be realistic here.

Freedom of speech must be preserved.

And by the way, life is seriously not safe. No matter what you do or think, there will always be a chance to get hit by a car. You're never safe from anything.

Life is about survival and shouldn't be taken for granted.

Generally speaking, you'd be better off living life fully than being afraid all the time and not be able to enjoy the moment.

In some Eastern European countries and also Turkey etc. populist politicians used democracy and freedom of speech to get elected.

And now they are dismantling freedom of speech in some ways. For example ban government critical newspapers etc.

How do we stop such things from happening?

[ArchangelG]

The line is very fine.

A few weeks ago I read about a 75 year old lady, here in sweden, who wrote on social media something along the lines:"those savages should be sent back to the desert" refering to middle eastern immigrants. She was fined about 1000 dollars. 

Right or wrong?

[PurpleTree]

11 minutes ago, ArchangelG said:

The line is very fine.

A few weeks ago I read about a 75 year old lady, here in sweden, who wrote on social media something along the lines:"those savages should be sent back to the desert" refering to middle eastern immigrants. She was fined about 1000 dollars. 

Right or wrong?

Was she referring to the recent terror attacks in Europe?

 

Also if she was just talking to a friend and said the same thing. Then it would just be her bigoted opinion.

But social media changes everything and if she's 75 she's probably not that well versed in social media etc.

 

I'd say she's probably wrong/too much to post that on social media. It goes in the territory of hate-speech etc.,  there need to be clear rules to whats allowed and what isn't on social media.

Edited November 6, 2020 by PurpleTree

[Reciprocality]

20 minutes ago, ArchangelG said:

The line is very fine.

A few weeks ago I read about a 75 year old lady, here in sweden, who wrote on social media something along the lines:"those savages should be sent back to the desert" refering to middle eastern immigrants. She was fined about 1000 dollars. 

Right or wrong?

Pure insanity to make such a thing illegal, to an ultimate extent suicidal and nihilistic.

[PurpleTree]

How about groups like the black israelites.

Do they need to be fined 1000$ each time they cross a line? and what's the line?

 

lol what a mess this video is, i can't listen to all these people shouting for more than 2 mins

[Rilles]

12 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

How about groups like the black israelites.

Do they need to be fined 1000$ each time they cross a line? and what's the line?

 

lol what a mess this video is, i can't listen to all these people shouting for more than 2 mins

Its very sensitive, there is no black and white (no pun intended). We have to go case by case.

[ArchangelG]

47 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Was she referring to the recent terror attacks in Europe?

No, nothing to do with recent events. I think it was gangviolence if I'm not mistaken.

52 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I'd say she's probably wrong/too much to post that on social media. It goes in the territory of hate-speech etc.,  there need to be clear rules to whats allowed and what isn't on social media.

What is hate speech exactly? 

 

[Hatfort]

This is quite a black or white set out. One thing or the other.

Things are more complicated. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, there is a cultural clash. in Western culture, it's normal and accepted those kinds of satire comics where everything can be made fun of. For religious people, particularly the ones that are not that familiar with the western culture, it's an offense to their identity. Should this mockes be ilegal? I don't think so, it is a freedom of speech matter, and the context of a satire comic magazine should be understood as what it is. The prohibition to depict their prophet is for Muslims, the rest of the world that aren't, don't need to follow that rule, but the problem is that the most closeminded believers there's only one truth, theirs, so they can't accept that this prohibition isn't universal. They can't even mentally process this.

There are also security reasons to consider, we live in a global world now and there's been militar hostility towards the Middle East from the West and terrorist attacks the other way around. So what do we do? It's complicated. We are in this world together, yes, the Middle East is more undeveloped and they can act with stage red violence easily. The West has been making warzones on these areas for decades and those radicals have received training, technology and weapons from the West. The more developed part should accept a bigger burden and try to put some consciousness into these matters.

Putting a fine to this old woman is not right. Yeah, calling savages to other cultures is good old fashioned racism or xenophobia, but she doesn't know better and there are other ways to confront what she did.

[ArchangelG]

48 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Pure insanity to make such a thing illegal, to an ultimate extent suicidal and nihilistic.

Agreed.

To me it looks like the whole tax funded public sector is in a state of collective psychosis ready to collapse.