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

[Preety_India]

It's freedom of speech that turns into hate speech that's the problem. 

[Reciprocality]

11 hours ago, ArchangelG said:

Agreed.

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

 I think the tax funded public secotor in the us is a monstreously stabile and steady collective, i do not see your comment direct relation to mine and nor do i think it it will collapse any time soon.

Psychosis would be a designation begging thousand questions while the nihilism one begges but a few. 

It seems anti liberation of speech-therefore thought is coming to stay, atleast for 20/30 years, and we better suck it up.. taking responsebility for the REASONS it came.

Edit, that is to say: to make the many unequal outcomes in our societies to a lesser extent derivative of unequal oppurtunity, and to the furthest extent the result of those disinterested, apathetical to their place in the world.

This is ofcourse an immensly hard task, but one we can not afford giving up on.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Reciprocality

[ArchangelG]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

 I think the tax funded public secotor in the us is a monstreously stabile and steady collective, i do not see your comment direct relation to mine and nor do i think it it will collapse any time soon.

Psychosis would be a designation begging thousand questions while the nihilism one begges but a few. 

It seems anti liberation of speech-therefore thought is coming to stay, atleast for 20/30 years, and we better suck it up.. taking responsebility for the REASONS it came.

Edit, that is to say: to make the many unequal outcomes in our societies to a lesser extent derivative of unequal oppurtunity, and to the furthest extent the result of those disinterested, apathetical to their place in the world.

This is ofcourse an immensly hard task, but one we can not afford giving up on.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I was talking about the Swedish public sector. 

[Reciprocality]

2 hours ago, ArchangelG said:

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I was talking about the Swedish public sector. 

That were my mistake, haha. Should have connected that, for the swedes public sector are indeed somewhat psychotic, stockholm more than any.

[Hatfort]

12 hours ago, Preety_India said:

It's freedom of speech that turns into hate speech that's the problem. 

Hate speech is a problem, indeed. There are vulnerable people in society, like minorities that can never obtain political power to set the rules, for example, native Americans. Women, who have had less power than men through all history. LGTB people, who have dealt and deal with systemic hatred and offensive treatment. Inmigrants, which can be vulnerable economically and legally. Poor people, from any race. Blacks, slavery history, not that far from now. Children or elderly people, for obvious reasons.

When hate speech goes towards any of these more vulnerable people, we've historical evidence that this can become dangerous for their integrity, and the harm can come from the institutions or from other people.  As societies, we can aim for a more secure situation for all. Sometimes some people may need to be defended from the harassment of others, mostly when it's repeated or systemic. Where is the line where we should intervine or not? Difficult to say. As an example, it used to be normal to say hitting your wife is fine, should we allow that speech now, to someone that really believes it? Well, I thihnk at this point we've agreed to censor those speeches that directly look to harm any person or community. What about saying someone or a whole community is inferior? Is that fine? I don't think so, we gotto protect ourselves from ourselves as a community.

I'm just rambling.

[Reciprocality]

26 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Hate speech is a problem, indeed. There are vulnerable people in society, like minorities that can never obtain political power to set the rules, for example, native Americans. Women, who have had less power than men through all history. LGTB people, who have dealt and deal with systemic hatred and offensive treatment. Inmigrants, which can be vulnerable economically and legally. Poor people, from any race. Blacks, slavery history, not that far from now. Children or elderly people, for obvious reasons.

When hate speech goes towards any of these more vulnerable people, we've historical evidence that this can become dangerous for their integrity, and the harm can come from the institutions or from other people.  As societies, we can aim for a more secure situation for all. Sometimes some people may need to be defended from the harassment of others, mostly when it's repeated or systemic. Where is the line where we should intervine or not? Difficult to say. As an example, it used to be normal to say hitting your wife is fine, should we allow that speech now, to someone that really believes it? Well, I thihnk at this point we've agreed to censor those speeches that directly look to harm any person or community. What about saying someone or a whole community is inferior? Is that fine? I don't think so, we gotto protect ourselves from ourselves as a community.

I'm just rambling.

I think you are doing more then mere rambling, you are certeintly making good points and asking relevant questions

But i want you to clearify, on the one hand one can argue the ethics of censoring certain voices on a cartain platform, on the other one may speak of having a policeofficer pointing his gun at you because of your speech, that is the potential within any law not obeyed. On the first one i would deplatform the fuck out of many, many people. But i would let ANY opinion pass on the latter (in western societies). 

Edit: i would somewhat respect others voting for SOME restrictions on free speech while not doing it myself, other restrictions again i would sense strong repulsion towards. 

Edited November 7, 2020 by Reciprocality

[Moon]

Majority of people who are "free speech" aren't actively studying the belief systems of that which they're criticizing, they mostly just want to finger point at those who look different/"weird" due to race and cultural differences. Which is why it's racism more so than religious discriminaiton.

Not saying Islamic extremism isn't an issue in itself, but the people advocating for "free speech" aren't the ones trying to fix this problem from the root ??‍♀️

 

 

[Reciprocality]

5 minutes ago, Moon said:

Majority of people who are "free speech" aren't actively studying the belief systems of that which they're criticizing, they mostly just want to finger point at those who look different/"weird" due to race and cultural differences. Which is why it's racism more so than religious discriminaiton.

Not saying Islamic extremism isn't an issue in itself, but the people advocating for "free speech" aren't the ones trying to fix this problem from the root ??‍♀️

 

 

Absolutely agree, they do not even know that there is a problem. Yet still, do we need all opinions to be legal?

[PurpleTree]

7 minutes ago, Moon said:

Not saying Islamic extremism isn't an issue in itself, but the people advocating for "free speech" aren't the ones trying to fix this problem from the root ??‍♀️

How could for example French comic writers fix the root issue of "Islamic extremism" ? build a time machine and try to fix it back in time?

Go to Saudi Arabia etc.. and try to convince people to drop it and maybe even rewrite the book?