Poll of the Day > Free speech does not equal Hate speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

Saying "I don't like ____ and feel ____ should be done" is an example of free speech. Hypotheticals, no matter if they're rooted in hatred, have no reason to be suppressed unless you hold similar but opposing views and are a hypocrite... Actively planning to infringe on the legally guaranteed rights of another, or following through with it, is a crime.

Antifa and their dumb-as-shit fan club are about as liberal as Kim Jong Un, they simply don't have millions of soldiers to impose their will for them.
---

Free speech isn't a right to have a platform, it is a protection from the government. Not from other citizens. If other citizens want to shoot down your message, you'll have to deal with it.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Hypotheticals, no matter if they're rooted in hatred, have no reason to be suppressed unless you hold similar but opposing views and are a hypocrite

If those hypotheticals rooted in hatred are destructive, are causing damage, and are failing to provide any tangible benefit, I fail to see the argument for why they couldn't be suppressed.
---

Why is TC pushing fascist beliefs on us?
Why are you guys taking the bait?
Why do Canadians not understand The First Amendment?
---

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Hypotheticals, no matter if they're rooted in hatred, have no reason to be suppressed unless you hold similar but opposing views and are a hypocrite

If those hypotheticals rooted in hatred are destructive, are causing damage, and are failing to provide any tangible benefit, I fail to see the argument for why they couldn't be suppressed.

Because wanting to be free is destructive and fails to provide tangible benefit to a tyrannical rule. It's pretty fucking subjective and just works to piss off the people when democracy already stops fucked up fringe views from becoming law.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Hypotheticals, no matter if they're rooted in hatred, have no reason to be suppressed unless you hold similar but opposing views and are a hypocrite

If those hypotheticals rooted in hatred are destructive, are causing damage, and are failing to provide any tangible benefit, I fail to see the argument for why they couldn't be suppressed.

Because wanting to be free is destructive and fails to provide tangible benefit to a tyrannical rule. It's pretty fucking subjective and just works to piss off the people when democracy already stops fucked up fringe views from becoming law.

Wanting to be free *isn't* destructive, though. That's eminently demonstrable by just looking at the state of free countries on the globe and comparing them to dictatorships.

And I know of plenty of countries that restrict hateful rhetoric and the people there don't seem all that pissed off about it, so I don't buy that as an excuse either.
---

TC posts a dumb thread on an obvious gimmick account, gets Zeus and Adjil to fight about it for 5+ pages.

A+ trolling, I tip my hat to you good sir.
---

Zareth posted...

TC posts a dumb thread on an obvious gimmick account, gets Zeus and Adjil to fight about it for 5+ pages.

A+ trolling, I tip my hat to you good sir.

10 PPP? How droll...
---

If you incite violence towards someone you disagree with, regardless of which side you're on, you're a criminal.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

If you incite violence towards someone you disagree with, regardless of which side you're on, you're a criminal.

That's the easiest way to put it.
---

adjl posted...

10 PPP? How droll...

Whoa look at this cool guy over here who cares about people's board viewing settings.
---

Zareth posted...

adjl posted...

10 PPP? How droll...

Whoa look at this cool guy over here who cares about people's board viewing settings.

And "how droll" is just about as pretentious as possible (and a sign of conceding the argument). Terrible.
---

Zareth posted...

adjl posted...

10 PPP? How droll...

Whoa look at this cool guy over here who cares about people's board viewing settings.

Verily, I am the epitome of coolness.
---

Slippery slope absolutely applies here. What qualifies as hate speech is fairly subjective and a restriction like that worries me when pretty everything you say offends somebody in 2017. I imagine we should ban the Quran then too right with its hateful attitudes toward women and homosexuals? See? You aren't enlightened. You're just an old school fascist douche

Zareth posted...

adjl posted...

10 PPP? How droll...

Whoa look at this cool guy over here who cares about people's board viewing settings.

You must be a masochist to view the boards on default posts per page.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Apparently Republican lawmakers are SJWs now, because about two dozen of them have signalled their agreement with what adjl said.

When Zeus is forced to disagree with a Republican a syntax error occurs and a black hole opens somewhere in the universe.
---

adjl posted...

There's literally an entire class of reference text devoted to English words that mean the same thing as other words, and a term to describe such words.

Similar to =/= Same

adjl posted...

And they typically don't, because that's how implications work. "Neo-" is only really necessary when you do actually need to differentiate them from the historical party. Most of the time, there isn't going to be any ambiguity for leaving it out.

There's a pretty massive ambiguity in leaving it out because it was a real political group and many of the values ascribed to Nazis weren't held by the ACTUAL Nazis since the organization also compromised just normal German soldiers. More importantly, the problem with Nazis wasn't merely a matter of they had racist beliefs but the fact that they were invading other nations which is something you far-leftists who know very little about history seem to forget.

adjl posted...

Nazis didn't really support socialism. Including "socialist" in the name was largely just an effort to attract younger, disenfranchised workers who liked the sound of it; the party itself was modeled pretty much entirely off of Italian fascism.

"We could solve a mystery / Or re-write history! / Ducktales, whoo ooh!"

Just because you don't like the fact that many of the most reprehensible regimes throughout history were either socialist or rooted in socialism -- because socialism, as a statist philosophy, lends itself very well to that sort of stuff -- doesn't stop their socialist connections.

adjl posted...

No, but it does mean they're assholes, and you should probably avoid hanging out with them if you want to be taken seriously.

Says the guy who outright supports BLM, Antifa, and other violent groups.

adjl posted...

It's hardly conclusive, but if somebody spends this much time resisting criticizing Nazis, that definitely suggests they actually like Nazis. Again, it's very simple to fix this. Pretty much everyone has an easy time saying "Nazis suck." Because, you know, Nazis suck. That is, unless you don't actually feel that Nazis suck, in which case you're sympathizing with Nazis, which - by definition - would make you a Nazi sympathizer.

Because they're not fucking Nazis. If I said that somebody wasn't gay, that doesn't magically make gay. If I said that somebody wasn't a murderer, that wouldn't make me a murderer. However, in batshit crazy land, pointing that somebody isn't a thing apparently makes somebody that thing which is why nobody in their right mind should want to live in batshit crazy land and every rational person should resist the spread of batshit crazy land by you and SJW supporters.

And, quite frankly, calling Neo-Nazis Nazis diminishes the terror of the original Nazis making them tamer which, if anything, literally makes you a Nazi sympathizer because you are cleaning up their image by relating them to objectively less horrifying people.
---

adjl posted...

No, but it does mean they're assholes, and you should probably avoid hanging out with them if you want to be taken seriously.

If I wanted to avoid hanging out with assholes, I'd have to add you to my ignore list and neither of us wants that. Well, maybe you want that, but I don't.
---

Blasted_Fury posted...

Zeus posted...

No, I answered the question behind your line of reasoning, which is the only question that matters.

the fuck are you talking about dude

just answer my question, not the "question behind your line of reasoning"

that doesn't even make sense

why won't you tell me what "neo", like as in "neo-nazi", means.

just say it.

I answered your question despite the fact you never answered mine, nor will you answer the follow-up question which is why does every reputable news source not refer to them as Nazis? (Hint: Because they're not Nazis. Hence why organizations call them alt-right (which is a discredit to the alt right), white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, etc.) The only ones rather wrongly calling them Nazis are the ignorant, far-left propagandist sources.

darkknight109 posted...

If you think Canada constitutes a nation where free speech is heavily restricted, you badly need to get out more.

And if you think speech is free in Canada, you need to get out more. Like preferably out of the country. I left and never looked back, other than to laugh at the insane abuses against freedoms which are taken for granted in the US

darkknight109 posted...

...says the "left-leaning centrist".

Yes, centrism means calling out far-left shitbags when they're being shitbags. The fact that the far-left is so insane is why I've never moved further left on the spectrum.

darkknight109 posted...

You don't actually. Lots of places in the world stipulate that hate speech falls under the same category as threats or libel or slander - speech that is unacceptable and destructive and therefore banned. And, honestly, I don't really see anything wrong with that. I'm fine with the status quo, where bigots are allowed to air their views; but if the government decided tomorrow that it was banning discriminatory hate speech, I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered.

You do actually if you want to have a free culture. As for libel/slander laws, NOBODY in the US is arrested for that because we're a free nation as opposed to places where if somebody claims something is untrue, you can wind up in prison. You can be *sued* for libel/slander in the US, but that's a civil matter and even if you can't pay, you don't wind up in prison.

And, in general, just because we recognize that there are absolute limits to free speech -- shouting fire in a crowded movie theater -- does not mean we should curtail anything that offends you. You would have people put in jail for suggesting welfare reform or talking about race relations in an unfavorable light. Which, again, is typical of the far-left which, on many levels, is no different than the far-right.
---

darkknight109 posted...

How many times are you going to post that picture in that thread?

Did you just find it and think it's really witty or something?

Depends. How many times are you and others going to embody the values represented by that book?

darkknight109 posted...

Apparently Republican lawmakers are SJWs now, because about two dozen of them have signalled their agreement with what adjl said.

Except no, because they criticized them as NEO-Nazis and even then it was for political gain.

darkknight109 posted...

That Nazis were associated with socialism in the sense that they liked to kill socialists. Their main rivals for much of their pre-war existence was the communist party and the democratic socialists.

Because apparently killing rival socialists means you're not socialist? Because that's flimsy, even for you.

Clench281 posted...

Free speech isn't a right to have a platform, it is a protection from the government. Not from other citizens. If other citizens want to shoot down your message, you'll have to deal with it.

Actually, free speech *does* guarantee you the right to have a platform because it enables you to voice those views in a public setting. Nobody has to really pay attention to what you have to say, mind you, but you're allowed to say it. The "alt-right" groups had even received permits for their event, unlike the counter-protestors who came there to viciously assault them and consequently are completely in the wrong despite any ideologies held by the groups because, as always, using violence to suppress speech is worse than the most reprehensible speech on the planet and anybody who tries to tell you differently is a fascist ass clown who, in all likelihood, would love to create a state where only the opinions they like are permitted.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Hypotheticals, no matter if they're rooted in hatred, have no reason to be suppressed unless you hold similar but opposing views and are a hypocrite

If those hypotheticals rooted in hatred are destructive, are causing damage, and are failing to provide any tangible benefit, I fail to see the argument for why they couldn't be suppressed.

Because wanting to be free is destructive and fails to provide tangible benefit to a tyrannical rule. It's pretty fucking subjective and just works to piss off the people when democracy already stops fucked up fringe views from becoming law.

This. The US is a nation founded on the basic understanding that truly free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and all other freedoms.

Zareth posted...

TC posts a dumb thread on an obvious gimmick account, gets Zeus and Adjil to fight about it for 5+ pages.

A+ trolling, I tip my hat to you good sir.

Considering how often Adjl and I argue it's not much of an accomplishment.
---

Zeus posted...

And if you think speech is free in Canada, you need to get out more. Like preferably out of the country. I left and never looked back, other than to laugh at the insane abuses against freedoms which are taken for granted in the US

Can't say I've ever had any issue voicing my opinions here - never been threatened or charged or anything. Are you sure you're not confusing Canada with North Korea?

Zeus posted...

Yes, centrism means calling out far-left shitbags when they're being shitbags. The fact that the far-left is so insane is why I've never moved further left on the spectrum.

Except you didn't say "far-left" in your first post - you said "leftist".

Doesn't sound to me like you're left-leaning at all.

Zeus posted...

You do actually if you want to have a free culture.

Nope! There's plenty of free cultures around the world that have restrictions on free speech. Like Germany. Or Australia. Or Brazil. Or the Netherlands. or the UK.

Zeus posted...

As for libel/slander laws, NOBODY in the US is arrested for that because we're a free nation as opposed to places where if somebody claims something is untrue, you can wind up in prison. You can be *sued* for libel/slander in the US, but that's a civil matter and even if you can't pay, you don't wind up in prison.

I don't recall ever bringing up the subject of prison in my example.

Whether it's a civil or criminal matter, libel and slander are still violations of US law; ergo, the US has those same "free speech restrictions" you're railing against.
---

Zeus posted...

And, in general, just because we recognize that there are absolute limits to free speech -- shouting fire in a crowded movie theater -- does not mean we should curtail anything that offends you.

Never said we should. I can think of several things that offend me that I still believe should be 100% legal to voice (criticism of religion, anti-immigration nonsense, suggesting that the Star Wars prequels weren't completely terrible, etc.). Hate speech, though? I'd be totally fine if the government banned it.

I'm not accepting a ban because hate speech offends people; I'm accepting a ban because hate speech is destructive and has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Zeus posted...

Depends. How many times are you and others going to embody the values represented by that book?

I've never called anyone Hitler (aside from Hitler, that is), so I think this is the part of the argument where I can point out you're being completely ridiculous.

Zeus posted...

Except no, because they criticized them as NEO-Nazis and even then it was for political gain.

Right! They criticized the Nazis. Glad you agree.

Zeus posted...

Because apparently killing rival socialists means you're not socialist? Because that's flimsy, even for you.

If you want "flimsy", the fact that you still can't face-up to the fact that the Nazis were and are right-wing extremists is downright laughable.
---

Expressing an unpopular or hateful opinion isn't the same as actively seeking to undermine the welfare of others. Wanting all non-whites removed and making moves to achieve that goal is going beyond free speech. Saying "I wish there was only white people here" isn't nice, but that's the extent of it. I've said it several times already, but the neo-Nazis and Antifa are the same thing with a different motivation. It's like Stalin vs. Hitler, relatively speaking - opposite sides of the ideology spectrum, but in practice they had a lot in common.
---

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

This isn't Canada, we believe in free speech.

Apparently you don't, judging by your inference.

Literally every country in the world has speech restrictions; nowhere truly believes in free speech. For instance, I am not free to say - as a purely hypothetical example - something like "I intend to kill the president". Doing so will provoke a response from the government and could potentially result in jail time.

The only difference countries have is what speech is and isn't allowed and, contrary to what you're implying, the US has restrictions too.

Nice attempt to falsely conflate the issue to obfuscate the differences in a nation with actual free speech vs a heavily restricted one.

also people get away everyday saying they'd kill the president. hell a government official said something along those lines not too long ago and nothing got done to her. its only when they feel you might actually be serious when they take action.

better example would be you can get in trouble for say yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building when there isn't actually one
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

This isn't Canada, we believe in free speech.

Apparently you don't, judging by your inference.

Literally every country in the world has speech restrictions; nowhere truly believes in free speech. For instance, I am not free to say - as a purely hypothetical example - something like "I intend to kill the president". Doing so will provoke a response from the government and could potentially result in jail time.

The only difference countries have is what speech is and isn't allowed and, contrary to what you're implying, the US has restrictions too.

Nice attempt to falsely conflate the issue to obfuscate the differences in a nation with actual free speech vs a heavily restricted one.

also people get away everyday saying they'd kill the president. hell a government official said something along those lines not too long ago and nothing got done to her. its only when they feel you might actually be serious when they take action.

better example would be you can get in trouble for say yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building when there isn't actually one

Some dumbass sent an email like that here (this was during the '90s) and my dad worked national security at the time and had to track him down and deal with him. No charges ended up being filed, but they put the fear of god in him. They identified themselves and dragged him out of class in front of everyone and intimidated him. He was just stupid, the threat was empty, and he quickly learned his lesson. Most keyboard warriors aren't interested in being convicted of felonies, so it doesn't take much to break them.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

This isn't Canada, we believe in free speech.

Apparently you don't, judging by your inference.

Literally every country in the world has speech restrictions; nowhere truly believes in free speech. For instance, I am not free to say - as a purely hypothetical example - something like "I intend to kill the president". Doing so will provoke a response from the government and could potentially result in jail time.

The only difference countries have is what speech is and isn't allowed and, contrary to what you're implying, the US has restrictions too.

Nice attempt to falsely conflate the issue to obfuscate the differences in a nation with actual free speech vs a heavily restricted one.

also people get away everyday saying they'd kill the president. hell a government official said something along those lines not too long ago and nothing got done to her. its only when they feel you might actually be serious when they take action.

better example would be you can get in trouble for say yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building when there isn't actually one

Some dumbass sent an email like that here (this was during the '90s) and my dad worked national security at the time and had to track him down and deal with him. No charges ended up being filed, but they put the fear of god in him. They identified themselves and dragged him out of class in front of everyone and intimidated him. He was just stupid, the threat was empty, and he quickly learned his lesson.

yet people do it all the time today. as stated a government official said it on I think twitter and not shit was done to her. also everyone jumped the defense of that one woman with the picture depicting her with a decapitated head of trump.

then again with trump if they went after everyone who made some off comment about wanting him dead they'd have to arrest a lot of people
---

Threats =/= freedom of speech. It's worsened by a lot when the person in question should obviously be bigger than that. Be an adult.

Okay, if it's obviously not real like a direct, identifiable "I could kill you" in reply to something annoying somebody said or did, it's not in the same league as an anonymous "I'm going to blow you up" (or w/e) like the jerkoff my dad dealt with.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Threats =/= freedom of speech. It's worsened by a lot when the person in question should obviously be bigger than that. Be an adult.

Okay, if it's obviously not real like a direct, identifiable "I could kill you" in reply to something annoying somebody said or did, it's not in the same league as an anonymous "I'm going to blow you up" (or w/e) like the jerkoff my dad dealt with.

true but i've seen it plenty on facebook alone. shit along the lines of "if he ever comes to these parts i'll shoot him" or some crap
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Threats =/= freedom of speech. It's worsened by a lot when the person in question should obviously be bigger than that. Be an adult.

Okay, if it's obviously not real like a direct, identifiable "I could kill you" in reply to something annoying somebody said or did, it's not in the same league as an anonymous "I'm going to blow you up" (or w/e) like the jerkoff my dad dealt with.

true but i've seen it plenty on facebook alone. shit along the lines of "if he ever comes to these parts i'll shoot him" or some crap

The problem nowadays is that you can't really ignore a threat because too many people follow through. It's not worth the risk.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Threats =/= freedom of speech. It's worsened by a lot when the person in question should obviously be bigger than that. Be an adult.

Okay, if it's obviously not real like a direct, identifiable "I could kill you" in reply to something annoying somebody said or did, it's not in the same league as an anonymous "I'm going to blow you up" (or w/e) like the jerkoff my dad dealt with.

true but i've seen it plenty on facebook alone. shit along the lines of "if he ever comes to these parts i'll shoot him" or some crap

The problem nowadays is that you can't really ignore a threat because too many people follow through. It's not worth the risk.

true. I tried arguing that point with someone on NK and their threats, saying we should dismiss them because they are all talk, but when nukes become part of said threat I think its not wise to dismiss them
---

OP = obvious troll post.

But I don't like people associating right-wing with neo-Nazis.