Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 304 - Protect Free Speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

So, I made a post in the last topic about protecting free speech, and the person who created that topic immediately blocked me from posting in the topic. I have honestly never seen this person make a real contribution to the topic series in terms of a quality post with any real reasoning or argument. His posts consist largely of invective, personal attacks, and non-substantive attacks on public figures. I don't think the topic series would suffer any loss if this person were to stop posting. There's a reason I basically never respond to this person's posts, but he for some reason feels the need to repeatedly go out of his way to attack me, and now to try to silence me. It's really unacceptable.

---

How is it a post about protecting free speech when you're criticizing people for exercising free speech?

I'm criticizing people for trying to censor speech. Refusing to show speech in its original context and only presenting it with a side-by-side, point by point rebuttal is a form of censorship. Attempting to apply economic pressure to get someone to stop speaking is a form of censorship.

---

what i want to know is why "we really do need trump" when trump is trying to abolish an entire platform for having opinions he disagrees with right now

They're trying to censor him. If he can be censored anyone can.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Refusing to show speech in its original context and only presenting it with a side-by-side, point by point rebuttal is a form of censorship.

i think this is really stretching the definition of censorship.

---

red sox 777 posted...

They're trying to censor him. If he can be censored anyone can.

i once got modded here for criticizing george h.w. bush.

i think the pro-free speech for me to do in that instance would have been to try to convince the staff that i should be allowed to say whatever the fuck i want about george h.w. bush. not to try to nuke gamefaqs.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i think this is really stretching the definition of censorship.

Altering speech is precisely what censorship is, even more than prohibiting it. At least when speech is prohibited, the reader will be inclined to draw the conclusion that the person doing the censorship does not have a good argument to rebut what he is prohibiting, which is why he resorts to blocking its publication. When speech is altered, it puts words in the mouth of a speaker and is a much more sneaky way to discredit someone.

---

Okay but it wasn't altered, so nice try.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i once got modded here for criticizing george h.w. bush.

i think the pro-free speech for me to do in that instance would have been to try to convince the staff that i should be allowed to say whatever the fuck i want about george h.w. bush. not to try to nuke gamefaqs.

Well, that's why you haven't been involved in 4000 lawsuits in your life and are a much more pleasant person to engage with than Trump. Trump immediately resorts to litigation over the smallest things. Working for him or with him must be an absolute nightmare. But in this case, he's protecting the freedom of all Americans, and really, the freedom of all people in the world. So his interests are aligned with ours.

---

was wondering why a new topic sprung up so early.
if you're making the politics topics you shouldn't be blocking people like that.


---

In fact, the tweet in question that was rebutting it point by point started out by linking to the tweet/article in its entirety.

Rebutting something is not "censorship." If you post something on a public forum, people are allowed to criticize and rebut it. That's not censorship.

The only "censorship" was you telling people they can't talk about it because you happen to agree with it.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Okay but it wasn't altered, so nice try.

Presenting stuff out of context is a soft form of altering. It changes the meaning.

I didn't express an opinion one way or the other on the content. I skimmed Rowling's essay and haven't read through the rebuttal yet. I didn't say people couldn't talk about it, I said that people shouldn't be so outraged about Rowling sharing her opinion. I mean, you can be outraged if you want, but who does that help?

---

Wanglicious posted...

if you're making the politics topics you shouldn't be blocking people like that.

agreed

---

red sox 777 posted...

Presenting stuff out of context is a soft form of altering. It changes the meaning.

Okay, but that didn't happen, either. So again, nice try.


---

StealThisSheen posted...

Okay, but that didn't happen, either. So again, nice try.

This is the Gamefaqs post bringing this to our attention.

If you wanna read Rowling's latest trash she posted it to twitter along the message "TERF wars", but I won't be linking a manifesto against my rights (and she's used the new Twitter feature to disable replies)

What I can do however is link this thread that cites every paragraph alongside a rebuttal for context because Rowling doesn't cite a single damn thing and constantly pulls out fearmongering lies, strawmen, and concern trolls with no specificity or substance.

He specifically says that he does not want to link to the original because he disagrees with it, but wants us to read the rebuttal, which quotes snippets out of context.

Now, it's true that JK Rowling disabled replies for her tweet, and she also shouldn't have done that.

---

The tweet he linked to has the entire article linked in the very first tweet of the thread. Also, nothing is taken out of context whatsoever. It's a rebuttal on the entire thing, piece by piece.

That is not censorship.

---