Poll of the Day > Do you need to be removed from society if you refuse to accept you're wrong?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Is that kind of thinking dangerous and incompatible with a functioning society?

Why do you think ostracization is the valid punishment?

I mean, it kind of depends on what you are wrong about. If you refuse to accept killing and eating people is wrong, yeah you probably need to be removed from society.

For having opinions? No obviously not. Never forget that extreme ostracization has been used to punish multiple points of view, the vulnerable mentally ill/developmentally delayed, people who are different, etc

It's only if an individual is actively committing cruel and malicious crimes that they should be jailed.

If it leads to harming or infringing on the rights of others, yes.

I'm never wrong... or right; I equivocate exactly where I mean to

Although you're going to want to watch and investigate some people who are openly talking about doing something awful to others. That's how they caught that creep who was bringing a gun to a pokemon tournament.

I agree, we can start by removing you from society for making such a terrible topic

joemodda posted...

I agree, we can start by removing you from society for making such a terrible topic

Lol

Solid_Sonic posted...

Is that kind of thinking dangerous and incompatible with a functioning society?

Thinking that people need to be removed from society for disagreeing with others and exercising free speech is certainly dangerous and incompatible with a functioning society. That's some fascist shit right there.

Count_Drachma posted...

Thinking that people need to be removed from society for disagreeing with others and exercising free speech is certainly dangerous and incompatible with a functioning society. That's some fascist shit right there.

Said the person thats literally defended genocidal fascists repeatedly.

Count_Drachma posted...

free speech

free speech doesn't mean say literally anything without legal repercussion

treasonous, hateful, inciting violence, defamation, fraud, CP, etc are all exceptions

Being right or wrong is a matter of perspective. Earl Nightingale says I can be as wrong as I want to. Speaking the truth should not warrant a moderation on this site... Doing so just shows the amount of immaturity people have on this site or others.

IqarP15 posted...

Being right or wrong is a matter of perspective.

yeah sure the confederacy fought for state rights to uphold slavery, treating some human being as subhumans compared to other human beings

they are TOTALLY legit

(i still live in louisiana if pappy is trying to audit me. flag/robert e lee fascination has confused me most of my life)

IqarP15 posted...

Being right or wrong is a matter of perspective. Earl Nightingale says I can be as wrong as I want to. Speaking the truth should not warrant a moderation on this site... Doing so just shows the amount of immaturity people have on this site or others.

Not if it's contradicting something that can be proven.

joemodda posted...

I agree, we can start by removing you from society for making such a terrible topic

Was honestly my first thought. Because the first reaction to the question of "Should people who are wrong be punished in some way?" is "Who decides who is wrong?"

The government? Government is corrupt as fuck. A relative majority of people? People can easily be manipulated into making incredibly stupid decisions via propaganda and and mob rule. A small group of elected or appointed officials of some kind? Because that's never gone wrong throughout history. Sophisticated AI? How can you be sure they'll even understand or value humanity enough to draw valid conclusions (and what happens when someone figures out a way to influence or outright hack the system)?

The sort of people who think along those lines are really saying "People who disagree with ME are wrong". And if anything, those are the sorts of people who should probably be locked away from everyone else.

I think it depends on what someone has done. If you murder someone, you should be removed from society for a long period of time.

I also think some people are punished too harshly for what amounts to minor offenses because sadly today people make money from incarcerating people via private prisons which in my opinion should be abolished.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The sort of people who think along those lines are really saying "People who disagree with ME are wrong". And if anything, those are the sorts of people who should probably be locked away from everyone else.

There's propaganda and then there's empirically proven history. Like, do you think the holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy? At that point you aren't disagreeing with a person or a group of people; you're disagreeing with history itself. I KNOW you're gonna disagree with this train of thought based on less specific terms but seriously, do you also not think holocaust deniers are a nutjob? We have that level of proof for a lot of stuff.

It's easy (and, well, correct) to say the government manipulates public opinion, but you can't just oppose the status quo because it is the status quo. You need a reason for stuff like "MLK was assassinated" like "the FBI literally told him to kill himself or they'd blackmail him".

it sounds like you value society over the individual which is kinda sus

Thought is not action.

if you act on such thoughts and such thoughts are a crime.

then yes you should be removed from society for your crime.

its the diff between having remorse and not after committing a crime and it relates to whether or not you will continue to act in the same way that is unacceptable to society.

The biggest blurred line is where you are inciting a crime or your words actually cross over the line.

the age old yelling fire in a crowded theater or convincing someone else to commit a crime or inciting a riot.

Zanglerfish posted...

Said the person thats literally defended genocidal fascists repeatedly.

Feel free to troll somebody else with your nonsensical claims sometime. This is getting monotonous and the amount of goal-post moving you'd have to do to come close to those conclusions is staggering.

agesboy posted...

free speech doesn't mean say literally anything without legal repercussion

treasonous, hateful, inciting violence, defamation, fraud, CP, etc are all exceptions

What you've described isn't free speech or, for the most part, exemptions from it. If you're restricted from criticizing your government (which you define as "treason"), that's not free speech -- those are the kinds of policies held in countries like Iran.

"Defamation" has no "legal repercussion" although there can be a civil suit whether or not what you said is actually true or not. And given that defamation lawsuits are frequently used as a tactic by governments, corporations, and powerful individuals to silence whistleblowers, that's very anti-free speech rather than an example of an exception to free speech. And, on a pragmatic level, ANYTHING somebody says is open to a retaliation, legal or not.

Likewise, the claims of "hateful rhetoric" are anti-free speech, not an exemption to it. The fact that a government passes a law against something doesn't magically create an exemption, especially when many of these governments have long histories of fascist conduct.

And a lot of incitements to violence are protected (which is why you'll hear the rhetoric used pretty frequently), although death threats are not (except on Gamefaqs, apparently, where I've gotten in trouble for complaining about receiving death threats)

And fraud goes a lot deeper than speech. The kind of stuff that would land somebody in jail has little to do with the speech portion.

IqarP15 posted...

Being right or wrong is a matter of perspective. Earl Nightingale says I can be as wrong as I want to. Speaking the truth should not warrant a moderation on this site... Doing so just shows the amount of immaturity people have on this site or others.

There are few things as dangerous as the truth, which is why governments, the powers-that-be, and major corporations try to stifle it... and apparently that practice is widely supported, as we've seen in this topic.

agesboy posted...

yeah sure the confederacy fought for state rights to uphold slavery, treating some human being as subhumans compared to other human beings

they are TOTALLY legit

(i still live in louisiana if pappy is trying to audit me. flag/robert e lee fascination has confused me most of my life)

Your confusion is probably because you don't understand the CSA was fighting for a lot more than to just preserve slavery -- which, in all honesty, would've eventually ended there anyway without a war (as was the case everywhere else in the world -- among other things, it was a reason for the USA fighting for independence because the Brits were outlawing it throughout their colonies). And, overlooking that Robert E Lee had distinguished himself in the Spanish-American War, there's been a North-South divide in the US for centuries, which is understandable because of the country's size and diversity.

However, the idea that some individuals are entitled to other individuals' labor for free is a cornerstone of most governments. The verbiage has changed, with things like "tithing" falling out in favor of "taxation" and the amount claimed has varied (it's a lot more today than it was historically in most places), but the underlying elements are the same. Even the way we describe citizens reflects the nation that they belong to their government.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The sort of people who think along those lines are really saying "People who disagree with ME are wrong". And if anything, those are the sorts of people who should probably be locked away from everyone else.

But unfortunately, those are quite often the kinds of people who get into power and lock up (or murder) everybody else.

agesboy posted...

There's propaganda and then there's empirically proven history. Like, do you think the holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy? At that point you aren't disagreeing with a person or a group of people; you're disagreeing with history itself. I KNOW you're gonna disagree with this train of thought based on less specific terms but seriously, do you also not think holocaust deniers are a nutjob? We have that level of proof for a lot of stuff.

...that's not how propaganda works. Propaganda CAN use the truth -- and most propaganda does use at least some truth (or aspects of the truth). However, the truth you choose to emphasize and the truth you choose to downplay can be used to create highly-biased, motivating statements to incite extreme behavior. The idea that propaganda is necessarily untrue material is just patently wrong and there are -- to put in your words -- "empirically proven history" to that effect.

And the idea of "disagreeing with history" is silly since history isn't necessarily some great static, unchanging object. We're constantly revising our opinions of historical events as new facts emerge or new contexts inform our narratives. However, most people believe the Holocaust happened (although their understanding of it can be relatively low), whereas a good portion of this board STILL tries to claim 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing was faked, and countless other widely-debunked conspiracy theories. All of that is their right under free speech and, to be blunt, if history wasn't able to challenged, some conspiracy theories that turned out to be true would be denied -- governments HAVE actually done a lot of the things people claim.

agesboy posted...

It's easy (and, well, correct) to say the government manipulates public opinion, but you can't just oppose the status quo because it is the status quo. You need a reason for stuff like "MLK was assassinated" like "the FBI literally told him to kill himself or they'd blackmail him".

What? Not sure what you were going for, but the MLK assassination was unrelated to the FBI's blackmail attempt. Unless you're suggesting a conspiracy theory in lieu of how MLK was actually killed? Not sure what you're going for. However, the killer confessed and acknowledged having confessed.

Conner4REAL posted...

The biggest blurred line is where you are inciting a crime or your words actually cross over the line.

the age old yelling fire in a crowded theater or convincing someone else to commit a crime or inciting a riot.

The nature of most criminal misconduct is widely open to interpretation. It's generally what a prosecutor decides they want to pursue, often based on what they think they can win and what it'll do for their public standing.

Count_Drachma posted...

Feel free to troll somebody else with your nonsensical claims sometime. This is getting monotonous and the amount of goal-post moving you'd have to do to come close to those conclusions is staggering.

How many times were you warned or otherwise moderated for defending nazis? Be truthful now.

Count_Drachma posted...

Your confusion is probably because you don't understand the CSA was fighting for a lot more than to just preserve slavery -

are you trying to mansplain the confederacy to a southerner

the lost cause was a retroactive narrative that reframed the conflict in the most flattering way possible for the south. there's a reason it got big around the time of the civil rights movements. have you ever actually MET one of those daughters of the confederacy? they're fuckin nuts

Count_Drachma posted...

Thinking that people need to be removed from society for disagreeing with others and exercising free speech is certainly dangerous and incompatible with a functioning society. That's some fascist shit right there.

No one in this topic even brought up anything about free speech until you forced the discussion away from the original question.

Unless TC clarifies otherwise, they asked about whether if someone refusing to acknowledge that they were in the wrong for something society would consider being wrong is problematic. They never mentioned anything specifically about free speech. That is general enough of a description to include actions such as trying to incite treason or rape and murder. Or do you actually consider rape, murder and treason part of free speech?

Zeus is still spitting the idea that the confederacy wasnt absolutely about slavery. Rofl

And he still hasnt answered how many times he was moderated. Lol

Count_Drachma posted...

criticizing your government (which you define as "treason")

You heard it here folks, January 6th was nothing but criticizing the government!

My mom would never go for that. Shes right about everything and theres nothing anyone can do about it.