FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: TheContrarian on March 22, 2016, 03:38:46 pm
-
So you and three generations of your family may end up in a labour camp if you speak out of turn and someone reports you to the authorities.
It's not like they can STOP you speaking your mind. No one said freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. You should check your privilege and get back to work, peasant...
-
So you and three generations of your family may end up in a labour camp if you speak out of turn and someone reports you to the authorities.
It's not like they can STOP you speaking your mind. No one said freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. You should check your privilege and get back to work, peasant...
It's spelled "labor"
-
And yes, she means "spelled", not "spelt". Spelt is a grain crop.
-
Oh fuck off, Contrarian.
-
Oh fuck off, Contrarian.
Or what, you'll get all your leftist mates to cyber-harass me on twitter?
Sorry mate, not going to work.
-
1. Did anyone say North Korea had free speech?
2. Does anyone suggest emulating North Korea's Agrarian Feudal Government?
3. I may be a luddite but who the fuck is on twitter anyway?
-
1. Did anyone say North Korea had free speech?
2. Does anyone suggest emulating North Korea's Agrarian Feudal Government?
3. I may be a luddite but who the fuck is on twitter anyway?
1. It's an extension of the logic behind it being perfectly acceptable to doc drop and cyberbully someone if they say something you disagree with.
2. Oh probably, but that's not the point.
3. Many millions of people. Mainly vapid celebrities, daft ponykins and several people I was acquainted with in decades past that I have no desire to reconnect with now.
-
That reminds me, What did they French say to the English at Agincourt? That's quite a long bow you're drawing there.
-
That reminds me, What did they French say to the English at Agincourt? That's quite a long bow you're drawing there.
I imagine it's fairly difficult to say anything when you've got a face full of mud and your own entrails...
-
Nice way to avoid the point. Which is that it's quite a long bow to draw a comparison between having spotty* angst ridden tumblerites telling you to kill yourself and being thrown in a state sponsored gulag to be tortured and then fed to wild dogs.
What brought this on anyway? Did you threaten to rape Clem Ford on twitter and did she repost your details and your message to your mum?
Is that why you've been so quiet, did your mum take away your computer privileges for the past couple of weeks?
-
Nice way to avoid the point. Which is that it's quite a long bow to draw a comparison between having spotting angst ridden tumblerites telling you to kill yourself and being thrown in a state sponsored gulag to be tortured and then fed to wild dogs.
What brought this on anyway? Did you threaten to rape Clem Ford on twitter and did she repost your details and your message to your mum?
Is that why you've been so quiet, did your mum take away your computer privileges for the past couple of weeks?
1. Think about it. The government, figuratively at least, are meant to embody the will of the people. In the case of North Korea it's the will of a small group of people enforced onto the masses.
What do you think leftist cyberbullying on social media is entirely aimed at? Ultimately it's about enforcing conformity of speech, action and thought among the masses. They just cut out the middleman and go straight to the violence themselves.
2. I don't use social media because of the excessive prevalence of windowlickers. But even if I did, i'm not stupid enough to sign up with my own name, location or anything identifying. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
3. Some of us actually have to work for a living. Those nice progressive social programs don't pay for themselves you know.
-
1. Thought about it. Huge non sequitur. Besides I thought you were against government action rather than the free expression of individual will. You can't complain about the will of some individuals because you don't like them. Hell if they started a business doing it you should be right behind it.
What is hilarious is that you probably unironically refer to left wing hugboxes but then compare someone saying mean things about you on the internet to state sponsored torture in a concentration camp. Won't someone think of your poor feelings?
2. You mean your mum deleted your twitter account. I'm sorry. Did she let you keep your super edgy facebook page? The one where your username is Steel Churchill or somesuch shit?
3. Helping your mum take in the groceries and cleaning your room isn't really traditionally known as work. Oh you mean collecting all the shopping trolleys at the supermarket? Ok fair enough that looks hard.
4. As an aside that I don't want to get into here because this is a silly emo thread, we all shouldnt have to work. The level of productivity we have achieved through technology and automation is such that we all probably don't need to work. The reason we keep needing to work is partly to ensure that people have enough money to keep consuming all the items that are produced. However this is a complex and nuanced discussion which I would prefer to discuss with people who:
a) aren't so caught up in 20th century political ideologies of left and right (which were only convenient descriptors and now aren't even that);
b) don't compare meanies on the internet to death camps;
c) aren't the reincarnation of Rik from the youngones.
-
We...aren't living in an Iain M Banks novel...
-
Oh fuck off, Contrarian.
Or what, you'll get all your leftist mates to cyber-harass me on twitter?
Sorry mate, not going to work.
OMG Cloud persecuted Contrarian. Just like in North Communist Russo-ChiCuba.
-
I kinda get where Conty's going with this. He's saying that the whole "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is often used as an excuse to attack people merely for stating their opinions.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw
And here's some reactions to the incident:
https://archive.is/Sb55b (https://archive.is/Sb55b)
I'm sorry, but "attacked"?
If someone gives you that "attack helicopter" line and you restrain yourself from outright decking them in the face, that's not an attack, that's a herculean feat of self restraint.
Lauren Southern is an irritating person with absurd opinions. It's not surprising that she would be "attacked" when airing those opinions outside of her internet hugbox.
Play a shitty game, win a shitty prize.
Actions have consequences, especially shitty actions in public
But his argument is seriously flawed. Hyperbole aside, a common refrain from these people is "only the government can censor." And what happens in North Korea is government censorship.
-
Look I hate to tell you this UP but Conty has already said that you should get off the internet given you can't fix your own computer. So um, you know ...door's that way.
-
"I identify as an attack helicopter" I don't really give a shit about the rest of this discussion but that was a pretty fucking funny response.
-
I kinda get where Conty's going with this. He's saying that the whole "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is often used as an excuse to attack people merely for stating their opinions.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw
And here's some reactions to the incident:
https://archive.is/Sb55b (https://archive.is/Sb55b)
I'm sorry, but "attacked"?
If someone gives you that "attack helicopter" line and you restrain yourself from outright decking them in the face, that's not an attack, that's a herculean feat of self restraint.
Lauren Southern is an irritating person with absurd opinions. It's not surprising that she would be "attacked" when airing those opinions outside of her internet hugbox.
Play a shitty game, win a shitty prize.
Actions have consequences, especially shitty actions in public
But his argument is seriously flawed. Hyperbole aside, a common refrain from these people is "only the government can censor." And what happens in North Korea is government censorship.
Exactly none of those people were making the argument that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" rather their argument was "Lauren is a poopy head, fuck her" which does not pertain to free speech at all.
Which by itself is a shitty thing but it aint got nothing to do with no free speech arguments.
-
Mate, there's a shitton of difference between "the consequence of being disagreed with and having people use their own freedom of speech to tell you that you're being a prick" and "the consequence of being sent into a goddamn gulag by the government". Of course /you/ would support this inane dribble, UP. Fuck you and fuck that Thatcher fucker.
-
I kinda get where Conty's going with this. He's saying that the whole "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is often used as an excuse to attack people merely for stating their opinions.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw
And here's some reactions to the incident:
https://archive.is/Sb55b (https://archive.is/Sb55b)
I'm sorry, but "attacked"?
If someone gives you that "attack helicopter" line and you restrain yourself from outright decking them in the face, that's not an attack, that's a herculean feat of self restraint.
Lauren Southern is an irritating person with absurd opinions. It's not surprising that she would be "attacked" when airing those opinions outside of her internet hugbox.
Play a shitty game, win a shitty prize.
Actions have consequences, especially shitty actions in public
But his argument is seriously flawed. Hyperbole aside, a common refrain from these people is "only the government can censor." And what happens in North Korea is government censorship.
Exactly none of those people were making the argument that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" rather their argument was "Lauren is a poopy head, fuck her" which does not pertain to free speech at all.
Which by itself is a shitty thing but it aint got nothing to do with no free speech arguments.
Read those quotes again, especially the second one. They're saying attacking her was justified because she expressed her opinions.
Mate, there's a shitton of difference between "the consequence of being disagreed with and having people use their own freedom of speech to tell you that you're being a prick" and "the consequence of being sent into a goddamn gulag by the government". Of course /you/ would support this inane dribble, UP. Fuck you and fuck that Thatcher fucker.
1. No argument from me.
2. There's also a world of difference between people insulting you and people assaulting you. This is the latter.
-
Ewww I agree with UP again. I feel dirty. Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.
-
I agree with davedan because fucked if I give any consideration to that apologist for antisemitism and other things.
-
https://archive.is/Sb55b (https://archive.is/Sb55b)
I'm sorry, but "attacked"?
If someone gives you that "attack helicopter" line and you restrain yourself from outright decking them in the face, that's not an attack, that's a herculean feat of self restraint.
Lauren Southern is an irritating person with absurd opinions. It's not surprising that she would be "attacked" when airing those opinions outside of her internet hugbox.
Play a shitty game, win a shitty prize.
Actions have consequences, especially shitty actions in public
But his argument is seriously flawed. Hyperbole aside, a common refrain from these people is "only the government can censor." And what happens in North Korea is government censorship.
Exactly none of those people were making the argument that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" rather their argument was "Lauren is a poopy head, fuck her" which does not pertain to free speech at all.
Which by itself is a shitty thing but it aint got nothing to do with no free speech arguments.
Read those quotes again, especially the second one. They're saying attacking her was justified because she expressed her opinions.
I read the quotes, they aren't arguing that "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences", they aren't arguing for freedom of speech at all. If anything they're arguing against freedom of speech specifically with regards to Lauren Southern.
Again that's a shitty thing and not an opinion that I hold, but if you're presuming those people were arguing for freedom of speech to begin with then it isn't there in their quotes.
If one of those internet insta-pundits had said "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, let's all pee on Lauren Southern for what she said. Secretly I hate myself. Bwahahahaha." or some other variation that includes the specific phrase "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" you'd be right.
-
Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.
More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.
[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]
-
Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.
More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.
[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]
What about inciting violence? I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.
-
Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.
More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.
[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]
What about inciting violence? I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.
So-ypu'd be in favor of legal action against Donald Trump because he incited violence against leftists and Democrats then?
-
Throwing water, piss or a drink on someone is an assault. Not a terrible one but I think unless their speech amounts to a consent to assault, eg 'let's fight, them's fighting word' I don't think you should assault people for being douchebags on the street.
More specifically, I don't think assult (even minor forms like that) should be allowed as a response to merely saying horrible things. Talking back is the only appropriate response.
[Insert disclaimer about inciting violence here.]
What about inciting violence? I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.
So-ypu'd be in favor of legal action against Donald Trump because he incited violence against leftists and Democrats then?
You mean that mob that attacked one of his recent rallies?
-
Nah Conty, I was being rather more specific. Should the The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office (http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470449427/no-donald-trump-probably-isnt-being-charged-with-inciting-a-riot) have charged Trump for inciting a riot for encouraging his hairbrained fanbase to brain counterprotesters? Yes I know they relented but I want to know what you think given your enthusiasm to see those inciting violence brought to account.
-
What about inciting violence? I mean you can always claim that you didn't mean it after you've got thousands of your online minions to go after someone and they end up getting hurt IRL because of it, but that doesn't and shouldn't absolve you since you are the instigator.
Yes. Exactly.