|
| Thread: US Politics 2024-2026 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted December 07, 2024 06:07 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I mean should it go so far as saying "Drinking exactly 6.66 cans of Red Bull each day will improve your health and give you a lot of insights after 6 months of trying. It will also give you wings."?
Yes, absolutely, this is freedom of speech, not your controlled version of it. If one is enough dumb to believe whatever he reads then kill himself, it is his problem. After all, we have been told that vaccine will prevent from getting Covid, and that was told by the highest officials, right? And was 100% false.
I mean, look this way : you, and many others, keep saying Trump is Hitler. Therefore, this lead to people taking a gun and trying to kill Trump, because who in his sane mind would accept Hitler walking nearby and not taking action.
Your speech therefore should be censured.
|
|
Blizzard
Known Hero
Where the hell is my driveway?
|
|
posted December 07, 2024 08:51 PM |
|
Edited by Blizzard at 21:03, 07 Dec 2024.
|
It's even messier because the vast majority of time, people aren't being deliberately deceptive. They actually believe the stuff that they say, so if it is censored, it charges them up with righteous fury.
This is why censorship laws are borderline impossible to enforce in so many cases. A person gets censored for something, and so they just go underground with their views and spread those views more covertly. What is worse than the devil you know? The devil you don't know. It's better, for example, for the KKK to have a public fraternity than it is for them to be a hidden cult. This is what the USA does, and in my opinion, it is a better way of handling things than the alternative. Have European countries really stamped out extremist groups with their more heavy-handed censorship laws? That doesn't appear to be the case. It isn't working.
Food and drug laws are trickier. Tobacco companies are highly regulated in what they are allowed to say and do. Food, not as much; more could be done with that. I think it makes sense that if you are selling something for financial profit, you should be more regulated in how you can advertise and how you can label than if you were expressing political and ideological opinions. There needs to be a very wide berth for ideological views, and this goes for the left and the right (which, on the extremes, they aren't all that different from each other). So yeah, saying that Trump is Hitler is full retard, but American citizens are allowed to have that view and they are allowed to express it publicly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q
Full retard 
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2024 09:02 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
JollyJoker said:
I mean should it go so far as saying "Drinking exactly 6.66 cans of Red Bull each day will improve your health and give you a lot of insights after 6 months of trying. It will also give you wings."?
Yes, absolutely, this is freedom of speech, not your controlled version of it. If one is enough dumb to believe whatever he reads then kill himself, it is his problem.
Might interest you, although I doubt you'll appreciate it
Quote:
After all, we have been told that vaccine will prevent from getting Covid
I don't know who you mean with "we", but "we", in Germany have been told that the vac will make sure that IF you get Covid, it will be not serious (or even deadly) for nearly 100%
Quote:
I mean, look this way : you, and many others, keep saying Trump is Hitler. Therefore, this lead to people taking a gun and trying to kill Trump, because who in his sane mind would accept Hitler walking nearby and not taking action.
Trump is Hitler? Are you kidding me? In my opinion Putin is more like that and Trump is more like, well, a fascist mysogynist - like Mussolini, but don't quote me on that. 
Quote:
Your speech therefore should be censured.
You should have read more carefully what I said, though. Which was, in a nutshell, you CAN say everything as long as you make it clear it's AN OPINION, not FACT. Which seems to have escaped your notice, also with a view on the first quote in this answer.
THAT is the heart of the problem. FAKE FACTS, opinion sold as fact, manipulation big style. If you run a message board and earn money with that you have a responsibility to make sure that board isn't abused. That's true with everything. If you run SOMEthing, you are responsible. Period. Costs money, of course, all the checking. Annoying. The Zuckerbergs and Musks cannot be bothered with that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2024 09:07 PM |
|
|
Blizzard said:
It's even messier because the vast majority of time, people aren't being deliberately deceptive. They actually believe the stuff that they say, so if it is censored, it charges them up with righteous fury.
This is why censorship laws are borderline impossible to enforce in so many cases. A person gets censored for something, and so they just go underground with their views and spread those views more covertly. What is worse than the devil you know? The devil you don't know. It's better, for example, for the KKK to have a public fraternity than it is for them to be a hidden cult. This is what the USA does, and in my opinion, it is a better way of handling things than the alternative. Have European countries really stamped out extremist groups with their more heavy-handed censorship laws? That doesn't appear to be the case. It isn't working.
Nonsense. If that was true, than there were no vice laws in the US. And the part I didn't qquote is nonsense because Facebook and X and Insta makes money as well - it's a SERVICE. Just as a bookmaker or a prostitute is offering a service. Even a druug dealer is offering a service - the service to offer a product that's forbidden for no reason at all (for which the drug dealer isn't responsible - he didn't produce it).
|
|
Blizzard
Known Hero
Where the hell is my driveway?
|
|
posted December 07, 2024 09:23 PM |
|
Edited by Blizzard at 21:26, 07 Dec 2024.
|
The press is also a type of service, I suppose, but they are covered by the 1st amendment. Also, the platform itself might have financial incentive, but that is usually not the case for the participants on the platform.
The fact is, European countries have been struggling to contain and control how their population chooses to express themselves, and they are failing spectacularly at it. What ends up happening instead, is that it garners sympathy towards the censored groups and strengthens their platform. There is still time to correct course, but that window is shrinking every year. The old establishment will eventually be replaced by something else (and that new "something else" probably won't respect free speech either).
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2024 10:10 PM |
|
|
You seem to be under the misguided impression that "free speech" means you can say everything you want.
This is true only as far as free speech isn't infringing OTHER people's rights. Lies, falsehoods, calling for violence etc. does that - more than that, though, in face-to-face situations the "offended" has the option to sue the offender (meaning, you CAN say, what you want, but you have to face the consequences).
With all categorical offenses - all X are crap - the non-existent organisation "interest of X" could sue the offender; but how many lawsuits are supposed to be on ice for the next 20 years? So "censorship" (in most cases) regulates that.
|
|
Blizzard
Known Hero
Where the hell is my driveway?
|
|
posted December 07, 2024 11:08 PM |
|
Edited by Blizzard at 23:10, 07 Dec 2024.
|
We agree that free speech can't be used to infringe on other people's rights, but as to the question of "lies", that is often a difficult subject, because what people say often isn't either 100% true or false, and it is better to error on the side of caution when it comes to getting people into legal trouble and then galvanize their cause.
And COVID is a good example of this, because any sort of criticism towards government action was sometimes mislabeled under "anti-vaxxer" or some such thing, and then justified under the pretense that the censors were protecting people's lives. Politics is not usually so bipolar. There are many shades to people's opinions.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2024 11:56 PM |
|
|
Blizzard said:
We agree that free speech can't be used to infringe on other people's rights, but as to the question of "lies", that is often a difficult subject, because what people say often isn't either 100% true or false, and it is better to error on the side of caution when it comes to getting people into legal trouble and then galvanize their cause.
And COVID is a good example of this, because any sort of criticism towards government action was sometimes mislabeled under "anti-vaxxer" or some such thing, and then justified under the pretense that the censors were protecting people's lives. Politics is not usually so bipolar. There are many shades to people's opinions.
No, that's bollocks. A lie isn't in WHAT you say - because you can OPINE everything, true or not. That's the thing. I mean, if you say the Earth is flat, then it's CLEAR it's an opinion, because Earth being round is common knowledge.
COVID or covid vaxx doing this or that ISN'T common knowledge in any way, soit's important to make sure when you OPINE that everyone knows you are just opining. The problem isn't LYING (intentionally telling the untruth), the problem is feigning to tell the truth when you are just offering an opinion.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 12:51 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:52, 10 Dec 2024.
|
I don’t think Covid is a valid example because it was a pandemic and kind of a state of emergency. It’s like discussing the right to travel during a pandemic, it is an anomalie.
The exceptions to free speech such as hate speech, call to direct violence, making false accusations (that cause actual harm such as spreading the word that your rival restaurant is serving dog meat etc.) are quite established at this point, at least in developed democracies. I dont think that’s the actual problem. There will always be grey areas and exceptional cases but that’s expected and seldom.
No, the real problem is that the institutions and laws are all product of a different age. You have freedom of speech against the government, the state. That is, you have freedom of speech on any public domain. If it’s a private platform though, the owner is free to exclude you from his domain, “silence you” so to speak. And that used to work with traditional media because platforms such as newspapers used to lose credibility if they were too partial or biased (at least blatantly). Social media is a different beast though. Technically, it is private property but the most common platforms function as public domains. They have a wider audience than any national media, they dont have editors, they have millions of anonymous writers with no legal responsibility and their breach can go viral within minutes.
They are completely open to manipulation and disinformation. Yet, we have to find a way to synthesize them with free speech because it is really the most crucial element of any society open to change and progress. Saying “opinions are okay but facts are off limits” doesnt help much because especially in social and political matters (as opposed to positive science), the conflicts are usually about what those facts are to begin with. (And even in matters that are more positive in nature, this can still be the case. People who believe that the moon landings were fake, are also under the impression that they are speaking about facts.)
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 08:56 AM |
|
|
artu said:
The exceptions to free speech [...] such as hate speech, [...] I dont think it is the problem
Yes it is. Calling to violence/murder is well defined in the code of justice. False accusations too. Hate speech is now everything which makes some minority (in terms of number) feel offended, which could be anything, even factual. We had hate speech condemnations in France for criticizing immigration negative effects, for example. In Canada you have bills proposing prison term for misgendering someone. It goes off rails pretty fast.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 12:28 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Yes it is. Calling to violence/murder is well defined in the code of justice. False accusations too. Hate speech is now everything which makes some minority (in terms of number) feel offended, which could be anything, even factual.
OF COURSE it can be everything. Actually it has always been everything and anything, but no one said anything.
But that's actually the definition of hate speech - dissing of GROUPS because of a clearly defined factor all members of the group have in common. It doesn't have to be a minority, though. It could be a majority as well. Just because people share one trait they aren't an amorphous mass that can be dealt with in general.
"Critisizing immigration effects" is obviously not hate speech per se, because it's critisizing EFFECTS. If you say, for example, that due to immigration the average educational levels in schools is going down or already has gone down, that's not hate speech. Hate speech comes into play only when you BLAME the immigrants, because it's not their fault; it's the fault of the relevant government institutions that take on immigrants, but don't do enough for their integration (they just let the chips fall where they may which is often bad for those parts of the population who suffer from the imperfect changes).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 03:28 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
artu said:
The exceptions to free speech [...] such as hate speech, [...] I dont think it is the problem
Yes it is. Calling to violence/murder is well defined in the code of justice. False accusations too. Hate speech is now everything which makes some minority (in terms of number) feel offended, which could be anything, even factual. We had hate speech condemnations in France for criticizing immigration negative effects, for example. In Canada you have bills proposing prison term for misgendering someone. It goes off rails pretty fast.
I know in countries like France and Canada there are some overzealous approaches sometimes. I’m not suggesting the current policies are flawless. I’m pointing out these are not the issue at the core level. Once you have laws and institutions tailored for the post-truth internet era that actually function and the majority of people genuinely respect, I think those are easy to settle. As of now, it’s like neither people nor their governments know how to adapt to a new era. It’s like the early days of industrial revolution where the institutions and norms of old fell short but there was nothing to replace them with.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 04:15 PM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 23:42, 10 Dec 2024.
|
I don't think so.. Hate speech isn't allowed in Finland.. When you don't obey in the biblical law from 600 different laws to 10 orders plus a few laws are blood, prostitute, etc.. It caused politics, law and the state by new world's civilisation.. I don't know about the future.. Ok wrong? Finland pays in about 25€/day.. Remember their law came their culture and will..
EDIT
A person is mental illness, if disagree with law.. When you can't know 100% about law, so you know what's the right and wrong.. And then you make/do right.. Helpless I don't know about the law, you get a penalty.. Sin = violation.. And psychiatric assessment in Finland.. So go to prison or hospital..
|
|
Blizzard
Known Hero
Where the hell is my driveway?
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 09:39 PM |
|
Edited by Blizzard at 21:51, 10 Dec 2024.
|
@JJ
That is your definition of hate speech, which I think is a pretty good definition for it (talking about effects as opposed to the blame game), and possibly also the law's definition, but not everybody agrees on what is hate speech. Like, some people (and I am not one of them) think there is nothing wrong with blaming immigrants for many things, since they believe immigrants are civically responsible for adapting to the culture and to the institutions. So, if you move to France, that means you should start to act like a typical French person, otherwise, why move there? They subscribe to the old idea of assimilating into the culture. Some people don't think there should be immigration at all, or at least very little of it.
Or, the other way around, some people have a broader and more sensitive idea of hate speech than you do. Like, there are people in the USA who are uncomfortable even talking about the effects of immigration, among other things, because they believe it is a slippery slope that leads towards hate. They simply don't want to broach the subject because they interpret it as judgmental and hateful.
So, yeah, some common ground rules would be good, but people can't agree on what those ground rules are.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 11:23 PM |
|
|
Meh, the definition of "hate speech" on the left. During decades people politely reminded that immigration from backward countries and cultures is not so good, maybe we should limit it or at least put some decent conditions. Nobody listened while it turned out to be a disaster - as expected, everywhere where it occurred : skyrocketing of criminality, illiteracy and massive unemployment. Loss of identity cohesion, dilution of secular culture in place, then two civilizations are now face to face.
And now that common sensed people have more than enough to headbutt a wall and start to rant more aggressively about, what the left does ? let's define a new felony, the "hate speech" so we can play deaf even longer (in reality we have no idea how to fix it so better hide the problem). Then pretend that if it doesn't work, it is our fault, we have a duty to educate those people and make them nice.
No, we don't. You move in, you adapt. Can't or don't want, go fly a kite back from where you come, you are of no good for us. Almost all countries concerned are progressively shifting to far right political spectrum for this reason, among others, so is only a matter of time to get back on rails.
Hoping the damages are not already irreversible, the situation looks enough noxious. And to hell with political correctness trying to muzzle people, it only artificially slows the inevitable outcome.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2024 11:44 PM |
|
|
In theory there is the law. The law defines what is allowed and what is forbidden. You don't actually have to inhibit "free speech", because if someone oversteps, you can leave it to the law to regulate it. You may after all, for example, offend someone (or some group) and then the offended may sue and that's that.
But in the internet things are different. People are heavily attacked and offended in the internet all the time, but since the offenders hide behind some persona, it's not easy to sue them. And they know that. The whole scene is reminiscent of football (soccer) hooliganism.
Artu describes the problem well.
Generally, I think that people who earn billions with social networks should be held responsible for the content of their boards - and pay moderators. These things are important and you cannot just leave this as a law-free zone.
Keep also in mind that France (and Britain) is different from the rest (with a couple of exceptions like Belgium) insofar that they were a colonial power. Since the middle of the 19th century citizens of French colonies can become French citizens, so France has been a country of mixed population already for a very long time. Same thing with Britain. You can easily see that when you look at the French (and British) Olympic teams.
|
|
Blizzard
Known Hero
Where the hell is my driveway?
|
|
posted December 11, 2024 03:10 AM |
|
Edited by Blizzard at 03:17, 11 Dec 2024.
|
What I have heard recommended before is to have two spheres of social media. In one sphere, it is mandatory to have a public identity that has been verified or else you are not allowed to participate and post, In another sphere, if you want to have an anonymous identity you can do that, but you can only interact with other anonymous people. You don't get to have it both ways where you are allowed to be anonymous and yet the people you are talking to have a public identity, because that sets up an easy environment for harassment and abuse.
____________
|
|
Blizzard
Known Hero
Where the hell is my driveway?
|
|
posted December 11, 2024 05:05 AM |
|
Edited by Blizzard at 05:44, 11 Dec 2024.
|
@Sal:
Few people are going to complain about Venezuelan gang members being deported, but as far as the US goes, it is estimated that somewhere between 1/3rd to one half of crop farmworkers are undocumented. No bull****.
Now, if the law is enforced per the books, and let's hypothetically say all of those undocumented people go back to the Federal Republic of Mexico or wherever, you think Americans will mind? They sure will, because that would cause some huge problems, and you can expect Mr Trump's approval rating to plummet once he ascends to the Oval Office of Westeros this January. Those positions cannot and will not be filled by US citizens. It's not remotely feasible. A good chunk of that food production is corn and such to feed cattle. Beef: the single most valuable substance in the known universe, as far as US consumers are concerned.
So, as far as enforcement of the law goes, the executive branch really needs to show some discretion with who they do or don't boot out. And yes, I am backtracking what I said last month, because it is new information to me just how many fricking crops here are picked by Meso Americans. It is a lot. Like, a lot. What I expect Trump to do, is to backtrack on what he said during the general election (to excite his core base of voters), and he's not actually going to deport nearly as many people as he said he would. We'll see what happens.
Trump voters are gleefully anticipating a stimulated economy (I mean, growth has already been consistently good each quarter for awhile, but whatever) and for inflation to go down. So yeah, the whole "mass deportation" thing is a problem for Trump.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2024 10:04 AM |
|
|
Blizzard said:
What I have heard recommended before is to have two spheres of social media. In one sphere, it is mandatory to have a public identity that has been verified or else you are not allowed to participate and post, In another sphere, if you want to have an anonymous identity you can do that, but you can only interact with other anonymous people. You don't get to have it both ways where you are allowed to be anonymous and yet the people you are talking to have a public identity, because that sets up an easy environment for harassment and abuse.
While that is a good idea, the social networks would have to be on board to enforce a couple of things - investigating internet offenses would be way too costly and take too long to process the regular way, so there would have to be sort of a court-martialling where offenders would get an automatic payment order for infringements - which in itself was very doubtful with our understanding of the law.
I mean, it's like here or in other boards - you'd get a mail, like, "your post #xxx offended user Y. After cheking the claim we find you guilty and fine you with $ 500 penalty, payable to the offended, minus board fee of 20%, account number. Failure to pay within 30 days will be punished with 10 days of jail."
|
|
purerogue3
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2024 03:28 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
"your post #xxx offended user Y. After cheking the claim we find you guilty and fine you with $ 500 penalty, payable to the offended, minus board fee of 20%, account number. Failure to pay within 30 days will be punished with 10 days of jail."
you need to join a PTA or something
|
| |
|
|
