Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-14-2012, 08:08 PM   #1
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
In which I confront my liberal indoctrination

I've been introduced to a personally startling idea and startling because of a certain idea that I imagine all Westerners are taught since infancy. The "freedom of speech".

If we are to see the liberation of all oppressed classes, should they not be liberated from the ability of the oppressor to be able to oppress?

I've been entertaining the idea that in some way, my end game as a communist is in a controversial way; opposed to free speech.

A good example is Jonathan (shut up Jonathan). He constantly speaks up with dismissive and anti-revolutionary language. He enjoys the tongue of bourgeois speech freedom... until we disarm his ability and silence him with our collective counter arguments until he learns to know better. Here's the thing though.

If it were up to us to hold a tribunal to ban Jonathan under the values we share of being ANTI-Hate speech; would we have not done it already?

The question then is: Have we violated Jonathan's freedom of expression or have we liberated ourselves from oppressive language thus embracing our freedom FROM the oppressor?

I've been thinking recently that the liberal would defend hate speech for all eternity under the banner of free speech and the only thing the liberal would EVER say to use to counter hate speech is to complain at the oppressor yet take no action.

I'm thinking that I may be specifically against "freedom of speech". Scumbags like Rush Limbaugh is still on the loose after all.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2012, 09:09 PM   #2
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
I know what you're saying, but the fact that you use Jonathan as your example of oppressive language shows that you're not part of the oppressed.
At least not here, not now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2012, 09:13 PM   #3
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
I was aware of that.

I was trying to frame it in a familiar context of G.net and I wasn't really sure how to convey it.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 09:16 AM   #4
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Hate speech. Really now. If that is even remotely serious, you're confirming my suspicion that you divorced from reality. Hate speech, isn't that "vilifying a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic"?

If taken at your face, you are literally opposed to basic fundamental human rights.

It already is within your power to not have to read anything I post on here. If you can't mentally filter posts, the administration was thoughtful enough to include an ignore feature. I was tempted to put it to use after reading about a certain individual fantasizing about inflicting violence over some forum posts. However, that isn't good enough for you, because now we see a desire to not only control what some people are "allowed" to think in my apparent case, but to deny everyone else an opportunity to see for themselves and form their own opinions.

You want to become the arbiter of what constitutes acceptable dialog, and yet you can call me oppressive? What a truly fascinating lexicon you employ.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 10:03 AM   #5
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
What would have been a more... accurate target would have been myself, actually being that I have in fact used words such as "fag", "bitch" and other words in jest. But this isn't about self policing and I'll admit that Jon most likely isn't the best candidate for the discussion.

Alan did correct me.

It's interesting that you spoke up and I'm glad that you did. I appreciate that you think that I'm calling myself the arbiter of policy when in fact, the definition and the form of hate speech isn't on me to determine. How can I when I don't experience or know hate speech on the receiving end. People on here COULD call me Cracker Von Patriarch all day long and the worst that could come of it would be a mild annoyance.

Obviously the mechanism of confronting oppressive speech should be determined on the terms of those that are oppressed.

For example: Would it really be so surprising if laws were crowd sourced to say Solumnia, Saya, and other females of G.net and when doing so, the word "bitch", "slut", and "whore" were explicitly determined to be banned? Some of these words already are, actually. I would ask why they would have to take up the responsibility of enduring hate speech so that our concept of freedom of speech can prevail? Where is their freedom from oppression?

If I'm not mistaken, you can't say the "N" word on G.net. If we were to leave it up to the members here who are PoC, would it be no surprise that racial slurs were banned? I would ask why they would have to take up the responsibility of enduring hate speech so that our concept of freedom of speech can prevail? Where is their freedom from oppression?

The point I'm getting at is that the idea of "freedom of speech" may in fact just be a protection FOR hate speech if you look at it in terms of class, race, gender, and orientation. Obviously it's not up to me, but at least I can understand why I could see myself being against the concept of free speech. Which was the whole point.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 11:52 AM   #6
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
OK. I get that you wanted to point at an example, I just think those particular labels are either off the mark, or are significantly diluting the impact they should carry when you apply them in a haphazard fashion.

Of course free speech is a protection for objectionable material - there's no need to 'protect' things that aren't controversial or potentially offensive.

Learning to cope with being offended is just part of life. It's immature to expect the rest of the world to filter uncomfortable or distasteful experiences for your personal comfort.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 12:13 PM   #7
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
I am not surprised you would say that.

Don't think that this realization I've had applies solely to myself. I'm not going to internalize this and as far as it's about me goes so far that I simply recognized it.

Unfortunately, what you've prescribed is that the oppressed should simply endure oppression and that the right to say "bitch" is more important than to protect or to limit the exposure of the oppressed to hate speech, the contradiction of the liberal view.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:02 PM   #8
FistsofFury
 
FistsofFury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 102
I am still a believer in freedom of speech! Everyone has the right to say their piece. If you hate it call em an asshole. If they don't listen stop listening to them. There is a big difference between speech and action. Even though yes speech is an action.

But a sidenote to freedom of speech: slander and libel. If you are a public figure and you talk shit about another public figure and it is proven the shit talked was not factual..there's a court cases all the time for that stuff. Whud about freedom of speech? The difference is that the lies are printed instead of spoken?
FistsofFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:18 PM   #9
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistsofFury View Post
I am still a believer in freedom of speech! Everyone has the right to say their piece. If you hate it call em an asshole. If they don't listen stop listening to them. There is a big difference between speech and action. Even though yes speech is an action.

But a sidenote to freedom of speech: slander and libel. If you are a public figure and you talk shit about another public figure and it is proven the shit talked was not factual..there's a court cases all the time for that stuff. Whud about freedom of speech? The difference is that the lies are printed instead of spoken?
If that were enough, the matter would be settled.

I'm simply owning up to my opposition of the concept of free speech.

Female bloggers who cry out for social justice (an exercise of free speech) are immediately sent threats of ****, torture, and murder. Some are so bombarded with these threats that they are forced to go into hiding or to never blog again. And the liberal demands that they endure this treatment for the preservation of the right to send out abusive language at those that are oppressed.

But take comfort in knowing that while I am owning up to my opposition to the concept of free speech, it doesn't mean there's really much I can do about it. If it were that simple, the matters of privilege and oppression would have been solved a very long time ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The only solution that I could endorse that counters free speech is for the regulation of speech on the terms of the oppressed. As it stands now; the freedom of speech lends too much safety to those with the privilege to not even be offended when they're called a cracker.

Free speech is fun and all. Unless under free speech, you're the one having to endure the language of the privileged oppressors.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:27 PM   #10
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Opposing freedom of speech doesn't just set a bad precedent, it is inherently unjust, regardless as to what that speech is.

This isn't "liberal indoctrination" this is you supporting an inherently hegemonic and totalitarian idea. This is right-wing communism rearing it's ugly head.

Someone defacing a poster they disagree with is not responding to speech with censorship, it's responding to speech with more speech. Someone banning a blatant racist from r/communism is not opposing free speech, it's simply a community within a larger society choosing to police it's own membership.

Both of these examples have little to do with free speech OR censorship.

Opposing free speech means that you support legalized state suppression of speech by means of physical violence, ie: we throw the west borough baptist church in jail for being vocal about their terrible horrific opinions.


Unfortunately, the State is not interested in suppressing speech which offends, it's interested in suppressing speech that is dangerous to the state.


When I was protesting at the DNC I was targeted twice by police officers. Once I was rolled up on ID'd and questioned by 15 cops on a dark, deserted street because I was carrying donated tarps back to the camp. If I had made one wrong move or said one wrong word I would've quickly found myself beaten and in custody.

This happened again, when I and four others were having breakfast outside a local coffee shop. We were suddenly surrounded by seven cops (4 on dirt bikes) and harassed and ID'd simply for having coffee and being associated with Occupy.

Thoughout my time at the DNC, we were repeatedly targeted, infiltrated, and placed under 24-hour surveillance.

The West borough Baptist Church was also there, as were several anti-choice religious groups. They were not targeted or hampered in any way by the local authorities. In fact the Westborough Bapitist church had been standing on the opposite side of the street for a full hour before we got breakfast and screaming hate speech at the tops of their lungs. No one cared.

Opposing free speech is inherently anti-revolutionary, because rather than keeping people from being offended, it will invariably be exclusively used to squash dissent that is dangerous to the state.

Then we also have the problems of the injustice of meeting speech, which is AT BEST symbolic violence, with actual violence. Using the state as a cudgel to prevent speech that is offensive is an unnecessary and unjustified escalation of force.


This is not about lefty street-cred. r/communism's policy of banning hateful trouble makers does not require them to address free speech one way or the other, they simply wanted to dickwave at liberals and express a difference between themselves and standard American liberals, and they took a forum moderation policy as a chance to do this.

Honestly, what they described sounds pretty damn soviet (and I mean that derisively) fed through a filter which makes it sound like they're protecting the oppressed. However, the problem is that the oppressed will never benefit from this or any other policy advanced by the state because the state is not in the business of representing the oppressed, rather it exclusively works to protect the privileged FROM the oppressed and there is absolutely no way to change this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:34 PM   #11
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
I am not surprised you would say that.

Don't think that this realization I've had applies solely to myself. I'm not going to internalize this and as far as it's about me goes so far that I simply recognized it.

Unfortunately, what you've prescribed is that the oppressed should simply endure oppression and that the right to say "bitch" is more important than to protect or to limit the exposure of the oppressed to hate speech, the contradiction of the liberal view.
Part of the freedom of speech is the ability to refute or denounce objectionable material. Or stop consuming it, ie change the channel or close the book or web browser, use the ignore feature, there are many options beyond simply enduring it.

It would be very nice to go through life without ever experiencing anything unpleasant, but that's a very juvenile outlook.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:41 PM   #12
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
Female bloggers who cry out for social justice (an exercise of free speech) are immediately sent threats of ****, torture, and murder. Some are so bombarded with these threats that they are forced to go into hiding or to never blog again. And the liberal demands that they endure this treatment for the preservation of the right to send out abusive language at those that are oppressed.
Terroristic threatening

Harassment

There are plenty of legal recourses that female bloggers have. Responding via these avenues is not censorship, rather it is their own freedom of speech being legally upheld by the state, in the face of private attempts at censorship.

You don't have to oppose free speech to support the existing laws we already have that makes behaviors like the one's you describe criminal. It's a straw man argument to say that liberals oppose these laws, because they don't even the bluest of the blue-dog democrats would not oppose the legislation I linked above. The only people who would might be right-wing libertarians or conservatives who just don't care.

When the State doesn't pursue these avenues, (usually owing to the blogger's minority status) it's not an example of the state using free speech to justify the attacks (though some might make this claim), it's an example of the state opposing free speech when it comes from the oppressed because once again, the state can never work for the oppressed, it works exclusively for the oppressors.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:58 PM   #13
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
Opposing freedom of speech doesn't just set a bad precedent, it is inherently unjust, regardless as to what that speech is.
Well then feel better knowing that this is an unpopular and SPOOKY idea.

Quote:
This isn't "liberal indoctrination" this is you supporting an inherently hegemonic and totalitarian idea. This is right-wing communism rearing it's ugly head.
Supporting the demand that those who suffer under real hate speech to not endure it. Right wing communism, eh? Here I am saying I oppose the concept of freedom of speech and here, everyone is afraid that I think it's acceptable to chop off people's heads or throw in the gulags for calling a woman or PoC a derogatory term.

Quote:
Someone defacing a poster they disagree with is not responding to speech with censorship, it's responding to speech with more speech. Someone banning a blatant racist from r/communism is not opposing free speech, it's simply a community within a larger society choosing to police it's own membership.
Now let's take that to the macro level. Because some cats on a communist forum will not tolerate hate speech; extending that protection to the minorities shouldn't necessarily change just because they crossed some border. Hate speech is either wrong or it's okay. There's a gulf of difference between calling out a despot or what Julian Assange is doing and bullying a minority with hate speech.

Quote:
Both of these examples have little to do with free speech OR censorship.
Only insofar that the crowd sourced values which were built in that forum are actually observed. Take note of the very key element here. Their "law" within that tiny tiny little space on the internet was developed on their terms. Hate speech isn't tolerated there. What I would wonder is why one would oppose the spread of this idea IF it actually became popular to indeed oppose hate speech.

Quote:
Opposing free speech means that you support legalized state suppression of speech by means of physical violence, ie: we throw the west borough baptist church in jail for being vocal about their terrible horrific opinions.
Again. Consider what this would mean if for example, OWS's values based consensus model agreed that hate speech wouldn't tolerated for even a second. What would that actually mean if it went nation wide? Or should OWS stay small or say nothing on the topic of violent speech?

Quote:

Unfortunately, the State is not interested in suppressing speech which offends, it's interested in suppressing speech that is dangerous to the state.
...DUH. What makes you think I need a lesson from you on this?

Quote:
When I was protesting at the DNC I was targeted twice by police officers. Once I was rolled up on ID'd and questioned by 15 cops on a dark, deserted street because I was carrying donated tarps back to the camp. If I had made one wrong move or said one wrong word I would've quickly found myself beaten and in custody.
And yet the best that the Westboro Baptist Church gets away with nothing more but a finger wagging and some hate shaming? Yet here you are, crying out for justice and getting your head knocked around.

Quote:
This happened again, when I and four others were having breakfast outside a local coffee shop. We were suddenly surrounded by seven cops (4 on dirt bikes) and harassed and ID'd simply for having coffee and being associated with Occupy.
And where are the guns pointing at hate groups? Where's the hostility from the police to those guys?

Quote:
Thoughout my time at the DNC, we were repeatedly targeted, infiltrated, and placed under 24-hour surveillance.
So WHAT?

Quote:
The West borough Baptist Church was also there, as were several anti-choice religious groups. They were not targeted or hampered in any way by the local authorities. In fact the Westborough Bapitist church had been standing on the opposite side of the street for a full hour before we got breakfast and screaming hate speech at the tops of their lungs. No one cared.
You're making my case for me. I don't even have to try. Enjoy getting the shit knocked out of you some more.

Quote:
Opposing free speech is inherently anti-revolutionary, because rather than keeping people from being offended, it will invariably be exclusively used to squash dissent that is dangerous to the state.
Being threatened with **** and violence isn't something that I'd say minorities are simply "offended" about. I call you a cracker. You MIGHT be offended. There's offense and then there's outright fucking terror at the hands of oppressive speech.

Quote:
Then we also have the problems of the injustice of meeting speech, which is AT BEST symbolic violence, with actual violence. Using the state as a cudgel to prevent speech that is offensive is an unnecessary and unjustified escalation of force.
Because that's what I was saying. I was saying we should execute people who call women "bitches".

Quote:
This is not about lefty street-cred. r/communism's policy of banning hateful trouble makers does not require them to address free speech one way or the other, they simply wanted to dickwave at liberals and express a difference between themselves and standard American liberals, and they took a forum moderation policy as a chance to do this.
Yes, because you go there. So you would totally know.

Quote:
Honestly, what they described sounds pretty damn soviet (and I mean that derisively) fed through a filter which makes it sound like they're protecting the oppressed. However, the problem is that the oppressed will never benefit from this or any other policy advanced by the state because the state is not in the business of representing the oppressed, rather it exclusively works to protect the privileged FROM the oppressed and there is absolutely no way to change this.
You keep using that word "state" as if that's what I was talking about. What will you do when your own group determines that they wont tolerate hate speech?
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 02:05 PM   #14
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
Oh now. I'm sure they just made up those complains. Oh well... they have a point, but it's not THAT bad. They should just be brave and we'll just complain at them.

Quote:
Harassment

There are plenty of legal recourses that female bloggers have. Responding via these avenues is not censorship, rather it is their own freedom of speech being legally upheld by the state, in the face of private attempts at censorship.
It's incredibly affective too. I guess I just didn't know these things existed.

Quote:
You don't have to oppose free speech to support the existing laws we already have that makes behaviors like the one's you describe criminal. It's a straw man argument to say that liberals oppose these laws, because they don't even the bluest of the blue-dog democrats would not oppose the legislation I linked above. The only people who would might be right-wing libertarians or conservatives who just don't care.
Because that's what I was talking about. Laws.

Quote:
When the State doesn't pursue these avenues, (usually owing to the blogger's minority status) it's not an example of the state using free speech to justify the attacks (though some might make this claim), it's an example of the state opposing free speech when it comes from the oppressed because once again, the state can never work for the oppressed, it works exclusively for the oppressors.
And yet here we are again. You are MAKING MY CASE FOR ME.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 02:19 PM   #15
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
I ain't going to read all this, so I'm just going to come here and trump all you guys by positing a more profound, less clichéd question.
I don't agree with Ashley, but neither do I agree with you guys, because you're oversimplifying a very complex question with empty rhetoric in the same way conservatives speak about freedom without defining it.


Here's the real beef of the issue:

Do people have a right to information? Is it worth fighting for something called the Right to Truth?
If so, would that mean that people who are blatantly spreading slander and misinformation are taking the right to truth/right of information from people. Must they be reprimanded in the same way any other person taking away someone's rights faces court? Could that be called censorship?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 02:21 PM   #16
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
I appreciate your input, Alan.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 02:29 PM   #17
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
Supporting the demand that those who suffer under real hate speech to not endure it. Right wing communism, eh? Here I am saying I oppose the concept of freedom of speech and here, everyone is afraid that I think it's acceptable to chop off people's heads or throw in the gulags for calling a woman or PoC a derogatory term.
Should someone be jailed or fined for using a racial slur?


Quote:
Now let's take that to the macro level. Because some cats on a communist forum will not tolerate hate speech; extending that protection to the minorities shouldn't necessarily change just because they crossed some border. Hate speech is either wrong or it's okay. There's a gulf of difference between calling out a despot or what Julian Assange is doing and bullying a minority with hate speech.
The problem is that in order to use the state to protect your particular group, your group must first become privileged. If your group is privileged then hate speech against it already won't be tolerated by virtue of that privilege.

It's a Catch-22.

Quote:
Only insofar that the crowd sourced values which were built in that forum are actually observed. Take note of the very key element here. Their "law" within that tiny tiny little space on the internet was developed on their terms. Hate speech isn't tolerated there. What I would wonder is why one would oppose the spread of this idea IF it actually became popular to indeed oppose hate speech.
Not tolerating hate speech is not the same thing as opposing free speech. It's not a dichotomy.


Quote:
Again. Consider what this would mean if for example, OWS's values based consensus model agreed that hate speech wouldn't tolerated for even a second. What would that actually mean if it went nation wide? Or should OWS stay small or say nothing on the topic of violent speech?
OWS has a very lively dialogue on hate-speech and violence/violent speech.

When people bring it, the person is down twinkled until they leave. This is NOT censoring them, this is letting them know that their hate speech is not tolerated in the GA. If this model went national or international it would not be hostile to free speech, nor would it use the state to oppress those who engaged in it, rather it would force them to go elsewhere until they changed their ways.

Quote:
...DUH. What makes you think I need a lesson from you on this?
Because you seem to be advancing the idea that there can be a dictatorship of the oppressed. That's not possible.
Quote:
And yet the best that the Westboro Baptist Church gets away with nothing more but a finger wagging and some hate shaming? Yet here you are, crying out for justice and getting your head knocked around.
Exactly. Because the state, by it's very nature perceives speech that is dangerous to it to be a threat.

Quote:
And where are the guns pointing at hate groups? Where's the hostility from the police to those guys?
The police will never be hostile to hate groups. It's not in their psychology as an institution. Why do you think the Guardian Angels came out to occupy events and supported the police against us under the guise of "protecting the community"?

Quote:
So WHAT?
So we don't really have freedom of speech right now. Laws are only as good as the people enforcing them, and in our society the people enforcing them will always be the State and the State will never point it's guns at the Golden Dawn because the Golden Dawn is only hostile towards the oppressed.

If we had a communist revolution, it would point it's guns at the Golden Dawn, not to protect the oppressed, but to protect the new privileged.

Once again, it's a catch-22

Quote:
Being threatened with **** and violence isn't something that I'd say minorities are simply "offended" about. I call you a cracker. You MIGHT be offended. There's offense and then there's outright fucking terror at the hands of oppressive speech.
The terror doesn't come from the speech, the terror comes from the violence the speech might result in. Like how Saya said that for oppression you need hate + power. You're responding to this by criminalizing the hate, while ignoring the power.

Quote:
Because that's what I was saying. I was saying we should execute people who call women "bitches".
You were saying you opposed free speech. Therefore you support SOME form of State violence against those who engage in speech you disagree with. This could run the gamut from fining to gulags to execution. I think your speed is more of the "fine" capacity, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate response.

Quote:
Yes, because you go there. So you would totally know.
I read the policy. It's pretty easy to ascertain it's intent which is to send the message "Hate speech will not be tolerated here". The problem is that they communicate that message inappropriately.

Quote:
You keep using that word "state" as if that's what I was talking about. What will you do when your own group determines that they wont tolerate hate speech?
My group already won't tolerate hate speech. You're imposing an unnecessary dichotomy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 02:33 PM   #18
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
And yet here we are again. You are MAKING MY CASE FOR ME.
If your case is that you don't tolerate hate speech, why complicate it by making an argument against free speech?

Quote:
Here's the real beef of the issue:

Do people have a right to information? Is it worth fighting for something called the Right to Truth?
If so, would that mean that people who are blatantly spreading slander and misinformation are taking the right to truth/right of information from people. Must they be reprimanded in the same way any other person taking away someone's rights faces court? Could that be called censorship?
I would argue "no." for instance, what foxnews does should be illegal. They DID manage to gain the legal right to lie by appealing to freedom of the press, which is inappropriate no matter how you slice it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 02:47 PM   #19
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
If your case is that you don't tolerate hate speech, why complicate it by making an argument against free speech?
Because YES. Liberals care more for the concept than the security of the oppressed against hate speech. And they'll just say "Be brave. It gets better." instead of actually creating laws, policies, and education that would actually DO something about hate speech. Of course the thing is that those who enjoy the privilege of hate speech will decry that we're taking their right to free speech away. Well perhaps people have a right to NOT BE ASSAULTED with hate speech. There's a massive difference between being offended at a truth being said and being terrorized by speech that demeans you. I make a case against it because liberals tend to say some apologetic shit like, "I don't like what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."

You may as well be saying that "Go ahead and say whatever you like no matter how damaging it is. I'm not really going to do anything about it short of maybe wag my finger at you."



Quote:
I would argue "no." for instance, what foxnews does should be illegal. They DID manage to gain the legal right to lie by appealing to freedom of the press, which is inappropriate no matter how you slice it.
But freedom of press, bro! Anyone should already know better! Buyer beware and all that.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 03:41 PM   #20
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
Should someone be jailed or fined for using a racial slur?
Do you think it's up to me to give you that answer? How exactly can I determine the damage of a racial slur? Perhaps they should be fined. How am I supposed to know as to the extent that the damage is caused by a racial slur? Obviously there's several levels of corrections that can be approached before I throw you into my gulags, Desp.




Quote:
The problem is that in order to use the state to protect your particular group, your group must first become privileged. If your group is privileged then hate speech against it already won't be tolerated by virtue of that privilege.

It's a Catch-22.
This doesn't even make any sense.



Quote:
Not tolerating hate speech is not the same thing as opposing free speech. It's not a dichotomy.
Oh for fuck's sake. Will you at least realize that the concept of free speech doesn't even mean anything? What good is the concept of free speech when sinister people like WBC can decry free speech abuse when others confront them and deny them access to spread hate or when liberals go and defend Chik-Fil-A for their hate speech because they shouldn't have to suffer consequences of their hate speech in any meaningful way. So yes, let's run to defend them against any REAL action. There was a wave of anti-Chik-Fil-A sentiment against their hate speech and there was a call to a boycott. Instead, what happened? Fucking conservatives AND liberals united together to defend Christian values and the concept of free speech. I mean FUCK justice.




Quote:
OWS has a very lively dialogue on hate-speech and violence/violent speech.

When people bring it, the person is down twinkled until they leave. This is NOT censoring them, this is letting them know that their hate speech is not tolerated in the GA. If this model went national or international it would not be hostile to free speech, nor would it use the state to oppress those who engaged in it, rather it would force them to go elsewhere until they changed their ways.
What do you think the state is again? Force or government? Again, does force have to come from a blue uniform for it to be considered a state?



Quote:
Because you seem to be advancing the idea that there can be a dictatorship of the oppressed. That's not possible.
I beg to differ. A totalitarianism of the oppressed and the proletariat is very very different in function that a totalitarianism of the proprietors and bourgeois. If for example the governing model of OWS took over the US, their organ of force would be total. Sure, you wouldn't get thrown into the gulags, but I'm sure that under an OWS regime, there would be no place where one could get away with hate speech without a meaningful popular response.


Quote:
Exactly. Because the state, by it's very nature perceives speech that is dangerous to it to be a threat.
*facepalm*



Quote:
The police will never be hostile to hate groups. It's not in their psychology as an institution. Why do you think the Guardian Angels came out to occupy events and supported the police against us under the guise of "protecting the community"?
Would you also be afraid of popular militias? Or a people's police?



Quote:
So we don't really have freedom of speech right now. Laws are only as good as the people enforcing them, and in our society the people enforcing them will always be the State and the State will never point it's guns at the Golden Dawn because the Golden Dawn is only hostile towards the oppressed.
Holy shit.

Quote:
If we had a communist revolution, it would point it's guns at the Golden Dawn, not to protect the oppressed, but to protect the new privileged.

Once again, it's a catch-22
...

Quote:
The terror doesn't come from the speech, the terror comes from the violence the speech might result in. Like how Saya said that for oppression you need hate + power. You're responding to this by criminalizing the hate, while ignoring the power.
By all means... say this to Saya.



Quote:
You were saying you opposed free speech. Therefore you support SOME form of State violence against those who engage in speech you disagree with. This could run the gamut from fining to gulags to execution. I think your speed is more of the "fine" capacity, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate response.
Why must the oppressed endure hate speech? Why must they even HAVE to contest with it at all?



Quote:
I read the policy. It's pretty easy to ascertain it's intent which is to send the message "Hate speech will not be tolerated here". The problem is that they communicate that message inappropriately.
No they don't. You don't know what reddit is like. You read the policy and then you ignore the very fact that there are subreddits such as "jailbait" and "creepershots" that are desperately defended because "freedom of speech". And the pisser is, IT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Even if it was legislated against, we have a CULTISH cultural observance of freedom of speech. Even if the laws are in place to take shit like "jailbait" and "creepershots" down and even the hate speech seen in MRA subreddits; it doesn't change the culture that would still promote hate speech under the lofty ideal of freedom of speech. But then you'd quake in terror if somehow this observance of admitting that a subreddit opposes the freedom of speech goes beyond its nice and comfy little borders where everyone can continue with... you know, taking unwanted photographs of women in public to pornolize their image for later. The opposition to it is not due to wanting to strip people of the right to tell a truth or to know a truth if at least to borrow from what Alan was saying.



Quote:
My group already won't tolerate hate speech. You're imposing an unnecessary dichotomy.
If it was me that brought up OWS, I regret bringing up OWS.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 04:12 PM   #21
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Oppression isn't hate + power. If it were then we could only 'actively' perpetuate oppression.

Oppression is prejudice + power. Both of which can be passively held.
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 04:54 PM   #22
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Say whatever you want. Please, by all means. Just don't be surprised when I sneak up and choke you with a 40mm grenade. That's fair, right?
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 06:03 PM   #23
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Also,

Quote:
Originally Posted by FistsofFury View Post
I am still a believer in freedom of speech! Everyone has the right to say their piece. If you hate it call em an asshole. If they don't listen stop listening to them. There is a big difference between speech and action. Even though yes speech is an action.
We've had this discussion before. Not everybody has the option to ignore something, and oppression does not need to amount to violence to keep people in a place.

Quote:
But a sidenote to freedom of speech: slander and libel. If you are a public figure and you talk shit about another public figure and it is proven the shit talked was not factual..there's a court cases all the time for that stuff. Whud about freedom of speech? The difference is that the lies are printed instead of spoken?
Again, it's not a freedom that everybody possesses.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 07:17 PM   #24
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Is banning a person from a forum a form of speech oppression? Nooooo. Neo-Nazis get banned all the time from Gnet. We only argue with them for a bit before the admin realizes they're here. And just to add a bit of a note on what gets censored, I'm pretty sure the reasoning for censoring many words isn't because the admin thinks they're bad, just that they don't want Gnet to turn up on a search using those words (like it used to be if you spelled out Ku Klux Klan it would change to Mickey Mouse Club. You still can't say EPS's first name, weirdly.)

Forums aren't exactly public spaces, a lot of spaces aren't. Like if someone came to the women's resource centre and started shouting misogynist things, we could totally call security on them. A lot of collectives and groups try to stress the idea of "safe spaces", although truth be told a space is only as safe and whoever is invited and it doesn't get respected, but the ideal is that we can ask anyone who isn't being respectful to leave.

I don't think there should be a law that no one can utter anything misogynistic ever. But I do reserve the right to create spaces for myself and others and defend those spaces, and try to make the public a safe place for us and everyone else who suffers oppression.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 08:13 PM   #25
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
Do you think it's up to me to give you that answer? How exactly can I determine the damage of a racial slur? Perhaps they should be fined. How am I supposed to know as to the extent that the damage is caused by a racial slur? Obviously there's several levels of corrections that can be approached before I throw you into my gulags, Desp.
I'm trying to clarify what it means to you to be against free speech.

Quote:
This doesn't even make any sense.
I'll explain:

I use Max Webber's definition for the state, as in "the state is the entity which manages to claim a monopoly on justified violence" ie: the police, the military, the judicial system.

The State is the mechanism which defends property, which defends the rich from the poor and the priviledged from the oppressed.

Generally, The State won't defend you unless you have property and privilege. If you have property an priviledge you generally don't have to worry as much about hate speech, as those who speak out against you don't have the power to make good on their threats.


Quote:
Oh for fuck's sake. Will you at least realize that the concept of free speech doesn't even mean anything?
It means that the state has to, at least find a reasonable pretext to imprison and silence those who speak out against it. It's not perfect, or even particularly effective, but removing it vastly increases the power of The State, which would lead to GREATER direct minority oppression. It wouldn't lessen it.


Quote:
What do you think the state is again? Force or government? Again, does force have to come from a blue uniform for it to be considered a state?
Government is the beurocracy. The state is the entity that monopolizes the legitimate use of force. It doesn't have to be police per se. But when you say you're against free speech it's commonly understood that you advocate deploying the state's violence against those who engage in speech you disagree with.

Have I misunderstood your position?

Quote:
I beg to differ. A totalitarianism of the oppressed and the proletariat is very very different in function that a totalitarianism of the proprietors and bourgeois. If for example the governing model of OWS took over the US, their organ of force would be total. Sure, you wouldn't get thrown into the gulags, but I'm sure that under an OWS regime, there would be no place where one could get away with hate speech without a meaningful popular response.
Ehh, OWS by it's very nature doesn't take a position, so while I think aspects of the OWS modle would be useful, you wouldn't want to deploy it's too anti-state to be deployed as a totalitarian solution to hate speech.

Quote:
Would you also be afraid of popular militias? Or a people's police?
Yes but for different reasons.

Quote:
Why must the oppressed endure hate speech? Why must they even HAVE to contest with it at all?
Because we live in a world run on blood and hate.

Quote:
No they don't. You don't know what reddit is like. You read the policy and then you ignore the very fact that there are subreddits such as "jailbait" and "creepershots" that are desperately defended because "freedom of speech". And the pisser is, IT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Even if it was legislated against, we have a CULTISH cultural observance of freedom of speech. Even if the laws are in place to take shit like "jailbait" and "creepershots" down and even the hate speech seen in MRA subreddits; it doesn't change the culture that would still promote hate speech under the lofty ideal of freedom of speech. But then you'd quake in terror if somehow this observance of admitting that a subreddit opposes the freedom of speech goes beyond its nice and comfy little borders where everyone can continue with... you know, taking unwanted photographs of women in public to pornolize their image for later. The opposition to it is not due to wanting to strip people of the right to tell a truth or to know a truth if at least to borrow from what Alan was saying.
I really wonder why you bother with Reddit. It seems to really suck. In any case Reddit doesn't seem to understand what free speech is, nor what being against it entails.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 PM.