Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I won't defend them. They are not the representatives of the left though. Hate speech of this nature is not defensible by anyone, none of it justifies it's use elsewhere. If you're not going to condemn all of it then you are supporting it. If you are condemning all of it there's no reason to categorize the targets of it.
That's fair. I doubt it'll be believed or accepted here, but I don't think the extremists on the right that engage in hate speech are generally representative of "the right" either.

If I understand your position on this, it's that hate speech shouldn't be acceptable to anyone, by anyone, or about anyone, but you don't want the government to censor it. Is that right?
  #52  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:51 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The modern left weren't the ones trying to make it illegal to burn a flag or calling for the NFL to discipline payers who kneeled down during the National Anthem.
The NFL is like these forums. I.e. not the government. There is no 1st amendment right to embarrass your employer while on the job.

Whatabout the flag burning? At least it’s very very narrow in scope but banning is still a stupid idea.
  #53  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:55 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The modern left weren't the ones trying to make it illegal to burn a flag or calling for the NFL to discipline payers who kneeled down during the National Anthem.
I think this serves to illustrate the point, though - this is exactly the can of worms that speech-suppression laws could open. Trump and/or the right could abuse such laws just as much as the left could.

Last edited by Velocity; 10-30-2019 at 03:55 PM.
  #54  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it's a bad idea. Hate speech is wrong but we shouldn't make it illegal. It'll still exist but we'll drive it underground where it will fester. We're better off as a society is we let these people talk, identify who they are, and then marginalize them.
.
That would be a great argument if it was backed by reality. I'm not sure hate speech laws have much positive effect but you are asserting a negative effect. Do you really think nazis are festering in Canada, with its hate speech laws, but has been happily marginalized in the US?
  #55  
Old 10-30-2019, 03:57 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
As early as 2 years ago, The Atlantic had already written that arguing for free speech to be curtailed - in an era where Trump and the GOP are in power - is not going to work out the way progressives want.
  #56  
Old 10-30-2019, 04:56 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
(well, those newspapers won't sell themselves)

Here and here are (non-paywalled) links to his list of 10 principles of free speech, as at least a starting point.
What should happen if someone violates one or all of those ten principles of free speech?
  #57  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:21 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The NFL is like these forums. I.e. not the government. There is no 1st amendment right to embarrass your employer while on the job.
But Donald Trump, who is a powerful government figure, has on numerous occasions publicly called on the NFL to punish the players who protest. And has said there might be negative consequences for the NFL if they didn't follow his "suggestions".
  #58  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:25 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But Donald Trump, who is a powerful government figure, has on numerous occasions publicly called on the NFL to punish the players who protest. And has said there might be negative consequences for the NFL if they didn't follow his "suggestions".
I’m pretty sure this is the best argument you can make to support the concepts of limited government and strong support for individual liberty.
  #59  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:34 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That would be a great argument if it was backed by reality. I'm not sure hate speech laws have much positive effect but you are asserting a negative effect. Do you really think nazis are festering in Canada, with its hate speech laws, but has been happily marginalized in the US?
I think the Trump administration demonstrates why this is a bad idea. We are seeing a resurgence of racism because we have a presidential administration that supports racism.

So what would happen if we placed limits on the First Amendment? Would the Trump administration then be compelled to combat racism? No, they would simply ignore any hate speech violations they agree with and leave the laws unenforced. They would instead use that same power to silence their political opponents, including those who are speaking out against racism.

We have to remember that a government that has the power to ban hate speech also has the power to ban any other kind of speech and will choose how to use that power. If we enact a law that allows the government to shut down Nazi rallies, they can use that law to shut down Black Lives Matter protests. So overall we're better off with a government that doesn't have that power.
  #60  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:37 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I’m pretty sure this is the best argument you can make to support the concepts of limited government and strong support for individual liberty.
I agree. Anyone who believes in the concepts of limited government and strong support for individual liberty should be openly speaking out against Donald Trump for his opposition to them.
  #61  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:50 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Paywall-blocked.
It's amazing that people make this excuse in 2019.
  #62  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Dumb editorial and a dumb idea, IMO. I'm all for social condemnation and consequences (i.e. shunning, shaming, boycotts, etc.) for hate speech -- and very serious such consequences when it's particularly egregious, or from someone with a lot of power. But I think government consequences would help the hateful, by making them martyrs and victims.
...
Yep, and there's this little thing called the Bill of Rights. The law WaPo is proposing (yeah it's Op/ed so maybe it's not their official position) would, IMHO violate the 1st Ad.
  #63  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think the Trump administration demonstrates why this is a bad idea. We are seeing a resurgence of racism because we have a presidential administration that supports racism.

So what would happen if we placed limits on the First Amendment? Would the Trump administration then be compelled to combat racism? No, they would simply ignore any hate speech violations they agree with and leave the laws unenforced. They would instead use that same power to silence their political opponents, including those who are speaking out against racism.

We have to remember that a government that has the power to ban hate speech also has the power to ban any other kind of speech and will choose how to use that power. If we enact a law that allows the government to shut down Nazi rallies, they can use that law to shut down Black Lives Matter protests. So overall we're better off with a government that doesn't have that power.
I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. Once you get to the point of thinking the President would start only enforcing hate crimes committed against white people, why do you think the first amendment is going to save you? What if he starts only investigating kidnapping/murder/whatever federal crime if it's a white victim? If the courts or Congress don't stop him, you're fucked. The absence of hate speech laws won't save you.
  #64  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:18 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The fact that it's clearly sarcastic and satirical ? Do you also want to get on Swift's case for his hate speech against the poor and their children ?
Vegetarians, too.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #65  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:59 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
The Op-Ed (not Editorial) WaPo piece that triggered this thread is wrong. (And, despite some nit-picking and cherry-picking and deliberate misinterpretations, Shodan is correct.) Allowing certain forms of speech to be criminalized would inevitably be used by one side or another to persecute those with whom they disagree or whose goals they oppose.
We already have legitimate laws against yelling"Fire!" in a crowded theater or incitement to an actual crime. Beyond that, vague references to "bad" speech are simply open tickets to authoritarian governments (left or right) to use the law to suppress opposition.
  #66  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:07 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. Once you get to the point of thinking the President would start only enforcing hate crimes committed against white people, why do you think the first amendment is going to save you? What if he starts only investigating kidnapping/murder/whatever federal crime if it's a white victim? If the courts or Congress don't stop him, you're fucked. The absence of hate speech laws won't save you.
I'm not just making this up. The Trump administration has established the double standard for free speech rights based on whether it's a conservative group or a non-conservative group. And they've followed the existing precedent of selectively non-enforcing laws they don't agree with.

I agree that ultimately we can't, as individuals, withstand the forces of the government if it chooses to just begin acting anyway it wishes. But the government isn't some alien entity; it requires the willingness of ordinary citizens to allow it to act and to carry out its orders. So collectively we can thwart a corrupt and dictatorial government.
  #67  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:08 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,656
I invite Richard Stengel and the horse he road in on to move to China and experience government control of speech in all it's glory.

Not only no but oh-hell-no. The First Amendment is at the top of the list for a reason.
  #68  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:32 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 696
#SendHimBack
  #69  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:47 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The fact that it's clearly sarcastic and satirical ? Do you also want to get on Swift's case for his hate speech against the poor and their children ?
She wasn’t being sarcastic, she wasn’t being satirical, and to compare her bigotry to Modest Proposal is asinine. She’s just a racist with a massive bug up her ass about white people.
  #70  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What should happen if someone violates one or all of those ten principles of free speech?
They shouldn't be invited to the next "We support free speech" party.
  #71  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:53 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's the "context" around "white men are bullshit" that you think would make it acceptable?
I gather your assertion is that there is no possible context that would accomplish this.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #72  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I gather your assertion is that there is no possible context that would accomplish this.
I could probably concoct some wild hypothetical where I would find it acceptable. I'm not aware of anything like that being the case here though, back in reality, with Sarah Jeong's tweets. I find "it's clearly sarcastic and satirical" to be utterly unconvincing. I'm not aware of anything about her tweet or the surrounding context that indicate it's anything but her sincerely-held (and racist) belief.
  #73  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:10 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
So someone saying "kill the white people" repeatedly on stage, indeed for a large live television audience, unacceptable by default?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #74  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:13 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So someone saying "kill the white people" repeatedly on stage, indeed for a large live television audience, unacceptable by default?
In a humor routine? Might be OK, as long as that was clear.
  #75  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:15 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In a humor routine? Might be OK, as long as that was clear.
So it's not a matter of phrasing but of clarity?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #76  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:24 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They shouldn't be invited to the next "We support free speech" party.
Ok, so you post principles that nobody need adhere to. Were you endorsing the principles, or once again posting “facts” that you disagree with for some obscure reason?
  #77  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:28 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Paywall-blocked.
Clear your browser cache then it isnt paywall blocked.
  #78  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:02 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Ok, so you post principles that nobody need adhere to. Were you endorsing the principles, or once again posting “facts” that you disagree with for some obscure reason?
I endorse the principle of free speech. I think that it extends beyond the mandate that government generally not interfere with it contained in our First Amendment. I think Timothy Garton Ash’s 10 Principles of Free Speech are a good first pass at outlining roughly how far beyond mere government non-interference the principle might reasonably extend. The core principle of free speech, is a good one, and I wish more of our countrymen agreed with me on that, but I'm not going to propose we ship those that don't to re-education camps or exile them. In that sense, "nobody need adhere to" it, but I think it would be wise and good of them to do so.
  #79  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:27 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
She wasn’t being sarcastic, she wasn’t being satirical, and to compare her bigotry to Modest Proposal is asinine. She’s just a racist with a massive bug up her ass about white people.
No, she isn't. If she was, you wouldn't have to dig up a curated selection of tweets from 5 years ago when she was making fun of her online harassers to prove it. And by prove I mean smear in bad faith hoping people who don't actually know her look at it very closely. See : James Gunn.
  #80  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:30 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's fair. I doubt it'll be believed or accepted here, but I don't think the extremists on the right that engage in hate speech are generally representative of "the right" either.
Well, how much more representative can it get that one of them got elected President ?
  #81  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:44 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There has been a frightening decline in support for the principle of free speech in this country.
If it were only in that country. Support for censorship is growing everywhere. People aren't accepting anymore to read or hear something that offends them, and the "elites", when they aren't already promoting more restrictions to speech, seem to have given up on defending the concept of free speech.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #82  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:18 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The fact that it's clearly sarcastic and satirical ? Do you also want to get on Swift's case for his hate speech against the poor and their children ?
You think that a sarcastic or satirical intent would allow you to get away with a prosecution for publishing racist speech?

Who gets to decide what is satirical and sarcastic and what is not?What make you think that people will accept that "satire" is a valid excuse for speech that appears hateful. Most certainly, there are many people who think that hate speech is totally unacceptable, even with a humorous intent.

Are you sure that you are yourself perfectly objective, and don't tend to assume an evil intent for speech coming form the "enemy" side, and a satirical intent for speech coming from the "good" side?

And even assuming that you're absolutely sure that the court will correctly interpret your statement as satirical, and you won't be sentenced, are you so willing to go through the hassle and expense of fighting your case in court? Are you interested in seeing all papers with a "Kobal2 prosecuted for racist speech" "Racist statement by Kobal2 : SOS Racisme will be civil party" in their headlines? If you're, say, a TV anchor, do you think that your employer won't fire you in case of significant controversy, even if he's himself convinced that it was satire?Or would you rather shut up and shelve your satire as, currently, more and more people do with everything that can be perceived as offensive, regardless how stupid you would have to be to not notice the satirical intent?


And by the way, I mentioned above the French law that now mandates that companies like Facebook and such delete within 24 hours any instance of hate speech or face huge fines. Do you think that they'll waste a quarter of a second wondering if it's satire or not and risk paying some millions euros in fine if they're deemed wrong, or that they'll rather delete immediately anything that can, even remotely be construed as racism? Even though this would be done by a private company, it would be a direct consequence of "hate speech" laws.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 10-31-2019 at 04:23 AM.
  #83  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:40 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
No, she isn't. If she was, you wouldn't have to dig up a curated selection of tweets from 5 years ago when she was making fun of her online harassers to prove it. And by prove I mean smear in bad faith hoping people who don't actually know her look at it very closely. See : James Gunn.
Bullshit. Jeong was doing racist tweets long before anyone “harassed” her. And even if she wasn’t, that doesn’t make her tweets magically not racist. Racism in response to racism is still racism.
  #84  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:45 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
You think that a sarcastic or satirical intent would allow you to get away with a prosecution for publishing racist speech?

Who gets to decide what is satirical and sarcastic and what is not?

Are you sure that you are yourself perfectly objective, and don't tend to assume an evil intent for speech coming form the "enemy" side, and a satirical intent for speech coming from the "good" side?
Of course not. But that's why my personal definition of "hate speech" is much narrower than simply "is racist/prejudiced" or "is disparaging of X" ; and further my opinion that any hate speech prosecution should have to prove a continuous, habitual pattern of engaging in hate speech rather than punctual, context-free statements or sound bytes.

Because e.g. my bantering with Jewish friends and jokingly responding to their mockery of something I enjoy with "yeah well you guys made up the Holocaust so shut up !" or similar (which would be over the top and ridiculous and something my friends and people who know me realize it is not something I actually believe) is very different from someone saying it in earnest, over and over again in every aspect of their lives, or writing books about the evils of Them Jooz and not distancing themselves from neonazis etc...

Quote:
If you're, say, a TV anchor, do you think that your employer won't fire you in case of significant controversy, even if he's himself convinced that it was satire?
Actually yes. I would expect my co-workers and people who've actually met me to support my sarcastic ass against bad faith accusations levied against me by random trolls seeking to silence, not my sarcastic "hate speech", but what I actually say and believe and support.
Which is why Sarah Jeong still has a job and James Gunn got un-fired.

Quote:
Or would you rather shut up and shelve your satire as, currently, more and more people do with everything that can be perceived as offensive, regardless how stupid you would have to be to not notice the satirical intent?
I don't really see that happening. Most of the media I consume is satirical and un-PC as hell. Most people have no problem with un-PC language as long as the person isn't being actually shitty, is at least a little self-aware etc...
  #85  
Old 10-31-2019, 04:52 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Bullshit. Jeong was doing racist tweets long before anyone “harassed” her. And even if she wasn’t, that doesn’t make her tweets magically not racist. Racism in response to racism is still racism.
Nonsense. Flipping racist diatribes around to lampoon and lampshade how ridiculous they are isn't an expression of racism.
  #86  
Old 10-31-2019, 05:13 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Nonsense. Flipping racist diatribes around to lampoon and lampshade how ridiculous they are isn't an expression of racism.
Bullshit. Much of the time she wasn’t doing anything like that, she was just saying straight up racist shit like “fuck white women lol” or “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants” or “White men are such bullshit”.

Now, that’s not lampooning or lamp-shading anything. That’s just fucking racism. You can try to spin it as some kind of exquisitely meta-textual trope splitting satire if you like, but don’t expect anyone else to take you seriously.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 10-31-2019 at 05:13 AM.
  #87  
Old 10-31-2019, 05:15 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Hate speech should be tied to actual plausible threat of violence.

I'm OK with tying that to historic plausibility.

This is why I'd consider an American White person calling an American Black person the word "nigger" to be hate speech, while the latter calling the former the word "cracker' is not. Both are racist*, but only one carries the history of enslavement and lynching and burning crosses with it.

There are hate speech laws in my country. Just gratuitously flying the flag of the old regime is now hate speech. And I'm fine with that.

* the caveat here being of course that they are not engaging in friendly banter where both are accepting of the speech.
  #88  
Old 10-31-2019, 05:24 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Bullshit. Much of the time she wasn’t doing anything like that
So *some* of the time she was, according to you.

Quote:
she was just saying straight up racist shit like “fuck white women lol” or “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants” or “White men are such bullshit”.
So those times where even you have to admit she was clearly being satirical she wasn't being racist, but those times where you can isolate and spin it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT even though, in context and aggregate with the tweets that are clear and unmistakable satire one would obviously understand that these isolated phrases were satirical too, she was being serious. Which proves she's a racist. As further evidenced by the fact that she's... not writing shit like that anymore ? And wasn't writing shit like that before, contrary to what you're claiming.

Convincing. The defense rests.

(For further evidence of what it is Unreconstructed Man is, knowingly or not, engaging is, see this video)
  #89  
Old 10-31-2019, 05:51 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
So *some* of the time she was, according to you.
Yes. Occasionally, it would be clear from the context of her tweets that Sarah Jeong was using racist tropes to make fun of racists.

Other times - many other times - it would be clear from the context of her tweets that she was just being a fucking racist. Like when she tweeted “Fuck white women lol”. That wasn’t a response to racism. That wasn’t Jeong taking a racist trope and turning it on it’s head to make a greater point. That was just “fuck white women lol”.

You seem to think that someone who is aware of racist tropes - and who is even, in limited circumstances, capable of mocking them - could never actually be racist themselves. But that’s utter bullshit. Of course they can! Particularly if, like Sarah Jeong, they don’t think racism against white people is ”real” racism.

Quote:
So those times where even you have to admit she was clearly being satirical she wasn't being racist, but those times where you can isolate and spin it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT even though, in context and aggregate with the tweets that are clear and unmistakable satire one would obviously understand that these isolated phrases were satirical too, she was being serious. Which proves she's a racist. As further evidenced by the fact that she's... not writing shit like that anymore? And wasn't writing shit like that before, contrary to what you're claiming.
It’s clear that, no matter how many examples I provide, you’re just going to scream “TOTALLY DIFFERENT! CONTEXT!!! CONNNNNNTEEEEXTT!!!” at me regardless. So how about this: Find me the context that makes “Fuck white women lol” acceptable.

It’s okay. I’ll wait.

Quote:
(For further evidence of what it is Unreconstructed Man is, knowingly or not, engaging is, see this video)
I’m not going to watch a 35 minute TED talk just because you couldn’t be bothered to type an extra sentence.
  #90  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:00 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Of course you're not going to watch. I was linking it for the benefit of intellectually curious who actually care to know what harassment culture (and particularly alt-right, bad faith harassment culture) does and presents and causes. Not people who already know because they're engaged in doing it.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-31-2019 at 06:00 AM.
  #91  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:01 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Of course not. But that's why my personal definition of "hate speech" is much narrower than simply "is racist/prejudiced" or "is disparaging of X" ; and further my opinion that any hate speech prosecution should have to prove a continuous, habitual pattern of engaging in hate speech rather than punctual, context-free statements or sound bytes.
But once you've accepted the concept of banning hate speech, you aren't the one who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not. Your opinion on that matter isn't anymore valid than the opinion of the person who wants a vastly more restrictive implementation. And currently, in fact, we aren't going towards a restrictive interpretation of what hate speech is, rather towards a more and more extensive view.


Basically, supporting censorship is saying : "there are things that are so bad that we shouldn't allow people to say them". Once you've agreed with that principle, and support it, deciding where the line should be drawn between "real bad" and "not so bad" is entirely subjective and can change at any time in any direction (and will tend to be more and more extensive because everybody will think : "if X can't be said because it offends that guy, then Y shouldn't be said either because it offends me). And there's no way you can show that your subjective line in the sand is any better or make any more sense than that other arbitrary line in the sand. By validating the legitimacy of banning repeated and extremely offensive hate statement, you're validating the legitimacy of banning somewhat offensive and occasional hate statements. By accepting the legitimacy of banning hateful racist statement, you're accepting the legitimacy of banning hateful antinational statements as well, for instance. Whatever will get banned will only depend on the trend of the moment once you've agreed with censorship.

Free speech is an either/or issue. Either you open the flood gates, or you don't. Voltaire, in his famous quote, didn't make any exception for speech he really, really, really, hated. And there's a reason why he didn't.


Quote:
Because e.g. my bantering with Jewish friends and jokingly responding to their mockery of something I enjoy with "yeah well you guys made up the Holocaust so shut up !" or similar
And how do you know that Jews didn't make up the holocaust? That's a second, huge, issue there is with limiting free speech.

Denying the holocaust is currently a crime in France. You (generic you) can't publish a book explaining that it didn't happen, you can't create a website explaining that it didn't happen, you can't explain on TV why you think it didn't happen. Which means that you (specific you) don't have access to information disproving the holocaust. You can't know what are the arguments of people believing that the holocaust didn't happen (maybe they discovered last year in Tel Aviv the reels proving definitely that all the extermination camp footage you have seen were faked in a studio, for instance). As a result, you can't state anymore that the holocaust did happen. You're in the same position wrt the holocaust as comrade Popov was in 1950 wrt the statements he was reading in the Pravda. He can't judge if they're true or not, since he knows that any contradicting information will be suppressed.

And of course, don''t assume that it will be as caricatural as the holocaust example (although...beware...it can always becomes exactly as caricatural. There are no lack of examples). It might be that the racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever has a good, valid, argument on some aspect of a social issue. But this argument will be suppressed becomes it comes in support of a statement deemed hateful. To give an example, statements critical of Islam, even extremely valid ones, are coming under fire currently in the name of the fight against Islamophobia. And of course, although you're apparently ignoring this possibility, another otherwise valid argument will be suppressed because it comes in support of a hateful statement decrying our nation, its glorious history and its citizens or insulting the beliefs of the Catholic church.

Choosing censorship is choosing ignorance. There's no other way to put it. The only rational position when speech in support of X is banned is to admit that you can't know anymore if X is correct or not.


And thinking that censorship is likely to stay limited to whatever you approve of is naive at best. When the law about suppressing hate speech on social media that I mentioned twice was voted, deputies tried to introduce all sorts of things under "hate speech", from supporting pornography to disparaging traditional agricultural practices. As I already wrote, support for censorship of offensive speech is very trendy at the moment, and everybody has a long list of things he finds offensive.





Quote:
(which would be over the top and ridiculous and something my friends and people who know me realize it is not something I actually believe)

And what about people who don't know you? Why should I assume that your statement was a joke? And even if I believe it was a joke, what if I'm of the opinion that not only it's a terrible joke (I'm honestly surprised that none of your Jewish friends ever told you to fuck off with this joke, in fact, because even I would find its repetition pretty tiring and offensive, eventually), but also that it stays equally offensive and is still hate speech, and that you still should be sentenced for holocaust denial?




Quote:
I don't really see that happening. Most of the media I consume is satirical and un-PC as hell. Most people have no problem with un-PC language as long as the person isn't being actually shitty, is at least a little self-aware etc...
Presumably, you don't read the same things I do, or are less sensitive to the continuous attacks against free speech. *A lot* of people have a problem with un-PC things.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #92  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:04 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2
As further evidenced by the fact that she's... not writing shit like that anymore ? And wasn't writing shit like that before, contrary to what you're claiming.
This isn’t true. When Jeong was first called out for her racism, she tried to cloud the issue by saying that her racism was ‘ironic’ and in response to racism she had received. She tried to substantiate this by citing two racist tweets that she got; one from September 2014 and one from October 2014. Those were her examples, that she chose.

The problem? Jeong was doing anti white tweets before then.
  #93  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:07 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Of course you're not going to watch. I was linking it for the benefit of intellectually curious who actually care to know what harassment culture (and particularly alt-right, bad faith harassment culture) does and presents and causes. Not people who already know because they're engaged in doing it.
Oh, does this mean you’re picking up your ball and going home?
  #94  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:12 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
This isn’t true. When Jeong was first called out for her racism, she tried to cloud the issue by saying that her racism was ‘ironic’ and in response to racism she had received. She tried to substantiate this by citing two racist tweets that she got; one from September 2014 and one from October 2014. Those were her examples, that she chose.

The problem? Jeong was doing anti white tweets before then.
I'd have to review, but could we conclude that since you've chosen to discuss only the Jeong case, it implies you do not believe there are other cases?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #95  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:26 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
But I guess in the interest of actually getting people to watch it, I might as well summarize it : it's a talk by Lindsey Ellis, a minor YouTube personality who happens to be a girl and a feminist and who does film criticism. She's pretty funny and good at it, and I enjoin you to look her up and watch her explaining and demonstrating complex film theories strictly through the lens of Michael Bay's Transformers franchise. It's hilarious.

But anyway, during the James Gunn manufactured outrage episode she happened to publicly defend him on Twitter at which point she was seized upon by the throng of alt right idiots spouting their usual nonsense. In response to some guy accusing her of enabling white genocide, which as we all know is something that is real and happens and is totally a threat to American society, she responded by sarcastically saying she was "enthusiastic about white genocide" because it was "going to be the best genocide ever" and she was "making a Pinterest board about it". Lindsay is white herself, if that matters or dispel any doubt that she was being in any way serious. It was just a silly response to a silly person which at the time was barely noticed by anyone.

Then Ellis' work became a little more mainstream and she was booked for a show on PBS, at which point her harassers started plastering that one tweet over and over again as proof that she was a racist hatemonger ; demanded she be fired ; harassed her friends and coworkers and every last PBS affiliate with that nonsense to the point where even though they knew it was a cut-and-dry bullshit attack they still didn't want to touch Ellis or support her for fear of catching the hate crowd's attention themselves - basically the reactionary culture war machine organized a concerted attack against her based entirely on a bad faith take of one isolated tweet, and she had no idea how to deal with that.

The rest of the talk is about how all of that affected her personally (spoiler : she had to have herself committed at one point), how everything she tried to address the "controversy" failed and the reasons it failed, as well as tentative advice to other progressive YouTube content creators on how to deal with that shit in the future.
  #96  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:57 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,017
I found OP unclear and stopped reading the thread. Here are the four examples in OP:
Quote:
  • A. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
    (I'm stunned that an intelligent person, even if he disagreed, would not find it easy to give reasons why some people might want to protect that.)
  • B. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did.
  • C. When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea — an outright lie — he knew our media would report it, and we did.
  • D. A 2016 Stanford study showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and an actual news story. Only a quarter of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one.
My own views:
A. Regardless of whether Americans approve of American free speech traditions, I'm stunned that an intelligent person wouldn't understand that some cultures and some good-spirited people might want to ban such things as Koran burning.
B. America's enemy subverted an American election and got their pawn elected. Surely we should explore ways to prevent such sabotage (though we should try to do so with only modest effect on the legitimate free-speech rights of Americans).
C. [confused] America's news media now has dismal quality; and it is getting worse. This is a separate (though closely related) topic.
D. If this study is being used in support of the claim that American free speech just ain't working as well as we'd like, then count me in!

Last edited by septimus; 10-31-2019 at 07:00 AM.
  #97  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:03 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,712
I see the situation the same as I do gun control. Other countries have laws against hate speech, and they seem to work well. The US is well known for its racism problem--less so other countries.

"Censorship!" is not an argument. Freedom of speech has always had limits. You can't false advertise, you can't libel, you can't slander, etc. Freedom of speech is a concept created by the government to prevent the party in power from creating laws to silence their opposition. Such cannot occur in a democracy--one must be free to discuss changing the current policy. It doesn't exist so that people are free to harm people with their words. In fact, the stuff I mentioned exist to try and minimize the ability to use speech to harm others.

There is this weird cultural thing in America and not elsewhere that elevates "freedom of speech" above all other considerations, rather than justice or fairness or equality. Stephen Fry said it best when he said freedom of speech is treated as a tool in other countries, rather than an end to itself like in the US.

I do not worry about the law being unfairly implemented, because it would inherently be less unfair than things are now. It is unfair right now that minorities face bigotry that the majority does not. As long as the laws are actually written in such a way to describe bigoted speech, it'd be fine. Hate speech is not so complicated to define when you don't have people who are trying to undermine the very concept involved.

As for us not having all the classes already covered yet? Well, that's true, but that's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. No one argues that we shouldn't have anti-discrimination law because not everything is covered by the "suspect class" designation. No, we simply argue that more classes should be added.

Reasonable hate speech laws, like reasonable gun control laws, would be useful. No, no law is perfect. We'd have to err on the side of caution, letting things go that are clearly bigoted. But it can be done.

And, honestly, like gun control laws, I feel that those who say it is wrong but refuse to try tactics that have worked in other countries are doing the equivalent of just offering their "thoughts and prayers." The ability to use a gun isn't more important than lives, and this mythically pure "freedom of speech" that exists nowhere and would be inherently harmful (as the exceptions show) isn't more important than fighting the very real harm that bigotry does.

It bugs me that this is some sort of extreme position in the US.
  #98  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:05 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Choosing censorship is choosing ignorance.
This presupposes that all hate speech carries meaningful information. It does not.
  #99  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:06 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
But once you've accepted the concept of banning hate speech, you aren't the one who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not.
Not directly, no. But I can "decide" by supporting or not supporting the exact writing of the law, discussing my opinion with people etc...

Quote:
Your opinion on that matter isn't anymore valid than the opinion of the person who wants a vastly more restrictive implementation.
Of course it is, since I'm self-evidently right and they're wrong

Quote:
And currently, in fact, we aren't going towards a restrictive interpretation of what hate speech is, rather towards a more and more extensive view.
Possibly, but if that's the case I tautologically don't condone or support a more extensive view than my own. I think hate speech, unlike porn, can be very strictly defined and identified by a specific set of characteristics or matrix of comorbid characteristics.

Quote:
Basically, supporting censorship is saying : "there are things that are so bad that we shouldn't allow people to say them".
I'd amend that to "some rethoric and ideas are irredeemably toxic and inevitably, inescapably lead to violence". It's an utilitarian, consequentialist argument rather than a moral outrage one.

Quote:
Once you've agreed with that principle, and support it, deciding where the line should be drawn between "real bad" and "not so bad" is entirely subjective and can change at any time in any direction (and will tend to be more and more extensive because everybody will think : "if X can't be said because it offends that guy, then Y shouldn't be said either because it offends me).
True-ish (in the sense that I don't think that line is actually all that arbitrary or subjective, and can in fact be qualitatively defined) but so what ? That merely means I should fight to keep the line where I feel it should be rather than where people who are seeking to abuse it want to put it.

Quote:
And there's no way you can show that your subjective line in the sand is any better or make any more sense than that other arbitrary line in the sand.
Of course I can.

Quote:
By validating the legitimacy of banning repeated and extremely offensive hate statement, you're validating the legitimacy of banning somewhat offensive and occasional hate statements. By accepting the legitimacy of banning hateful racist statement, you're accepting the legitimacy of banning hateful antinational statements as well, for instance. Whatever will get banned will only depend on the trend of the moment once you've agreed with censorship.
I'm really not. For one immediately coming to mind thing, the nation is by definition not a protected class, not a demonstrably victimized subset of itself, cannot be the victim of violence or aggression, cannot feel distress etc... I strictly reject that slippery slope argument.

Quote:
And how do you know that Jews didn't make up the holocaust? That's a second, huge, issue there is with limiting free speech.

Denying the holocaust is currently a crime in France. You (generic you) can't publish a book explaining that it didn't happen, you can't create a website explaining that it didn't happen, you can't explain on TV why you think it didn't happen. Which means that you (specific you) don't have access to information disproving the holocaust. You can't know what are the arguments of people believing that the holocaust didn't happen (maybe they discovered last year in Tel Aviv the reels proving definitely that all the extermination camp footage you have seen were faked in a studio, for instance). As a result, you can't state anymore that the holocaust did happen.
I can't ? I mean I'm pretty sure I can, seeing that as a (future) high school teacher it's covered in the program and I'm going to have to state it and demonstrate it once a year. And, time constraints permitting, possibly address Holocaust denial itself in passing as a subset of the larger subject of antisemitism.

Quote:
Choosing censorship is choosing ignorance. There's no other way to put it. The only rational position when speech in support of X is banned is to admit that you can't know anymore if X is correct or not.
It really, but really isn't. Rather it seeks to address the problem of people who know it is not correct, but seek to exploit vulnerable persons and funnel them into a hateful worldview with a web of lies and manipulations and bad faith. There is absolutely no credible basis to dispute the reality of the Holocaust, period. And there is no societal benefit to be gained from platforming the bad faith actors who do.

Quote:
And thinking that censorship is likely to stay limited to whatever you approve of is naive at best. When the law about suppressing hate speech on social media that I mentioned twice was voted, deputies tried to introduce all sorts of things under "hate speech", from supporting pornography to disparaging traditional agricultural practices.
*shrug* and those deputies are complete idiots at best, and should be voted out for their demonstrabled, demonstrated pinheadery and lack of foresight. Any law can be hijacked and subverted by bad faith actors. Which is why it's in the public interest not to put dishonest idiots in power.
*stares at America, hard*

Quote:
And what about people who don't know you? Why should I assume that your statement was a joke? And even if I believe it was a joke, what if I'm of the opinion that not only it's a terrible joke (I'm honestly surprised that none of your Jewish friends ever told you to fuck off with this joke, in fact, because even I would find its repetition pretty tiring and offensive, eventually), but also that it stays equally offensive and is still hate speech, and that you still should be sentenced for holocaust denial?
The people who don't know me can think whatever the fuck they like about me I guess ? If they're actually interested in my positions or whether or not I was making a joke they can, I dunno, *ask me*. Or look up my posting history. Or engage with me in good faith and see how that goes. Conversely, if they're just being offended for the sake of it (or pretend to be for fun and profit), fuck 'em.
(I'm not using that specific kind of joke myself BTW - it was just a caricatural example. If I did and my friends found it unfunny they could, again, maybe mention it to me. One of my lady friends has in fact expressed irritation at my regularly pretending to be an arch-chauvinist prick like my dad, and why it was getting tiresome to her specifically... which has indeed prompted me to try and stop doing that)
  #100  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:13 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I endorse the principle of free speech. I think that it extends beyond the mandate that government generally not interfere with it contained in our First Amendment. I think Timothy Garton Ash’s 10 Principles of Free Speech are a good first pass at outlining roughly how far beyond mere government non-interference the principle might reasonably extend. The core principle of free speech, is a good one, and I wish more of our countrymen agreed with me on that, but I'm not going to propose we ship those that don't to re-education camps or exile them. In that sense, "nobody need adhere to" it, but I think it would be wise and good of them to do so.
Sounds like you're proposing is the speech version of the Republican health care plan: everyone should speak with civility/have health coverage! I mean, we aren't actually going to DO anything about it....

Do you oppose other restrictions on speech, like fire/crowded theater or defamation?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017