No, now.
Warning issued.
Seriously?
Yeah I know you are serious. Secondly. I think it is kinda sad. Which is why I said I would take it to the about the this message board.
A warning about saying I’d take it to ABTMB…doesn’t get any more “free speech” than that does it?
No, your warning is for failure to follow.
I could toss another one in for altering quotes if I felt like it.
What did I “alter”?
Secondly, my post was IN THE SAM FEW MINUTES (or minute depending on what exactly you are talking about) as your mod warning…and before your warning as far as I read them…
PS this should be good…
In other words, you think protesters at a rally interrupting or shouting over a speaker shouldn’t count as “free speech” that deserves defending, but your wasting bandwidth on silly content-free “nyah-nyah, can’t heeeear you!” games with other people’s posts in a debate thread should? :dubious:
This is a perfect illustration of why it’s not very meaningful or logically consistent to demand respect for “free speech” as a vaguely defined concept separate from specific First Amendment constraints.
Because that sort of ill-determined “freeze peach” notion generally turns out to mean, in practice, “All the speech that the pro-FreezePeacher personally supports, but not speech that they don’t support”.
If I ALTERED anything its due to this sites not so good quoting feature. Not because I actually intended to alter anything.
The only thing i did her was hit “quote” and use the delete key.
I can hear the wagons circling as we speak.
Technically, when you quote a truncated or modified excerpt from somebody else’s post that potentially changes the meaning of what they said, you’re supposed to explicitly indicate that.
So “quoting” Miller as just saying “W.” or me as just saying "S" is technically an improper alteration of a quote.
I mean, I get the point you were trying to make and I get that you thought it was amusing, but strictly speaking it misrepresented what we said.
If you are absolutely determined on some form of “suicide by mod”, I can’t do anything to stop you. But you know, there is still the option of climbing down off the ledge and actually engaging in serious debate about how you think the concept of “free speech” ought to be defined.
So strictly speaking you think I need a warning or a banning.
Hurray “free speech” I suppose.
Yeah, ban me for “free speech”.
If I’m gonna be banned…let it be for something worth a shit.
And let that day be the day the SDMB died a PC death.
It probably is one of those “you know it when you see it” things. If the entire audience erupts in a standing ovation, and chants “Go, go, go” for ten minutes, that has exactly the same effect as two per cent of the audience chanting “Up Yours” for the same ten minutes. It silences the speaker.
But what about an occasional, “Boo!” when he makes a point I don’t like. It’s only a little disruptive. (The kerfluffle of sending security officers through the crowd to detain me would, itself, be more disruptive!)
The guys in charge of security pretty much have to work this by instinct, intuition, and a raw guess or two. They don’t want to be either too harsh or too lenient. One hell of a tightrope.
Good point.
I can live with the occasional “booooo” or “fuck yeahhhhhh” in a speech. But the BOOOOOOs that crowd out what the speaker is saying…yeah…“you” don’t believe in free speech…
I didn’t say I thought so; it’s not what I think about your behavior that matters as far as moderation is concerned.
Like I said: In other words, you think protesters at a rally interrupting or shouting over a speaker shouldn’t count as “free speech” that deserves defending, but your wasting bandwidth on silly content-free “nyah-nyah, can’t heeeear you!” games with other people’s posts in a debate thread should?
**Why do you think that your dropping senseless little verbal turds of “what? what? what?” to derail a serious discussion should be treated with more toleration and respect for “free speech” than protesters shouting to interrupt a speaker? **
So if nine individuals boo but don’t drown out the speaker, that’s not anti-free-speech, but if ten individuals boo and do drown out the speaker, that is anti-free-speech?
In that case, is it only the last-straw tenth individual you consider anti-free-speech, or all the other nine as well? :dubious:
This is just one of many reasons why trying to define “free speech” on an ad hoc “I know it when I see it” basis doesn’t actually work very well.
How darn simple can I make this?
If your free speech to yell and scream and shout is such that random bystander can’t hear what Evil guy X is saying…you don’t IMO actually believe in free speech.
And the fact you (and the mods) get butthurt when I have pretended to not hear what you are saying just makes the point even more.
Speech isn’t free if you can not even make your point without being drowned out (or some variation of such).
But if your “free speech” is just to mechanically repeat “what?” in order to derail a serious debate thread, why shouldn’t that also qualify as “not believing in free speech”?
Being an obstructionist PITA somehow counts as “not believing in free speech” when anti-Trump protesters do it, but not when you do it? :dubious:
[QUOTE=billfish678]
And the fact you (and the mods) get butthurt when I have pretended to not hear what you are saying just makes the point even more.
[/quote]
I don’t think you understand what point you’re actually making here.
You’re not really standing up for any consistent restrictions of legality, courtesy, dignity, or anything else to demarcate “free speech”. You’re just picking and choosing what type of speech you consider “free” and thus worthy of defense based on whether or not you like what it’s saying.
Oh baloney.
My defiinition of free speech is pretty simple. That someone can actually get the words out and other people can hear them before the haters start making noise.
And for that matter, that goes for people and or their opinion that I hate as well, so lay off that picking and choosing bull mularky thank you very much.
Actually, I believe that he thinks he’s making a point by engaging in his speech. I also believe that he was attempting to make a point, and this is where you’re exactly right, Kimstu, and that you should see where your mistake is, Bill. You believe that you’re speech was worthy, even though delivered in a distasteful manner, and thus you shouldn’t get a warning. The protesters also believe that THEIR speech is worthy, no matter the method of it’s delivery. Thus the problems with limiting speech.
Well, we already established that you don’t think that definition applies to the “noise” of the “haters” themselves.
In other words, if somebody’s interrupting or shouting over somebody else, you don’t think their speech counts as “free speech”. (Which takes us back more or less to the same point in the discussion we’d reached 20+ posts ago when you started going full-bore with your silly “what-what” games.)
Fine. There’s nothing wrong with putting some restrictions on what counts as “free speech”: in fact, the whole point is that there do have to be some restrictions on what counts as “free speech” in order to make the term meaningful.
**Now, what are the other restrictions that you’re tacitly applying to your definition of “free speech”? **
For example, is the disturbed street-corner screamer also entitled to “actually get the words out and other people can hear them”? If so, are the people who take the screamer into custody “not believing in free speech”? If not, why doesn’t the screamer’s speech count as “free speech” and thus worthy of defending? Does the content of the words the screamer is screaming make a difference here?
And you still haven’t addressed the issue of the guy shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, either.
You see where this is going, right? To get an actually useful, meaningful definition of “free speech”, we’re going to have to limit it with all sorts of contexts and constraints that will basically take us right back to the comparatively narrow First Amendment interpretation of the concept that you loftily claimed to disregard when you insisted on using the term “free speech” without qualification.
Well, since that is not what happened, your claim in this sentence is false.
Your pretense was not a matter of being drowned out, it was pure trolling, a refusal to engage in legitimate discussion.
When told to stop it and post like an adult, you childishly had to make one more post, thus incurring a Warning.
You are more than welcome to actually argue your point regarding free speech. Posting imaginary claims that you cannot “hear” posted text is just trolling.
Now, if you would like to continue a genuine discussion of free speech, you are welcome to do so. Continued whining about the Moderating needs to be taken to ATMB.
[ /Moderating ]
Why should I address that?
It’s stupid.
I never brought it up one way or another.
It’s a settled issue for anybody with half a brain.