UNLIMITED 2016 Starting Early With Batshittery Thread.

[hoopla]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

[hoopla]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

The rules are established by those, mostly, who have privilege.

So let's let them decide who gets to say what.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

So is that how things work now? The second the percentage of black opinions on X goes .0005% over the white opinions on X you need to think about it? I realize Im literally oppressing 13.2% of America by even thinking these doublewrong thoughts but it is entirely possible for a black person to be wrong about something. More importantly I dont see what bearing the official black person stamp of approval(Ignore the 38% of blacks who disagree) has on if we should arbitrarily restrict free speech.

Im interested in how far this goes. Like, if it was 70% of whites support hate speech laws and 60% of blacks support hate speech laws would you still have to think about if you really support free speech? What if it was still more white people than blacks who think it isnt a problem but the black number was more around 30-ish?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

The rules are established by those, mostly, who have privilege.

So let's let them decide who gets to say what.

YEP. THIS.

If hate speech is made illegal, I will guarantee you that the people getting prosecuted for hate speech crime will be overwhelmingly the disempowered.

[Cain]

Yup.  I'm sure there are good intentions behind at least some hate speech legislation...but the realities of power politics is that the New Black Panthers will be charged under hate speech legislation before, say a Republican Presidential candidate.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It sure as hell won't be the people spouting off about gays being sinners, or about how Those People need to stop destroying their own neighborhoods.

[hoopla]

I'll have to give it some thought.

What I really meant was "wait to see what Nigel says, because she's always right".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'll have to give it some thought.

What I really meant was "wait to see what Nigel says, because she's always right".

  Only because I can't touch the good stuff anymore.

[Junkenstein]

Yup.  I'm sure there are good intentions behind at least some hate speech legislation...but the realities of power politics is that the New Black Panthers will be charged under hate speech legislation before, say a Republican Presidential candidate.

Perfect demonstration of this on a daily basis with Fox news. Old crazy white people get to "ask questions" and "be pundits" about all kinds of crap that generally amounts to an onslaught of racist bullshit.

It really would be nice to see someone like Boko Haram or ISIS sue Murdoch on these grounds. Or the civilian non-militant equivalents. By all accounts ISIS is doing quite well on the hearts and minds front and Murdoch isn't half the shadowy figure he was 20/30 years ago.

Thinking that, Surely the Daily hate* should be wide open under UK legislation? Kids and cretins have had all kinds of punishments for social media statements that are probably around half as offensive as any given page of it.


*For filthy immigrant foreign readers, I am reffering to the Daily Mail. The only UK paper that can mention evil Asians and house prices being up and/or down in a 5 line sidebar about horseracing results. 

[Reginald Ret]

Yup.  I'm sure there are good intentions behind at least some hate speech legislation...but the realities of power politics is that the New Black Panthers will be charged under hate speech legislation before, say a Republican Presidential candidate.

Perfect demonstration of this on a daily basis with Fox news. Old crazy white people get to "ask questions" and "be pundits" about all kinds of crap that generally amounts to an onslaught of racist bullshit.

It really would be nice to see someone like Boko Haram or ISIS sue Murdoch on these grounds. Or the civilian non-militant equivalents. By all accounts ISIS is doing quite well on the hearts and minds front and Murdoch isn't half the shadowy figure he was 20/30 years ago.

Thinking that, Surely the Daily hate* should be wide open under UK legislation? Kids and cretins have had all kinds of punishments for social media statements that are probably around half as offensive as any given page of it.


*For filthy immigrant foreign readers, I am reffering to the Daily Mail. The only UK paper that can mention evil Asians and house prices being up and/or down in a 5 line sidebar about horseracing results. 

Do you mean wide open to being charged under hate speech legislation?
Because the Daily Mail is not a likely target, their targets are likely targets for hate speech legislation.

[Junkenstein]

Do you mean wide open to being charged under hate speech legislation?-

Yes, If not the entity, then the individual contributors/editor. In a similar way to how Private Eye dealt with/ deals with(?) libel cases and the like.

Because the Daily Mail is not a likely target, their targets are likely targets for hate speech legislation.

Somewhat. The UK press/media are not likely targets due to the proven inability of the UK population to have any real influence over them. See the clusterfuck that is Leveson, The Sun, "Sun on Sunday" and Brooks back in the mix for reference there. It was more just the idea of one of their hates suing them on completely justified grounds that amused me.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

I'm pretty 100% behind free speech, but those stats made it clear that there is a lot of privilege on my part behind that. I'll have to give it some thought.

I am not prepared to abrogate the right of free speech over an issue of privilege for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

I would have agreed wholeheartedly half an hour ago. But seeing that it's mostly white people who think it's no a problem has made me pause. I'm not decided yet.

The rules are established by those, mostly, who have privilege.

So let's let them decide who gets to say what.

YEP. THIS.

If hate speech is made illegal, I will guarantee you that the people getting prosecuted for hate speech crime will be overwhelmingly the disempowered.

Even if hate speech laws prosecuted no one but the privileged and didnt put minorities at any disadvantage at all they would still be wrong. 

[Doktor Howl]

I'll have to give it some thought.

What I really meant was "wait to see what Nigel says, because she's always right".

There's not actually a monopoly on that, despite appearances.

Nor is there anything wrong with having a friend who is usually right, when you think about it.  You have this person that you can destructively test your ideas against.