(Title Censored)

[jakelafortParticipant]

In declensions of dissension along comes Autumn and here she mentions
ad campaigns and truthiness. Twas only a spore within a metaphor. Only puffing
similar to thanksgiving stuffing. Nothing more…

[DavisModerator]

Again with the slippery slope shit Unseen. I’m not engaging in slippery slope arguments. Yes, harm is relative. Hate speech laws are not geared towards people whose feeling are hurt over a rude opinion. They are geared towards protecting vulnerable groups from the most extreme hate-speech. Please stop the slippery slope nonsense.

If you can demonstrate that non-hate speech has a systemic adverse affect on a mistreated group of people or ones which suffer a higher level of problems in which extreme comments seriously devalue them, make them less safe, discriminate and impinge on their other rights…then by all means…lets discuss it. For example?

(p.s. you were right about the Anarchist cookbook and I take that one back)

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Davis.

[UnseenParticipant]

onyangomakagutu wrote:

You make good points, Unseen, which in general I am in agreement with.  I am trying to think of non-hateful speech that causes harm and I have come back blank.

That’s easy, I’m in conversation with someone and we start discussing a case of domestic abuse that’s in the news, or rape. Such discussions can unintentionally trigger some people into flashbacks and other debilitating episodes. In a worst case, suicide. Discuss it on tv or online and you can be pretty sure you’re causing some harm without intending to.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Fundamentally we ought to dispel the bullshit about the efficiency of the market place of ideas when so few get beyond their tribal thinking. Some ideas ought to be noncontroversial. Others can be viewed by reasonable people in different ways. So what? Only a tiny fraction of humans are reasonable. Stuck they are in their beliefs and not receptive to reason is standard fare.

The rationale of the metaphor is often cited as sacrosanct and inviolable. Said belief is misplaced. Is it even necessary to cite the enduring BS beliefs that have endured through endless cycles of speech? So the economics of human free speech are shite. On the other hand censoring speech is a diminution in freedom to the degree that airing ideas are subject to penalty. In that way there is value in preserving all speech. Oh the tension!

Okay so we want to preserve freedoms, right? Well yeah but just like all other rights the preservation of one can lead to the reduction of another. Again balancing is apropos and ever present in constitutional analysis. American constitutional law rightly gives precedence to political speech. The little guy/gal citizen has the right to speak to power. If you can’t criticize the government then the government will inevitably oppress its citizens. Airing grievances, exposing abuses are essential to a decent society.

The dynamic in power is reversed when we give citizens carte blanch to use hate speech against marginalized citizens who as a result of historical persecution of outsiders/outcasts are especially vulnerable to criminal misconduct. It is not only individuals who are more at risk when we permit hate speech. It is also an environment that can lead to tragic levels of persecution. Further it sends a message that the vulnerable groups can be fucked with. It gives them opportunity to recruit more hate-loving humans with hopes of bringing about the persecution they speak of. In the balance of rights ought we credit the worst scum their freedom to calumniate and work towards their goals or ought we protect individuals who are their intended victims?

[UnseenParticipant]

@jake

So we can solve lots of problems by clamping down on “misinformation,” like the fact that a lot of people vote for the other party on Election Day.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Unseen, ya lost me.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

Now, now, Unseen. Let’s get our kinks straight here.😉

Buggery, depending on the jurisdiction, means anal or oral intercourse, both Heterosexual or Homosexual, between adults, not children. Sometimes, it incompasses non-human animals, but generally, it involves neither fish nor fowl nor land beasts. And, in societies based on the presumption of innocence, it is consensual until proven otherwise.

Sodomy (Buggery)–Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
(Parenthetically, with testing, condoms, lots of lube, and gentle demeanor, it is one of many healthy sexual practices. 😈)

So, nothing to do with child abuse here.

Now, having said all this, I couldn’t tell you what Gomorrah-y is. This is one for somebody’s Mom. 😁

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, ya lost me.

“Fundamentally we ought to dispel the bullshit about the efficiency of the market place of ideas when so few get beyond their tribal thinking. Some ideas ought to be noncontroversial. Others can be viewed by reasonable people in different ways. So what? Only a tiny fraction of humans are reasonable. Stuck they are in their beliefs and not receptive to reason is standard fare.”

Do you get it now? Once it’s okay to manipulate people by controlling what they can hear or read in order to make sure their views match yours. Why stop there? What about wrong thinkers who vote for the other political party?

Is that a slippery slope argument? Maybe, but the slippery slope argument, treated as leading to a conclusion with necessity is surely fallacious, but treated as a warning of a potential risk, as a temptation that would be easy to give into, there’s nothing fallacious about it.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

“Buggery” has a legal definition? Anyway, nowhere in your Wikipedia link is there anything about it being limited to adults.

Besides, in normal parlance, we don’t default to the definitions found in legal dictionaries.

[DavisModerator]

Is that a slippery slope argument? Maybe, but the slippery slope argument, treated as leading to a conclusion with necessity is surely fallacious, but treated as a warning of a potential risk, as a temptation that would be easy to give into, there’s nothing fallacious about it.

There is no maybe about your slippery slope, and your suppositions and paranoia are so extreme (especially considering hate-speech laws in practice in other countries for decades) it is comical.

You can say the same slippery slope bullshit about any curb on free speech. Oh dear…you what? You want to have libel laws? First you have a law against destroying someone’s professional reputation by making a false accusation. Next thing you know…you get arrested for calling someone a poo poo head.

Oh dear, first you get arrested for distributing images of child porn? Next thing you know you get arrested for making an image with someone wearing colours that fashion critics think is hideous!

Oh dear, first you get dinged for making a copy of someone’s novel and selling it. Next thing you know…you get arrested for printing a short quote someone famous said on a Tshirt and selling it.

Slippery slope arguments are fallacious Unseen. You are a philosophy graduate. Come down to Earth.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Davis.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

You were saying that NAMBLA advocated buggery and I was pointing out that buggery is not a synonym for child abuse.

And any action that could involve a Judge, Prosecutor, District Attorney, and a Jury had better default to legal definitions with specific elements of the act or we’re all in trouble. (Not that the acts of consenting adults are the damn business of any of government in the first place. The legal definition should be chalked up with slavery and attainder and blasphemy as ugly legal relics of history.)

[jakelafortParticipant]

Unseen, I am dead set against constitutional protection for hate speech. It was not until Davis wrote how European countries don’t generally give that protection that i was aware it was different there. Dershowitz and a host of thinkers are simply mistaken.

You wrote: Do you get it now? Once it’s okay to manipulate people by controlling what they can hear or read in order to make sure their views match yours. Why stop there? What about wrong thinkers who vote for the other political party?

I was not addressing what people can hear or read except as it might relate to hate speech. Do you really think the world will be at a loss if we ban such speech?

On the other hand i realize it is the wild wild west of disinformation and i am all for getting in line as i indicated to manipulate recalcitrant and intransigent and all others to get in a bandwagon to address climate change.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Fellow Unbelievers,

As Larry The Cable Guy puts it:”Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!”

China calls on Sweden to respect the religious beliefs of Muslims over Quran burning incident

China calls on Sweden to respect the religious beliefs of Muslims over Quran burning incident

“Hello, Kettle! This is Pot! Did you know you’re black?” 😁😆😅😂🤣

On a more serious note, if somebody wants to deride Al-Qu’ran or The Holy Bible or any other religious text, the best bet is not to burn it, but to read it out loud on a street corner.

Better yet, highlight the more grim verses on a black billboard followed by a quote attribution to God or Allah or Fill-In-The-Blank Omnific Asshole.

[—Participant]

Davis wrote:

Is that a slippery slope argument? Maybe, but the slippery slope argument, treated as leading to a conclusion with necessity is surely fallacious, but treated as a warning of a potential risk, as a temptation that would be easy to give into, there’s nothing fallacious about it.

There is no maybe about your slippery slope, and your suppositions and paranoia are so extreme (especially considering hate-speech laws in practice in other countries for decades) it is comical.

I believe it’s already been mentioned that the scope of such laws tends to be narrow, but so too does the surrounding jurisprudence. Even considering the wording of a statute, it will likely be more broad than the various legal tests and definitions that apply in practice. There isn’t a connecting principle between prohibiting hate speech and silencing political speech. There is no slope from one to the other, slippery or otherwise. If there were, that would have to be one of the most shittily drafted bits of hate speech legislation ever drafted.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Bam, Bam, Bama, O O O is on the disinformation algorithm warpath. Too bad he did not speak out against the religious institutions that spread disinformation endlessly. It seems Obama is a free speech absolutist. Unless that is the misinformation utilizes algorithms to coagulate morons who gush over their word porn. When it is proselytization and mind-hosing impressionable brains of children that is ok.

Obama points finger at tech companies for disinformation in major speech

[Author]

Posts