181–190 of 348 posts
Hate speech, bullying, none of that shit needs to be protected speech. It's not as delicate or complicated as people who generally aren't on the receiving end of it try to make it out to be.
I am staggered by the amount of people here who object to Imzy's "Be Nice"-policy on the basis that it limits free speech. To me that seems to be a rather flawed argumentation: a) The First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, explicitly does so in a political context ("Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"). Imzy is not the US Congress, they don't have jurisdict…
Well, lets say you know someone who is a legit flat earther. You're not going to change their mind, because such a belief is unreasonable, but if you attempt to reason with them you elevate their social status and accidentally lend credence to them. This is the Fox News "fair and balanced" model -- if you give equal time to both viewpoints, even if one viewpoint is nuts, people will assume that there's a rational deb…
I think you've touched on a very important point. There is a huge difference between enforcing "niceness" and civility. The latter allows for the organic and authentic discussion of ideas, while the former doesn't.
I guess most of the world could live in safe spaces like this? But for the creators and doers it's horrific. We move forward by being challenged. That includes everything. (until AI has the ability to filter out things that challenge but don't move us forward)
Have you actually /been/ to reddit in the last year? The idea that anything of value is created by this raging mob of hateful teenagers with too much free time is laughable. FFS, they've just spent a month riling each other up about a Clinton/Podesta pedophile ring operating out of an italian restaurant. That may be "challenging" for some of them (because letters etc.), but it's not the stuff the next breakthrough in…
Why dont they call it what it is? A safe space for the left. Looking at the official "politics" section is just liberal-based editorials: https://www.imzy.com/politics I lean left on the political spectrum for most things, but I cant help but think all this "safe space" stuff is what pushed the country into electing trump in the first place- It makes america look and feel weak. Also, the site is ungodly slow and supe…
FWIW, Reddit's /r/politics is also liberals-only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like a fair amount of statements directly made by Trump on the campaign trail (mocking a disabled person, telling people to check out the "sex tape" of a former Miss universe he didn't like, many other statements) would themselves not be allowed on this site, so it's not surprising it would be naturally anti-Trump. I highly doubt it would have any such attitudes towards people like Jeb Bush or Rand Paul who…
https://youtu.be/vk-fDRLSsQk If you think Trump made fun of a disabled reporter, you may have been reading fake news
"Trump may deny that he intentionally mocked Kovaleski for his disability, but many Americans believe his remarks amounted to mocking, and we concur that that’s a reasonable -- indeed, perhaps the only -- interpretation of his actions. The notion that Trump’s comments about Cruz and a general undercut Clinton’s claim don’t hold water, because all three examples constitute mocking, whether a disability was involved or not. We rate the statement False."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/...
I am staggered by the amount of people here who object to Imzy's "Be Nice"-policy on the basis that it limits free speech. To me that seems to be a rather flawed argumentation: a) The First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, explicitly does so in a political context ("Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"). Imzy is not the US Congress, they don't have jurisdict…
Yes, insofar as the law protects free speech, it does so only against the government.
We as individual Americans, should, however, be wary of using privately-owned spaces as public spheres unless they provide broadly similar guarantees that different points of view can be expressed. This is becoming more important as the traditional public sphere is increasingly giving way to privately-run ones (e.g. Facebook and Reddit).
>Why does free speech mean that we get to insult and demean each other, even going so far as to sending death threats? I think the German constitution (the Grundgesetz) has a point when it says in Article 5, §2 that the right of free speech is limited, amongst others, by every person's right of dignity ("Recht der persönlichen Ehre" - a hard to translate concept).
No one is arguing for allowing death threats. This is a classic straw man used in just about every major online debate ever.
The German constitution is flawed here. When German police can arrest people for having the wrong opinion, something is badly wrong.
>On Reddit and like sites we see behaviour that we would never tolerate if we saw it in real life. Why do we not only tolerate it online, but suddenly elevate such antisocial behaviour of the extremest kind to a mystical status of "expression of free speech"? There is a reason we are taught "manners" as children: without a minimum of politeness, societies cannot function. Politeness and courtesy have to do with respecting another's person even if you don't share his (or her) opinions, with tolerating people who are different from you. And is that not the very epitome of freedom?
The problem is the definition of politeness. The cultural powers have dictated that calling people racist and sexist for disagreeing with you is "polite", while fighting back against that madness is ghastly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like a fair amount of statements directly made by Trump on the campaign trail (mocking a disabled person, telling people to check out the "sex tape" of a former Miss universe he didn't like, many other statements) would themselves not be allowed on this site, so it's not surprising it would be naturally anti-Trump. I highly doubt it would have any such attitudes towards people like Jeb Bush or Rand Paul who…
Trump didn't actually "mock a disabled person", at least not for their disability. Trump does do sort of a stammering spastic schtick in speeches to poke fun at people who have had to retrench after a misstatement. But: (1) Trump does that same impression for anyone who has had to correct a misstatement about Trump. (2) The time Trump was accused of doing it to mock a disabled person, his impression was the exact opp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like a fair amount of statements directly made by Trump on the campaign trail (mocking a disabled person, telling people to check out the "sex tape" of a former Miss universe he didn't like, many other statements) would themselves not be allowed on this site, so it's not surprising it would be naturally anti-Trump. I highly doubt it would have any such attitudes towards people like Jeb Bush or Rand Paul who…
Trump didn't actually "mock a disabled person", at least not for their disability. Trump does do sort of a stammering spastic schtick in speeches to poke fun at people who have had to retrench after a misstatement. But: (1) Trump does that same impression for anyone who has had to correct a misstatement about Trump. (2) The time Trump was accused of doing it to mock a disabled person, his impression was the exact opp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://youtu.be/vk-fDRLSsQk If you think Trump made fun of a disabled reporter, you may have been reading fake news
Politifact: "Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton is 'wrong' to say he mocked a disabled reporter": False "Trump may deny that he intentionally mocked Kovaleski for his disability, but many Americans believe his remarks amounted to mocking, and we concur that that’s a reasonable -- indeed, perhaps the only -- interpretation of his actions. The notion that Trump’s comments about Cruz and a general undercut Clinton’s clai…
edit: parent comment originally just said "that video is pathetic" https://i.sli.mg/g7PW3y.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, it does. Free speech is an upper bound on human expression - anything less than absolute is something less than "free." I'm not advocating for this - sites should police certain illegal and immoral activities. Doing so is clearly in the benefit of society and the quality of any online community. But accepting this is subjugating free speech for the sake of cultural norms and legal necessity.
That is an extremely loose definition of freedom. Ever heard the dictum "One man's freedom ends where another's begins"? Or, as somebody once put it: "My freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins." Liberty for all is only attainable when all restrict their individual liberty to accommodate others. If that isn't the foundation of your society, "homo homini lupus" is what you get.
