131–140 of 870 posts
Honest question. For those of you happy that these censorship policies are being implemented by companies in reaction to pressure, do you believe that the ideal end-goal would be 'anti hate speech' laws like those of Germany?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany doesn't seem to have significant difficulty banning Nazi symbols and propaganda without accidentally banning, say, depictions of unicorns. Slippery slopes have varying levels of steepness.
I believe the parent poster is referring to the extremely recent reforms going on in Germany, which are above and beyond their historic control of Nazi symbols: https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/19/germany-tightens-online-ha... I don't have an opinion on this as it's way too fresh to have observed the effects of it and render a judgment; just here to provide context.
Interesting that the Japanese rising sun flag is mentioned alongside the swastika and the stars and bars; the rising sun flag remains in contemporary use by the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force.
Not really. The rising sun flag is the flag of the imperial Japanese army, the one that allied with Nazi Germany. They were brutal and deserve to be regarded in a similar manner to Nazi Germany. The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force flag is problematic. It's like Mississippi or Georgia's state flags before 2020, it's a call back to things that should be left in the history books.
>The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force flag is problematic.
The flag of the National Republican Army is the Italian flag with a bird on it. Is the Italian flag also problematic due to its close relationship with the Axis?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a point which is beyond the confederate flag. There may well be a slippery slope somewhere along this road, but it's not here. Gun advocates resist common sense reforms with the same logic, but lots of military weapons (minigun, flamethrower, rocket launcher, etc) are already either banned or highly regulated and have been for years without anyone's rights having been trampled.
What do you think of the counterargument about statues? A few years ago, the idea that removing Confederate statues might lead to removing statues of founding fathers was considered an absurd slippery slope argument; a few days ago, the New York Times published an opinion piece arguing that statues of George Washington should be torn down. How can we be confident that this isn't a step down that same slope?
https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/boston-art-commissio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Companies should be free to regulate hate speech on their platforms. The government should not regulate speech in the public domain. While I agree, please direct me to where I can speak "in the public domain" online.
Companies aren't the only entities allowed to publish content on the World Wide Web, you know. You're free to build whatever discussion platforms you like, or you could just, y'know, publish a website.
I am not very familiar with the American civil war. The way people talk about it seems weird to me though: it is as though the entire southern United States were overcome by an irresistible race hatred and they started a war in order to ensure their white supremacy- but mostly out of ignorance of the morals of this. I have a hard time believing the entire southern United States was only fighting for the right to own…
It was very much over slavery. The entire economic system of the south depended on chattel slavery, and the south didn't really recover economically for a century. And despite the idea of it being over the abstract idea of "states' rights", the confederate constitution mainly reduced a state's right to make choices for itself. It was pretty much a clone of the US constitution, with a clause that states couldn't ban s…
Honest question. For those of you happy that these censorship policies are being implemented by companies in reaction to pressure, do you believe that the ideal end-goal would be 'anti hate speech' laws like those of Germany?
"This slope isn't particularly sloppy" is the single best reply capturing the delusion and dishonesty of the people who celebrate the limiting of speech and expression heere. At least admit it proudly, that you are placing a punishment on vocalbulary and imposing self-censorship and thus invading privacy too. All these masks attempting to cover-up reduction of politics to friend/enemy distinction are even more insult…
I'm curious why the confederate flag should get special treatment. I had relatives murdered in the Alamo. Should the Mexican flag get banned because I'm offended by it? Every flag represents a group that has been in the losing side of a war and killed opposing citizens or soldiers. Yet, those flags aren't banned.
Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? In other words, did they simply act in the context of their time period, as other men in their position would, or did they specifically act to curtail the rights of others. This makes it very easy for me to condemn symbols of the Confederacy, because they specifically acted to preserve slavery.
If anyone believes the Confederates did not rebel and fight specifically to preserve slavery, they should read the words of the seceding states: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
---
Taking it back to your question about Mexico: War is terrible, and flags are used in war. Flags are used after the war is over to show their solidarity with the principles of one side or the other. The flag of Mexico was primarily just a marker to say "We are Mexico"
Some people associate the confederate battle flag with a spirit of rebellion, and that's understandable. But other people associate it with hatred. You don't get to choose how someone else will understand it and be affected by it. It's hard to be a grown up, but part of it is deciding how much you care about offending other people.
I am not very familiar with the American civil war. The way people talk about it seems weird to me though: it is as though the entire southern United States were overcome by an irresistible race hatred and they started a war in order to ensure their white supremacy- but mostly out of ignorance of the morals of this. I have a hard time believing the entire southern United States was only fighting for the right to own…
It’s an expansive topic; I’d encourage you to pick a few accounts of the era as well as biographies of Lincoln and generals Grant and Lee.
Honest question. For those of you happy that these censorship policies are being implemented by companies in reaction to pressure, do you believe that the ideal end-goal would be 'anti hate speech' laws like those of Germany?
Doing so would probably require amending the First Amendment, which I think would do more harm than good. But Germany seems to have implemented such a system without becoming a dystopian hellscape. Seems a pretty nice place to live.
It seems to me that there are already plenty of laws that breach the 1st amendment if you interpret speech as absolutely any speech (e.g. death threats, libel, ...). And it is constitutional because the current interpretation of speech is narrower than "everything".
Doesn't that mean that, if there were the will to do it, free speech could be reinterpreted (by the supreme court?) to not include hate speech, thus not requiring to change the 1st amendment?