121–130 of 360 posts
I already kicked up a shit here in NL together with a few other well connected people (with success) but it's a little frustrating that there's little more to do other than hope that nerds in other EU countries can make a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: why would a free speech absolutist start a discussion here, on this site? I have a feeling that plenty of rules here [0] wouldn't be accepted by such a crowd. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Because 15 years ago this was the default point of view everywhere online. Then the unwashed masses came and banned us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems so arbitrary, where does ascii art fall?
Probably under the umbrella of "you're not going to transmit anything meaningful with an extremely limited amount of horizontal space due to the automatic formatting of chat bubbles"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course abused by evil people. Moreover, what counts as hate speech can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge, and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still be used…
I am not directing this at you, or anyone here, truly. However, this XKCD always come to mind whenever I hear the topics of hate speech and free speech mentioned within proximity of each other: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because 15 years ago this was the default point of view everywhere online. Then the unwashed masses came and banned us.
Well, calling people "unwashed masses" because they don't agree with you isn't the greatest way to start the discussion, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it implies the only way forward is with violence, a premise I thoroughly reject.
It states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope repeated countless times in history, and it will occur again. Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The largest organisations are the trillion dollar ones we interact with every day, not the eu or even the German or us governments .
The US Government spending is an order of magnitude bigger than the largest private companies in the world... WalMart is the largest private spender in the world at around ~$400B per year. The US Federal Government alone spends >$400B per month... That doesn't even include state and local governments which basically doubles that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course abused by evil people. Moreover, what counts as hate speech can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge, and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still be used…
I am not directing this at you, or anyone here, truly. However, this XKCD always come to mind whenever I hear the topics of hate speech and free speech mentioned within proximity of each other: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it implies the only way forward is with violence, a premise I thoroughly reject.
It states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope repeated countless times in history, and it will occur again. Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?
This is a really unfair reading of my stance, and I'm fairly confident you knew what I meant - especially since I spelled it out in my last comment.
Acknowledgement of history is fine. Implications that the way things have always went is the only way it can go is silly at best and dangerous at worst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti-hate speech got you? What were you trying to say exactly? One can go on X right now and spew any hate speech that one wants. How about just political opinions? How quickly we forgot "free speech zones." This is the government actually limiting public speech in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone BTW, I am not for this regulation in any way. I just don't see the connection to hate speech.
Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course abused by evil people. Moreover, what counts as hate speech can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge, and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still be used…
Really because all the people I've seen who bitch about both the lack of their freedom to speak and of being accused of hate speech never shut up, in fact it's seemingly their entire career now to make public appearances at venues and complain about how silenced they are, into hot microphones, for an audience.