331–340 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point here is?
I think the irony is that South Park is self-censoring for the European market. I know that's not equivalent to state censorship, but it's still ironic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Education is a right to all, not a particular person or group, hence not a privilege.
But specialized education and the extent of that education is a privilege. Not everyone has access to the same levels of education.
The G&T program was basically training for grad school: indepdent study, project-based learning, access to computers and internet when they were rare, etc.
That training made a huge impact on my career (I am a post-scientist ML expert at a large internet company). I mentioned the program to some folks I went to school with and they pointed out this G&T program was not ever offered to them.
Interestingly, these kinds of systems end up being important for the long-term success of a country. but at the same time they tend to perpetuate privilege. Students who weren't in the highest level of classes weren't even given a chance to take the test
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile in America you are liable for insulting vegetables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws Point is, every country has exceptions, and indexing on irrelevant edge cases isn’t especially useful. America is pretty darn good at free speech. But so is, say, Canada.
That has nothing to do with free speech. If I grow some vegetables and sell them and you come along and start advertising that they are poisonous with 0 evidence you can be sued by me for damages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just reinforcing the point. Privilege is a special "right" rather than a universal one that should be held by everyone, something like the right to be called doctor (held only by someone with a doctorate) as opposed to the right to due process (which should be held by everyone). Due process is a human right in a way that having a title is not.
Due process should be accessible to everyone but until that's actually the case it's still a privilege of the people who have it. The fact that other people should have it doesn't mean it's not a privilege to the people that do. (It's still a right by the way, as I said it can be both) Edit: Anyway, I don't feel the need to argue this since it's just a semantic argument but the general thesis is that I found your nar…
When you have a right to free speech and then someone puts you in jail for exercising it, it isn't that you don't have the right, it's that your right is being infringed.
Calling it a privilege that you don't have any time someone is infringing on your rights would mean that nobody's rights could ever be infringed, since any time they were infringed it would merely mean that you didn't have them to begin with. But you do. People have human rights even when someone is violating them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comedy is threatened by corporations and people assuming the position for tyranny.
Comedy faces a greater threat from the "woke" #metoo crowd at colleges and online than any profit seeking corporate entity.
One is about being offended by things, the other is about coming forward about having been sexually assaulted or showing solidarity for them.
Let's keep clear and separate distinctions between people being offended and people being raped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give me an example of something a non-white, non-middle class person can't say or do in public? Maybe it's my limited world-view, but I can't think of anything specific.
Exercise their second amendment rights? Note the differences in the stories of Philando Castile ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile ) and Brandon Vreeland ( https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/men-who-walked-into-dear... ).
These are just two incidents that immediately spring to mind to counter your cherry picking. White people are not free from the danger of being shot by police. In fact, there is evidence [3] that white people may be more vulnerable than black people in any given scenario, because scrutiny on police use of force has been applied disproportionately in cases of black victims.
1. https://reason.com/2012/06/12/family-of-west-point-graduate-...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An autocratic government is inherently antithetical to the Rule of Law. They are mutually exclusive.
Please expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Are the actions taken by the enforcement arm of the sovereign power fairly predictable according to the code of law they publish, or is there are there numerous uncodified “rules” you must also abide by?
Are political enemies executed or punished during regime changes, or are regime changes regular, peaceful and governed by law? Are the families of political enemies also punished?
Does the legislative power pass ex post facto laws or Bills of Attainder? Are property rights respected? Do laws pass through a formal process or at whim? Are Courts of Law and Equity independent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Close, but not quite. In a state of nature (natural state) you absolutely have the right to free speech, among many other natural rights which are innate to you. You simply lack the guarantee of the ability to exercise that right when in a state of nature.
In the absolute state of nature there is probably nothing to stop you exercising that right, unless you are eaten by a carnivore just as you open your mouth to declaim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the privilege be in the ability to exercise rights without paying a price like so many groups have had to in our history? This all sounds like a confusing semantics game.
Every right has been resisted at some point. It doesn't drift in and out of privilege status depending on how must resistance is being applied at any one moment. A right gains its power from people's belief that it should be universally granted, and that they will stick up for others when that right gets breached. Once a thing gets redefined as a privilege there is no expectation for people to stand up for other priv…
The left has tried to redefine harm to include "unequal result or outcome," which makes the entire principle meaningless.