461–470 of 618 posts
[flagged]
There is no paradox. You either support the right of everybody to peacefully assemble or you do not and if you do not, you don't support freedom of speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, what do you do when they gain power?
You prevent them from gaining power by winning debates against them and demonstrating to everyone why they're wrong. I mean have you actually seen the "science" used to claim even the existence of different races? It's all misleading statistics and pseudoscience. You group a bunch of people together based on geographical origin and then observe some differences in the averages between the two groups, ignoring that th…
"We are what we pretend to be." --- Kurt Vonnegut
[flagged]
Except it really doesn’t. The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. The same for Switzerland and the UK (British hate speech laws were only installed in the 1990s). In contrast the country where the Nazis actually came to power, Weimar Germany, had some of the most extensive hate speech codes of any Western nation in the 1920s.
By freedom of speech you might consider that law enforcement does not take actions against someone speaking its own mind.
But if companies and activist groups are retaliating against someone by denying employment, conducting business, acquiring goods, home rental, even instigating against that individual to the point of asking for violence, because he expressed his thoughts, then "free speech" might be pointless because very few will dare to speak their minds.
If authorities aren't going to punish someone, then some groups will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it really doesn’t. The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. The same for Switzerland and the UK (British hate speech laws were only installed in the 1990s). In contrast the country where the Nazis actually came to power, Weimar Germany, had some of the most extensive hate speech codes of any Western nation in the 1920s.
> The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. The United States has had plenty of limits on free speech throughout its history. Letting Nazis or the KKK or whomever speak their mind and publish their literature doesn't mean we have absolute freedom of speech, just fewer restrictions on speech than elsewhere. And it's worth pointing out that the paradox o…
And yet all the countries who forbid and condemn nazi speech tolerates the communist speech.
Source: I spent part of my childhood in a communist country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re not even a hundred years out from culturally and legally discriminating against an entire race of people in the US. Democracy has been stable here (and continues to be) but for whom was it representative?
Which race? The US interred Japanese people during WW2. I hear that we interred people from central and south America for the last 5+ years, too. We're not a hundred years from anything except gaslights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's an answer to the question of "Why do we see different representation of these groups on the height spectrum?" But we already know that, by and large. It's genetics. And the thing we know about genes is that they align very poorly with "races". It's like grouping animals by color. Then you discover that brown animals are bigger than red animals, because bears are brown and bears are big whereas cardinals are re…
But there are groupings of people by genetic markers which correlate to linguistic/cultural origin. These aren't "races" per se but they are a valid and interesting taxonomy of people. And unsurprisingly given they are determined by genetic distance, these groups tend to have a more homogenous physical appearance. When we're talking about IQ, asking "why is does it differ across identifiable groups of people?" seems…
The thing about groupings like this is that they only exist in the statistics.
If you take two populations of otherwise identical people and then isolate them from each other, they'll diverge over time. Maybe the land is different, or the weather, and some genes are better adapted to one place or the other so they become more common there.
That's just averages. Originally 50% of the combined population had trait A. Over time, it becomes the case that 30% of the first population has it and 60% of the second population. You can measure the difference in the average. But the people in the first population who have the trait are the same as the people in the second population who have the trait. It just happens to be the case that that trait is better adapted to the place where the second population lives. If you want to talk about something, talk about people who have the trait or don't, rather than where their ancestors lived.
> When we're talking about IQ, asking "why is does it differ across identifiable groups of people?" seems to be a very controversial question to ask or attempt to answer, often getting you lumped in with the Nazis, which was my original point.
Oh, absolutely. And if that's true, it's true whether you want to hear it or not.
The salient point is that the Nazis are still wrong even if it is. Because it's all still just averages. If there is some gene that makes you smarter and 55% of "white people" have it and 45% of "black people" have it and as a result the averages are different, the conclusion obviously isn't that all white people are smarter than all black people, so Nazis are still wrong.
There is also no concrete proof that that's the case rather than the disparity being a result of nurture rather than nature. It's legitimately hard to separate them out even when it's not as politically charged as this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since several people are asking why the ACLU isn't what it once was, let me answer that. In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois. This action reflected their commitment to free speech, regardless of how offensive the speech might be. The movie "Skokie" and documentary "Mighty Ira" are based on this event-- I highly recommend them bec…
Freedom of speech is such a bizarre thing in USA. I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens. Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.
But inciting on harmful behavior against white people is somehow the right thing to do?
I believe all people should be treated against the same set of rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re not even a hundred years out from culturally and legally discriminating against an entire race of people in the US. Democracy has been stable here (and continues to be) but for whom was it representative?
Which race? The US interred Japanese people during WW2. I hear that we interred people from central and south America for the last 5+ years, too. We're not a hundred years from anything except gaslights.
Are you actually serious? You don’t know which race the US discriminated against in the past 100 years?
The answer is black people aka African-Americans (as well as Chinese but that’s just outside the 100 years) [1]
You do realise that black people did not have freedom of speech for almost all of America’s history?
The idea that America is some bastion of free speech is utter nonsense, when you consider that a significant portion of its population was denied this (and much more) based only on the colour of their skin.
I mean if you think about for most of America’s history it’s been a literal fascist state.
This is a pure marketing stunt to convince naysayers- I'd steer clear of Signal. I have done that and will continue to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, what do you do when they gain power?
You prevent them from gaining power by winning debates against them and demonstrating to everyone why they're wrong. I mean have you actually seen the "science" used to claim even the existence of different races? It's all misleading statistics and pseudoscience. You group a bunch of people together based on geographical origin and then observe some differences in the averages between the two groups, ignoring that th…
No one dares to do such studies anymore so we can conclude that the "good" has won.