Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Taliban are amassing for war


Kurshok
 Share

Recommended Posts

Violent speech can cause violent acts, depends who use the violent speech.

 

Best Example in Spain, after an electoral poster of a party of the extreme right, pointing out as enemies of the state immigrants, politicians of the left, groups of homosexuals and certain media that criticized them, violent acts increased, attacks on party headquarters, immigrants, journalists in almost a 10%, even leading to the murder of a 17-year-old gay boy some days ago, who was beaten to death by a group of heartless people.

Edited by Zerg Rush
  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Cecil of Cynope said:

  

 

Not really sure about the amount of marxism in the Iranian islamic revolution doctrine, as it was a religious-based revolution against the Shah's authoritarianism. That said, by considering it as pseudomarxism as you said, it makes sense. Probably it was just a propaganda spin from the Ayatollahs who wanted to gain the image of "Nice Revolutionaries for the Greater Good" associated with marxism, it could have been an efficient way for them to hide the core of their objective behind their revolution: destroying freedom in Iran, banning alcohol, free speech, etc.

But the fact that neo-fascists in Italy are pro-Iran, that made me laugh: anti-freedom cultists are really the same everywhere, under the ideological paint-job you always find the same obsessions and objectives, lol. :laugh:

Regarding that Tarrio you mentioned in your post replying to Nbohr1more's revelations, keep in mind that the various crimes you're referring to are crimes he committed between 2004 and 2014, so that's not really relevant to his property destruction in 2021 (burning the stolen banner, a so-called "hate crime" it seems now if the banner happen to contain some specific words :rolleyes:). In a nutshell, it looks like the typical case of a low-level delinquent that got pardoned for being an informant on victimless crimes (gambling, growing weed, distributing steroids) and that, since he doesn't really know what to do with his life now, has now found a new calling as a political troll... the fact that he's been stealing things more than 15 years ago and dealing in stolen stuff almost 10 years ago are now irrelevant, as he paid for it by doing his time and becoming an informant, so JP Morgan's closing of his bank account is not "the legitimate punishment of a hard core criminal" but instead indeed a politically motivated move (possessing high-capacity EVULZ magazines for assault-military-grade-firearms-of-war-that-kill-and-that's-so-horrible may be a crime now, but that's from a law made on ideological basis to legally turn yesterday's citizens into instant criminals, not a legislation based on technical grounds -I mean this word in the sense of "engineering" and "shooting & reloading techniques").

Notice how he denied working undercover and informing the government, very probably for fear of getting a contract on his head by people he helped the government to throw in jail, and how the journalists of Reuters visibly went digging specifically into all the court transcripts and went to meet a former prosecutor in order to expose to everyone that this Tarrio did indeed worked undercover, with a complete disregard about the risks this create for his life should the people he denounced decide to kill him as a reprisal. I'm ready to bet that should he chose to be a political troll from the other side, the side of the Greater Good, the journalists would instead have taken great care not to expose this and even wouldn't have chose to dig in his past... I'd also tend to think that the journalists are very aware of the risks that exposing his undercover work involve about his safety and that they secretly hope that one of the gang members he informed the US gov about would kill him, but that's just me being unbearably critical of the Holy Journalists :D<_<
 

 

The problem is that the words you're using are way too violent for today's society standards, where the average citizen can barely bear to be yelled at, claims to suffer from PTSD for a couple of insults read on the Internet, and collapses psychologically at the mere thought of having to fight, even if it's fighting to defend the Enlightenment Era's heritage that, actually, the average citizens today wouldn't know what it's about, as he/she is primarily obsessed with consuming always more and more to fill the void in their lives, buying the last smartphone each year even if it would bankrupt them, posing in "selfies" to get approval and to do like everyone, etc.

Don't expect these kind of people to defend values such as the right to free speech and the right to criticize religion, they simply do not understand, in the technical "my brain cannot fathom" meaning of the term, the importance of these concepts. All that matters for them is the brand new smartphone, their followers' reaction to their selfies on Twitter or Facebook, getting drunk at the end of the week, and basically what could be called living the life of a drone as long as they can. When you have a majority of people like that in a society, such as the end of the Ancient Roman society where the majority of citizens were only concerned about 1) having bread and 2) watching sports, that society is unsalvageable. There is nothing you can do about it, the scale of the problem is way too big for a single individual to solve it, even if it was a dictator with full powers.

As a result, getting agitated and angry about the rape and sexual torture based on religious hatred in cities like Telford and Rotterham, as revolting as these acts are (and as revolting as the lack of action of the authorities by "fear to offend" is), is useless as it can't and will not solve the problem, as the problem cannot be solved anyway. I've discovered recently that a cartel leader in Mexico has dismembered alive a six-years-old girl just because he could, and several months ago I've learn that a 13 years-old girl with Down syndrome had been decapitated along with her drug-stashing grandmother by cartel members that believed that they had ratted on them: same thing, that's atrocious, but there's nothing you can do about that.


Also, as a general rule, insulting or threatening religious drones is counter-productive: christians, muslims and judaists are the first to divide Mankind between the Good Believers of their respective herds and the Evulz Unbeliever that they'd eagerly kill any time they can, but if you insult them or express the same level of hostility toward them that they express themselves toward the "unbelievers", they'll always play the victims and pretend to be the nice ones oppressed and threatened by "Dem Evulz Atheists".

So, don't offer them the occasion to pose as victims, instead when you want to criticize them, focus on the basis of their beliefs: that for instance there are not the single historical proof of the existence of their "prophets" (jesus, muhamad etc) except a couple of books that are just hearsay without any chronological datation, compared to, say, Ancient Egypt whom we can trace a precise chronology regarding the existence of every celebrity of this era (Ramses II, Hatshepsut, Cleopatra etc) dating several thousand years before the mythical figures from the so-called "holy books" of religions. When you start aiming for the foundations of their cults, the whole house of cards collapses and that hurts much more their cults than insulting them or hating them, because they can't pose as victims.
You can also quote François Cavanna, who said: "A religion is a cult that succeeded.:D :)


But anyway, there is also one very important thing to keep in mind: when you are blowing off steam using "hateful words that is soooo bad", not only that's counter-productive as I stated above, but that's also putting everyone at risk here.

Because due to the way that society has shifted today, some people focused on maintaining an ambiance of censorship in society are very eager to jump on the first occasion to obtain the banning of WrongThink to keep making examples, and be certain that there are a lot of journalists that will provide a fair and balanced narrative of the facts:


"... in other news, after a long legal struggle, anti-racist NGOs were finally successful in their efforts to obtain the deplatforming of a free game forum called "The Dark Mo Forums", short for "Dark MotherFucker", a racist-themed dog-whistle term.

On this forum, users could gather to discuss their work on "The Dark Mod", an illegal modification of the controversial and gory game "Doom 3", created to allow users to build "fan-made" missions based on the male power fantasy of being a thief and assassin, such as the infamous "The Painter's Wife" a sexist story where the player has to transport a female non-player character by bearing her on the white male hero's shoulder without her consent, in order to "save" her.

But, under the disguise of being a video game-related forum, this online place was also a known haven of hate speech for international sexist supporters of the gamergate movement, where they gather clandestinely to share their hate and radicalize themselves.

One of them, posting under the handle "Kurchok", notably repeatedly called for the killing of muslims as depicted on the screencaps below, using inflammatory islamophobic rhetoric. During a raid on this user's house, who confessed to have been tempted to vote for Trump and publicly complained about Joe Biden's election, the FBI found a kitchen knife, the presence of this assault weapon confirming that he had plans to commit a terrorist attack somewhere in the USA.

Nbohr1more, the ring leader of this international extreme far-right nazifascist cell, claimed to the rigth-wing conspiracy theory channel "Fox News" that his house had been pelted with what he described using the vague and inaccurate catch-all term "molotov cocktails". These unfounded accusations refer to a incident he claims to have occurred during the fiery but mostly peaceful protests in front of his house following the trending hashtag #BashTheFashDarkMod on Twitter. The local firepersons declined to comment on the accidental fire.

UK-based user "OrbWeaver", who used a picture of spider as an avatar, showing a total lack of sensitivity toward arachnophobic visitors that could be triggered by this sight, was finally fired from his job today following a grass-roots campaign of activism aimed at warning his boss via repeated phone calls to his office about his online activities on this hate-speech forum.
He is currently detained in Anti-Terrorist Detention Facility 05 as a safety measure while UK authorities are investigating his Internet history with the help of his Internet Service Provider. His exaggerated claims to have been the target of a so-called "online harassment campaign" have been dismissed by the International Court of Human Rights.

While this successful deplatforming can be seen as a victory for the struggle against online radicalization, this case in another example of the pervasive hate speech found on so many free "game forums" on the Internet, which is a real threat, for our democracy.

Now, on to the weather..."

Well I refuse to just shut the fuck up and let evil win without a fight in the world. Fuck the cartels, fuck the Islamist cause, fuck Catholic Priest child molesters, fuck the KKK, fuck censorship, and fuck the gutless losers who are too obsessed with nonstop pleasure to notice the world around them is turning to shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Zerg Rush said:

Violent speech can cause violent acts, depends who use the violent speech.

 

Best Example in Spain, after an electoral poster of a party of the extreme right, pointing out as enemies of the state immigrants, politicians of the left, groups of homosexuals and certain media that criticized them, violent acts increased, attacks on party headquarters, immigrants, journalists in almost a 10%, even leading to the murder of a 17-year-old gay boy some days ago, who was beaten to death by a group of heartless people.

I'm not calling for murdering innocent people or mobs to lynch folk. I just wish the government and media would speak the truth instead of a numbing, repeated set of lies, because at the rate society is getting idiotically numb to terrorist attacks and human rights abuses in the name of religion or nationalism, we could be heading for a neo-Dark Age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care, I'm old and I'm sure I'm not going to see the world go to hell, but I also think about my children and grandchildren, and I don't want them to piss in my grave in gratitude for not having at least trying to inherit them a better world.

  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kurshok said:

Well I refuse to just shut the fuck up

Couldn't you refuse it elsewhere?

You're not really reaching anyone with your, ahem, message, interwebz warrior. Not on a stealth gaming forum, where there are maybe like 20 active people at best.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forums is hardly near. And actually doing something, like raising a fund, or joining people who are already doing something for a cause is 100 times smarter than yelling at strangers on niche forum. World doesn't need internet warriors or facebook revolutionists, there are plenty of them already, and it does nothing.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do it in any Forum and in real life too, one does not exclude the other. It does not matter if it is a minority forum or social network, the people who are in these are not, I think that at least the majority in this forum also participates in other sites.
It is clear that verbally you cannot convince everyone, but a percentage of them you can, and they do it to their neighbors as well. Naturally it is convenient, apart from this, to participate in demonstrations and initiatives, to talk to the people around you. Something always remains.
Just doing nothing is the cause that nothing changes.
Changing a society is always an evolutionary process, never revolutions, because this only changes external aspects, but not the people.

  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything's convenient, it's sitting on your ass and being a facebook warrior. This is obvious but nothing beats gathering people and doing something positive together, and seeing a change in the world, even if it's slow. Also that's how change of mind is also being perpetuated, by regular participation and doing. If anything, poorly phrased/targeted forum topics like this are doing more harm to the cause than not.

Edited by peter_spy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so, discussing a problem is always positive, there is never only one truth and never one's own opinion, which is always subjective. But by discussing and talking with people you learn how you can change things, reduce to possible errors in your own opinion.
But this, arguing and speaking, not waving flags and arguing with paroles and set phrases, this is certainly counterproductive and only causes rejection by those who think differently.

  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Zerg Rush said:

Violent speech can cause violent acts, depends who use the violent speech.

Best Example in Spain, after an electoral poster of a party of the extreme right, pointing out as enemies of the state immigrants, politicians of the left, groups of homosexuals and certain media that criticized them, violent acts increased, attacks on party headquarters, immigrants, journalists in almost a 10%, even leading to the murder of a 17-year-old gay boy some days ago, who was beaten to death by a group of heartless people.

Post hoc fallacy.

"After 5G masts were put up in the UK, a new coronavirus pandemic infected hundreds of thousands of people. Therefore, 5G is dangerous and causes coronavirus."

"My two-year-old child had his measles vaccination, then a few months later developed autism. Therefore, vaccines cause autism."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, OrbWeaver said:

Post hoc fallacy.

"After 5G masts were put up in the UK, a new coronavirus pandemic infected hundreds of thousands of people. Therefore, 5G is dangerous and causes coronavirus."

"My two-year-old child had his measles vaccination, then a few months later developed autism. Therefore, vaccines cause autism."

There is a small difference between relating unrelated random facts and facts related with proven evidence.

The poster of the party, which acall direct to violent acts against different groups and media, apart from also signaling on Twitter different journalists with photo and full addresses.

HKdsOv3.jpg


"It's ignorance of not knowing the difference between what needs to be proven and what doesn't need it."
Aristotle

  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 5:03 PM, Zerg Rush said:

Violent speech can cause violent acts, depends who use the violent speech.

 

 

 

This is the exact same argument that is always used by those who want to control what other people are allowed to do.  "It will lead to violence!"  They used it against rock music, against comic books, against violent movies, against Dungeons and Dragons, against violent video games. 

Not only that, but the term "violent speech" moves the goalposts.  There are already laws in most countries that restrict people from calling for actual violence, so if that were the real concern, there would be no need for hate speech laws.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Zerg Rush said:

"It's ignorance of not knowing the difference between what needs to be proven and what doesn't need it."
Aristotle

 

On 7/10/2021 at 3:10 PM, Zerg Rush said:

arguing with paroles and set phrases, this is certainly counterproductive and only causes rejection by those who think differently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Springheel said:

 

This is the exact same argument that is always used by those who want to control what other people are allowed to do.  "It will lead to violence!"  They used it against rock music, against comic books, against violent movies, against Dungeons and Dragons, against violent video games. 

Not only that, but the term "violent speech" moves the goalposts.  There are already laws in most countries that restrict people from calling for actual violence, so if that were the real concern, there would be no need for hate speech laws.

 

 

I don't agree with this observacion, do not confuse the terms. It is not about a violent game or that a piece of Black Metal or also a church choir sing songs about suffering and death, It is about a politician, broadcast by the main media, using violent speeches against homosexual groups, uncomfortable foreigners and journalists. This leads directly to mobs beating gays, foreigners, journalists and throwing Molotovs at the headquarters of other parties. This is the difference and this is what I mean when I say that violent phrases can lead to violence depending on where it comes from, I think that playing DOOM or not even playing Postal2 will lead to these excesses, but when it is spread by politicians , certain 'nostalgic' media and even judges blind in the right eye.

I pay attention to recent events and not to set phrases as an argument, but reflections on what is happening today with a worrying rise of extremist and anti-democratic groups. This goes beyond the mere censorship of certain phrases used by certain people, of the freedom of opinions, it is a growing frustration of certain people that perhaps is related to the restrictions and loss of income and politicians who interestedly point out guilty for not admitting the own responsibility and failure of a society that is already sick.
With this, one spark is enough to create a fire, as has already happened in the 1930s, which led to the Holocaust and the Second World War and a coup and civil war in Spain.
Both things started not very different from what happens today.

  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Zerg Rush said:

I don't agree with this observacion, do not confuse the terms. It is not about a violent game or that a piece of Black Metal or also a church choir sing songs about suffering and death, It is about a politician, broadcast by the main media, using violent speeches against homosexual groups, uncomfortable foreigners and journalists.

 

How do you define "violent speeches"?  Is he actually calling for violence?  If so, then yes, that shouldn't be allowed and most countries I'm familiar with (which admittedly is a small number) already have laws against that.

However, I've heard all kinds of speeches labelled "violent".  Including, literally, not saying anything at all ("silence is violence" is a common slogan among activists in North America who apparently don't understand what a false dilemma fallacy is). 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springheel said:

 

How do you define "violent speeches"?  Is he actually calling for violence?  If so, then yes, that shouldn't be allowed and most countries I'm familiar with (which admittedly is a small number) already have laws against that.

However, I've heard all kinds of speeches labelled "violent".  Including, literally, not saying anything at all ("silence is violence" is a common slogan among activists in North America who apparently don't understand what a false dilemma fallacy is). 

They are speeches by politicians who point out certain groups as 'enemy of the country' and cause of all the problems of the people. This is what I deserve, that is how it also began in the 1930s in Germany with the Jews and I think the final consequences have been quite clear.
No, I'm not talking about video games and I'm not talking about drunks shouting outrageous things in a bar, I'm talking about a systematic increase in neo-Nazi parties that are getting stronger all over Europe, based on smears, lies, populist speeches, setting themselves up as saviors of the homeland and pointing out minorities as supposed causes of all ills.
Thats what I refer. Violence? More than you want if you don't start to stop them now, before it's too late.

  • Like 1

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 4:21 PM, Springheel said:

 

 

It depends on the country, obviously, but in North America you don't get sent to prison for defamation or libel...it just means the injured party can sue you, and they actually have to demonstrate damages in many cases.  Hate speech can result in jail time and does not have to involve someone bringing a suit against you.  They're not comparable.

And while perfect laws don't exist, that's not a valid reason to support bad ones.

 

 

 

I tend to ignore it when people tell me what the other side "really wants", since it usually turns out to be inaccurate.  

 

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say there.   If you think there is a coherent "precise" definition of hate speech, I'd love to hear it.

 

 

Yes, personal attacks are impolite and generally counter-productive.  But that doesn't mean they should be illegal. 

 

 

I don't know what the "why" is.  There are already separate laws (again, in NA, ymmv) against making death threats, inciting violence, or lying about a private citizen in order to damage their reputation/livelihood.  What are "hate speech" laws attempting to protect society from that isn't already covered by these things?

1. In some countries a similar act called an "Insult" can be of a criminal character in the sense that you can be fined and/or serve time in jail. I was trying to bring up that we need to see the issue wider. Hate speech may also be employed simply to censor publicly available content without punishing anyone.

Just because an activity is subjective, doesn't mean it's poorly regulated. It all comes down to the civil servant who shall execute and interpret it. In fact, I would argue execution and interpretation are the most important. Any good law can be interpreted in bad faith anyway.

2. What if it's a Freudian slip? We need not to shy away from various rhetorical methods when making an argument. Hence, I see no reasons why this motivation is invalid. After all not all people are good at hiding their true agenda. In this case, free speech activists speak in the public interest - in the name of all society. Doesn't this entitle us to have our own opinion on what's free speech and what's not? Everyone can make up their own mind for themselves. Nobody contests that.

3. I narrowed a few definitions proposed by soft law in previous posts. There is no single, universally applicable definition. And it is not the only area in law where regulations are not uniform.

4. Why shouldn't personal attacks be illegal?

5. Hate speech laws offer an additional protective layer against impunity - before it even starts. When mob justice is done, it's already too late. Look at hate speech laws as more of those economic, social and cultural rights coming into play. Western society is more used to dealing with individual rights and liberties. There's not always someone who makes a complaint about a case of hate speech. Society itself should point out these cases ex officio. Hate speech laws protect society in the same way that various anti-racism state policies do.

 

17 hours ago, Springheel said:

 

This is the exact same argument that is always used by those who want to control what other people are allowed to do.  "It will lead to violence!"  They used it against rock music, against comic books, against violent movies, against Dungeons and Dragons, against violent video games. 

Not only that, but the term "violent speech" moves the goalposts.  There are already laws in most countries that restrict people from calling for actual violence, so if that were the real concern, there would be no need for hate speech laws.

 

 

Don't confuse artistic mediums that have aesthetic value and originality - with random gossip, shitposting, yellow journalism. The first contributes something to society and is protected by the freedom of expression. The latter is often on the borderline of copy/pasting or just incoherent rage. Sometimes it can be done well. Other times it's obvious hate speech Context is everything. In any case it's always up to the public servant, the bureaucrat who will have the final say how to interpret it.

 

17 hours ago, Springheel said:

 

How do you define "violent speeches"?  Is he actually calling for violence?  If so, then yes, that shouldn't be allowed and most countries I'm familiar with (which admittedly is a small number) already have laws against that.

However, I've heard all kinds of speeches labelled "violent".  Including, literally, not saying anything at all ("silence is violence" is a common slogan among activists in North America who apparently don't understand what a false dilemma fallacy is). 

 

Political labeling and making an official decision by the public authorities as stakeholders in a given case, are different things. We're very far from the long arm of the law doing its job properly in regards to hate speech.

Edited by Anderson
  • Like 1

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They are speeches by politicians who point out certain groups as 'enemy of the country' and cause of all the problems of the people. This is what I deserve, that is how it also began in the 1930s in Germany with the Jews and I think the final consequences have been quite clear."

There's lots to unpack here, including the same slippery slope fallacy I mentioned earlier, but I think talking about politicians is too much of a niche case.  That isn't the primary purpose or target of hate speech laws, so let's set that aside.

 

Quote

Just because an activity is subjective, doesn't mean it's poorly regulated. It all comes down to the civil servant who shall execute and interpret it.

 

Saying it "comes down to the civil servant" is the DEFINITION of poorly regulated.  In a just society, laws should be objective and easily understandable...if you can't know what behaviour is going to be criminal until after you do it, that's an obvious problem.

Quote

Why shouldn't personal attacks be illegal?

Because power corrupts, and the more power the state has over its citizens, the worse off those citizens become.   I don't think anyone who knows the first thing about psychology or human history could argue that point.  When the state is looking for more power over its citizens, it should be required to justify why it needs that power, not just take it unless someone can argue otherwise.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anderson said:

4. Why shouldn't personal attacks be illegal?

Because (in addition to what Springheel said) "personal attack" is a term so broad and vague that any kind of controversy or emotional debate would be effectively impossible if it was illegal to make any statement that could be constituted a "personal attack".

Should it be illegal to call Trump an idiot? What about calling Putin a dictator? Or the cop who killed George Floyd a bastard? All of these are "personal attacks", and would be illegal under your proposed law.

And all this criminalisation for what? Where is a single piece of evidence that more censorship by governments actually leads to a fairer, more peaceful, more prosperous society? All the proponents of censorship ever offer are platitudes and faith healing ("I just know it will work! It's obvious!").

1 hour ago, Anderson said:

Don't confuse artistic mediums that have aesthetic value and originality - with random gossip, shitposting, yellow journalism. The first contributes something to society and is protected by the freedom of expression. The latter is often on the borderline of copy/pasting or just incoherent rage.

It seems that you fundamentally don't understand what freedom of speech actually means. I can't see any other explanation for your continued insistence that only "artistic", "valuable" or "original" speech is protected.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right which has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or societal value of that speech. No law which protects free speech (whether the US First Amendment or the much weaker Article 10 of the ECHR) requires that the speech be in any way useful or beneficial to society.

What you are arguing for is regulated speech, in which the government or some other elite body decides what speech is valuable and generously permits the rest of us to say approved things. If that's genuinely what you want then fine, but it is dishonest to pretend that this is some kind of "freedom of speech" when in reality it is the exact opposite.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Springheel said:

 

Saying it "comes down to the civil servant" is the DEFINITION of poorly regulated.  In a just society, laws should be objective and easily understandable...if you can't know what behaviour is going to be criminal until after you do it, that's an obvious problem.

 

Is it the definition of poorly regulated? Sometimes, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. If there's a healthy way of interpreting laws, then the hassle to change the law isn't worth it. States atm are also entitled to have sovereignty. The ECHR also came up with the "margin of appreciation". This margin extends very wide when there is no political, academic, legal etc. consensus on certain topics. But it is a golden rule that no international organization can interfere in the contents of laws, nor of the reasoning, nor how evidence is assessed. Other international organizations have their own ways of wording non-interventionism.

Countries that have a strong rule of law also have well prepared civil servants up for the job. It really comes down to how competent and professional civil servants are. Not that I have in principle anything against well written laws. They're just not determining the outcome as much as they seem to.

 

2 hours ago, Springheel said:

Because power corrupts, and the more power the state has over its citizens, the worse off those citizens become.   I don't think anyone who knows the first thing about psychology or human history could argue that point.  When the state is looking for more power over its citizens, it should be required to justify why it needs that power, not just take it unless someone can argue otherwise.

But we are not talking about a case of criminal liability for propaganda or other crimes against the interests of the state. Hate speech by its essence, in most cases protects disadvantaged groups of people. There would of course be issues if "eating the rich" would be considered hate speech. But again, IMHO the idea just needs to be more precise, better tuned, jurisprudence needs uniformity. Hate speech needs to be weight against other rights. It's too restrictive to see hate speech just as another gimmick that makes the state more authoritarian.

 

1 hour ago, OrbWeaver said:

Because (in addition to what Springheel said) "personal attack" is a term so broad and vague that any kind of controversy or emotional debate would be effectively impossible if it was illegal to make any statement that could be constituted a "personal attack".

Should it be illegal to call Trump an idiot? What about calling Putin a dictator? Or the cop who killed George Floyd a bastard? All of these are "personal attacks", and would be illegal under your proposed law.

And all this criminalisation for what? Where is a single piece of evidence that more censorship by governments actually leads to a fairer, more peaceful, more prosperous society? All the proponents of censorship ever offer are platitudes and faith healing ("I just know it will work! It's obvious!").

It seems that you fundamentally don't understand what freedom of speech actually means. I can't see any other explanation for your continued insistence that only "artistic", "valuable" or "original" speech is protected.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right which has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality or societal value of that speech. No law which protects free speech (whether the US First Amendment or the much weaker Article 10 of the ECHR) requires that the speech be in any way useful or beneficial to society.

What you are arguing for is regulated speech, in which the government or some other elite body decides what speech is valuable and generously permits the rest of us to say approved things. If that's genuinely what you want then fine, but it is dishonest to pretend that this is some kind of "freedom of speech" when in reality it is the exact opposite.

"Personal attacks" in this case serve as a paraphrasing of hate speech. What we mean is to protect a person or group from personal attacks that instigate violence.

What you've mentioned were simply insults. Everyone knows they aren't idiots or bastards. They also have none of that violent part. These aren't hate speech. However calling someone an idiot or retarded can be discrimination on the grounds of one's medical condition, if he has one that is. Again, context is everything.

Well, yeah, generally there is more peace in countries that have and enforce hate speech laws, compared to the homicide rate in the US.

 

I didn't say that only artistic, valuable and original speech is protected. These are examples. They are not exhaustive. But generally if you make any valuable comments, if you have any valuable judgments - these are protected by free speech rules in Europe.
Actually, free speech can be limited by the ECHR if competing interests are higher than the freedom of speech. This means that other relative right come into play on a case by case basis.

 

I am arguing against absolute freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, correct. But it should not be absolute. That would disregard other rights that the US Constitution does not protect such as the right to privacy. Freedom of speech is not so important as to render it absolute. There simply need to be reasonable guarantees for it to work.

Absolute freedom of speech just makes the loud louder while the lies and the manipulation becomes more sophisticated.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghanistan, the Country two world powers failed to conquer while killing lots of civilians (and a few Taliban, but mostly civilians).

Sure, lets bring in more troups, waste more billions worth of warheads and let drones drone over the populations heads day and night so everyone learns to love the occupation army.
Guess that will teach them, that we are the good and they are (or just have?) the bad.

Sure, the Taliban rape and kill women and children there. They actually do.

But the reason they are able to is, that the whole region is a proxy warzone. Bring more troups and you just prevent that from ever changing.
Admit defeat and stop giving other "islamic" (well, Russia is probably still involved somehow) states a reason to supply the Taliban weapons for the fight against the west (which only is possible to be done in Afghanistan, because the west is present there).

Just leave!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...