retrofuturist wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:21 pm
Like the author, I am pleased that hysterical moral accusations are losing their power as a means by which to suppress the speech of those with whom someone disagrees. The potency of such shrieking accusations and their associated epithets has suffered in recent years due to how transparent it has become to the average citizen that they are being rampantly abused in cynical attempts to gain social, economic or political advantage.
Wow. This is the first time I have opened or looked at this Topic, and now I have a better sense of why there may be so much resistance to various Topics regarding Right Speech.
There must be some middle ground where people can speak with one another in a mutually respectful way without assuming that someone is either (i) hysterically PC, or (ii) needlessly insensitive.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:35 pm
The purpose of this topic is to discuss the prevalence of trends, actions, ideologies and policies which are a threat to free speech in the 21st century.
The threats in scope for this discussion are inclusive of threats that arise from all sides of politics, from all ideologies, and from all groups and institutions.
I will share some examples soon, but I wanted to keep specific examples out of the "original post" in order to avoid confusion about the parameters of this topic.
I haven't read through this entire Topic, so apologies if this is rehashing, but one significant threat to free speech is when the President of the United States calls for NFL players to be fired for taking a knee during the national anthem, which they do as a form of protesting racial inequality, and when Trump also falsely accuses them of protesting the flag (nobody is protesting the flag). When the political establishment begins going after people for expressive conduct, it is a threat to freedom of speech.
There are other examples of modern threats to free speech which originate when those who are accustomed to being entitled feel discomfort when asked to treat others with dignity and respect.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:49 am
It just so happens that in 2017, the majority of political and religious censorship (and associated threats of punishment) are done in support of left-wing ideals.
So-called "hate speech" violations are a good contemporary example of this.
"Hate speech" means fighting words which constitute a racial or ethnic epithet, without social value, which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. Even if the law protects such speech, it is still not the kind of speech we should commend or promote. It is not a "hysterical moral accusation" to call such speech what it is: hate speech.
... My concern is authoritarian censorship in general, regardless of whether it's left-wing or right-wing, thus it's not a "partisan" concern.
What is wrong with self-regulation and self-control? What is wrong with someone speaking up to say, those words are offensive?
Therefore, you getting in a twist over "partisan" "weaponization" is you arguing with yourself once more. As such, I'm not interested in your urge to quarrel.
Wow. Getting very personal about a Member who happens to disagree with you. So if someone disagrees with you, it reflects a state of mind inclined toward "quarreling"? If someone disagrees with you, it is "getting in a twist"? But if you disagree with someone else, no problem, and no further response is invited? Hope this comment doesn't cause you to become quarrelsome and get into a twist.
For what it's worth, a link was provided to Breitbart primarily because Breitbart will actually report on these matters, whereas the majority of mainstream media organisations are advocates of censorship in support of left-wing and globalist ideals (and protecting themselves from "conspiracy theories" about them being sexual predators etc.), and are therefore far less motivated to voluntarily bring attention to such matters.
They would much rather manipulate than draw attention to the manipulate.
Who is "they"? What kind of nonsense are you trying to put forth regarding traditional news sources?
From the ridiculous blog entry linked above:
This attitude includes, but is not at all limited to, the imbecilic concept of microaggressions, according to which a person may be “offensive” and guilty of “aggression” even when conscientiously trying to be polite ....
That sounds mighty familiar to me, after witnessing people who conscientiously try to be polite only to be vilified by right-wing conspiracy theorists.
I am sure you will love and agree with the following twisted viewpoints:“DANGEROUSLY VAGUE” – NEW US LAW BLURS THE LINE BETWEEN HATE SPEECH AND HATE CRIME
Unfortunate when hate speech is given priority over common civility.