Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Hordini wrote:Good luck finding a billboard company who would allow that to be displayed.
That's not the point. (And there are a few, I'm sure. The white power movement even has its own record label.)
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
This is what you're defending.
EDIT: You're also defending depictions of child pornography.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/24 00:01:04
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
The natural consequence of free speech is the freedom of others to speak against. If this, unlikely, scenario occurs then the first response should be to protect yourself, and then to publicize it. I mean, they had to put cops on the streets in Skokie in order to protect the marchers, not the people they were antagonizing.
EDIT: You're also defending depictions of child pornography.
I, personally, would rather those that view children sexually get their jollies from depictions of the act, as opposed to the act itself. At least assuming the depiction itself was either demonstrably simulated, or created absent any subject.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Hordini wrote:Good luck finding a billboard company who would allow that to be displayed.
That's not the point. (And there are a few, I'm sure. The white power movement even has its own record label.)
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
This is what you're defending.
EDIT: You're also defending depictions of child pornography.
No, I'm not defending CP. There is victimization involved in the creation of those images. To be honest, I think it's pretty disgusting that you would suggest such a thing. I can also pick out the most extreme slippery slope examples and claim that you're defending them. Look, now you're defending the government taking away everyone's right to have an opinion! You're defending the government restricting people expressing their cultural values because an outsider might feel uncomfortable. You're defending the government outlawing every language except English, because people might be afraid that they're being threatened or conspired against because they don't understand the language! You're defending the government outlawing the confrontation of racism because racists might feel threatened!
But no, I'm not actually making any of those idiotic claims, because I'm trying to engage you in an actual discussion even though I know our opinions on the subject differ. I'm trying to be respectful of you and your opinions even though I know we probably aren't going to agree. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, as a fellow human, that even though you prefer slightly more restrictive free speech laws that you are not in favor of an abusive totalitarian state. I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me, rather than claiming that because I prefer more permissible free speech laws that I'm defending a horrendous abuse of children.
I think treating each other with a little common decency, dignity, and humanity is a good place to start. Does that sound fair to you?
Back to what we were discussing:
How long do you think it would take for civil rights groups like the NAACP to get involved in the situation you're describing? In defending free speech and expression, I'm also defending responding to that kind of situation.
Fair enough, the CP bit is something of a slippery slope.
Hordini wrote:How long do you think it would take for civil rights groups like the NAACP to get involved in the situation you're describing? In defending free speech and expression, I'm also defending responding to that kind of situation.
Here is my problem with your solution:
It is not a solution. Reliance on a private institution like the NAACP to protect you from living in fear is the same argument as saying there should be no social safety net, and instead everyone should rely on charity.
That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
Hordini wrote:How long do you think it would take for civil rights groups like the NAACP to get involved in the situation you're describing? In defending free speech and expression, I'm also defending responding to that kind of situation.
Here is my problem with your solution:
It is not a solution. Reliance on a private institution like the NAACP to protect you from living in fear is the same argument as saying there should be no social safety net, and instead everyone should rely on charity.
That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
I would rather see extremist groups be out in the open where they are easy to identify, than drive them underground where they will be scheming in secret and more difficult to track. If there are KKK members living in my community, I would much rather know who they are rather than go about my life with a false feeling of safety because they aren't able to identify themselves through their rhetoric.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
Restricting the speech of these kinds of groups does not eliminate these groups or the danger they pose, it just makes them harder to identify. In that way I don't think your solution is really much of a solution either.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/03/24 00:57:06
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
I don't really see the point of doing one if you're not going to do the other. Everyone knows what those groups are about, whether or not they're allowed to distribute extremist pamphlets doesn't make that big of a difference if they're still able to go around in groups wearing their extremist outfits and shouting their extremist slogans. Some people might feel differently, but I find a piece of paper with nasty words on it a lot less threatening than a group of skinheads in Doc Martens shouting "Sieg heil" and marching around my neighborhood.
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
I don't really see the point of doing one if you're not going to do the other. Everyone knows what those groups are about, whether or not they're allowed to distribute extremist pamphlets doesn't make that big of a difference if they're still able to go around in groups wearing their extremist outfits and shouting their extremist slogans. Some people might feel differently, but I find a piece of paper with nasty words on it a lot less threatening than a group of skinheads in Doc Martens shouting "Sieg heil" and marching around my neighborhood.
The point to doing one thing but not the other, is that one thing is a freedom of speech, distasteful as it may be, whereas the other is an infringement on another's right to safety.
Our courts are capable of making the distinction between the two.
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
I don't really see the point of doing one if you're not going to do the other. Everyone knows what those groups are about, whether or not they're allowed to distribute extremist pamphlets doesn't make that big of a difference if they're still able to go around in groups wearing their extremist outfits and shouting their extremist slogans. Some people might feel differently, but I find a piece of paper with nasty words on it a lot less threatening than a group of skinheads in Doc Martens shouting "Sieg heil" and marching around my neighborhood.
The point to doing one thing but not the other, is that one thing is a freedom of speech, distasteful as it may be, whereas the other is an infringement on another's right to safety.
Our courts are capable of making the distinction between the two.
So a large group of Neo-Nazis demonstrating in a primarily black neighborhood is acceptable free speech, but writing Neo-Nazi rhetoric on a piece of paper makes someone less safe.
I'll be honest, that idea strikes me as a bit strange. A bit out of proportion at least.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/24 03:53:01
Hordini wrote:So a large group of Neo-Nazis demonstrating in a primarily black neighborhood is acceptable free speech, but writing Neo-Nazi rhetoric on a piece of paper makes someone less safe.
I'll be honest, that idea strikes me as a bit strange. A bit out of proportion at least.
Depends on the content of the demonstration, and the content of the paper.
Neo nazis demonstrating their love for Oklahoma the musical is not as much an infringement on the safety of others as would be a pamphlet that suggests the "impure" be exterminated; the same way pamphlets stating that "white people are awesome" is less of a threat than would be a demonstration, using a pinata, of how to properly curbstomp a minority.
I can see that you're really trying to keep this discussion in the realm of rhetoric, and I understand why. The idea of completely unrestricted free speech can only ever exist in that nebulous space; in practical matters it just doesn't work without compromising other rights.
There have been some hilariously ludicrous leaps of 'logic' in this thread, but we might as well close it down, as nothing's going to top that.
In some jurisdictions this is very true.
In this thread we have had a number of people say that free speech should never be restricted unless somebody physically gets hurt.
There have been court cases that upheld that "minor pr*nography" is legal if no actual children were involved and hurt during the making of it. So cartoon and computer generated "minor pr*nography" is legal and considered protected under free speech.
Edit: (changing the spelling up a bit to hopefully prevent DakkaDakka to show up in searches for said topic)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/24 05:57:52
In this thread we have had a number of people say that free speech should never be restricted unless somebody physically gets hurt.
There have been court cases that upheld that "minor pr*nography" is legal if no actual children were involved and hurt during the making of it. So cartoon and computer generated "minor pr*nography" is legal and considered protected under free speech.
Edit: (changing the spelling up a bit to hopefully prevent DakkaDakka to show up in searches for said topic)
So nothing actually involving children, in other words?
I can see that you're really trying to keep this discussion in the realm of rhetoric, and I understand why. The idea of completely unrestricted free speech can only ever exist in that nebulous space; in practical matters it just doesn't work without compromising other rights.
I'm not advocating for completely unrestricted speech. Only less restrictive than what you're describing in Canada. What I'm describing actually already exists in the US, more or less.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think this video is pertinent to the conversation. Let me first say that I do not agree with Christopher Hitchens on many things, including his views on religion that he expresses in this and many other videos. However, I do agree with him on the importance of protecting freedom of speech, including extreme speech.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/24 08:15:13
Hordini wrote:I'm not advocating for completely unrestricted speech. Only less restrictive than what you're describing in Canada. What I'm describing actually already exists in the US, more or less.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure you've said numerous times that you don't believe any branch or any part of any government should prohibit any kind of speech on the basis that words don't equate to physical harm. In fact, that's pretty much what this has all been about.
Hordini wrote:However, I do agree with him on the importance of protecting freedom of speech, including extreme speech.
I also agree with protecting speech, including extreme speech. What I do not agree with it protecting hate speech that has a direct link to harm (again, see my previous examples of klansmen inciting violence against black people). You (infinitive, not you you) can talk about how awesome it is to be a white guy and dance around in your jackboots all you want; but when the "white power" turns to "we should curbstomp all the darkies", that's outside the protections granted for the right to free speech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/24 09:23:20
azazel the cat wrote: I also agree with protecting speech, including extreme speech. What I do not agree with it protecting hate speech that has a direct link to harm (again, see my previous examples of klansmen inciting violence against black people). You (infinitive, not you you) can talk about how awesome it is to be a white guy and dance around in your jackboots all you want; but when the "white power" turns to "we should curbstomp all the darkies", that's outside the protections granted for the right to free speech.
That's not where you draw the line, though. You draw the line well before incitement to violence comes into it. You draw it much, much further back at, "Is this PC or not?"
What the feth this has to do with the AWB needing to crawl off and die, I don't know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/24 10:45:34
azazel the cat wrote: I also agree with protecting speech, including extreme speech. What I do not agree with it protecting hate speech that has a direct link to harm (again, see my previous examples of klansmen inciting violence against black people). You (infinitive, not you you) can talk about how awesome it is to be a white guy and dance around in your jackboots all you want; but when the "white power" turns to "we should curbstomp all the darkies", that's outside the protections granted for the right to free speech.
That's not where you draw the line, though. You draw the line well before incitement to violence comes into it. You draw it much, much further back at, "Is this PC or not?"
I most certainly do not. I draw the line where the intention of the hate speech is to cause terror or menace another person.
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it seems like a projection of what you wanted me to say.
Bringing this back to the topic of gun control (awb specifically), a video is circulating that mocks Vice President Biden's advice to "just buy a shotgun".
Frazzled wrote: Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Colt is also now making noises about moving.
The Governor's office released a statement, apparently oblivious to the absolute hypocrisy of it.
Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."
It's also losing my industry not that they really care, I was looking at putting my shingle out in Colorado Springs, but when the big fish leave a state, smart little fish with nothing lose know it's time to check out too, now looking at Flagstaff Arizona. Not that I'd be any revenue compared to magpul, which all told was 85 million? Or something like that. I'm guessing Magpul's headed to Texas, apparently the Texans are offering 5 years tax free, and a break on new land/building permits, etc.
Telling you, put it in Round Rock, right next to STI, or down in Houston adjacent to CompTac. We can call it the NRA Corridor.
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
This is what you're defending.
1. Burning crosses is arson. They would be going to jail. 2. Signs are likely an HOA violation. The HOA could seize their houses. 3. They are all potentially liable under federal and state equal rights and fair housing legislation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/28 20:07:53
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Doesn't Understand High-Capacity Magazines Can Be Reloaded
Denver Post wrote:I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.
Regardless of your position on gun control and gun ownership, shouldn't the lawmakers be required to pass some sort of intelligence test before they are allowed to be elected?
Diana DeGette also told an old guy asking about self defense that he'd die any way. Between her and Eve "You'd be raped any way" Hudak the Democrats in CO are doing an excellent job proving that both major U.S. political parties are staffed entirely by individuals with the IQ of howler monkeys
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Diana DeGette also told an old guy asking about self defense that he'd die any way. Between her and Eve "You'd be raped any way" Hudak the Democrats in CO are doing an excellent job proving that both major U.S. political parties are staffed entirely by individuals with the IQ of howler monkeys
What is wrong with the political parties in CO anyways?
Too much chronic?
CO is going in a weird direction... my folks live there, so I get an earful.
Oi I live in Canada but dont lug me in with Britain ( I know I would fight as hard as any American if the government tried to take my firearms away or impose any form of idiotic laws that would not work)
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Yeah, how about you stop trying to bust out of it
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Today's top story, the system actually worked for once!
Learn how it will kill your babies and cause our country to be overrun by terrorists at 11!
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
(CNN) -- A pistol in the hands of a 4-year-old boy went off during a weekend cookout, killing the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy who was showing his guns to a relative, state police said Monday.
No one saw the boy pick up the weapon before the shooting, which occurred Saturday night in Lebanon, east of Nashville, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Kristin Helm said. The single shot killed 47-year-old Josephine Fanning, the wife of Wilson County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Fanning.
The couple were hosting family and friends at their house when Daniel Fanning and a relative went into a bedroom to check out some of Fanning's guns, Helm said. Josephine Fanning and the boy walked into the room later, and at some point the boy picked the loaded pistol up off the bed.
Helm said she wasn't sure of the relationship between the boy and the Fannings. The TBI, which investigates incidents involving law enforcement officers, is still conducting its probe, and no charges have been filed.
The gun involved was Fanning's personal weapon, not his service pistol, she said.
People just need to quit being stupid with guns, that guy was a cop for feths sake and he left a loaded gun laying where his child could reach it?
If we cannot manage responsible ownership then we will see more attempts at regulating ownership in general.
Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/09 05:26:55
