3 ms·
With that attitude, why stop there? Why not just outlaw saying mean things in general? That seems to be where this would be going.
by randyrand 9y ago
With that attitude, why stop there? Why not just outlaw saying mean things in general? That seems to be where this would be going.
- BenjiWiebe 9y agoPersonally I wouldn't have a problem with criminalizing saying mean things, as long as the penalty was reasonably. Utopia...
- randyrand 9y agoPeople wouldn't be able to vent their emotions. Lots of 'fake happiness'. Sounds like torture to me.. Honestly this would make a great movie - a society where being mean is outlawed.
- jtuente 9y agoThere's an episode of Black Mirror that protrays something akin to it, season 3 episode 1, somewhat like China's citizenship score.
- ue_ 9y ago>With that attitude, why stop there? Why not just outlaw saying mean things in general? You're making this into a slippery slope when it need not be. The parent commenter didn't say anything about mean things, they were talking about hate speech.
- Karunamon 9y agoThe difference being that the definition of "hate speech" is a slippery slope, closely connected with the euphemism treadmill. The difference being, usually the euphemism treadmill doesn't have any legislative import... Examples off the top of my head: the demonization of "illegal" when in reference to people who cross the border without the right to do so. The willful conflation of "Muslim" as a race rather than a religion.
- ue_ 9y agoWhy exactly is it a slippery slope? I admit that it can be made as such, but why must it necessarily be? A legislature or person can define hate speech in such a way that it is not a slippery slope in my opinion, and I think that's what should be done.