3 ms·

This is a stupid law, no doubt. But this is also a very fucking stupid article. You would do much better without such quotes as: “Every Finance student I’ve ev

This is a stupid law, no doubt. But this is also a very fucking stupid article. You would do much better without such quotes as: “Every Finance student I’ve ever met is completely retarded.” and “Who else but a woman could come up with the idea of a ‘journalism license’?”

raarts 4y ago
Nothing wrong with freedom of expression. Having an opinion or expressing yourself in uncomfortable terms isn't illegal, and I see no problem with this. Agree or disagree and that's that.
- palmetieri2000 4y ago
  Legality is not the sole determining factor for making an ethical argument and blanket statements like the commenter you are replying to highlighted adequately demonstrate that the article is more some random guys feelings than any actually sound commentary.
  - raarts 4y ago
    I don't think two comments that seem to have originated unfiltered from the heart of the writer necessarily pollute his other arguments in the article. In public discourse it pays not being overly sensitive.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - palmetieri2000 4y ago
      They pollute his arguments by way of inclusion. Do you think these statements reveal nothing about the quality of his logical processing (at least in this article)?
      - raarts 4y ago
        No. If I make a case about poverty and include an overly abrasive comment about some filthy rich person I would hope my argument wouldn't be dismissed for that comment either. And this is the last I'll say about this.
        palmetieri2000 4y ago
        The opposition between the poverty and the wealth would be the connection and make it at least relevant. Briefly diverging from an article about a law to make an unrelated, nonsense, sexist jibe is not the same and absolutely indicates a lower quality article. Not surprise you refuse to say more because what you're saying isn't very sensible.
- becquerel 4y ago
  Disregarding the capability of half the human population to understand journalism goes beyond 'uncomfortable terms' in my opinion. It's downright moronic and harmful and proponents of that view don't merit exposure in any kind of marketplace of ideas that values integrity, human value, etc.
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  > Nothing wrong with freedom of expression. Having an opinion or expressing yourself in uncomfortable terms isn't illegal, and I see no problem with this. Excuse me for saying this, but is that an argument in favor of the article or Hitler? because it works equally well either way. Just because expressing an opinion is not illegal does not mean it should not be allowed to criticize that expression. And just stating that having opinions is not illegal is in no way a valid defense against any criticism neither in specific or in the general case. > Agree or disagree and that's that. what an odd restriction to put on other people speech. No, that’s not all you can do. It’s perfectly ok and expected that some people might agree fully or partially with what has been said by another, yet still not like the manor or quality with which it has been said.
  - MandieD 4y ago
    Fun historical fact: Hitler complained a lot about being “silenced” in the 20s. NSDAP posters from that era here: - http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nsdap-1924-01.jpg http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/... - http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nsdap-1925-01.jpg http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/... - http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nsdap-1927-01.jpg http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/...
- mcv 4y ago
  Nobody is arguing that the article is or should be illegal, just that the article is stupid. Or at least that it undermines its own argument with bigotry.

raarts 4y ago

Nothing wrong with freedom of expression. Having an opinion or expressing yourself in uncomfortable terms isn't illegal, and I see no problem with this. Agree or disagree and that's that.

palmetieri2000 4y ago
Legality is not the sole determining factor for making an ethical argument and blanket statements like the commenter you are replying to highlighted adequately demonstrate that the article is more some random guys feelings than any actually sound commentary.
- raarts 4y ago
  I don't think two comments that seem to have originated unfiltered from the heart of the writer necessarily pollute his other arguments in the article. In public discourse it pays not being overly sensitive.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - palmetieri2000 4y ago
    They pollute his arguments by way of inclusion. Do you think these statements reveal nothing about the quality of his logical processing (at least in this article)?
    - raarts 4y ago
      No. If I make a case about poverty and include an overly abrasive comment about some filthy rich person I would hope my argument wouldn't be dismissed for that comment either. And this is the last I'll say about this.
      - palmetieri2000 4y ago
        The opposition between the poverty and the wealth would be the connection and make it at least relevant. Briefly diverging from an article about a law to make an unrelated, nonsense, sexist jibe is not the same and absolutely indicates a lower quality article. Not surprise you refuse to say more because what you're saying isn't very sensible.
becquerel 4y ago
Disregarding the capability of half the human population to understand journalism goes beyond 'uncomfortable terms' in my opinion. It's downright moronic and harmful and proponents of that view don't merit exposure in any kind of marketplace of ideas that values integrity, human value, etc.
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
> Nothing wrong with freedom of expression. Having an opinion or expressing yourself in uncomfortable terms isn't illegal, and I see no problem with this. Excuse me for saying this, but is that an argument in favor of the article or Hitler? because it works equally well either way. Just because expressing an opinion is not illegal does not mean it should not be allowed to criticize that expression. And just stating that having opinions is not illegal is in no way a valid defense against any criticism neither in specific or in the general case. > Agree or disagree and that's that. what an odd restriction to put on other people speech. No, that’s not all you can do. It’s perfectly ok and expected that some people might agree fully or partially with what has been said by another, yet still not like the manor or quality with which it has been said.
- MandieD 4y ago
  Fun historical fact: Hitler complained a lot about being “silenced” in the 20s. NSDAP posters from that era here: - http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nsdap-1924-01.jpg http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/... - http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nsdap-1925-01.jpg http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/... - http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nsdap-1927-01.jpg http://www.wahlplakate-archiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/...
mcv 4y ago
Nobody is arguing that the article is or should be illegal, just that the article is stupid. Or at least that it undermines its own argument with bigotry.