5 ms·

The US is too deep into this shit to go back now.

adventured 4y ago
Definitely not. The US was highly censored when it comes to language until the 1990s. [1] We improved considerably, including in (and thanks to) not censoring the WWW when it exploded onto the scene in the 1990s. It can be done again, as there will be a massive cultural backlash against the hyper over-sensitive woke era. The pendulum always swings back aggressively. The new rebels are, once again, going to be those that are intellectually free, not self-censoring and not over-sensitive. The US is becoming primed for a new era of shock, and young people will eat it up when it happens, to rebel against the hyper sensitive status quo. [1] See: George Carlin and Howard Stern, and their running battles with abusive government censorship and cultural repression around language.
- voidfunc 4y ago
  New era of shock cant happen soon enough.
  - earth_walker 4y ago
    Careful what you wish for - in all likelihood when that backlash does come you and I and anyone old enough to be commenting here won't be in on the joke. We will be the ones the shock-jocks are trying to shock, as they goose-step through their live goetze show, calling for math to be abolished from the high school curriculum and for script-kiddie porn to be legalized. And their adoring fans will get together to vote in president R. Kelly for 2 terms.
- wonderbore 4y ago
  I hope it will happen, but the pendulum is going back so fast right now. Some old words are being more accepted now, but people are becoming more sensitive to whole topics and specific trigger words, even and especially young people.
- emmelaich 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell was in 1988
cmeacham98 4y ago
The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world.
- swiftcoder 4y ago
  > The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world. Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or perceived to be threatening towards an elected official... The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount of leeway.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    That the 1st Amendment is not an absolute protection on all speech does not change the fact that it is one of the strongest protections that does exist. Additionally, the Supreme Court has protected porn under the 1st Amendment countless times. I doubt that any serious person wants threats of violence to be universally legal.
    - Timwi 4y ago
      One does not need to want for it to be universally legal to point out that the wording of the 1st amendment technically implies that it is.
  - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
    In paper is right and aims right. In practice we can discuss your claims but it's still one of the best (or more fairly, less worst) implementations in human history so far. And what's the alternative anyway? Some kind of Newspeak (with an officially approved typography)?
    - vkou 4y ago
      > And what's the alternative anyway? Any of the other implementations of the same concept found in most of the western world, take your pick. Whatever criticism you have of them, I'll probably be able to point that it also applies to some application of the FA (or of how speech is/was allowed in practice) in the united states.

Definitely not. The US was highly censored when it comes to language until the 1990s. [1] We improved considerably, including in (and thanks to) not censoring the WWW when it exploded onto the scene in the 1990s. It can be done again, as there will be a massive cultural backlash against the hyper over-sensitive woke era. The pendulum always swings back aggressively. The new rebels are, once again, going to be those that are intellectually free, not self-censoring and not over-sensitive. The US is becoming primed for a new era of shock, and young people will eat it up when it happens, to rebel against the hyper sensitive status quo. [1] See: George Carlin and Howard Stern, and their running battles with abusive government censorship and cultural repression around language.

voidfunc 4y ago
New era of shock cant happen soon enough.
- earth_walker 4y ago
  Careful what you wish for - in all likelihood when that backlash does come you and I and anyone old enough to be commenting here won't be in on the joke. We will be the ones the shock-jocks are trying to shock, as they goose-step through their live goetze show, calling for math to be abolished from the high school curriculum and for script-kiddie porn to be legalized. And their adoring fans will get together to vote in president R. Kelly for 2 terms.
wonderbore 4y ago
I hope it will happen, but the pendulum is going back so fast right now. Some old words are being more accepted now, but people are becoming more sensitive to whole topics and specific trigger words, even and especially young people.
emmelaich 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell was in 1988

cmeacham98 4y ago

The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world.

swiftcoder 4y ago
> The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world. Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or perceived to be threatening towards an elected official... The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount of leeway.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  That the 1st Amendment is not an absolute protection on all speech does not change the fact that it is one of the strongest protections that does exist. Additionally, the Supreme Court has protected porn under the 1st Amendment countless times. I doubt that any serious person wants threats of violence to be universally legal.
  - Timwi 4y ago
    One does not need to want for it to be universally legal to point out that the wording of the 1st amendment technically implies that it is.
- sebastianconcpt 4y ago
  In paper is right and aims right. In practice we can discuss your claims but it's still one of the best (or more fairly, less worst) implementations in human history so far. And what's the alternative anyway? Some kind of Newspeak (with an officially approved typography)?
  - vkou 4y ago
    > And what's the alternative anyway? Any of the other implementations of the same concept found in most of the western world, take your pick. Whatever criticism you have of them, I'll probably be able to point that it also applies to some application of the FA (or of how speech is/was allowed in practice) in the united states.