5 ms·

You think? Just read all the ones in black: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell But as so many even here k

You think? Just read all the ones in black: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell But as so many even here keep repeating so idiotically, "We live in a society. We live in a society. We live in a society..." Gotta keep trading that liberty for more safety. Gotta keep 'em safe. Anyone see the new messages you get on Twitter when its AI pre-judges your tweet to be Intellectual Spam? Good job Twitter employees, if you're reading. Keep up the great work. Keep us safe from code points arranged in wrong orders.

dbxkcichhdfufu 4y ago
If alarm bells didn't go off when free speech became a dirty word on the left I don't know what to tell you.
- darkhorse222 4y ago
  - ehvatum 4y ago
    Personally, because I support victims of oppression, any words that disagree with me are hate speech. Because everything I do is in service of victims of injustice, my actions are just. There is no “cycle of violence”, only hidden power structures of oppression to be destroyed.
  - dbxkcichhdfufu 4y ago
    Please define hate speech. Generalizing everyone that disagrees with you as "those types" and then calling me pathetic to group me in with them is exactly the problem is was alluding to.
  - Baloo 4y ago
    And who defines what constitutes as hate speech? If I tell you to jump from a bridge to your death, is it my fault for telling you or your fault for acting upon it? Punish actions, not words. The moment you punish peoples words, you remove the ability to debate, converse, express, rectify, understand.
    - filoeleven 4y ago
      The “fighting words doctrine” was established in the US in 1942.[0]. > [The Supreme Court] held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem." At least some things classified as hate speech, like racial slurs, seem to me to fall clearly under the category of fighting words. Is the fighting words doctrine fully unsound? Unsound only when applied to social media? Is hate speech just another name for it, or is it an expansion of it? EDIT: My original link does not include the narrowing of the doctrine. [1] is a better source: > the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    "Hate speech" is free speech. If I hate someone, then that's my God-given right to believe what I want and express my opinion, no matter how unwise that opinion is. If I commit or threaten violence, then I am breaking the law, and you can throw me in jail. But not a moment before
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Actual leftists (e.g. Emma Goldman) don't say something as dumb as "free speech doesn't mean unlimited speech", but very few Americans are exposed to actual leftist thought on a regular basis. We mostly get pale imitations like "the squad".
hotpotamus 4y ago
I’m pretty sure Twitter isn’t part of our government yet, but perhaps once Musk is crowned supreme emperor or whatever title he and Joe Rogan dream up in their next THC fueled brainstorm-podcast session, that will change.

dbxkcichhdfufu 4y ago

If alarm bells didn't go off when free speech became a dirty word on the left I don't know what to tell you.

darkhorse222 4y ago
- ehvatum 4y ago
  Personally, because I support victims of oppression, any words that disagree with me are hate speech. Because everything I do is in service of victims of injustice, my actions are just. There is no “cycle of violence”, only hidden power structures of oppression to be destroyed.
- dbxkcichhdfufu 4y ago
  Please define hate speech. Generalizing everyone that disagrees with you as "those types" and then calling me pathetic to group me in with them is exactly the problem is was alluding to.
- Baloo 4y ago
  And who defines what constitutes as hate speech? If I tell you to jump from a bridge to your death, is it my fault for telling you or your fault for acting upon it? Punish actions, not words. The moment you punish peoples words, you remove the ability to debate, converse, express, rectify, understand.
  - filoeleven 4y ago
    The “fighting words doctrine” was established in the US in 1942.[0]. > [The Supreme Court] held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem." At least some things classified as hate speech, like racial slurs, seem to me to fall clearly under the category of fighting words. Is the fighting words doctrine fully unsound? Unsound only when applied to social media? Is hate speech just another name for it, or is it an expansion of it? EDIT: My original link does not include the narrowing of the doctrine. [1] is a better source: > the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  "Hate speech" is free speech. If I hate someone, then that's my God-given right to believe what I want and express my opinion, no matter how unwise that opinion is. If I commit or threaten violence, then I am breaking the law, and you can throw me in jail. But not a moment before
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Actual leftists (e.g. Emma Goldman) don't say something as dumb as "free speech doesn't mean unlimited speech", but very few Americans are exposed to actual leftist thought on a regular basis. We mostly get pale imitations like "the squad".

hotpotamus 4y ago

I’m pretty sure Twitter isn’t part of our government yet, but perhaps once Musk is crowned supreme emperor or whatever title he and Joe Rogan dream up in their next THC fueled brainstorm-podcast session, that will change.