5 ms·

> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought First off, they are. but if yo

> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought First off, they are. but if you are saying: loose your job and ability to make a living, losing your ability to speak in public, fuck me give me those charges then! you are backing tyrannical ideas while trying to pretend you are just being reasonable.

vannevar 4y ago
The tyranny isn't coming from me, it's coming from the people that own the company that's firing you. And the "tyrannical idea" you're referring to is called capitalism, and it has its upsides and its downsides. Don't shoot the messenger.
- autokad 4y ago
  It appears that you are engaging in a logical fallacy by utilizing capitalism, which I assume is not something you hold in high regard, to silence someone's perspective during a discussion and attributing the blame to capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are primarily owned and controlled by individuals and private companies rather than by the government or public institutions. None of the things mentioned above are related to capitalism's coverage of free speech. It seems that your intention is to suppress those who hold differing opinions, and you are using the assumption that the silenced individuals support capitalism to justify your actions.
  - vannevar 4y ago
    A logical fallacy is a flawed argument that can be revealed by reasoning. For instance, someone suggesting that attributing blame to capitalism is a way to silence another's speech. That is a logical fallacy, because it omits any explanation of how such an attribution could silence another person. :-) Seriously though, do you not see how private ownership of communication services impacts the question of who is allowed to use those services? And that if there were a truly public service, how that would dramatically change the situation with respect to First Amendment rights? For the record, I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But it surprises me how many people don't understand that it has drawbacks, and that we should be honest with ourselves about those drawbacks. It's ok to say that you're pro-capitalism but that you also think that the Internet (or at least some of it) should be a public utility, for instance.
kneebonian 4y ago
It's equivalent to saying you can have a gun you just will go to prison if you ever use it.
- vannevar 4y ago
  Being banned from Twitter is not going to prison, it's being kicked out of a private club.
jtr1 4y ago
Someone reporting something you said to your employer: freedom of speech Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association and so on.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  So it's legal, but you're definitely the Bad Guy.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    No u, since we've apparently abandoned argument in favor of just making claims.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Also, contacting someone's employer is far from a slam dunk freedom of speech case. It could easily run afoul of several criminal statutes, not to mention the obvious civil liability. One more nail in the coffin for Internet anonymity.
      - monkey_monkey 4y ago
        So, you do want some speech to be proscribed.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should have in their private life, but it is definitely not a right that government or government-funded public institutions (e.g. education) should have. Similarly the types of 'association' which are essential for basic life - namely, housing, employment and finance - already have various anti-discrimination laws that effectively assert that everyone should have equal access to these things and freedom of association is not an excuse to exclude people from these core needs. In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc. We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.

vannevar 4y ago

The tyranny isn't coming from me, it's coming from the people that own the company that's firing you. And the "tyrannical idea" you're referring to is called capitalism, and it has its upsides and its downsides. Don't shoot the messenger.

autokad 4y ago
It appears that you are engaging in a logical fallacy by utilizing capitalism, which I assume is not something you hold in high regard, to silence someone's perspective during a discussion and attributing the blame to capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are primarily owned and controlled by individuals and private companies rather than by the government or public institutions. None of the things mentioned above are related to capitalism's coverage of free speech. It seems that your intention is to suppress those who hold differing opinions, and you are using the assumption that the silenced individuals support capitalism to justify your actions.
- vannevar 4y ago
  A logical fallacy is a flawed argument that can be revealed by reasoning. For instance, someone suggesting that attributing blame to capitalism is a way to silence another's speech. That is a logical fallacy, because it omits any explanation of how such an attribution could silence another person. :-) Seriously though, do you not see how private ownership of communication services impacts the question of who is allowed to use those services? And that if there were a truly public service, how that would dramatically change the situation with respect to First Amendment rights? For the record, I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But it surprises me how many people don't understand that it has drawbacks, and that we should be honest with ourselves about those drawbacks. It's ok to say that you're pro-capitalism but that you also think that the Internet (or at least some of it) should be a public utility, for instance.

kneebonian 4y ago

It's equivalent to saying you can have a gun you just will go to prison if you ever use it.

vannevar 4y ago
Being banned from Twitter is not going to prison, it's being kicked out of a private club.

jtr1 4y ago

Someone reporting something you said to your employer: freedom of speech Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association and so on.

rootusrootus 4y ago
So it's legal, but you're definitely the Bad Guy.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  No u, since we've apparently abandoned argument in favor of just making claims.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Also, contacting someone's employer is far from a slam dunk freedom of speech case. It could easily run afoul of several criminal statutes, not to mention the obvious civil liability. One more nail in the coffin for Internet anonymity.
    - monkey_monkey 4y ago
      So, you do want some speech to be proscribed.
PeterisP 4y ago
You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should have in their private life, but it is definitely not a right that government or government-funded public institutions (e.g. education) should have. Similarly the types of 'association' which are essential for basic life - namely, housing, employment and finance - already have various anti-discrimination laws that effectively assert that everyone should have equal access to these things and freedom of association is not an excuse to exclude people from these core needs. In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc. We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.