11 ms·

You’re afraid of “this kind of thing” happening in other countries. What do you believe is happening here and what problems do you have with it specifically?

by mthoms 3y ago

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
I think you already know what I'm concerned about, but you're asking me so you can have me put it into words and then get me bogged down in those. The core of my comment is the way these kinds of laws can lead to a kind of extraterritoriality, which I articulated plainly.
- mthoms 3y ago
  You’re using vague but scary language without offering specifics. Sounds a lot like fear mongering. Why should Canadians “get out”? That’s a pretty bold thing to call for. I think asking you to explain yourself is perfectly reasonable. So… why? If you fear getting “bogged down” with words maybe you shouldn’t be engaging in a discussion board.
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    Again, the core of my post is pseudo-extraterritoriality brought about by these kinds of laws, which I'vestated plainly twice now. If you'd like to discuss that, I would have been happy to. Not so much now, because you're not giving discussion vibes. But if anybody else wants to discuss the point of my comment and not try and drill down on specifics that are entirely tertiary to my point, that's cool with me, and exactly why I made the post on said discussion board. That you want to discuss something totally anciliary is not my fault or concern.
    - boppo1 3y ago
      In terms of vibe I think I'm more on your side than that other guy's. Internet-hate-crime laws fundamentally spook me because I grew up in a purple US state and on balance feel authorities are likely to abuse them. >pseudo-extraterritoriality I don't know what this means, can you elaborate?
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > If you fear getting “bogged down” with words maybe you shouldn’t be engaging in a discussion board. This very sentiment highlights the problem. If you aren't a master of crybullying and couching your own hate speech in impenetrable rhetoric, you're subject to criminal penalties. Israel is attacking civilians but calling that out as genocide is antisemitic in their eyes. Yet visibly supporting their Palestinian victims is itself "advocating genocide." They've flipped the script, and this bill codifies suppression of dissent. All of these ism and phobia terms are so fucking vague it's embarrassing. And yet for a bill about stopping bullying and hate speech, there are provisions like: > For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. So what the fuck is the point? This is all meaningless. It's going to be hilarious to see enforced.

You’re afraid of “this kind of thing” happening in other countries. What do you believe is happening here and what problems do you have with it specifically?

by mthoms 3y ago

You’re afraid of “this kind of thing” happening in other countries. What do you believe is happening here and what problems do you have with it specifically?

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago

I think you already know what I'm concerned about, but you're asking me so you can have me put it into words and then get me bogged down in those. The core of my comment is the way these kinds of laws can lead to a kind of extraterritoriality, which I articulated plainly.

mthoms 3y ago
You’re using vague but scary language without offering specifics. Sounds a lot like fear mongering. Why should Canadians “get out”? That’s a pretty bold thing to call for. I think asking you to explain yourself is perfectly reasonable. So… why? If you fear getting “bogged down” with words maybe you shouldn’t be engaging in a discussion board.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  Again, the core of my post is pseudo-extraterritoriality brought about by these kinds of laws, which I'vestated plainly twice now. If you'd like to discuss that, I would have been happy to. Not so much now, because you're not giving discussion vibes. But if anybody else wants to discuss the point of my comment and not try and drill down on specifics that are entirely tertiary to my point, that's cool with me, and exactly why I made the post on said discussion board. That you want to discuss something totally anciliary is not my fault or concern.
  - boppo1 3y ago
    In terms of vibe I think I'm more on your side than that other guy's. Internet-hate-crime laws fundamentally spook me because I grew up in a purple US state and on balance feel authorities are likely to abuse them. >pseudo-extraterritoriality I don't know what this means, can you elaborate?
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > If you fear getting “bogged down” with words maybe you shouldn’t be engaging in a discussion board. This very sentiment highlights the problem. If you aren't a master of crybullying and couching your own hate speech in impenetrable rhetoric, you're subject to criminal penalties. Israel is attacking civilians but calling that out as genocide is antisemitic in their eyes. Yet visibly supporting their Palestinian victims is itself "advocating genocide." They've flipped the script, and this bill codifies suppression of dissent. All of these ism and phobia terms are so fucking vague it's embarrassing. And yet for a bill about stopping bullying and hate speech, there are provisions like: > For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. So what the fuck is the point? This is all meaningless. It's going to be hilarious to see enforced.