Free Speech: Let's do this properly

termi

pyongyang gang
is a Tiering Contributor
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/11/george-ciccariello-maher-drexel-prof-placed-leave-/

Where's the conservative outrage over this? This is not even a case of the students of a university deplatforming a speaker they consider harmful to their own university, this is a case of outside forces threatening a university professor to the point where his university has to put him on leave because the guy said some spooky scary leftist stuff on Twitter (even though what he said honestly wasn't especially far out or dangerous if you actually understood what he was saying). Why are we not hearing the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros of the world sound the alarm now? Or is free speech on campuses only important when the person in question is owning the libcucks?
 
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/11/george-ciccariello-maher-drexel-prof-placed-leave-/

Where's the conservative outrage over this? This is not even a case of the students of a university deplatforming a speaker they consider harmful to their own university, this is a case of outside forces threatening a university professor to the point where his university has to put him on leave because the guy said some spooky scary leftist stuff on Twitter (even though what he said honestly wasn't especially far out or dangerous if you actually understood what he was saying). Why are we not hearing the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros of the world sound the alarm now? Or is free speech on campuses only important when the person in question is owning the libcucks?
Probably because that's the "All I want for Christmas is White Genocide." guy.
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
https://twitter.com/ciccmaher/status/914859947212656640 for reference

Not going to talk about his tweets themselves because that's not really the focus. Clearly this brand of talk doesn't fit into Shapiro's agenda, so why support it? Not surprising that Shaprio and his ilk want to ignore something they don't agree with. I mean, I don't think he should be fired, but that doesn't carry too much weight. I just think fox sees this guy as dollar signs. Fresh outrage for the fans!

The guy has a long history of tweets (white genocide and soldier on airplane). Satire or not, he got a lot of backlash. And another wrench in the machine--Drexel university is private, not public. I think they're seeing dollar signs as well, and this seems to be the last straw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EV

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Interesting, I had always heard the term and what its actually meant but interpreted them as two entirely seperate things. According to the Anti-Defamation League White Genocide is a term used largely by white supremacist groups to refer to the conspiracy theory that white people are slowly becoming a minority through diversity tactics imposed by the government and intermingling between different races and white people. It is an actual concept that does not mean all white people should just die. In the context of the professor he was satirically suggesting that "white genocide" should happen through the destruction of white culture thru the process of interracial couples and diversity training, not advocating for people to go murder white people en masse. Poor choice of words I guess but he was playing on the fears of white supremacy movements implying he wants nothing more than "white culture" (re: the toxic aspects toyed with itt and the political correctness thread) to be eradicated in hopes for a world where race doesnt matter so we can just all get along.
 
I've got a question for ya. What's more morally reprehensible?

White genocide, or black genocide? That's right, it's black genocide. Because black genocide means exactly what you think it means.

What? What do you mean they're both genocide?

Maybe the guy shouldn't use such inflammatory language, or a "definition" made up by white supremacists that only they and apparently the ADL use? Better yet, how about we don't advocate for genocide at all? Why the fuck are you letting white supremacists change the definition of something? I'm pretty damn sure that most people when they hear "(insert skin color) genocide" aren't going to think it's some concept about erasing culture or miscegenation but about, ya know, actual genocide.

If conservative voices get squashed then so should this guy.
 

termi

pyongyang gang
is a Tiering Contributor
Probably because that's the "All I want for Christmas is White Genocide." guy.
every conservative speaker that got deplatformed, every conservative professor who got suspended or whatever, is at best a ridiculous idiot with pathetic ideas to me, at worst their beliefs are actually dangerous. i thought this freedom of speech thing was absolute to you people? and yet, the white genocide guy had it coming? by that logic, why again should i give a fuck about milo, ann coulter, jordan peterson or what have you?

https://twitter.com/ciccmaher/status/914859947212656640 for reference

Not going to talk about his tweets themselves because that's not really the focus. Clearly this brand of talk doesn't fit into Shapiro's agenda, so why support it? Not surprising that Shaprio and his ilk want to ignore something they don't agree with. I mean, I don't think he should be fired, but that doesn't carry too much weight. I just think fox sees this guy as dollar signs. Fresh outrage for the fans!

The guy has a long history of tweets (white genocide and soldier on airplane). Satire or not, he got a lot of backlash. And another wrench in the machine--Drexel university is private, not public. I think they're seeing dollar signs as well, and this seems to be the last straw.
i know all too well why conservatives aren't in an outrage over this, but they should drop the "we're just protecting free speech" charade, since they clearly don't. the goal of most conservatives and fascists (oooh i just grouped two far right groups together woahhh godwin alert godwin alert) is to silence everyone to the left of fucking john mccain and it's about time they got honest about it (but of course it's tactically beneficial to pretend they're moral free speech crusaders to gain the sympathy of gullible centrists and "libertarians" so they never will, hence why i asked them that question, one they would never be able to answer in good faith)
I've got a question for ya. What's more morally reprehensible?

White genocide, or black genocide? That's right, it's black genocide. Because black genocide means exactly what you think it means.

What? What do you mean they're both genocide?

Maybe the guy shouldn't use such inflammatory language, or a "definition" made up by white supremacists that only they and apparently the ADL use? Better yet, how about we don't advocate for genocide at all? Why the fuck are you letting white supremacists change the definition of something? I'm pretty damn sure that most people when they hear "(insert skin color) genocide" aren't going to think it's some concept about erasing culture or miscegenation but about, ya know, actual genocide.

If conservative voices get squashed then so should this guy.
there has never been such a thing as white genocide. everyone who's referring to white genocide is referring to the white supremacist conspiracy theory. literally nobody is talking about actively slaughtering white people for being white. it's just not a thing. why would you completely ignore the cultural meaning of white genocide and take it at face value. it's just so dumb aaaa
 
Last edited:
every conservative speaker that got deplatformed, every conservative professor who got suspended or whatever, is at best a ridiculous idiot with pathetic ideas to me, at worst their beliefs are actually dangerous. i thought this freedom of speech thing was absolute to you people? and yet, the white genocide guy had it coming? by that logic, why again should i give a fuck about milo, ann coulter, jordan peterson or what have you?
I never said you should give a shit about them. This is tit for tat though. If those people can (and occasionally should) get fired, banned, what have you, then so should this guy. Once again, for the upteenth time; he is free to say this shit. He's not free from getting the boot. But I guess you would rather lump everyone that disagrees with you into one big ol' group.

there has never been such a thing as white genocide. everyone who's referring to white genocide is referring to the white supremacist conspiracy theory. literally nobody is talking about actively slaughtering white people for being white. it's just not a thing. why would you completely ignore the cultural meaning of white genocide and take it at face value. it's just so dumb aaaa
I never said white genocide was real. I said that to the majority of people who don't subscribe to white supremacist and (apparently) diehard liberal definitions of it; it looks really really fucking bad. Let's not completely devalue another word, save it for actual genocide. And don't for the love of god give them the power to change the meanings of words. Or can I make up shit for inflammatory and generally hateful language too?
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
x-posted from the mod PR thread:

Demonstrates some logical problems with radical free speech and attempts to censor it "neutrally". Voices some questions we have been hovering around (or have assumed answers to) but never really asked explicitly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: tcr

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
every conservative speaker that got deplatformed, every conservative professor who got suspended or whatever, is at best a ridiculous idiot with pathetic ideas to me, at worst their beliefs are actually dangerous.
So if I believe your ideas are ridiculous and pathetic, and at worst are actually dangerous, I can deny you a platform?

https://t.co/8jbpPzEO94 what do you guys have to say about this? I'm curious as to if you'll defend censorship of people who are advocating violence on others if it's somebody on your own side or will try to change the rules because it's somebody you don't like.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.html

This article illustrates some of the many reasons that hate speech, specifically nazification, should be censored and restricted in the public space. Because people who "casually approv[es] remarks about Hitler, [holds] disdain for democracy and belie[ves] that the races are better off separate" is normalized in one of the biggest newspapers in America. That the press does their best to portray an alt-right white nationalist individual who keeps books of Hitler and Mussolini on his bookshelf as just a normal dude getting his bread and butter at the grocery store while in his spare time plots to overthrow the ignorant minorities that have corrupted his beloved land. When people ask "how has Trump normalized KKK and White Supremacy and uhh is nigga still racist in 2017 lmao" I'll point to this little nugget from Mr Hovater:

"He said the election of President Trump helped open a space for people like him, demonstrating that it is not the end of the world to be attacked as the bigot he surely is: “You can just say, ‘Yeah, so?’ And move on.”"

This is what happens when you allow these insane and malicious ideas to roam free. They don't just disappear into the "free market" of ideas, shot down as some absolutists might think should happen, they grow and fester spreading like a cancer. Especially in the age of the internet where anonymity is king and you can spread your hate speech wherever you want without any fear of reprisal. When you grant the right to promote ethno-nationalism or other supremacy off branches you instill fear into the populace no different than if you were Charles Manson saying you were going to slaughter every last individual in a room. How can you feel safe next to someone who's entire political ideals revolve around wanting to murder you and your brethren because you are different from them? I say this as a white straight male, as someone who is proud of what America once stood for and proud of my ancestry but not to the extent that other I see other cultures as some sort of threat to my existence or not to the extent that I cannot see the flaws in the foundation of the free world. It is incredibly important to keep those ideas in check, to not give them any sort of leeway or credibility, to treat them as if they were a grown man throwing a temper tantrum and just ignore them, look down on them, make those hateful ideas feel worthless because thats all they are.

"He said he wanted to see the United States become “an actually fair, meritocratic society.” Absent that, he would settle for a white ethno-state “where things are fair, because there’s no competing demographics for government power or for resources.”" the alt-right, people. disgusting and gross.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
It has always fascinated me how the left went from being "the champions of civil rights and freedom" to openly opposing freedom of speech. Anyway.

A lot of people ITT are focusing specifically on how "hate speech" needs to be made illegal in order to protect minority groups and the such. But what do hate speech laws protect minorities against?

Feeling bad/upset/offended by something someone said isn't a good feeling. I know that. I know that when someone says something that offends me, I get angry and I wish it didn't happen. But you have to realize that feelings, while still important, do not supersede rights. It is more important that we uphold freedom of speech for all people because it's more important to guarantee civil rights for everyone than it is to not be upset over words. The number one group that is benefitted by total free speech laws is minority groups. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy writes:

"… A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."

If we limit free speech and ban certain speech based on whether the majority (or the people in power) says is "hate speech" or not, we allow a situation in which the voices of the minority can easily be silenced and prevented from speaking.

There's a reason the First Amendment exists. The Founding Fathers specifically specified that ALL speech (except speech that directly brings harm to others, which is extremely rare) is to be protected from the government, because they knew that the minority voice would always be at a disadvantage and easy to silence. By supporting "hate speech" laws instead of concrete free speech for everyone, you're taking away that small sliver of influence and power the minority has.

I've heard numerous speakers talk about how the left is in the business of feeling good, and the right is in the business of doing good. Banning Nazis from speaking sure sounds like the good thing to do, but guaranteeing everyone will always have the right to speak their mind is what actually protects minority groups.
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I've heard numerous speakers talk about how the left is in the business of feeling good, and the right is in the business of doing good.
I've heard numerous speakers talk about how the left is in the business of feeling good, and the right is in the business of barely putting up any pretense at all anymore.
 
Wow... the political climate really is toxic, isn’t it?

I mean, really, everyone thinks that they’re right and everyone else is wrong, they are the “good guys” and those who disagree are the “bad guys”, and no one ever thinks about a gray area, a compromise for anything. No one can just agree to disagree, it always has to go further.

I just kind of feel like politics are such a massive, sprawling mess of a topic, and no one knows how to be polite or have a genuine discussion without going at each other’s throats.

However, when it comes to the topic of freedom of speech, while it is a right that should be given to all people, private companies and corporations have the right to take anything they want to off of their platform; but in these situations, and these arguments, I can never help but see tons of hypocrisy from both sides, as people are always wanting their opinions to be heard, but often never want to hear the opinions of others. That, I feel, is the fundamental problem. We are never willing to listen, and refute genuine arguments in a respectful manner. Regardless of your opinion, freedom of speech is extremely important to good argumentation, as without it, what’s stopping an area, a college, a town, a nation, even; from just becoming glorified echo chambers, not improving arguments or opinions, not becoming more informed, but creating a meaningless circle-jerk that only weakens the cause and the arguments. I will admit, there are negatives to this unrestricted attitude towards the 1st ammendment, but there will always be radicals, trolls, etc., and by censoring or shutting them down you are only making them more valid. It lets these people say “Hey, look at me! These people know that my ideas are the truth, and they just want to oppress me to hide it!” and that makes you seem like the bad guy. Besides, we cannot punish people with the law for thinking or having an opinion, we just have them fester underground instead.

I may just be being naive, or have too much faith in humanity, but I feel as if by separating ourselves like this, and dictating our opinions and our thoughts on others by nothing more than an overused label, we as a society are restricting ourselves and almost underestimating our ability to have a good moral compass and comprehend the difference between right and wrong.

Like I said, I may just be being naive, and it’s not like I have any power at all in the political scene right now, as I’m not even old enough to vote, but those are just my two cents on this whole mess of a topic

Wow what a first post on smogon lol
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
yeah that can really be taken in both ways dude, you could really use an explainer
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Can you explain why instead of just dropping a link?
Sure— I didn’t, because you really just have to actually watch, and because Jordon Peterson is so meticulous and so perfect in his own self-representation here that my words can only detract.

1 liner though, the Channel 4 interviewer just makes herself the perfect embodiment of what Peterson is criticizing— trying at every corner to misrepresent his views, frame him in character attacks, and put forth points of view that fly in the face of actual liberalism at every corner; what we want for free society and free people.

And she falls apart epically— as she realizes that the so-called bigot’s views are not bigoted, and that her arguments against him are uninformed and illiberal.

It’s basically a perfectly encapsulated episode of everything wrong with the PC mainstream media/SJW authoritarian left. This is not empirical evidence for a point, but then the influence of post-modern authoritarian leftism is difficult to quantify. Qualitative data is something we look at in our pursuit of truth and this is just an incredibly illustrative and illuminating episode.


Just as side-note, I’m not a Jordon Peterson fan— though it’s not important except to distinguish myself from his growing fan base. Reasons:

His tendency to look at the metaphorical truth of religion and exaggerate its modern importance annoys me, as does his tendency to spout praise of the free market while seemingly avoid in-depth economic discussions. He’s a centrist that does so very little to clarify his disagreements with the right, and that annoys me. I prefer conservatives who call themselves conservatives— not liberals who won’t stand up for the merits of economic liberalism. That said, he is a man of facts, logic, free thinking and his message of self empowerment is a good one— so I have to respect him. I LIKE guys like Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein more; and there is lots of content out there where those guys hash out their agreements and disagreements with Peterson.
 
Last edited:

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I'm just curious--
How many of you think that you really have democracy in USA?
And is it like, really important for countries like China to convert into democracy?
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
I'm just curious--
How many of you think that you really have democracy in USA?
And is it like, really important for countries like China to convert into democracy?
Is this a trick question? Somebody says america is freedom of election and we get bamboozled that actually we're being brainwashed by propaganda? The old "america is an oligarchy of capitalists not a democracy" thing?

I don't understand what you're asking tbh
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Is this a trick question? Somebody says america is freedom of election and we get bamboozled that actually we're being brainwashed by propaganda? The old "america is an oligarchy of capitalists not a democracy" thing?

I don't understand what you're asking tbh
What trick question?
It's probably not a trick question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EV

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
I'm just curious--
How many of you think that you really have democracy in USA?
And is it like, really important for countries like China to convert into democracy?
The US isn't a democracy really, if you're using the literal terms. The US is a representative republic iirc. Republics guarantee rights for marginalized groups, while democracies are solely run by the majority. As others have said it's unclear whether you're genuinely asking or you're just trying to do a xD nothin personell kid woke thing.

Democracies for the most part are the best way to ensure governments don't take control of their populations and murder them, so yeah it's desirable.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top