Not quite. It's a joke based on how chauvinistic it is that he thinks that women are so emotional. The speech can be paraphrased as "Man, I don't know why they got me to talk here. I'm a chauvinistic idiot who thinks women always cry when you criticize them and that they'll fall in love with me at the drop of a hat. But, seriously, you should just ignore people like me and keep doing what you do." The premise of the "joke" is that his comments were chauvinist, but it was unclear whether he does seriously hold those chauvinistic views or not. Honestly, it's still a bit unclear. Regardless, since he has done well in practice to help women in science, even if he does have those archaic views, I think it can be overlooked.
You know that if a woman scientist asked for gender based labs then they would get it without any problem, even if they said the same thing and they would get tons of support.
No...? They'd be laughed out of the field. Where the hell did you pull that assumption out of?
a problem with women in science.
That's against the fact that he entirely says differently. It's a joke based on how emotional women… more are. You know that if a woman scientist asked for gender based labs then they would get it without any problem, even if they said the same thing and they would get tons of support. This entire thing is pathetic to say it's sexism over a joke.
are you going to ask every random guy down a road their opinion about violent theft before judging wether it's wise to walk that particular … moreroad at night?
Are you going to assume that every black person who walks pass you on the street is going to rob you at gun point?
Honestly, it's still a bit unclear. Regardless, since he has done well in practice to help women in science, even if he does have those archaic views, I think it can be overlooked.
You know what, you're right. How can two random people on the Internet really know the views and opinions of someone totally different than us. He has helped women and science and our main issue should be the issue that he got forced to resign based off of these jokes.
It's a joke based on how emotional women are.
Not quite. It's a joke based on how chauvinistic it is that he thinks that women are s… moreo emotional. The speech can be paraphrased as "Man, I don't know why they got me to talk here. I'm a chauvinistic idiot who thinks women always cry when you criticize them and that they'll fall in love with me at the drop of a hat. But, seriously, you should just ignore people like me and keep doing what you do." The premise of the "joke" is that his comments were chauvinist, but it was unclear whether he does seriously hold those chauvinistic views or not. Honestly, it's still a bit unclear. Regardless, since he has done well in practice to help women in science, even if he does have those archaic views, I think it can be overlooked.
You know that if a woman scientist asked for gender based labs then they would get it without any problem, even if they said the same thing and they would get tons of … [view original content]
the negation of an universal property implies the existance of a negation of the property so, yeah, sexism too of course, most men i know are less empathic than most women i know.
Honestly, it's still a bit unclear. Regardless, since he has done well in practice to help women in science, even if he does have those arch… moreaic views, I think it can be overlooked.
You know what, you're right. How can two random people on the Internet really know the views and opinions of someone totally different than us. He has helped women and science and our main issue should be the issue that he got forced to resign based off of these jokes.
You know, i think it has a lot to do with how you grew up, your own life experiences etc, you find your own personal identity, things that make you laugh. I am sure, that most people would find some things i laugh at disturbing, i have a dark sense of humor because of PTSD, i really can't share with anyone because Society would shun me, even more than it already does.
This is 100% true. Just because some people don't view what someone says as a joke, that doesn't mean it isn't. For every person who gets offended, there will be someone who laughs.
It's when asked these kind of questions that people's dubious definitions of the free speech they apparently hold so dearly is questioned.
Some people say they should be allowed by law to express hatred and dislike of gay people for being gay - if so, surely people should be allowed by law to express hatred and dislike of black people for being black?
When does speech become hate speech? How do free speech and hate speech interact?
How is free speech, as some kind of uber defensible necessary societal virtue, really defined? Anyone?
The way I see it, when we begin to put a ban or limit peoples freedom of speech, true freedom has been lost. I say let people say what they … morefeel, and soon others around them will know that and either:
A: Kick the f-ing shit out of them, and they learn not to say hateful, ignorant, or stupid things in public. And who knows, they might learn a thing or 2.
B: Ask they to elaborate on their feelings. Watch them make a fool of themselves. Point out their flawed logic and point of view. Inform them of why they could be wrong. Wish them a polite day and hope they learn from their mistake, or leave them to live in their fantasy world of bull shit.
If we limit their freedom of speech, one day it might mean we limit our own freedom to respond. (Or share our view on things.)
You're not legally culpable for that though. Unless it can be shown you systematically terrorized a person over some length of time, the off hand comment of 'go kill yourself' isn't anything that should be limited or held legally culpable.
We already limit freedom of speech, so according to you, true freedom has already been lost.
For example, if someone tells someone to kill themselves, and they do, then they're partly to blame for their death legally.
You'd be guilty of manslaughter, or, if minor, mistreating a disabled person since the most likely cause of suicidal thoughts is mental disability.
And, for that matter, so what happens if you DID systematically verbally terrorise someone over a length of time? You say in another thread that you believe in completely unlimited freedom of speech - is the fact that someone who terrorises another verbally, leading to their suicide, can be thrown in jail for it disgusting to you?
Another example: you can be arrested for swearing and verbally abusing a police officer. Is that wrong, and symptomatic of a removal of freedom of speech? Why not?
You're not legally culpable for that though. Unless it can be shown you systematically terrorized a person over some length of time, the off hand comment of 'go kill yourself' isn't anything that should be limited or held legally culpable.
free speech is lack of censorship, censorhip is oppression of opinions/thoughts
i have yet to find a definition o "hate speech" that could both avoid discrimination and not snowaball into becoming newspeak for "i dislike your opinion" or the famous "your freedoms end where my feelings begin"
It's when asked these kind of questions that people's dubious definitions of the free speech they apparently hold so dearly is questioned.
… more Some people say they should be allowed by law to express hatred and dislike of gay people for being gay - if so, surely people should be allowed by law to express hatred and dislike of black people for being black?
When does speech become hate speech? How do free speech and hate speech interact?
How is free speech, as some kind of uber defensible necessary societal virtue, really defined? Anyone?
free speech is lack of censorship, censorhip is oppression of opinions/thoughts
i have yet to find a definition o "hate speech" that coul… mored both avoid discrimination and not snowaball into becoming newspeak for "i dislike your opinion" or the famous "your freedoms end where my feelings begin"
also i don't understand the "used in a court of law" part, as far as i know there's some sort of special etiquette, enforced by the guy with the wig, in court of laws, to trim out things unnecessary to the process, which i think is reasonable if defined cautiously (by someone with a law degree i do not have, for instance).
I appreciate dark humor, and so do a lot people. Sucks that you get shunned, but I guess the internet is a place to get away from that, eh?
I grew up as a real SJW, I unsubscribed from my original favorite youtuber because he used the word gay as a negative term. Now, just 5 years later I'm kind of a condescending asshole. I'm bisexual and make fun of every kind of sexuality, i'm autistic and I make autism jokes. I sometimes make racist jokes, so what if I have an offensive sense of humor? I think how you grow up is definitely part of it, but I'm not really sure what changed me from some social justice keyboard warrior kid to the offensive guy I am today.
You know, i think it has a lot to do with how you grew up, your own life experiences etc, you find your own personal identity, things th… moreat make you laugh. I am sure, that most people would find some things i laugh at disturbing, i have a dark sense of humor because of PTSD, i really can't share with anyone because Society would shun me, even more than it already does.
I'm autistic and I laugh at autism jokes. I'm bisexual and I laugh at sexuality jokes. Obviously not as bad as cancer, but I think it's all about perspective.
define "real harm"
also i don't understand the "used in a court of law" part, as far as i know there's some sort of special etiquette, en… moreforced by the guy with the wig, in court of laws, to trim out things unnecessary to the process, which i think is reasonable if defined cautiously (by someone with a law degree i do not have, for instance).
And It always has been. We've never had total freedom. Not from the moment any country or state, or organization is formed. I should worded it differently, but the more limitations we put on peoples rights the more freedom we lose. I can't remember the term exactly, but it has to do with safety and limits on freedom. Something like, if you want to be protected you need to give the government or body in power either taxes or swear loyalty to them or blah blah blah, it's just like give and take. I want freedom, I take the time of the police to help me. But I also pay the taxes for my state, county, and federal taxes for said protection of state law enforcement blah blah blah.
And I'm not sure I agree with you completely on the second statement. If it was non stop terrorizing and threats towards that person emotionally or physically, yes once could say the person abusing them was partially responsible. But it's just like me saying something like "I hope that person gets into a car accident." If it actually happens, it was purely by chance and not because I was physically attempting to set up such a scenario. Should I still be charged for man slaughter if they die?
And one final thing, are you saying that this is law where you live, or if it SHOULD be law?
We already limit freedom of speech, so according to you, true freedom has already been lost.
For example, if someone tells someone to kill themselves, and they do, then they're partly to blame for their death legally.
if it can be proven that your actions (whatever they were) caused someone to die, then you did commit a crime, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it's murder of some sort of grade, lawyers are there to prove wether it was intentional or not.
"harassment" is one of those things that started out as genuine attempts to keep things civil but ended up becoming buzzwords used to discredit people or to switch empathy towards oneself, imho.
For example, continual verbal harassment which eventually causes suicide.
By court of law I'm merely saying that, if freedom of speech means what you think it does, no-one can ever be arrested for saying something.
At the least, advocating violence should be illegal.
Like, if you look at the lead-up to the Rwandan genocide, there was a popular radio station that advocated killing all the Tutsis. Within a couple years, people rose up and started killing Tutsis. It's an extreme situation, but hate speech is where it starts.
I'm on the fence about whether expressing dislike for gays or blacks or whatever should be illegal. Mostly because of what you were talking about. It seems like something the government could abuse. At the same time, we should be condemning these types of opinions, and the mainstream media shouldn't be giving them a platform.
free speech is lack of censorship, censorhip is oppression of opinions/thoughts
i have yet to find a definition o "hate speech" that coul… mored both avoid discrimination and not snowaball into becoming newspeak for "i dislike your opinion" or the famous "your freedoms end where my feelings begin"
At the least, advocating violence should be illegal.
Like, if you look at the lead-up to the Rwandan genocide, there was a popular radio … morestation that advocated killing all the Tutsis. Within a couple years, people rose up and started killing Tutsis. It's an extreme situation, but hate speech is where it starts.
I'm on the fence about whether expressing dislike for gays or blacks or whatever should be illegal. Mostly because of what you were talking about. It seems like something the government could abuse. At the same time, we should be condemning these types of opinions, and the mainstream media shouldn't be giving them a platform.
the negation of an universal property implies the existance of a negation of the property so, yeah, sexism too of course, most men i know are less empathic than most women i know.
The phrase "de gustibus non disputandum est" expresses that subjective opinions cannot be objectively right or wrong. But whether something is objectively right or wrong isn't the criterion we use to determine whether or not saying that thing should be permitted.
The sentence "The sky is green" is an objectively wrong thing to say, but no one is advocating that people shouldn't be allowed to say it as much as they want. On the other hand, "I want to kill you" may be a factual statement, but it's generally agreed that it's not something you should be allowed to say to another person over and over again.
The phrase "de gustibus non disputandum est" expresses that subjective opinions cannot be objectively right or wrong. But whether something … moreis objectively right or wrong isn't the criterion we use to determine whether or not saying that thing should be permitted.
The sentence "The sky is green" is an objectively wrong thing to say, but no one is advocating that people shouldn't be allowed to say it as much as they want. On the other hand, "I want to kill you" may be a factual statement, but it's generally agreed that it's not something you should be allowed to say to another person over and over again.
I know. I was just pointing out that your argument is a false dichotomy. You can, in fact, choose to hold both of those beliefs. You can believe that subjective opinions should not be treated as objective facts, while also believing that certain subjective opinions should not be allowed on the basis that they cause harm to others.
subjective opinions should not be treated as objective facts
that's not what that saying states, it states that discussing about which taste is better is pointless, it doesn't even get near "objective", it's just pointless to argue about wether it's right to dislike buttered veggies.
what it ends up being is "you can't police tastes" + "you can't dislike x", which are contraddictory statements, i guess i could've just said that but fucking hell, i studied that dead language for 5 years, i am going to try and use it as much as i can.
"cause harm to others" is pretty broad, atheism causes harm to christians (opposite might be true too), should atheism not be allowed? or is this something that only applies to some "others"? because that would not be egalitarian.
I know. I was just pointing out that your argument is a false dichotomy. You can, in fact, choose to hold both of those beliefs. You can bel… moreieve that subjective opinions should not be treated as objective facts, while also believing that certain subjective opinions should not be allowed on the basis that they cause harm to others.
it doesn't even get near "objective", it's just pointless to argue about wether it's right to dislike buttered veggies.
And the reason why it's pointless is that liking or disliking buttered veggies is a subjective opinion, rather than a statement of objective fact.
what it ends up being is "you can't police tastes" + "you can't dislike x", which are contraddictory statements
It doesn't say "You can't police tastes." It says "Don't dispute tastes." If someone says "I don't like X," I don't have to dispute their taste in order to tell them not to say it. If my friend Paul were to call my friend Gary's mom ugly, I could chastise Paul for what he said and tell him to cut it out, regardless of whether or not I dispute his subjective opinion about how she looks.
It is difficult to work out when to ban harmful speech, but I think there are clear cases where speech should be restricted (threats, inciting violence, yelling "fire" in a crowded place). Generally, though, I think the government should err on the side of liberty over protection when it comes to free speech and let society hash out what it does and does not allow.
subjective opinions should not be treated as objective facts
that's not what that saying states, it states that discussing about whi… morech taste is better is pointless, it doesn't even get near "objective", it's just pointless to argue about wether it's right to dislike buttered veggies.
what it ends up being is "you can't police tastes" + "you can't dislike x", which are contraddictory statements, i guess i could've just said that but fucking hell, i studied that dead language for 5 years, i am going to try and use it as much as i can.
"cause harm to others" is pretty broad, atheism causes harm to christians (opposite might be true too), should atheism not be allowed? or is this something that only applies to some "others"? because that would not be egalitarian.
no. it's useless to dispute tastes because even if, say, it were scientifically proven that buttered veggies taste bad, people who like buttered veggies would still like them.
to dispute tastes is to say wether a taste is good or bad, to police a taste is to chastise it (for being "bad", ideally) so what you're saying ends up being "i can't say your taste is right or wrong but i'm still going to treat it as wrong and reduce your self expression related to it"
the saying started because people wouldn't shut up about how liking buttered veggies is bad and Caesar should feel bad or something, it was basically "you shouldn't like that, it is wrong", kind of like coservative conservatives talking about homo sex. to forbid someone from expressing his (dis)taste either implies his taste is wrong or is just a breach of basic free speech.
it doesn't even get near "objective", it's just pointless to argue about wether it's right to dislike buttered veggies.
And the reas… moreon why it's pointless is that liking or disliking buttered veggies is a subjective opinion, rather than a statement of objective fact.
what it ends up being is "you can't police tastes" + "you can't dislike x", which are contraddictory statements
It doesn't say "You can't police tastes." It says "Don't dispute tastes." If someone says "I don't like X," I don't have to dispute their taste in order to tell them not to say it. If my friend Paul were to call my friend Gary's mom ugly, I could chastise Paul for what he said and tell him to cut it out, regardless of whether or not I dispute his subjective opinion about how she looks.
It is difficult to work out when to ban harmful speech, but I think there are clear cases where speech should be restricted (threats, inciting violence, yelling "f… [view original content]
If it were scientifically proven that buttered veggies tastes bad, there would be no dispute. There would just be fact.
I think you're getting confused with the usage of the word "wrong." Whether a statement is factually right or wrong is different from whether it is morally right or wrong. Something doesn't have to be factually wrong in order for it be morally wrong to say it.
As an atheist, I don't believe that God and the afterlife exists. But if someone were grieving over the death of their loved one and said "At least they're in a better place," it would be a massive dick move for me to chime in with "Well, there's no rationale behind the belief that there is a better place. The afterlife is likely just a cultural construct devised to alleviate fears about the incomprehensibility of non-existence and the unknown."
Now, again, I don't think the government should be the one who keeps me from expressing that hurtful, callous, yet arguably true remark. The government doesn't need to care whether or not its citizenry are a bunch of dickheads. What the government does need to care about is the well-being of its citizens. This means being able to live without fear of death, abuse, or harassment due to your race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. So should hurtful, callous remarks cross the line into violating those things, that's when the government should get involve.
no. it's useless to dispute tastes because even if, say, it were scientifically proven that buttered veggies taste bad, people who like butt… moreered veggies would still like them.
to dispute tastes is to say wether a taste is good or bad, to police a taste is to chastise it (for being "bad", ideally) so what you're saying ends up being "i can't say your taste is right or wrong but i'm still going to treat it as wrong and reduce your self expression related to it"
the saying started because people wouldn't shut up about how liking buttered veggies is bad and Caesar should feel bad or something, it was basically "you shouldn't like that, it is wrong", kind of like coservative conservatives talking about homo sex. to forbid someone from expressing his (dis)taste either implies his taste is wrong or is just a breach of basic free speech.
there would be dispute, ffs, people with the factually right taste will tell people with the factually wrong taste to stop liking veggies because it is wrong.
as far as insults are related, then sure, limit them(as long as i don't get thrown into jail for calling people cunts on the street), but not all "insulting" speech is made of insults. govs should not ban speech just on the premise that it might offend people. nobody would ever mature if that were to be enforced, and i don't really want to live in a society of easily offended children.
If it were scientifically proven that buttered veggies tastes bad, there would be no dispute. There would just be fact.
I think you're ge… moretting confused with the usage of the word "wrong." Whether a statement is factually right or wrong is different from whether it is morally right or wrong. Something doesn't have to be factually wrong in order for it be morally wrong to say it.
As an atheist, I don't believe that God and the afterlife exists. But if someone were grieving over the death of their loved one and said "At least they're in a better place," it would be a massive dick move for me to chime in with "Well, there's no rationale behind the belief that there is a better place. The afterlife is likely just a cultural construct devised to alleviate fears about the incomprehensibility of non-existence and the unknown."
Now, again, I don't think the government should be the one who keeps me from expressing that hurtful, callous, yet a… [view original content]
How about something like Holocaust denialism? Saying that the Holocaust never happened or wasn't as bad as history reports is not technically an insult, but damned if it isn't insulting to those who suffered those horrors. And I doubt any maturity can be gained by being around someone who denies the Holocaust happened. Would it be okay for a government to ban something like that (as happens to be the case in Germany and other European countries)?
there would be dispute, ffs, people with the factually right taste will tell people with the factually wrong taste to stop liking veggies be… morecause it is wrong.
as far as insults are related, then sure, limit them(as long as i don't get thrown into jail for calling people cunts on the street), but not all "insulting" speech is made of insults. govs should not ban speech just on the premise that it might offend people. nobody would ever mature if that were to be enforced, and i don't really want to live in a society of easily offended children.
the ones saying it didn't happen would only make a fool out of themselves, if those who say it wasn't as bad as reported can actually prove it, then history books should be slightly changed.
it's worse to keep those sort of things illegal, as it doesn't really remove those theories, just hide them in their own echo chambers. seems to me like just a "shut them down, they'll go away eventually" tactic, which i don't think is particularly effective.
seriously, if there is a time to show negationism exactly how the holocaust happened it's now that there's still a bit of proof left, not in a decade when they pop back in, no survivor from ww2 is alive to tell them to fuck off and the war infrastructure has lost its testimony.
besides nowadays pretty much nobody believes in negationism, heck even most neo nazi think it happened, so the validity that law had in the past is pretty much gone.
How about something like Holocaust denialism? Saying that the Holocaust never happened or wasn't as bad as history reports is not technicall… morey an insult, but damned if it isn't insulting to those who suffered those horrors. And I doubt any maturity can be gained by being around someone who denies the Holocaust happened. Would it be okay for a government to ban something like that (as happens to be the case in Germany and other European countries)?
Comments
Not quite. It's a joke based on how chauvinistic it is that he thinks that women are so emotional. The speech can be paraphrased as "Man, I don't know why they got me to talk here. I'm a chauvinistic idiot who thinks women always cry when you criticize them and that they'll fall in love with me at the drop of a hat. But, seriously, you should just ignore people like me and keep doing what you do." The premise of the "joke" is that his comments were chauvinist, but it was unclear whether he does seriously hold those chauvinistic views or not. Honestly, it's still a bit unclear. Regardless, since he has done well in practice to help women in science, even if he does have those archaic views, I think it can be overlooked.
No...? They'd be laughed out of the field. Where the hell did you pull that assumption out of?
you seem to think i think racism thought to be always right.
what i'm actually saying is that the opposite is not true.
You know what, you're right. How can two random people on the Internet really know the views and opinions of someone totally different than us. He has helped women and science and our main issue should be the issue that he got forced to resign based off of these jokes.
So...you're saying that racism is sometimes right.
the negation of an universal property implies the existance of a negation of the property so, yeah, sexism too of course, most men i know are less empathic than most women i know.
does this mean we get to talk shit about excess political correctiveness?
Sure.
It shouldn't be illegal, but racist speech will get a backlash, as it should.
No, Trust me. It doesn't get a free pass,
Especially Sexism, just don't do it. WOMEN hate it.
You know, i think it has a lot to do with how you grew up, your own life experiences etc, you find your own personal identity, things that make you laugh. I am sure, that most people would find some things i laugh at disturbing, i have a dark sense of humor because of PTSD, i really can't share with anyone because Society would shun me, even more than it already does.
No . People who speak in such a way should have their eyes and tongues removed.
No. Difference between speech and racist speech is that, you say racist speech because you hate people.
If you hate white/black people, keep it at home - just like religion.
It's when asked these kind of questions that people's dubious definitions of the free speech they apparently hold so dearly is questioned.
Some people say they should be allowed by law to express hatred and dislike of gay people for being gay - if so, surely people should be allowed by law to express hatred and dislike of black people for being black?
When does speech become hate speech? How do free speech and hate speech interact?
How is free speech, as some kind of uber defensible necessary societal virtue, really defined? Anyone?
We already limit freedom of speech, so according to you, true freedom has already been lost.
For example, if someone tells someone to kill themselves, and they do, then they're partly to blame for their death legally.
You're not legally culpable for that though. Unless it can be shown you systematically terrorized a person over some length of time, the off hand comment of 'go kill yourself' isn't anything that should be limited or held legally culpable.
You'd be guilty of manslaughter, or, if minor, mistreating a disabled person since the most likely cause of suicidal thoughts is mental disability.
And, for that matter, so what happens if you DID systematically verbally terrorise someone over a length of time? You say in another thread that you believe in completely unlimited freedom of speech - is the fact that someone who terrorises another verbally, leading to their suicide, can be thrown in jail for it disgusting to you?
Another example: you can be arrested for swearing and verbally abusing a police officer. Is that wrong, and symptomatic of a removal of freedom of speech? Why not?
free speech is lack of censorship, censorhip is oppression of opinions/thoughts
i have yet to find a definition o "hate speech" that could both avoid discrimination and not snowaball into becoming newspeak for "i dislike your opinion" or the famous "your freedoms end where my feelings begin"
So you believe any form of speech which actually brings real harm to someone should never ever be used in a court of law?
define "real harm"
also i don't understand the "used in a court of law" part, as far as i know there's some sort of special etiquette, enforced by the guy with the wig, in court of laws, to trim out things unnecessary to the process, which i think is reasonable if defined cautiously (by someone with a law degree i do not have, for instance).
I appreciate dark humor, and so do a lot people. Sucks that you get shunned, but I guess the internet is a place to get away from that, eh?
I grew up as a real SJW, I unsubscribed from my original favorite youtuber because he used the word gay as a negative term. Now, just 5 years later I'm kind of a condescending asshole. I'm bisexual and make fun of every kind of sexuality, i'm autistic and I make autism jokes. I sometimes make racist jokes, so what if I have an offensive sense of humor? I think how you grow up is definitely part of it, but I'm not really sure what changed me from some social justice keyboard warrior kid to the offensive guy I am today.
I'm autistic and I laugh at autism jokes. I'm bisexual and I laugh at sexuality jokes. Obviously not as bad as cancer, but I think it's all about perspective.
For example, continual verbal harassment which eventually causes suicide.
By court of law I'm merely saying that, if freedom of speech means what you think it does, no-one can ever be arrested for saying something.
Aww missed you too Flog!
And It always has been. We've never had total freedom. Not from the moment any country or state, or organization is formed. I should worded it differently, but the more limitations we put on peoples rights the more freedom we lose. I can't remember the term exactly, but it has to do with safety and limits on freedom. Something like, if you want to be protected you need to give the government or body in power either taxes or swear loyalty to them or blah blah blah, it's just like give and take. I want freedom, I take the time of the police to help me. But I also pay the taxes for my state, county, and federal taxes for said protection of state law enforcement blah blah blah.
And I'm not sure I agree with you completely on the second statement. If it was non stop terrorizing and threats towards that person emotionally or physically, yes once could say the person abusing them was partially responsible. But it's just like me saying something like "I hope that person gets into a car accident." If it actually happens, it was purely by chance and not because I was physically attempting to set up such a scenario. Should I still be charged for man slaughter if they die?
And one final thing, are you saying that this is law where you live, or if it SHOULD be law?
if it can be proven that your actions (whatever they were) caused someone to die, then you did commit a crime, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it's murder of some sort of grade, lawyers are there to prove wether it was intentional or not.
"harassment" is one of those things that started out as genuine attempts to keep things civil but ended up becoming buzzwords used to discredit people or to switch empathy towards oneself, imho.
At the least, advocating violence should be illegal.
Like, if you look at the lead-up to the Rwandan genocide, there was a popular radio station that advocated killing all the Tutsis. Within a couple years, people rose up and started killing Tutsis. It's an extreme situation, but hate speech is where it starts.
I'm on the fence about whether expressing dislike for gays or blacks or whatever should be illegal. Mostly because of what you were talking about. It seems like something the government could abuse. At the same time, we should be condemning these types of opinions, and the mainstream media shouldn't be giving them a platform.
you can choose one and only one.
You've lost me.
Subconscious conformation to expectation.
yes, because anything that is based on someone else's experience but does not conform to one's belief is obviously confirmation bias on their part.
genders act differently. culture suggests this, biology suggests this, statistics suggest this, my humble experiences suggests this, even fucking feminists suggest this.
The phrase "de gustibus non disputandum est" expresses that subjective opinions cannot be objectively right or wrong. But whether something is objectively right or wrong isn't the criterion we use to determine whether or not saying that thing should be permitted.
The sentence "The sky is green" is an objectively wrong thing to say, but no one is advocating that people shouldn't be allowed to say it as much as they want. On the other hand, "I want to kill you" may be a factual statement, but it's generally agreed that it's not something you should be allowed to say to another person over and over again.
i thought it was obvious i was referring to the "dislike" part (since, you know, "like" is taste)
but yes, threats are bad
I know. I was just pointing out that your argument is a false dichotomy. You can, in fact, choose to hold both of those beliefs. You can believe that subjective opinions should not be treated as objective facts, while also believing that certain subjective opinions should not be allowed on the basis that they cause harm to others.
that's not what that saying states, it states that discussing about which taste is better is pointless, it doesn't even get near "objective", it's just pointless to argue about wether it's right to dislike buttered veggies.
what it ends up being is "you can't police tastes" + "you can't dislike x", which are contraddictory statements, i guess i could've just said that but fucking hell, i studied that dead language for 5 years, i am going to try and use it as much as i can.
"cause harm to others" is pretty broad, atheism causes harm to christians (opposite might be true too), should atheism not be allowed? or is this something that only applies to some "others"? because that would not be egalitarian.
And the reason why it's pointless is that liking or disliking buttered veggies is a subjective opinion, rather than a statement of objective fact.
It doesn't say "You can't police tastes." It says "Don't dispute tastes." If someone says "I don't like X," I don't have to dispute their taste in order to tell them not to say it. If my friend Paul were to call my friend Gary's mom ugly, I could chastise Paul for what he said and tell him to cut it out, regardless of whether or not I dispute his subjective opinion about how she looks.
It is difficult to work out when to ban harmful speech, but I think there are clear cases where speech should be restricted (threats, inciting violence, yelling "fire" in a crowded place). Generally, though, I think the government should err on the side of liberty over protection when it comes to free speech and let society hash out what it does and does not allow.
no. it's useless to dispute tastes because even if, say, it were scientifically proven that buttered veggies taste bad, people who like buttered veggies would still like them.
to dispute tastes is to say wether a taste is good or bad, to police a taste is to chastise it (for being "bad", ideally) so what you're saying ends up being "i can't say your taste is right or wrong but i'm still going to treat it as wrong and reduce your self expression related to it"
the saying started because people wouldn't shut up about how liking buttered veggies is bad and Caesar should feel bad or something, it was basically "you shouldn't like that, it is wrong", kind of like coservative conservatives talking about homo sex. to forbid someone from expressing his (dis)taste either implies his taste is wrong or is just a breach of basic free speech.
If it were scientifically proven that buttered veggies tastes bad, there would be no dispute. There would just be fact.
I think you're getting confused with the usage of the word "wrong." Whether a statement is factually right or wrong is different from whether it is morally right or wrong. Something doesn't have to be factually wrong in order for it be morally wrong to say it.
As an atheist, I don't believe that God and the afterlife exists. But if someone were grieving over the death of their loved one and said "At least they're in a better place," it would be a massive dick move for me to chime in with "Well, there's no rationale behind the belief that there is a better place. The afterlife is likely just a cultural construct devised to alleviate fears about the incomprehensibility of non-existence and the unknown."
Now, again, I don't think the government should be the one who keeps me from expressing that hurtful, callous, yet arguably true remark. The government doesn't need to care whether or not its citizenry are a bunch of dickheads. What the government does need to care about is the well-being of its citizens. This means being able to live without fear of death, abuse, or harassment due to your race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. So should hurtful, callous remarks cross the line into violating those things, that's when the government should get involve.
there would be dispute, ffs, people with the factually right taste will tell people with the factually wrong taste to stop liking veggies because it is wrong.
as far as insults are related, then sure, limit them(as long as i don't get thrown into jail for calling people cunts on the street), but not all "insulting" speech is made of insults. govs should not ban speech just on the premise that it might offend people. nobody would ever mature if that were to be enforced, and i don't really want to live in a society of easily offended children.
How about something like Holocaust denialism? Saying that the Holocaust never happened or wasn't as bad as history reports is not technically an insult, but damned if it isn't insulting to those who suffered those horrors. And I doubt any maturity can be gained by being around someone who denies the Holocaust happened. Would it be okay for a government to ban something like that (as happens to be the case in Germany and other European countries)?
no i do not think such speech should be banned
the ones saying it didn't happen would only make a fool out of themselves, if those who say it wasn't as bad as reported can actually prove it, then history books should be slightly changed.
it's worse to keep those sort of things illegal, as it doesn't really remove those theories, just hide them in their own echo chambers. seems to me like just a "shut them down, they'll go away eventually" tactic, which i don't think is particularly effective.
seriously, if there is a time to show negationism exactly how the holocaust happened it's now that there's still a bit of proof left, not in a decade when they pop back in, no survivor from ww2 is alive to tell them to fuck off and the war infrastructure has lost its testimony.
besides nowadays pretty much nobody believes in negationism, heck even most neo nazi think it happened, so the validity that law had in the past is pretty much gone.