misha4ever 2,075 Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 1 hour ago, deactivated001 said: It isn't, my dude. Verbal harassment =\= violence. It can be harmful without being the same thing. Imagine giving the government the power to determine what kind of speech is violence, only for them to turn around and call any kind of protest speech an act of violence against the state. I seriously don't think people who say that hate speech is violent and should thus be censored have any idea what they're asking for. The sword cuts both ways. We can combat the harm of hate speech without giving the state the authority to censor speech. https://www.simmrinlawgroup.com/faqs/can-verbal-abuse-fall-under-domestic-violence/ In some countries is against the law to harass people with verbal (written) abuse, and it's considered a crime, in order to stop hate speech and online abuse. So yes, IMO every country should have laws against verbal and online abuse and harassment. That woman shouldn't go around insulting people like that. Also, OBVIOUSLY there should be limits, just because I criticize the president should I get in jail? Should I receive J.K.Rowling's lawyers because I called her a Nazi sympathizer? No. But verbal abusing someone should be penalized, same with online harassment, specially female streamers or any woman or LGBT person who gets people commenting about how they will get raped and killed. The obsession of some of US citizens against any type of "government control over free speech" is why you can't differentiate between free speech, hate speech, verbal abuse and harassment. Where's OK to take action? When people kill themselves for the bullying? No, it happens. So, let's do nothing at all? I disagree. A real democratic country can try to control hate speech and verbal violence without taking away free speech. I think you're one step away of going full "twitter is taking away muh free speech" if you weren't one already, of course. english is not my native language >.< Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 26,004 Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 6 minutes ago, misha4ever said: https://www.simmrinlawgroup.com/faqs/can-verbal-abuse-fall-under-domestic-violence/ In some countries is against the law to harass people with verbal (written) abuse, and it's considered a crime, in order to stop hate speech and online abuse. So yes, IMO every country should have laws against verbal and online abuse and harassment. That woman shouldn't go around insulting people like that. Also, OBVIOUSLY there should be limits, just because I criticize the president should I get in jail? Should I receive J.K.Rowling's lawyers because I called her a Nazi sympathizer? No. But verbal abusing someone should be penalized, same with online harassment, specially female streamers or any woman or LGBT person who gets people commenting about how they will get raped and killed. The obsession of some of US citizens against any type of "government control over free speech" is why you can't differentiate between free speech, hate speech, verbal abuse and harassment. Where's OK to take action? When people kill themselves for the bullying? No, it happens. So, let's do nothing at all? I disagree. A real democratic country can try to control hate speech and verbal violence without taking away free speech. I appreciate this response. I got the sense that you read my comment as somehow being right wing, when really I'm just advocating for the application of the rule of law. Of course there should be recourse for people who are being harassed, but I think that immediately jumping to calling it "violence" evokes the possibility of a disproportionate response. I certainly never said "do nothing at all," I only said that I'm not sure that it amounts to violence. I also certainly think there is a meaningful difference between verbal harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence. We have forgotten our public MANNERS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nATAH 50,035 Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 1 hour ago, deactivated001 said: It isn't, my dude. Verbal harassment =\= violence. It can be harmful without being the same thing. Imagine giving the government the power to determine what kind of speech is violence, only for them to turn around and call any kind of protest speech an act of violence against the state. I seriously don't think people who say that hate speech is violent and should thus be censored have any idea what they're asking for. The sword cuts both ways. We can combat the harm of hate speech without giving the state the authority to censor speech. mother, what must i do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 26,004 Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 2 minutes ago, NATAH said: weirdo Probably should've known better than to come to a pop fan forum for any kind of meaningful debate lmao We have forgotten our public MANNERS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nATAH 50,035 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, Gogo Yubari said: Please hear me out, it's the tone you're applying to the message that caught my concern. I understand your message but think if you'd approach the other posters a little more calmly, it'd probably do wonders for getting them to evolve their view. Instead it sort of confirmed their concerns and just reaffirmed their original views. I personally find terms like "laughable", "stop" and "nonsense" can come across as abrasive and patronizing. It's all very "masculine", for use of a better word. trans people are being murdered and your energy is focused on how that user comes across? our comments are "abrasive" and "patronizing" because we're SICK and TIRED of abuse, violence and murder of innocent people mother, what must i do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 26,004 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, NATAH said: trans people are being murdered and your energy is focused on how that user comes across? our comments are "abrasive" and "patronizing" because we're SICK and TIRED of abuse, violence and murder of innocent people Why are you automatically assuming that if someone doesn't seem like they're 100% on the same page as you that they're against you? Like fr, extend like...an ounce of grace here. This user in no way implied that violence against trans people was justified, so why are you leveraging that against them? We have forgotten our public MANNERS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nATAH 50,035 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, deactivated001 said: Why are you automatically assuming that if someone doesn't seem like they're 100% on the same page as you that they're against you? Like fr, extend like...an ounce of grace here. This user in no way implied that violence against trans people was justified, so why are you leveraging that against them? unless your comment is dragging the crazy bitch in the OP: mother, what must i do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 26,004 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, NATAH said: unless your comment is dragging the crazy bitch in the OP: Proving my point. Good work. We have forgotten our public MANNERS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 160,997 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, deactivated001 said: Why are you automatically assuming that if someone doesn't seem like they're 100% on the same page that they're against you? Like fr, extend like...an ounce of grace here. NATAH didn't say that. He simply said on a topic like this, why is tone policing a thing that people are putting their energy towards? Like, who are we afraid of offending? The lady screaming at Sam Smith? I hate seeing debates dissolve the core of the issue and focus on the arguments themselves. It's how legitimate discussions become petty fights. You're stinky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 26,004 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, PartySick said: NATAH didn't say that. He simply said on a topic like this, why is tone policing a thing that people are putting their energy towards? Like, who are we afraid of offending? The lady screaming at Sam Smith? I hate seeing debates dissolve the core of the issue and focus on the arguments themselves. It's how legitimate discussions become petty fights. How are people supposed to "debate" the issue at all if people immediately go for the jugular over a misunderstanding? We have forgotten our public MANNERS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nATAH 50,035 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 minute ago, deactivated001 said: Proving my point. Good work. you're welcome! mother, what must i do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 160,997 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, deactivated001 said: It isn't, my dude. Verbal harassment =\= violence. It can be harmful without being the same thing. Imagine giving the government the power to determine what kind of speech is violence, only for them to turn around and call any kind of protest speech an act of violence against the state. I seriously don't think people who say that hate speech is violent and should thus be censored have any idea what they're asking for. The sword cuts both ways. We can combat the harm of hate speech without giving the state the authority to censor speech. Eh, it's not that black and white and I don't think the slippery slope fallacy is good to fall back on here. Speech is already policed. You can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater or "BOMB" in an airport. Call it violence, don't call it violence, doesn't matter. That's semantics. People are simply asking for consequences when bigoted bile is spewed like this woman was doing. At the very least, a disturbing the peace charge would be nice. Free speech absolutism is such a red flag to so many people 'cause it's used by the right ALL THE TIME to excuse their hateful rhetoric. That's why you get the kind of responses you do when you debate in favor of just letting people say whatever they want out of fear of government censorship. I do think it'd be a rough idea to put into action though. Like you're implying (I think), where exactly do you draw the line between rude and illegal in a world where those laws exist? You're stinky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 160,997 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 6 minutes ago, deactivated001 said: How are people supposed to "debate" the issue at all if people immediately go for the jugular over a misunderstanding? You respond to the people you feel are taking you seriously and ignore the others? You're stinky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 26,004 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 20 minutes ago, PartySick said: Eh, it's not that black and white and I don't think the slippery slope fallacy is good to fall back on here. Speech is already policed. You can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater or "BOMB" in an airport. Call it violence, don't call it violence, doesn't matter. That's semantics. People are simply asking for consequences when bigoted bile is spewed like this woman was doing. At the very least, a disturbing the peace charge would be nice. Free speech absolutism is such a red flag to so many people 'cause it's used by the right ALL THE TIME to excuse their hateful rhetoric. That's why you get the kind of responses you do when you debate in favor of just letting people say whatever they want out of fear of government censorship. I do think it'd be a rough idea to put into action though. Like you're implying (I think), where exactly do you draw the line between rude and illegal in a world where those laws exist? Nowhere did I imply free speech absolutism tho, nor did I imply speech wasn't in any way policed. I literally just said that when you don't carve out the nuances about what kind of offense certain kind of speech amounts to, you're opening the door to a slippery slope. I can see a disturbing the peace charge for something like this, but I can't see a "violent assault" charge. When you're discussing the *legality* of what someone is doing, those kind of semantics actually matter a great deal. That's, in part, where I see the difference between being rude vs. having malicious or harmful intent. We have forgotten our public MANNERS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 160,997 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 minute ago, deactivated001 said: Nowhere did I imply free speech absolutism lmao First, chill, I'm not attacking you. Second, reread your post. 2 hours ago, deactivated001 said: It isn't, my dude. Verbal harassment =\= violence. It can be harmful without being the same thing. Imagine giving the government the power to determine what kind of speech is violence, only for them to turn around and call any kind of protest speech an act of violence against the state. I seriously don't think people who say that hate speech is violent and should thus be censored have any idea what they're asking for. The sword cuts both ways. We can combat the harm of hate speech without giving the state the authority to censor speech. Lowkey fear mongering over government censorship and disagreeing that hate speech can be violent is the same thing the right does to excuse their own hate speech. I mean, what do you think the solution is? If we can't have the law on our side when someone attacks us or portrays us as perverted abominations, then what do we do? Grin and bear it? Kill 'em with kindness? Turn the other cheek? Ignore it? What is the proactive and effective solution you'd suggest? I'm honestly curious. You're stinky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.