Western countries are becoming more orwellian

[Deleted]

The thread is about Orwellian issues, being able to criticize dogma and authority is an important part of that.

Constructive criticism maybe.
"Fucking nigger go back to africa" however, is not constructive criticism.

[Deleted]

Don't think so... Why this question all of a sudden?

You must be one of those commienazis.

[PC2]

Constructive criticism maybe.
"Fucking nigger go back to africa" however, is not constructive criticism.

It is mean but there is no harm done to the individual. Also, you realize making mean words illegal would also mean you couldn't criticize any demographics, even places like Tumblr would be full of people going to jail.

[Deleted]

It is mean but there is no harm done to the individual. Also, you realize making mean words illegal would also mean you couldn't criticize any demographics, even places like Tumblr would be full of people going to jail.

Criticise? Thought I was clear on the differences between criticising and verbal harassment.

[PC2]

Criticise? Thought I was clear on the differences between criticising and verbal harassment.

Yeah there is, verbal harassment is within civil law meaning you would need proof of damage.

[Deleted]

Yeah there is, verbal harassment is within civil law meaning you would need proof of damage.

Which can be found easily.

A “credible threat of violence” includes following or stalking someone or making harassing calls or sending harassing messages (by phone, mail, or e-mail) over a period of time (even if it is a short time)

And

What is verbal abuse?

Abuse is defined as improper or excessive use of a privilege. Verbal abuse is the excessive use of language to undermine someone's dignity and security through insults or humiliation, in a sudden or repeated manner.

The following are a few examples:

abuse
crude remarks
hooting
inappropriate jokes
innuendoes
insinuations
insolence
insults invectives
irony
mockery
obscenities
quips
reprimands
reproaches
rumours sarcasm
scolding
screaming
swearing
teasing
threats
whispering
yelling
What are the consequences of verbal abuse at work?

FOR THE VICTIM
Verbal abuse may cause profound and serious psychological injury. Especially when workers deal with the public, and are generally careful of the way they behave, damage from verbal abuse often remains hidden while affecting the victim psychologically. The victim will strive to not respond even though his or her dignity is attacked. This may result in stress, lack of concentration, lack of motivation and even depression.

FOR WITNESSES INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION
Verbal abuse may destroy good working relations and deteriorate the work environment. In more extreme cases, it may lead to physical violence and confrontation.

FOR THE ORGANIZATION
Absenteeism, resignation, lack of motivation, and lower quality and productivity are some of the consequences of a deteriorating work environment in which people raise their voices, use insults and invectives, and blow off steam verbally. Such abuse can be costly in terms of wasted time and resources.

What are the legal consequences of verbal abuse?

Verbal abuse is an infringement on an individual’s sense of security and their physical and psychological integrity, which are protected under federal and provincial charters of rights and freedoms as well as under the law. Serious verbal threats may constitute a violation of the Criminal Code.

A conviction under the law or the Criminal Code can affect a person’s right to practice a trade or profession.

[May90]

The thread is about Orwellian issues, being able to criticize dogma and authority is an important part of that.

Even if 99.9% Muslims didn't respect the right to criticize Islam, it still doesn't mean that one cannot criticize Islam without offending Muslims. There are all kinds of Muslims out there, and some even criticize Islam themselves; I have a friend from Iran at my university that does particle physics, and, while she is a Muslim (she always covers her head), she has quite a few things to say about the way the religion is implemented in Iran.

[PC2]

Which can be found easily.
And

Yes exactly! Credible threat of violence.

Also for a civil law example. Lets say you work 40 hours a week at $20 per hour. Then someone constantly verbally harasses you for a week and you couldn't do your job at all because of it and have evidence. They would legally owe you $800 in damages because of the verbal harassment.

[Mayhem]

Yes exactly! Credible threat of violence.

Wait, you agree with the list posted by Djalil?

[PC2]

Wait, you agree with the list posted by Djalil?

I agree that if based on those things you can specifically prove you have been financially damaged then you have a civil case. If at any point they directly implied violence, then you have a criminal case. Of course both require evidence.

[Mayhem]

I agree that if based on those things you can specifically prove you have been financially damaged then you have a civil case. If at any point they directly implied violence, then you have a criminal case. Of course both require evidence.

The capitalism is strong with this one.

[PC2]

The capitalism is strong with this one.

I'm just saying how the legal system works.

[Deleted]

Yes exactly! Credible threat of violence.

Also for a civil law example. Lets say you work 40 hours a week at $20 per hour. Then someone constantly verbally harasses you for a week and you couldn't do your job at all because of it and have evidence. They would legally owe you $800 in damages because of the verbal harassment.

Sooooo yes exactly.
Constructive criticism------------------> verbal harrasment.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that if based on those things you can specifically prove you have been financially damaged then you have a civil case. If at any point they directly implied violence, then you have a criminal case. Of course both require evidence.

Financially damaged only?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just saying how the legal system works.

No you're not actually. You can easily claim depression as a result of the things you were saying.
There you go, we have a case of verbal harrasment.

[PC2]

Constructive criticism------------------> verbal harrasment.

Not without damage. Time is a resource as well, so you can form civil cases based on time lost if you have evidence.

Financially damaged only?

There has to be a "credible threat of violence" to go further. Which means the violence must exist somewhere in the verbal evidence, such as in a recorded message. If you are physically stalking someone that is by definition a physical threat.

[Mayhem]

I'm just saying how the legal system works.

How does civil forfeiture work with this?

[Felya]

The thread is about Orwellian issues, being able to criticize dogma and authority is an important part of that.

The fact that Muslims don't want you to critique their religion, is not Orwellian, unless it's in a theocracy. What you are complaining about is the opposite of Orwellian, as Muslims have free will to oppose those who criticize their religion. Just as you have no laws banning you from criticism of Muslims. Without the stigma and fear mongering, a Muslim that doesn't want you to critique their religion, is no different than a Christian claiming war on Christmas.

[PC2]

The fact that Muslims don't want you to critique their religion, is not Orwellian, unless it's in a theocracy. What you are complaining about is the opposite of Orwellian, as Muslims have free will to oppose those who criticize their religion. Just as you have no laws banning you from criticism of Muslims. Without the stigma and fear mongering, a Muslim that doesn't want you to critique their religion, is no different than a Christian claiming war on Christmas.

No I'm not worried about the Muslim counter arguments, the concern is that the state authority could protect their dogma from criticism.

- - - Updated - - -

How does civil forfeiture work with this?

I dont see a big connection with free speech. Apparently the premise of civil forfeiture is that because the suspect did not come upon the property legally, they dont own it, thus do not have the legal rights of its property owner.

Obviously taking control of property without ultra strong evidence would be bad and authoritarian.

[Mihalik]

Is it just something I've noticed? Western countries are becoming increasingly more orwellian year by year. People with wrong opinions getting locked up, people who protest for the wrong reasons to the establishment getting locked up. Insane amount of ostracization if you're not part of the establishment.

Surely I can't be the only one who has noticed this political trend in western countries?

Free as long as you think like we(The establishment) do, right?

Punish everyone else.

Truths are no longer truths.

So far they've fallen and they will fall even farther.

Freedom of speech is strange beast.

Historically speaking Conservatives, Social Conservatives and so on have dominated the public sphere in Western nations. Conform to Conservatives values or face social exclusion and legal persecution was the historical standard. Nobody with any sense of history would ever argue otherwise.

But the trend recently swung the other way. Conservatism, Social Conservatism while still powerful, perhaps even dominant in many areas, has become somewhat of an intellectual pariah. (Something I mostly agree with as mentioning Conservatism and intellect together is an oxymoron.)

What I don't agree with is how short of a memory many Progressives seem to have (Considering that most Progressives are very young, it's not really a short memory but rather an absence of historical conscience). They are attempting to swing the banhammer just as eagerly as Conservatives of the past have. They figure that by policing the public sphere to some "acceptable correctness" they can change society for the "better" (whatever arbitrary better that better is supposed to be).

By doing this they are casting themselves (unarguably) as authoritarian, and also giving moral legitimacy to the vicious, the stupid and the hateful, this by allowing them to cast themselves as the "underdogs" and the "repressed voices of reason in the desert of thought policing". This is a serious risk. This EXACT SAME PHENOMENON lead to the rise of groups like the National Socialists and the Communists in the past.

But this problem goes a bit further. The issue is tied to desire of ideological conformity and consistency. I have many times seen on both ends of the political spectrum people who might have had a single personal discomfort with how their side approached an issue, but for the sake of ideological consistency either adopted stances they didn't fully share, or deluded themselves into sharing it.

I'll use two controversial examples of both sides.

Progressives- Women even today face sexist attitudes and are often violently victimized. This is true. But it doesn't necessarily lead to unquestioningly accepting things like -Believe without questioning, accepting the existence of the wage gap, belief in the existence in rape culture and believing that video games like Call of Duty are teaching boys how to rape and murder women. But many progressives, will either not debate the issue or wholly or partially accept it even without really sharing it, for the sake of ideological consistency and not wanting to appear "regressive".

Conservatives- (I can't think of a single thing I would think they got right, so I'll skip to their insane shit). The raging insane Islamophobia, the absurd attitudes towards Gays and now Transgendered folk (on this issue conservatives especially in the US are seemingly doing a fighting retreat, after every battle they lose, they refocus their efforts on an ever smaller group of people they can humiliatingly discriminate against, this need to be so appallingly disgusting towards some minority group confuses me to no end). The continued anti-immigration and racist attitudes.

There are countless Conservatives who don't share this absurd ideological need to be vicious cunts. Many Conservatives are economically motivated, or while are socially Conservative have nothing specific against Muslims (or even oppose the religious discrimination), or don't care where Ashley (formerly Dave) goes to pee. Yet on election day, for the sake of ideological consistency go out and vote for a politician or a political platform they don't really share.

This obsession with ideological conformity is causing an ever increasing political and social divide. It's us or them, them or us. You can't have common ground, you can't share ideals, you can't compromise no matter how extreme or far fetched your position is.

Political polarization has always been a thing, but now it's just getting nasty. And I also partake in it to some extent, as there are issues where I just don't see ANY common ground. So don't accuse me of pretending to be above this.

And the US isn't the only place where we see this. We see it in the UK with Brexit, where one side (Remain) off hand dismisses the complaints of the other side (Brexiters) as ignorant and stupid and hateful (which they were) and thus is utterly unable to communicate with the other side in a language they would understand. And Brexiters out of spite, anger, and stupidity chose to dismiss facts, figures and reason as some fanciful New World Order conspiracy, so by default it is impossible to reach them as nothing you say registers.

And we see this in Scandinavia and so on.

[NineSpine]

No I'm not worried about the Muslim counter arguments, the concern is that the state authority could protect their dogma from criticism.

- - - Updated - - -



I dont see a big connection with free speech. Apparently the premise of civil forfeiture is that because the suspect did not come upon the property legally, they dont own it, thus do not have the legal rights of its property owner.

Obviously taking control of property without ultra strong evidence would be bad and authoritarian.

How do you determine that the suspect did not come upon the property legally if you don't afford them the legal right to defend against that charge? See the circular logic?

[PC2]

How do you determine that the suspect did not come upon the property legally if you don't afford them the legal right to defend against that charge? See the circular logic?

Yeah I dont know how they handle that, I'm probably against it.

I can only see it working in very obvious cases. Like if a suspect is claimed to have forced someone to sign over their house at gun point. Does the person deserve all the rights of its property owner? He would always have human rights, but giving due process regarding property rights to someone who never legally owned it is questionable.