Nobody even said "excuse me"! Are these people savages!!??
- - - Updated - - -
So you guys keep saying, but the only people I see getting triggered and offended online these days is the hordes of anti-SJWs whose mouths start frothing at the most trivial things.
For the people that didn't actually watch the video but commented on it anyway, here is the part where the Dr. Frank-N-Furter wannabe tries to hit and kick the reporter. Then Eric Cartman lies to the police about not seeing anything. So physical violence and lying to the police.
There is the sad paradox of a world which is more and more sensitive about being politically correct, almost to the point of ridicule, yet does not wish to acknowledge or to respect believers’ faith in God
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...newspaper.html“In a recent statement from Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, on students speaking their minds for Donald Trump, Jerry said, ‘It is a testament to the fact that Liberty University promotes the free expression of ideas unlike many major universities where political correctness prevents conservative students from speaking out,’” Schmieg wrote in a Facebook post on Tuesday.
Damn SWJs and their safespaces, fascism at its finest.
There is the sad paradox of a world which is more and more sensitive about being politically correct, almost to the point of ridicule, yet does not wish to acknowledge or to respect believers’ faith in God
How would I know that it wasn't aimed at me, if the post was a direct reply to my post (it would make sense that it was aimed at me, no)?
I also really don't care what you were replying to or even if you were totally off topic. I just felt it was unjust for you to be snooty with me.
Why is it fake outrage? you are comparing a none issue to an very real issue that was dealt with. Oh and if you want to say me calling you out is bullshit i can do the same your use of "strawman" as a counter to my claim is now invaild. You seem to think i care about you i don't, i care about the interest of fairness of debate you cannot smack rules on people and not follow them yourself. So follow the debate rules or die. Don't be a hypocrite.
What on Earth are you talking about?
The point is that you don't understand how the word "and" is used in standard English grammar. According to you, if a movie theater is showing Star Wars and Back to the Future, you must attend both shows, rather than going to whichever you'd prefer.
Literally nothing in your source backs up your assertions. You're using words incorrectly. There is nothing about the word "speech" that requires it to only express dispassionate thoughts, nor does it require those thoughts to be particularly well-thought-out to be "speech". It's all nonsense, and it all amounts to an attempt to declare that some speech isn't speech, so you can deny those speakers their rights.
.
What's wrong with you?
showing "star wars" and "back to the future".
is the same as
express "thoughts" and "feelings"
The only person who doesn't understand this is you. you're adding nonsensical meanings to things, to desecrate the definition of speech.
someone moaning "blehhhhh blehhhhh bleehhhh" is not speech. If that's too difficult for you to realize, you probably shouldn't be attacking posters for correcting you.
You're arguing that thoughts alone were speech, for some reason, and not feelings.
This is false, if they're expressing a feeling. Your own definition makes this clear.someone moaning "blehhhhh blehhhhh bleehhhh" is not speech. If that's too difficult for you to realize, you probably shouldn't be attacking posters for correcting you.
- - - Updated - - -
See? Specifically ignoring that your own definition says "thoughts and feelings".
You're insisting that that phrase means "thoughts and only feelings if they are also thoughts", and that's just literally not what it actually says.
Also, nobody said "mindless blabbering". But shouting "Augh" or "Boo" because you're dismayed is an expressing of your feelings, and thus is speech. The only "mindless blabbering" that would be deemed to be not-speech would be unconscious exhalations by someone in a vegetative state. Someone shouting "booo" to express dissent is not "mindless" in any way, and what they're doing is absolutely speech. Any attempt to claim otherwise is an attempt to decide what speech you'll protect, which means you're not defending free speech, but just "speech you approve of".
Last edited by Endus; 2016-10-21 at 02:41 AM.
And the only "thought" required for it to be "speech" is "That BAD. Me YELL." That's "thought". Otherwise, you're effectively trying to put an IQ restriction on who gets their speech protected.
It doesn't have to be well-informed, rational, well-thought-out, or any of that. Speech created by a conscious mind is expressing that mind's thoughts and feelings. However little information you might think it actually communicates.
ah, see thats a discussion worthy topic.
should there be... higher standards(?) for open discussion of topics which are both contentious and important?
I say yes. why? because the standards we set define our culture - freedom of speech is a very serious topic, and of growing importance... because the ability to control the flow of information is evolving faster than the morality of that ability can be debated.
history proves unchecked control can be dangerous. Its the responsibility of the general public to make sure that control doesn't go unchecked.
thats going to be very hard in the near future if something doesn't change.
Last edited by Truculentt; 2016-10-21 at 03:04 AM.
When it comes to free speech? Absolutely not. That's an attempt to declare which opinions are "right" and which are "not" and only protect the former, which is about as far from free speech as you can get.
It's fine if you want to argue that, but you don't get to claim you support free speech at the same time that you do so.
so you saw the video - did the "liberals" (dont even know if they deserve to be called liberal either, but anyway) have an opinion in the first place? and should the be allowed to hide behind "free speech"?
ill give an example of what I mean...
im a marketing director. as a result ive studied phyc. one psychological pillar of advertising is the helo effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
its the basis under which amazon build their brand, as well as the basis of what allows a startup brand successful in today's digital market.
- were those students expressing their own opinion of free speech? or were they expressing the opinions of what they associate to free speech?
in other words, was that not a bias attack on a professor? My bet - those kids just thought "trump". didnt hear a word the guy said.
Censorship is a ban. They were banned from playing in theatres. You can spin it however you like, however you cannot change the fact that they were banned from being shown in public via theatres. You again are being intellectually dishonest.
And yet, Sweden has them so you keep bringing up that Sweden has free speech yet it possesses Hate speech Laws that have proven to do nothing prohibit speech based on what a few decide is hate speech at any given time.
If you are speaking in public space you are not given the right of privacy in a public spaces. If Group A is talking about a subject with group B and group C disagrees with Group A then Group A's rights of speech does not supercede the speech rights of Group C. Your argument that Group C has no right to voice its dissent in a public space is completely at odds with Free Speech. You again prove that you believe in the idea of a Safe Space. That being Group A gets the exclusive rights to free speech while Group C cannot have an opnion nor has the rights to voice its opinion.
That is a logical fallacy. Group A is in a PUBLIC SPACE. You are not afforded privacy rights in a Public space, which by the way Sweden scores low in Privacy rights. If you want to have an uninterrupted conversation with group B you have every means to IMPART your message uninterupted in a a private setting. However, in a public setting as your own laws declare, are not afforded rights of privacy and hence given no protections. You are stating your opinions for all to hear and if you do not like it if someone voices their opinion about the content of your speech then thats on you. Group A's right to impart their message does not have the right to INFRINGE upon GROUPS C's right to IMPART THEIR DISSENT.
You have stated that a group of people, Group A, have a right to state their views without interference from views that are in dissent of their own. That a group dissenting and arguing back is infringing upon the rights of group A. That is the definition of a Safe Space. A safe space is where one can go to avoid ideals and opinions that conflict with their own. Only a Safe Space says one side has the right to IMPART their message uninterrupted while another group is PROHIBITED from IMPARTING their own message.
Actually, the first entity to allow Free Speech was Athens. Also, your nation had more censorship issues in its past than ours. 10 years older means nothing. Your nation is still less free then us.
No, it isn't. It does not remain to be determined. More IDEAS and opinions are allowed in our nation than yours. This isn't a matter of debate. Your nation states that expression of contempt is not protected speech. You cannot argue that your idea of freedom of speech is better than ours since the US allows for far broader speech than you, unless you want to argue that freedom can only be only exist by the active attempt to curbing it.
No i fucking don't.
Can you read? Or do you realize that the statement I was making was based on American laws. We do not have HATE SPEECH LAWs because if we did have hate speech laws like your country the 4 members of the Wayneboro Church protestors would have been arrested under Swedish Anti-hate speech laws.
- - - Updated - - -
Yep, you see Freedom of Speech means you take the good with the bad. Then again, its always the people who want to force polite interactions who want the censor to protect them from opinions they disagree with. Freedom comes with drawbacks and if you do not want the drawback then you do not want free speech. You just want speech that confines to your ideology and you just admitted it. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Assholes or Curbing of Speech you do not like. Now go back to your safe space.
Last edited by The Silver Prince; 2016-10-21 at 04:23 AM.
Other than the shoving? Those answers are dead simple, and are clearly "yes" to both points. Because restricting people's speech because you disagree with their message is antithetical to the idea of freedom of speech.
You haven't connected this to anything else you're saying.ill give an example of what I mean...
im a marketing director. as a result ive studied phyc. one psychological pillar of advertising is the helo effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
its the basis under which amazon build their brand, as well as the basis of what allows a startup brand successful in today's digital market.
Here, you're simply trying to define exactly what messages you want to exclude from protection, which again, is antithetical to freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if their opinions were valid or not. It doesn't matter if they were biased, or wrong. It doesn't matter if they were being reactionary rather than thoughtful.- were those students expressing their own opinion of free speech? or were they expressing the opinions of what they associate to free speech?
in other words, was that not a bias attack on a professor? My bet - those kids just thought "trump". didnt hear a word the guy said.
Their speech is still to be protected, under the principles of free speech, unless it crosses one of the few lines into overtly harmful behaviour, such as actual threats of violence or whatnot. Anything short of that? Absolutely fair game, under the principle of freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if they want to loudly express how much they like bananas, or how stupid or irrelevant you think that opinion is. Still their right, and trying to censor and silence them is wrong.