The regressive left needs to stop, the Colin Moriarty controversy.

[Kathandira]

The timing of the joke was perfect and I doubt he was surprised at all by the reaction. In fact, the reaction proved his overall argument.

Its great timing if your objective is to be a douche bag.

"My wife is having a really hard time, so she is out doing something about it"

"Well, at least you get some peace and quiet"

Not a good joke really. But to each their own I guess.

[Sunseeker]

And retribution for a statement is an attack on the freedom of Moriarty's speech. So now what? What's worth more, his ability to make a statement, or someone else's ability to impact the speakers life in some manner simply because he / she found the statement offensive? Are there no definitions on what constitutes 'offensive'?

You, like Endus, seem ok with the idea that freedom of speech doesn't exist outside of a limited example of dialogue aimed at the gov't, and instead speech should just be demoted to a "personal choice" that will potentially result in negative influence from outside forces, like smoking, eating too much, etc.

The "idea" of freedom of speech is just that, an "idea". Everyone disagrees on how far it extends, who it applies to, etc... Talking about your opinion of the idea of freedom of speech with another person who is talking about their opinion of the idea of freedom of speech is pointless.

The only thing we can talk about, is what the law covers and what it protects you from. And that boys and girls is only protection from government oppression. If you want to argue that it should cover more well okay but that's just like ya know, your opinion man.

[Endus]

And retribution for a statement is an attack on the freedom of Moriarty's speech. So now what? What's worth more, his ability to make a statement, or someone else's ability to impact the speakers life in some manner simply because he / she found the statement offensive? Are there no definitions on what constitutes 'offensive'?

Speech is never an attack on someone else's right to free speech. The idea that one person's expression of free speech attacks another person's is just . . . ridiculous.

You have a right to free speech. You don't have any right for there to not be consequences for that speech.


Let's be clear; do you think people shouldn't be allowed to speak out against jokes like Moriarty's? Because that's an assault on the concept of free speech. If all you're really saying, however, is that you don't like that speech, then drop the claims that it's an assault on Moriarty's freedoms, because you just admitted it isn't.

And it's one of the two.

[Thepersona]

I mean, my parents had me tested when I was 10, though I only found out about that years later, but it's also not a number I care about at all. Especially since this is the internet, and everyone is some sort of genius with an IQ test to prove it here, no matter how dumb the shit they say is (not that I doubt you, personally).

my parents had me tested for IQ and i had 140 (gotta say, that was when i was 9-10) but thats a stupid number

[Draco-Onis]

The timing of the joke was perfect and I doubt he was surprised at all by the reaction. In fact, the reaction proved his overall argument.

He most likely did it on purpose to get a rise out of people, there is no argument here just another attention seeker. Anyone with 2 working brain cells would know how this would play out, the right needs to learn to ignore their versions of Lena Dunham.

[Thepersona]

And retribution for a statement is an attack on the freedom of Moriarty's speech. So now what? What's worth more, his ability to make a statement, or someone else's ability to impact the speakers life in some manner simply because he / she found the statement offensive? Are there no definitions on what constitutes 'offensive'?

You, like Endus, seem ok with the idea that freedom of speech doesn't exist outside of a limited example of dialogue aimed at the gov't, and instead speech should just be demoted to a "personal choice" that will potentially result in negative influence from outside forces, like smoking, eating too much, etc.

Freedom of speech =/= freedom of consequences of said speech. and really, freedom of speech only entails that the government cannot imprison you for what you say, but it says nothing about how private citizens/corporations behave with that, nada.

[therayeffect]

Yeah, it would be dumb if someone got fired for their preference of pizza toppings, but it's also the sort of situation where you just accept that you can't control everything and move on with your life. Yes, it sucks and no, it's not fair, but in any situation, you can choose to sit around and bitch or you can choose to do something about it. That's not to say you should never stand up for yourself, but one needs to exercise discretion in picking their battles, and flipping out over expressions of free speech in the name of free speech is not a good selection. That's what freedom means though. People have the right to make these decisions and you don't have to like them or agree with them, but you do have to respect their right to make them.

Your understanding of the concept is correct but the problem that I have is that this 'offendedness' isn't something we can put into legal context that doesn't become overly powerful or useless. A specific example of the issue would be cyber bullying. Obviously if someone tells a person to kill themselves and harasses that person to the point that they actually do kill themselves, the offender should be in trouble with the law. The issue comes when we apply the definition of 'cyber bullying' to even the most harmless and benign of situations. By definition, any offense a person takes would be cyber bullying and yet our common sense would obviously pick the first situation of driving someone to suicide as a serious offense and a random passerby talking shit to be of no consequence. The former situation already has legal repercussions for doing such things but giving the latter any legal results would end up bogging down our legal system with a million 14year-olds who screamed "I fucked your mom".

Now since we don't have any legal repercussions for making a harmless joke (thankfully), SJWs have turned into this eternally offended mob that goes after even the smallest of incidents but leaves the serious ones alone. The hypocrisy of this is mind-blowing. A specific example is the fact that Saudi Arabia was put on the Human Rights Council but they're instead chasing after some guy for making a harmless joke.

[melodramocracy]

Freedom of speech =/= freedom of consequences of said speech. and really, freedom of speech only entails that the government cannot imprison you for what you say, but it says nothing about how private citizens/corporations behave with that, nada.

So then it's not a freedom.

[anon5123]

Because his "joke" was obviously sexist? It literally demeans women. That's the whole "joke", making fun of women.

M8, that's what jokes do: they make fun of things.

Sorry, I don't see the humor. It's like making a joke about "how greedy Jews are", or "how dumb black people are". Those are just racist statements. People who aren't prejudiced don't find them funny in the first place.

"jokes are just racist statements"

You must be fun at parties.

So then it's not a freedom.

Please elaborate on how being free to speak out against the government is not a freedom.

[therayeffect]

Speech is never an attack on someone else's right to free speech. The idea that one person's expression of free speech attacks another person's is just . . . ridiculous.

You have a right to free speech. You don't have any right for there to not be consequences for that speech.


Let's be clear; do you think people shouldn't be allowed to speak out against jokes like Moriarty's? Because that's an assault on the concept of free speech. If all you're really saying, however, is that you don't like that speech, then drop the claims that it's an assault on Moriarty's freedoms, because you just admitted it isn't.

And it's one of the two.

Are you implying that the consequences are not limiting free-speech?

[Sunseeker]

Its great timing if your objective is to be a douche bag.

"My wife is having a really hard time, so she is out doing something about it"

"Well, at least you get some peace and quiet"

Not a good joke really. But to each their own I guess.

There were a dozen good, funny, sexist jokes that could have been made on A Day Without Women. Some self-depreciating humor is always used by comedians as a prelude to humor about others.

Like, "Man, this day without women is rough, I never knew how hard getting my own beer was!" or "Wow, so that's what the toilet looks like with the seat up!"

Just outright insulting people isn't comedy, unless you're an asshole like George Carlin...who, like most comedians, actually did "real comedy" before he got into "asshole commentary".

[Spectral]

The "idea" of freedom of speech is just that, an "idea". Everyone disagrees on how far it extends, who it applies to, etc... Talking about your opinion of the idea of freedom of speech with another person who is talking about their opinion of the idea of freedom of speech is pointless.

Well, yeah, obviously it's just an idea. We should be able to talk about what that idea constitutes and what a principled defense of it looks like. There was another thread where people were defending just flat out screaming as loud as you can to drown out other speakers whose ideas you don't like. Obviously that's not principled speech in any way; depending on the context, it may be legal, but I think it's fair to say that most reasonable people would reject this as an expression of speech and would be inclined to censure this.

[Sunseeker]

So then it's not a freedom.

Correct, you do not have "freedom". You have liberty. A system of rules and codes that define what you can and cannot do.

Liberty=/=freedom. Liberty>freedom.

[melodramocracy]

Please elaborate on how being free to speak out against the government is not a freedom.

You are correct, I was speaking more in terms of outside that particular scenario.

[Thepersona]

So then it's not a freedom.

what?
for the fifth time, actions have consequences, you can act like a douchebag in the public sphere, but you have to expect backlash. it's like what happened to rush limbaugh in the 2010s
The "freedom of speech" is against government oppression, nothing more, but nothing less

[Sunseeker]

Well, yeah, obviously it's just an idea. We should be able to talk about what that idea constitutes and what a principled defense of it looks like. There was another thread where people were defending just flat out screaming as loud as you can to drown out other speakers whose ideas you don't like. Obviously that's not principled speech in any way; depending on the context, it may be legal, but I think it's fair to say that most reasonable people would reject this as an expression of speech and would be inclined to censure this.

I disagree that "free" speech should be principled. I think people should be principled. Those people will then participate in principled speech, while anyone who practices unprincipled speech will be ignored or socially shamed. I don't think the rules should be written in a manner as to determine what style of speech is acceptable. That should be society's decision.

So IMO this whole situation is a feature not a bug.

[Thepersona]

Are you implying that the consequences are not limiting free-speech?

Free speech =/= consequence free speech
that's so hard to understand? Again, private entities and people can react and will react to your words, so watch out on what you say.
That's why private forums/message boards have banned topics (here it's religion/gender/nation bashing/ porn)

[anon5123]

You are correct, I was speaking more in terms of outside that particular scenario.

"freedom of speech" has never meant anything other than "the government cannot punish you for things you say". It only applies to the government. It does not apply to private business, or private websites, or what have you.

Uninformed people seem to think that it means you can say whatever you want without consequences, thus when you have things like an internet forum banning a certain topic of discussion, you'll see people cry "ZOMG MUH FREE SPEECH! MUH FREE SPEECH!", even though freedom of speech does not apply to that situation.

XKCD explains it pretty nicely:
https://xkcd.com/1357/

[Endus]

Now since we don't have any legal repercussions for making a harmless joke (thankfully), SJWs have turned into this eternally offended mob that goes after even the smallest of incidents but leaves the serious ones alone. The hypocrisy of this is mind-blowing. A specific example is the fact that Saudi Arabia was put on the Human Rights Council but they're instead chasing after some guy for making a harmless joke.

This isn't really a reasonable position, for a few reasons.

The first is that most people have essentially zero capacity to affect anything to do with the UN. Public outcry isn't going to have much effect.

The second is that there are protests, you just don't pay attention to them; https://www.dawn.com/news/1268015

And the third is that UN councils aren't intended to push a progressive viewpoint. The UN Human Rights Council, like most UN councils, is very conservative, and it isn't attempting to act as a watchdog, but only to catch the most egregious examples that the entire UN cannot abide. I don't LIKE this, to be clear, because I think it's led to the UN failing to maintain a leadership position in global politics in a lot of ways, but it's the reality of how the UN works. Also, strong US support of the Saudi regime has a lot to do with this, as well. It's politicking of the worst sort. Here's more info; https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/01/...s-council-seat

[I Push Buttons]

It's not an attack on his free speech. Free speech protects you from the government, not from other citizens responding.

People speak out against Nazis in Nazi Germany: Have their lives ruined. OMG EVIL

People speak out against SJWs, say something "offensive", say something crybullies have a problem with: Have their lives ruined. Dude that's just people exercising their free speech, you gotta accept the consequences.

#Godwin