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

[Spectral]

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.

I don't think this is an expression of disagreement. Our entire discussion here pertains to the bold - we are society. This process, the process of discussing things publicly (including internet forums!) is what determines society's decision.

My position is that censuring someone for jokes is a bad thing to do. Others can disagree and argue about it vociferously. That's fine! That's working as intended! What I object to is the pedantic, self-congratulatory douchier of saying, "yeah, well, it's like totally free speech either way because free speech only means from the government". No fucking shit. That's not a real argument.

[Endus]

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

Unequivocally, yes. The two are completely unrelated.

You having the right to free speech does not mean you can tell your boss to "I fucked your wife last night, you impotent dickmonger" and not get summarily fired for it. You've got the right to SAY that. You DON'T have any right to avoid consequences that result. And your boss firing you for that isn't an assault on your right to speak.

[Thepersona]

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

God, it's like you didnt read your own post.
Speaking against nazis in 1935-1945 germany, that's speaking against government, and yeah, there wasnt freedom of speech on that place, at that moment.
Freedom of speech doesnt mean that private citizens and corporations can't react on what you say

[anon5123]

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

Nazis are the government.

SJWs are not the government.

I mean yeah SJWs are retarded for viciously attacking anyone who says even the slightest "offensive" thing, but you're comparing apples and oranges here.

[Endus]

My position is that censuring someone for jokes is a bad thing to do. Others can disagree and argue about it vociferously. That's fine! That's working as intended! What I object to is the pedantic, self-congratulatory douchier of saying, "yeah, well, it's like totally free speech either way because free speech only means from the government". No fucking shit. That's not a real argument.

The cental issue with your position is that you;

A> take issue with other people censuring a guy for a joke they found unacceptable, and
B> are yourself censuring them for their comments that you find unacceptable. Worse, you're implying they shouldn't have the right to even say that, while not realizing you're pushing things even further than they were, by taking that position. If you were just arguing that they're idiots and pointing that out on Twitter, that'd be completely different and fine.

I just take the stance that if you don't like what they said, the answer to speech you don't like is speech in return.


Edit: I recognize that both of us are just speaking, here, but to re-iterate a prior point, are you taking the stance that people should be prevented from speaking out against people as happened to Moriarty? Or are you just saying you don't LIKE the content of their speech but it's totally their right and totally fine for them to express themselves accordingly?

[I Push Buttons]

God, it's like you didnt read your own post.
Speaking against nazis in 1935-1945 germany, that's speaking against government, and yeah, there wasnt freedom of speech on that place, at that moment.
Freedom of speech doesnt mean that private citizens and corporations can't react on what you say

Nazis are the government.

SJWs are not the government.

I mean yeah SJWs are retarded for viciously attacking anyone who says even the slightest "offensive" thing, but you're comparing apples and oranges here.

In this thread: Its ok to mimic Nazis in their suppression of opposition as long as you're not the government.

[Thepersona]

In this thread: Its ok to mimic Nazis in their suppression of opposition as long as you're not the government.

i can find them retarded, but they can do that. I mean, if they arent the government. And really, many of the "opposition" that they're doing is to people who acts like a douche, and thinks that it's a normal thing to do. Remember, they arent the government, they can't imprison you.
Also, this forum have forbidden topics, and its fine to do so.
Saying something sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/clasist on the public sphere is commonly regarded as a bad thing, at least on 2017, and douches should start to realize that

[Sunseeker]

I don't think this is an expression of disagreement. Our entire discussion here pertains to the bold - we are society. This process, the process of discussing things publicly (including internet forums!) is what determines society's decision.

My position is that censuring someone for jokes is a bad thing to do. Others can disagree and argue about it vociferously. That's fine! That's working as intended! What I object to is the pedantic, self-congratulatory douchier of saying, "yeah, well, it's like totally free speech either way because free speech only means from the government". No fucking shit. That's not a real argument.

The problem is that many of the people screeching about "URMURGURD his freedumbs!" fundamentally don't understand what the First Amendment actually does. That's why so people say it. They're not making an argument. They're attempting to educate the uneducated.

Because even if "URMURGURD his freedumbs, stupid sjw cunts!" implies an argument of "I don't believe that our legal definition of free speech should allow those people do what they did!" It sure as hell doesn't elucidate that argument. It sounds more like some other dumb cunt on the internet who doesn't get how free speech works and that it is equally within our free speech protections for people to get butthurt and demand Colin get fired.

But we're also not the Borg. "Society" has many elements, elements that will often disagree and have opposing goals and values, which is good, but it will, particularly when polarized, result in situations just like this. One side says something insulting (joke or not) the other side gets offended and something big happens, which in turn makes another group offended and so on and so forth.

Besides, Colin quit. Probably because his lose lips pissed off his boss. That tend to be why people in good jobs that are open to the public "resign". And Colin probably ragequit precisely because his boss wouldn't back up his bullshit. Which again, I think this whole mess is the system working as intended. I don't think anything needs to be changed other than the way people behave, but that's like ya know, wishing for world peace and shit.

[Noxx79]

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

SJWs speak out against misogyny: OMG EVIL NAZIS
Thin skinned crybabies speaking out against SJWs: FREEDOM FIGHTERS!!!1!1!

Dumb analogies are dumb.

Note: I don't really care about this whole "offensiveness" of incident, but the joke was really obvious, uncreative, and stupid, maybe he should pick a different profession if he's trying to be a comedian?

[therayeffect]

The sooner you all figure out Twitter doesn't fucking matter and can be safely ignored, the better off you'll be.

I wish it was as simple as ignoring the SJWs but they're goddamn loud and crazy. The entire GamerGate saga proved such a point. I'm not sitting in my bed wearing a tinfoil hat because of SJWs but I think they're a pretty severe long-term modern threat just as the far right was and could become again.

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)

Ah so the consequence of death isn't limiting free speech by using fear? An extreme example yes but we should all be prepared to accept those consequences, correct? I understand what you're implying but I think you aren't understanding what I was implying previously.

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

"... only to catch the most egregious examples ..." So they put one of the worst offenders on the board? LOL. I'm more arguing that the hypocrisy is ASTOUNDING and that's what happens when one tries to have a black and white view of the world which a lot of these special snowflakes do. We do have a lot of power (at least in the US) because we voters fund them. If we really wanted to, we could vote in people who refuse to fund the United Nations. Yes, it would be a mess to do such a thing but we DO have power.

By definition for me, SJWs are irrational people who can't be reasoned with so it's kind of a loop but with how I view SJWs, they don't generally support reasonable issues so they simply won't go out and protest. Also the action of action against something serious like S.A. having power and some random goofball on the internet are vastly disproportionate.

[Kellhound]

So a person is sexist (or racist, or what ever else "ist" you want), BFD. Show where their personal views affect how they do their job.

[Spectral]

The cental issue with your position is that you;

A> take issue with other people censuring a guy for a joke they found unacceptable, and
B> are yourself censuring them for their comments that you find unacceptable. Worse, you're implying they shouldn't have the right to even say that, while not realizing you're pushing things even further than they were, by taking that position. If you were just arguing that they're idiots and pointing that out on Twitter, that'd be completely different and fine.

I just take the stance that if you don't like what they said, the answer to speech you don't like is speech in return.


Edit: I recognize that both of us are just speaking, here, but to re-iterate a prior point, are you taking the stance that people should be prevented from speaking out against people as happened to Moriarty? Or are you just saying you don't LIKE the content of their speech but it's totally their right and totally fine for them to express themselves accordingly?

I've never, ever suggested an iota of government or private force be applied to anyone in such contexts. As stated in my previous post, everything that goes on in public discourse constitutes formation of an overall cultural milieu. I reject hysterical overreactions and the faux-apologies that come from them.

[Thepersona]

Ah so the consequence of death isn't limiting free speech by using fear? An extreme example yes but we should all be prepared to accept those consequences, correct? I understand what you're implying but I think you aren't understanding what I was implying previously.

If you threaten to kill someone because of what he/she said, you should/will be prosecuted. And that's the consequence of freedom of speech, you're free to say that, but expect the lawsuit.
If you kill someone because of what he/she said, you will be charged with murder and sent to prison/be executed

[Endus]

I've never, ever suggested an iota of government or private force be applied to anyone in such contexts. As stated in my previous post, everything that goes on in public discourse constitutes formation of an overall cultural milieu. I reject hysterical overreactions and the faux-apologies that come from them.

So you're just stating that you don't like what they're saying, but you don't oppose them saying it?

Then attack them on the (lack of) merit to their position, not that they had the gall to express it.

[Leonora]

I am a woman, I don't find it offensive. I don't find it particularly funny either but I'm not going to go after someone for making jokes that aren't funny to me.

That is fine. But you alone = anecdotical evidence that some women dont care that much. All women that read that tweet = general evidence, and apparently in general women reading this tweet were less forgiving.

[Kellhound]

So you're just stating that you don't like what they're saying, but you don't oppose them saying it?

Then attack them on the (lack of) merit to their position, not that they had the gall to express it.

Or you could just ignore them, as it is just a personal opinion.

[I Push Buttons]

That is fine. But you alone = anecdotical evidence that some women dont care that much. All women that read that tweet = general evidence, and apparently in general women reading this tweet were less forgiving.

Actually I have seen few women condemn it...

Most people "offended" by this tweet, in this thread, in the replies to the tweet, in the articles defaming the guy... Are almost exclusively 20-30 something white men.

[Thepersona]

Or you could just ignore them, as it is just a personal opinion.

that's another possibility

[Spectral]

That is fine. But you alone = anecdotical evidence that some women dont care that much. All women that read that tweet = general evidence, and apparently in general women reading this tweet were less forgiving.

I really doubt that. Even more than an echo chamber, the internet is a bullhorn where a couple dozen professionally outraged people can push their fringe views much farther than they could otherwise go. Why companies continue to treat this with any seriousness is the real mystery.

- - - Updated - - -

Or you could just ignore them, as it is just a personal opinion.

I mostly do ignore the proverbial SJWs, but no one employed in corporate America has the privilege of completely ignoring them - if you'd like to remain gainfully employed, it's best to be familiar with what language is considered acceptable to stay in good standing. Doing otherwise can pretty easily result in an unwanted encounter with an HR department representative, many of whom are drawn from a pool of the sort of people that think a "diversity coordinator" is an absolutely essential role.

This really isn't all that hard to not run afoul of, but it's pretty culturally degenerate.

[Mistame]

Badly timed, tasteless joke. He shouldn't surprised by the reaction. He should have put a bitof thought into it before posting it.

Seems to me a biased comment made in satire on a day of recognizing that gender is the perfect time for it. And the comment itself was harmless. If someone says, "Ah, peace and quiet now that the kids have gone to school", should they be blasted for being "anti-kid"?

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

Considering that "free speech" is protection from government only, the notion that anyone other than government can "limit free speech" is inherently illogical. It is not possible for private individuals, etc, to "violate" someone's "free speech".