Western countries are becoming more orwellian

[Deleted]

So you don´t get that, ok.

The definition of a 'hate crime' is made a minority feel 'bad'.

[Deleted]

The definition of a 'hate crime' is made a minority feel 'bad'.

"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

These efforts serve as a backstop for investigations by state and local authorities, which handle the vast majority of hate crime cases throughout the country."

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civi...ts/hate-crimes

If you are going to be clueless, at least make it seem like you know what you are talking about.

[Mayhem]

Feels have no place in a discussion about facts. And whenever you argue with people who peddle this level of intellectual diarrhea they all have one thing in common; they arbitrarily decide then and there what is "offensive" or not. And their decisions "coincidentally" happen to silence their opponents arguments.

Yeah, so? It´s about what the law deems offensive, not how people 'win' a discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

The definition of a 'hate crime' is made a minority feel 'bad'.

I already acknowledged that you don´t get it, you don´t have to prove it again and again.

[Sama-81]

A similiar discussion would be about the death penalty, only without religion playing also a part, still you can find a bunch of people who would feel offended when questioning that practice. That i think it´s wrong doesn´t mean i have to act as a disrespectful cunt when talking about it. To my knowledge no one is targeting people for their opinion and if they are they are wrong, but for how they voice their opinion.

If you can´t say something without trying to degrade your opponent you probably aren´t talking about it to change anything but to voice your disrespect and try to make points with friends. And i don´t see a need to protect that.

The death penalty for apostasy is miles apart from the death penalty as a concept. I don't see a reason discussing the latter in a discussion about the former, since the former is utterly savage and primitive, objectively so, when applied in a modernized setting like the west, while the other comes down to individual morals (ie, there are moral reasons both for keeping it and abolishing it, imho more so for the latter though).

In other words, in the first instance, there are no redeeming factors what-so-ever, and thus objectively reprehensible. Claiming thusly is not the same as talking down to a person, it is simply applying a correct nomenclature to a certain phenomena. The person defending the concept doesn't have to be a savage due to that fact, of course, merely someone defending a barbarous concept. Facts are facts, insults is a whole other matter, and whether one feels offended or not doesn't change anything in that regard. I certainly agree that a measure of decorum is preferable, though.

[Deleted]

In other words, in the first instance, there are no redeeming factors what-so-ever, and thus objectively reprehensible. Claiming thusly is not the same as talking down to a person, it is simply applying a correct nomenclature to a certain phenomena. The person defending the concept doesn't have to be a savage due to that fact, of course, merely someone defending a barbarous concept. Facts are facts, insults is a whole other matter, and whether one feels offended or not doesn't change anything in that regard. I certainly agree that a measure of decorum is preferable, though.

There is no magical line of where crossing said line to be "Objectively Abhorent".

Things are never "Objectively Abhorent". That is failrue to asses what "Objectively" means to begin with.

[Sama-81]

There is no magical line of where crossing said line to be "Objectively Abhorent".

Things are never "Objectively Abhorent". That is failrue to asses what "Objectively" means to begin with.

You seem to have missed where i put a context to 'objectively abhorrent' - namely a modernized western society. In that context, the expression is perfectly fine indeed, of course. Try to read more closely next time, as a straight out comment without context, you would have been right, but, as the saying goes, context is everything. After all, it looks a bit weird when a poster claims another poster failed to assess something, and it then turns out that he himself was the one failing.

[Deleted]

You seem to have missed where i put a context to 'objectively abhorrent' - namely a modernized western society. In that context, the expression is perfectly fine indeed, of course. Try to read more closely next time, as a straight out comment without context, you would have been right, but, as the saying goes, context is everything. After all, it looks a bit weird when a poster claims another poster failed to assess something, and it then turns out that he himself was the one failing.

No context, makes Subjective values Objective.

Even if the Subjective value, is of majority, nay, shared by ALL - It does not make it Objective.

It makes it a lot of things, but Morals and Subjective Values are NEVER Objective.

[Sama-81]

No context, makes Subjective values Objective.

Even if the Subjective value, is of majority, nay, shared by ALL - It does not make it Objective.

It makes it a lot of things, but Morals are NEVER Objective.

You seem to have responded to the wrong post, actually, for your comment is way out there in regards to what I actually wrote and argued. Noone has been talking about morals here, first of all, apart from maybe the morals that a modern society is built upon (which is the context - ie no longer subjective in said construct - do note, since that's likely whay you have a hard time grasping).

Now, a modern western democracy is built on certain principles, principles which some other principles are more or less innately adverse to. Slavery, for one, simply do not gel with a modern democracy and it's proclamation of every citizen being a free person. It is thus objectively abhorrent to the very foundations of said democracy (yes, objectively - in a framed context, that word does not mean what it does in a non-framed one).

The death penalty for apostasy is another perfect example of that. It is simply abhorrent from every single possible angle, if the perspective comes from a modern, western democracy (which is NOT the same thing as its citizens). Ie, it is literally impossible to find an angle where it would not hold true, and is thus, objectively so.

[JohnBrown1917]

Remind me when I consented? When were you asked? And if that actually did happen how old were you, were you of an age to legally sign contracts?

Taxation is the extortion of wealth through the threat of violence. Simply look at what happens when you don't pay tax. That is objectively true, not your social contract lie. If enough people start to believe it instead of your falsehoods then it will prove a massive danger to those who are in power right now, whether they consider me an asshole or a terrorist or whatever other epithet makes no difference - they would like to silence me (not that I'm particularly loud anyway).



No, again I think you miss the point. People being offended leads to people demanding that the offendees be punished, and it is the free speech laws which should protect against it (but clearly don't even in the West).

I come back to this thread to see this, thanks for the laugh.

[Deleted]

You seem to have responded to the wrong post, actually, for your comment is way out there in regards to what I actually wrote and argued. Noone has been talking about morals here, first of all, apart from maybe the morals that a modern society is built upon (which is the context - ie no longer subjective in said construct - do note, since that's likely whay you have a hard time grasping).

Now, a modern western democracy is built on certain principles, principles which some other principles are more or less innately adverse to. Slavery, for one, simply do not gel with a modern democracy and it's proclamation of every citizen being a free person. It is thus objectively abhorrent to the very foundations of said democracy (yes, objectively - in a framed context, that word does not mean what it does in a non-framed one).

The death penalty for apostasy is another perfect example of that. It is simply abhorrent from every single possible angle, if the perspective comes from a modern, western democracy (which is NOT the same thing as its citizens). Ie, it is literally impossible to find an angle where it would not hold true, and is thus, objectively so.

Democracy does not entail everyone being a free person. Only that the people pertaining in said democracy are allowed to cast votes.

You could still have Slaves, and allow them to vote. Thoose things do not contradict each other.

It's cute that you are trying to twist what i supposedly have a hard time grasping, whilst failing basic assertions of definitions to begin with.

And no, there is still nothing OBJECTIVELY aboherent, from a perspective of a modern Western democracy - perspectives are still based on Subjectives.

Even if something WOULD contradict the idea of Western Society, i.e directly violating their right to cast a vote - It would still not be OBJECTIVELY abhorent ; it would just cease to be a true entity of Democracy.

Societies are not entities that can hold emotional judgements such as Abhorent. And Abhorent is not a Objective value. If it is, please provide a value for it - Which you cannot, since it's Subjective.

You can keep trying to insist that i am wrong and stumble on your shoelaces, but i advice against it.

[Thessik-Irontail]

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.

Yes, you are 100% factually correct.

The crap that is being spewed out of universities from social justice classes and gender studies professors are directly affecting the culture. Ideas like modern day feminism, white privilege, and other SJW stupidity are directly responsible.

Freedom of speech has been supplanted by hate speech. The silly thing is freedom of speech is not needed for speech that is liked, it is needed for speech that is despised, but that is often called hate speech now, even though the definition of what is "hate" is completely arbitrary.

In Canada, people are being fined for saying things that upset certain privileged groups, like feminists. Companies are being bullied for wrong-think on beach body ads, muslim ads, gay ads, and anything that is deemed untouchable by the reigning "liberal" overlords. The prime minister declares himself a feminist and tells canadian men to be better feminists by not interrupting women.. interrupting men I guess is just fine though. We already have laws that can result in a fine or jail time for criticism of being gay or trans people, even if it is valid such as the enormous suicide rate of trans people and highly respected doctors questioning whether trans is a mental disorder and whether liberals are actually hurting people and children by encouraging the illness. Quebec currently has a bill trying to pass that criminalizes criticism of religion in general, though their intention is to protect islam.

In the UK street preachers are being arrested for preaching the biblical verses that are against homosexuality, even if the preacher did nothing to a homosexual, just read the scripture. Government funded organizations and other big corporations are hiring social justice graduates to support "equality" by implementing racist and sexist policies that require a certain amount of employees to be trans, homosexual, women, black, etc..

In Germany mass migration through ridiculous open border policies have flooded the german culture with legions of hostile and incompatible people that are not willing to adapt to german culture. thousand man rape gangs are attacking german women, and terrorist attacks and minor crime have soared. German people are being asked to move out of their homes to make room for immigrants, and any criticism of the governments open door policies are being censored by request of the government themselves. Merkel was caught talking with mark zuckerberg asking for censorship. Merkel also asked police chiefs to hide the ethnicity of criminals so that german citizens didnt blame the wreckless immigration policies. Merkel has been on record saying that in a few decades germany will be majority non-german and that she believes that is a good thing.

Sweden like germany has been over run with muslim immigrants to the point where sweden is now the rape capital of the world. Turkey is now advising people not to visit sweden at their airports due to the high chance that you will be raped if you go there. There are now areas that are no go zones where muslims have taken over and no non-muslim is safe to enter.. essentially hostile occupied territory. The police won't enter these areas either and we have video of muslims attacks police cars as the police flee from these areas. Feminists call everyone racist who speaks up against the immigration of hostiles or the crime wave by muslims.

Facebook, twitter, microsoft, and other huge companies have committed that in 2016 they will have systems implemented to police everyones speech. Any and all criticism of a protected group, whether valid or not, that is labeled as hate speech (arbitrary) will be removed within 24 hours. Twitter and facebook have been caught repeatedly silencing conservative voices and celebrities through outright banning, shadow banning, or simply removing posts. They however allow islamic jihad and black lives matter anti-police rhetoric to stay on their sites.

The world is becoming a very very scary place.. the only lights in this dark time over run by racist social justice warriors, sexists feminists, and authoritarian liberals, are the UKs brexit vote.. and the huge success of Trump who looks poised to win the presidency.

[May90]

Freedom of speech isn't going anywhere. You're going to have to learn that people out there will disagree, a lot. Everyone outside a narrow echo chamber will constantly hear speech they dont like.

You are still not getting it. People disagreeing with each other is fine. But "You fucking nigger" is not a disagreement, it is just being a stupid asshole. I don't see why we need stupid assholes in our society.

It is not Orwellian to demand that people express their opinion intelligently. If someone really believes that, say, black people are inferior to white people, then they can express it without resorting to crappy language, and they won't be punished for it in any civilized country.

[PC2]

You are still not getting it. People disagreeing with each other is fine. But "You fucking nigger" is not a disagreement, it is just being a stupid asshole. I don't see why we need stupid assholes in our society.

It is not Orwellian to demand that people express their opinion intelligently. If someone really believes that, say, black people are inferior to white people, then they can express it without resorting to crappy language, and they won't be punished for it in any civilized country.

There was no physical threat or financial damage done by that statement so it would be an ethical issue, not a legal one. A civilized free society does not jail people for hurting feelings.

[May90]

There was no physical threat or financial damage done by that statement so it would be an ethical issue, not a legal one. A civilized country does not jail people for hurting feelings.

It is not about hurt feelings, it is about promoting healthy interaction between people by guaranteeing a fair interaction ground for everyone.

[Mayhem]

Freedom of speech has been supplanted by hate speech. The silly thing is freedom of speech is not needed for speech that is liked, it is needed for speech that is despised, but that is often called hate speech now, even though the definition of what is "hate" is completely arbitrary.

It would be awesome if people would read up on the definition of freedom of speech. Judging by the nonsense you posted though, i actually believe you didn´t post this yourself but had someone write it down for you. Greetings to the poor invidual that is reading this to you now.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not about hurt feelings, it is about promoting healthy interaction between people by guaranteeing a fair interaction ground for everyone.

It´s like primarycolor and goblinp are the same person now.

[PC2]

It is not about hurt feelings, it is about promoting healthy interaction between people by guaranteeing a fair interaction ground for everyone.

I agree the interaction must be fair, which is why both parties have the same right to express themselves to each-other. Violence is not acceptable though.

- - - Updated - - -

It´s like primarycolor and goblinp are the same person now.

Why would identity matter? All that matters is the strength of the argument.

[May90]

I agree the interaction must be fair, which is why both parties have the same right to express themselves to the other person. Violence is not acceptable though.

The interaction can't be fair if one side keeps saying crappy jerkish things, shutting down the whole interaction and reducing it to a petty catfight.

[PC2]

The interaction can't be fair if one side keeps saying crappy jerkish things, shutting down the whole interaction and reducing it to a petty catfight.

Yeah shutting down an interaction is wrong. Both sides should always be free to express themselves.

[May90]

Yeah shutting down an interaction is wrong. Both sides should always be free to express themselves.

That's like saying, "Banning murder is wrong. Both parties should be free to express themselves". World doesn't work like that, and certain actions that disrupt society can't be allowed to transpire.

[Mayhem]

Yeah shutting down an interaction is wrong. Both sides should always be free to express themselves.

... trying to trigger an emotional response by using derogative language and discribing it as freely expressing oneselves.