Red Mosquito

Ms Harmless wrote:yes because I definitely said "let's make speech illegal"

Didn’t you say it should be legally on par with physical violence if it offends someone?

I told you that joke was ableist and ableism is a form of hate speech and you thought it was ridiculous

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:Hurting someone’s feelings isn’t necessarily hate speech or discrimination. It isn’t that subjective.

you'd be surprised

Surprise me!

Ms Harmless wrote:I told you that joke was ableist and ableism is a form of hate speech and you thought it was ridiculous

Very subjective take. Most people do not think it’s ableism

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:yes because I definitely said "let's make speech illegal"

Didn’t you say it should be legally on par with physical violence if it offends someone?

"on par" in terms of requiring (some kind of) consequence and accountability, not always on par in terms of seriousness of harm done (but not never, either)

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:Hurting someone’s feelings isn’t necessarily hate speech or discrimination. It isn’t that subjective.

you'd be surprised

Surprise me!

For what it's worth, the UK has famously ridiculous laws about this. See the recent case of the guy who was sent to jail for tweeting that he was OK with soldiers dying (a tweet that only stayed up for 20 minutes before he deleted it and apologized)

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:yes because I definitely said "let's make speech illegal"

Didn’t you say it should be legally on par with physical violence if it offends someone?

"on par" in terms of requiring (some kind of) consequence and accountability, not always on par in terms of seriousness of harm done (but not never, either)

How do you possibly determine such a thing? Who should be the judge in such a diverse world?

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:I told you that joke was ableist and ableism is a form of hate speech and you thought it was ridiculous

Very subjective take. Most people do not think it’s ableism

most people aren't affected; disabled people know that joke is ableism; every instance of hate speech becomes the affected group begging everyone else to give a crap

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:yes because I definitely said "let's make speech illegal"

Didn’t you say it should be legally on par with physical violence if it offends someone?

"on par" in terms of requiring (some kind of) consequence and accountability, not always on par in terms of seriousness of harm done (but not never, either)

How do you possibly determine such a thing? Who should be the judge in such a diverse world?

great questions

I can’t fathom the words that wouldn’t be illegal in a world where every word that can possibly offend someone is off limits

person 1: "I just want peace and understanding!"

person 2: "Oh ok, cool. Me too."

person 1: "Great let's go attack everyone who doesn't conform to our will!"

person 2:"Wait...what? That's not what I-"

person 1: "You don't think I should be able to do that?! What are you, against peace and understanding, nazi!"

For the RM audience: Note how they like to plant their flags in the middle of something innocuous and harmless that most people already agree with ("peace," "understanding" or the like), like a Spanish conquistador planting his flag in a country already inhabited by lots of people. Then, having established this beachhead, they make further claims that this thing also necessarily entails all sorts of vile shit that few people are in favor of. Then when they are called out for this, they immediately claim you are not only against these additions, but you're also against the initial thing that most are already in favor of. Then they claim to be the only true representatives and authorities on the initial, harmless, accepted claim, and that you are the evil outsider. It's like poetry.

I am convinced Burt gets off on explaining motte-and-bailey

Jorge wrote:I am convinced Burt gets off on explaining motte-and-bailey

you're not wrong!

BurtReynolds wrote:

Jorge wrote:I am convinced Burt gets off on explaining motte-and-bailey

you're not wrong!

Almost as much as he likes doing it

BurtReynolds wrote:person 1: "I just want peace and understanding!"

person 2: "Oh ok, cool. Me too."

person 1: "Great let's go attack everyone who doesn't conform to our will!"

person 2:"Wait...what? That's not what I-"

person 1: "You don't think I should be able to do that?! What are you, against peace and understanding, nazi!"

For the RM audience: Note how they like to plant their flags in the middle of something innocuous and harmless that most people already agree with ("peace," "understanding" or the like), like a Spanish conquistador planting his flag in a country already inhabited by lots of people. Then, having established this beachhead, they make further claims that this thing also necessarily entails all sorts of vile shit that few people are in favor of. Then when they are called out for this, they immediately claim you are not only against these additions, but you're also against the initial thing that most are already in favor of. Then they claim to be the only true representatives and authorities on the initial, harmless, accepted claim, and that you are the evil outsider. It's like poetry.

words

tree_ wrote:I can’t fathom the words that wouldn’t be illegal in a world where every word that can possibly offend someone is off limits

I'm not against freedom of speech, but without accountability to weigh it, it's painfully subjective

it's OK to be on the first rung on the ladder of thinking about how we should deal with that

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Jorge wrote:I am convinced Burt gets off on explaining motte-and-bailey

you're not wrong!

Almost as much as he likes doing it

This is less a conversation about freedom of speech and more about freedom of slap

The acceptance speech is the worst part.