Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2018, 10:48 AM
 
7,302 posts, read 3,384,754 times
Reputation: 4812

Advertisements

The problem with the "intolerance against intolerance" and "hate speech" agitation is that what is "intolerant" and "hate speech" is entirely subjective.

The terminology is broad and vague. Thus, it allows for idiosyncratic definitions, unequally applied accusations by those in power (those with a loud microphone), and in general these terms can and are wielded politically and unevenly against opponents for political speech.

Much of the time, "tolerance" and "hate speech" are political terms that are code for "don't oppose my political interests for your own". They are meant to strong arm political opponents into not fighting the political interests of certain groups.

Any push-back against minority political interests is often labeled as "hate speech" or "intolerance", when what is really occurring is that the majority is being strong armed to surrender their political interests (cultural, legal, etc) for those of a minority. That mechanism is uniquely antidemocratic.

The constitution does not cover "intolerance" and "hate speech" for a reason. Our founding Father's were smarter than that, as these are weasel phrases designed to undermine Freedom of Political speech and thus democracy in general.

Those who push such legislation should not be seen as true Americans, but as a foreign invading political body.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:10 AM
 
6,835 posts, read 2,388,186 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
That is not at all what 1A says.

1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress can violate 1A. Individuals cannot, nor can businesses or corporations. 1A gives you the right to say what you want without government interference. It does not give you the right to be heard or tolerated.

In short, you have the right to speak freely, and I have an equal right to shout you down. You can say what you want, but you own it, and whatever consequences it generates.

I personally will not give a platform to any sort of white supremacist, be they klan or nazi neoconfederate or garden variety bigot, and I tend to speak up loudly.

Your quote about "defending your right" is from Voltaire, BTW - a Frenchman.
Very good explanation. I have the right to say a mother-in-law joke and people have the right to give their opinion. I also have to face the consequences when there are to be consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
13,562 posts, read 10,316,598 times
Reputation: 8252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
Very good explanation. I have the right to say a mother-in-law joke and people have the right to give their opinion. I also have to face the consequences when there are to be consequences.
Exactly. You can say all you want.

Others also have the right to tell you what they think of your opinion. It might be favorable, or it might be what Tommy Lasorda feels about it (lots of expletives).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:16 AM
 
8,196 posts, read 2,830,521 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
The problem with the "intolerance against intolerance" and "hate speech" agitation is that what is "intolerant" and "hate speech" is entirely subjective.

The terminology is broad and vague. Thus, it allows for idiosyncratic definitions, unequally applied accusations by those in power (those with a loud microphone), and in general these terms can and are wielded politically and unevenly against opponents for political speech.

Much of the time, "tolerance" and "hate speech" are political terms that are code for "don't oppose my political interests for your own". They are meant to strong arm political opponents into not fighting the political interests of certain groups.

Any push-back against minority political interests is often labeled as "hate speech" or "intolerance", when what is really occurring is that the majority is being strong armed to surrender their political interests (cultural, legal, etc) for those of a minority. That mechanism is uniquely antidemocratic.

The constitution does not cover "intolerance" and "hate speech" for a reason. Our founding Father's were smarter than that, as these are weasel phrases designed to undermine Freedom of Political speech and thus democracy in general.

Those who push such legislation should not be seen as true Americans, but as a foreign invading political body.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:21 AM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,206,123 times
Reputation: 9845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_M View Post
Watching "Comics in Cars" and thought this was a good point by Seinfeld (his direct quote). Thought this was especially on point with the current online climate where big tech are in the middle of the "not allowing" phase and showing their own intolerance. Anyone upset or outraged? What happened to the ideology of "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" that was important enough that the Founding Fathers put it as the #1 Amendment.
If I go to a restaurant and I started yelling the most extreme offensive things imaginable. I am damn sure the restaurant will ask me to leave.

It's the same logic. Tech companies are businesses and businesses need to keep a certain level of class (well, most of them).

I will defend your right to say anything you want, but when you are using a private business as your forum, you follow their rules.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:21 AM
 
Location: NNJ
15,053 posts, read 10,043,591 times
Reputation: 17223


Why in this day and age in this country this still needs to be explained.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:26 AM
 
21,426 posts, read 10,507,691 times
Reputation: 14080
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
That is not at all what 1A says.

1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress can violate 1A. Individuals cannot, nor can businesses or corporations. 1A gives you the right to say what you want without government interference. It does not give you the right to be heard or tolerated.

In short, you have the right to speak freely, and I have an equal right to shout you down. You can say what you want, but you own it, and whatever consequences it generates.

I personally will not give a platform to any sort of white supremacist, be they klan or nazi neoconfederate or garden variety bigot, and I tend to speak up loudly.

Your quote about "defending your right" is from Voltaire, BTW - a Frenchman.
The white supremacists have been having these rallies for years. People have allowed them to and counter-protestors limited themselves to signs and yelling back. Guess who came out looking better? It wasn’t the white supremacists. They looked like idiots and their numbers dwindled for years.

They have a first amendment right to peacefully assemble and say what they want to say. You don’t have a right to not give them the platform. Let them speak and destroy their movement. Sunlight works so much better than suppression.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Somewhere between the Americas and Western Europe
2,180 posts, read 637,488 times
Reputation: 2092
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post

Why in this day and age in this country this still needs to be explained.....



You combat speech you don't like with MORE speech.



De-platforming, banning, etc. in the wider social context (universities, venues) is not ILLEGAL, but you're being an enemy of FREE SPEECH if you support such things. Combatting ideas also doesn't mean you, say, go to a lecture hall where a speaker is speaking and use bullhorns and sirens to drown out what that person is saying.


You absolutely have the right to COUNTER a message you don't like. But when you prevent others from hearing speech just because YOU don't like it, then you are violating the rights of OTHERS to hear what THEY might want to hear. And guess what? YOU don't get to make that decision for other people and decide which ideas they get to expose themselves to. Even really really bad ideas. Who the hell do you think you are anyway, that you get to "shut down" speech you don't like, just because you're a "private citizen" and not the government?







Why in this day and age in this country this still needs to be explained.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Northwest Peninsula
6,172 posts, read 3,370,291 times
Reputation: 4337
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordo View Post
You mean like Trump's response to the football kneeling protests?

Whether you agree with Trump or not he still has the right to his opinion and free speech.


When it comes to the football players they have the same right of free speech but fans whom either attend or watch the game on TV have the right to either stay home or shut the TV off. Now just who has power with attendance down about 11%.
Do you think the owners or the companies who advertise during the game will tolerate losing those customers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 11:39 AM
 
21,426 posts, read 10,507,691 times
Reputation: 14080
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantiquity View Post
Whether you agree with Trump or not he still has the right to his opinion and free speech.


When it comes to the football players they have the same right of free speech but fans whom either attend or watch the game on TV have the right to either stay home or shut the TV off. Now just who has power with attendance down about 11%.
Do you think the owners or the companies who advertise during the game will tolerate losing those customers.
Like it or not, football players are employees. They have a huge platform to say what they want, and the money to back it up with programs. What they don’t have is the freedom to do whatever they want on their employers’ property. No one gets to protest at work. Why should these guys be any different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:00 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top