Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 years - 328 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 640 Goods vs 426 No Goods

1. Economist
   2e9b
   

   Of course freedom of speech means freedom from the bloody consequences what else could it mean?

   This is a basement dweller's misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is. "Freedom from consequence" implies that you are free to say whatever you want, while other people are not. But if other people are not free to say whatever they want in response to what you say, then we don't have freedom of speech, now do we?
   Freedom of speech means that with very exceptions, you can say whatever you want, and the government can't silence you. It does not mean that other people have to agree with what you say, or tolerate it, or provide an outlet for it.
   Importantly, it also does not mean that an employer must continue to employ you if the employer disagrees with your speech. Because I think all of you basement dwellers can agree, if employers were required to employ you like that, it'd be socialism, and socialism is bad, amirite?

   No, actually “freedom of speech” has nothing to do with the government. The first amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech in the constitution, does. Freedom of speech as a principle, has nothing to do with the government.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 2 Vlad !

2. Economist
   bd1b
   

   You can legally say nonthreatening things. That is freedom of speech. However, society regulates itself outside of the law by enforcing social norms, stigmas, etc. Becoming a pariah for doing socially unacceptable things is what you are struggling with. You wonder why this happens. Socially acceptable is different than legally permissible. Didn’t you take your Sociology 101??

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 6 Vlad !

3. Economist
   8eba
   

   cancel sodomites and sinners.

   You are aware that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment, right?

   And you're also aware that as of last month, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their sexual orientation in hiring etc., right?

   Despite how dum your comparison is, it's actually a perfect example of the limitations of "free speech" as misunderstood by basement dwellers. You are free to think and to say that people who don't share your religious beliefs are "sinners." But if you are bound by Title VII, then you are not free to act on your belief by firing someone because he/she is a "sinner" in your eyes. That doesn't count as "free speech"; you will be sued, you will lose, and no, your "free speech" wasn't violated.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 11 Vlad !

4. Economist
   f987
   

   Free speech used to mean "freedom from jail for your speech" because the notion that some ubiquitous online hive mind could you an untouchable leper of professional services for saying "actually I think the black-white gap is mostly explained by absent fathers" was laughable.

   So now we're being more specific and saying "also maybe hit mobs shouldn't contact your bosses for speech that you find objectionable but doesn't invite violence."

   Is that too hard to understand?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 12 Volod 3 Vlad !

5. Economist
   2667
   

   You can legally say nonthreatening things. That is freedom of speech. However, society regulates itself outside of the law by enforcing social norms, stigmas, etc. Becoming a pariah for doing socially unacceptable things is what you are struggling with. You wonder why this happens. Socially acceptable is different than legally permissible. Didn’t you take your Sociology 101??

   Yep, and now rather than "socially acceptable" being defined by the peers and colleagues that you actually interact with in your life it's defined by influencers you've never heard of with 100k Twitter followers and the HR # for your employer.

   Maybe when the dust settles the world will be better off for this shift, but it certainly is quite a shift.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 1 Vlad !

6. Economist
   8eba
   

   No, actually “freedom of speech” has nothing to do with the government. The first amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech in the constitution, does. Freedom of speech as a principle, has nothing to do with the government.

   Oh, "freedom of speech as a principle." Right, right, of course. And this is the principle that you can say whatever you want, but other people can't say whatever they want in response to you, is it not?

   Doesn't seem like free speech is very free if only you have it.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 6 Vlad !

7. Economist
   232a
   

   You can legally say nonthreatening things. That is freedom of speech. However, society regulates itself outside of the law by enforcing social norms, stigmas, etc. Becoming a pariah for doing socially unacceptable things is what you are struggling with. You wonder why this happens. Socially acceptable is different than legally permissible. Didn’t you take your Sociology 101??

   And the "social norms" have recently been perverted to effectively strangle honest discussion of issues.

   This is not a new problem. The progenitors of freedom of speech recognized that freedom of speech required not just government respect for speech but a broader culture of freedom in which disagreement was tolerated by social norms.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 1 Vlad !

8. Economist
   2e9b
   

   No, actually “freedom of speech” has nothing to do with the government. The first amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech in the constitution, does. Freedom of speech as a principle, has nothing to do with the government.

   Oh, "freedom of speech as a principle." Right, right, of course. And this is the principle that you can say whatever you want, but other people can't say whatever they want in response to you, is it not?
   Doesn't seem like free speech is very free if only you have it.

   No, it doesn’t mean other people can’t say what they want. It does mean that other people shouldn’t do something beyond saying they disagree with you in response to your speech, e.g. trying to get you fired

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 3 Vlad !

9. Economist
   8eba
   

   Free speech used to mean "freedom from jail for your speech" because the notion that some ubiquitous online hive mind could you an untouchable leper of professional services for saying "actually I think the black-white gap is mostly explained by absent fathers" was laughable.
   So now we're being more specific and saying "also maybe hit mobs shouldn't contact your bosses for speech that you find objectionable but doesn't invite violence."
   Is that too hard to understand?

   Hit mobs shouldn't contact your bosses for speech that they find objectionable but doesn't invite violence? You mean freedom of speech should be limited for hit mobs?

   It's always funny how you basement dwellers pretend to advocate for unlimited freedom of speech, but what you're really advocating is that you can say whatever you want, and other people can't. Sorry, but that's not free speech. Like I said earlier, a properly raised six-year-old can understand that. A selfish brat can't, and a selfish brat who grew up to be a manchild sadly can't either.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 11 Vlad !

10. Economist
    232a
    

    Oh, "freedom of speech as a principle." Right, right, of course. And this is the principle that you can say whatever you want, but other people can't say whatever they want in response to you, is it not?
    Doesn't seem like free speech is very free if only you have it.

    Does it confuse you that you shouldn't use your freedom to strangle the freedom of others?

    Is that too complex for you?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 2 Vlad !

11. Economist
    8eba
    

    No, actually “freedom of speech” has nothing to do with the government. The first amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech in the constitution, does. Freedom of speech as a principle, has nothing to do with the government.

    Oh, "freedom of speech as a principle." Right, right, of course. And this is the principle that you can say whatever you want, but other people can't say whatever they want in response to you, is it not?
    Doesn't seem like free speech is very free if only you have it.

    No, it doesn’t mean other people can’t say what they want. It does mean that other people shouldn’t do something beyond saying they disagree with you in response to your speech, e.g. trying to get you fired

    Can't? Shouldn't? What a surprise! You're drawing the very distinction between legally permissible ("can't") and socially acceptable ("shouldn't") as people who tell you that freedom of speech doesn't confer freedom from consequence.

    The same principle applies to you. You can say whatever you want (for the most part). Other people can respond however they want (for the most part). If you disagree when other people believe that you shouldn't say whatever you want, then you can't expect them to accept your contention that they shouldn't say whatever they want.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 8 Vlad !

12. Economist
    2e9b
    

    No, actually “freedom of speech” has nothing to do with the government. The first amendment, which enshrines freedom of speech in the constitution, does. Freedom of speech as a principle, has nothing to do with the government.

    Oh, "freedom of speech as a principle." Right, right, of course. And this is the principle that you can say whatever you want, but other people can't say whatever they want in response to you, is it not?
    Doesn't seem like free speech is very free if only you have it.

    No, it doesn’t mean other people can’t say what they want. It does mean that other people shouldn’t do something beyond saying they disagree with you in response to your speech, e.g. trying to get you fired

    Can't? Shouldn't? What a surprise! You're drawing the very distinction between legally permissible ("can't") and socially acceptable ("shouldn't") as people who tell you that freedom of speech doesn't confer freedom from consequence.
    The same principle applies to you. You can say whatever you want (for the most part). Other people can respond however they want (for the most part). If you disagree when other people believe that you shouldn't say whatever you want, then you can't expect them to accept your contention that they shouldn't say whatever they want.

    Are you really too dense to understand that maybe living under fear of getting fired from your job and losing your livelihood for speaking what you think is the truth is not “free speech?” No one expects everyone to accept whatever you say. People do want the freedom to speak without getting fired from their job and lose their ability to provide for their family.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 2 Vlad !

13. Economist
    8eba
    

    Oh, "freedom of speech as a principle." Right, right, of course. And this is the principle that you can say whatever you want, but other people can't say whatever they want in response to you, is it not?
    Doesn't seem like free speech is very free if only you have it.

    Does it confuse you that you shouldn't use your freedom to strangle the freedom of others?
    Is that too complex for you?

    It's not complex at all. You said "shouldn't." If you were an economist instead of a basement dwelling NEET, you'd know that in economics, "shouldn't" is normative language. You're expressing an opinion.

    I assume we can both agree that the hit mobs have their own view of what you "shouldn't" say. Obviously you don't agree with their "shouldn't" opinion. So why do you expect them to agree with your "shouldn't" opinion?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 5 Vlad !

14. Economist
    8eba
    

    No, it doesn’t mean other people can’t say what they want. It does mean that other people shouldn’t do something beyond saying they disagree with you in response to your speech, e.g. trying to get you fired

    Can't? Shouldn't? What a surprise! You're drawing the very distinction between legally permissible ("can't") and socially acceptable ("shouldn't") as people who tell you that freedom of speech doesn't confer freedom from consequence.
    The same principle applies to you. You can say whatever you want (for the most part). Other people can respond however they want (for the most part). If you disagree when other people believe that you shouldn't say whatever you want, then you can't expect them to accept your contention that they shouldn't say whatever they want.

    Are you really too dense to understand that maybe living under fear of getting fired from your job and losing your livelihood for speaking what you think is the truth is not “free speech?” No one expects everyone to accept whatever you say. People do want the freedom to speak without getting fired from their job and lose their ability to provide for their family.

    We're going in circles now. Your misunderstanding of freedom of speech is that you can say whatever you think is the truth, while other people can't. Sorry, but it's not "free speech" if it only applies to you.

    Also, your repeated references to livelihood, getting fired, and providing for one's family are hilariously socialist. Freedom of speech isn't a freedom unless it comes with secured employment! Basement dwellers of the world, UNITE!

    2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 9 Vlad !

15. Economist
    e2cc
    

    such insights, much wow

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    9b3f
    

    It’s a left wing meme designed to end up at there being no free speech

    Colin Kaepernick lost his job for exercising his free speech rights. He was attacked non-stop by the right wing in this country, so spare me the outrage about the "left".

    And to be clear, I didn't like kneeling when the anthem was played and I would never do it myself, but I didn't think he should've been punished the way he was.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 3 Vlad !

17. Economist
    1a42
    

    No, it doesn’t mean other people can’t say what they want. It does mean that other people shouldn’t do something beyond saying they disagree with you in response to your speech, e.g. trying to get you fired

    Can't? Shouldn't? What a surprise! You're drawing the very distinction between legally permissible ("can't") and socially acceptable ("shouldn't") as people who tell you that freedom of speech doesn't confer freedom from consequence.
    The same principle applies to you. You can say whatever you want (for the most part). Other people can respond however they want (for the most part). If you disagree when other people believe that you shouldn't say whatever you want, then you can't expect them to accept your contention that they shouldn't say whatever they want.

    Are you really too dense to understand that maybe living under fear of getting fired from your job and losing your livelihood for speaking what you think is the truth is not “free speech?” No one expects everyone to accept whatever you say. People do want the freedom to speak without getting fired from their job and lose their ability to provide for their family.

    We're going in circles now. Your misunderstanding of freedom of speech is that you can say whatever you think is the truth, while other people can't. Sorry, but it's not "free speech" if it only applies to you.
    Also, your repeated references to livelihood, getting fired, and providing for one's family are hilariously socialist. Freedom of speech isn't a freedom unless it comes with secured employment! Basement dwellers of the world, UNITE!

    Actually I agree with your point. We cannot have freedom of speech unless the government gets rid of at will employment and legislates that people can only be fired for cause and not allow for cause firings that includes speech allowed under the first amendment.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 5 Vlad !

18. Economist
    8eba
    

    Actually I agree with your point. We cannot have freedom of speech unless the government gets rid of at will employment and legislates that people can only be fired for cause and not allow for cause firings that includes speech allowed under the first amendment.

    Thank you. It is absolutely hilarious to me how in their crusade for "free speech," basement dwellers end up making tons of socialist arguments.

    Tenure is bad and at-will employment is good! Oh wait, conservatives employed at will are getting fired because of hit mobs? Actually, tenure is good! (For conservatives at least).

    Minimum wage, living wage, welfare state all bad! Oh wait, conservatives are getting fired, losing their jobs, and can't support their families anymore? Actually, guaranteed employment good! Welfare state good! (For conservatives at least).

    My name is Volodya Lenin, and I exhort these basement dwellers to RISE and UNITE.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 6 Vlad !

19. Economist
    9b3f
    

    EJMR presents: Defend Uhlig's right to speech. Don't defend Kaepernick's right to speech.

    I looked at the archive of this site and didn't see much defense of Kaepernick's right to express his views peacefully.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 4 Vlad !

20. Economist
    1a42
    

    Actually I agree with your point. We cannot have freedom of speech unless the government gets rid of at will employment and legislates that people can only be fired for cause and not allow for cause firings that includes speech allowed under the first amendment.

    Thank you. It is absolutely hilarious to me how in their crusade for "free speech," basement dwellers end up making tons of socialist arguments.
    Tenure is bad and at-will employment is good! Oh wait, conservatives employed at will are getting fired because of hit mobs? Actually, tenure is good! (For conservatives at least).
    Minimum wage, living wage, welfare state all bad! Oh wait, conservatives are getting fired, losing their jobs, and can't support their families anymore? Actually, guaranteed employment good! Welfare state good! (For conservatives at least).
    My name is Volodya Lenin, and I exhort these basement dwellers to RISE and UNITE.

    I was non sarcastically arguing against at will employment. I think it is a bad policy that too strongly prioritizes the employer over the employee.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »