-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Political and economic discussion thread
- Thread starter Diophantine
- Start date
Ummm, no. None of us, and none of the people you cited, cited hate lmao. Again, youre outlining speech that anyone can be offended by, and frankly that's counter productive and childish. How about instead, if you don't like what someones saying, ignore it? We're all mature here I'd assume.
Im sorry, but that definition is garbage, especially the last section (section 319-c).
And, yes, it does actually, just as much as it is your right. If the platform is private, yes Id agree with you. If its public, youre wrong.
Ummm, irony overdose. Thanks for allowing my point to stand.
I paraphrased 319(C) to the relevant parts.
Please be so kind as to convince me that people who advocate for white supremacy, people who advocate for the denigration of minorities, and people who advocate for this through media platforms are not inciting hatred.
There's a reason anybody can be offended by the statements covered under hate speech laws and that's because everybody should be offended by them because they are morally wrong.
Please be so kind as to convince me that people who advocate for white supremacy, people who advocate for the denigration of minorities, and people who advocate for this through media platforms are not inciting hatred.
There's a reason anybody can be offended by the statements covered under hate speech laws and that's because everybody should be offended by them because they are morally wrong.
None of them incited hatred. Ive been doing a lot of the talking and research, how about instead you broaden your premise by telling me how and why theyre promoting hatred in the firstplace?
Also, I can make the same argument that youre offending me, and youd be fined or arrested under that law. I could say youre insighting bigotry (intolerance of other peoples opinions), and relate that to hatred. Do you see how stupid and how faulty that thinking is, it wont go anywhere productive or good.
Your concept is correct but context ignorant. The public platform is the internet, not a given website. If YouTube or Facebook or whomever does not want to display (and implicitly support) given content they are not obligated to. You have every freedom to use the public good of the internet to express whatever views you want, on your own domain should you choose, but anything pushed to a third party is subject to the user agreement terms you accept by using that site.
Ok, tell me where PragerU broke the agreement terms when a couple of their videos were restricted on facebook (and then reversed, claiming it was a mistake), and demonitized on Youtube. Nowhere. Its bevause they don't like conservative, and I cant even fully say that, moderate voices. Thats highly subjective. You're correct, but thats where my issue is.
Actually you can't because your argument has no logical basis in fact and would be laughed out of court.
Since you love research so much how about you watch a Lauren Southern video yourself and listen to the content and tone without a political agenda.
I've spent more than my fair share of time broadening my viewpoints by listening to her and others involved with Rebel Media in the past and I have zero desire to listen to more of that brand of hatred and ignorance.
I neither know nor care who PragerU is
Hey Texas, will all do respect what do you consider as the best compromise regarding the parameters that is considered hate speech? It's very important to have a solid compromise on this because:
1. Like you suggested there are indeed those who spread hate speech to others as a deliberate act to threaten someone.
2. Someone doesn't have the emotional quotient to handle criticism/is losing a debate so he or she decides to label the opposing view as hate speech to evade the criticism/end the debate with haste.
I think both you and I know for sure this isn't disputable so what would suggest the parameters that is considered hate speech? It's only fair to know otherwise people on both ends of the extremes will either reject people's first amendment right or people who abuse the first amendment to spread hate.
1. Like you suggested there are indeed those who spread hate speech to others as a deliberate act to threaten someone.
2. Someone doesn't have the emotional quotient to handle criticism/is losing a debate so he or she decides to label the opposing view as hate speech to evade the criticism/end the debate with haste.
I think both you and I know for sure this isn't disputable so what would suggest the parameters that is considered hate speech? It's only fair to know otherwise people on both ends of the extremes will either reject people's first amendment right or people who abuse the first amendment to spread hate.
Can you clarify your question, I think I understand what you're asking here but for clarities sake
What you just outlined is whats going on in Canada right now, but on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and theyre actually taking it seriously. Do you see the problem in all of this yet? :/
Side note: yes, I have seen Lauren Southern, quite a bit actually, and I do really like what she stands for on most issues.
What
The conservative party is watching rebel media videos...?
No, about the hypothetical I made. Only its when someone doesnt want to use transgender pronouns, for instance, and not even close to insighting hate.
I need you to quote more accurately here it's very unclear what you're trying to say
I still don't know what post you're referring to lol
As far as transgender pronouns are concerned that issue cannot be considered hate speech because the law has not yet caught up to the world to entitle transgendered individuals to their pronouns of preference.
Refusing to respect someone's identity in that regard is a moral issue, not a legal one
Refusing to respect someone's identity in that regard is a moral issue, not a legal one
You may want to look at Canada Bill C-16, which does turn it into a legal issue. I oppose this because it forces and stifles speech.
Said law includes provisions including gender identity and expression under protections of hate crimes, but does not indicate criminal repercussions for refusing to address someone by their chosen pronoun.
In the same way that calling a self-identified and biological woman a man because you think she's ugly does not become a crime unless you discriminate against her for this assertion or incite violence against her.
So this really seems to be the underlying concept of this argument, this stringent belief you have in the expansiveness of free speech.
Can you explain for me precisely what you believe free speech entails, the lengths to which that freedom stretches, any constraints upon it, and what protections from abuse should exist.
I suspect our beliefs on this matter are not as far apart as they may seem but that we differ on the degrees of protection people should have.
Can you explain for me precisely what you believe free speech entails, the lengths to which that freedom stretches, any constraints upon it, and what protections from abuse should exist.
I suspect our beliefs on this matter are not as far apart as they may seem but that we differ on the degrees of protection people should have.