We Can Work It Out - Politics & Philosophy | Page 99 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

@AppleScruffJunior in no particular order

3.5 things I like about Trump/what he’s done
1) actions against unfair trade deal with China
2) prison reform
3) border control
3.5) memes & general entertainment

3.5 things I dislike about Trump/what he’s done
1) re-signed the Patriot Act
2) under his administration the national debt is STILL increasing
3) the executive order against anti-Semitism on campuses which violates free speech
3.5) he’s a boomer who said something dumb about video games

Man, I just love coming back to the forum and finding 4 individual mentions from the Philosophy thread. Always a grand feeling.

*sings at self*
Ya do it to yourself, you do
And that’s why it really hurts, is
You do it to yourself, just you –
You and no one else
You do it to yourseeeeeelllllflflflflflffffffffff *grungitudinous riffage ascends angrily into the heavens*

Jokes aside, a few points I want to address before I go to bed.

I was simplifying considerably, of course my actual beliefs are a lot more nuanced than just “Anti-capitalism is anti-freedom”. I believe in a balance between the ineffective evil of centralized government control and everyone being completely slave to corporate monopolies, because I’m aware that human nature is frequently shitty, but that it should always lean toward less government control rather than more, because that generally seems to benefit everyone everywhere it’s a thing. I’m not actually a proper libertarian, more just center-right. I actually agree with @lovelyritametermaid, essentially (though we may differ on specifics), on the subject of free markets, which is why I have some problems with what Qman says here:

@QuarryMan said
On the free speech issue, if I recall correctly the First Amendment protects your right to free speech in any public forum, and stops the government making laws that abridge your freedom of speech, but it does not protect it in a private setting,

This is 100% accurate

as was recently confirmed when conservative propaga- sorry, I mean conservative “educational” channel Prager “University” (lol) tried to sue YouTube for apparently censoring their content, only for the judge to rule that because YouTube is a private company, it is not bound by the First Amendment to ensure freedom of speech. That’s a fair ruling, IMO – if you want to make your own platform and espouse your views there, then that’s fine, but you’re not entitled to anybody else’s platform, and so companies like YouTube are perfectly justified in regulating the content published on their service as they see fit.   

Ignore digs at specific subjects because they are petty and irrelevant to the argument (though I’m sure they were satisfying, and that’s wholly understandable) and see bolded text. Is YouTube a platform or a publisher? There’s an important distinction to be made there, because platforms legally cannot be held accountable for anything that is published on them and therefore must be free and open, while publishers can freely edit and choose what they want published and therefore must be held liable for libel, false information, etc. They seem to be trying to have their cake and eat it too, which isn’t fair, especially as they have an effective monopoly over video-sharing services. Yes, there are alternatives such as Vimeo, Bitchute, etc. but really, YouTube is where it’s at. Should the government break it up? Would that even work? Do we want to give the government control over something like that? It’s a complicated issue and I don’t claim to have a solution to it, but it’s worth keeping in mind. I’ll be surprised if you haven’t heard of this argument before.

I do have to wonder if leftists (maybe not you specifically, but in general) who say they don’t mind YouTube being heavy-handed with their rules and regulations because mUh private company (look at that capitalism go!), if it were BreadTube getting censored, would you hear a different tune? (sorry for that sentence construction. I’m tired. )

And now, saving the best for last…

HAHAHA I KNEW someone was gonna imply that I’m supporting racists for opposing that particular executive order! Congratulations and thank you very much

@Ron Nasty said

I’m sorry but I am shocked and stunned, also very disappointed, that you think the type of speech that led to the murder of 6 million Jews in Europe.

…what? The type of speech that led to the Holocaust what?

It is a shame you think hate speech and free speech are the same thing.
 

For that, I point you to Rita’s post on the topic which I thanked two or three times because I could not have put it any better myself.

ALSO

Weimar Germany had hate speech laws and prosecuted several prominent Nazi figures such as Joseph Goebbels under those laws for saying anti-Semitic things, so it’s patently false to say that a lack of hate speech laws lead to the Holocaust. They clearly didn’t work in preventing the rise of the Nazis. They clearly don’t work anywhere. They make things worse by alienating and radicalizing those whose views are silenced. They oppress everyone. They’re just plain wrong. I don’t care who you are, or how disgusting your views are, you have a God -given right to think and say them and I have a God -given right to think my own thoughts and say to you how disgusting your views are, and why you shouldn’t have them, and you have a God -given right to refuse to change your mind and continue thinking and saying your disgusting views. Even if you don’t believe in God , it’s still true.

Ron Nasty said
Myself, I recognise there are always limits to free speech that are controlled by law. The most basic, shared by most democracies, is that you can’t go into a crowded place and shout “Fire!”. Hate speech, so far as I’m concerned, also falls within that category. The UK has restrictions on it, be it religious or racial, and I do not feel my rights to free speech are at all impinged upon.  

1) Shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre (or whatever) is perfectly legal as long as there’s actual fire. JK but I did a quick search and it seems the whole “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre” thing was partially overturned in the US, which means only direct incitement to violence is not covered under free speech.
2) Falsely shouting FIRE! in a crowd, libel/slander/doxxing, or inciting violence are NOT equivalent to “hate speech” – which is a term so nebulous that it could be applied to virtually anything, depending on whose perspective you go by, which is precisely why it is so dangerous. I am well aware that the UK has restrictions on hate (free) speech, which absolutely appalls me and I feel bad for y’all even if you don’t feel bad for y’all, especially as I’ve heard several cases of people being prosecuted for posting stupid edgy s**t on the internet. The idea of giving the government control over what speech should and shouldn’t be said is t e r r i f y i n g.

Libel/slander/doxxing and direct incitement to violence are things that are either false and/or materially harmful, or just plain materially harmful. Hate speech is saying mean nasty ugly things. One of these is not like the other. I don’t know why I’m having to repeat this argument again, because I know you will never get it into your thick, stubborn, Taurus skull. (I love Taureans, but you can’t argue with them. It’s pointless.)

HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH.

YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIKE IT TO AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

CHRIST ON A BIKE.