AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-12-30, 14:31   Link #21
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post



With proverbial matches. Or rather actual lighters and molotov cocktails.


.
Doesn't matter. They will learn from it.

When they get burned, they will know how not to use that right.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 14:57   Link #22
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
When they burn somebody else, you mean?

Besides, some of them, why would they learn? They want to see the world burn.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:03   Link #23
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
When they burn somebody else, you mean?

Besides, some of them, why would they learn? They want to see the world burn.
And your point?

I think the best way to deal with these people is through individual effort, not through censorship or whatever. If people genuinely dislike the person's comments, they are free to ignore him. The offensive guy will get it one way or another.. if he chooses not to, it's his right. Nobody's obliged to listen to him anyway.

I assure you. The last thing you want to happen is political correctness superseding every right to self expression.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:16   Link #24
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Individual effort? The problem isn't one guy saying something one guy doesn't like. The problem is dozens, hundred of guys saying stuff that thousands, tens of thousands feel strongly about - pro or con. Strongly enough to riot and burn cars. Strongly enough to beat some poor buggers to death because some idiot convinced them it was ok to kill gays, or Arabs, or some other minority group. Strongly enough to detonate homemade explosives in crowded subways.

I don't know about you, but in my country, those problems are a lot more pressing than "political correctness". "Political correctness" is some straw man our politicians like to bandy about once in a while, but here, it has precious little bite.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:17   Link #25
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, and that's precisely the point of Freedom of Speech: to protect those who say unpleasant, not necessarily true things from the thugs who would silence them. Even if the speakers are assholes and the thugs have consensual opinions. (Yeah, I don't care if the guy you're punching is racist: if you use violence just because he said something you don't like, you're a thug.) When you think of Freedom of Speech, please don't think of heroic martyrs speaking up for a cause you're sympathetic to. Think of the guys you'd really rather would shut up.
That's why we have Ipod.

You don't have to listen to them at all. However, if their volume surpasses your ipod's, you will have every right to shut them up, legally
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:20   Link #26
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Individual effort? The problem isn't one guy saying something one guy doesn't like. The problem is dozens, hundred of guys saying stuff that thousands, tens of thousands feel strongly about - pro or con. Strongly enough to riot and burn cars. Strongly enough to beat some poor buggers to death because some idiot convinced them it was ok to kill gays, or Arabs, or some other minority group. Strongly enough to detonate homemade explosives in crowded subways.

I don't know about you, but in my country, those problems are a lot more pressing than "political correctness". "Political correctness" is some straw man our politicians like to bandy about once in a while, but here, it has precious little bite.
But you do not have the right to think for them. If they go apeshit because of some guy with a really good tongue, it's their problem. They are the ones looking like tools, not you. However, it's a different matter if property is vandalized. That needs an entirely new discussion.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:25   Link #27
SeedFreedom
Hina is my goddess
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
In my opinion, hate speech is much more devastating than yelling fire in a theater. Worst that happens if everyone gets freaked out and waste everyone's (including firefighters) time and money, but nobody is hurt. Money can always be repaid, lives cannot.

When hate speech tells people certain lives are worthless, people might actually believe that and act on that. If someone wants to make fun, people can walk away. It may not be the most fair in all cases, but it is in most cases. That's my opinion anyways.
__________________
Goodbye AnimeSuki
You have lost your once great spirit
SeedFreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:29   Link #28
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedFreedom View Post
In my opinion, hate speech is much more devastating than yelling fire in a theater. Worst that happens if everyone gets freaked out and waste everyone's (including firefighters) time and money, but nobody is hurt. Money can always be repaid, lives cannot.
And since some societies are so soft they can't even take an insult...

Big government, bleeding heart, Obama Kool aid Liberals take over!
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:31   Link #29
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
The problem with walking away is that brick they throw at the back of your head. Best to treat virulent racism as a mental illness ...
It could be a good idea.
But what could be the cure? Giving them new information? Electric shock treatement? lobotomy? Confinement?
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:32   Link #30
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru View Post
It could be a good idea.
But what could be the cure? Giving them new information? Electric shock treatement? lobotomy? Confinement?
Silence. It's powerful. Apathy to their "passionate speeches" is one example..or better yet meeting it with ridicule.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:43   Link #31
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
That's why we have Ipod.

You don't have to listen to them at all. However, if their volume surpasses your ipod's, you will have every right to shut them up, legally
The problem isn't them saying something I don't want to hear. I can, indeed, just ignore them. The problem is them saying something my neighbors like a little too much.

The issue of Freedom of Speech is not reduced to the unpleasantness of hearing contrary opinions. Ideas move men. That's what make speech such a powerful tool, and thus a dangerous one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
But you do not have the right to think for them. If they go apeshit because of some guy with a really good tongue, it's their problem. They are the ones looking like tools, not you. However, it's a different matter if property is vandalized. That needs an entirely new discussion.
I'm pretty sure that if they blow up a subway I'm riding in, it's my problem too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedFreedom View Post
In my opinion, hate speech is much more devastating than yelling fire in a theater. Worst that happens if everyone gets freaked out and waste everyone's (including firefighters) time and money, but nobody is hurt. Money can always be repaid, lives cannot.
I take it you've never been trampled by a panicked crowd.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:46   Link #32
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post


I'm pretty sure that if they blow up a subway I'm riding in, it's my problem too.

Sure. It's your subway, and they blew it up. Therefore problem the action of blowing up the subway and prosecute the bombers for it, and for the people they killed.


Using this as an excuse to shut certain people up when you don't need to even listen to a single word from them is laughable. Remember, words don't blow trains up, bombers with bombs do.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 15:49   Link #33
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
The way I see it is, every action has consequences. There's nothing in the (US) constitution that forbids anyone to kill. You'll just have to suffer the consequences. Go ahead with your freedom of expression or whatever, but you'll be the judge whether or not you want to accept the consequences.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 17:00   Link #34
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
That's it. Issue resolved.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 17:16   Link #35
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
Sure. It's your subway, and they blew it up. Therefore problem the action of blowing up the subway and prosecute the bombers for it, and for the people they killed.


Using this as an excuse to shut certain people up when you don't need to even listen to a single word from them is laughable. Remember, words don't blow trains up, bombers with bombs do.
Bad guys were punished. How very comforting for those who lost loved ones. The point of censorship, there, would be for people to not get inflamed and become terrorists in the first place. Stopping a crime before it happens, before someone even has the idea to commit it, is much preferable to just hoping you can catch the culprits afterwards and throw them in jail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KholdStare View Post
The way I see it is, every action has consequences. There's nothing in the (US) constitution that forbids anyone to kill. You'll just have to suffer the consequences. Go ahead with your freedom of expression or whatever, but you'll be the judge whether or not you want to accept the consequences.
So what if every action has consequences? What does that have to do with anything? Would you promote anarchy because, hey, if people kill each other, they just have to accept the consequences?


We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"?

Note, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that freedom of speech should be absolute. But that's a decision that should be arrived at after careful consideration of the dangers involved, not after denying the role of free speech in the growth of radical, violent ideologies.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 18:32   Link #36
escimo
Paparazzi
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ice Box
Age: 32
I find offering censorship as a solution quite shortsighted. Sure speech is a powerful tool that can be used in extent that it becomes a lethal weapon but it's still one of the fundamental foundations of democracy. Censorship is an extremely dangerous path to be treading on, as it grants the power even absolute power to control what ideals can be put through to the masses. That holds a temptation that very few will be strong enough to oppose. Assuming that they even wish to.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've yet to see a single example where censorship wouldn't have been used to further the causes of those in power.

When the voice of opposition is suppressed the result is dictatorship, oligarchy or some other form of government not so pleasant for those who disagree with it's views. And even if the censorship is controlled by the majority where does that leave the minorities.

I think it'd be foolish to think that you could find someone who could objectively base the decisions concerning censorship on morality alone. Personal or popular agendas will come to play. I believe it to be inevitable. So regardless the fact that freedom of speech causes problems, I find the alternative far more frightening.
__________________
escimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 19:06   Link #37
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Bad guys were punished. How very comforting for those who lost loved ones. The point of censorship, there, would be for people to not get inflamed and become terrorists in the first place. Stopping a crime before it happens, before someone even has the idea to commit it, is much preferable to just hoping you can catch the culprits afterwards and throw them in jail.


So what if every action has consequences? What does that have to do with anything? Would you promote anarchy because, hey, if people kill each other, they just have to accept the consequences?


We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"?

Note, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that freedom of speech should be absolute. But that's a decision that should be arrived at after careful consideration of the dangers involved, not after denying the role of free speech in the growth of radical, violent ideologies.

No. What you want is people to impose laws to stop the people who oppose their viewpoint under the guise of public safety. Dictators take advantage of that. Basically, your argument is we must stop these people at all costs, even if we violate certain constitutional rights in the process. That's exactly what I don't like... The use of legislation to impose on people.

Now I have a question:
1. Did all people who read Mein Kampf become little Hitlers? Because if not then the problem is not Hitler, but the idiot who read him.

Last edited by Thingle; 2008-12-30 at 19:22.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 19:12   Link #38
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
The problem isn't them saying something I don't want to hear. I can, indeed, just ignore them. The problem is them saying something my neighbors like a little too much.

The issue of Freedom of Speech is not reduced to the unpleasantness of hearing contrary opinions. Ideas move men. That's what make speech such a powerful tool, and thus a dangerous one.
I don't see how that is a problem.

Case 1: If you happen to live in a neighbor where the others are as dumb as apes, you should move elsewhere. With such condition, even if nothing provokes them, sh** will happen.

Case 2: you happen to live in a place where everyone else thinks differently than you do. You should either move somewhere else or adapt.

Case 3: you live in a place where the government and the economy are messed up. In other words, the people must live in rubbish which in turn emits CH4, and a single spark could cause the whole thing to explode. This is inevitable. Again, you would better move elsewhere or join the revolution.

Case 4: you live in a place where the economy is next to non-existence but the government puts everything under its iron heels effectively. Now this is paradise! No one has the right to say anything....

Case 5: you live a place where the economy is at its apex. Jobs are plentiful, incomes are desirable by other nations, the overall quality of life is high and your government doesn't mess up with others. In this condition, I don't think there would be enough carebears to pose a threat to the society.

........

The bottom line is if a random speech can seriously cause trouble for a community, then that community has tons of other problems and it can be safely inferred that the mentioned speech is just a direct consequence.

Last edited by iLney; 2008-12-30 at 21:20.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 19:27   Link #39
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
So what if every action has consequences? What does that have to do with anything? Would you promote anarchy because, hey, if people kill each other, they just have to accept the consequences?
But that is how reality right now. We have enough common sense that is why we do not choose anarchy. The consequences of killing someone is so huge that not enough people kill each other for society to become anarchy. It's all checks and balances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"?
We do, and the laws never forbid, at least not in my constitution. The commandments say thou must not, while the laws say if p then q. If you don't want q to happen to you then for the love of God (other spiritual beings, etc...), don't do p. Back to the freedom of expression thing, all we have to do is make the consequences unfavorable enough for people to rethink some actions.

In summary: Yes to absolute freedom, but it's we who must decide if the consequences are worth it instead of some laws restricting us to express them.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 20:57   Link #40
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Yes, speech can be a powerful and dangerous tool in the wrong hands. That's why it's important for others to also speak up to counter those who would use it for ill. Sure there will always be people who abuse freedoms, and those people should be punished. However, that doesn't mean others should have their freedoms restricted to stop those who would abuse them from causing harm.

It's up to the rest of us to make sure that those with hateful views are marginalized as much as possible. However, I think they should still have the right to express those views. When someone acts on those views, then punish them. When they try to spread their views, expose them for what they really are. Simply forbidding someone from expressing such views isn't going to change their mind about it. It'll just drive them underground. They'll still find an audience, but even if it's smaller, that audience won't be exposed to opposing viewpoints as often and may become more radicalized.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.