On Recent Events at the University of Missouri

[Kon_El]

Unless someone is being very disingenuous, it would generally be obvious which names are more likely to belong to white people and which are not. Just for the record I have seen people argue "what is a white sounding name anyway?" hur hur hur.

Cooter, Cleatus, Bubba, and Billy Bob are about as white as names can get. They are also stereotypically low class. I would love to see them used in one of these studies to control for that variable.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Unless someone is being very disingenuous, it would generally be obvious which names are more likely to belong to white people and which are not. Just for the record I have seen people argue "what is a white sounding name anyway?" hur hur hur.

Cooter, Cleatus, Bubba, and Billy Bob are about as white as names can get. They are also stereotypically low class. I would love to see them used in one of these studies to control for that variable.

They have been. The effect size is smaller than it is for typically black names, and names that are generally considered low class and black are worse off than both.

[mr friendly guy]

I think if people were arguing "reverse racism" when an American author got a work published under a fake "Chinese sounding name" (https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 7&t=163788) and if we note this is one example, then people shouldn't have a problems acknowledging the numerous other examples of racism in the other direction.

Just for the record, I have no problem acknowledging either. But then I am not a crazy SJW.

[madd0ct0r]

who is arguing that?

[mr friendly guy]

who is arguing that?

If you're referring to who is arguing "reverse racism," several posters in that very thread I linked to. If you mean something else, please specify.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think if people were arguing "reverse racism" when an American author got a work published under a fake "Chinese sounding name" (https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 7&t=163788) and if we note this is one example, then people shouldn't have a problems acknowledging the numerous other examples of racism in the other direction.

Just for the record, I have no problem acknowledging either. But then I am not a crazy SJW.

Eeeeeehhh. Alternative scenario, and bear in mind I actually have some experience editing a literary magazine (strange I know, but yeah, it was a thing I did for three years as a student). They get a lot of submissions, many of them are very good, but there is limited space. So decisions have to be made to either narrow the field or decide between equally good works. Ours was a student magazine, so we got a lot of Jesus Poems, so after the first few we let in, we put a moratorium on Jesus Poems until the next run.

We also made an effort to include people who were not white. We got thousands of submissions and unless we made that effort we could fill any given edition with *just* poems by white people before we encountered anything from a person of color to even judge if it was decent enough for inclusion so we searched through the piles for them.

There is something else to consider. It is not "reverse racism", but just racism. "Ooh, Asian, how mysterious and oriental" bullshit.

[Aether]

That's sort of my thoughts on the matter as well. Dave Rubin hit in on the head I think in this spiel on youtube.

When the risk of the behaviour of the anti-racism protesters threaten to overshadow what they're protesting against, its a sad day. I personally feel the way the terms "privilege" has been used is becoming like the boy who cried wolf. Its overused, to the point where its becoming an ad hominem. Instead of saying there is racial bias in job selection and study x,y,z demonstrates it, or racial bias in law enforcement because <insert group> committing the same group gets different punishment, so one group has an advantage (whether they chose it or not), its now <insert person here> doesn't accept my argument because they're privilege. Then to strengthen this line of argument, we get to what Gad Saad describes as "the oppression Olympics," where its a race to the bottom of the barrel to become the least privilege, ie trans, woman, gay, disabled etc. You can sort of see this on the Atheism Plus group.

I am interested to see if this is just another "cycle of hysteria."

1950s - Red Scare
1980s - Satanic Ritual Abuse
1990s - Super predators
2010s - Safe Spaces

[madd0ct0r]

muslims I think?

this safe spaces one seems to be a facet of the broader social re-emergence of feminisim as a necessary force.

[amigocabal]

That's sort of my thoughts on the matter as well. Dave Rubin hit in on the head I think in this spiel on youtube.

When the risk of the behaviour of the anti-racism protesters threaten to overshadow what they're protesting against, its a sad day. I personally feel the way the terms "privilege" has been used is becoming like the boy who cried wolf. Its overused, to the point where its becoming an ad hominem. Instead of saying there is racial bias in job selection and study x,y,z demonstrates it, or racial bias in law enforcement because <insert group> committing the same group gets different punishment, so one group has an advantage (whether they chose it or not), its now <insert person here> doesn't accept my argument because they're privilege. Then to strengthen this line of argument, we get to what Gad Saad describes as "the oppression Olympics," where its a race to the bottom of the barrel to become the least privilege, ie trans, woman, gay, disabled etc. You can sort of see this on the Atheism Plus group.

There is of course significant dispute as to the prevalence of unconscious bias, even among experts. For example, with respect to law enfrocement, we have this statementfrom the California Attorney General 9who, by virtue of her office, is an expert on such matters).

Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon

Unless one were to argue that the attorney general has no problem with racial bias in determining who can carry a concealed weapon, we can infer that she disagrees with the notion that racial bias in law enforcement is a serious problem.

[amigocabal]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mizzou-stude ... mtat6F70Tp


See the video at 3:25.

If free speech creates a hostile learning environment, she needs to transfer to a private school.

[Crown]

Simple. Those free speech advocates (I subscribe to some of their youtube channels) who argue that Australia and Canada is less free than the US because we have hate speech laws. Also by extension European countries with Holocaust denial laws are also less free.

From a purely quantitative analysis we do. If Nation A has free speech then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is infinite. If Nation B has laws against a certain type of speech, then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is less than Nation A's. I hardly see why that's a controversial point.

Sorry, I don't see why one needs a "right" to racially villify someone (as opposed to other forms of criticism), nor how society is worse off because you limit free speech in this way.

Because its easy to define what we all agree on what we can deem 'good speech' but that narrows down all possible speech in a very narrow slither in this instance. We all have a right to be offended, but none of us have a right to not be offended because that would just be fucking insane. People tried to ban the word 'bossy'. Just wrap that around your head for a minute.

Nor do I see other forms of free speech threatened because of it unless you 1) subscribe to slippery slope fallacies (ie if we limit on thing, we will end up limiting more despite the evidence to the contrary with countries which have Holocaust denial laws for example) and 2) are prepared to argue that no country should have slander or libel laws (since even in the land of the free such things exist, and by definition limits free speech).

1. You side stepped my points about the muzzling of Australian doctors and humanitarian organizations by the Abbott government and the censorship of government scientist under Harper
and
2. You missed the part where I clearly said the right to free speech isn't a right to repercussions of said free speech.

[Crown]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mizzou-stude ... mtat6F70Tp


See the video at 3:25.

If free speech creates a hostile learning environment, she needs to transfer to a private school.

Oh please, the SWJ SWBullies at Yale have her beat; it is not about creating an intellectual space, it's about creating a safe space.



Their issue? The faculty didn't sign on to ban offensive Halloween costumes that MIGHT have been worn. Yes no actually offensive Halloween costumes were actually worn, but they wanted to pre-emptively ban them, just in case.

I actually have a lot more empathy for the MissU students, they could at least claim "it' is not about free speech, it is about creating a hygienic space!" Since feces smeared walls should be fought against everywhere, regardless of what was written on there.

[Crown]

Ghetto Edit: SJW and SJBullies.

[mr friendly guy]

From a purely quantitative analysis we do. If Nation A has free speech then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is infinite. If Nation B has laws against a certain type of speech, then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is less than Nation A's. I hardly see why that's a controversial point.

Listen to it again. The statement nations are "less free." Now think of how fond Americans are of using the term less free to describe hostile nations. Its used as a perjorative which I feel is undeserved to describe countries like Canada, Australia etc.

Because its easy to define what we all agree on what we can deem 'good speech' but that narrows down all possible speech in a very narrow slither in this instance.

I don't see how racial villification is necessarily "narrows down all possible speech in a very narrow slither." Its kind of relatively speaking, specific.

We all have a right to be offended, but none of us have a right to not be offended because that would just be fucking insane. People tried to ban the word 'bossy'. Just wrap that around your head for a minute.

Like I said, if you go from banning speech which counts as racial villification (lets say under Australia's law), to banning anything that makes someone "offended," is a slippery slope and does not match the evidence. That is a lot of countries with such laws, have not gone the way of banning things which might just so happen to offend someone.

1. You side stepped my points about the muzzling of Australian doctors and humanitarian organizations by the Abbott government and the censorship of government scientist under Harper

Does not come under hate speech laws so not relevant to my point about being less free because of hate speech laws. Unless you're proposing some mechanism I can't see.

and
2. You missed the part where I clearly said the right to free speech isn't a right to repercussions of said free speech.

No I didn't. I just don't see how its relevant to my points about why you need a "right" to racially villify someone.

If you're referring to defamation laws with that statement, ie you interpret defamation laws as not a curb of free speech, but merely the "repercussions" of said free speech, then racial villification laws can also be seen in that light and then it just becomes a matter of what is considered a curb on free speech.

[mr friendly guy]

There is of course significant dispute as to the prevalence of unconscious bias, even among experts. For example, with respect to law enfrocement, we have this statementfrom the California Attorney General 9who, by virtue of her office, is an expert on such matters).

Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon

Unless one were to argue that the attorney general has no problem with racial bias in determining who can carry a concealed weapon, we can infer that she disagrees with the notion that racial bias in law enforcement is a serious problem.

1. Yes we can, if one makes the argument that racial bias is not necessarily conscious - ie the way to tell is to use big numbers of cases to see and compare the results.

2. Your justification is circular dude.

3. I was talking about the sentencing part of law enforcement, (I now realise that this might be counted as enforcement) because its again easier to check - simply look to see if people are sentenced the same for the same crime.

Notice in my posts I am trying to focus first on situations where we can better control variables to see if some racial biases, ie racial privilege exists. I didn't just arbitrarily assume it exists or doesn't exist like the two sides. As with a lot of things, I find myself in the middle of both sides.

[Crown]

1. You side stepped my points about the muzzling of Australian doctors and humanitarian organizations by the Abbott government and the censorship of government scientist under Harper

Does not come under hate speech laws so not relevant to my point about being less free because of hate speech laws. Unless you're proposing some mechanism I can't see.

What are you blabbering on about? You just claimed that it would be a 'slippery slope fallacy' to claim that if you do not have a universal right to free speech and did ban such things like 'hate speech' then it would not mean that anything else will get banned. I just proved you were wrong, by citing two nations who do not have a universal guarantee to free speech banning things other than hate speech like whistleblowing on child molestations at government sponsored detention centres and self evident scientific facts. Are you high?

2. You missed the part where I clearly said the right to free speech isn't a right to repercussions of said free speech.

No I didn't. I just don't see how its relevant to my points about why you need a "right" to racially villify someone.

If you're referring to defamation laws with that statement, ie you interpret defamation laws as not a curb of free speech, but merely the "repercussions" of said free speech, then racial villification laws can also be seen in that light and then it just becomes a matter of what is considered a curb on free speech.

It depends where the said racial villification laws draw the line; For example the statement "I believe X race is bad for Y reasons" should face normal societal repercussions; mockery, ridicule, ostracism etc.

The statement "I'm going to shoot every X race I see tomorrow" should be met with a visit from the nice men with the red and blue lights and the metal hand bracelets, because it would be negligent for them not to take you seriously.

What about this is unclear? Why should there be a law for this?

[Ralin]

It depends where the said racial villification laws draw the line; For example the statement "I believe X race is bad for Y reasons" should face normal societal repercussions; mockery, ridicule, ostracism etc.

The statement "I'm going to shoot every X race I see tomorrow" should be met with a visit from the nice men with the red and blue lights and the metal hand bracelets, because it would be negligent for them not to take you seriously.

What about this is unclear? Why should there be a law for this?

I'm fairly sure hate speech laws are aimed more at statements like "I think people should shoot/mud stomp every member of X group they see for Y reasons."

[mr friendly guy]

What are you blabbering on about? You just claimed that it would be a 'slippery slope fallacy' to claim that if you do not have a universal right to free speech and did ban such things like 'hate speech' then it would not mean that anything else will get banned. I just proved you were wrong, by citing two nations who do not have a universal guarantee to free speech banning things other than hate speech like whistleblowing on child molestations at government sponsored detention centres and self evident scientific facts. Are you high?

Your argument is post hoc ergo prompter hoc, and a very looooong post hoc as well considering the Abbott government and the refugee crisis which prompted his action occurred in the 21st century while racial villification laws were around in 1975. Its even funnier when its conservatives who instituted those limitations of free speech you complain about. You know, usually the same guys who on principle always whine about racial vilification laws.

But lets play this game. Defamation restricts free speech does it not? After all I can't just say you're a terrorist if I am afraid of the legal consequences of you suing me. Do you therefore apply the same logic and consider defamation laws responsible for limiting free speech. After all, defamation laws existed in English legal systems since 1874.


Lets compare what you said to the definition of defamation.

"I believe X race is bad for Y reasons" which is ok under legal protection but not social ostracism and ridicule.

defamation definition for Australia

The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him.

Publication of defamatory matter can be by (a) spoken words or audible sound or (b) words intended to be read by sight or touch or (c) signs, signals, gestures or visible representations, and must be done to a person other than the person defamed.

Sounds like your example is instead of defaming one person, it defaces an entire race. Logically, what is applicable to actions against one person, should apply to actions against more people. Now before you try defending this, keep in mind I am merely pointing out under your logic, defamation laws have the same effect as racial vilification laws, and have been around longer. But I am willing to bet you will never ever attribute those examples of suppression to free speech to defamation. Why is that? Why do people whine about racial vilification laws limiting free speech but not defamation?

What about this is unclear? Why should there be a law for this?

Tell you what. I have a list of reasons to justify racial vilification laws, like say the Andrew Bolt example. I will gladly list them, as soon as you list your justification for why one needs a "right" to racially vilify someone.

BTW saying that law should be like x, is a description of what you want the law to be, not a justification for that "right," which the law protects.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is of course significant dispute as to the prevalence of unconscious bias, even among experts. For example, with respect to law enfrocement, we have this statementfrom the California Attorney General 9who, by virtue of her office, is an expert on such matters).

No she is not. The is an elected official who's ability to do her job relies on keeping the good will of the police.

She does not do research on unconscious bias in a scientific fashion. Those who have done that research, have found almost uniformly that such biases plague police forces and the population generally. In one rather elegant study, police made more false-positives when assigning weapon-carrying status to black men vs white men, and took less time making the decision to shoot based on that assessment.

It is really fucking obvious when you design a study like that.

[Kon_El]

Unless someone is being very disingenuous, it would generally be obvious which names are more likely to belong to white people and which are not. Just for the record I have seen people argue "what is a white sounding name anyway?" hur hur hur.

Cooter, Cleatus, Bubba, and Billy Bob are about as white as names can get. They are also stereotypically low class. I would love to see them used in one of these studies to control for that variable.

They have been. The effect size is smaller than it is for typically black names, and names that are generally considered low class and black are worse off than both.

link to source?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Cooter, Cleatus, Bubba, and Billy Bob are about as white as names can get. They are also stereotypically low class. I would love to see them used in one of these studies to control for that variable.

They have been. The effect size is smaller than it is for typically black names, and names that are generally considered low class and black are worse off than both.

link to source?

http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/4/1451.short

I might also have been synthesizing results across multiple studies. Here is a sample. Take Home: Racial discrimination exists independently of social class, hits people of color harder for highly skilled positions, with social class markers being more dependent on the position in terms of discrimination.

http://facultyhiring.uoregon.edu/files/ ... qymz6i.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... edMessage=

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 9/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915460/

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

[Crown]

What are you blabbering on about? You just claimed that it would be a 'slippery slope fallacy' to claim that if you do not have a universal right to free speech and did ban such things like 'hate speech' then it would not mean that anything else will get banned. I just proved you were wrong, by citing two nations who do not have a universal guarantee to free speech banning things other than hate speech like whistleblowing on child molestations at government sponsored detention centres and self evident scientific facts. Are you high?

Your argument is post hoc ergo prompter hoc, and a very looooong post hoc as well considering the Abbott government and the refugee crisis which prompted his action occurred in the 21st century while racial villification laws were around in 1975. Its even funnier when its conservatives who instituted those limitations of free speech you complain about. You know, usually the same guys who on principle always whine about racial vilification laws.

Wait, did you just frame this debate that providing evidence is considered a fallacy? Australia and Canada have no universal right to freedom of speech correct? You've claimed despite this lack of universal right, they haven't gone down a slippery slope of censorship while still having sensible hate speech laws. I respond by pointing out that Australia and Canada have also censored scientists, academics, doctors and humanitarians for reasons not relating to any of their hate speech laws. Further these censored people have no legal recourse to challenge this censorship because they have no universal right to free speech. We are talking about 2 highly advance nations, with amazing wealth a highly educated population and a long democratic history not some third world outlier here. And what difference does it matter when these laws were passed? A nation state exists unto-perpetuity; laws passed in its founding can have a myriad of unintended consequences later on, this isn't hypothesis of an imaginary slippery slope, it's an observable fact.

But lets play this game. Defamation restricts free speech does it not? After all I can't just say you're a terrorist if I am afraid of the legal consequences of you suing me. Do you therefore apply the same logic and consider defamation laws responsible for limiting free speech. After all, defamation laws existed in English legal systems since 1874.

No it doesn't restrict free speech. Defamation provides consequences to incorrect speech, which no adult in this conversation disagrees with. Sure both parties have a right to free speech, but an injured party also has a right for restitution if their character has been unfairly maligned.

Lets compare what you said to the definition of defamation.

"I believe X race is bad for Y reasons" which is ok under legal protection but not social ostracism and ridicule.

defamation definition for Australia

The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him.

Publication of defamatory matter can be by (a) spoken words or audible sound or (b) words intended to be read by sight or touch or (c) signs, signals, gestures or visible representations, and must be done to a person other than the person defamed.

Sounds like your example is instead of defaming one person, it defaces an entire race. Logically, what is applicable to actions against one person, should apply to actions against more people. Now before you try defending this, keep in mind I am merely pointing out under your logic, defamation laws have the same effect as racial vilification laws, and have been around longer. But I am willing to bet you will never ever attribute those examples of suppression to free speech to defamation. Why is that? Why do people whine about racial vilification laws limiting free speech but not defamation?

Black face can be a form of defamation. Wearing a cowboys and indians outfit can be form of defamation. Should we start passing dress code laws now?

What about this is unclear? Why should there be a law for this?

Tell you what. I have a list of reasons to justify racial vilification laws, like say the Andrew Bolt example. I will gladly list them, as soon as you list your justification for why one needs a "right" to racially vilify someone.

I love how you keep framing this as a 'right' to racially vilify someone so that I will blink; this isn't about the racists. This is about limiting as much as possible the levers of state power over its citizenry. If you allow censorship in one area, Pandora's box is open. You claimed that this isn't true in Australia, I've shown how it is true for both Canada and Australia and you've cried and sulked.

BTW saying that law should be like x, is a description of what you want the law to be, not a justification for that "right," which the law protects.

I wasn't saying what a law should be like, I was asking you a direct question as why there should be a law for something which can already be adequately dealt with under the current legal frame work. The punctuation identifier known as the question mark; "?" should have made that obvious.

[mr friendly guy]

Wait, did you just frame this debate that providing evidence is considered a fallacy?

No. Well that was difficult. I thought I had to actually work for that riposte. Wait, do you know what post hoc ergo prompter hoc means right? If you don't I am happy to explain. Just don't insult my intelligence pretending you understand it. Oh wait.

Australia and Canada have no universal right to freedom of speech correct?

Nor does any country which has defamation laws, although I will take this to below since you seem to have a different idea on what "restricting free speech means."

You've claimed despite this lack of universal right, they haven't gone down a slippery slope of censorship while still having sensible hate speech laws. I respond by pointing out that Australia and Canada have also censored scientists, academics, doctors and humanitarians for reasons not relating to any of their hate speech laws.

You do realise slippery slope takes the form of x leads to y, which IMPLIES X causes y right? You have not show how it causes y, you have just stated it causes it. Do you realise the difference? This is why buddy, your argument is a case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Further these censored people have no legal recourse to challenge this censorship because they have no universal right to free speech. We are talking about 2 highly advance nations, with amazing wealth a highly educated population and a long democratic history not some third world outlier here. And what difference does it matter when these laws were passed?

Still waiting for you to show how hate speech laws lead to the others.

A nation state exists unto-perpetuity; laws passed in its founding can have a myriad of unintended consequences later on, this isn't hypothesis of an imaginary slippery slope, it's an observable fact.

Yet strangely you have not shown how it leads to the other. I am willing to bet the Abbott government didn't go, "well since we have hate speech laws we may as well censor things we don't like, just like the Lefties."

No it doesn't restrict free speech. Defamation provides consequences to incorrect speech, which no adult in this conversation disagrees with. Sure both parties have a right to free speech, but an injured party also has a right for restitution if their character has been unfairly maligned.

You do realise that in the case of Andrew Bolt he was also sued by the injured party right? By injured party I don't mean the government. Meaning under your criteria, hate speech laws (at least in Australia) don't limit free speech since it merely "provides consequences" to incorrect speech. In which case, how does hate speech lead to suppression of free speech under your own criteria since it behaves like defamation, which you have stated does not restrict free speech.

Black face can be a form of defamation. Wearing a cowboys and indians outfit can be form of defamation. Should we start passing dress code laws now?

This addresses the point how exactly? Just to remind you, the point was that "defamation applies to an individual, hate speech applies to an entire group, why is one ok and not the other." Oh wait, slippery slopes are cheap these days I see.

I love how you keep framing this as a 'right' to racially vilify someone so that I will blink; this isn't about the racists. This is about limiting as much as possible the levers of state power over its citizenry.

This then begs the question, at what point should state power be limited and how to you adjudge its more desirable, than say one where the state has less power or more power. And at the end of the day, we still come back to the point about the right to villify someone. Why is the state's ability to limit racist behaviour outweighed by the right to be racist?

If you allow censorship in one area, Pandora's box is open. You claimed that this isn't true in Australia, I've shown how it is true for both Canada and Australia and you've cried and sulked.

See above section on defamation and post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

I wasn't saying what a law should be like, I was asking you a direct question as why there should be a law for something which can already be adequately dealt with under the current legal frame work. The punctuation identifier known as the question mark; "?" should have made that obvious.

So in response to a question about why you want a right to vilify someone, your answer is, well we can deal with it anyway. Which by implication is that its undesirable to vilify someone. Yes?

Ok then, in other words, your question is a variation of the age old question, "if its not broke, why fix it?" Hmm. Let me think about that one. Oh I know, how about, to upgrade it or to make it better. And I dare say having Andrew Bolt sued was damn site better than just social ostracising, when you know, lots of dipshits support racists. Which of courses cast doubt on the suggestion that it can deal with "adequately" under the existing framework. At least next time he says something which could be construed as racist, he would damn well make sure its actually truthful (a reason why he lost his case), and having truth instead of lies spoken certainly strengthens a democracy. So yeah, thats a plus.

[Crown]

No. Well that was difficult. I thought I had to actually work for that riposte. Wait, do you know what post hoc ergo prompter hoc means right? If you don't I am happy to explain. Just don't insult my intelligence pretending you understand it. Oh wait.

Oh this is cute. I like you.

Nor does any country which has defamation laws, although I will take this to below since you seem to have a different idea on what "restricting free speech means."

You do realise slippery slope takes the form of x leads to y, which IMPLIES X causes y right? You have not show how it causes y, you have just stated it causes it. Do you realise the difference? This is why buddy, your argument is a case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Still waiting for you to show how hate speech laws lead to the others.

Yet strangely you have not shown how it leads to the other. I am willing to bet the Abbott government didn't go, "well since we have hate speech laws we may as well censor things we don't like, just like the Lefties."

Are you fundamentally retarded? I'm not arguing that "the existence of hate speech laws will lead to censorship of child molestation whistle blowers because that's the logical progression" no matter how many times you try and phrase it that way.

What I am arguing is that a fundamental lack of a guarantee of free speech means that there is nothing to hinder censorship laws which have nothing to do with racial discrimination laws, which I've show have been put in place in Australia and Canada. Which is demonstrably true.

No it doesn't restrict free speech. Defamation provides consequences to incorrect speech, which no adult in this conversation disagrees with. Sure both parties have a right to free speech, but an injured party also has a right for restitution if their character has been unfairly maligned.

You do realise that in the case of Andrew Bolt he was also sued by the injured party right? By injured party I don't mean the government. Meaning under your criteria, hate speech laws (at least in Australia) don't limit free speech since it merely "provides consequences" to incorrect speech. In which case, how does hate speech lead to suppression of free speech under your own criteria since it behaves like defamation, which you have stated does not restrict free speech.

No I don't realise that, because I have no idea what you're talking about! Listen you jumped up Don Quixote this whole exchange started with you being snarky about the 'claim' that Australia was 'less free' because we had hate speech laws. I pointed out that from any way you look at it, this is true (when coupled with our lack of guarantee for free speech), further I pointed out that I'm not opposed to criminal prosecution for speech (defamation, threats of violence, etc) because the right to free speech should not insulate you from the consequences of said free speech. All I said was that the lack of said right fundamentally poses a threat to an individuals freedom by the whim of the state.

As for the rest, pizza's here so maybe I'll get to it, maybe I won't. I lose interest in duelling with intelligent people purposefully ignoring shit I type just to get a rise.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh this is cute. I like you.

So you don't know what post hoc ergo prompter hoc means. What a shocker. Its latin by the way.

Are you fundamentally retarded? I'm not arguing that "the existence of hate speech laws will lead to censorship of child molestation whistle blowers because that's the logical progression" no matter how many times you try and phrase it that way.

No you're are arguing that it will allow someone else to get away with a different form of censorship. You still haven't shown how this leads to that, especially when hate speech laws prevent certain criticisms in one area, and has nothing to say about criticisms in an unrelated area. Oh that's right, slippery slope for the win.

What I am arguing is that a fundamental lack of a guarantee of free speech means that there is nothing to hinder censorship laws which have nothing to do with racial discrimination laws, which I've show have been put in place in Australia and Canada. Which is demonstrably true.

Law : Guarantee free speech except for x,y and z

Government : Now we can censor a,b and c

Me : Er how do you justify that? Only x,y and z is affected under the law, not a,b and c.

You : Are you fucking retarded. See, the government is trying to censor a,b and c.

Me : Yeah, but not because of the law affecting x,y and z. In other words, they would try it anyway, because you know, no government without hate speech laws will ever try to censor things. I mean, is the government using said law, or a different law to affect a,b,c.

You : Well there is a link, because the only way to guarantee free speech on a,b and c, is to also guarantee free speech to everything including x,y and z.

Me : Why?

You : Reasons.

No I don't realise that, because I have no idea what you're talking about!

If you are going to criticise me for praising Australia's hate speech laws, it behooves you to, I don't know, know a little bit about said hate speech laws. Yeah I know, mighty inconvenient isn't it?

Now I am far from an expert, and I certainly don't know everything about said laws, but Andrew Bolt's case was a recent high profile example of the law in action and was debated a lot.

Listen you jumped up Don Quixote this whole exchange started with you being snarky about the 'claim' that Australia was 'less free' because we had hate speech laws.

Which was on youtube channels I subscribe to talking about the issue. I do think the students here have done some retarded shit and I pointed it out. However I think some of their critics swing too far the oppsoite direction, although ideologically, I lie way closer to them than the SJWs.

I find all too often one side using a false dichotomy, either we have free speech for everything, or it will eventually have not all, which I supposed is the "snarky" part you interpreted. All things in regards to speech lie a spectrum. That is the SJWs lie on closer to one extreme, and certain free speech advocates lie closer to the other extreme.

Now some countries like Australia and various European countries lie closer to the US compared to the SJWs, but not on the exact same spot, and this is where I lie. Since free speech lies on a spectrum, its not helpful to argue this in terms of false dichotomies - either you have free speech for everything, or none at all, and then call everyone else "less free" as a perjorative. Its more useful to point out where you lie on the spectrum, and then justify why your position is superior to another person's.

Since you talk about the state putting power on its citizenry in regards to free speech, I will point out that we accept it does so all the time for certain things. For example if a state didn't have the power to sentence convicted criminals, it would be undesirable to society. We wouldn't bat an eyelid on this particular case of the state putting power on its citizens, because we consider the outcome overall to be desirable. Saying we must have the state minimise what power it can exert on its citizenship in and off itself without considering pros and cons strikes me as dogmatic.

I pointed out that from any way you look at it, this is true (when coupled with our lack of guarantee for free speech), further I pointed out that I'm not opposed to criminal prosecution for speech (defamation, threats of violence, etc) because the right to free speech should not insulate you from the consequences of said free speech. All I said was that the lack of said right fundamentally poses a threat to an individuals freedom by the whim of the state.

See above.

As for the rest, pizza's here so maybe I'll get to it, maybe I won't. I lose interest in duelling with intelligent people purposefully ignoring shit I type just to get a rise.

If you're going to accuse me of trolling, report me then. Otherwise either debate in good faith or quit.