Location: The Name Of The Game Is Hockey, ON Joined: 02.28.2011
Jan 2 @ 10:46 AM ET
Yesterday’s discussion but what the (frank). Pure “freedom of speech” is constrained all the time, yelling fire in a theatre, hate speech laws are examples where government places such limits. In each situation, the cost of constraining freedom of speech is considered to be less harmful than that of allowing the speech. Governments elected by all of us debated and voted on those decisions.
Similarly, private corporations are free to decide that they don’t want to provide a platform to someone whose views they find either morally or commercially repugnant.
Finally, it’s not just bad opinions floating around that are causing problems. We’re also living in a world driven by misinformation, much of it driven by fringe types like Alex Jones but increasingly by more mainstream players like Fox and Trump. It’s hard to debate people who are, for example, are still convinced that the election was stolen. There are a large percentage of the 74 million Trump voters who resemble UG, Max, Kaptaan, etc who are not really open to debate. - Canada Cup
This is the key distinction for me. Facebook et al can ban Jones, as long as the government doesn't. (Facebook's business model should be stopped but that's another story, that's the disinformation piece).
Personally I'd like to see hate speech laws repealed. If some maniac wants to deny the Holocaust or whatever, he should be able to. I don't have to listen or agree.
Location: “Give me Point, Cirelli and Paul all day against anybody.” Mr. Cooper , ON Joined: 07.06.2007
Jan 2 @ 10:48 AM ET
Jumbo is really slow. Thats not going to play out well in a shortened season when every game matters.
Defence you can be a little slower as long as youre in position. but theres a limit to it - Arctic_AARDVARK
He's always been slow and I'll wait and see what his line looks like and how great the 3rd or 4th lines he'll be up against before I panic but i respect you getting an early start on the panic
Location: Everybody calm down, AB Joined: 07.24.2011
Jan 2 @ 10:52 AM ET
This is the key distinction for me. Facebook et al can ban Jones, as long as the government doesn't. (Facebook's business model should be stopped but that's another story, that's the disinformation piece).
Personally I'd like to see hate speech laws repealed. If some maniac wants to deny the Holocaust or whatever, he should be able to. I don't have to listen or agree.
In any case, the truth will always come out. - Zezel
If you allow hate to fester, it'll grow to a level where you cant put that genie back in the bottle. Good for you for having a moral conscience though.
Like Cupsie said, you cant use education to battle misinformation anymore. Once someone becomes indoctrinated, theres pretty much no changing them. All those crazy people getting Proud Boys tattoo arent going to wake up one day and realize they're wrong, they're going to commit violence and become so radicalized that they'll start killing.
Nazi's had free speech, 60+ million people died as a result of that.
Location: “Give me Point, Cirelli and Paul all day against anybody.” Mr. Cooper , ON Joined: 07.06.2007
Jan 2 @ 10:54 AM ET
This is the key distinction for me. Facebook et al can ban Jones, as long as the government doesn't. (Facebook's business model should be stopped but that's another story, that's the disinformation piece).
Personally I'd like to see hate speech laws repealed. If some maniac wants to deny the Holocaust or whatever, he should be able to. I don't have to listen or agree.
In any case, the truth will always come out. - Zezel
If there wan't a link between hate speech and racial violence, I might agree.
Location: Pretentious Beer Snob, ON Joined: 06.22.2015
Jan 2 @ 11:01 AM ET
Yesterday’s discussion but what the (frank). Pure “freedom of speech” is constrained all the time, yelling fire in a theatre, hate speech laws are examples where government places such limits. In each situation, the cost of constraining freedom of speech is considered to be less harmful than that of allowing the speech. Governments elected by all of us debated and voted on those decisions.
Similarly, private corporations are free to decide that they don’t want to provide a platform to someone whose views they find either morally or commercially repugnant.
Finally, it’s not just bad opinions floating around that are causing problems. We’re also living in a world driven by misinformation, much of it driven by fringe types like Alex Jones but increasingly by more mainstream players like Fox and Trump. It’s hard to debate people who are, for example, are still convinced that the election was stolen. There are a large percentage of the 74 million Trump voters who resemble UG, Max, Kaptaan, etc who are not really open to debate. - Canada Cup
I'm not seeing anything in here resembling an argument but rather I see apologetics that seek to provide governments and corporations (who control the flow of information and thus, seek to shape discourse) the power to decide what is considered "hate speech" and what should or should not be cancelled.
A few quick hits:
- Just because some governments have decided to cower behind "hate speech" laws to "protect" its citizens doesn't make the philosophy behind those decisions necessarily right
- "It's hard to debate" is not an argument.
- The solution to misinformation by cancelling its ability to be in the sunlight of the mainstream is not a solution at all but rather a road towards creating an ever-growing, unchecked dark underbelly of society
I'll offer this speech, by Christopher Hitchens at UofT in 2006, as a final word on the matter. You'll want to take note of the bit on "fire in a theatre" which provides the true context of that very phrase.
I'm not seeing anything in here resembling an argument but rather I see apologetics that seek to provide governments and corporations (who control the flow of information and thus, seek to shape discourse) the power to decide what is considered "hate speech" and what should or should not be cancelled.
A few quick hits:
- Just because some governments have decided to cower behind "hate speech" laws to "protect" its citizens doesn't make the philosophy behind those decisions necessarily right
- "It's hard to debate" is not an argument.
- The solution to misinformation by cancelling its ability to be in the sunlight of the mainstream is not a solution at all but rather a road towards creating an ever-growing, unchecked dark underbelly of society
I'll offer this speech, by Christopher Hitchens at UofT in 2006, as a final word on the matter. You'll want to take note of the bit on "fire in a theatre" which provides the true context of that very phrase.
Location: Everybody calm down, AB Joined: 07.24.2011
Jan 2 @ 11:20 AM ET
I'm not seeing anything in here resembling an argument but rather I see apologetics that seek to provide governments and corporations (who control the flow of information and thus, seek to shape discourse) the power to decide what is considered "hate speech" and what should or should not be cancelled.
A few quick hits:
- Just because some governments have decided to cower behind "hate speech" laws to "protect" its citizens doesn't make the philosophy behind those decisions necessarily right
- "It's hard to debate" is not an argument.
- The solution to misinformation by cancelling its ability to be in the sunlight of the mainstream is not a solution at all but rather a road towards creating an ever-growing, unchecked dark underbelly of society
I'll offer this speech, by Christopher Hitchens at UofT in 2006, as a final word on the matter. You'll want to take note of the bit on "fire in a theatre" which provides the true context of that very phrase. - mjones242
I respect your opinion on all of this.
I just happen to believe that mainstreaming the "dark underbelly" in todays world of misinformation will only embolden the movement. Everything that could've been debated already has, theres nothing left to talk about. On Jan 6th fascists are going to march through the streets and commit violence w/o consequence. Law enforcement are doing little to protect the public. You aren't going to win against the far-right media outlets with speeches at universities. We've seen what happens when fasicst go unchecked, it'll keep getting worse.
I'm not seeing anything in here resembling an argument but rather I see apologetics that seek to provide governments and corporations (who control the flow of information and thus, seek to shape discourse) the power to decide what is considered "hate speech" and what should or should not be cancelled.
A few quick hits:
- Just because some governments have decided to cower behind "hate speech" laws to "protect" its citizens doesn't make the philosophy behind those decisions necessarily right
- "It's hard to debate" is not an argument.
- The solution to misinformation by cancelling its ability to be in the sunlight of the mainstream is not a solution at all but rather a road towards creating an ever-growing, unchecked dark underbelly of society
I'll offer this speech, by Christopher Hitchens at UofT in 2006, as a final word on the matter. You'll want to take note of the bit on "fire in a theatre" which provides the true context of that very phrase.
Location: Burkie's Rented Barn, ON Joined: 02.12.2013
Jan 2 @ 11:24 AM ET
I'm not saying Alex Jones shouldn't be able to have his own podcast. What I object to is someone like Joe Rogan giving him a much wider platform to spew his hatred. I don't buy the argument that Rogan is motivated by outing Jones, exposing his lies, etc. Rogan is motivated by ratings, and having people talk about him, like we are here. Everyone already knows who and what Alex Jones is.
