Comment by kubb
13 days ago
What does the freedom to spew hate anonymously get you? You just create a less free world for everyone else by doing that.
Freedom for me is the ability to live a good life, and be happy, not harass people.
13 days ago
What does the freedom to spew hate anonymously get you? You just create a less free world for everyone else by doing that.
Freedom for me is the ability to live a good life, and be happy, not harass people.
Because what is right and wrong can be subjective, I could argue that if you said Strawberry is better than Kiwi, that's hate, and suddenly you find yourself on the wrong side of it.
Don't dare say anything with the remotest chance of being controversial or that could have a hint of upsetting someone, don't even think about expressing an opinion that someone might not agree with.
The problem in your ideal digital world isn't that the bad abuse the freedom they have now, it's that the bad will also abuse the lack of freedom everyone else will have then, and suddenly everyone with no ill intent is on the wrong side of the enforcement.
The comment you just replied to would probably find itself on the receiving end of it because of the wording and tone.
Sure, people are being put jail for saying kiwis are better than mangoes. This is an accurate description of what is going on.
>>kiwis are better than mangoes
With that exact sentence, you could be labeled a racist because I know the code you're using. What YOU really mean is that New Zealanders are better than South Asians.
See the problem?
4 replies →
It's exactly the kind of madness that's going on in the UK.
1 reply →
What is hate? Who gets to decide? What if someone decides that what you're saying is hate?
The society decides. We know that speech can have disastrous consequences.
We have laws that have been carefully written and refined to counteract that.
Simplified: Hate speech = attacking or demeaning a group for who they are (e.g. race, religion, gender).
I've been told that my rainbow flag lapel pin is anti-Christian hate. This opinion seems to be gaining in popularity. If society decides this is the case, which some elements of society are currently making a concerted effort to see through with dozens of bills across dozens of states, is it incumbent upon me to accept it?
Right now in Europe there are people arguing that it's fundamental to the nature of Islam that adherents hate anyone who is not Islamic. They can cite Quran saying some pretty horrendous stuff about non-believers, that they need to be killed in a holy war and things like that. Is it within the bounds of society to decide that being Islamic is ipso facto a hate crime?
"Hate speech" is an excuse to attack people that are not conforming with state/government opinion. It is basically the modern version of "someone has to think of the children". And it is played through conservative, family-value people, like you seem to be.
That’s just false. Hate speech is (simplifying) when you blame a group of people for everything that is bad in the world, and the only thing that group can do to appease you is to cease to exist.
You know like the Nazis and the Jews.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-...
>>public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)
1 reply →
Godwin's law... But to stay a little more serious: I get your point of view. The question is, is it a good idea to give up anonymity for everyone to fight the nazis? Should we give up our freedom to fight terrorism?
1 reply →
This isn't as good of an example as you think it is. There are crazy communists out there that routinely associate criticism of the existing banking institutions with antisemitism.
By this logic we are no longer allowed to reform banking no matter how flawed it is, even if the flaws of the banking system give rise to actual antisemitism due to unaddressed economic dysfunction. Dysfunction that the banking critics point out and which they claim has more to do with how those institutions are structured and what policies they have enacted than the people inhabiting or benefiting from them.
Dumber yet. There are even more extreme offshoots of communism where simply criticizing capitalism without being a communist means you are a fascist or nazi. It's pretty clear to me that those communists believe they have a monopoly on criticizing capitalism and if you gave them enough power, they'd enforce that monopoly on everyone.
Even dumber. The moment their communist utopia fails, they will start looking for "capitalist" scapegoats rather than fix their institutions according to the non-communist criticism and commit exactly the crimes they projected onto you, which you never had the intention of ever doing, because you actually are somewhat of a pacifist and genuinely believe that your policies and institutions are inclusive to all and work without the need for scapegoats or enforcement through violence.