The right to offend and the right to be offended

a reply to: DBCowboy

So free speech is bad, but civil speech is good.

The problem arises when someone gets to define civil speech, I suppose.

Exactly right. I cannot think of a single person throughout the history of the world with the credibility to pick and choose what speech is acceptable or not.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If it is not the words making them do it, what do your examples have to do with anything I am talking about?

Thinking that words don't play a part is incorrect how? I never said words do not play a part, Mr. Strawman.

You often imply that people are acting on words alone. You seem to apply the argument in situations where it does not apply which makes it a straw man.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So free speech is bad, but civil speech is good.

I think it is safe to say that some people think that way.

The problem arises when someone gets to define civil speech, I suppose.

Hasn't it always been that way?

a reply to: daskakik

You often imply that people are acting on words alone. You seem to apply the argument in situations where it does not apply which makes it a straw man.

A straw-man is when you misrepresent someone else's argument.

originally posted by: daskakik


Hasn't it always been that way?

I suppose free speech is a fairly new concept.

Freedom is a fairly new concept.

Perhaps this is why advocates for free speech are often disregarded.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Correct, like saying that people are only reacting to words and that that could only be possible if words were magic so only superstitious people would believe that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It isn't new but it also doesn't work in the real world like it does on paper.

a reply to: daskakik

Correct, like saying that people are only reacting to words and that that could only be possible if words were magic so only superstitious people would believe that.

Except no one said that. Strawman.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

It isn't new but it also doesn't work in the real world like it does on paper.

That's because in the real world, if you want to be totally honest, people don't want free speech.

I have terminology problem with 'free speech'. You mean the ability to talk? make sentences? As far as I know it is kinda earned.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

It isn't new but it also doesn't work in the real world like it does on paper.

That's because in the real world, if you want to be totally honest, people don't want free speech.

which people? speaker? hmm. makes sense,too.

Lol. i hope it worthed i watched this absolutely freaking video


hahaha! somebody says to the video "I'm a grown man and I want to yell for my mommy."

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually, you do it often.

Quite noticeable in threads about Trump saying stuff. People react to the POTUS having the power to enact things that will affect them and you say (even made a thread) about them just being words and that he never did anything personally to these people.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That's because in the real world, if you want to be totally honest, people don't want free speech.

It is rare indeed. A lot of the push-back nowadays has to do with the assumption that speech can incite emotions, such as hatred. It is a relic of World War 2 that still lives and breathes in modern laws.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Of course not. People want to be able to take things past the burn battle level.

a reply to: daskakik

Actually, you do it often.

Quite noticeable in threads about Trump saying stuff. People react to the POTUS having the power to enact things that will affect them and you say (even made a thread) about them just being words and that he never did anything personally to these people.

I'm still unsure what this has to do with anything, and your track-record of understanding what a strawman is is less than accurate.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know what a straw man is, a perfect example is you saying that people are just reacting to words as a way to knock down their arguments by saying that words have no power.

In the thread you made about "The Unjustified Hatred of Donald Trump" you did just that and it is the example that I presented here, which you are playing dumb about.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: HeathenJessie

OK, I'm talking about picking on the fat kid like they do in the book Blubber by Judy Blume. Surely if you are near to my age, you must have read it growing up if you are a girl.

The narrator is barely hanging on to the "in crowd" which decides to go after one girl who is moderately chubby, and the narrator goes along until the game goes too far and she resists. Then suddenly she's on the outs and the chubby chick is "in" and the narrator learns how quickly the worm can turn and who her real friends are.

None of it has to do with simply giving health advice to the fat kid, but these days, even that is considered bullying and hateful -- fat shaming.

Nah, I've never read that book.

Comics were what I read as a kid. I remember comics like the beano which actually had characters called fatty...spotty, and even a guy called Plug who was always being called the ugly kid.

Most of the books I've read were violent in nature - a clockwork orange, books by Mario Puzo and Nicholas Pileggi, Aerican Psycho, anything by Irvine Welsh, yeah I'm a dude innit.

That book you mentioned sounds more like something my auntie or sister might enjoy.

a reply to: daskakik

I know what a straw man is, a perfect example is you saying that people are just reacting to words as a way to knock down their arguments by saying that words have no power.

I have never stated people are reacting to words. In fact I argue the exact opposite.

In the tread that you mention, I argued it was the suppression or censorship of contrary evidence that lead to the unjustified hatred of Donald Trump. Straw man.

In fact one of the best books I've ever read, read it multiple times, is Filth by Irvine Welsh.

I can see people nowadays reading that book and being offended. The main protagonist is everything the modern SJW hates - an absolute mysogynistic bigot.

But it's a great book because of that, same with American psycho. These books wouldn't work if they weren't deliberately offensive. you don't need to agree with the views of the characters but no prisoners are taken.

Same with shows like South Park... if they tried to launch a show like that now there'd probably be death threats issues, thankfully SP is well established and loved enough that it will withstand most scrutiny.

The world would be bland without these challenging titles. Filth is a book that more than lives up t its title but it's a page turner, worst thing about filth is that it comes to an end.

a reply to: HeathenJessie

People are offended by Huckleberry Fin or The Great Gatsby, and there are (or were) campaigns to get them banned in schools. What a travesty.