It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The right to offend and the right to be offended

page: 16
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Outside of legal context it's about propaganda, false advertisements and scary statistics. Nothing at all to do with the fear of being sued. So it still doesn't apply here. Sorry.
And no I do not read only the first sentence.


Fear of being sued? I brought it up in the context of self-censorship. You asked: "Who is forcing you?", and I linked to the chilling effects. I'm sorry, but it does apply.




posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So emotions are physical and being emotionally "susceptible to hurtful language" is physical but words making people feel emotions is not physical?

That doesn't seem to make much sense.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So the fear of saying the wrong things is equal to being forced to self-censor? Besides you're the one who claimed that words have no effect on people unless they decided they do.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




So emotions are physical and being emotionally "susceptible to hurtful language" is physical but words making people feel emotions is not physical?

That doesn't seem to make much sense.


You're the only one spouting such nonsense, and then you're pretending it was me who typed it out.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




So the fear of saying the wrong things is equal to being forced to self-censor? Besides you're the one who claimed that words have no effect on people unless they decided they do.


Yes, coercion and threat and fear of retaliation can be used to force others to self-censor.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Yes, coercion and threat and fear of retaliation can be used to force others to self-censor.

Yes I know. I never claimed otherwise. Actually it would be more of an intimidation, not force.
A good example would be the Muhammad drawing contests. If you give in to the fear then they have won. Again, it is a choice.
Another good example would be shouting the N word in a bad area in Chicago.


edit on 4/11/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm just reposting what you posted.


Articulated sounds and scratches on paper are unable to affect anything more than the medium they are printed on.


and


Emotions are quite physical.


as a reply to

Being "susceptible to hurtful language" doesn't mean physical affection to this listener.


Those are the three things I reworded in that post.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Yes I know. I never claimed otherwise.
A good example would be the Muhammad drawing contests. If you give in to the fear then they have won. Again, it is a choice.
Another good example would be shouting the N word in a bad area in Chicago.


Maybe I don't understand your point then. Even a robbery victim giving his money to avoid being killed is a choice. When we speak of force we don't mean he is controlling his body through magic or something; we mean coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence, as defined by the dictionary.
edit on 11-4-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Physical affection? Keep your emotions to yourself. After all your posts I still do not understand your point.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can get behind the notion you're expressing, but at the same time I'm not sure I fully agree with it. I don't want the government silencing me, and I even think it's wrong if I'm using a corporate platform and they silence me. On the other hand, I have a real problem with people like Alex Jones or Planet X'ers who deliberately make things up, sell lies, and essentially profit off of weakening the mental competency of the population.

We have laws on most products that require them to not be harmful, there is an expectation by society that the meat they buy isn't rat burgers, their electronics aren't going to explode, and their tap water isn't going to give them lead poisoning. When the systems in place fail and these things happen, there are major scandals, people lose jobs, companies go out of business, and the courts compensate people.

Does it not make sense, that we apply a similar filter to products that are based on speech? Does free trade mean we can put radioactive material in pillows and market them as high energy? Does free speech mean we should be able to tell people reptilian shapeshifters have secretly taken over the planet, and the only defense is to buy 30 years of food dehydrated food?
edit on 11-4-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Physical affection? Keep your emotions to yourself.

Affection: the action of affecting; the state of being affected


After all your posts I still do not understand your point.

Tyranny of the listener.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

affection |əˈfekSH(ə)n|
noun
1 a gentle feeling of fondness or liking: she felt affection for the wise old lady | he won a place in her affections.
• physical expressions of affection: the prisoners crave affection and hence participate in sexual relationships.
2 archaic the act or process of affecting or being affected.
• a condition of disease: an affection of the skin.
• a mental state; an emotion.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is about suppression of free speech. I asked a poster to tell me who is forcing him to be 'civil' and you mentioned "chilling effect" which doesn't show anything then you bring up the fear of retaliation and that still doesn't show that they are being forced to self-censor. That's a decision they make. You're the one who said that words have no power on people.
So again NO ONE is forcing anyone to be civil here in the USA. If you want to talk about countries such as North Korea then I am game.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes the bit right after the number 2. " archaic the act or process of affecting or being affected."

Funny how it says the same thing (not verbatim) that I posted but still you felt the need to post it again as if there was a difference.

I get the feeling that you might inadvertently do that in a lot of your posting.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"It's reasonable to expect limitations in our freedom of speech."


Who get's to define the limitations?


I would say that once you monetize it, it needs to fall under the same rules as any other product, as being generally non harmful... or contain numerous warning labels and disclaimers that it is such.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




This is about suppression of free speech. I asked a poster to tell me who is forcing him to be 'civil' and you mentioned "chilling effect" which doesn't show anything then you bring up the fear of retaliation and that still doesn't show that they are being forced to self-censor. That's a decision they make. You're the one who said that words have no power on people.
So again NO ONE is forcing anyone to be civil here in the USA. If you want to talk about countries such as North Korea then I am game.


Sure they are not forcing anyone to be civil, but being forced to self-censor for fear of retaliation, ostracism, threat, etc. is quite common.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Yes the bit right after the number 2. " archaic the act or process of affecting or being affected."

Funny how it says the same thing (not verbatim) that I posted but still you felt the need to post it again as if there was a difference.

I get the feeling that you might inadvertently do that in a lot of your posting.



You "get the feeling", "it seems"... If all you want to talk about is your feelings, we won't get anywhere. I still do not know what your point or gripe is, and you are at least 20 posts in.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again it's a choice to give into the fear. I know it's quite common especially with the gay people and battered women but that's more psychological.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Again it's a choice to give into the fear. I know it's quite common especially with the gay people and battered women but that's more psychological.


It's quite a broad point that avoids the entire issue, but sure.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I guess I am missing your point and your "issue".




top topics



 
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join