Apparently Riot has some problem with women: nasty behind-the-scenes stuff
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This right here. This is the problem, you do not see problems so you assume they just do not exist and refuse to see the problems when pointed out to you.Kerg3927 said:
Homelessness is a rampant issue for LGBT youth who constantly get kicked out of their homes and are denied work.
Yes, you dont see problems and think I am making things up. That is YOUR failing.
I thought it was kinda funny. The fact that it was so bad was what made it funny. It's like, no he did not just joke about that, did he??? OMFG. And I think he should have to face the consequences of receiving hate mail and comments on his youtube page from those he offended. And those people sending him hate mail and making those comments should be free to say whatever they want to him. But a criminal offense? No. Back before people started losing their minds, that used to simply be called satire or a tasteless joke.CaitSeith said:
I don't know anything about UKIP or British politics, but as Hawki said, he didn't join the Nazi party or become a skinhead, did he? According to wikipedia, UKIP has actual elected members in Parliament. They are obviously conservative, but I doubt they have "gas the Jews" as part of their platform if they actually get people to vote for them. And if they oppose this ridiculous hate speech law, at least they are on the correct side of one issue.Saelune said:
You are hooked up to a lie detector test. If you fail, you have to pay that guy's fine, and the whole world will know you lied. You're asked, "Do you really, truly believe that he is a Nazi and wants Jews sent to gas chambers?" How do you answer?
I did not know that. I just looked it up. I saw one UCLA study that said it was 40% of homeless youth, so if that's accurate it's 4 times as high as the national 10% of the population. Probably shouldn't be all that surprising, considering it's already a confusing and rebellious age. I would guess that a lot of them are runaways looking for other people like themselves. Sad.Saelune said:
But still, that's not what you said. You said, "... LGBT people tend to be poor." Like the majority of ALL LGBT people. I've never heard that. And googling around, it looks like it's just not true. Yeah, the poverty rate is a little higher than for heterosexuals [http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/lgbt.aspx] (29% vs. 21% for women, and 20% vs. 15% for men), but it's not 50%+. And you said the same thing about women, which is just ridiculous.
You say my problem is ignorance. I'd say your problem is that you exaggerate, which hurts your credibility.
Pretty much. Most of what I know of UKIP is again from recent headlines (because of Nigel Farange pushing Brexit) and Wikipedia - right now their main stance is anti-immigration and pro-Brexit. Neither of these platforms are inherently racist. They're platforms that could certainly attract racists, but that doesn't make the party itself racist or national socialist.Kerg3927 said:
TBH, I really hate it when the term "Nazi" is thrown around. Not only does it unjustly tar people who aren't Nazis, but it trivializes the threat that actual Nazis represent.
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/03/uk-far-right-terrorism-national-action/
I'll also be clear that both sides of the political spectrum have elements of this - some people on the right throw around terms like "socialist," "communist" or "Marxist" to anyone on the left without clear understanding of what these terms actually mean.
It doesn't matter so much whether two members of the public disagree on how "hate speech" is defined.Kerg3927 said:
What matters is the legal definition of "hate speech" as per written statute and subsequent judicial precedence. Hate speech is already illegal in many countries, and yet overwhelmingly in those places you can hurl a load of abuse into someone's face and no-one will arrest you for it.
The rationale for hate laws (even if not specifically hate speech) are fairly well developed; if you're in the USA, SCOTUS has long since ruled on them, and you can find and read their justifications at your leisure.
Super, succinct... pity it's not quite so.
They don't directly, physically hurt, of course. But they can cause mental distress and/or induce harm to be carried out.
If the speech induces actual harm to be carried out, say inciting a riot where people are injured or causing a person to commit suicide, and the causal effect can be proven, I don't think it's necessarily protected in the U.S.Agema said:
The problem I see is the mental distress part. It's very difficult to quantify that kind harm. So it basically boils down to the word of the offended. People can be offended or claim to be offended by pretty much anything. People lie and exaggerate. And the accused has little recourse to defend himself from such accusations.
I think it's always best to err on the side of protecting free speech. It's most important law we have. More important than anyone's right to not be offended.
I figured out how bullshit that saying was back in high school. Harassment is a major thing, verbal bullying is a thing, words will never hurt me? Physically yes. Mentally? No. I'm sorry, but you seem to be taking the approach of "this was never a problem for me, therefore it shouldn't be a problem to anyone else." But please tell me how the bullying that made my life in high school hell wasn't that bad because someone wasn't cracking my head open with sticks and stones.Kerg3927 said:
I was bullied pretty badly in junior high, too. So I understand that. Kids can be brutal to each other. It can be like Lord of the Flies. And it's not like a kid can decide not to go to that school, so he can't just completely avoid the situation. I think anti-bullying measures are a good thing to have in schools.erttheking said:
But I think once a person matures and becomes an adult, figures out his own views of the world, develops confidence, and obtains mobility and the freedom to avoid undesirable people, then yes, the "sticks and stones" mantra is pretty much true. They're just words. If someone says something that you don't agree with or that offends you, why would you let it bother you? It makes no sense to do so. And learning that lesson is a part of growing up.
If you really hate what they are saying, you have two options. You can either walk away or voice your disagreement. That's how the free market of ideas is supposed to work. There's no need to have the government step in and silence another person's harmless words.
You gloss over a very important and integral point in your brief summation of the process of maturation saying ?once a person matures and becomes an adult?? People [generally] are a sum of their life experiences, for better or worse. There?s not a bold line in the sand between youth and adulthood where one is magically gifted the logic and reason necessary to deal with the world rationally or simply as ?normal? adults do. That bold line is actually a long road filled with potholes, construction, traffic, black ice, roadkill and any other manner of obstruction and hazard that can and do affect the psyche of those travelling it. If one is bullied or mistreated for any significant and/or formative period of their life, it?s not unreasonable (nigh expected) that those experience will come to form one?s perception of the world around them and those in it, and being confronted, even incidentally, with experiences as an adult that stir those negative feelings of insecurity, unease, fear, etc. is NOT something an ?adult? should simply be expected to slough off just because they?ve lived enough years.Kerg3927 said:
Even if you were bullied in school as you say, who?s to say your experience was as bad, better or worse than anyone else?s? Qualify ?pretty badly.? There exists no objective measuring stick for bullying and harassment last I checked. Degrees of severity? Yes, to an extent, but no one can say how much one person should be affected by which words and/or for how long. If you were able to overcome your personal experiences, good on you, mate, but don?t expect it to have been so easy for EVERYONE in broadly similar situations; at the very least, give people the benefit of the doubt with basic respect and dignity.
And honestly, what ideas of any worth stand to be gained from needlessly hurtful speech in this ?free market of ideas?? Personally, if anyone?s ?ideas? can?t be relayed in a civil manner that considers the audience, incidental or otherwise, I really don?t want to hear them; my mind is poisoned enough with booze for me to be just as stupid as I need to be.
I don't doubt that what you say is correct. But this line right here...Xprimentyl said:
... illustrates my point as to why it is difficult to legislate against words.
Who decides what ideas are of any worth? Who decides what speech is hurtful? This is the problem. There is a very good reason why the First Amendment was put in place. And there is a very good reason why the Constitution is damn near impossible to change.Xprimentyl said:
What if Donald Trump had the power to decide that insulting or offending him was illegal? Look at Russia and China. Every time you weaken the First Amendment, it is a step toward thought control, so it is not something that should be taken lightly.
Our freedom of speech doesn't come without its unintended inconveniences and problems. Advertising everywhere you look. Annoying telemarketers. Lots of people are offended by porn or by music with explicit lyrics. Religious people are offended by atheists and vice-versa. And yes, people say offensive things. But it's all protected by freedom of speech, and we put up with it all because it's worth it.
Well it doesn?t change. Harassment laws and lawsuits are a thing for a reason. Humans aren?t machines, enough emotional abuse damages us. Again, this comes off as ?it doesn?t bother me so it should bother no one?Kerg3927 said:
Is anyone talking about the government? I thought this was about the workplace. Though even then the government limits free speech all the time, so either way it doesn?t matter.
"Oh well I personally never see any examples of discrimination so it clearly must not exist" -Kerg39726
I agree: "I'm offended" or "I'm upset" are hopeless ways to determine how much harm speech has done, and thus terrible yardsticks for criminalisation.Kerg3927 said:
On the other hand, people really can be verbally bullied into suicide. If it is possible to make someone prefer to destroy themselves rather than face more words, then words surely have considerable capacity for harm. Thus why I object to the saying "Sticks and stones...", because it's patently untrue.
I would say in a general sense there are surely are ways of measuring outputs from words. For instance, we could make the ask a lot of people how upset they'd be if certain things were said to them. The population average would therefore indicate the likely distress to any individual of something said.
Yeah, sure Donald Trump has locked up people like Putin or Jinping. But look at what's happening with Professor Ford at the moment. Death threats, Doxing, she had to leave her house... all consequences of Freedom of Speech. Trump doesn't need a prison. Freedom of Speech has imprisoned Ford. Whether Kavanagh is innocent or guilty is irrelevant. Whether Ford is telling the truth or not is irrelevant. It matters who yells loudest.Kerg3927 said:
You want to know why poltics is so negative at the moment? Freedom of Speech. The way its currently structured means that there is no consequences to your actions. I dont mean consequences by the government. I mean from the general population. What society thinks that death threats help anyone, especially the ones say it? I persoanlly dont know how to fix the problem. I dont think governemnts should be involved. But I would point out that Adam Smith wrote two famous books, not one. The more we only focus on the Wealth of Nations, and not the Theory of Moral Sentiments, the worse the politcal divide will be.
If you going to claim the Freedom of Speech is good, please also makes sure you cover every unintended consequences. You list only includes minor negative issues - there are way bigger problems with FoS.