Search forums

Forums

Export thread

"Wrong" vs "Censorship"

Nov 29, 2016#1

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
Oh pls, like the people saying that actually cared about free speech, and weren't just pissed off that someone was criticising them. Everyone loves censorship, as long as it's them doing it.

EDIT: Hell, ppl can't even take an online comment about it without feeling the need to label it as WRONG!!!

Loss of citizenship or a year in jail is equal to hitting the disagree button on Halforums?

Someone telling you you're wrong isn't censorship. Someone telling you you're an asshole for what you say isn't censorship. Legal repercussions is censorship.

Nov 30, 2016#2

@Li3n

Zero Esc said:
Loss of citizenship or a year in jail is equal to hitting the disagree button on Halforums?

Who said anything about equal?

But just using the button without any attempt at a rebuttal, is equivalent to saying "WRONG!" while someone is talking (which is not the same as full on censorship, but it does follow the same feelings).

Zero Esc said:
Someone telling you you're wrong isn't censorship. Someone telling you you're an asshole for what you say isn't censorship. Legal repercussions is censorship.

Actually all attempts at shutting people up, legally or otherwise are censorship. But i digress.

Nov 30, 2016#3

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
Who said anything about equal?

But just using the button without any attempt at a rebuttal, is equivalent to saying "WRONG!" while someone is talking (which is not the same as full on censorship, but it does follow the same feelings).

No one can interrupt you on here. It's a forum.

Actually all attempts at shutting people up, legally or otherwise are censorship. But i digress.

How is telling someone they're wrong an attempt at shutting them up? How is responding to their words or expression censorship? Where do you come from that each thing a person says is just shouted into a vacuum?

And IF that was the case, how are you exempt from this? What exactly are you doing if not telling people in this thread they're wrong?[DOUBLEPOST=1480505284,1480504995][/DOUBLEPOST]I mean, you just told me my definition of censorship was wrong. Stop attempting to censor me then.

Wait, but my telling you to stop censoring you would also be censorship. How are we even supposed to talk if we disagree then?

It's almost like this line of reasoning you've created is kinda fucking stupid.

Nov 30, 2016#4

@Li3n

Bubble181 said:
I disagree with. Don't just shout everyone down who happens to disagree with you, hmm.

Hey, if you want to disagree, feel free to actually disagree, and not just say "WRONG!" and be done with it.

I mean saying i was trying to shout you down when you made no response and just labelled the post? How does that not reinforce the point i was making?

Disagreeing with someone without making an argument on why he's wrong might not be strong enough to count as actual censorship, but the feeling behind it is the same imo.

Zero Esc said:
I guess @lien's solution to being wrong in this thread was to go cry about it in another one.

What?

Nov 30, 2016#5

Ravenpoe

@Li3n said:
Hey, if you want to disagree, feel free to actually disagree, and not just say "WRONG!" and be done with it.

I mean saying i was trying to shout you down when you made no response and just labelled the post? How does that not reinforce the point i was making?

Disagreeing with someone without making an argument on why he's wrong might not be strong enough to count as actual censorship, but the feeling behind it is the same imo.

What?

I just really hope @GasBandit will give us a WRONG rating now. It should be Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor's face.

Nov 30, 2016#6

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
Hey, if you want to disagree, feel free to actually disagree

I don't need your permission, censor-man. I guess I'm censoring you by cutting off part of the quote.

Disagreeing with someone without making an argument on why he's wrong might not be strong enough to count as actual censorship, but the feeling behind it is the same imo.

That's not what you said, and it still is inaccurate. You don't need to make a discussion of something to voice an opinion about it.

If you're butthurt about your Halforums score at the root of this, Dave changed it a while ago. Disagree is a positive rating now. Needs a lock gives a negative rating and enough of those on a post will send a report to a mod. Maybe THAT could be construed as a censorship attempt, but I'd still say it's a stretch.

So now I just the button for funsies.

What?

I edited it while you were posting. Guess I was censoring ... myself.

Nov 30, 2016#7

@Li3n

Zero Esc said:
No one can interrupt you on here. It's a forum.

Oh look, you're picking on my choice of words... c'mon, you can do better. (and, for the record, i was referencing Trump in the debate there, not making a statement about how forums work)

Zero Esc said:
How is telling someone they're wrong an attempt at shutting them up? How is responding to their words or expression censorship? Where do you come from that each thing a person says is just shouted into a vacuum?

It is when you say "You're WRONG!" without arguing why that is (or, in the case of a button, not even trying to).

Point was, he wasn't responding to what i said, he was labelling it wrong and was done with it.

Frankly, one of the few things Facebook has done right was taking away the "thumbs down" button.

Zero Esc said:
And IF that was the case, how are you exempt from this? What exactly are you doing if not telling people in this thread they're wrong?

Who said i was exempt from doing what i said everyone does?

Do none of you include yourselves when saying EVERYONE? Am i just weird that way?

I mean i too have used the "disagree" button on here, and even without commenting on it after (sure, sometimes because someone else made the points i was thinking of, but most of the time because i was too lazy to comment). But that just reinforces my point about as ALL being like that.

Zero Esc said:
Wait, but my telling you to stop censoring you would also be censorship. How are we even supposed to talk if we disagree then?

Because by saying everyone wants to censor some things it means they should not be allowed to express that desire?

Interpreting my original statement, and my edit about how hitting the "Disagree" button supports what i said to mean that i want people to not say something is your choice, and not a logical conclusion to my criticism of everyone (and by everyone i mean people as large groups, some individuals might actually live by "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", guess i should have added that as a disclaimer, i just always take it as implied).

Zero Esc said:
I mean, you just told me my definition of censorship was wrong. Stop attempting to censor me then.

That's because limiting it to only that censorship which is enforced by law allows for too big a loop hole. I mean Russia has no law (afaik) that says you can't bad mouth Putin...

But like i said, that's a bit besides the point, i'm just a bit of a nitpicker.

Nov 30, 2016#8

Hailey Knight

Imagine if every YouTube dislike or Reddit downvote had an attached comment.

Nov 30, 2016#9

@Li3n

Zero Esc said:
I don't need your permission, censor-man. I guess I'm censoring you by cutting off part of the quote.

Pretty sure i was responding to someone else, who was actually the one that used the button, and then said i was trying to shut him down (dat iron content though).

Zero Esc said:
That's not what you said, and it still is inaccurate. You don't need to make a discussion of something to voice an opinion about it.

And what exactly is that opinion? Sure, "WRONG!" counts as an opinion, but so does "You shouldn't be allowed to say that!".

A valid opinion should have arguments behind it.

But i guess i have to point out that i wasn't saying he shouldn't have expressed that opinion, but that by voicing it in that way, he was just supporting my point about people not really wanting to discuss certain things (which is what leads to censorship).

Sure, he's not censoring what i said, but in the end censorship is just the extreme form of labelling something as wrong. (hell, if you want to get technical, even stopping things that are maybe objectively wrong counts as censorship, like not allowing porn during hours when children are watching etc, hence why tv censor is a job, but again, i digress)

Anyhow, the point i tried to make after is that one should voice disagreement with arguments, not just say something is wrong and be done with it.

Well, actually, you can do that too, but don't get pissed off after when someone points out it just supports their point.

Zero Esc said:
If you're butthurt about your Halforums score at the root of this, Dave changed it a while ago. Disagree is a positive rating now. Needs a lock gives a negative rating and enough of those on a post will send a report to a mod. Maybe THAT could be construed as a censorship attempt, but I'd still say it's a stretch.

So now I just the button for funsies.

Heh.

I'm not, and my original edit was about how just hitting a disagree button actually supports what i said about how people are.

People don't like to hear certain things, and censorship is the most extreme form of that.

Zero Esc said:
I edited it while you were posting. Guess I was censoring ... myself.

No, i meant where else did i post about this?

...

But are you implying self-censorship isn't a thing? Because comics and movies have their own organisations for that.[DOUBLEPOST=1480509706,1480509532][/DOUBLEPOST]

Zero Esc said:
Imagine if every YouTube dislike or Reddit downvote had an attached comment.

Then we'd have a lot less of them, i'd wager.

And if anything, Reddit is a great example of how the d/v system leads to an echo-chamber caused by self censorship.

And the thing is, it's not supposed to be used for disagreement, but for off-topic comments, like jokes in serious subs etc.[DOUBLEPOST=1480510247][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ravenpoe said:
It should be Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor's face.

You do realise the irony in using that image non-sarcastically, right.

Nov 30, 2016#10

Ravenpoe

Interpreting a disagree rating as meaning "wrong!" doesn't mean that's what it means, it just means that is how you're choosing to see it. Other people choose it to mean something different, but I suppose you think they're disagree.[DOUBLEPOST=1480510421,1480510308][/DOUBLEPOST]

@Li3n said:
You do realise the irony in using that image non-sarcastically, right.

Who said anything about non sarcasm?

Nov 30, 2016#11

Necronic

I want a SAD! rating

Nov 30, 2016#12

Hailey Knight

I keep hitting the disagree button and not engaging in what's said, yet somehow @lien continues to post. Why isn't my censorship working?

Oh, I know what the problem is.

Dave, you forgot to upgrade the forum's censorship features! How are we going to kill each other's freedom of speech if you're slacking off like this? This is just unprofessional.

Nov 30, 2016#13

@Li3n

Ravenpoe said:
Interpreting a disagree rating as meaning "wrong!" doesn't mean that's what it means, it just means that is how you're choosing to see it. Other people choose it to mean something different, but I suppose you think they're disagree.

Do you normally disagree with things that are clearly right?

Well, to each their own i guess.

Zero Esc said:
I keep hitting the disagree button and not engaging in what's said, yet somehow @lien continues to post. Why isn't my censorship working?

Yes, there is no difference between being able to censor someone and wanting to do it.

But clearly you want my message to reach everyone, that's why you're disparaging it and exaggerating what i said. And you're totally not telling yourself "i wish he's just shut up" either.

....

Look, if you don't want to even acknowledged why i said the labelling reinforced my point while not being straight up censorship there's no point in this discussion and you can just stop and tell yourself you won.

EDIT: But i do kind of want you to tell me what other thread i was continuing this discussion in? I'm actually curious.

Nov 30, 2016#14

Bubble181

TIL: being at work and wanting to give a rating, thinking I'll come back later to articulate my point, is WRONG, EVIL, means I'm a millennial pussy who needs a safe space, and is akin to censorship because I want everyone I disagree with to be silenced, somehow.

A) It's not because I disagree that I want you to shut up
B) It's not because I don't post right away that I won't post later
C) It's not because you choose how to interpret a rating that this is the correct interpretation
D) I'm fairly sure he's referring to the "funny picture" about "they say..." and "they mean..."
E) While I know that picture's meant as a joke, while some are on point - on both sides - some of those "translations" are pretty insulting and projecting.

Nov 30, 2016#15

Dei

This is a really stupid pissing contest.

Nov 30, 2016#16

Bubble181

Dei said:
This is a really stupid pissing contest.

In contrast to all those other political threads, which are useful and sensible pissing contests

Nov 30, 2016#17

Krisken

Dei said:
This is a really stupid pissing contest.

They all are. Except mine of course.

Nov 30, 2016#18

SpecialKO

Please, let's not get into longer discussions about right or wrong pissing contests. That's too close to the wiping thread.

Nov 30, 2016#19

Denbrought

As much fun as this extended bout has been, you might want to taboo your words (censor/censorship in this case) more often and discuss the underlying conflicting ideas. Both clearly disagree about the definition of the words, or you wouldn't use them repeatedly.

That way this:
A: Not meaningfully engaging with an argument is censorship!
B: That's not censorship, you cunt-waffle!
<Thread lock>

Turns into:
A: Not meaningfully engaging with an argument stifles the free exchange of ideas and prevents gainful debate!
B: I [agree/disagree] because <X>. I would like to also point out, my dear cunt-waffle, that my not fully engaging with an argument does not prevent others from doing so, should they wish.
<Someone posts a :pud:

at A and B>

Nov 30, 2016#20

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
But clearly you want my message to reach everyone, that's why you're disparaging it and exaggerating what i said. And you're totally not telling yourself "i wish he's just shut up" either.

So I want you to talk about it but not to talk about it? ... Trump, is that you?

To be clear, if you don't keep talking then there's nothing to pave out my posts, so I need you to keep going. It also keeps proving my point in that nothing has stopped you. If anything, Bubble hitting disagree resulted in you saying more after he annoyed you.

Guess Bubble really knows ...

... which buttons to push. :csi:

Nov 30, 2016#21

Gruebeard

Zero Esc said:
Imagine if every YouTube dislike or Reddit downvote had an attached comment.

I want a "The horror. The horror" rating.

Dec 1, 2016#22

@Li3n

Bubble181 said:
C) It's not because you choose how to interpret a rating that this is the correct interpretation

Ok, im on mobile and no program for it, but i really have to know.

What else then saying its wrong can Disagree mean?

Dec 1, 2016#23

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
Ok, im on mobile and no program for it, but i really have to know.

What else then saying its wrong can Disagree mean?

Well, for one, it can mean "I think differently" instead of "You are wrong so shut up"

Dec 1, 2016#24

Bubble181

For one, it can mean "I disagree", which is different from "you're wrong". Secondly, it can be a disagreement or a "wrong" about an entirely different part of your post than when you think.

Dec 4, 2016#25

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
Well, for one, it can mean "I think differently" instead of "You are wrong so shut up"

Bubble181 said:
For one, it can mean "I disagree", which is different from "you're wrong".

So again, how do you disagree with something if it's "right"?

The fact that you're using more polite words doesn't actually change the meaning of "disagree". (and i certainly wasn't saying it's rude)

Bubble181 said:
Secondly, it can be a disagreement or a "wrong" about an entirely different part of your post than when you think.

Considering you did it while the post was just about one thing, i was kind of sure what you disagreed with.

As for the whole thing about misreading things... that funny considering y'all still seem to think i was saying the label was censorship, when i tried to explain over and over that it can reinforce my point without being censorship.[DOUBLEPOST=1480880228,1480880136][/DOUBLEPOST]

Frank said:
Trump: I won by a landslide.
Trump: Millions voted illegally.
Trump: ~~Please don't check.~~ WHY ARE YOU CHECKING?? LAWYERS, QUICK, STOP THEM!!!

Ah, accuracy.

Dec 4, 2016#26

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
So again, how do you disagree with something if it's "right"?

The fact that you're using more polite words doesn't actually change the meaning of "disagree". (and i certainly wasn't saying it's rude)

Considering you did it while the post was just about one thing, i was kind of sure what you disagreed with.

As for the whole thing about misreading things... that funny considering y'all still seem to think i was saying the label was censorship, when i tried to explain over and over that it can reinforce my point without being censorship.[DOUBLEPOST=1480880228,1480880136][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ah, accuracy.

Because not everything is factual. And even for the things that are factual, people will interpret the meaning, predictions, and significance of those facts subjectively.

Dec 4, 2016#27

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
Because not everything is factual.

Well, good thing we weren't discussing philosophy.

MindDetective said:
And even for the things that are factual, people will interpret the meaning, predictions, and significance of those facts subjectively.

And by disagreeing with their subjective opinion you're saying its....

Dec 4, 2016#28

Hailey Knight

@lien is censoring the fuck out of Mind Detective; somebody do something!

Dec 4, 2016#29

@Li3n

Zero Esc said:
@lien is censoring the fuck out of Mind Detective; somebody do something!

What are you on about, i never hit any "disagree" button.

Oh, and you missed a 3.

Dec 4, 2016#30

Gruebeard

@Li3n said:
What are you on about, i never hit any "disagree" button.

Oh, and you missed a 3.

I'm pretty sure he just means that movie ought to be censored from memory.

Dec 4, 2016#31

@Li3n

What movie?

Dec 4, 2016#32

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
Well, good thing we weren't discussing philosophy.

We clearly are.

@Li3n said:
And by disagreeing with their subjective opinion you're saying its....

You aren't saying its anything OR that you are anything. The disagree button can merely mean, "that means something different to me" or "I don't like that". It is not a judgment of truth, it is an expression of opinion. Which also allows room for the person rating disagree to be able to admit they do not know the actual, factual truth and can thus change their mind on the matter (what a concept!!!), since it is subjective opinion, not objective truth.

Dec 4, 2016#33

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
We clearly are.

Well we are now.

MindDetective said:
You aren't saying its anything OR that you are anything. The disagree button can merely mean, "that means something different to me" or "I don't like that". It is not a judgment of truth, it is an expression of opinion. Which also allows room for the person rating disagree to be able to admit they do not know the actual, factual truth and can thus change their mind on the matter (what a concept!!!), since it is subjective opinion, not objective truth.

Are you saying that you can't change your mind after saying something is "Wrong"?

Because you really should.

And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? (now we;re really discussing philosophy)

Dec 4, 2016#34

Gruebeard

@Li3n said:
What movie?

That alien movie with a 3 in it. And everyone's bald.

Dec 4, 2016#35

Hailey Knight

Gruebeard said:
That alien movie with a 3 in it. And everyone's bald.

Alien: Legacy will be pretending everything after the second movie never happened, which is as close as we're going to get. I'll take it.

Dec 4, 2016#36

@Li3n

Gruebeard said:
That alien movie with a 3 in it. And everyone's bald.

Ah, yes... i was confused because that was before l33t, and they spelled it with the 3 as a power.

Dec 4, 2016#37

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
Well we are now.

Are you saying that you can't change your mind after saying something is "Wrong"?

Because you really should.

And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? (now we;re really discussing philosophy)

Uh, no. I basically said the exact opposite of that.

Dec 4, 2016#38

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
Uh, no. I basically said the exact opposite of that.

No, what you said was that Disagree can mean something else besides Wrong, and then said that something else left open the possibility to change one's mind.

Maybe that's not what you wanted to say, but that's how it came out.

Dec 4, 2016#39

Necronic

Wtf are you guys even arguing about? Been going on for like 3 pages.

Dec 4, 2016#40

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Wtf are you guys even arguing about? Been going on for like 3 pages.

Whether or not telling someone they are wrong is tantamount to censorship, near as I can tell.

Dec 4, 2016#41

Hailey Knight

Necronic said:
Wtf are you guys even arguing about? Been going on for like 3 pages.

@lien thinks to hit the disagree button is an attempt to censor him, or disagree = telling someone they're wrong = censorship. Others disagree.

This is probably the most lighthearted this thread has been since the election.

Dec 4, 2016#42

Eriol

Zero Esc said:
@lien thinks to hit the disagree button is an attempt to censor him, or disagree = telling someone they're wrong = censorship. Others disagree.

This is probably the most lighthearted this thread has been since the election.

And that's horrible in itself!

Dec 4, 2016#43

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
No, what you said was that Disagree can mean something else besides Wrong, and then said that something else left open the possibility to change one's mind.

Maybe that's not what you wanted to say, but that's how it came out.

In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?

The answer is Yes.[DOUBLEPOST=1480914080,1480913880][/DOUBLEPOST]

MindDetective said:
In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?

The answer is Yes.

Also, since it went over your head or you are just playing at being obtuse, I was really just taking a dig at your unwillingness to see the other side of the coin on this issue. Really, I cannot tell if you are just trolling or just don't know when to say "I see your point"

Dec 4, 2016#44

Hailey Knight

MindDetective said:
In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?

The answer is Yes.[DOUBLEPOST=1480914080,1480913880][/DOUBLEPOST]
Also, since it went over your head or you are just playing at being obtuse, I was really just taking a dig at your unwillingness to see the other side of the coin on this issue. Really, I cannot tell if you are just trolling or just don't know when to say "I see your point"

Dude, give it up. I know you're MindDetective, but you're gonna need a proctologist's help to reach this mind and we just don't have one of those on-call.

Dec 5, 2016#45

Bubble181

@Li3n said:
So again, how do you disagree with something if it's "right"?

I seriously wonder whether you can't see the difference between "I disagree" and "(I think) you are wrong" or are just trolling at this point.

If you say "Queen was the greatest rock band ever", I can disagree - not because your opinion is wrong, but because I have another opinion (it's clearly the Beatles).
If you say "the USA has 72 states", I can disagree because you're just plain factually wrong (it's 53, right?).

@Li3n said:
Considering you did it while the post was just about one thing, i was kind of sure what you disagreed with.

Clearly not.
If you say "Queen is the greatest boy band in history", I can disagree because I think they're not the greatest, or because I disagree about labeling them as a "boy band". The two are different ways of disagreeing with you - and neither says you're factually wrong, because you didn't state a (supposed) fact, but an opinion.

@Li3n said:
Considering you did it while the post was just about one thing, i was kind of sure what you disagreed with.

Oh pls, like the people saying that actually cared about free speech, and weren't just pissed off that someone was criticising them. Everyone loves censorship, as long as it's them doing it.

That was the post as I disagreed with. You're giving your view that people who complain about free speech only did so because they can't stand critizism, and your view that "everyone loves censorship as long as it's them doing it". That's two - related - statements. Neither's a fact, both are opinions. The first, while I think you're overgeneralizing to everyone saying that, has some merit - some people most certainly do think that, though I think it's fair to assume a lot of people really just care about free speech. The second, as a blanket statement, is something I disagree with, and is really projecting.
I don't like censorship, even when it's "my side" doing it. On Belgian politics, I'm considered fairly right-wing, on American politics, fairly left-wing, because of the differences in political parties and talking points. I read more opinion articles I disagree with than ones I agree with - it's more useful, and it's more interesting, to see things from another perspective. And some of them I can classify as "crappy uninteresting prejudiced bile", and some is "an interesting take, a point of view I hadn't considered yet". Separating the two can be hard - especially if the person writing filth is a good writer and demagogue - but it's important and something our childrne realyl should get more training in. It's definitely not something I want in the hands of the government or popular vote or whatever to decide upon. If someone from "the other side" is writing crap, write an opposing piece explaining why and how it's junk. If they're writing something with a point - even one you disagree with - it's definitely something that hould be out there, adn perhaps you should engage in debate.

Dec 5, 2016#46

@Li3n

Bubble181 said:
I seriously wonder whether you can't see the difference between "I disagree" and "(I think) you are wrong" or are just trolling at this point.

If you say "Queen was the greatest rock band ever", I can disagree - not because your opinion is wrong, but because I have another opinion (it's clearly the Beatles).
If you say "the USA has 72 states", I can disagree because you're just plain factually wrong (it's 53, right?).

Ah, so when you say the Beatles are the greatest band, you're not saying that Queen isn't the greatest band... just that there's a better band.

Bubble181 said:
Clearly not.
If you say "Queen is the greatest boy band in history", I can disagree because I think they're not the greatest, or because I disagree about labeling them as a "boy band". The two are different ways of disagreeing with you - and neither says you're factually wrong, because you didn't state a (supposed) fact, but an opinion.

Ah, so you're saying i'm subjectively wrong, and that's not saying i'm wrong... heh.

What i'm saying is that it doesn't much matter for my original point if it was a subjective of factual "Wrong!" (even if my statement is falsifiable)

Bubble181 said:
I think you're overgeneralizing

Finally.... took you damn long enough.

And it's really not a hard argument to make.

My rebuttal would be that of course i am, because when dealing with large groups you can't make any sweeping statements about all the members, but you can make some about trends within the group, and i always assume that to be implied when i make such an absolute statement (coz i'm not a Sith).

Bubble181 said:
I think it's fair to assume a lot of people really just care about free speech

It's better to assume that most people are hypocrites most of the time, and the difference comes from how they react when you call them out on it. Some might admit infringing free speech, and apologise, while some might give a good reason why said speech shouldn't be allowed (i never said all censorship is bad btw, even 4chan nukes certain things).

Bubble181 said:
I don't like censorship, even when it's "my side" doing it. On Belgian politics, I'm considered fairly right-wing, on American politics, fairly left-wing, because of the differences in political parties and talking points. I read more opinion articles I disagree with than ones I agree with - it's more useful, and it's more interesting, to see things from another perspective. And some of them I can classify as "crappy uninteresting prejudiced bile", and some is "an interesting take, a point of view I hadn't considered yet". Separating the two can be hard - especially if the person writing filth is a good writer and demagogue - but it's important and something our childrne realyl should get more training in. It's definitely not something I want in the hands of the government or popular vote or whatever to decide upon. If someone from "the other side" is writing crap, write an opposing piece explaining why and how it's junk. If they're writing something with a point - even one you disagree with - it's definitely something that hould be out there, adn perhaps you should engage in debate.

I agree with that.

But i will make a point about what i said not being necessarily about your "side" (because when you split ppl in two sides there's no way everyone agrees with most others on their side, they just agree even less with the other side), but even you yourself. And i could easily prove it by asking you if its ok that most forums censor hentai that depicts child porn. But then i'm just cheating to show i was technically right.

Bubble181 said:
perhaps you should engage in debate.

Of course you should.

Which is why i said you just labelling the post, while not criticism, supports my point. Because you weren't really engaging in a debate about it, but just showing disagreement and moving on, which is based on the same "not wanting to deal with something" feeling some people take too far and then try to silence others (sure, you might say "projecting", but somehow i doubt none of you ever had that feeling, and it's harder to get over sometihng you don't admit doing imo). Sure, you might have wanted to come back to it, but it's not like i would know that when i made the edit (just like you assumed i was trying to shut down the discussion by the edit).

.....

CRAP... thank the gods for modern browsers, almost lost the whole thing to mouse bound Back buttons.[DOUBLEPOST=1480951959,1480951804][/DOUBLEPOST]

Zero Esc said:
@lien thinks to hit the disagree button is an attempt to censor him, or disagree = telling someone they're wrong = censorship. Others disagree.

Yeah, it's not like i've been saying that the label can support my point without being censorship itself for the last two pages or anything. :rolleyes:

Dec 5, 2016#47

Denbrought

Opposite Creation vs evil god entity. He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones or practices SINGULARITY - an evil that equates DEATH by cancellation of universal OPPOSITES - hemispheres, sexes, seasons, races, temperatures, marriages and divided cell (the human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) - should have their evil lying tongue cut out

Educators are lying bastards. -1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites. I have invested 30 years of my life and over 1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 - simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word taught singularity is contradicted as evil lies by the simple math of the Cube's Opposite Corners - the most perfect symmetry within the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY is a contradiction to the opposite sexes, the opposite hemispheres and to the universe of opposites that exist as a zero value existence. The academic taught singularity/entity is but poison fed the human populace - slow death. I can say that educators "eat shit" and they only cower and hide, doing nothing that will induce debate, that will indict them as evil. Americans will die SINGULARITY stupid, their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators

Neither EARTH or HUMAN exist as entities, but opposites. Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle. A singularity inflicted scholar has not the mentality, freedom or guts to know that academia is a Trojan Horse mind control. Singularity brotherhood owns your brain, destroying your ability to think Cubicism. Evil academia blocks out Time Cube site and suppresses its discussion and debate. You are an educated singularity idiot who can stupidly deny Nature's Harmonic 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, or even make parody of the Cubic Creation Principle - but your mental ability to comprehend thegreatest social and scientific discovery of all human existence has been lobotomized by the evil academic singularity bastards hired to destroy your ability to think opposite :rolleyes:

You cannot comprehend Opposite Creation. Religous/academic taught singularity is the reduction of the human mind to android.

Dec 5, 2016#48

Terrik

Denbrought said:
Opposite Creation vs evil god entity. He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones or practices SINGULARITY - an evil that equates DEATH by cancellation of universal OPPOSITES - hemispheres, sexes, seasons, races, temperatures, marriages and divided cell (the human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) - should have their evil lying tongue cut out Educators are lying bastards. -1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites. I have invested 30 years of my life and over 1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 - simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word taught singularity is contradicted as evil lies by the simple math of the Cube's Opposite Corners - the most perfect symmetry within the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY is a contradiction to the opposite sexes, the opposite hemispheres and to the universe of opposites that exist as a zero value existence. The academic taught singularity/entity is but poison fed the human populace - slow death. I can say that educators "eat shit" and they only cower and hide, doing nothing that will induce debate, that will indict them as evil. Americans will die SINGULARITY stupid, their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators Neither EARTH or HUMAN exist as entities, but opposites. Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle. A singularity inflicted scholar has not the mentality, freedom or guts to know that academia is a Trojan Horse mind control. Singularity brotherhood owns your brain, destroying your ability to think Cubicism. Evil academia blocks out Time Cube site and suppresses its discussion and debate. You are an educated singularity idiot who can stupidly deny Nature's Harmonic 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, or even make parody of the Cubic Creation Principle - but your mental ability to comprehend thegreatest social and scientific discovery of all human existence has been lobotomized by the evil academic singularity bastards hired to destroy your ability to think opposite You cannot comprehend Opposite Creation. Religous/academic taught singularity is the reduction of the human mind to android.

OH SHIT WE'VE BEEN HACKED

Dec 5, 2016#49

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?

Problem is that the way you put the words together it comes off more like:

There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y. Sure, there no real logical rule that say you can't Y with X, but the structure of the sentence does hint towards that implication.

Which also allows room for the person rating disagree to be able to admit they do not know the actual, factual truth and can thus change their mind on the matter

But really, that was more of a semantics issue i brought up about your post.

The "And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? " was the actual argument.[DOUBLEPOST=1480952538,1480952445][/DOUBLEPOST]

Denbrought said:
Opposite Creation vs evil god entity. He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones or practices SINGULARITY - an evil that equates DEATH by cancellation of universal OPPOSITES - hemispheres, sexes, seasons, races, temperatures, marriages and divided cell (the human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) - should have their evil lying tongue cut out Educators are lying bastards. -1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites. I have invested 30 years of my life and over 1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 - simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word taught singularity is contradicted as evil lies by the simple math of the Cube's Opposite Corners - the most perfect symmetry within the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY is a contradiction to the opposite sexes, the opposite hemispheres and to the universe of opposites that exist as a zero value existence. The academic taught singularity/entity is but poison fed the human populace - slow death. I can say that educators "eat shit" and they only cower and hide, doing nothing that will induce debate, that will indict them as evil. Americans will die SINGULARITY stupid, their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators Neither EARTH or HUMAN exist as entities, but opposites. Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle. A singularity inflicted scholar has not the mentality, freedom or guts to know that academia is a Trojan Horse mind control. Singularity brotherhood owns your brain, destroying your ability to think Cubicism. Evil academia blocks out Time Cube site and suppresses its discussion and debate. You are an educated singularity idiot who can stupidly deny Nature's Harmonic 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, or even make parody of the Cubic Creation Principle - but your mental ability to comprehend thegreatest social and scientific discovery of all human existence has been lobotomized by the evil academic singularity bastards hired to destroy your ability to think opposite You cannot comprehend Opposite Creation. Religous/academic taught singularity is the reduction of the human mind to android.

Well, as he said, we did end up debating philosophy now...

Dec 5, 2016#50

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
The "And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? " was the actual argument.

All human knowledge is paired with confidence points/intervals, because we're complicated. I think existing is better than not existing ceteris paribus, and am fairly confident in this being true. I think the law of universal gravitation is reliable, and am deeply confident about it. I think Murder By Death is the best indie rock band at the moment, but I am not very confident at all on this because I have not listened to (even) most indie rock out there at the moment (which is why it's an opinion I'm less likely to voice or defend).

"At least thinking it's true" before being able to hold an opinion is a hilariously high standard. A lot of valid opinion is based on inference and hypothesizing. A more reasonable standard (and that most people operate by, I think) is thinking that something is more likely than not, by whatever metrics the person values (evidence, authority, gut-feeling/truthiness, experience, ...).

Dec 5, 2016#51

@Li3n

Denbrought said:
thinking that something is more likely than not

Well i'm all for that, but "i think it's wrong, but i'm not sure" is still saying it's wrong, but leaving more room for your own failure.

If we're going to require 100% certainty of wrongness always, we can't really call anything Wrong! in the first place.

Relevant link that i'm pretty sure i posted here before, because i've had it for years!

And now we're really knee deep in philosophy boys...

Dec 5, 2016#52

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
Well i'm all for that, but "i think it's wrong, but i'm not sure" is still saying it's wrong, but leaving more room for your own failure.

If we're going to require 100% certainty of wrongness always, we can't really call anything Wrong! in the first place.

That makes little sense to me. Take this example:

You assert 'A', while I assert 'B'.
My own assessment of reality says 'not A' is 80% likely. Note that I believe 'B' as well as 'not A', but 'B' is something I'm not sure of (let's say 30%), since the solution space is not necessarily dichotomic. It's just the best candidate for truth, according to me, at the moment.
I say you are wrong. I'm fairly confident, and not sure.

Another example:
You assert 'A'.
I think 'not A' is 5 sigma, but have no better competing hypothesis because reality is complicated, and/or I have not formed a positive opinion on this particular topic.
I say you're wrong. I'm hilariously confident, and hopelessly unsure.

Dec 5, 2016#53

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
Problem is that the way you put the words together it comes off more like:

There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y. Sure, there no real logical rule that say you can't Y with X, but the structure of the sentence does hint towards that implication.

But really, that was more of a semantics issue i brought up about your post.

I hinted at nothing. That's you reading into it.

@Li3n said:
The "And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? " was the actual argument.[DOUBLEPOST=1480952538,1480952445][/DOUBLEPOST]

Well, as he said, we did end up debating philosophy now...

And I have answered that repeatedly.

Dec 5, 2016#54

@Li3n

Denbrought said:
That makes little sense to me. Take this example:

You assert 'A', while I assert 'B'.
My own assessment of reality says 'not A' is 80% likely. Note that I believe 'B' as well as 'not A', but 'B' is something I'm not sure of (let's say 30%), since the solution space is not necessarily dichotomic. It's just the best candidate for truth, according to me, at the moment.
I say you are wrong. I'm fairly confident, and not sure.

Another example:
You assert 'A'.
I think 'not A' is 5 sigma, but have no better competing hypothesis because reality is complicated, and/or I have not formed a positive opinion on this particular topic.
I say you're wrong. I'm hilariously confident, and hopelessly unsure.

Look, what i was saying is that the % don't really matter for my point, and that getting into it at that level changes the whole debate.

Sure, you can say someone is wrong with various degrees of certainty, but the whole thing started because there was no caveat about it, and just a label applied.

Dec 5, 2016#55

GasBandit

Alright, it's clear this needs its own thread. Post move incoming.

Dec 5, 2016#56

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
I hinted at nothing. That's you reading into it.

Really? So you don't see how "There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y." implies you can't Y with X?

MindDetective said:
And I have answered that repeatedly.

Where you the one with the subjective vs factual thing?

Because that doesn't actually address the question, it simply quantifies different variations of thinking something is wrong.

Dec 5, 2016#57

@Li3n

What, no vote for who wins in the fight between Walter Wrong and Charlie Censorship?

Dec 5, 2016#58

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
Really? So you don't see how "There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y." implies you can't Y with X?

It 100% logically does not do that, nor does it linguistically do that. That is you reading into it (still).

@Li3n said:
Where you the one with the subjective vs factual thing?

Because that doesn't actually address the question, it simply quantifies different variations of thinking something is wrong.

No, disagreeing subjectively doesn't equal thinking something is wrong. If you say, "I hate tacos", I can disagree, which doesn't mean "No, you don't hate tacos", it means, "I like tacos!" It means that my viewpoint is different, not that anything is factually incorrect.

Dec 5, 2016#59

Hailey Knight

This feels like the potato story that Gas posted in the Funny Pictures thread.

Dec 5, 2016#60

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
It 100% logically does not do that, nor does it linguistically do that. That is you reading into it (still).

~~Heh, see below.~~ Well this is pointless now.

MindDetective said:
If you say, "I hate tacos", I can disagree, which doesn't mean "No, you don't hate tacos",

No, if you disagree with "I hate tacos" you're saying that you think i don't hate them, and i'm lying (to you or myself i guess).

Which makes your first quote funny... unless you have some sort of reading disability, then i'm just being an asshole i guess.

EDIT:

Ah, i see, you mean the disagree button can mean that.

Sorry, but you came in late, and didn't mention the label itself, you just said Wrong can mean other things.

Sure, you can disagree in that way with a preference, although i'd have used more descriptive words about the button etc if you wanted to make it clear.

But the statement i made wasn't one of preference, that you can label as having the opposite one.

I mean if i say The Sky is Blue, you can't claim you disagree because you like Orange better.

Dec 5, 2016#61

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
The "wrong is censorship" debate has been moved to its own thread:

https://www.halforums.com/threads/wrong-vs-censorship.32163/

THE THREAD HAS BEEN ALTERED.
PRAY I DO NOT ALTER IT FURTHER.

So is this censorship?

Dec 5, 2016#62

GasBandit

Zero Esc said:
So is this censorship?

Wrong.

Dec 5, 2016#63

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
The "wrong is censorship" debate has been moved to its own thread:

https://www.halforums.com/threads/wrong-vs-censorship.32163/

THE THREAD HAS BEEN ALTERED.
PRAY I DO NOT ALTER IT FURTHER.

Now, tell me, what do you think I meant when I clicked that "disagree" button? :awesome:

Dec 5, 2016#64

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
Now, tell me, what do you think I meant when I clicked that "disagree" button?

I think the next person who makes a post about something other than trump in this thread today is going to have a time out.

Don't make me say it in a colored font :deadpool:

Dec 5, 2016#65

Hailey Knight

This post has been approved by the Gasbandit Ministry of Publication.

HEy, guys, it's the Real Zero Esc and I'm ta totes cool with anything Gas decides on this forum.

Dec 5, 2016#66

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
Heh, see below.

No, if you disagree with "I hate tacos" you're saying that you think i don't hate them, and i'm lying (to you or myself i guess).

Which makes your first quote funny... unless you have some sort of reading disability, then i'm just being an asshole i guess.

If I hit the disagree button when you espouse your opinion and you think that it can only (and likely) mean that I know your opinion better than you, then you are dense or trolling.

Dec 5, 2016#67

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
Look, what i was saying is that the % don't really matter for my point, and that getting into it at that level changes the whole debate.

Sure, you can say someone is wrong with various degrees of certainty, but the whole thing started because there was no caveat about it, and just a label applied.

Insecurities about the forum's shorthand do not change the nature of opinion. I think you are being asked to empathize with the forum audience that makes use of the #WRONG button.

Dec 5, 2016#68

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
If I hit the disagree button when you espouse your opinion and you think that it can only (and likely) mean that I know your opinion better than you, then you are dense or trolling.

See edit.

But, like i said, it wasn't an opinion about subjective tastes in things.

Like who Bubble said about the "Queen is the greatest band" thing, the semantics of it don't allow the "i prefer something else" interpretation because of how language logic works. (and now we're completely off the rails and i can no longer say anytihng to GB about moving this... THANKS OBAMA)[DOUBLEPOST=1480957338,1480957122][/DOUBLEPOST]

Denbrought said:
I think you are being asked to empathize with the forum audience that makes use of the #WRONG button.

Heh... it's not like i haven't used it myself... in both ways.

But we're already arguing about something else then what started this.

I never said he was WRONG to use it (notice that i avoided the disagree button for this), or that it was censorship, but that using it shows people are prone to the behaviour that's also behind censorship.

EDIT: Oh, and the funny thing is that originally Bubble said the edit about wrong was me trying to suppress the discussion.

Dec 5, 2016#69

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
I never said he was WRONG to use it (notice that i avoided the disagree button for this), or that it was censorship, but that using it shows people are prone to the behaviour that's also behind censorship.

I think you really need more evidence that he was trying to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

Dec 5, 2016#70

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
I never said he was WRONG to use it (notice that i avoided the disagree button for this), or that it was censorship, but that using it shows people are prone to the behaviour that's also behind censorship.

There are many reasons why censorship is a tempting tool at every level of power, and reducing it to a single root urge/behavior (that you then identify in fellow commentators) seems akin to saying that defective punctuation is indicative of the same behavior that leads to rape (both are about ignoring boundaries and rules, after all).

Can't help but notice that you put your parentheses after your periods pretty often.

Dec 5, 2016#71

@Li3n

MindDetective said:
I think you really need more evidence that he was trying to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

I wasn't trying to prove that he was trying to full on silence me. It's the knee jerk reaction that i was talking about.

It's like when someone has an annoying voice or something and you get this urge to punch them... it doesn't mean you're a violent person, but it does show there's a violent streak in humans, as with most animals.

To put it in Denbrought's terms, i wasn't 5 Sigma'ing it as 90% sure proof, i was just mentioning it as another generalization, in line with the one i made about groups of people (see my last reponse to Bubble).

Dec 5, 2016#72

MindDetective

@Li3n said:
I wasn't trying to prove that he was trying to full on silence me. It's the knee jerk reaction that i was talking about.

It's like when someone has an annoying voice or something and you get this urge to punch them... it doesn't mean you're a violent person, but it does show there's a violent streak in humans, as with most animals.

To put it in Denbrought's terms, i wasn't 5 Sigma'ing it as 90% sure proof, i was just mentioning it as another generalization, in line with the one i made about groups of people (see my last reponse to Bubble).

Sorry, let me rephrase: I think you really need a lot more evidence that he was demonstrating a momentary impulse to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

Dec 5, 2016#73

@Li3n

Denbrought said:
There are many reasons why censorship is a tempting tool at every level of power, and reducing it to a single root urge/behavior (that you then identify in fellow commentators) seems akin to saying that defective punctuation is indicative of the same behavior that leads to rape (both are about ignoring boundaries and rules, after all).

Like i pointed out to Bubble, i take it as implied that it's not that simple while observing the trends existence. No generalization works without ignoring the exceptions. And sometimes generalizations are useful.

Denbrought said:
Can't help but notice that you put your parentheses after your periods pretty often.

Well that's because i tend to end the sentence then think of the stuff i put in ().[DOUBLEPOST=1480958105,1480958047][/DOUBLEPOST]

MindDetective said:
Sorry, let me rephrase: I think you really need a lot more evidence that he was demonstrating a momentary impulse to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

You hold him, i'll insert the electrodes.

Dec 5, 2016#74

Denbrought

MindDetective said:
Sorry, let me rephrase: I think you really need a lot more evidence that he was demonstrating a momentary impulse to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.

I would click the 'Like' button here, but I'm worried this would demonstrate a momentary impulse to elect you as tribal leader so that you may protect me in exchange for additional nutrition and more mates.

@Li3n said:
Like i pointed out to Bubble, i take it as implied that it's not that simple while observing the trends existence. No generalization works without ignoring the exceptions. And sometimes generalizations are useful.

You should take the rating buttons as generalizatons themselves, so your confidence about your behavioral assessment should be doubly docked in confidence.

@Li3n said:
Well that's because i tend to end the sentence then think of the stuff i put in ().

I like minimalist keyboards myself, but I always make sure they have arrow keys.

Dec 5, 2016#75

MindDetective

Denbrought said:
I would click the 'Like' button here, but I'm worried this would demonstrate a momentary impulse to elect you as tribal leader so that you may protect me in exchange for additional nutrition and more mates.

You should take the rating buttons as generalizatons themselves, so your confidence about your behavioral assessment should be doubly docked in confidence.

I like minimalist keyboards myself, but I always make sure they have arrow keys.

I'm not clarifying the funny response. Take it for what it obviously must be.

Dec 5, 2016#76

Hailey Knight

MindDetective said:
I'm not clarifying the funny response. Take it for what it obviously must be.

I'm not clarifying my hugs response. Take it for the hug that's not long enough to be comforting, yet still appreciate my putting in the effort like it obviously must be.

Dec 6, 2016#77

Gruebeard

How meta.

Dec 7, 2016#78

GasBandit

Dec 7, 2016#79

CrimsonSoul

Everyone in here is WRONG

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Dec 7, 2016#80

Eriol

If it's already here I apologize a bit, but still, even once a page is worth saying in this thread:

Dec 20, 2016#81

@Li3n

Denbrought said:
I would click the 'Like' button here, but I'm worried this would demonstrate a momentary impulse to elect you as tribal leader so that you may protect me in exchange for additional nutrition and more mates.

And that's how Trump won the election...

Denbrought said:
You should take the rating buttons as generalizatons themselves, so your confidence about your behavioral assessment should be doubly docked in confidence.

Well of course they are... luckily disagreement is a general feeling.

Denbrought said:
I like minimalist keyboards myself, but I always make sure they have arrow keys.

Are you implying i should push even more buttons... you monster!

May 9, 2017#82

Eriol

There isn't a perfect thread for this (that I could find in the first 3 pages, barring blindness on my part of course), but this has to do with censorship: Facebook Must Delete Hate Postings Worldwide, Rules Austrian Court

So ya, any government saying "we have jurisdiction over what you do, everywhere, not just in our country" seems bad. Wait for China to do the same on anything related to Falun Gong.

May 9, 2017#83

Covar

Germany basically already does that with Nazism.

May 9, 2017#84

Bubble181

Eriol said:
There isn't a perfect thread for this (that I could find in the first 3 pages, barring blindness on my part of course), but this has to do with censorship: Facebook Must Delete Hate Postings Worldwide, Rules Austrian Court

So ya, any government saying "we have jurisdiction over what you do, everywhere, not just in our country" seems bad. Wait for China to do the same on anything related to Falun Gong.

Yeah, we've had the same sort of thing when Belgium (ohohoh) invented a genocide law which said anyone commiting war crimes or human rights violations could be charged in a Belgian court. Let's say it didn't work allthat well. The intent may be noble and all that, but in practice it's completely bonkers.

Germany only says you can't be a Nazi in Germany.

May 9, 2017#85

Eriol

Covar said:
Germany basically already does that with Nazism.

Bubble181 said:
Germany only says you can't be a Nazi in Germany.

What Bubble said. It's a lot different saying "when you operate here, you can't have X, Y, Z content on your stuff accessible from here" which is what Google and such has had to do with removing search results from certain countries' specific engines (google.fr for France for example), but saying "this content which is legal elsewhere, but we've ruled as illegal here, you have to remove everywhere now."

As I said above, what's to stop China from doing this for anybody operating there? Or Myanmar for anything against their King? This precedent is really bad if adhered to. More likely the company itself will just withdraw from the country. If its citizens still use it through the internet, that's not Facebook's problem unless the country starts then trying to block it, which then has other interesting legal paths.

May 9, 2017#86

Covar

I'm sorry I just don't see how it's significantly different. Scale? They're asking for the exact same thing, the only difference is with something like Facebook the company being charged to enforce government censorship could possibly geo-fence it.

May 9, 2017#87

Eriol

Covar said:
I'm sorry I just don't see how it's significantly different. Scale? They're asking for the exact same thing, the only difference is with something like Facebook the company being charged to enforce government censorship could possibly geo-fence it.

Covar, that's why this one is different, in that the court is explicitly ruling that Facebook is not allowed to "geo-fence" it but that it must be removed worldwide. That's the difference I'm raising.

Jun 29, 2017#88

Eriol

And in a loss for free speech literally everywhere, Canada's "if we say the constitution says it, it does" Supreme Court, says they can tell Google to remove something from everywhere on the Internet, not just Canada!

EFF link: Top Canadian Court Permits Worldwide Internet Censorship
Globe and Mail link: Canada’s top court upholds worldwide injunction against Google
From the EFF article:

Issuing an order that would cut off access to information for U.S. users would set a dangerous precedent for online speech. In essence, it would expand the power of any court in the world to edit the entire Internet, whether or not the targeted material or site is lawful in another country. That, we warned, is likely to result in a race to the bottom, as well-resourced individuals engage in international forum-shopping to impose the one country’s restrictive laws regarding free expression on the rest of the world.

From the Globe article:

The Supreme Court majority did not agree with civil liberties and media organizations that argued freedom of speech was at risk in the case.

“This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods,” Justice Abella wrote.

Remember, in Canada, it's not free speech unless the Court SAYS it is.

Beyond that, the EFF argument is correct. It's illegal to criticize the monarch of... I can't remember, somewhere in SE Asia. People imprisoned for such. So now those courts can say "google, remove all references everywhere to criticizing us!" And China, "remove all references to an 'event' that happened in the 1980s in Tienanmen Square." And so on... and so on... The "race to the bottom" that the EFF mentions will no doubt be occurring soon.

Fucking idiotic Supreme Court of Canada. Fucking things up for the WORLD now, not just Canada.

Jun 29, 2017#89

blotsfan

The court has made its ruling. Now let's see them enforce it.

Jun 29, 2017#90

sixpackshaker

Eriol said:
And China, "remove all references to an 'event' that DID NOT happened in the 1980s in Tienanmen Square." And so on... and so on... The "race to the bottom" that the EFF mentions will no doubt be occurring soon.

I did not want to wait for the Chinese Government to request the change.

Jun 29, 2017#91

Denbrought

Eriol said:
Beyond that, the EFF argument is correct. It's illegal to criticize the monarch of... I can't remember, somewhere in SE Asia. People imprisoned for such.

You're probably thinking of Thailand. Lèse-majesté laws exist in many countries, though, Spain among them (e.g. a week ago two separatists were arrested for burning pictures of the king).

The Amos Yee incident also comes to mind, though not quite the same thing.

Jun 29, 2017#92

Eriol

blotsfan said:
The court has made its ruling. Now let's see them enforce it.

That's one of the things I'm afraid of really. Is Google going to pull out of Canada like they did China a few years ago?

Jun 29, 2017#93

blotsfan

Eriol said:
That's one of the things I'm afraid of really. Is Google going to pull out of Canada like they did China a few years ago?

I'd say Canada needs Google more than Google needs Canada.

Jun 29, 2017#94

Eriol

blotsfan said:
I'd say Canada needs Google more than Google needs Canada.

I agree, but do our politicians?

Jun 29, 2017#95

blotsfan

Imagine running for election when your opponent can say "he's the reason you can't go on Google anymore."

Jun 30, 2017#96

Thread Necromancer

Ok, I was wrong. I don't want to read this thread.

Aug 22, 2017#97

Eriol

We DO actually have a free speech thread other than the Trump one above, so I'm continuing elements of that here.

The EFF has weighed in on banning websites, free speech, censorship, etc: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

Aug 22, 2017#98

DarkAudit

Eriol said:
We DO actually have a free speech thread other than the Trump one above, so I'm continuing elements of that here.

The EFF has weighed in on banning websites, free speech, censorship, etc: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

Will we eventually see a case similar to the gay wedding cake case where someone like the Daily Stormer sues to force a hosting site to take them on? Who would be willing to come to their defense when the only argument for them is "it's not illegal"? Would the big names on the right risk further alienating their advertisers in order to take up such a cause?

In related news, Breitbart is hemorrhaging advertisers. Over 90% have left since January. And now there's mounting pressure on Amazon to drop them as well. As much as I'd like Breitbart and everyone associated with it to DIAF, those advertisers should have been aware of who they were dealing with when they signed the deal. They deserve to go down with this ship just the same.

Aug 30, 2017#99

Eriol

Seems like the right thread for this one: Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ of antifa protesters

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the “violent actions of people calling themselves antifa” after violence led to arrests at Bay Area protests, in the strongest criticism of left-wing protesters that any Democratic leader has made.

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said in a statement released late Tuesday. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

Direct link to entire press release rather than just reporting on such.

Sep 5, 2017#100

DarkAudit

Minneapolis bar shut down after owner outed for giving cash to David Duke.

First the events canceled, then the regulars abandoned ship, and when the nazis shows up to show support for the owner, the staff all quit.

Sep 5, 2017#101

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
Minneapolis bar shut down after owner outed for giving cash to David Duke.

First the events canceled, then the regulars abandoned ship, and when the nazis shows up to show support for the owner, the staff all quit.

It's private business, no link to government (funding, etc), so seems fine to me. Free where to spend your dollar (and by extension, where NOT to) is another form of free speech IMO. So patrons are exercising that just fine by leaving. No reports (in what you linked, no reason to disbelieve) of vandalism, arson, etc, so no muddling of the issues that way either.

I'm interested in other opinions on the rest of this though:

Other local businesses, including an improv theater and a used clothing store, found themselves caught up in the headlines because the bar owner also owns the properties where they operate. Both have publicly come out against their landlord’s political donation and stressed that he is not involved in their businesses in any way beyond collecting their rent payments.

How far does it go? You're indirectly supporting the owner, through rent. But the businesses there would be harmed by boycotting them, as the snippet above shows that they publicly denounce the practices of the owner, but of course they have to still pay rent, or move.

Boycott the tenants, or no?

Sep 5, 2017#102

mikerc

Eriol said:
Boycott the tenants, or no?

Personally, I would say no. While the businesses could move they may be tied into a contract requiring them to continue paying rent for the next x amount of time. Even if not first these businesses would have to find somewhere to move to and then pay the costs of that move which could require access to liquid cash that they just don't have right now.

Although that's just me, if you feel you don't want to spend money at any business even tangentially related to a Nazi POS...well, like you said where you spend (or don't spend) your money is entirely up to you.

Sep 5, 2017#103

PatrThom

Eriol said:
Boycott the tenants, or no?

Ultimately becomes a question for me of how I feel about the tenants. I mean, I expect they didn't know what they were signing up for.

--Patrick

Sep 7, 2017#104

DarkAudit

We've already heard about the "Irma is a liberal hoax" crap Rush Limbaugh has been spewing. But now we've got the real possibility that people in harms way are going to take him at his word and wind up dead as a result.

He'd probably already be under criminal investigation in many other countries, but what about here? Does this rise to the level of "f'ire' in a crowded theater"? Where's the liability?

And if stations and/or advertisers refused to be party to such irresponsibility and dropped the show, are they in the right? I mean, contracts be damned, he's dragging them down with him.

Oct 25, 2017#105

Eriol

More this than the terrorism thread. Criminalization of thought? New terror laws 'would criminalise thought', watchdog warns

Ministers should not "criminalise thought" with plans to prosecute people who view extremist content online, the UK's terror watchdog has said.

Max Hill QC became the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in March 2017

"Whilst we can all agree that there should be nowhere for real terrorists to hide, we should also agree that legislating in the name of terrorism when the targeted activity is not actually terrorism would be quite wrong," he said.

"We do not, and should not criminalise thought without action or preparation for action.

"Thought with steps towards action can be terrorism. Thought without action or preparation for action may be extremism, but it is not terrorism."

He argued that government should not be "rushing to add yet more offences to the already long list".

Gotta love the UK. 1984 being set there seems more and more "on the nose" over time.

Oct 25, 2017#106

sixpackshaker

Its a fake!

Oct 25, 2017#107

Denbrought

sixpackshaker said:
Its a fake!

It's real, in Barcelona

Oct 25, 2017#108

GasBandit

Eriol said:
Gotta love the UK. 1984 being set there seems more and more "on the nose" over time.

You ain't kidding. Between this and their internet clampdowns and other disturbing news coming from Old Blighty over the last few years, it's starting to look like V for Vendetta might have been more prescient than everybody thought.

Oct 25, 2017#109

PatrThom

Denbrought said:
View attachment 25765

It's real, in Barcelona

Well sure it is, how many times you think that sign's been stolen?

And GBR has always been the poster child for right-think.

--Patrick

Nov 3, 2017#110

Eriol

I posted above about this: (partial quote only)

Eriol said:
And in a loss for free speech literally everywhere, Canada's "if we say the constitution says it, it does" Supreme Court, says they can tell Google to remove something from everywhere on the Internet, not just Canada!

EFF link: Top Canadian Court Permits Worldwide Internet Censorship
Globe and Mail link: Canada’s top court upholds worldwide injunction against Google

Follow-up from the USA: Google Wins Ruling to Block Global Censorship Order from Canadian Court

A U.S. judge has partially blocked a recent decision by Canada’s Supreme Court that requires Google to delete search results not just in Canada, but in every other country too.

Citing the violation of American laws as well as a threat to speech, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila agreed to grant Google a temporary injunction, which means the company can show the search results in the United States.

This is the worrying part though:

It’s unclear, however, what exactly what will happen now since Google, if it restores the search results in the United States, could be acting in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. Currently, there are over 300 search results Google has had to suppress.
...
More broadly, there is ongoing unease that other companies will grow emboldened to enforce their particular rules (for instance blasphemy laws in Thailand or treason laws in Turkey) beyond national borders.

We'll see what happens I guess

Nov 21, 2017#111

Eriol

Oh free speech in Canada really isn't, yet again, but at least this time there's pushback: Andrew Scheer: Laurier university controversy highlights larger issue of ‘stifling’ free speech

Lots of quotes from the T.A. this all started with in that article as well.

May 3, 2019#112

PatrThom

Soo...speaking of censorship, it looks like Verizon has put tumblr up for sale again (at a discount).
I guess clamping down on "female-presenting nipples" wasn't the best idea after all, hmm?

--Patrick

May 3, 2019#113

sixpackshaker

What clamp were they using?

Sorry, I'm still a Sophomore at heart.

May 3, 2019#114