The Case Against free speech: we need to combat fascism, my friends

[pknopp]

this is how we end racism and inequality

free speech is a hollow signifier, a guise for the wealthy and powerful to oppress the poor.

Free speech oppresses no one ever.

It most certainly can. Many of our freedoms can have negative consequences. The idea is that those consequences are not as bad as the alternative.

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

 

[martybegan]

this is how we end racism and inequality

free speech is a hollow signifier, a guise for the wealthy and powerful to oppress the poor.

Free speech oppresses no one ever.

It most certainly can. Many of our freedoms can have negative consequences. The idea is that those consequences are not as bad as the alternative.

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

 

[pknopp]

Free speech oppresses no one ever.

It most certainly can. Many of our freedoms can have negative consequences. The idea is that those consequences are not as bad as the alternative.

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

 

[martybegan]

It most certainly can. Many of our freedoms can have negative consequences. The idea is that those consequences are not as bad as the alternative.

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

 

[HenryBHough]

PC stifles free speech.

But you liberals knew that and, indeed, perfected it.

 

[pknopp]

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

 

[justinacolmena]

people are free only if and only if their material conditions are equal, my friends

Fucking Marxist communist asshole.

 

[martybegan]

The crux of the progressive argument is twofold. One, that hate speech automatically leads to hate actions, even if subconscious.

The second part is that words and actions are interchangeable, thus hurtful words are the same as hurtful actions.

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

 

[pknopp]

There was a case at a college where the college felt a need to tell people to be mindful of others when dressing up for Holloween. Many of the students found this statement to be oppressive as something that was not needed and oppressive because the idea of students running around in black face was demeaning to the student body as it was something they weren't going to do anyway.

You disagree?

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

 

[martybegan]

I think any type of sanction by a governing body for any free expression is beyond the scope of the body, except in very specific cases.

The school should take their guidelines and cram them up their asses.

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

 

[pknopp]

There was no "sanctions" mentioned. So it would appear that speech can be oppressive.

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

It most likely would have been actionable.

 

[martybegan]

Then why issue the guidelines in the first place?

Even if no sanctions were mentioned, making the statement places a level of suppression on the expression.

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

It most likely would have been actionable.

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

 

[pknopp]

.Suppression/oppression. All the same. My pointing out the statement was not to defend the statement so I have no reason to go there. I was only pointing that that speech can be oppressive, Suppresive , or just blame negative.

The idea of free speech is that all of that is still better than the alternative.

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

It most likely would have been actionable.

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

 

[martybegan]

Speech can only be as oppressive as the audience allows it to be. Actions can be oppressive regardless of the desires of the target.

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

It most likely would have been actionable.

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

 

[pknopp]

Argue that if you want but you are still arguing it can be oppressive. The students didn't have to get offended over the schools statement.

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

It most likely would have been actionable.

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

 

[martybegan]

The oppressiveness is in the mind of the audience. The question is if that viewpoint is actionable by authority. My answer is no.

It most likely would have been actionable.

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

 

[pknopp]

It most likely would have been actionable.

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

 

[martybegan]

How?

Because someone's feelings were hurt?

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

Because there is implied action behind it, as they are in a position of authority.

 

[pknopp]

I've made my point.

What point? You aren't making points, you are responding in a half ass way to mine.

You want to address the oppressive speech. I have no desire to do that only to note that speech can be oppressive.

Again, it can only be as oppressive as the person hearing it wants it to be.

Actions are the only thing that can actually oppress a person.

The statement by the college most certainly had an oppressive element to it.

Because there is implied action behind it, as they are in a position of authority.

Right, oppressive speech. You can argue it's really only oppressive because there are actionable items that can be taken but that does not make the speech any less oppressive.

 

[Soupnazi630]

this is how we end racism and inequality

free speech is a hollow signifier, a guise for the wealthy and powerful to oppress the poor.

Free speech oppresses no one ever.

It most certainly can. Many of our freedoms can have negative consequences. The idea is that those consequences are not as bad as the alternative.

I never said anything about consequences.

I stated free speech oppresses no one and that is absolute fact

You are unable to state as fact something that affects someone else.

Yes I am

There is no one it has ever oppressed and that is absolute fact you cannot refute it.

Affecting and oppressing are not the same thing