El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by choof

I'm not arguing for anything other than change in the way I suggested lol


free assembly and communication is great, as long as you're not, you know, espousing white supremacist rhetoric


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
edit: the future implications of banning white supremacist speech would be continued ban of white supremacist speech w0w!

it sets the precedent that you could ban certain groups' ability to communicate. it's not a slippery slope. societal consensus is not always on the right side

[choof]

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555

it sets the precedent that you could ban certain groups' ability to communicate. it's not a slippery slope. societal consensus is not always on the right side

are you going to name some groups who would be wrongly affected or are you just going to keep on being vague
societal consensus is on the right side this time, bub

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by choof

are you going to name some groups who would be wrongly affected or are you just going to keep on being vague
societal consensus is on the right side this time, bub

i have no choice /but/ to be vague. you have to think of the future when writing laws.

the second amendment didn't predict mass shooters, and now look

edit: i just want to clarify that i'm NOT SUPPORTING WHITE SUPREMACY i'm black. alright. alright clarification over

[choof]

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555

i have no choice /but/ to be vague. you have to think of the future when writing laws.

oh okay so no current groups but some unknown groups in the future may be wrongly impacted by cracking down on white supremacist rhetoric

the second amendment didn't predict mass shooters, and now look

this is so non sequitur

edit: i just want to clarify that i'm NOT SUPPORTING WHITE SUPREMACY i'm black. alright. alright clarification over

*farts*

[choof]

actually i don't have a reddit account so can someone post those to r/enlightenedcentrism and we'll split the karma, thanks in advance

[devonin]

Originally Posted by choof

oh okay so no current groups but some unknown groups in the future may be wrongly impacted by cracking down on white supremacist rhetoric

Her point is that the law that went into place could end up being defined as like "Assembly or communication contrary to the common good" or something that could also be used to harm the kinds of assembly or speech -we- like if people who don't think like us get into power.

But I don't agree that the law would be worded that way. Canada has laws against hate speech and incitement to violence, and I'm struggling to think of any time I've seen them misapplied.

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by choof

oh okay so no current groups but some unknown groups in the future may be wrongly impacted by cracking down on white supremacist rhetoric

cracking down on white supremacist rhetoric isn't the thing that's wrong; it's the instrument through which you're suggesting it happens that i take issue with

perhaps there is a way to pass a law that could crack down on white supremacist hate speech, but you have to be /very careful/ with the way you word it

this is so non sequitur

no it's not it's quite literally why gun control in the us is so tricky to implement

Originally Posted by devonin

But I don't agree that the law would be worded that way. Canada has laws against hate speech and incitement to violence, and I'm struggling to think of any time I've seen them misapplied.

oh canada, our home and native land

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555

if a cake shop denies baking you a cake for whatever reason, well fuck the cake shop but you have the ability to go to another shop and get the same kinda cake. what happens when every social media + video streaming company bans you?

what happens if every cake shop bans you?

EDIT: I'm also pretty sure "hate speech" has a specific legal definition

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

what happens if every cake shop bans you?

then you lack access to premade cakes, which is bad but you could still go to a store and make a cake, which is a relatively easily producible product OR buy another treat that tastes just as good to you, like a pie

this example breaks when every dessert shop imaginable bans you and stores ban you from buying the basic commodities to make desserts.

[Funnygurl555]

if hate speech has a specific definition then thats good and invalidates some of what ive been saying

[Svaz]

Something that hasn't been mentioned explicitly yet, but that I think about every time, is the way mass media treats perpetrators.

I imagine the heavy exposure probably is an added motive to commit violence to some extent, as an example from these events: do you think we'd all know of and/or read some manifesto posted by the El Paso murderer on 8chan if he wasn't a murderer? I'd imagine not; he'd be mocked or lauded in his corner of the internet, and the general public wouldn't even see it. Big media focuses so heavily on and gives so much attention to the perpetrators of crimes over victims and delves into who they were, I'm sure in some capacity it's perceived as a means to an end, a means to get their word out there to a huge national/international audience and perhaps incite others to their cause.

As a slight tangent to the internet, I remember years ago seeing threads about body counts and high scores in regards to mass murders on 4chan and probably other places (in the era of the VA Tech shooter and Elliot Rodgers), which kind of ties back into curtailing spaces where people feel emboldened to make statements like that, not only racist and extremist takes but from a position otherwise detached from the repercussions (I guess) of social norms and expectations.

A lot of spaces like that wind up lauding mass murderers for their activities and others still will have tumblrs or something dedicated to fetishizing mass murderers and writing creepy fanfiction about them. Even shit like Pumped Up Kicks kinda falls into this category.

I'm not even sure where I'm going with this at this point, but I can say that it's getting a little bit better -- with this alone I've seen a lot less full naming and a lot more "El Paso and Dayton shootings" and "El Paso Shooter" than times in the past. I'm not trying to vilify the media either, I suppose I just come from stuff like this with a bad taste in my mouth a lot of the time. These people don't deserve the reward of attention for being murderers I guess is my point.

[Svaz]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

what happens if every cake shop bans you?

Isn't The Daily Stormer (just a link to the Wikipedia article btw) a pretty good example of this? Lousy with hate speech, blacklisted from most places, exists primarily on TOR & the dark web now.

edit: nvm apparently they're back on regular www through some Chinese ISP, what a terrible discovery

[mellonxcollie]

Svaz you're a fucking great poster

[mellonxcollie]

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555

if hate speech has a specific definition then thats good and invalidates some of what ive been saying

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate...laws_in_Canada

We've had hate speech laws and there is a precedent for us

[Funnygurl555]

you would also have to prove that it has a robust record of doing good and had limited negative externalities

im willing to believe im wrong, but i need stronger data

[mellonxcollie]

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555

you would also have to prove that it has a robust record of doing good and had limited negative externalities

im willing to believe im wrong, but i need stronger data

My point is that hate speech does have a definition where I live

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by mellonxcollie

My point is that hate speech does have a definition where I live

you were replying to what i said though, and i would like evidence that its specific enough

not that i want you in particular to provide it though i was telling the thread what id need to change my mind

[Sanjixcon]

wiki definition

"Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group.[1] Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[2][3]"

"The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[10] There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[101][102][103][104][105] Court rulings often must be reexamined to ensure the U.S. Constitution is being upheld in the ruling on whether or not the words count as a violation.[106]"

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Sanjixcon

wiki definition

"Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group.[1] Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[2][3]"

"The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[10] There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[101][102][103][104][105] Court rulings often must be reexamined to ensure the U.S. Constitution is being upheld in the ruling on whether or not the words count as a violation.[106]"

Right, there's a legal definition for hate speech, but hate speech is still protected by the First Amendment

[Dinglesberry]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

Right, there's a legal definition for hate speech, but hate speech is still protected by the First Amendment

the joke of first ammendmant dumb america laws and shit is that apparently its fine to oppress and ostracize an entire community or group of people under the guise of it being free speech, but would that not mean that the group that is being persecuted and shit suddenly lost their ABILITY to make free speech?

so free speech is basically "if you have the ability and power to say whatever the fuck you want, then its fine and should be allowed", yet lets not even think about the people who are actually being targetted by this who literally can't use free speech to defend themselves, like lol