What's your opinion on Reddit?

3 minutes ago, dr_st said:

Complete disregard of the point, complete inability to actually think about anything in any way other than identity politics, or to see your own reflection when the mirror is placed in front of your face. "Triggered and unmasked" indeed. :)

Dude, you started crying about my language when I was busy pointing out practical side effects of your half-baked ideological proposal. Because the Karen meme makes you instantly switch the topic to "calling someone a racist is in fact the real racism". And you accuse me of following a script? You ran to your safe place when it became obvious your entire plan is to command tech companies to enforce unrestrained free speech AND shield it from more free speech in form of brigading and mass callouts. You basically want the nanny state to provide affirmative action for the most at-risk group of all: you.

@dew

Re: the Karen meme. I put the disclaimer that I knew it was beside the point, and that it is a pet peeve of mine. I offered a parallel that explains why I think its derogatory and why it's shameful that generally good people contribute to the spread of such a dumb and insulting meme, where same group of generally good people would be appalled if such an exact meme existed, but with a slight variation, targeting a different social group.

Re: "calling someone a racist is in fact the real racism" - I never said that.

Re: "your entire plan is to command tech companies to enforce unrestrained free speech" - absolutely not. My entire plan is to take away from them the right to restrain free speech that is protected under the free speech laws of the relevant jurisdiciton. I never wrote that I want them to enforce anything. I explicitly wrote that the actual free speech limits should stand. But you just don't read. You just don't read. You must have this idea that everyone who advocates for a specific point or uses the same terms, by definition thinks in the same patterns, so why spend time understanding what it is they are saying? Just use the same template blanket retort, preferably while sneaking an insult while at it.

6 hours ago, dr_st said:

It's high time the laws are updated. Specifically when it comes to freedom of speech, and specifically when it comes to de-facto monopolistic social network platforms.

2 hours ago, dr_st said:

All I am saying is that in a country which wishes to have free speech laws, such laws should apply to Facebook/Twitter, just like they apply to any other public venue.

2 hours ago, dr_st said:

Actually, I don't want to give anyone any power to cancel anything.

You want to force private companies by changing the laws and declaring their platforms public to ensure they cannot moderate free speech, and you want to restrict any "canceling", which often times includes abuse of free speech in form of brigading and viral cancel hashtags. I read your posts better than you do, Karen.

"Actually, I don't want to give anyone any power to cancel anything." - that was in the context of the meme thing, and it was poorly phrased. Disregard that.

Everything else stands. I'm sure if you had read what I wrote prior to that poorly phrased sentence, you would have understood me, and wouldn't have "jumped" at that reply (probably because you would not have written what I was replying to in the first place).

I think I have made my point quite clear, and you have made yours. The "better than you do, Karen" suggests to me that, unfortunately, I was not wrong about you in my previous post. You can't hold yourself from making a personal attack. But then again, maybe I can't either?

1 hour ago, dr_st said:

Is "expressing one's desire to exterminate all Jews" allowed under American free speech laws? 

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct (such as exterminating an entire race of people, or an entire religious group of people), speech that incites imminent lawless action (such as exterminating all jews, which is a group protected by way of law), speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats (such as threatening to kill all jews), and commercial speech such as advertising.

The fact that you even ask if such a question is protected by american free speech laws shows quite clearly that you're not qualified to discuss this topic on even so much as a cursory level.

7 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

The fact that you even ask if such a question is protected by american free speech laws shows quite clearly that you're not qualified to discuss this topic on even so much as a cursory level.

Sorry, Nine Inch Heels, sarcasm is sometimes hard to pass in text form. Since it was quite clear to me that such a statement is not protected, I couldn't understand why dew would even bring it up as an example. Seemed like a very clear strawman argument to me, so I just threw it right back. Maybe I should have made the sarcasm more obvious. I really thought it would be obvious enough, but now I see how it may not have been.

Your desire to cherry-pick a specific statement, which is not even fundamental in the discussion, and present it as "evidence" of my lack of qualification to discuss the topic in general, is a good technique to avoid paying attention to the claims. It's tempting to do so sometimes, and I have done so myself in the past. I try not to. It's not generally good for constructive discussions.

Man, wasn't expecting this thread to turn into my What Is Your Opinion On Free Speech 2.0.