[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Withano

I know what you mean, Ammi. People quoting posts, and the response being 'this has nothing to do with my post' is becoming increasingly common, and maybe thats because people have predetermined the context. Ive been on both sides of that, I think a lot of people have.
I do think Big Brother might settle this a little, because the divide would be less obvious. 'Rights' and 'lefts' will unite in their opinions on some of the housemates, some of the time.
And then, after BB and CBB, I cant see any other political milestone causing huge upset to either side until the next US elections.

Big Brother I tend to find normally can have me support people that I would be horrified at in real life alot of the time with their views.

I mean I supported Helen Wood in BB15.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

All this drama because some only support 'free speech' when it agrees with them. Then be sure to make it as combatant as you can with a fistful of ********** in every paragraph. Way to go!

I support people to say prejudice things if they want to, but they should also expect that alot of people will also voice their own opinions against those views.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Big Brother I tend to find normally can have me support people that I would be horrified at in real life alot of the time with their views.

I mean I supported Helen Wood in BB15.

True, I don't support BB housemates because I like them as people at all, but because I like the impact they have on the house or the interesting things they bring out in others. Bear is the prime example, really. I couldn't be around the guy for long in real life, but the things he brought out in the other housemates... that's what made him absolute gold. Same with Kim Woodburn etc. - the best part about her as a housemate was watching the others implode trying to deal with her.

It's those ones who paint on a facade of being "the good guys" that I find really awful and watching that shell crack and all of that self-important ego and nastiness start to spill out that is the best part of BB. So anyone who can make that happen gets my support .

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

All this drama because some only support 'free speech' when it agrees with them. Then be sure to make it as combatant as you can with a fistful of ********** in every paragraph. Way to go!

Not at all free speech and hate speech are VERY different things. Katie Hopkins for instance crossed that line with her comment that saw her sacked from her very influential position.
I admire free speech and encourage it, that was not it.
All that has been suggested is some posts can skirt a little to close to that line than is comfortable, and with increasing frequency.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not at all free speech and hate speech are VERY different things. Katie Hopkins for instance crossed that line with her comment that saw her sacked from her very influential position.
I admire free speech and encourage it, that was not it.
All that has been suggesting is some posts can skirt a little to close to that line than is comfortable, and with increasing frequency.

There just seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding that "free speech" means "saying literally whatever you want, whenever you want".

That's not what it means and it never has been .

[Northern Monkey]

Honestly this place is tame.
I was just reading a post on another forum saying that this is how muslims celebrate ramadan by cutting throats,stabbing people,blowing themselves up and that mayor Khan is having a very happy ramadan.

TIBB has absolutely nothing to worry about.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There just seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding that "free speech" means "saying literally whatever you want, whenever you want".

That's not what it means and it never has been .

Actually, it is freedom of speech. At least in the US. I don't know about UK and their laws, but I'm curious if there is a difference between our implementation of freedom of speech and other countries...

Hate speech falls under freedom of speech. The two overlap. Unless it's harassment, a threat (in other words, a hate crime). Hate speech is considered freedom of expression.

If hate speech weren't Freedom of Speech, many of these hate groups would've been jailed long ago. That's why for many years groups like the KKK and Black Panthers existed, they didn't pose any particular threat. Kind of the like biker gangs here that support anarchy and all kinds of crazy ****. They blended in with the public, and many of them were apart of these things, but they didn't generally mess with other people unless you mess with them. Some of them have a strict codes and they respond fairly tolerantly all considering. (I met one named Prozac once in Ocean City, he gave me Marti Gras beeds (it's wasn't even Mardis Gras ) and he was insistant that he would not require me to show him my boobs ... all while the rest of gang stood nearby, drinking and partying, while also "assessing" myself and my husband)

Those groups have become more "agitated" as hard left propaganda has became or is being perceived (I'm not sure which tbh) more mainstream. Not only are those groups increasing, but newer ones cropping up just as quickly. Only when they feel their way of life is under attack do they act out this way... similarly, it's only "militarizing" (generally not literally) our younger generations to join these groups, since social media is a great platform for them to expand their propaganda and grow at record paces... oh, similar to terrorist groups.

I don't necessarily have to agree with the KKK or the Black Panthers, but for a long time you could run into these groups here and they didn't try to force you to think one way or another... they weren't in hiding though and the worst they got were some mean comments, in which they responded in kind.

Honestly, if the government (or even the mods) were to start prosecuting hate speech and got a little too thorough with it, I think most TiBB posts would be banned if it that's any indicator

This is why we allow for the rights of others to express themselves... ideas themselves aren't themselves harmful. It's when we retaliate and respond similarly (with hate speech of our own) against these groups and give them a reason to "militarize" their words by actions (again, not always literally)... we actually feed into their entire narrative.

There are probably few in these groups that actually commit crimes or really rise to the extremes of their verbal rhetoric. Just like 99% of the trolls online who send death threats wouldn't actually do anything... it's of no harm to us and we should allow them the room to vocalize. Otherwise, you risk (unintentionally) creating a pressure cooker for the 1%'s (the Timothy McVay's) to actually create the toxic brew that is inevitably delivered to the public when the realities of their atrocities

‘Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,’ Portland mayor says. He’s wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ays-hes-wrong/


My husband works with these 1%'s (and 99%s) in his job (mental health detentions). He has always said "money is obviously no good here", but "respect is currency"... he may not agree with them. He may even be thoroughly disgusted by some of them. He is threatened on a daily basis in extreme details, actual people who have murdered... as long as you keep a rapport, help each other to get through the checks, the forced medication, the other more difficult aspects of the job (like forced removals, investigating suicide risk, abuse, etc...)

He is one of the most vulnerable spots to be in the system because he's not allowed to view patient records (so he doesn't know what diseases they are carrying or their psychic profile), he is expected to deliver top notch care to in some cases, hardened criminals (where our inadequate health care services have failed) ... but at the same time, he are not armed. He has OC Spray. That's it.

He is expected to talk them down... and some of them hate him for simply talking to them, but it's required by his job. So yeah... all the rhetoric that happens on the outside... my husband gets to see it everyday when it boils over. If he can manage to be tolerant and respectful (which again--respect is currency with many of these individuals)... then I think some people need to think about the big picture a little bit more, whether it even affects them at all, and if in fact they are feeding into a narrative that is inevitably "arming" the worst of these individuals to commit horrid cries. There are people actually in harms way of the 1% of these extreme groups... when we're worrying about the worst of what someone said on the internet, who for all intents and purposes, is might at best be an self-obsessed egotist searching for attention... and we're giving them that provocation to use (often) careless language used in ignorance that can be used, abused and twisted by actually truly dangerous individuals... the latter is who you should really be worried about. (Though I don't think that TiBB is an efficient platform for spreading anything political... mostly referring to places like Twitter, etc)

[Maru]

Kathy Griffin's lawyer's (first 11-12 minutes or so) arguments at the press conference about the whole Trump decapitated head "It's art" thing is a good example of why we should all be in favor of keeping the laws as they are...

Now, while I instinctively know the lawyers themselves are probably on some level, opportunists... (Lisa Bloom is Gloria Allred's daughter if that's any indicator). Though after hearing her angle and the way she took it, I'm on board.

BTW, the moral part of me thought this picture was way over the line... (though it did scratch my edgy art itch a bit)

Youtube video

[Toy Soldier]

I do understand what you're saying Maru, I really do, but it's where I have to come back to the gist of one of my very first posts; that there are TWO options... the first, and honestly, my preferred option being allow people to say what they want but allow others the right to respond with their opinions. Their true opinions - about that person - for saying the things they are saying. In my opinion, this is essential to maintaining the sort of equilibrium you're talking about; people naturally moderate their own words when they know they can be personally called out on them. If they feel like they can go all out without fear of anyone being able to say anything to them, directly, in return... then that is exactly what they will do.

IF that's not possible, then there needs to be some sort of restriction on how far people are allowed to go with what they are saying.

The current situation on TiBB is not the former or the latter, and obviously this is taken to extremes and I'm not comparing anyone here to the KKK, but;

To use your examples...

It's like the KKK having the right to say whatever they want and share whatever views they want, then someone saying "Mr KKK, these views are racist. You are a racist."... and that person then being arrested for calling the KKK member a racist.

It comes down to this: "full free speech if you're speaking in general, or about a non-forum person, but absolutely ZERO free speech when it comes to talking about forum members." You flat out can't. At all. It's a lopsided system that, I will say again, is going to spiral further out of control in terms of the sorts of opinions that are being posted.

I suppose to go back to real-world allegories you could suggest that this is much like freedom of speech vs. defamation... but then, it's not defamation if the comments about an individual are opinions based on facts and in the "public interest". The ability to point out racism and other prejudice in specific members is arguably both.

[JTM45]

Originally Posted by Maru

That's why for many years groups like the KKK and Black Panthers existed, they didn't pose any particular threat.

No threat ?

I'm not so sure the people they lynched or dragged to their deaths behind pickups or the civil rights workers they murdered would agree with you on that one.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Maru

Actually, it is freedom of speech. At least in the US. I don't know about UK and their laws, but I'm curious if there is a difference between our implementation of freedom of speech and other countries...

Hate speech falls under freedom of speech. The two overlap. Unless it's harassment, a threat (in other words, a hate crime). Hate speech is considered freedom of expression.

If hate speech weren't Freedom of Speech, many of these hate groups would've been jailed long ago. That's why for many years groups like the KKK and Black Panthers existed, they didn't pose any particular threat. Kind of the like biker gangs here that support anarchy and all kinds of crazy ****. They blended in with the public, and many of them were apart of these things, but they didn't generally mess with other people unless you mess with them. Some of them have a strict codes and they respond fairly tolerantly all considering. (I met one named Prozac once in Ocean City, he gave me Marti Gras beeds (it's wasn't even Mardis Gras ) and he was insistant that he would not require me to show him my boobs ... all while the rest of gang stood nearby, drinking and partying, while also "assessing" myself and my husband)

Those groups have become more "agitated" as hard left propaganda has became or is being perceived (I'm not sure which tbh) more mainstream. Not only are those groups increasing, but newer ones cropping up just as quickly. Only when they feel their way of life is under attack do they act out this way... similarly, it's only "militarizing" (generally not literally) our younger generations to join these groups, since social media is a great platform for them to expand their propaganda and grow at record paces... oh, similar to terrorist groups.

I don't necessarily have to agree with the KKK or the Black Panthers, but for a long time you could run into these groups here and they didn't try to force you to think one way or another... they weren't in hiding though and the worst they got were some mean comments, in which they responded in kind.

Honestly, if the government (or even the mods) were to start prosecuting hate speech and got a little too thorough with it, I think most TiBB posts would be banned if it that's any indicator

This is why we allow for the rights of others to express themselves... ideas themselves aren't themselves harmful. It's when we retaliate and respond similarly (with hate speech of our own) against these groups and give them a reason to "militarize" their words by actions (again, not always literally)... we actually feed into their entire narrative.

There are probably few in these groups that actually commit crimes or really rise to the extremes of their verbal rhetoric. Just like 99% of the trolls online who send death threats wouldn't actually do anything... it's of no harm to us and we should allow them the room to vocalize. Otherwise, you risk (unintentionally) creating a pressure cooker for the 1%'s (the Timothy McVay's) to actually create the toxic brew that is inevitably delivered to the public when the realities of their atrocities

‘Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,’ Portland mayor says. He’s wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ays-hes-wrong/


My husband works with these 1%'s (and 99%s) in his job (mental health detentions). He has always said "money is obviously no good here", but "respect is currency"... he may not agree with them. He may even be thoroughly disgusted by some of them. He is threatened on a daily basis in extreme details, actual people who have murdered... as long as you keep a rapport, help each other to get through the checks, the forced medication, the other more difficult aspects of the job (like forced removals, investigating suicide risk, abuse, etc...)

He is one of the most vulnerable spots to be in the system because he's not allowed to view patient records (so he doesn't know what diseases they are carrying or their psychic profile), he is expected to deliver top notch care to in some cases, hardened criminals (where our inadequate health care services have failed) ... but at the same time, he are not armed. He has OC Spray. That's it.

He is expected to talk them down... and some of them hate him for simply talking to them, but it's required by his job. So yeah... all the rhetoric that happens on the outside... my husband gets to see it everyday when it boils over. If he can manage to be tolerant and respectful (which again--respect is currency with many of these individuals)... then I think some people need to think about the big picture a little bit more, whether it even affects them at all, and if in fact they are feeding into a narrative that is inevitably "arming" the worst of these individuals to commit horrid cries. There are people actually in harms way of the 1% of these extreme groups... when we're worrying about the worst of what someone said on the internet, who for all intents and purposes, is might at best be an self-obsessed egotist searching for attention... and we're giving them that provocation to use (often) careless language used in ignorance that can be used, abused and twisted by actually truly dangerous individuals... the latter is who you should really be worried about. (Though I don't think that TiBB is an efficient platform for spreading anything political... mostly referring to places like Twitter, etc)

Define 'hard left propaganda'... Do you mean social policy?

Our hate laws relate specifically to incitement,harrassment, discrimination, violence, bullying and intimidation so no it doesn't overlap with free speech at all.

Tibb may not be the largest platform however that is not to say that means it is ok to allow discrimination and prejudice to fester. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your 1% analogy, that we should allow this !% to vent along with the 99% so they don't snap an start acting on their extreme views?

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I do understand what you're saying Maru, I really do, but it's where I have to come back to the gist of one of my very first posts; that there are TWO options... the first, and honestly, my preferred option being allow people to say what they want but allow others the right to respond with their opinions. Their true opinions - about that person - for saying the things they are saying. In my opinion, this is essential to maintaining the sort of equilibrium you're talking about; people naturally moderate their own words when they know they can be personally called out on them. If they feel like they can go all out without fear of anyone being able to say anything to them, directly, in return... then that is exactly what they will do.

IF that's not possible, then there needs to be some sort of restriction on how far people are allowed to go with what they are saying.

The current situation on TiBB is not the former or the latter, and obviously this is taken to extremes and I'm not comparing anyone here to the KKK, but;

To use your examples...

It's like the KKK having the right to say whatever they want and share whatever views they want, then someone saying "Mr KKK, these views are racist. You are a racist."... and that person then being arrested for calling the KKK member a racist.

It comes down to this: "full free speech if you're speaking in general, or about a non-forum person, but absolutely ZERO free speech when it comes to talking about forum members." You flat out can't. At all. It's a lopsided system that, I will say again, is going to spiral further out of control in terms of the sorts of opinions that are being posted.

I suppose to go back to real-world allegories you could suggest that this is much like freedom of speech vs. defamation... but then, it's not defamation if the comments about an individual are opinions based on facts and in the "public interest". The ability to point out racism and other prejudice in specific members is arguably both.

It would be difficult to do that under the current forum age restriction due to the chances of bullying occuring.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

It would be difficult to do that under the current forum age restriction due to the chances of bullying occuring.

Is there anyone under 18 posting regularly in SD? I doubt it, but I take your point for the other forums. Regardless, it would be pretty obvious if a young member was being bullied, and going back to the real-world symbolism again, I'm pretty sure that even in the US verbal bullying isn't protected under freedom of speech.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I do understand what you're saying Maru, I really do, but it's where I have to come back to the gist of one of my very first posts; that there are TWO options... the first, and honestly, my preferred option being allow people to say what they want but allow others the right to respond with their opinions. Their true opinions - about that person - for saying the things they are saying. In my opinion, this is essential to maintaining the sort of equilibrium you're talking about; people naturally moderate their own words when they know they can be personally called out on them. If they feel like they can go all out without fear of anyone being able to say anything to them, directly, in return... then that is exactly what they will do.

If that's not possible, then there needs to be some sort of restriction on how far people are allowed to go with what they are saying.

The current situation on TiBB is not the former or the latter, and obviously this is taken to extremes and I'm not comparing anyone here to the KKK, but;

To use your examples...

It's like the KKK having the right to say whatever they want and share whatever views they want, then someone saying "Mr KKK, these views are racist. You are a racist."... and that person then being arrested for calling the KKK member a racist.

It comes down to this: "full free speech if you're speaking in general, or about a non-forum person, but absolutely ZERO free speech when it comes to talking about forum members." You flat out can't. At all. It's a lopsided system that, I will say again, is going to spiral further out of control in terms of the sorts of opinions that are being posted.

I suppose to go back to real-world allegories you could suggest that this is much like freedom of speech vs. defamation... but then, it's not defamation if the comments about an individual are opinions based on facts and in the "public interest". The ability to point out racism and other prejudice in specific members is arguably both.

I agree with you in general, I wish for the first option. I think that is more plausible when the community has a good consensus of where the actual real line is... like yeah this does not belong here on "our" site... doesn't seem feasible from what little I've read in SD recently.

But with SD and the state of affairs of our politics, it's forcing again--places like this to push their policies to the limit. The problem, people will associate the actions of the moderators at large as "taking sides". Somehow they are personally negligent. Whether it's the truth or not, doesn't matter, it's the appearance... it happened before I stopped posting. Remember the members who claimed they were personally being targetted... now we're seeing the opposite side of the table... worst part, the quality of SD posts (again, what little I've read)... seems to be about the same as when I quit posting, so what was really the point? So yeah, not much improvement there... I don't think there's much the moderators can do at this point... the best thing to do would honestly be to ignore these posters if they're being this oppressive with their views. I actually made a little WebExtensions plugin not too long before I stopped posting that let me collapse quotes (and quotes that referenced my little baddies) from the annoying posters and other things... partially for fun so I could give people funny names, but yeah... but yeah it's just better to grow a thicker skin... this is the world we are living in now. But truthfully, you're about where I was before I quit posting... I don't like to try to push my views on others or control their views (I'm boring I know)... but it's just because it's banging your head in a wall. It's not accomplishing much but playing into the dumb rat race that the stereotypes on this board are constantly reinforcing.

But yeah I feel you.

Originally Posted by JTM45

No threat ?

I'm not so sure the people they lynched or dragged to their deaths behind pickups or the civil rights workers they murdered would agree with you on that one.

lmao. You make a great point. I'm mainly looking backwards when many of these movements are more "dormant". Back then, I think hate groups were closer to gangs... yes, they were there. But you didn't talk about them every five minutes, nor did you pay them any mind... yes, they commit crimes, because they have to prove loyalty to each other and their "values", and all that mess... but in the end, most people--unless you were unlucky to live in the wrong place (or state) or just happen to be in the wrong place or wrong time, you didn't feel like you were preyed upon. And because they made it relatively obvious where they hung out, where their "community" was... you knew these groups were territorial and to stay out of their perimeter. Now, these things live underneath every rock, nook and cranny... it's because harder to detect because now the kids and social media are involving people from all walks of life, some people who don't know they're being encouraged to have strong words with the opposition group in order to bolster some lesser than honorable intentions towards our own society (edit)... Now it's a resurgence and is a very serious thing, they are pushing their rhetoric and narrative, accompanying this with violence... very similar to terrorism... personally I see no difference in the way they operate.

I do not condone racism, and I make that clear when it is the topic in a thread... but they pigeon hole oppositional groups to get them to act out, because that creates an air of competition... there are kids who are buying into this rhetoric and signing up for this sh*t. The other day, I was standing outside talking to an African American police officer (and I'm caucasian fyi), and some kids in their car drove by screaming "Black Power!..." It didn't shock me or anything (it's whatever)... it's just I know the area I'm in, there are gangs because we are near the city.. and I'm sad that this is how kids are spending their time and mental energy. But they're being told they're doing something good for their group and the people who are actually looking out for them... gangs have always operate this way, sure, but it's the more psychotic versions of these groups that are getting the national intents... and those are the people we don't want to use our own words against us. We have to take back the power of our words and make sure too that our actions best describe this. We have to do what we say... not just say what we intend to do. That includes, listening to these groups--whether we agree with or them or not, and figure out what we are doing wrong (as a society) to not address these needs... why are they turning to hate groups and gangs to protect their communities? Why can't they trust the police to do this? What are we doing wrong that we should be doing better? (This isn't to start that debate, just saying where I approach things in general).

It's a sad state of affairs... all around, but we all are living together--all scared for the future, maybe for different reasons... but we are all operating out of fear or otherwise in avoidance of it (to some degree) about how we approach the future... we're all in that boat together

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is there anyone under 18 posting regularly in SD? I doubt it, but I take your point for the other forums. Regardless, it would be pretty obvious if a young member was being bullied, and going back to the real-world symbolism again, I'm pretty sure that even in the US verbal bullying isn't protected under freedom of speech.

Some people's mentalities here are under 18

[Alf]

Youtube video

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maru

Some people's mentalities here are under 18

I feel like mine lurches wildly between 15 and 50 .