Second attempt to discuss censorship and political correctness

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SquireSCA, Dec 9, 2018.

  1. SquireSCA, Dec 9, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2018

    SquireSCA Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #1
    So let’s talk about censorship… It’s a long one, so grab a pint and strap in.

    This is a topic that is in the news a lot, what with Twitter and Facebook getting caught targeting Conservatives, to now Apple has vowed to police their platform for “Hate Speech”…

    What exactly is Hate Speech? I mean, there are a few examples that are pretty self explanatory, but to be honest, I don’t see a lot of that, and have not, in years. There are a few fringe groups out there that nobody pays attention to any more, but it’s hardly mainstream…

    The problem as it stands today, is that “Hate Speech” is completely subjective. Someone being offended, is often branded as hate speech. But is it? If you call someone a name, and your intent is to hurt their feelings, then you are being “offensive”. But if you say something that the other person doesn’t like, or it strikes a personal nerve with them, they are “taking offense”. While they may feel offended, you were not being offensive.

    So why treat them the same way? When you censor speech based on whether the person on the receiving end “likes it or not”, you cannot have free speech. It cannot exist, because it is in no way free. All that is required is for one person to decide they don’t like it, and by virtue of that, decide that you therefore should not be allowed to say it.

    Where this issue gets compounded, is that it for the most part, comes from one side of the political aisle. It’s the Left that is shutting down any speech they don’t agree with. If what you say doesn’t align with their beliefs, or if it is not “politically correct”, you will have your Tweets deleted, your account banned, they might even go after your livelihood, etc…

    I don’t see the Right doing that. Part of that may be that the Right doesn’t really have any platforms to speak of. Not within social media anyway, and even in the mainstream media, they have Fox News and… yeah…, they have Fox News. Fox definitely leans Right. But they are an island in an ocean of left leaning media outlets. The other cable news networks, NPR, most major newspapers, Twitter, Facebook… and now Apple?

    I am a Libertarian. I am Right on some issues, and Left on others. Guns, taxes, immigration, military, I fall to the Right. Abortion, legalization of pot, gay rights and gay marriage, I strongly fall to the Left. I firmly believe that both sides have good aspects, and I cherry pick the best ones from each, knowing that no one side has all the answers. I don’t go to the extremes on either side. The far Left environmental evangelists, are no different than the far Christian right. Two sides to the same rabid, ideological coin.

    But back to censorship… Even were something to be actual hate speech, which in my experience is like less than 10% of what gets labeled as hate speech… Why not let people say it? Why not let those people expose themselves for the mean spirited or bigoted people that they are? Why not let them be a shining example of what NOT to be?

    And for the other 90% that isn’t hate speech but gets labeled that in order to keep people with opposing viewpoints to be able to present their ideas… is that a world that we want to live in? Many countries have gone down that path… (cough) 1930’s Germany(cough)…

    1) I was once banned from Facebook because I said that biologically there are only two genders in nature, and that anything other than that would be a deviation, almost like a birth defect. Think hermaphrodite, where the person has aspects of both. I said it don’t care if a guy wants to put on a dress and call himself Susan, but biologically speaking, he’s still a dude in a dress. There was no hate, no name calling, just expressing an opinion that is held by most of the world and supported by science. I got banned for saying that. Saying something that most would consider common sense. It wasn’t inflammatory or disparaging, someone just “didn’t like it”, and it was flagged as “offensive” and “hate speech” despite my not hating anyone.

    2) I was banned another time on Facebook, for 30 days this time, for posting a picture of a handgun. My gun, a legal product, that I own and had purchased and was discussing with my gun owning friends. My page was PRIVATE. Only friends, not even friends of friends could see it. Facebook’s AI banned me within 15 seconds for “violating their safety standards”… Meaning, what exactly? Was one of my friends in danger from a picture? I could never figure that one out…

    These are just a few simple examples that happen to people in social media and elsewhere, every single day. People sit in judgement over you, and if they don’t agree with you or don’t like you, they use their power to silence you, so that only people that they agree with may be heard.

    And my personal examples show the slippery slope of the issue of “hate speech” when it is not clearly defined. You can literally make up the definition, or change it, on the spot. And if you control the platform, you ultimately control what people can say, read, and to an extent, think. It’s a wide-spread problem, but I really only see it happening to one side. On Twitter, we can see Leftists posting pictures of the President with a severed head and people calling for open violence against Trump, etc… But say that marriage is between a man and a woman and you get banned for “Hate Speech”… The bias against anything Conservative is real, and it’s obvious.

    I realize this is a private platform and that the First Amendment isn’t in play here… But how many of us want to live in a world where one side gets to control speech? Gets to sit in judgement and decide if you should be allowed to have and share your opinion, based on whether it agrees with theirs? Who decides what qualifies as Hate Speech? What will they decide tomorrow? Where does this end?

    If people cannot have open, candid and respectful conversations and exchange ideas, then what’s the point? If only one side is allowed to have a say, then you don’t have a dialogue. You have propaganda.

    Apple, Social media, the Mainstream Media, all clearly lean to the Left. They don’t even try to hide it any more. And with the majority of the world’s population being on these platforms, the ability to manipulate and control public opinion by choosing who gets to speak, and censoring what they can say, is a tool just begging to be abused. This is a very slippery slope.

    We live in a world of safe spaces and virtue signaling, where feelings trump facts. If someone says something we don’t like or don’t agree with, instead of talking to them and trying to win hearts and minds with a better argument, we simply decide that they shouldn’t be allowed to say it. We call them a Nazi, or some other label in an effort to justify dismissing them out of hand and silencing them.

    Look at Milo Yuonopolis… Yes, he is controversial. So what? So was Lenny Bruce. So was George Carlin, Richard Prior, Howard Stern and others, who used shock value to make valid points, often in an over the top or funny way.

    The Left calls him a Nazi and protests him, gets his events shut down. They have even rioted and started fires, assaulted people, etc… Over an openly flamboyant gay man, who is married to a black man coming to speak at a university, that was INVITED to come speak… Oh, and he’s also Jewish. But he’s a Nazi? LOL

    He would literally be the first man that the Nazi’s marched into an oven, to put it bluntly. Now don’t take offense! I mean that literally. The Nazi’s weren’t very accepting of gay Jewish men… So the irony of labeling him a Nazi… LOL

    But that is how the Left and censorship works. “If you can’t beat them, beat them up”…

    When you enter into a world where the dialogue stops, you start walking down a very dark path as a society. On a legal level, concerning Free Speech… It wasn’t put in place in this country to protect popular speech, or speech that people agreed with. Those kinds of speech don’t need protecting because popular things that people agree with, by definition wouldn’t be under attack.

    The Right to Free Speech is to protect UNPOPULAR speech.

    So whether Twitter, Facebook, Apple or even this forum is a “private entity” and the “free speech laws don’t apply here” in a legal sense isn’t what I am arguing… Does it benefit us to ignore the spirit and intent of the First Amendment, whether it legally applies or not?

    I know that we CAN. But does that mean that we SHOULD? That’s the question that all of us need to be asking ourselves. Currently, in this platform, on Twitter, Facebook, the Mainstream media… most of the people in charge seem to be on the Left, and so they are perfectly fine with censoring, limiting and banning the OTHER side. Because in their minds, they are “right” and everyone else must therefore be wrong.

    But will it always be that way? What if things change and the folks that eagerly censor others, find themselves on the receiving end?

    Eg. Harry Reid creates a rule in the US Senate that allows many votes to be carried by a simple majority rather than the traditional 60 vote minimum. He called it the “nuclear option”. Democrats created it, and used it when they didn’t have the 60 votes. Never occurred to them that the tide might turn and that the Republicans would be in control, not have quite 60 votes, and so make use of the procedure that the Democrats created. Now they scream bloody murder whenever the Republicans use it, calling it unfair, etc… It was THEIR rule, that they were fine being used when it benefit them, but now that the other side uses it, they want to call foul?

    Apply that here, to this topic. Leftists don’t seem to think censoring is a problem, because they aren’t the ones being censored and silenced. Most of the time they are the ones DOING the censoring and silencing. They claim to be “open minded and tolerant”, but that only seems to be the case when you agree with them. If the balance of power were to shift, would they be so accepting of having their own standards applied to them? History tells us a resounding, “Hell No!”…

    That’s the problem in a nutshell concerning this so-called “Hate Speech” and political correctness that is tearing our society apart. It’s not making us better, its making us more divided, more tribal, less likely to communicate and share ideas and win hearts and minds with intellectual debate…

    There is nothing Progressive about this trend. It’s entirely regressive, and taking us back to more of a caveman interaction where whoever has the biggest stick or club, “wins the argument”. That’s not progress, no matter how you slice it.

    George Carlin does a nice job of exposing Political Correctness(Hate Speech) for what it is...

     
  2. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #3
    It used to be, "Hey, I don't agree with what you are saying, so I am gonna give you my side and try to sway you with a better argument"...

    Not any more. Today it is, "I don't agree with what you are saying, so you shouldn't be allowed to say it"...

    And when you control the platform, you get to censor anything you don't agree with, pretend it is "policy" or call it "Hate Speech" and silence people.

    It's not dialogue. It doesn't persuade people and there is nothing "Progressive" about it.
     
  3. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 604

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    Wales, United Kingdom
    #4
    I get the impression reading this forum that hate speech means a very different thing in the US than it does here in Europe. It’s becoming the new exaggerated buzz word on here much like ‘left’ and ‘right’ are used to legal others that don’t agree with certain viewpoints.

    Definition:

    “Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

    It’s not about being offended by ‘anything’. It’s about the context and intent. It’s very easy to ascertain what is and what isn’t hate speech.
     
  4. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #5
    That's not how it is used here. Hate Speech is a label that you slap on anything you don't like, or don't agree with, so that you can rationalize silencing them.

    It's like calling someone a Nazi... As I saw a recent Conservative black talk show host say, "There are less actual Nazi's in the US than I have .223 bullets in my gun closet"...

    It's like ANTIFA calling anyone they disagree with as "Fascists", despite that it's pretty much only ANTIFA that actually goes out and acts like Fascists.

    Our Left has a rich history of political correctness, censorship and misusing language to be able to justify silencing people and shutting down opposing viewpoints.

    If someone is out screaming to "Kill all the ***** Jews", then yeah, I think that every one of us would agree that that is hate speech. No argument there.

    Now, even then, should we prevent them from saying it? Are words a crime because they are mean and hurt feelings? Do we need "thought police" to try to glean intent and prosecute based on their interpretations?

    No. Let idiots say stupid things. Use those words to expose their hate and stupidity. Put a spotlight on it as a warning to others...

    Trying to control what people can say, especially in the context of "hate speech", most of which is NOT clearly defined and completely subjective and prone to change from day to day and person to person, isn't a benefit to society.
     
  5. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 604

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    Wales, United Kingdom
    #6
    That’s what I mean, it’s used a lot more intelligently in Europe and most people are aware of what it is.
     
  6. cwosigns macrumors 68000

    cwosigns

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus,OH
    #7
    There are not only two genders. Gender is a social construct; it’s not biological. Sex is physiology, and sometimes the physiology and psychology are disparate.

    This is probably why you were banned. Most hate speech is just arguing for old ideas that have been scientifically proven false in order to perpetuate the elevation one group has over another. Whether that was your intent or not, arguing that cisgender is the only “right” way to be born is, in a word, hateful.
     
  7. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #8
    Technically yes. Gender isn't even applied to people, or shouldn't be. It was originally assigned to inanimate objects in some languages.. like tables and chairs...

    But nature has two sexes. Male and female. And while some people are born somewhere in between, it doesn't make it normal or negate the face that nature has two sexes. It might be normal to be in the middle for that person, but there are people born with webbed fingers and toes... That's normal to them, but you can't say that it is a "normal human state" across the board...

    In any case, having my opinion isn't hate. Hate isn't even part of the equation. It just doesn't agree with what a minority of the population believes. So what? Why should I, or they, be banned for saying it?

    That's the point. Free Speech isn't about protecting trendy or popular or politically correct speech. It never was.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 9, 2018 ---
    Yes and no. You might have Hate Speech take a narrower and more accepted definition, but charging people with a crime for speech that isn't popular, or because it is mean or hurtful is a road that no country should ever go down.

    Let people talk. Win them over with a better argument, not simply silence them because you threaten to put them in jail over words...
     
  8. cwosigns macrumors 68000

    cwosigns

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus,OH
    #9
    Except an opinion is “I like broccoli” or “Cher’s music sucks.” Not “I think the earth is flat.” You can have an opinion; you can’t have your own set of “alternative facts.”
     
  9. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #10
    That is 100% false. Hate is malice. It is an emotion, with clear intent.

    It's not part of the equation for me, nor for most people.

    But the other side will CALL it hate, solely for the purpose of dismissing it, banning you, silencing you and even incarcerating you...

    THAT is what this discussion on censorship and hate speech is all about. It is 9 times out of 10 applied to speech that is simply unpopular, or something that is popular but that you simply don't agree with. It's not hate, but you CALL it hate so that you can try and keep me from saying it.

    You proved my point, maybe without meaning to...
    --- Post Merged, Dec 9, 2018 ---
    So show me in nature, where humans are concerned, that "male" and female" DNA is not the norm? That in fact isn't required for procreation and continuation of the species, which frankly is the only thing that nature even cares about?

    At the end of the day, lets say that you are right and science and DNA is wrong... So what? Am I still not entitled to have an opinion, or am I only allowed to have an opinion if it agrees with yours?

    That's the point of this and larger discussions... Me, and my side, would never call your argument "hate against binary" and try to keep you from talking... But your side has no problem trying to prevent me from having my "opinion"...

    That's the difference.
     
  10. cwosigns macrumors 68000

    cwosigns

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus,OH
    #11
    If you’ve no hate or malice (which is hard to determine in text), you spend a lot of time thinking about other people’s dangly bits when it literally has zero bearing on your life. That’s the puzzling piece when you try to pass yourself off as a libertarian.
     
  11. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #12
    You wouldn't know how much time I spend on this. You read a couple posts. It's a discussion.

    I don't care what people do. If you want to put on a cocktail dress and call yourself Susan, it's no skin off my nose. Have at it.

    But it is when you demand that I disregard DNA and "play along" and refer to you as female, when you are clearly not, that I have a problem with things. When your accusation is that I have "hate" or that I should somehow be punished, banned, prosecuted or shamed because I look at a man that has stubble and a bigger member as me and don't acknowledge him as a "woman"... How am I supposed to react?

    When I see men calling themselves women and entering into high school or olympic sports or even MMA and just obliterating the female competitors.... How is that fair? I am wrong to point out that, "well, of course the 230lbs guy is gonna beat the crap out of the 130lbs woman on the football field" or whatever... Somehow I "have hate"? For stating the obvious?

    I don't care what people do, but if people just did their thing and left me alone to do mine, I probably wouldn't give it a second thought...

    I don't care if people are gay. Go be gay. Get married. It doesn't bother me. If you want to cross dress or pretend to be a girl, again, I don't care, go enjoy it and be happy. But demanding that I partake in it by ignoring DNA and biology or "face the consequences"... No, homey don't play dat... sorry. I am gonna voice my opinion, respectfully.

    But it isn't hate, no matter how you try to claim that it is. It's just a difference of opinion, and I am 100% entitled to it, every bit as much as you are entitled to voice yours.
     
  12. cwosigns macrumors 68000

    cwosigns

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus,OH
    #13
    Wow. If you don’t see how that speech is seen as hateful, I can’t help you.

    But my DNA says that I have thick hair and no baldness. The reality that I live is baldness. Are you going to send me a blow dryer for Christmas?

    DNA and reality don’t always jive. Sorry you can’t wrap your head around that.
     
  13. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #14
    Because it isn't hateful.

    THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

    You are defining "hate" as what you agree with. That's not how this works. It is not how any of this is supposed to work.

    It's a construct that your side created, to justify simply shutting down what you don't agree with.

    It's like calling someone a "NAZI", when they share nothing in common with a Nazi. But Nazi's were horrible. There is no defending a Nazi. So you call someone a Nazi so the label prevents them from any counter argument, and then you can justify anything from silencing them to actual violence. Even if they have nothing Nazi'ish about them.

    It's just manipulation of the language to make sure your voice or your opinions, are the only one's heard.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 9, 2018 ---
    And again, the ONLY reason you are fine with this, is because it is primarily YOUR side doing it.

    There is no doubt in my mind that if all the networks, and NPR, and the newspapers, and Social Media and even this forum, were all the opposite... if they were all right wing and your standards were being applied to you, that you would be screaming bloody murder about censorship, etc...

    But you don't, because right now at least, you are the one doing it and benefiting from it.

    But let's not pretend that you wouldn't be outraged if you were on the receiving end of it, ok? LOL
     
  14. cwosigns macrumors 68000

    cwosigns

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus,OH
    #15
    Sorry that science and society has moved forward and your outdated “opinions” make you feel left out. Good luck with that.
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Sounds like Facebook’s AI needs more work...

    The gun thing is pretty bad.
     
  16. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #17
    There are many, but not all, that agree that “hate speech” would be saying that some race should be exterminated, and then there are extremists who believe that saying the wrong pronoun is a form of “hate speech.”
     
  17. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    Except that science has. You already said, "DNA doesn't jive with reality"...

    Meaning, facts don't matter, your feelings do.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 9, 2018 ---
    You have only to look at this thread to see examples of that, and he's not alone.

    Hate = Something contrary to what he feels or was taught to believe.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 9, 2018 ---
    It doesn't need work. Its doing exactly what they programmed it to do.
     
  18. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #19
    What? Huh? How many genders are there then? I missed the memo. Boys and girls.....and.....please elaborate.

    He was banned from Facebook because he wasn’t towing the company line, aka siding with the far left. That’s quite evident. When is the last time some anti white or pro left wing nutcase was banned from social media? Like never. Cmon man.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    I Europe iirc Muslim is considered a race and not a religion. You guys go overboard killing anything you don’t like
     
  20. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #21
    There is nothing smart about criminalising speech, no matter how offensive you find it.
     
  21. SquireSCA thread starter Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #22
    Agreed. And if it was a two way street, maybe people would be more open to censorship, but it never seems to be. Not here, not on social media and not on the media at large. It's pretty one sided, and it's getting worse.
     
  22. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #23
    As Professor Jordan Peterson warns,

    Who defines hate? The crucial issue. It's not like it's a scientific category. It's a judgement. And the answer is...those whom you least want to have the power to define it
     
  23. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #24
    Probably because you've never been on the receiving end of speech advocating your extermination.
     
  24. Solver, Dec 9, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018

    Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    zin said:
    “There is nothing smart about criminalising speech, no matter how offensive you find it.”

    There is a big difference between speech that is just an opinion and speech that calls for violence. It is the second one that there are laws against. Because of this, this kind of speech is mostly hidden away in the darkness.
     

Share This Page

291 December 9, 2018