|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 15 2016 09:32 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 09:24 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:
So we should require a mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? In that case I'll consider starting a poll about what should be in your signature...
There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do.
EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations. Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something. If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned. So the answer is yes? You think we should require mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? Also, is it more or less than 10 pages ago that you stated that not all opinions should be respected?
Context is a critical part of that statement. In this case, the relative harm done by label is minimal, while addressing a public concern. So in this specific case, I think labeling would be a good thing. But that is not a blanket statement for all labels forever. I give no such endorsement. Unless someone can come up with another solution that addresses this concern that the GMO producers could adopt.
And racist opinions are not worthy of my respect, no. But that is not the topic right now.
|
If you want the market to self-regulate, we at least have to make it possible for the consumer to be informed.
Also, consumers make different decisions from people. A person may (claim to) oppose factory farming, but as a consumer may be buy it anyawy.
Anyway, the main problem with GMO is patents. Not health.
Once marketign slogans are gone from food products and comsumer knows every food is a chemical, they can make informed decisions and the bullshittign will stop.
As of right now, if you want to sell food, you have to do what consumers want or go broke.
|
On March 15 2016 09:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 09:32 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 09:24 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:
So we should require a mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? In that case I'll consider starting a poll about what should be in your signature...
There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do.
EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations. Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something. If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned. So the answer is yes? You think we should require mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? Also, is it more or less than 10 pages ago that you stated that not all opinions should be respected? Context is a critical part of that statement. In this case, the relative harm done by label is minimal, while addressing a public concern. So in this specific case, I think labeling would be a good thing. But that is not a blanket statement for all labels forever. I give no such endorsement. Unless someone can come up with another solution that addresses this concern that the GMO producers could adopt. And racist opinions are not worthy of my respect, no. But that is not the topic right now.
You are validating this completely arbitrary concern, but you are not willing to validate other equally arbitrary concerns. And you are of the opinion that some opinions should not be respected, but one that is batshit insane and flies in the face of all logic definitely should be to a degree where you are going to enforce regulations... I'll go to bed before my headache gets any worse.
|
On March 15 2016 09:29 Nebuchad wrote:
And I know that you may perceive the notion that it can be easily demonstrated that you're wrong to be an attempt to silence people, but it's not. You are perfectly authorized to continue to be wrong. You shouldn't aspire to it, though.
Well put. But in the place Bernies protesters at Trumps rallies because of a policy Obama put in place Trump can actually charge these people. I believe that it's wrong to stage a protest in any place where the secret service is working? Something akin to that.
Also, the man who charged at Trump after making death threats on Twitter should be in jail, not given a voice on CNN.
|
On March 15 2016 09:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 08:58 Toadesstern wrote:On March 15 2016 08:49 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 08:27 Simberto wrote:
So are all "ingredients" lists "warning labels or useless"? When i buy anything to eat, it will have a long list of stuff that is in it, where it is from, loads of nutrition information, how much fat is in there, how much carbohydrates, a warning that it may contain traces of nuts and other allergy information.
What would be so horrifying about adding a small "May contain GM crops" to that already long list of consumer information? Apparently it is interesting to some consumers. I am generally of the opinion that you shouldn't willfully hide information that consumers want from them, just because you decide that it is not information they need. The basis of capitalism is the ability of consumers to make informed decisions, at which point the free market will deliver the things the consumers want at the lowest price. If a lot of consumers want one type of information, give it to them. If you do not care about that information, ignore it. You are conflating multiple things here, so let's take it one at a time: Ingredient lists are there to describe what is exactly in the food (i.e. which compounds. GMO is not a compound, it is a method of production, in fact method of pre-production) Nutrional information was made mandatory by law largely to educate the populace (i.e. you are going to get fat from drinking 5L Cola) and thus mostly for health reasons. Nothing in the nutrional information is going to tell you anything about the production methods used, If you want to include GMO under this, you would once again be making an exception for GMO purely because you feel like it. The warning label is there because otherwise you might actually kill people (and get sued). I think we have already extensively covered why GMO does not fall into this category. The basis of the free market is also to not impose pointless regulations to ensure fair competition. yeah but a lot of people want to have that information for whatever reason. I can tell wether my eggs are from a local farm or from chickens that never saw the light of the sun because they're kept away in cages without ever going outside. That doesn't really make all that much of a difference for the eggs themselves (I'd assume oO), but some people don't want to support the latter and that's totally fine. This would be more analogous to forcing caged chicken manufacturers to print "caged chicken eggs" on their food.
Which is a good thing? And exactly how it works here in Germany. You have to inform the consumer how the eggs are produced, and that is required by law. I think that is very reasonable, as a lot of people seem to care about it. Voluntary labelling can work, but can also very easily be broken by just creating your own "Green" label, that has basically no restrictions except for those that your stuff fulfills without any effort whatsoever. In this case, consumers suddenly have to deal with a bunch of different labels, some of which might mean nothing more than "my neighbors dog thought it tastes good"
I simply don't see where this opposition comes from. Why should a consumer not be allowed to make their decisions based on whatever irrational criteria they may desire? I totally disagree that this obfuscation of what people are buying is reasonable. Just because you don't think that it should be relevant whether something is GM or not does not mean that other people should not be allowed to think differently, and should not be allowed to have that information easily available to them.
Does it matter to me whether my tomatoes are from holland or poland? No, i don't give a fuck. But some people do care, and thus i agree that it is reasonable for the seller to have to declare what exactly you buy.
Solid laws that force corporations to declare the kind of information that the public is interested in about their products are necessary to allow the customer an informed decision. Once that informed decision is possible, the market decides which products reach the consumer. Arguing against making that information available to consumers seems very weird to me, as i don't see any upside in not allowing the consumer information regarding what they buy (except for the corporation i guess, which can deceive people into buying stuff they wouldn't buy if they had more information available). Having more information available is at worst neutral for the consumer, if it is information they don't care about, and at best a positive, if it is information they care about. There is no downside to more information.
|
On March 15 2016 10:10 Simberto wrote:
Why should a consumer not be allowed to make their decisions based on whatever irrational criteria they may desire? I totally disagree that this obfuscation of what people are buying is reasonable. Just because you don't think that it should be relevant whether something is GM or not does not mean that other people should not be allowed to think differently, and should not be allowed to have that information easily available to them.
What if the people of a community happen to be rabid anti-semites and want to have food produced by Jews labeled? Is that reasonable just because they want to?
|
On March 15 2016 10:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 10:10 Simberto wrote:
Why should a consumer not be allowed to make their decisions based on whatever irrational criteria they may desire? I totally disagree that this obfuscation of what people are buying is reasonable. Just because you don't think that it should be relevant whether something is GM or not does not mean that other people should not be allowed to think differently, and should not be allowed to have that information easily available to them.
What if the people of a community happen to be rabid anti-semites and want to have food produced by Jews labeled? Is that reasonable just because they want to?
It's called Kosher.It is labelled.
Plenty of people avoid kosher and halal food for religious reasons.
|
That's food for Jews, not food of Jews and there's no discrimination involved (well okay against pigs) so that misses the point
|
On March 15 2016 09:05 SK.Testie wrote:Edit: Eh, sorry I just wanted to post thoughts and there's a discussion on GMO's. + Show Spoiler +
The Media has been better at keeping quiet about how much they are bought and paid for before in this election.
But with their constant attacks on Trump, complete dismissal of Bernie and I think they are by far the main perpetrators of "incendiary" rhetoric, they are quite literally trying to get Trump assassinated and incite more violence and racial hatred. The fact that CNN had that man that rushed the stage on their program is actually despicable. They are endorsing violence. The man threatened Trumps life on Twitter. He was big and powerful, and Trump is like 70. He could have legit killed him. And when you're rushing an area with secret service, they are most definitely allowed to kill you. I'm kind of amazed he made it out of there alive.
The weirdest thing is that where Freedom of Speech is allowed, Trump does well. Also, Bernie supporters are literally the most rabid "fascists" since the term is being thrown around a lot I've seen in politics in a long time.
They've made a religion of democratic socialism and identity politics. And the religious right was really obnoxious to deal with. The new "religious" or "regressive" left is disturbing. Obama's crowd was not quite this rabid.
Then again, Bernies supporters are pouring their money and soul into his campaign, and should he lose it will devastate them.
I agree, the modern left is so authoritarian and anti free speech it scares the crap out of me.
|
On March 15 2016 10:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 09:05 SK.Testie wrote:Edit: Eh, sorry I just wanted to post thoughts and there's a discussion on GMO's. + Show Spoiler +
The Media has been better at keeping quiet about how much they are bought and paid for before in this election.
But with their constant attacks on Trump, complete dismissal of Bernie and I think they are by far the main perpetrators of "incendiary" rhetoric, they are quite literally trying to get Trump assassinated and incite more violence and racial hatred. The fact that CNN had that man that rushed the stage on their program is actually despicable. They are endorsing violence. The man threatened Trumps life on Twitter. He was big and powerful, and Trump is like 70. He could have legit killed him. And when you're rushing an area with secret service, they are most definitely allowed to kill you. I'm kind of amazed he made it out of there alive.
The weirdest thing is that where Freedom of Speech is allowed, Trump does well. Also, Bernie supporters are literally the most rabid "fascists" since the term is being thrown around a lot I've seen in politics in a long time.
They've made a religion of democratic socialism and identity politics. And the religious right was really obnoxious to deal with. The new "religious" or "regressive" left is disturbing. Obama's crowd was not quite this rabid.
Then again, Bernies supporters are pouring their money and soul into his campaign, and should he lose it will devastate them.
I agree, the modern left is so authoritarian and anti free speech it scares the crap out of me.
we had people just a couple days ago arguing that people trampling and burning flags should be put into jail. It really goes both ways
|
On March 15 2016 10:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 10:15 Nyxisto wrote:On March 15 2016 10:10 Simberto wrote:
Why should a consumer not be allowed to make their decisions based on whatever irrational criteria they may desire? I totally disagree that this obfuscation of what people are buying is reasonable. Just because you don't think that it should be relevant whether something is GM or not does not mean that other people should not be allowed to think differently, and should not be allowed to have that information easily available to them.
What if the people of a community happen to be rabid anti-semites and want to have food produced by Jews labeled? Is that reasonable just because they want to? It's called Kosher.It is labelled. Plenty of people avoid kosher and halal food for religious reasons.
But there is no law forcing a kosher/non-kosher label.
Companies Choose to put the kosher label on because some people want kosher food. The same with GMO free food.
Companies are free to put any truthful label they want on their food. The only ones required are
Nutrition
and
Safety (if it can be dangerous)
They can put anything else they like.
If you want GMO free food, look for food with that label.
If you want GMO food, tell companies you will pay extra for food with that label.
|
On March 15 2016 09:51 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 09:40 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 09:32 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 09:24 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:
So we should require a mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? In that case I'll consider starting a poll about what should be in your signature...
There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do.
EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations. Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something. If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned. So the answer is yes? You think we should require mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? Also, is it more or less than 10 pages ago that you stated that not all opinions should be respected? Context is a critical part of that statement. In this case, the relative harm done by label is minimal, while addressing a public concern. So in this specific case, I think labeling would be a good thing. But that is not a blanket statement for all labels forever. I give no such endorsement. Unless someone can come up with another solution that addresses this concern that the GMO producers could adopt. And racist opinions are not worthy of my respect, no. But that is not the topic right now. You are validating this completely arbitrary concern, but you are not willing to validate other equally arbitrary concerns. And you are of the opinion that some opinions should not be respected, but one that is batshit insane and flies in the face of all logic definitely should be to a degree where you are going to enforce regulations... I'll go to bed before my headache gets any worse.
I accept that, I just don't see a problem with the label. But if you think peoples concerns will just go away if its ignored, that is totally valid. This isn't an issue that is going to sway my vote on anything.
|
I think the simplest way is to let companies voluntarily label their food and let those who want make GMO-free a selling point.
|
On March 15 2016 10:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 09:05 SK.Testie wrote:Edit: Eh, sorry I just wanted to post thoughts and there's a discussion on GMO's. + Show Spoiler +
The Media has been better at keeping quiet about how much they are bought and paid for before in this election.
But with their constant attacks on Trump, complete dismissal of Bernie and I think they are by far the main perpetrators of "incendiary" rhetoric, they are quite literally trying to get Trump assassinated and incite more violence and racial hatred. The fact that CNN had that man that rushed the stage on their program is actually despicable. They are endorsing violence. The man threatened Trumps life on Twitter. He was big and powerful, and Trump is like 70. He could have legit killed him. And when you're rushing an area with secret service, they are most definitely allowed to kill you. I'm kind of amazed he made it out of there alive.
The weirdest thing is that where Freedom of Speech is allowed, Trump does well. Also, Bernie supporters are literally the most rabid "fascists" since the term is being thrown around a lot I've seen in politics in a long time.
They've made a religion of democratic socialism and identity politics. And the religious right was really obnoxious to deal with. The new "religious" or "regressive" left is disturbing. Obama's crowd was not quite this rabid.
Then again, Bernies supporters are pouring their money and soul into his campaign, and should he lose it will devastate them.
I agree, the modern left is so authoritarian and anti free speech it scares the crap out of me.
The left has always been like that, its just more noticeable these days due to the internet and people constantly pointing it out. The problem with the discussions is that we never get past the "holy crap, they are so authoritarian!!!" to looking root causes of some of the concerns. People just get mad, say "omg, how unreasonable" and then move on.
|
On March 15 2016 10:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 10:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 15 2016 09:05 SK.Testie wrote:Edit: Eh, sorry I just wanted to post thoughts and there's a discussion on GMO's. + Show Spoiler +
The Media has been better at keeping quiet about how much they are bought and paid for before in this election.
But with their constant attacks on Trump, complete dismissal of Bernie and I think they are by far the main perpetrators of "incendiary" rhetoric, they are quite literally trying to get Trump assassinated and incite more violence and racial hatred. The fact that CNN had that man that rushed the stage on their program is actually despicable. They are endorsing violence. The man threatened Trumps life on Twitter. He was big and powerful, and Trump is like 70. He could have legit killed him. And when you're rushing an area with secret service, they are most definitely allowed to kill you. I'm kind of amazed he made it out of there alive.
The weirdest thing is that where Freedom of Speech is allowed, Trump does well. Also, Bernie supporters are literally the most rabid "fascists" since the term is being thrown around a lot I've seen in politics in a long time.
They've made a religion of democratic socialism and identity politics. And the religious right was really obnoxious to deal with. The new "religious" or "regressive" left is disturbing. Obama's crowd was not quite this rabid.
Then again, Bernies supporters are pouring their money and soul into his campaign, and should he lose it will devastate them.
I agree, the modern left is so authoritarian and anti free speech it scares the crap out of me. The left has always been like that, its just more noticeable these days due to the internet and people constantly pointing it out. The problem with the discussions is that we never get past the "holy crap, they are so authoritarian!!!" to looking root causes of some of the concerns. People just get mad, say "omg, how unreasonable" and then move on.
Gee, I wonder how I've been able to live in Europe this long, with all these authoritarian people around me and half the time even in power... I didn't realize that my life was so hard.
Seriously, this notion isn't serious. Not even remotely.
|
On March 15 2016 03:56 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 03:49 puerk wrote:On March 15 2016 03:38 oneofthem wrote:On March 15 2016 03:30 IgnE wrote:On March 15 2016 03:14 oneofthem wrote:On March 15 2016 02:48 IgnE wrote:On March 14 2016 23:10 oneofthem wrote:
at some point id just say the elites deserve sanders and trump and be at peace with it. problem is their populist politics has no easy reverse gear. it sould also be harmful to the poor.
trchnocratic administrative state needs popular trust or repression. it is a perilous path towards building that. given the hard to repair sstems at risk it really might be a brave new world in ten years time.
We must protect the people from themselves. Same logic in Vietnam. Same logic in Iran. Same logic in America 2016. like it or not at the very minimum under the sanders plan, the poor will face very severe inflation of basic necessities, energy will be way more expensive, and the deficit ballooning will put the most vulnerable groups at risk of fiscal cuts. What's the mechanism for "very severe inflation of basic necessities?" Are basic necessities currently inflating without the TPP? trade makes available cheaper goods, mostly affecting mid-low level consumer goods. so poor who spend a high % of their income and on these cheap goods are most benefited by trade in the dimension of having more bang for the buck. bang for the buck is not the only desireable variable though, as it gets usually easily beaten by: "will there be a buck next month?" as we had earlier, manufacturing in the US is doing fine, but the employment and wages stagnate where will all those people buying great deals from china get their livelyhood from in a couple of years? there has been some new jobs created but it's probably a problem best understood in terms of local ecosystems. particular geographical areas are really hardest hit by job losses. if an area is deprived of a spending base due to massive job loss, then people would probably just move out, and those left behind are also those who were not very connected to the economy in the earlier situation. this is the classic path of urban decay for the rust belt. basically i think a geographically sensitive analysis does a better job than aggregate. still, once the job loss has happened, it isn't coming back in the same quantity and for the same people. while protectionist measures would increase prices immediately.
oh, i totally agree with you that protectionist measures do nothing (but increase price for all things having some foreign trade in their chain) to recreate lost work. i wasn't defending protectionism, but advocating redistribution, since "move around until you strike gold" is not a way to have a stable society, so we also need to care for people living in areas that lose jobs, as stable transitions are paramount, to calm class tensions.
and the second idea is, that since jobs might never come back, some of those transfers will be permanent (life long), and this inevetibility has to be at some point reflected in our attitude as a society towards unemployed and unemployable people. we can't demean them as lazy and rob them of dignity if there is nothing to do, and reshuffling several million unemployed accross the country to fill significantly fewer jobs is not a solution to the aggregate problem. (like with musical chairs, no matter how hard you try, after each round there simply are less chairs)
now on to the annoying tangent of nuclear power:
mohdoo who does something "with semiconductors" demeans everyone, me included as "People who don't understand nuclear physics make comments on nuclear energy."
the hubris.
the whole argument before he jumped in was that "reactor" is not the be all end all of the nuclear fuel cycle. there is stuff all over the place, mining, rarification, reprocessing -- and even if he somehow believes nice youtube videos about molten salt reactors or something: you just trade one technological challenge (fuel rod recycling) for an other one: highly reactive molten salt chemistry (which until now is an unsolved engineering problem) where radiation will get out, even if it is only that you will create a radioactive processing plant with corroding pipes next to the reactor, that you have to fully deconstruct afterwards.
i have my masters in physics aswell, but i also have visited uranium mines in germany, (as a nice anectode maybe: we had bucket loads of dirt thata professor of ours dug up from a dump of one of the mines as samples for gamma spectroscopy in the mandatory lab courses). i followed the recultivation or better "salvaging" operations ongoing in some, aswell as the current trouble of actually holding the firms managing the power plants accountable for their correct deconstruction.
just because you have fun with a proof of concept that was attempted outside of youtube videos in ernest the last time 50 years ago without even the full capacity waste to fuel cycle running, does not mean that all real world experience with the pitfalls of current reality will vanish.
|
On March 15 2016 10:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the simplest way is to let companies voluntarily label their food and let those who want make GMO-free a selling point.
Question falls on whether or not it's gov't regulated or something freemarket should decide.
|
On March 15 2016 11:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 10:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the simplest way is to let companies voluntarily label their food and let those who want make GMO-free a selling point. Question falls on whether or not it's gov't regulated or something freemarket should decide.
By ''voluntarily'' I assume he meant the latter
|
On March 15 2016 11:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 10:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the simplest way is to let companies voluntarily label their food and let those who want make GMO-free a selling point. Question falls on whether or not it's gov't regulated or something freemarket should decide.
That sounds pretty ridiculous. Not only will companies probably leave stuff off the labels that ought to be on there because it's genuinely in the public interest and on the other end of the spectrum you're going to have snake oil salesmen putting all kinds of ridiculous labels on food and the consumer will end up being totally confused
|
People on all sides can be anti free speech. People on the right can push for it rabidly, people on the left can push for it. If you think its a problem exclusive to the other side you're delusional. The reasoning behind it can vary but at the end of the day the goal is the same.
I'm super far left, way further than most. But my convictions for the 1st amendment aren't up for debate. No matter what kind of awful, horrible, despicable shit you want to say, as much as I might personally hate it and think you're a god awful human being who should rot in the hell I don't believe in for saying it. I think you should be able to say it. Just as I or anyone else can protest you or call you out on being a piece of shit.
People should want to be nice and good and kind because it's good to be those things. Treat people as you want to be treated, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all, all those things your mom taught you. Be good because its the right thing to do, if you're nice to people they're usually nice back and that makes you feel good and the world is a little better place. But the idea that you have to say something I like or you need to be silenced is insane to me regardless of whatever "noble" reasons the person might think they have.
People also conflate a ton of things together because they don't know what the hell they're talking about whether they're ill informed or ignorant. There IS a difference between "not being PC" and just being a shithead people confuse the two things all the time. People also get confused as to what free speech even is and assume you can say anything consequence free. That's not how the first amendment works at all but some people seem to think it does.
Now, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. But I think people are way too fast to go straight to the nuclear option against someone they disagree with. They might only disagree on one thing out of a million, and that one thing might be taken out of context! But people will take that one thing and crucify the person for it, go after their job, boycott their business, dox them, harass friends or family, etc all over that one thing. It's completely insane to me. The nuclear option is always there if the person is a world class repeat offender piece of shit. But the fact that it's the go to first option now days is beyond me. I don't agree with that thing that guy said or tweeted, TIME TO FUCKING RUIN HIS ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE! WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! That'll show him for thinking that one thing! And again, both sides do it so don't point the finger and think your side is perfect and pure.
It's possible to be super far left and think sometimes the PC police go too far, to think free speech is our single most important right, to think people are complex with a lot of ideas right and wrong. So to say being anti speech is only a problem of the left or the right is lunacy. You should try a different brush to paint with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
