|
On June 27 2015 15:59 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:13 andrewlt wrote:On June 27 2015 02:32 DucK- wrote:On June 26 2015 22:41 pNRG wrote:? + Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 22:10 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement. I made this comment. In what way is this absurd? I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident. Because it implies that you should "think twice" before criticizing any group through pen or crayon, lest you be mowed down at your desk by an AK47. But it also implies that it is not necessary to watch what you say, because it is perfectly fine to criticise or insult any group for any reason. I think that's wrong. You should be responsible for what you say, not because you are afraid of getting killed, but because you are respectful to other's beliefs I grew up in Asia as well. What you describe is not being respectful. It is just conflict avoidance, burying disagreements below the surface to avoid uncomfortable discussions. Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:50 Whitewing wrote:On June 27 2015 02:32 DucK- wrote:On June 26 2015 22:41 pNRG wrote:? + Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 22:10 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement. I made this comment. In what way is this absurd? I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident. Because it implies that you should "think twice" before criticizing any group through pen or crayon, lest you be mowed down at your desk by an AK47. But it also implies that it is not necessary to watch what you say, because it is perfectly fine to criticise or insult any group for any reason. I think that's wrong. You should be responsible for what you say, not because you are afraid of getting killed, but because you are respectful to other's beliefs People should say what they want. It means others can correct your misguided notions when you say something stupid, before you act on it. It also means you can correct other's misguided ideas before they act on them. Society develops off of the shared discourse of ideas. If you refuse to share ideas because you are worried about conflict, there can be no discourse of that idea, and nothing improves. Everyone has the right to have an opinion, and I respect that. I do not have to respect the opinion itself. Respect people, not their ideas. No one is saying you cannot talk about race or religion. You simply shouldn't be insulting them. Constructive discussions don't involve insults. You are not respecting a person if what you're doing is simply mocking or derogatory remarks/illustrations on things they view important, especially if you know you would hurt them. You can call anyone's mom on a street a whore/slut or whatever, that doesn't mean you should be doing it. Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too. Exactly. Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too. Umm no. Free speech includes insulting people. So many people don't grasp the concept of the first amendment in America. It's quite staggering how many people are completely wrong and misinformed on the matter. Freedom of Speech doesn't include the freedom to not be insulted or offended. So many think my first amendment rights stop where your feelings begin and that's dead wrong. If that was the case the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK would be illegal groups. Those groups are protected under the first amendment even if all they do is hurt people's feelings and offend. It is their constitutional right to exist and spout bullshit, anyone who tries to infringe on those rights gets sued and lines their pockets. Charlie Hebdo did nothing wrong. They were openly expressing their ideas. No one deserves to die solely based on their ideas and words. Expressing your thoughts, feelings, and ideas on the open marketplace of free ideas is what it is about. Someone else can tell you your ideas are stupid as fuck and you're an asshole and that's their right, it isn't their right to assault or kill you. Good ideas eventually start to win out and old stupid ideas fall by the wayside. But its only an open marketplace for free exchange if all ideas are allowed, no matter how awful or how offensive. People can fly their confederate flag on private property all they like. The constitution says so. I can hate the flag all I want just as I hate the KKK and the WBC, but they're allowed to do that and I agree they should be allowed to do it on their own property. Just because you personally dislike something doesn't mean you don't support someone's right to do it. There are plenty of things I don't personally agree with but support the right to. Plus the confederate flag is a great way to identify idiots! Retailers have every right to sell or not sell whatever they like for whatever reason they like. They don't have to stock a flag, they don't have to stock your favorite brand of socks, or my preferred shampoo. The government can't and isn't telling them what to stock, they're doing it on their own whether by choice of appealing to the public. Flying the confederate flag on government property can be seen as endorsing of the flag and what it stands for. The government shouldn't be giving a thumbs up to the civil war south, slavery, or hatred. Removal of the flag has nothing to do with the first amendment. I don't deny that they have this right. What I'm saying is this right should be restricted or amended, because it is a selfish policy that does more harm than good to the public.
You want to limit one's speech and freedom of expression so people don't get offended? There is no human right to not be offended, there is no innate human trait or element that makes being offended somehow the end-all of horrible things to occur, and there is no human right to have your particular sensitives in anyway respected by the speech of others.
The day we start restricting publications of images depicting someone's Prophet because publishing them is "selfish" and "does more harm than good" is a sad day indeed. They have no right to not be offended, none at all. Blacks in America don't like the Confederate flag waving around? Tough shit, deal with it. Boo-hoo, your ostensibly balanced sensitives got hurt by a piece of cloth, so what? The only argument I've seen regarding it boils down to "this image/flag/symbol is offensive, thus we should get rid of it". The only response, the only rational, logical consistent response to such drivel should be: "Being offended doesn't mean shit".
Insulting other people, saying hurtful things, mocking someone's faith, God, religion, or Prophet...so what!? You are free to say and think and display whatever images and symbols you so desire (or you should be, at least). What, you want to stop people from being mean? From saying hurtful things? Sure, ask them nicely to stop it, but the day the law gets involved with "protecting people's feelings from being hurt" is a depressing-as-all-fuck day indeed.
On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too.
But that's so....subjective, and if you really think about it, it's insane. Let's play along:
1. I dislike homosexuals.
2. I don't like gays.
3. Homosexuals are...weird, and freak me out.
4. Homosexuals suck!
5. Gays should burn!
6. Homosexuals scare me, and I don't want them teaching my children.
7. Homosexuals make me sick!
8. Homosexuals make me sick, I'd punch them if I wouldn't get arrested!
Yeah, okay. Let's start deciding which of these should be limited, forbidden, or not protected as free speech. Good luck with that, we can play this game all day. The point is that freedom of speech is, and should be, effectively all-or-nothing. Clear and present danger aside, whatever the hell you want to say, you should be allowed to say it, and if the only argument against freedom of expression and beliefs is that "well, you're going to hurt someone's feelings!", then I think we're done here...
|
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, flying the confederate flag is absurd and stupid because even when the idea is that it's meant to be done "in opposition to the federal government", well it disregards the connotation of the flag. On the other hand, why prevent people from buying the flag? Some people want flags as collectables and whatnot. I'd kinda like a Svastika flag not because I'm a nazi but because I like me some historical swag.
As much as I believe that people who fly the confederate flag are dumb cunts, I also believe that they should be able to purchase those flags. I find it hard to condemn the private initiative not to sell flags, since people are free to buy and own, but will just have to look around some more. However, Apple really crossed the line as far as I'm concerned when they started removing american civil war games because of the depiction of the flag.
PR people going crazy, eh...
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2015 08:15 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 07:41 Whitewing wrote:On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too. Sorry, but saying you don't like homosexuals IS an insult. An idea isn't more or less insulting based off of the fact that it's just your opinion. It's still free speech, but that doesn't make it less of an insult. You are stating you don't like people based on who they are. That's an insult. Sometimes it's a good thing to be insulting, sometimes it isn't, but trying to pretend it isn't an insult is silly. Ideas are not sacred, the virtue of being an opinion does not make an idea sacred. You have the freedom to insult others. I have the freedom to call you a bigot. America!
Well, yes.
|
On June 29 2015 11:48 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 08:15 YoureFired wrote:On June 29 2015 07:41 Whitewing wrote:On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too. Sorry, but saying you don't like homosexuals IS an insult. An idea isn't more or less insulting based off of the fact that it's just your opinion. It's still free speech, but that doesn't make it less of an insult. You are stating you don't like people based on who they are. That's an insult. Sometimes it's a good thing to be insulting, sometimes it isn't, but trying to pretend it isn't an insult is silly. Ideas are not sacred, the virtue of being an opinion does not make an idea sacred. You have the freedom to insult others. I have the freedom to call you a bigot. America! Well, yes.
Sorry, totally wasn't meant to you. I'm specifically talking about my opinion that people should be allowed to state opinions regarding groups, even if they are racist/sexist/homophobic. I will then use my First Amendment rights to let the world know that they are bad people.
It's somewhat the marketplace of ideas, and luckily, we as a nation have decided that racism is unacceptable. Post the N-word on Twitter, and you'll get fired - not because its illegal, but because a company that associates with that person will get so much backlash.
|
On June 27 2015 15:59 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:13 andrewlt wrote:On June 27 2015 02:32 DucK- wrote:On June 26 2015 22:41 pNRG wrote:? + Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 22:10 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement. I made this comment. In what way is this absurd? I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident. Because it implies that you should "think twice" before criticizing any group through pen or crayon, lest you be mowed down at your desk by an AK47. But it also implies that it is not necessary to watch what you say, because it is perfectly fine to criticise or insult any group for any reason. I think that's wrong. You should be responsible for what you say, not because you are afraid of getting killed, but because you are respectful to other's beliefs I grew up in Asia as well. What you describe is not being respectful. It is just conflict avoidance, burying disagreements below the surface to avoid uncomfortable discussions. Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:50 Whitewing wrote:On June 27 2015 02:32 DucK- wrote:On June 26 2015 22:41 pNRG wrote:? + Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 22:10 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement. I made this comment. In what way is this absurd? I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident. Because it implies that you should "think twice" before criticizing any group through pen or crayon, lest you be mowed down at your desk by an AK47. But it also implies that it is not necessary to watch what you say, because it is perfectly fine to criticise or insult any group for any reason. I think that's wrong. You should be responsible for what you say, not because you are afraid of getting killed, but because you are respectful to other's beliefs People should say what they want. It means others can correct your misguided notions when you say something stupid, before you act on it. It also means you can correct other's misguided ideas before they act on them. Society develops off of the shared discourse of ideas. If you refuse to share ideas because you are worried about conflict, there can be no discourse of that idea, and nothing improves. Everyone has the right to have an opinion, and I respect that. I do not have to respect the opinion itself. Respect people, not their ideas. No one is saying you cannot talk about race or religion. You simply shouldn't be insulting them. Constructive discussions don't involve insults. You are not respecting a person if what you're doing is simply mocking or derogatory remarks/illustrations on things they view important, especially if you know you would hurt them. You can call anyone's mom on a street a whore/slut or whatever, that doesn't mean you should be doing it.
You don't get it. The first amendment only protects from government prosecution. Insult your boss and coworkers and you can get fired. Insult your customers and they can boycott you.
Having the government decide what is insulting or not is a slippery slope. You have to be extremely naive if you think the Singaporean government does not prosecute valid criticism by claiming that the criticism isn't factual. It is a law that is very ripe for abuse.
Check this article out about Britain's libel laws.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways
|
Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong.
|
On June 29 2015 13:33 DucK- wrote:
Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong.
If the statement gains momentum and isn't shut down, then the opinion it expresses already exists, and attempting to censor the words only covers up the surface without even touching the underlying issues.
|
I'm fine with companies deciding to sell or not sell whatever they want as long as it doesn't break the law. If customers have an issue with it, then they'll take their business elsewhere.
I think context matters a lot when talking about the Confederate flag. If it's a history game and the flag is used in an appropriate historical context, then I think it's silly to not sell that game (same as if a swastika appeared). If it's actually Confederate (or analogously, Nazi) propaganda sold for the sole purpose of perpetuating support for a message of prejudice, then I think owners are perfectly justified in reflecting on whether or not that's the kind of thing they want their businesses to represent... and it doesn't surprise me at all if some owners choose not to sell them.
|
On June 29 2015 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm fine with companies deciding to sell or not sell whatever they want as long as it doesn't break the law. If customers have an issue with it, then they'll take their business elsewhere.
I think context matters a lot when talking about the Confederate flag. If it's a history game and the flag is used in an appropriate historical context, then I think it's silly to not sell that game (same as if a swastika appeared). If it's actually Confederate (or analogously, Nazi) propaganda sold for the sole purpose of perpetuating support for a message of prejudice, then I think owners are perfectly justified in reflecting on whether or not that's the kind of thing they want their businesses to represent... and it doesn't surprise me at all if some owners choose not to sell them.
The problem is that the public doesn't care about the context. They don't care to research each individual thing, they just know that something is bad and will decry it with full force.
In the past it was easier to ignore the people who just want something to scream and yell at, and take the time to educate everyone else that no, all the fearmongering isn't based on reality.
The environment with the internet and social media, though, lets people skew singular ideas stripped of all context far and wide in an instant, and amplify it to a point where it can't be ignored no matter how false it could be.
It's a Catch-22 of the internet, really. On one hand, real issues can be spread further and faster than ever before, and it's becoming impossible to sweep anything under the rug. On the other, it also means something small (or fake) can be blown out of proportion to the point where the punishment far outstrips the actual problem.
|
On June 29 2015 13:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm fine with companies deciding to sell or not sell whatever they want as long as it doesn't break the law. If customers have an issue with it, then they'll take their business elsewhere.
I think context matters a lot when talking about the Confederate flag. If it's a history game and the flag is used in an appropriate historical context, then I think it's silly to not sell that game (same as if a swastika appeared). If it's actually Confederate (or analogously, Nazi) propaganda sold for the sole purpose of perpetuating support for a message of prejudice, then I think owners are perfectly justified in reflecting on whether or not that's the kind of thing they want their businesses to represent... and it doesn't surprise me at all if some owners choose not to sell them. The problem is that the public doesn't care about the context. They don't care to research each individual thing, they just know that something is bad and will decry it with full force. In the past it was easier to ignore the people who just want something to scream and yell at, and take the time to educate everyone else that no, all the fearmongering isn't based on reality. The environment with the internet and social media, though, lets people skew singular ideas stripped of all context far and wide in an instant, and amplify it to a point where it can't be ignored no matter how false it could be. It's a Catch-22 of the internet, really. On one hand, real issues can be spread further and faster than ever before, and it's becoming impossible to sweep anything under the rug. On the other, it also means something small (or fake) can be blown out of proportion to the point where the punishment far outstrips the actual problem.
Yeah, it's an issue about educating the public and finding a way to have an open conversation with those who will listen, although you'll have people on either side still being closed-minded and willfully ignorant anyway.
|
On June 29 2015 13:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 13:33 DucK- wrote:
Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong. If the statement gains momentum and isn't shut down, then the opinion it expresses already exists, and attempting to censor the words only covers up the surface without even touching the underlying issues.
The purpose of censorship my country practises isn't to deny that such issues could be present, but to prevent or reduce the possibility of the issue escalating into something terrible such as racial violence, hate crimes, or charlie hebdo.
The common misconception with our censorship is that you are not allowed to talk about it at all. That is certainly not true.
|
I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote:
I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
It is to the Native Americans.
Symbols mean different things to different people. If you want to take pride in a time period in which your region of the country tried to separate itself from the rest of the country over their right to have slaves, then you are permitted to do so, but understand that the rest of us are going to call you out on your bullshit, and we have no desire to see the government sponsor that behavior.
|
On June 29 2015 15:03 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 13:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 29 2015 13:33 DucK- wrote:
Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong. If the statement gains momentum and isn't shut down, then the opinion it expresses already exists, and attempting to censor the words only covers up the surface without even touching the underlying issues. The purpose of censorship my country practises isn't to deny that such issues could be present, but to prevent or reduce the possibility of the issue escalating into something terrible such as racial violence, hate crimes, or charlie hebdo. The common misconception with our censorship is that you are not allowed to talk about it at all. That is certainly not true.
singapore is economically stable and one of the richest countries in its vicinity. thats fortunate but wait until an economic decline happens and people want drastic change and the government out of the office. do you think you could have widespread demonstrations with a huge media coverage wanting radical instituional reforms? i dont think so.
free speech is the backbone of democracy and one of the main reasons why some countries now have centuries old government systems without civil wars, revolutions or anything. free speech is a stabilizing factor in the grand scheme of things. yeah some nutjobs get offended by stupid things and blow up a building or something, but it doesnt matter. a few hundred deads caused by religious or racist idiots dont affect a country at all, there are still generations to come who will live in a free society that gets gradually better and better. it gets better, because you can hardly abuse freedom of speech. individual rights are protected by the constitution which is almost unchangable in every country, so you cant try to make blacks or gays second class citizens, as they are protected by the constitution. you probably end up in jail if you follow this path.
yes, theoretically some stupid idea could gain traction and the public is able to abolish fundemantal rights for some, but its a hell of a lot more unlikely than a couple of guys in charge of the censorship are following their own agenda. a benevolent dictator is highly volatile and all goes to shit when he decides to do something stupid, which dictators usually do sooner or later.
|
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote:
I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
|
On June 29 2015 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote:
I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it. Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
I can kind of see the idea. It's kind of like Quebec here in Canada, and being proud of being a colony that was conquered. But it's part of the culture and identity, part of Canada's identity, even with the issues that come with it (mostly the Separatists who became violent).
|
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote:
I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
For these analogies to work, that flag (the Virginia Battle Flag) would have had to have been used for a lot more.
It wasn't. It was only a battle flag. A flag used for a war that was fought almost exclusively to keep the institution of slavery alive. It wasn't a symbol of the South or the Confederacy in general. Then, when it was used post-war, it was used as a white supremacist symbol by the KKK and then pro-segregationists mid-20th century.
That flag has a history of pure hate and discrimination. It is only recently that it became a "symbol of Southern pride". It is absolutely nothing like the majority of the flags out there that symbolize a wide range of things.
|
Is this a real ban or just major companies deciding not to sell the flags?
In Spain the fascist spanish flag (the one with the eagle on it) has been banned for as long as I remember. Some people still use it on football events and demonstrations.
|
As a European I have to say -respectfully- that in my -humble- opinion Americans are a tad bit too concerned with political correctness.
To put it more bluntly: You are all a bunch of fine folks but when it comes to aforementioned political correctness you are all crazy.
I don't mean that in a "shaking head disapprovingly" way. Its just a cultural phenomena that seems so weird in a country that can be so harsh to it's citizens in other ways. I mean my country (Netherlands) with all their social laws and hugging all their inhabitants to death should be the one going out of their way to protect everyone's feelings yet you guys completely beat us in that regard.
Weird.
|
On June 29 2015 23:51 Salteador Neo wrote:
Is this a real ban or just major companies deciding not to sell the flags?
In Spain the fascist spanish flag (the one with the eagle on it) has been banned for as long as I remember. Some people still use it on football events and demonstrations.
No, it's not a legislative ban.
This was a bunch of private companies choosing not to sell it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
