On November 22 2014 04:18 Lumi wrote: Distasteful as it may be, that seems like a completely made-up ruling for a tournament to act on. Since when do we disqualify people mid-tournament for something they said on twitter? It's not about whether you think what he said was distasteful or not, it's about the lack of a precedent for this in our scene, and the lack of any actual rules that were outlined regarding the tournament for this kind of scenario? The disqualification only drew wayyyyy more attention to it, and now it lingers on.
Since when do we police people mid-tournament for their twitter activity? This seems like a huge, made-up over-extension of authority. I'm guessing that if these people could have censored the tweet themselves, they would have. Settling for the next best thing, then? Whatever you can do with whatever power you have?
I definitely don't agree with this conduct from a 'professional' tournament organization. People are obsessed with getting offended. English isn't his first language, and we all know that "rape" is commonly used as a synonym for owning/pwning/crushing/shitting-on.
This hypersensitivity to anything to do with rape is getting out of hand. And that's not to take away from rape itself. It's a comment on hypersensitivity to it. Is it possible to be hypersensitive? Yes. If someone actually defecated on someone, that would be pretty obscene, right? But if Kas said "I'm gonna shit on this girl" we wouldn't be here right now, I'm guessing. Slavery is also pretty bad, but if he said he's going to "own" this girl, we definitely wouldn't be here right now.
Getting offended is not an argument, and getting offended is in no way the same thing as someone having violated a rule. I have my doubts about whether the actually big, professional tournaments would fall into such a whimsical, impromptu executive decision, in the middle of their tournament, to do with what someone tweeted. Give me a break.
your way of thinking is kinda lacking... you always need a first time or nothing will never happen, so consider this the "precedent". Since when do they police tweets? well, since now. And the rules, do you know them?
maybe it's about time to stop using rape for everything, don't you agree?
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Here's a good video on why hate speech laws are bad:
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I don't see how speech can infringe on someone's rights. Unless I threaten to physically harm you or your property, I don't see how its a problem. I can say whatever I want. You can just ignore me, or tell me to shove it and do whatever it is you want to do or say.
I would say that you underestimate the power of speech. Check "radio mille colline" for an example.
On November 22 2014 04:18 Lumi wrote: Distasteful as it may be, that seems like a completely made-up ruling for a tournament to act on. Since when do we disqualify people mid-tournament for something they said on twitter? It's not about whether you think what he said was distasteful or not, it's about the lack of a precedent for this in our scene, and the lack of any actual rules that were outlined regarding the tournament for this kind of scenario? The disqualification only drew wayyyyy more attention to it, and now it lingers on.
Since when do we police people mid-tournament for their twitter activity? This seems like a huge, made-up over-extension of authority. I'm guessing that if these people could have censored the tweet themselves, they would have. Settling for the next best thing, then? Whatever you can do with whatever power you have?
I definitely don't agree with this conduct from a 'professional' tournament organization. People are obsessed with getting offended. English isn't his first language, and we all know that "rape" is commonly used as a synonym for owning/pwning/crushing/shitting-on.
This hypersensitivity to anything to do with rape is getting out of hand. And that's not to take away from rape itself. It's a comment on hypersensitivity to it. Is it possible to be hypersensitive? Yes. If someone actually defecated on someone, that would be pretty obscene, right? But if Kas said "I'm gonna shit on this girl" we wouldn't be here right now, I'm guessing. Slavery is also pretty bad, but if he said he's going to "own" this girl, we definitely wouldn't be here right now.
Getting offended is not an argument, and getting offended is in no way the same thing as someone having violated a rule. I have my doubts about whether the actually big, professional tournaments would fall into such a whimsical, impromptu executive decision, in the middle of their tournament, to do with what someone tweeted. Give me a break.
your way of thinking is kinda lacking... you always need a first time or nothing will never happen, so consider this the "precedent". Since when do they police tweets? well, since now. And the rules, do you know them?
maybe it's about time to stop using rape for everything, don't you agree?
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I'm arguing that state imposed hate speech laws are bullshit. Sure, people won't like me, if i say "all black people are criminals" (which can be disproved by finding a counterexample) and thats perfectly find. All i'm saying is that i shouldn't be persecuted for this statement. Frankly, all i would do is offend some people and i'm saying is that there should be no right banning this kind of speech. You should really watch the video if you are interested in this kind of topic. There is also a discussion with Hitchens about that topic and i can link it if you care about it.
That's like just your opinion, man. And it's really off topic.
On November 22 2014 04:18 Lumi wrote: Distasteful as it may be, that seems like a completely made-up ruling for a tournament to act on. Since when do we disqualify people mid-tournament for something they said on twitter? It's not about whether you think what he said was distasteful or not, it's about the lack of a precedent for this in our scene, and the lack of any actual rules that were outlined regarding the tournament for this kind of scenario? The disqualification only drew wayyyyy more attention to it, and now it lingers on.
Since when do we police people mid-tournament for their twitter activity? This seems like a huge, made-up over-extension of authority. I'm guessing that if these people could have censored the tweet themselves, they would have. Settling for the next best thing, then? Whatever you can do with whatever power you have?
I definitely don't agree with this conduct from a 'professional' tournament organization. People are obsessed with getting offended. English isn't his first language, and we all know that "rape" is commonly used as a synonym for owning/pwning/crushing/shitting-on.
This hypersensitivity to anything to do with rape is getting out of hand. And that's not to take away from rape itself. It's a comment on hypersensitivity to it. Is it possible to be hypersensitive? Yes. If someone actually defecated on someone, that would be pretty obscene, right? But if Kas said "I'm gonna shit on this girl" we wouldn't be here right now, I'm guessing. Slavery is also pretty bad, but if he said he's going to "own" this girl, we definitely wouldn't be here right now.
Getting offended is not an argument, and getting offended is in no way the same thing as someone having violated a rule. I have my doubts about whether the actually big, professional tournaments would fall into such a whimsical, impromptu executive decision, in the middle of their tournament, to do with what someone tweeted. Give me a break.
your way of thinking is kinda lacking... you always need a first time or nothing will never happen, so consider this the "precedent". Since when do they police tweets? well, since now. And the rules, do you know them?
maybe it's about time to stop using rape for everything, don't you agree?
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I'm arguing that state imposed hate speech laws are bullshit. Sure, people won't like me, if i say "all black people are criminals" (which can be disproved by finding a counterexample) and thats perfectly find. All i'm saying is that i shouldn't be persecuted for this statement. Frankly, all i would do is offend some people and i'm saying is that there should be no right banning this kind of speech. You should really watch the video if you are interested in this kind of topic. There is also a discussion with Hitchens about that topic and i can link it if you care about it.
That's like just your opinion, man. And it's really off topic.
I didn't start this whole free speech thing! I just pointed out that it doesn't fit in this case (on topic) and gave my opinion regarding these kinds of laws.
On November 22 2014 05:46 10bulgares wrote: It looks like some people are accepting that men threaten to rape other men just so they can threaten women too.
Looks to me like some people are being dishonest with themselves about whether this person was actually threatening someone with rape. And from that fallacy, acting like something really immoral took place here, and that someone is a bad person. This is so intellectually dishonest and indecent toward your fellow human.
On November 22 2014 04:18 Lumi wrote: Distasteful as it may be, that seems like a completely made-up ruling for a tournament to act on. Since when do we disqualify people mid-tournament for something they said on twitter? It's not about whether you think what he said was distasteful or not, it's about the lack of a precedent for this in our scene, and the lack of any actual rules that were outlined regarding the tournament for this kind of scenario? The disqualification only drew wayyyyy more attention to it, and now it lingers on.
Since when do we police people mid-tournament for their twitter activity? This seems like a huge, made-up over-extension of authority. I'm guessing that if these people could have censored the tweet themselves, they would have. Settling for the next best thing, then? Whatever you can do with whatever power you have?
I definitely don't agree with this conduct from a 'professional' tournament organization. People are obsessed with getting offended. English isn't his first language, and we all know that "rape" is commonly used as a synonym for owning/pwning/crushing/shitting-on.
This hypersensitivity to anything to do with rape is getting out of hand. And that's not to take away from rape itself. It's a comment on hypersensitivity to it. Is it possible to be hypersensitive? Yes. If someone actually defecated on someone, that would be pretty obscene, right? But if Kas said "I'm gonna shit on this girl" we wouldn't be here right now, I'm guessing. Slavery is also pretty bad, but if he said he's going to "own" this girl, we definitely wouldn't be here right now.
Getting offended is not an argument, and getting offended is in no way the same thing as someone having violated a rule. I have my doubts about whether the actually big, professional tournaments would fall into such a whimsical, impromptu executive decision, in the middle of their tournament, to do with what someone tweeted. Give me a break.
your way of thinking is kinda lacking... you always need a first time or nothing will never happen, so consider this the "precedent". Since when do they police tweets? well, since now. And the rules, do you know them?
maybe it's about time to stop using rape for everything, don't you agree?
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I don't see how speech can infringe on someone's rights. Unless I threaten to physically harm you or your property, I don't see how its a problem. I can say whatever I want. You can just ignore me, or tell me to shove it and do whatever it is you want to do or say.
Hate speech is defined by it's threatening nature and intent to create hostility toward a specific party. It's not just an opinion, but an effort to advocate harassment and violence towards that group.
Also, it should be pointed out that you can't use speech to say, start a riot or yell fire in a theater. The same applies to hate speech.
Perhaps if cause and effect were so easily linked I support it but it isn't. Its not the same starting a riot or yelling fire in a theather because there people actually get hurt. With hate speech laws people are getting jail time for hurting nobody.
On November 22 2014 06:40 10bulgares wrote:
I would say that you underestimate the power of speech. Check "radio mille colline" for an example.
Thats a fair point. However, it goes both ways. Various government have silenced dissenters when they themselves carry out genocide or assassinations. I understand the power of speech well enough to know that I don't want to give the government power over it.
On November 22 2014 04:22 Yhamm wrote: [quote] your way of thinking is kinda lacking... you always need a first time or nothing will never happen, so consider this the "precedent". Since when do they police tweets? well, since now. And the rules, do you know them?
maybe it's about time to stop using rape for everything, don't you agree?
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I don't see how speech can infringe on someone's rights. Unless I threaten to physically harm you or your property, I don't see how its a problem. I can say whatever I want. You can just ignore me, or tell me to shove it and do whatever it is you want to do or say.
Hate speech is defined by it's threatening nature and intent to create hostility toward a specific party. It's not just an opinion, but an effort to advocate harassment and violence towards that group.
Also, it should be pointed out that you can't use speech to say, start a riot or yell fire in a theater. The same applies to hate speech.
Perhaps if cause and effect were so easily linked I support it but it isn't. Its not the same starting a riot or yelling fire in a theather because there people actually get hurt. With hate speech laws people are getting jail time for hurting nobody.
I would say that you underestimate the power of speech. Check "radio mille colline" for an example.
Thats a fair point. However, it goes both ways. Various government have silenced dissenters when they themselves carry out genocide or assassinations. I understand the power of speech well enough to know that I don't want to give the government power of it.
Of course I prefer the restrictions for freedom of speech to be minimal. My point is just that it doesn't look reasonable to me to advocate full freedom of speech. But that there should be a debate on the limits, absolutely.
On November 22 2014 05:46 10bulgares wrote: It looks like some people are accepting that men threaten to rape other men just so they can threaten women too.
Looks to me like some people are being dishonest with themselves about whether this person was actually threatening someone with rape. And from that fallacy, acting like something really immoral took place here, and that someone is a bad person. This is so intellectually dishonest and indecent toward your fellow human.
I was mostly referring to those people saying: "it happens all the time between men so it should be allowed towards women" instead of saying "that shit is dumb I wish it stops between men too now". Then if you prefer another word than "threat", be my guest.
On November 22 2014 05:46 10bulgares wrote: It looks like some people are accepting that men threaten to rape other men just so they can threaten women too.
Looks to me like some people are being dishonest with themselves about whether this person was actually threatening someone with rape. And from that fallacy, acting like something really immoral took place here, and that someone is a bad person. This is so intellectually dishonest and indecent toward your fellow human.
I was mostly referring to those people saying: "it happens all the time between men so it should be allowed towards women" instead of saying "that shit is dumb I wish it stops between men too now". Then if you prefer another word than "threat", be my guest.
On November 22 2014 04:22 Yhamm wrote: [quote] your way of thinking is kinda lacking... you always need a first time or nothing will never happen, so consider this the "precedent". Since when do they police tweets? well, since now. And the rules, do you know them?
maybe it's about time to stop using rape for everything, don't you agree?
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I don't see how speech can infringe on someone's rights. Unless I threaten to physically harm you or your property, I don't see how its a problem. I can say whatever I want. You can just ignore me, or tell me to shove it and do whatever it is you want to do or say.
Hate speech is defined by it's threatening nature and intent to create hostility toward a specific party. It's not just an opinion, but an effort to advocate harassment and violence towards that group.
Also, it should be pointed out that you can't use speech to say, start a riot or yell fire in a theater. The same applies to hate speech.
Perhaps if cause and effect were so easily linked I support it but it isn't. Its not the same starting a riot or yelling fire in a theather because there people actually get hurt. With hate speech laws people are getting jail time for hurting nobody.
I would say that you underestimate the power of speech. Check "radio mille colline" for an example.
Thats a fair point. However, it goes both ways. Various government have silenced dissenters when they themselves carry out genocide or assassinations. I understand the power of speech well enough to know that I don't want to give the government power over it.
Hate speech is illegal in many countries in Europe because of its usually racist or discriminatory nature, and only serves to create conflict. Also, racism and many forms of discrimination are illegal in many European countries, and carry prison sentences.
I doubt that the founding fathers and enlightenment philosophers had vitriol and hate in mind when they drew up the US Constitution. What they probably meant was the freedom to disagree with government and people in a position of power, and to be able to voice that opinion without being persecuted for it.
Freedom of speech also entails responsibility for the consequences of what you say. Most of these internet advocates of free speech just want to be able to sprout nonsense, vitriol and hate without consequence. This has nothing to do with free speech at all actually. If anything, it makes an absolute travesty out of it.
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I don't see how speech can infringe on someone's rights. Unless I threaten to physically harm you or your property, I don't see how its a problem. I can say whatever I want. You can just ignore me, or tell me to shove it and do whatever it is you want to do or say.
Hate speech is defined by it's threatening nature and intent to create hostility toward a specific party. It's not just an opinion, but an effort to advocate harassment and violence towards that group.
Also, it should be pointed out that you can't use speech to say, start a riot or yell fire in a theater. The same applies to hate speech.
Perhaps if cause and effect were so easily linked I support it but it isn't. Its not the same starting a riot or yelling fire in a theather because there people actually get hurt. With hate speech laws people are getting jail time for hurting nobody.
On November 22 2014 06:40 10bulgares wrote:
I would say that you underestimate the power of speech. Check "radio mille colline" for an example.
Thats a fair point. However, it goes both ways. Various government have silenced dissenters when they themselves carry out genocide or assassinations. I understand the power of speech well enough to know that I don't want to give the government power over it.
Hate speech is illegal in many countries in Europe because of its usually racist or discriminatory nature, and only serves to create conflict. Also, racism and many forms of discrimination are illegal in many European countries, and carry prison sentences.
I doubt that the founding fathers and enlightenment philosophers had vitriol and hate in mind when they drew up the US Constitution. What they probably meant was the freedom to disagree with government and people in a position of power, and to be able to voice that opinion without being persecuted for it.
Freedom of speech also entails responsibility for the consequences of what you say. Most of these internet advocates of free speech just want to be able to sprout nonsense, vitriol and hate without consequence. This has nothing to do with free speech at all actually. If anything, it makes an absolute travesty out of it.
People with unpopular, controversial and/or backwards viewpoints should not have jail time for just voicing these opinions. There should be discourse. As such, avoiding "conflict" is a not good justification for government control over speech. Many viewpoints held today were controversial and caused conflicts at some point in the past.
The founding fathers did not all have the same view points when they drew up the constitution. They also voiced plenty of nonsense, vitriol and hate to each other. Also its kinda to to disagree with your government if they can regulate speech.
Its not freedom from responsibility. You can say what you want and people can choose to associate themselves with you or not. Your company can fire you. You can be admonished/mocked/shamed/or wahtever publicly. What should be free from is prosecution from the government, especially if you've never hurt anyone. For example, little girl was kidnapped. Drunk 19 year old posts stupid shit mocking it. Should he get 12 weeks prison for it? For harming no one? I don't think so. Would I associate my self with him? No. I'm offended that you're implying I'm only saying this because I want to sprout nonsense, vitriol and hate without consequence. Do I think you should be locked in a cage for offending me? No.
Fragbite is a private Swedish company. They are sponsored by companies like McDonalds and Estrella. They don't want to risk losing their sponsors by having Kas in their tournament after his unpopular incident.
No, I don't. It's a personal choice and a great many people have died for our freedom of speech, only to have knee-jerk reactionaries using whatever power they can muster up to reprimand people who said something they don't like. What makes rape worse than murder, or slavery, and who can say? But if he said he's going to murder, or he's going to own, this wouldn't be happening. My thinking is on point and the lack of consistency in the logic deployed in this instance is blatant. This is a double-standard and exactly what we can expect from a growing culture of female self-victimization receiving special treatment. Special treatment. That's the precedent we should applaud and usher in? Give me a break.
Freedom of speech does not equate freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. There are laws that regulate hate-speech for example. or threats, there are rules for what you can and can't say in contracts (NDA etc) they all limit your speech. Just like you can't say whatever you want to on teamliquid.net without getting banned.
TL is a private organization. Hate speech laws are bullshit.
Fragbite is also a private organization.
Hate speech laws are a fact for most European countries, for this debate most notably in Sweden since the organization is from here. Not that his tweet was hate speech, it was just one example of a few limitations to Freedom of Speech, which never has been completely free, and will never be completely free.
Do you realize that this has noting to do with freedom of speech? It's a privately run company, the are free to establish any rules they want to, as long as they abide by the law.
Hate speech was just one example I used to show why freedom of speech is not a complete freedom and that you will still have to face the consequences of what you say if your speech infringes on someone else's rights.
I don't see how speech can infringe on someone's rights. Unless I threaten to physically harm you or your property, I don't see how its a problem. I can say whatever I want. You can just ignore me, or tell me to shove it and do whatever it is you want to do or say.
Hate speech is defined by it's threatening nature and intent to create hostility toward a specific party. It's not just an opinion, but an effort to advocate harassment and violence towards that group.
Also, it should be pointed out that you can't use speech to say, start a riot or yell fire in a theater. The same applies to hate speech.
Perhaps if cause and effect were so easily linked I support it but it isn't. Its not the same starting a riot or yelling fire in a theather because there people actually get hurt. With hate speech laws people are getting jail time for hurting nobody.
On November 22 2014 06:40 10bulgares wrote:
I would say that you underestimate the power of speech. Check "radio mille colline" for an example.
Thats a fair point. However, it goes both ways. Various government have silenced dissenters when they themselves carry out genocide or assassinations. I understand the power of speech well enough to know that I don't want to give the government power over it.
Hate speech is illegal in many countries in Europe because of its usually racist or discriminatory nature, and only serves to create conflict. Also, racism and many forms of discrimination are illegal in many European countries, and carry prison sentences.
I doubt that the founding fathers and enlightenment philosophers had vitriol and hate in mind when they drew up the US Constitution. What they probably meant was the freedom to disagree with government and people in a position of power, and to be able to voice that opinion without being persecuted for it.
Freedom of speech also entails responsibility for the consequences of what you say. Most of these internet advocates of free speech just want to be able to sprout nonsense, vitriol and hate without consequence. This has nothing to do with free speech at all actually. If anything, it makes an absolute travesty out of it.
not to mention fragbite masters is a private organization with 100% freedom to make their own rules of conduct and decency. freedom of speech as you said applies to institutional oppression of ideas by a government or ruling body. if i tell you to get the fuck out of my house because you used language that offends me then i'm not oppressing your freedom of speech, i'm exercising my right to tell you to get the fuck out of my house.
people who use "freedom of speech" to defend abuse and hate speech are uneducated and don't understand what freedom of speech is or what it's for. what they mean is they don't want to be accountable for their speech and they don't want to think about the consequences of their actions because they're too lazy and selfish to view things from another person's perspective and understand why something could be hurtful to another person
If I say "That Christian is so dumb", and I meant the actor from Batman, no christian, in the sense of believing in the Holy Trinitiy, can be offended. If one is, he or she has got me wrong. Period.
Also, if I say to someone while playing: "I am gonna destroy you", he or she must not understand me in the sense of throwing a bomb at him. If one understands it as a physical threat, she or he is wrong. Period, again.
So, if Kas meant to violate Maddelisk, I think he should be legally persecuted. Disqualifying him for just using the term rape in the gamer context is totally unacceptable for me. Maddelisk is free to tell him privately that she felt offended. Optimally he would say to her he meant it in the sense of winning over her.
Please understand Maddelisk. She is coming from a very twisted society, the Swedish one, a society pretending to be superliberal and left wing while feverishly suppressing every other opinion outside of its own ethical world, calling that tolerance. So you must not blame her for being offended, but her social context. So, written in bold letters, shitstorming Maddelisk is highly inappropriate. (both the way we understand shitstorming as onliners, and in the sense some other people might understand it, i.e. driving to her, switching on a strong fan and blowing poop at her.) In fact, there a very few cases where I would support a shitstorm.
Yet it cannot be in her interest to be the one who got a free win over a gamer that clearly did not mean to harm her physically or threaten her in real life. He meant, as every gamer will know, that he will overwhelmingly win over her. There is no doubt about that.
Also, if we persecute people because we misunderstood them, we are in the horrid danger of slipping into a totalitarian society.
That said, I will not watch any fragbite masters tournament anymore. They said the vote was unanimous, which means (1) no one in their company can understand gamer slang and (2) they have to be blamed for making the whole thing worse by potentially exposing Maddelisk to a mob that blames her for something she is not responsible for.
Goddamn it. I get home and this Kas shit has gotten out of hand. Thread closed, Destiny and Scarlett getting involved .... What should have been a minor issues has been blown into a full fledged shit storm. Every Twitter "personality" who has gotten involved can fuck right off.... Such bullshit
No one gets even gives a shit about this tournament anymore...lets go back to THAT .....
Please people stop talking about how this thread got off-topic so much and how we don't like people focusing the attention towards things outside of the actual games!!!
Oh but yeah let's get hyped for Mana, and Bling... and uh Zanster... and Gun... HYPE!
EPT
