# Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech



## muina (Nov 30, 2016)

> Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, posted a YouTube video criticizing the proposed Bill C-16, which adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. His video caused concern and sparked conversation. The Agenda convenes a panel to ask: Is the legislation a matter of human rights or a case of legal overreach that threatens freedom of speech?


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Dec 1, 2016)

Toronto is so cucked. The only Canadian city worth shit is Montreal.


----------



## Sailor_Jupiter (Dec 1, 2016)

When did Canada become the lolcow of nations..?


----------



## Lackadaisy (Dec 1, 2016)

Sailor_Jupiter said:


> When did Canada become the lolcow of nations..?



>implying they never weren't a nation of lolcows


----------



## IV 445 (Dec 1, 2016)

Lackadaisy said:


> >implying they never weren't a nation of lolcows


The king cow of all is Norway tho

And North Korea too


----------



## idosometimes (Dec 1, 2016)

The idea that we have to accept someone else's self identifcation is ludicrous.  People can seek to create their own image, but no one has to accept it.  It isn't "abuse" as the bald faggot claims in the video.  There could be very good reasons not to accept or acknowledge self-identity.  Convenience is one.  There is no need for different pronouns for every fucking student in a class.  You might as well use the proper noun in every case.  Singular they leads to confusion as you have to exactly to whom someone is referring.  "Don and Linda wanted me to join them at the restaurant, but their car wouldn't start so it was only two of us."  You need to use the damned nouns.  I couldn't imagine being a professor and having to look down on the register to know what pronoun to use for little Harper or Mason.

Liberals are way too into the idea of identity politics.  Nothing exists about us except what we claim.  Chris is a lipstick lesbian because he says he is.  Words have no meaning.  We can be anything.

Praise Allah that Islam is growing and doesn't stand for this shit.


----------



## Mariposa Electrique (Dec 1, 2016)

> Jordan Peterson


This guy is amazing

I feel for the people that don't pass as their desired gender but that's not the world's problem.
This legislation does nothing at all because even the most fervent of liberals are going to teach their children the difference between men and women.
This is just thought policing on overdrive, which last time I checked is a symptom of an unchecked personality disorder (especially narcissism).


----------



## Lackadaisy (Dec 1, 2016)

That long-haired tranny was p ok for a tranny


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 2, 2016)

> Is the legislation a matter of human rights or a case of legal overreach that threatens freedom of speech?



All anti-discrimination laws are legal overreach.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

I think tis is a case where the intend plays a big role; I think there are basically three reasons to call someone the wrong gender:
- You didn't know better or you had a memory slip and simply forgot (basically like forgetting someones name)
- You think the gender identity stuff is bullshit and call them by the gender which is the most apparant one
- You want to insult this person because you know that this kind of adressation hurts them

In the first case I think it shouldn't be made that big a deal out of it. Just appologize, accept it, no big fuss, mistakes happen that's part of life. 



Spoiler: Sperging



Fun fact: Most mistakes are not because of human error itself, but because the design was not good enought to prevent this from happening. As far as you can speak about design when talking about a person, but using as much signifiers as possible is a good way to make mistakes less likely and to make clear that you want to be adressed as this gender in the first place.



In the second case I'd go by the line of effort in passing. If someone looks clearly like a gender call him that. If that person does not refrain from signifiers that strongly point back to their old gender, than it's okay to think their are their old one.


Spoiler: Extended thoughts



Of course you could argue that clothes don't make the gender, but I think if you look in between it is a small price to pay to adhere to the societal norms. You want to be treated like a normal person in a nice and polite way? Then adhere to the norms. If you dress like a "rebel" you will treated like a retard. Of course there is the minor subgroup of people where genetics and biology screwed up during development and which really did not start out with one definitive gender, but then it might be advisable to choose one for the legal paperwork (leaving genitals alone untill the person found out what it is unless there is an pressing medical reason) and let other people believe whatever they want whenever it's not relevant in the big scheme.
If you don't make a big deal out of something in the first place it won't bother you much whenever it comes up.



In the third case it's basically an insult and should be punishable like one. Of course it's an highly subjective thing (like almost every type of insult that does not use the most prominent curse words), but people should have at least the chance to take proper law-route in persistent cases.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> In the third case it's basically an insult and should be punishable like one. Of course it's an highly subjective thing (like almost every type of insult that does not use the most prominent curse words), but people should have at least the chance to take proper law-route in persistent cases.


The criminalization of insults is always a bad idea.

There's no objective means of enforcement, unending opportunity for abuse, and by the time society's tolerant enough to even consider such actions for a group's protection, it's no longer a problem.

Just as important to this matter: when a society actually does have a problem with discrimination, they'll not only never consider putting in protections for those who actually face discrimination, they'll write hate-speech style laws _requiring_ racism and oppression. 

i.e., Turkey's criminalization of "insulting Turkishness" as a mechanism for state-mandated holocaust denial.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

*Asterisk* said:


> The criminalization of insults is always a bad idea.
> 
> There's no objective means of enforcement, unending opportunity for abuse, and by the time society's tolerant enough to even consider such actions for a group's protection, it's no longer a problem.



Sorry no, you are neglecting some mayor aspects why we have laws here: The first one is prevention; if someone knows that he'll get punished for being an asshole when he calls the policemen who just did his freaking job asshole, he'd think twice about it. Second laws should (yes, they don't really, because changes take forever) reflect the morality of the majority of people. And you know what, the majority thinks it's false to insult somebody, exspecially on a constant base. No one will sue if it's a minor case; but in repeated or highly public ones? Then it's fair game.



> Just as important to this matter: when a society actually does have a problem with discrimination, they'll not only never consider putting in protections for those who actually face discrimination, they'll write hate-speech style laws _requiring_ racism and oppression.



I hate going the social justice route here - but I think we need such laws; it may be that many people are open in the general sense, but as soon as it affects them themselves they suddenly shy away from the right thing. It's part of the duty of the state to make sure that people can't wimp out from the right thing too easily, just because it's less frigthening to do so. When rates are at an acceptable level, then you can leave off the law and look if it's stays stable - but it's unrealistic that people change their behaviour only because of good intentions, because most don't; people even struggle to change their behaviour when it directly effects themselves in a negative way and they know it (e.g. smoking, overeating, to much TV, etc.).
To say something is differently from actually acting on it, and it's not necessarily bad to put a bit of pressure on people.



> i.e., Turkey's criminalization of "insulting Turkishness" as a mechanism for state-mandated holocaust denial.


I agree that's highly stupid.


I don't think your oppinion is unvalid, but I think we might see it from a different standpoint: You see mainly the punishing of the priveleged side to help the unprivileged one (which is legetimate and also foreseeable, because you probably belong into the group that would get punished (at least the little information I got from your profile indicates this)) while I see the side of the ones that unprivileged ones and think they deserve help to get on an equal standing, because I doubt that such an equal standing will ever be come to be completely on its own, unless we make it mandatory. Of course there will be new people the system will discriminate, but that might perhaps open up completely new opportunities for them, because they can't go the "easy" road any more.


----------



## idosometimes (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Sorry no, you are neglecting some mayor aspects why we have laws here: The first one is prevention; if someone knows that he'll get punished for being an asshole when he calls the policemen who just did his freaking job asshole, he'd think twice about it. Second laws should (yes, they don't really, because changes take forever) reflect the morality of the majority of people. And you know what, the majority thinks it's false to insult somebody, exspecially on a constant base. No one will sue if it's a minor case; but in repeated or highly public ones? Then it's fair game.
> 
> I hate going the social justice route here - but I think we need such laws; it may be that many people are open in the general sense, but as soon as it affects them themselves they suddenly shy away from the right thing. It's part of the duty of the state to make sure that people can't wimp out from the right thing too easily, just because it's less frigthening to do so. When rates are at an acceptable level, then you can leave off the law and look if it's stays stable - but it's unrealistic that people change their behaviour only because of good intentions, because most don't; people even struggle to change their behaviour when it directly effects themselves in a negative way and they know it (e.g. smoking, overeating, to much TV, etc.).
> To say something is differently from actually acting on it, and it's not necessarily bad to put a bit of pressure on people.
> ...


This is a moral issue.  Start a church if you want to force morality on others.  Morality isn't the realm of the state.  It can't be.  You may not like it when people make fun of you for cutting off your dick or having below average intelligence, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime.  The state has no duty to stop people from mocking you or force them to pretend that you aren't dumb.  It can't.  For this to happen, the state needs to adopt a specific morality.  This requires that cultural hegemony thing that your kind is always railing against.

You mention three cases above, but your side doesn't care what the reason is.  Dr. P is accused of abuse and nazism for stating his views.  You idiots don't even want debate.  You just want people to accept your supposedly "progressive" views that you learned from some high school dropout tranny on tumblr.  Any use of incorrect pronoun or gender is seen as wrong and should be actionable.  I don't believe in hair cuts because I hate the idea of human interaction.   As such, I have been "misgendered" on occasion.  I don't care because I knew that people were talking to or about me, so it didn't matter.  This isn't abuse even if they did it on purpose.  It isn't a crime.  People use their own experience and language as they know it.  If we need more pronouns so everyone can be a special snowflake like you, then they will develop over time.  They can't be forced through the use of force.  That is not how the English language works.   If you want that to happen, get black people to start using them as urban language is driving our language use, fam.  Or just start speaking French.  French has a board that determines what words are okay and how to use them (not that people will necessarily like it).

Not that your authoritarian "don't let them laugh at me" ideas would do anything.  Disadvantaged groups aren't disadvantaged because people make fun of them.  Saying the "n-word" doesn't result in the achievement gap between non-asian minorities and white persons (the problem is poverty, not language).  Not using "xir" doesn't result in trannies being poor and unable to work (the problem is mental illness, not language).  So how do we get equality from your language policing?  We don't.  Trannies are happy that they get to make up their own pronoun, but still too mentally ill to hold down jobs (non-sex work) or relationships.  What is the point then?  To feel good about doing nothing?  So you can have some power to lord over others because you are unhappy that you were born with a penis?

Most of the discrimination against trannies isn't even about language.  It isn't about trannyness either.  it is because most trannies are ugly, but won't admit it.  It doesn't hold so much for FTM (which are so rare as to be irrelevant).  It is an MTF problem.  Chris doesn't look like a woman.  He looks like a fat misshapen ugly man.  No woman would want his girldick in their vagina.  No one will see him as a cute young girl.  He will never be feminine enough to get 18 year old super-qt dyke with minimum b-cup breasts from the swim team.  It doesn't matter what he does or how the government polices speech.  Sucks for him, but it is no different that life for other ugly people who aren't mentally ill attention whore psychopaths.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

idosometimes said:


> This is a moral issue.  Start a church if you want to force morality on others.  Morality isn't the realm of the state.  It can't be.  You may not like it when people make fun of you for cutting off your dick or having below average intelligence, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime.  The state has no duty to stop people from mocking you or force them to pretend that you aren't dumb.  It can't.  For this to happen, the state needs to adopt a specific morality.  This requires that cultural hegemony thing that your kind is always railing against.
> 
> Not that your authoritarian "don't let them laugh at me" ideas would do anything.  Disadvantaged groups aren't disadvantaged because people make fun of them.  Saying the "n-word" doesn't result in the achievement gap between non-asian minorities and white persons (the problem is poverty, not language).  Not using "xir" doesn't result in trannies being poor and unable to work (the problem is mental illness, not language).  So how do we get equality from your language policing?  We don't.  Trannies are happy that they get to make up their own pronoun, but still too mentally ill to hold down jobs (non-sex work) or relationships.  What is the point then?  To feel good about doing nothing?  So you can have some power to lord over others because you are unhappy that you were born with a penis?
> 
> Most of the discrimination against trannies isn't even about language.  It isn't about trannyness either.  it is because most trannies are ugly, but won't admit it.  It doesn't hold so much for FTM (which are so rare as to be irrelevant).  It is an MTF problem.  Chris doesn't look like a woman.  He looks like a fat misshapen ugly man.  No woman would want his girldick in their vagina.  No one will see him as a cute young girl.  He will never be feminine enough to get 18 year old super-qt dyke with minimum b-cup breasts from the swim team.  It doesn't matter what he does or how the government polices speech.  Sucks for him, but it is no different that life for other ugly people who aren't mentally ill attention whore psychopaths.



No it's not simply about forcing morality on others, but making sure that an already commonly agreed on morality indeed gets acted on. I'll give you an example that has nothing to do with trannys: Enviromentalism. Take for example the simple fact that in order to have not toxic rivers you should not simply pump your silage into it. But if the state would not enforce that the water is cleaned and treated, only a few people would do it; because most would value their monetary income higher then the monetary and health cost to the wider public. But as a society there is an agreement that we don't want to poison everyone, so the state enforces the treatment of water and the majority of people far better for it.

And it's the same thing with insults  



Spoiler: Definition I use



stuff said to people with the clear intend to hurt them on a regular basis or a longer period of time, with a low reasoning


; no one wants to get verbally abused, so others should have a mean to protect themselves when this happens and because theres such a thing like seperation of powers, it is duty of the state to make laws, so the courts can make judgements that the executive can fullfill.

I'm not for policing speech in the wider sense; just that there needs to be a way to punish people when they use speech to intentionally hurt others out of pure malicity. Using the law to force someone to use special pronouns is far too much in the other way around, because you know what: It's sensible to expect people to choose an gender in the long run. If your brain is fucked up and you want to be the other one, I'm okay with that, but then go the full way. If you don't want too despite this, then stay what you are and become happy with it. 



Spoiler: side stuff



Exspecially because I sincerely think that a complete person has both classical male and female attributes - switching your gender just changes the way. But of course not everyone will ever reach completeness, but that's a different topic.



I'm not against making fun of people and it's even okay to be a little bit mean from time to time; but when it reaches the point that you do it constantly with the clear and open intend to hurt someone then it's going other the line. It's flat out violence; it might be of the verbal, psychological kind, but it still is; it hurts people with possible long term negative consequences.
*
Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right; because our freedoms can only reach so wide that we don't cut the freedoms of others. And the right to mentally stay unharmed has a higher priority to blabbering whatever someone wants. *

And in the end; if it's someone asks you in a nice way to use special pronouns and does not act like a giant douchebag, why not at least try it out? Even if you think that's the most stupid thing ever, if you value being a decent person, then doing this favour at least for a trial period won't do much harm. If it's really as stupid as you think, the other will notice; and if it stays stupid, then try to talk with them. Try to explain them why you feel unconfortable with it. Basically tread people in a decent way and if they are too dumb to treat you the same in return, then make a thread about them.  Because this is why we became Kiwis in the end, laughing about shitty people. 

Sorry for producing such a long wall of text, I enjoy serious discussions way to much 

Oh and on the topic of uglyness, I strongly recommend you to read up on the Halo effect, a well known psychological bias. People don't want to be ugly because ugly people are treated significantly shittier compared to pretty ones.


----------



## Marvin (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> And it's the same thing with insults
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no way to distinguish malice from political opinion.

"Obama is a fuckhead." is malicious, but also a political opinion.

This extends all the way down to the very lowest levels, like your boss, for example. It's valid to criticize your boss (whether or not you get fired is a separate issue). Saying he's a fuckhead is a criticism. It's not cleaned up, it's not nice, but it's still valid criticism.

For example, if your boss makes a bad decision and everyone's talking about it, and you nod in agreement and say "yeah, he's a fuckhead". That's an insult. But also in context, you were expressing agreement with what everyone else was saying. You didn't use the exact words, but the context is clear. Policing the exact manner in which people express their opinions is draconian and a ripe opportunity for exploitation.

(Not that it matters, because this issue is mostly absolute for me, but it should also be noted that regulating the manner of expression would only lead to society's less sophisticated members, like the poor, being oppressed for not being able to toe the line in what is legal expression and what isn't.)

To bring this back to gender, disagreeing with gender fluidity is a valid political opinion. And you're allowed to express that. Intentionally misgendering someone is, in context (like with your boss), a criticism of that. Malicious? Very likely. But also political opinion.

Regulating political opinion is not allowed.


Kartoffel said:


> Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right; because our freedoms can only reach so wide that we don't cut the freedoms of others.


In the United States it is.

Here's an really great example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> t this kind of adressation hurts them



This is the most fun one and should be enjoyed.



Kartoffel said:


> Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right



The fuck it doesn't you goddamn idiot.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Freedom of speach does not mean you can insult people left and right;


Yes it does you faggot. 


Kartoffel said:


> And the right to mentally stay unharmed has a higher priority to blabbering whatever someone wants.


That's not a right.


----------



## Unseemly and Feral (Dec 2, 2016)

@Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions. That doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for insults but the idea of legal consequences for speech is politically untenable that country, given that it has always historically been at odds with itself over everything and has greatly benefited from having a debate platform as wide as possible.


----------



## Unseemly and Feral (Dec 2, 2016)

Unseemly and Feral said:


> @Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions. That doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for insults but the idea of legal consequences for speech outside of outright libel, slander, or obscenity is politically untenable that country, given that it has always historically been at odds with itself over everything and has greatly benefited from having a debate platform as wide as possible.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 2, 2016)

Unseemly and Feral said:


> @Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions.



That's specifically related to the U.S. First Amendment.

However, the very concept of free speech is completely meaningless and empty without the right to be offensive.  Nobody ever tried to stop speech they didn't find offensive!

Just having super thin skin and taking offense at fucking everything doesn't give you special rights.  There is no "right not to be offended."


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

Marvin said:


> There is no way to distinguish malice from political opinion.
> 
> "Obama is a fuckhead." is malicious, but also a political opinion.
> 
> This extends all the way down to the very lowest levels, like your boss, for example. It's valid to criticize your boss (whether or not you get fired is a separate issue). Saying he's a fuckhead is a criticism. It's not cleaned up, it's not nice, but it's still valid criticism.



You seriously don't see a difference between an insult and a political statement? Wow, then I can say what I want, because you'll never get my point, because I (and also the law of the country I'm living in) is making a distinction.
Saying that for example a firm is shit and nobody should buy there can get you  punished, while saying that this firma has misstreated you and that therefore nobody should buy there is completely legal (as long as you don't make that up).
The big difference is intend: You say something out of maliciousness makes it an insult, but as long as it's part of an argument and has context it's okay.

I never said it should be easy to sue someone because he insulted you; and I'd be really bewildered by any judge that would interpret  misgendering as a serious insult, if not part of a very specific context.



AnOminous said:


> This is the most fun one and should be enjoyed
> The fuck it doesn't you goddamn idiot.





Jon-Kacho said:


> Yes it does you faggot.
> That's not a right.



Sorry, I inexplicitely though that the USA law agrees in this basic points with the law of my country. We have the principles here in place; a persons well-being is more important than the freedom of speech of another.



Unseemly and Feral said:


> @Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions. That doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for insults but the idea of legal consequences for speech is politically untenable that country, given that it has always historically been at odds with itself over everything and has greatly benefited from having a debate platform as wide as possible.


Yeah, sorry for my mistake again, nice to see that someone elaborates a bit on it.
I personally prefer the system of my country, but I think that came also historically into being, because we wanted to make sure that something like the Nazis can't happen here again a second time. And it's not like we are against free speech here; there was a quite famous case of an entertainer who made a poem about Edogan and he won the process, which I think shows that our system works. Also we don't have that much bullshit here in the first place with safe spaces and special pronouns, but I'm not that up to date  German-speaking social media, but coverage in webmedia seems to agree with this impression. Perhaps opressed minorities feel a bit safer here because of this difference in mentality? Or our trannys are simply not as flashy as yours. I have absolutely no idea.



AnOminous said:


> That's specifically related to the U.S. First Amendment.
> 
> However, the very concept of free speech is completely meaningless and empty without the right to be offensive.  Nobody ever tried to stop speech they didn't find offensive!
> 
> Just having super thin skin and taking offense at fucking everything doesn't give you special rights.  There is no "right not to be offended."



Yeah like we noticed, my bad, our countrys differ here massively.

I never said there is a right that your are not offended, but you have a right to not be psychologically harmed with words. That's why I repeatedly emphasized the malicious intend and the extend of the insults. Nobody will ever get sued because he did insult someone once or twice. But doing it repeatedly over and over again without belonging to the press or doing it in an artistic context? Yupp, then you might be successfully sued - but only if they can actually prove that it happened. 
I am not for "Samthandschuhe" and that people should not get offended by the slightest provocation (someone who does is a poor wiener), but I think there is a line between free speech and verbal garbage. The first one is important and must be protected, the other one should be minimized.


----------



## Unseemly and Feral (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Sorry, I inexplicitely though that the USA law agrees in this basic points with the law of my country. We have the principles here in place; a persons well-being is more important than the freedom of speech of another.
> 
> 
> Yeah, sorry for my mistake again, nice to see that someone elaborates a bit on it.
> I personally prefer the system of my country, but I think that came also historically into being, because we wanted to make sure that something like the Nazis can't happen here again a second time. And it's not like we are against free speech here; there was a quite famous case of an entertainer who made a poem about Edogan and he won the process, which I think shows that our system works. Also we don't have that much bullshit here in the first place with safe spaces and special pronouns, but I'm not that up to date  German-speaking social media, but coverage in webmedia seems to agree with this impression. Perhaps opressed minorities feel a bit safer here because of this difference in mentality? Or our trannys are simply not as flashy as yours. I have absolutely no idea.



I've observed that every country has a slightly different outlook on universal civil liberties, which is perfectly acceptable because different people get different experiences.

Germany's perspective makes perfect sense given what happened in the past, but in the US our past does too. Despite how it may appear I think there's always sort've been 'two Americas' in tension with each other but to keep the peace we have an understanding on a lot of things, and it goes all the way back to the foundation. I think the 1st amendment was written the way it was to make the government as neutral as possible to prevent it from taking one side or favoring one interest over a multiplicity of others. Sometimes that has been a detriment, but on the whole I think it works very well for us.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

Unseemly and Feral said:


> I've observed that every country has a slightly different outlook on universal civil liberties, which is perfectly acceptable because different people get different experiences.
> 
> Germany's perspective makes perfect sense given what happened in the past, but in the US our past does too. Despite how it may appear I think there's always sort've been 'two Americas' in tension with each other but to keep the peace we have an understanding on a lot of things, and it goes all the way back to the foundation. I think the 1st amendment was written the way it was to make the government as neutral as possible to prevent it from taking one side or favoring one interest over a multiplicity of others. Sometimes that has been a detriment, but on the whole I think it works very well for us.



Yeah, there're certainly worse places to live then America, the only thing that really deeply baffles me about your country is, that women get no paid matrial leave, except a few weeks to recover from the birth itself. But seperating of powers and neutrality of the state are one of the most awesome concepts that humanity has ever come up with.


----------



## Marvin (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> You seriously don't see a difference between an insult and a political statement?


I said that there is no way to tell (objectively) the difference. Thus you can only approximate what people were going for. And if there's nothing material at stake, it's pretty sketchy to weigh someone's freedom of expression on mere approximations.


Kartoffel said:


> Wow, then I can say what I want, because you'll never get my point, because I (and also the law of the country I'm living in) is making a distinction.
> Saying that for example a firm is shit and nobody should buy there can get you punished, while saying that this firma has misstreated you and that therefore nobody should buy there is completely legal (as long as you don't make that up).
> The big difference is intend: You say something out of maliciousness makes it an insult, but as long as it's part of an argument and has context it's okay.


Can't calling a given firm "shit" implicitly say you were mistreated by it in some way? In fact, isn't that the situation 99% of the time when someone insults a given firm?

Furthermore, I think malice is irrelevant. If you got ripped off by a company and you want revenge, that's malice. But that shouldn't be used as a justification for censorship.

See, I don't think you give offensive speech its due respect. There are legitimate emotions behind even the most coarse insults.

Consider:


Spoiler: fuck tha police











Then "fuck tha police" became a rallying cry for disenfranchised black youth across the US. Coarse? Certainly. But it's got deeper meaning. I don't think anyone would dispute it, considering the social significance the original song has achieved. No one could really prove that saying "fuck the police" isn't referring to the original song, if it went in front of a judge. I think you would agree it has redeeming social value by this point, right?

But what, does that mean all vulgar language has to be sponsored by prominent art in order to be considered valid? Do we just have to strangle offensive language in the crib, before it becomes a meme? (Because once its a meme, it's too late. It's political/social art.)


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

Marvin said:


> I said that there is no way to tell (objectively) the difference. Thus you can only approximate what people were going for. And if there's nothing material at stake, it's pretty sketchy to weigh someone's freedom of expression on mere approximations.
> 
> Can't calling a given firm "shit" implicitly say you were mistreated by it in some way? In fact, isn't that the situation 99% of the time when someone insults a given firm?



No, context is really important here, you have to make clear that something is your personal oppinion etc. here if you don't want to risk to be sued for slander.



> Furthermore, I think malice is irrelevant. If you got ripped off by a company and you want revenge, that's malice. But that shouldn't be used as a justification for censorship.



Eh, malice plays a big role in the justice system: Killing someone accidently is considered a lesser crime then killing someone out of hate, greed etc. also in your country. Intention plays a big role in many laws and it's a ernormous problem when certain laws leave it out (migratory birds act...).



> See, I don't think you give offensive speech its due respect. There are legitimate emotions behind even the most coarse insults.



So the emotions of the insulter are more important than the ones of the insulted ones? Hm... I guess this kind of conflict should be settled by eternal back and forth of curses then.
Well I prefer it when people are told that curses don't make their points exactly more valid.



> Consider:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: fuck tha police
> ...



See, this is not an insult in the classic sense, but protest, or could even classify as art. And this kind of things have a special weight. Also in Germany people who work in the public service have to endure more insults-wise than a normal person would have to, because that's part of the job. This is also why we don't have a seperate law for insulting police-men or the like; these still fall under the regular one. But they remind you that they can and will make use of the law if you start cursing at them because they just try to do their damm job.



> But what, does that mean all vulgar language has to be sponsored by prominent art in order to be considered valid? Do we just have to strangle offensive language in the crib, before it becomes a meme? (Because once its a meme, it's too late. It's political/social art.)



Nope, you could use offensive words still in another contexts; it's just not allowed to insult others with them. And art has not to be necessarily prominent, but it must be indentifiable as it. In the end it depends on the judge, like it should be. That's their job, to make sure the law is applied rightfully.
But I must remind - my country's laws, not yours. I like mine better, you yours, both ways are legitimate and I don't wonder at all why someone would prefer the version he grew up with.


----------



## Yhwach (Dec 2, 2016)

So long as people aren't discriminating in the workplace or beating the shit out of people for being different, I don't see the point in banning free speech. What people say and do in their spare time is their own business and the government has no place regulating it.
Besides, it's a slippery slope. Does refusing to refer to some batshit otherkin as their preferred pronoun count as hate speech?


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> I personally prefer the system of my country, but I think that came also historically into being, because we wanted to make sure that something like the Nazis can't happen here again a second time.


Censoring offensive speech is much more Nazi like than absolute freedom of speech though. 


Kartoffel said:


> Hm... I guess this kind of conflict should be settled by eternal back and forth of curses then.


Yes it should be, considering the alternative is violence.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

Yhwach said:


> So long as people aren't discriminating in the workplace or beating the shit out of people for being different, I don't see the point in banning free speech. What people say and do in their spare time is their own business and the government has no place regulating it.



Free speach isn't banned. But speech with malicious intend is. As long as you are civil about it (and don't spread lies) you can say anything you want.



> Besides, it's a slippery slope. Does refusing to refer to some batshit otherkin as their preferred pronoun count as hate speech?



In almost all cases no, it isn't. But if someone would misgender someone for a long time on a regular basis while it is clear that this is really deeply insulting to that person, you might have a base for a sue case - if you documented it properly of course. But I don't know how exactly this kind of crazy did fare in German courts so far; like I said, over here people are not that vocal about stuff like that. Or we have less sissys here.



Jon-Kacho said:


> Censoring offensive speech is much more Nazi like than absolute freedom of speech though.



Yes, because it's soo difficult to not curse all the time. Because your point gets automatically more valid when you decorate it with little cunts and retards; instead of insulting to your own and the intelligence of the one you are arguing with. Emotions are important and valid, but it's dumb to build your argumentation on it instead of objective points.
Yeah, heavily controlling something is nazi-like, they liked to do that sort of thing.



> Yes it should be, considering the alternative is violence.



No , there is also the alternative in using the state's institutions to solve the conflict in a lawful manner. That's what sueing is for: to instead of using violence letting the state handle the argument, because they can if it needs to.
Of course in the USA this option becomes not very pratical, because you had to bring your legislative to make a law first, so jursis- and executive can handle, but it's still an excisting alternative, that seperates us from mere babarians.


I also realized something right now; I think one of the reason that you value free speech so much is because you lack privacy. If your state constantly spies on you, then of course the complete freeness is the only thing that keeps you from becoming rightfully paranoid. In my country we have a much more emphasis on the right to privacy and it's much much harder to get access to private stuff from the side of the state, so we actually don't have to watch out all the time what we say and how. As long as you know your limits you can say and do what your want.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Yes, because it's soo difficult to not curse all the time. Because your point gets automatically more valid when you decorate it with little cunts and exceptional individuals; instead of insulting to your own and the intelligence of the one you are arguing with. Emotions are important and valid, but it's dumb to build your argumentation on it instead of objective points.


Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. 


Kartoffel said:


> No , there is also the alternative in using the state's institutions to solve the conflict in a lawful manner. That's what sueing is for: to instead of using violence letting the state handle the argument, because they can if it needs to.


Taking someone to court is violent. The only reason people show up to court is because they know the police will come to their door with guns if they don't. All government action is, at the end of the day, compelled by the threat of violence. Chairman Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Sorry, I inexplicitely though that the USA law agrees in this basic points with the law of my country. We have the principles here in place; a persons well-being is more important than the freedom of speech of another.



Fuck your shithole nanny state.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Dec 2, 2016)

The Nazi's didn't come to power because of too much free speech. Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted by the Weimar Government for violating hate speech laws, and all it did was drive more Germans to their side. Even Hitler himself was arrested for violating Weimar hate speech laws. Guess how well that worked?

@Kartoffel, your system is, has alway been, and always will be, a disgrace to human rights and actively enabled the Third Reich's martyr complex and rise to power. I'll live in a country with open Klansmen every day over a country which pretends such men don't exist until it's too late and the Klansmen start turning your own rules against you.


----------



## Marvin (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> No, context is really important here, you have to make clear that something is your personal oppinion etc. here if you don't want to risk to be sued for slander.


Calling something "shit" isn't slander. Slander is intentionally making a false statement about something. It's akin to fraud.


Kartoffel said:


> So the emotions of the insulter are more important than the ones of the insulted ones?


I was more pointing out that all speech has legitimacy.


Kartoffel said:


> See, this is not an insult in the classic sense, but protest, or could even classify as art. And this kind of things have a special weight. Also in Germany people who work in the public service have to endure more insults-wise than a normal person would have to, because that's part of the job. This is also why we don't have a seperate law for insulting police-men or the like; these still fall under the regular one. But they remind you that they can and will make use of the law if you start cursing at them because they just try to do their damm job.


No, reread what I was saying. I was saying that you almost certainly would agree that the original song is art. (Because it is.)

But the phrase that it spawned, "fuck the police" is not a song. It's just a saying.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that mere insults should be bannable because they carry no deeper meaning. So I'm saying that since the song became big, the phrase "fuck the police" stopped being a mere insult. Because again, it has deeper meaning.

Is that correct?

The bit about police being a special case isn't really relevant. Rephrase my whole argument in terms of any other insulting meme, one not directed at police, and it still holds.


Kartoffel said:


> I also realized something right now; I think one of the reason that you value free speech so much is because you lack privacy. If your state constantly spies on you, then of course the complete freeness is the only thing that keeps you from becoming rightfully paranoid. In my country we have a much more emphasis on the right to privacy and it's much much harder to get access to private stuff from the side of the state, so we actually don't have to watch out all the time what we say and how. As long as you know your limits you can say and do what your want.


We have excellent privacy in the US. Privacy is a huge issue in the US. See the fourth amendment.

I don't know what the German analogs are, but I can't imagine any modern state having protections any stronger than the fourth amendment. (Not that they're particularly special, of course. It's pretty standard "don't snoop without a warrant".)

If you're referring to the NSA, while that is indeed a problem, it's highly illegal. The only reason the NSA is still operating is because a load of legal bullshit that they use to dodge judicial scrutiny. Hopefully a politician or a group with some testicles tries to fuck with that. But of course, I'm not holding my breath.

(Well, and domestic spying agencies exist in other countries as well. The NSA is just very notorious.)


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal.



Well, it depends on your society. When it sees something bad enough a law to prevent it should be made.



AnOminous said:


> Fuck your shithole nanny state.



Well that's what you get when your state cares about its inhabitants. You should try it out, having access to affordable health care is great!



> Taking someone to court is violent. The only reason people show up to court is because they know the police will come to their door with guns if they don't. All government action is, at the end of the day, compelled by the threat of violence. Chairman Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.



Yes, because violence get's shit done in the end. And I find violence in form of "fighting" before a court with predefined rules and using evidence as "weapon" a much better sort of violence then hitting the other till he does what I want. 



AnOminous said:


> Fuck your shithole nanny state.



I actually prefer living in a nanny state than in one that spawns tumblerinas like there's no tomorrow.



*Asterisk* said:


> The Nazi's didn't come to power because of too much free speech. Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted by the Weimar Government for violating hate speech laws, and all it did was drive more Germans to their side. Even Hitler himself was arrested for violating Weimar hate speech laws. Guess how well that worked?



And the logic behind that argument is that they would not have come to power by not being imprisoned? Please explain a little more in detail how exactly that is supposed to have worked.



> @Kartoffel, your system is, has alway been, and always will be, a disgrace to human rights and actively enabled the Third Reich's martyr complex and rise to power. I'll live in a country with open Klansmen every day over a country which pretends such men don't exist until it's too late and the Klansmen start turning your own rules against you.



Excuse me? Pretend that they don't excist? That's bullshit we observe and watch these kind of people and persecute them when possible.
Also I'd call the death penality an guantanamo bay the bigger digrace to human rights than restricting civil speech to be in a cilvil manner and not purely insult-based. And saying that the restriction of free speech to be have in a civil manner was the enabler for the nazi bullshit is ludicrous. There was a multitude of reasons and in the law sense the big enabler was rather that stupid law that let Hitler easily overrule the parliament.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Well, it depends on your society. When it sees something bad enough a law to prevent it should be made.


How are hurt feelings bad enough to outlaw? 


Kartoffel said:


> Yes, because violence get's shit done in the end. And I find violence in form of "fighting" before a court with predefined rules and using evidence as "weapon" a much better sort of violence then hitting the other till he does what I want.


How about we don't have any violence by just letting everyone say whatever they want? 


Kartoffel said:


> That's bullshit we observe and watch these kind of people and persecute them when possible.


I thought you said you had privacy? Now you observe and persecute speech. Which is it? 


Kartoffel said:


> Well that's what you get when your state cares about its inhabitants.


Restricting speech isn't "caring about its inhabitants" it's a blatant disregard for civil rights.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Well, it depends on your society. When it sees something bad enough a law to prevent it should be made.


In the old days, they called this "the Wannsee Conference."


----------



## Alberto Balsalm (Dec 2, 2016)

I have no problem with the idea of legislation against housing, hiring, and workplace discrimination of transgender people, which is what this fundamentally is. The problem is that with the state of the transgender community now, people can't be trusted not to make up BS identities or exploit the "no harassment" clause to hell and back.


----------



## Yhwach (Dec 2, 2016)

I had one of my closer friends cut all ties with me for a while because I mentioned being irreligious in a joke, but I respected his decision. Hell, after a few weeks, he apologized and we just pretended the whole thing never happened. :powerlevel: If I chimped out, my friend would have probably only had his beliefs reinforced and it'd ruin an otherwise good friendship.

Fighting hatred with hatred tends to not work well when it comes to civil rights.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 2, 2016)

Marvin said:


> Calling something "shit" isn't slander. Slander is intentionally making a false statement about something. It's akin to fraud.


Sorry, I didn't specifically look up if I remembered its meaning right. I'm tryng to do my best, English is not my native language.



> I was more pointing out that all speech has legitimacy.


In regards to contends, yes, I think I can agree. In regards to form, no; only if the context is suitable.



> No, reread what I was saying. I was saying that you almost certainly would agree that the original song is art. (Because it is.)
> 
> But the phrase that it spawned, "fuck the police" is not a song. It's just a saying.
> 
> ...



Ah okay, I think I get now what you mean; but I'd say your case would be very iffy other here; it would really depend on how the Judge factors each component of the case and how widely known that thing is.
The other question is, would a policemen sue? Insults are only prosecuted if actively brought to attention. The bigger problem in this case would be the policemen if you ask me; most policemen don't actually sue, only if you pretend like a giant douche and I think they can discriminate between normal assholery and political activism.
Sorry if I didn't read that well enough, that topic here is huge and almost a bit overwhelming. But very interesting to discuss none the less.



> We have excellent privacy in the US. Privacy is a huge issue in the US. See the fourth amendment.
> 
> I don't know what the German analogs are, but I can't imagine any modern state having protections any stronger than the fourth amendment. (Not that they're particularly special, of course. It's pretty standard "don't snoop without a warrant".)
> 
> ...



Yeah, I was reffering to the NSA, but you are also more unprotected because their is no federal law for protection of personalized data just many little local ones, which makes it very hard to see through - and that the state has made it easy for itself to snoop, because of terrorism. 



*Asterisk* said:


> In the old days, they called this "the Wannsee Conference."


Hitler's regime is not what we might call exactly lawful at that time.
Also you might consider the fact that nowadays our law is constructed explicitely in a way that such bullshit does never happen again. To come to the fact that todays laws are inferior because when they were already in the Weimarer republic is dumb, because these also included free speech, assembly and religion and where actually quite advanced for their time. The big problem was that giant gaping hole that enabled Hitler to grab the power.



Jon-Kacho said:


> How are hurt feelings bad enough to outlaw?



You can get ill from getting bullied enough. Why is it less a crime if you fuck a life up by hitting someone directly then doing the same damage verbally? When you hurt someone (without one reason out of a limited and known set) you get punished. That's fair and also one of the oldest law principles we have.



> How about we don't have any violence by just letting everyone say whatever they want?


Imagine that someone makes a hobby out of it to insult you constantly in public. Just because he can. And you can do nothing about it. It's basically mobbing. And that's what our law is against, that you missuse your right to free speach, just to hurt someone.



> I thought you said you had privacy? Now you observe and persecute speech. Which is it?



They use moles; not everyone is constantly watched, but if you are part of a criminal club that might undermine our constitution, one or the other of your buddies might be in reality an agent of our internal intelligence angency. Normal people have absolutely nothing to fear. 



> Restricting speech isn't "caring about its inhabitants" it's a blatant disregard for civil rights.


Nope, it's putting the value of one right over the over. And the right to bodily integrity is valued higher here then the right to free speach. And that right includes the psyche.
There never can be full freedom for anyone without cutting down on another one.



Alberto Balsalm said:


> I have no problem with the idea of legislation against housing, hiring, and workplace discrimination of transgender people, which is what this fundamentally is. The problem is that with the state of the transgender community now, people can't be trusted not to make up BS identities or exploit the "no harassment" clause to hell and back.



Yes, that's a big problem. But that's why jurisdiction and legislative are different powers, because politics are wuite easily influenced by lobbyism and the current climate. Judges do have to use the laws we have, but they have a certain wiggle room available - otherwise there wouldn't exist a need for them in the first place.



Yhwach said:


> I had one of my closer friends cut all ties with me for a while because I mentioned being irreligious in a joke, but I respected his decision. Hell, after a few weeks, he apologized and we just pretended the whole thing never happened. :powerlevel: If I chimped out, my friend would have probably only had his beliefs reinforced and it'd ruin an otherwise good friendship.
> 
> Fighting hatred with hatred tends to not work well when it comes to civil rights.



Exactly. Don't make a too big fuss other things and stuff can work out all right.



Spoiler: Offtopic-ish



It's almost midnight here, so I'm leaving soon, but thanks for the discussion, I found your differrent viewpoint very interresting.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 2, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> You can get ill from getting bullied enough. Why is it less a crime if you fuck a life up by hitting someone directly then doing the same damage verbally?



To paraphrase Tyler the Creator:
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Verbal Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away Like Nigga Cover Your Ears Haha



Kartoffel said:


> Imagine that someone makes a hobby out of it to insult you constantly in public. Just because he can. And you can do nothing about it. It's basically mobbing. And that's what our law is against, that you missuse your right to free speach, just to hurt someone.



Hundreds of political pundits have made careers out of insulting Obama in public for the past 8 years. If they're literally physically following you around, that's stalking and is illegal no matter what they say. Otherwise yes that is protected by free speech.



Kartoffel said:


> Nope, it's putting the value of one right over the over. And the right to bodily integrity is valued higher here then the right to free speach. And that right includes the psyche.





Jon-Kacho said:


> Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Verbal Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away Like Nigga Cover Your Ears Haha


----------



## *Asterisk* (Dec 2, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> To paraphrase Tyler the Creator:
> Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Verbal Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away Like Nigga Cover Your Ears Haha
> 
> 
> ...


You'll never take the place of @bearycool in my heart, but I'm having fun with us on the same side.


----------



## Lackadaisy (Dec 2, 2016)

My issue with this is that it specifically _limits_ speech in a way that can coincide with political / religious beliefs.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 3, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> To paraphrase Tyler the Creator:
> Hundreds of political pundits have made careers out of insulting Obama in public for the past 8 years. If they're literally physically following you around, that's stalking and is illegal no matter what they say. Otherwise yes that is protected by free speech.



And here it would be, too. Because by becoming a politician every judge worth their salt would set the threshold for insults higher.



Lackadaisy said:


> My issue with this is that it specifically _limits_ speech in a way that can coincide with political / religious beliefs.



No you can still say what you think, you have just to put more than five seconds of thought into it, so that it doesn't count as an insult. Or become an artist I guess. 
Don't think we have no freedom of speech here; we just cut down on those who explicitely either misuse it to hurt people or to undermine our constitution; we have specific rules what isn't protected by free speach. That's why the prohibition of the NPD took so long; there were at some time to many moles in their higher positions, so that it was argued that these had to much influence and that this made it hard to evaluate if they were really unconstituional, so the prohibition couldn't go through the first few times. 
If you relly want to change our constitution you have to follow the legal way, instead of the violent conspiratory one.

The only one who can effectively censor you all the time would be an institution you are part of; e.g. you can't write anything you want into the school newspaper and the like. 
Insults are also something that happens rather in private and commercial contexts, not in political ones.


----------



## Captain_Asshole (Dec 3, 2016)

Jon-Kacho said:


> To paraphrase Tyler the Creator:
> Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Verbal Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away Like Nigga Cover Your Ears Haha



In cases such as the crap tumblr rages about I kind of agree with this view. However it has been proven that verbal abuse can actually be harmful (as in clinically)  to a person's psyche under certain circumstances even if the victim is not a hypersensitive tumblrina. Then again, how easy is it to procure proof of and take action against something like that?


----------



## Butta Face Lopez (Dec 3, 2016)

Wait is this seriously some kraut lecturing Americans about how suppressing free speech because it might hurts someone's feelings is better than just...free speech?

That dog won't hunt, Fritz


----------



## Jaimas (Dec 3, 2016)

I remember back in 2014, I got yelled at by a district employee when I brought up that if they didn't tamp down on what could be considered "trans" and demand official paperwork/insist on medical diagnosis for definition, then they were going to turn DASA (the Dignity for All Students Act) from a solid piece of legislation into an even bigger source of bullying and harassment than the fucking absence of legislation we had before it, and I urged caution based on this, since most of the district employees know fuck all about human interaction in general.

Cut to two years later and we've seen at least three people facing disciplinary action for failure to tamp down on abuse of this ridiculous rule change just since 2016. _Good times_. Maybe if we're lucky DASA will get sanctioned out of existence entirely within the next few years and we can go back to the idiocy we originally had, and prove that no matter how much humanity as a whole advances, we can always count on NY's middle management to grab the rest of the state by its ankles and drag it, screaming, to the Lovecraftian depths.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 3, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> No you can still say what you think, you have just to put more than five seconds of thought into it, so that it doesn't count as an insult. Or become an artist I guess.



Why the fuck are you even on a site you apparently think should be illegal?


----------



## Marvin (Dec 3, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Ah okay, I think I get now what you mean; but I'd say your case would be very iffy other here; it would really depend on how the Judge factors each component of the case and how widely known that thing is.
> The other question is, would a policemen sue? Insults are only prosecuted if actively brought to attention. The bigger problem in this case would be the policemen if you ask me; most policemen don't actually sue, only if you pretend like a giant douche and I think they can discriminate between normal assholery and political activism.
> Sorry if I didn't read that well enough, that topic here is huge and almost a bit overwhelming. But very interesting to discuss none the less.


A more philosophical point I'd want to make (regardless of specific legal implementations) is that, to Americans, the more free speech you have, the more democracy you have.

When it comes to fuck tha police, it provides a way for black youths to express their feelings. What's the alternative? Well, they could say something like "well, I'm very unhappy with the situation, and I'm expressing extreme discomfort at police officers, but considering their feelings while doing so, thank you very much". First of all, that wouldn't make a great protest slogan. Secondly, it's very obviously watering down their statement. Their statement isn't that they're extremely discomforted, it's that they're absolutely fucking pissed. They're pissed at the cops. Nothing short of saying literally "fuck the police" will express their politics.

This position can trivially be extended to any insult.

Anything that waters down their message is essentially watering down democracy. Until a statement has genuine, concrete effects (like fraud or incitement), it's an expression of political beliefs and thus untouchable.

And keep in mind, this isn't a (largely) ethnically monolithic European country, like pre-kebab Scandinavia. This is America, an immigrant country. People continually have to fight to be heard. You have a right to piss people off because that's how political change happens. (Well, I'm sure ethnically monolithic countries have internal disputes too. But perhaps their disputes are less heated than ones in the US.)

Heh, additionally, people get distressed by things that aren't explicit insults. I mean, consider how many people babies were seriously traumatized by Trump's election. They were crying big salty tears. I bet shrinks are even diagnosing legit mental disorders because of it, just because of how worked up they got themselves. That's caused more mental trauma in the past month or so than all the "niggers" spoken in the past decade.

Heh, voting for Trump, and MAGA are like the "fuck the police" of the white working class.

Edit: Like overall, I can understand why Germany has the laws that it does. But I can't endorse it, and furthermore, I don't believe it leads to anything good. At best, it might not cause that huge of problems.


----------



## Kartoffel (Dec 3, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> Why the fuck are you even on a site you apparently think should be illegal?



Because this site is fucking funny and I find the rude tone here very humbling; it tends to put things into perspective. And unless you somehow decide to host this site in Germany it does not fall under German law - so it's not illegal. And I'm not able to truely ween, I feel much to unconfortable with that.



Marvin said:


> A more philosophical point I'd want to make (regardless of specific legal implementations) is that, to Americans, the more free speech you have, the more democracy you have.



 Nice statement.



> When it comes to fuck tha police, it provides a way for black youths to express their feelings. What's the alternative? Well, they could say something like "well, I'm very unhappy with the situation, and I'm expressing extreme discomfort at police officers, but considering their feelings while doing so, thank you very much". First of all, that wouldn't make a great protest slogan. Secondly, it's very obviously watering down their statement. Their statement isn't that they're extremely discomforted, it's that they're absolutely fucking pissed. They're pissed at the cops. Nothing short of saying literally "fuck the police" will express their politics.
> 
> This position can trivially be extended to any insult.



Why not something like "Down with the police!" "Corruption must end!" "The system is unfair!"  You can voice disagreement without curse words _and _flowery language. If you really think only curse words can express the gravity of your feelings then I think that this is because you did not have a limit; if there is no line to stop you'll automatically use the most extreme forms of language in the believe that everything else will be unheard and because the others use the same level. If everybody has to town down a bit the points don't stay less valid.



> Anything that waters down their message is essentially watering down democracy. Until a statement has genuine, concrete effects (like fraud or incitement), it's an expression of political beliefs and thus untouchable.



Then why are weening and a-logging frowned up upon here? Why do kiwis feel the need to tell others to piss of when they start stuff like this? Why are shitposts deleted? Do you really think that everything that is said has a political merit? I'm fine with political activism, that's totally okay, but not everything a person says is intended to be a political statement and should be treated like one. This subforum even has "Please be mindful when challenging someone's opinions and beliefs." above it - and I interpret that as "Don't behave like an asshole just because someone doesn't share your oppinion", an indication that shit posts are not wanted here.



> And keep in mind, this isn't a (largely) ethnically monolithic European country, like pre-kebab Scandinavia. This is America, an immigrant country. People continually have to fight to be heard. You have a right to piss people off because that's how political change happens. (Well, I'm sure ethnically monolithic countries have internal disputes too. But perhaps their disputes are less heated than ones in the US.)



May I say that I think that America may have a big emphasis on the freedom of speech, but has in other regards crippled his political system? I got the huge impression that both candidates in the last election where both seen as shitty options, but the way your system is set up did not really allow for a third option to emerge; and your political landscape does tend to get more and more extreme by gerrymandering.
In my county we don't need to go the radical route and must activate the people by any means necessary, because even a minority party has chance to partake in the process. We have an explicit cut point (5%), so that there can be functioning coalitions; but when choosing your alliences right you can really chance things. (For example the decision for shutting down all nuclear powerplants in the future is something our green party had a huge influence in.)



> Edit: Like overall, I can understand why Germany has the laws that it does. But I can't endorse it, and furthermore, I don't believe it leads to anything good. At best, it might not cause that huge of problems.



I may be biased, but I think striving for a moderate middle ground is a solid way to deal with most things; we don't need super radical solutions because our system is sensitive enough to deal with "moderate" influences. Heck, people were unhappy with the imigration crisis and the euro situation so they founded a new party that became big enough to get it's voice heard. It did not need to become the biggest or the second biggest one, just get over that minimum line.

I don't think that there is a right to omnipotent freedom; because in a way you have to earn it by not being a total asshole. Giving up the ability to be a total shitmouth so others can't be is not a bad trade-off in my oppinion. But I can totally see why you value free speach so much and certainly agree that it's immensly important and one of the pillars of society.


----------



## Mungo (Dec 3, 2016)

Well, what Toronto is doing is a pretty blatant violation of free speech. If you want to make identity politics a sticking point, I don't agree with it, but anyone is allowed to. However, for democratic politics to work, people with both views of an issue need to be able to speak, and this law blatantly prohibits that.

I don't understand how people don't see this as blatantly forcing an agenda down people's throats. What I am especially worried about is people that don't understand English or speak languages with gendered nouns (Spanish) becoming a victim of this law because of simple confusion or a misunderstanding. How do you communicate the state of being nonbinary or transgender in Spanish, or most Romance languages, which have no/few neuter nouns? With what pronouns (remember, they're gendered) do you refer to these people with?

In short, this seems like a court case waiting to happen, and knowing the volatility of some of the people who push for these laws, it might just happen sooner rather than later.



Kartoffel said:


> Then why are weening and a-logging frowned up upon here? Why do kiwis feel the need to tell others to piss of when they start stuff like this? Why are shitposts deleted?



Do you understand what these things are? Weening is when you try to act like a troll and fall flat on your face, and a-logging is when you call a cow out in such a way that you make yourself into a laughingstock. Both of these things can, at best, make you look like a moron, and at worst, scare a cow away or make you into a cow. 

And why do you think shitposts are deleted?


----------



## Unseemly and Feral (Dec 3, 2016)

I've wondered about that too, and personally I believe the reason SJWism isn't very prevalent outside of the English speaking world (barring maybe parts of Northern Europe) is because of that.


----------



## Marvin (Dec 3, 2016)

Kartoffel said:


> Why not something like "Down with the police!" "Corruption must end!" "The system is unfair!" You can voice disagreement without curse words _and _flowery language.


We're talking about police gunning people down in the street. I don't think "fuck the police" is excessive.


Kartoffel said:


> If you really think only curse words can express the gravity of your feelings then I think that this is because you did not have a limit; *if there is no line to stop you'll automatically use the most extreme forms of language in the believe that everything else will be unheard and because the others use the same level*. If everybody has to town down a bit the points don't stay less valid.


In practice? Not really, it doesn't turn out that way.

The government isn't the only restraining force in existence. There's also society and politeness and all that stuff. And in practice, in the US, it works out pretty well.

People naturally find their own limits. Here the average political conversation between ordinary people is pretty polite. Virtually all politicians' speech is heavily scrutinized by the media and their constituents. They can't just mouth off whenever they want and expect to get reelected.

We're adults. We know that outrageous language is something to be used carefully. But it's crucial that when you actually need to use it, you have that tool in your toolbox.


Kartoffel said:


> Then why are weening and a-logging frowned up upon here? Why do kiwis feel the need to tell others to piss of when they start stuff like this? Why are shitposts deleted?


I'm arguing that a public sidewalk next to a building should come with free speech. Now, whatever goes on inside the building itself is a different story. That's up to the building owner.

Likewise, in general, the internet has free speech. What happens on any given site is up to the website owner.


Kartoffel said:


> May I say that I think that America may have a big emphasis on the freedom of speech, but has in other regards crippled his political system? I got the huge impression that both candidates in the last election where both seen as shitty options, but the way your system is set up did not really allow for a third option to emerge; and your political landscape does tend to get more and more extreme by gerrymandering.


Well, the situation with this past election is interesting. First of all, the fuck up was with the Democrats, in that Hillary was allowed to edge Sanders out.

Trump's success showed that some oddball candidate could thumb his nose at the system and actually get elected. I think he's a dipshit and is going to be a terrible president, but I'm hopeful for what his election implies.

Third party candidates did pretty well, relatively speaking

Extreme is the wrong way to describe it, I think. Gerrymandering doesn't make the US more extreme politically. It concentrates power in the hands of whichever party got the chance to draw the maps, but that party is subject to moderation by its members. Imbalanced is probably a better description.


Kartoffel said:


> For example the decision for shutting down all nuclear powerplants in the future is something our green party had a huge influence in.


Off topic but that's terribly retarded.


----------



## buffaloWildWings (Dec 6, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> That's specifically related to the U.S. First Amendment.
> 
> However, the very concept of free speech is completely meaningless and empty without the right to be offensive.  Nobody ever tried to stop speech they didn't find offensive!
> 
> Just having super thin skin and taking offense at fucking everything doesn't give you special rights.  There is no "right not to be offended."



Various legal entities have the right to silence speech on their respective platforms, it's just that the government is supposed to not censor you.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 6, 2016)

I have a right to refuse service to people based on my beliefs. That's freedom of conscience, and stripping that from the religious sets a dangerous precedent.


----------



## Male Idiot (Dec 9, 2016)

This is why Germanistan is this fucking cuckhole that we all hate.

I think speech should be free. If your speech rallies a crowd to attack the cops, than you get jailed because you rallied an attack, not because you said mean things about Officer Donut.

We here got one rule against free speech, that is the ban on any form of anti-semitic/israeli speech.

I think it is highly hypocritical though. Holocaust deniers are stupid, but is stupidity a jailable offence? Should we jail creationists, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers too? They are just as dumb.


----------



## Lackadaisy (Dec 9, 2016)

Male Idiot said:


> This is why Germanistan is this fucking cuckhole that we all hate.
> 
> I think speech should be free. If your speech rallies a crowd to attack the cops, than you get jailed because you rallied an attack, not because you said mean things about Officer Donut.
> 
> ...



Exceptional individuals should be able to say whatever they want, if only so we can then identify them as someone whose mother didn't love them.


----------

