Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech - a debate on the Toronto gender controversy

[Lackadaisy]

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

 

[Kartoffel]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ani 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.

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.