Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Arkain2K, Feb 1, 2018.
Didn't watch. 1.5 hours isi hard to come by.
Some restrictions are necessary for productive discussion.
Excessive restrictions are a problem but no restrictions are also a problem.
Your posts are always bloated, convoluted messes that are less meaningful than the word count suggests.
You could have easily just said "I disagree with your emphasis on identity politics" and it would have conveyed the same message, minus the blatant fart sniffing.
I remember I used to pick the opposing basketball team when I was a kid just to piss off my elder brother.
That's the host of Dirty Jobs not a construction worker.
Here’s an article coming at that question from one direction
I could find you literally thousands more.
...as I comment from the privileged position of being able enforce restrictions on discourse on a internet message board...
...surrounded by posters who constantly report problems with the discourse of other posters...
....and expect me to enforce those restrictions.
I get WHY shit like the "Holocaust denier" laws exist but doesn't that sort of laws just, well, force those people to ground so we don't know who they are?
Let them spout their bullshit so they get known to everyone.
I see that the point I was making wasn't clear.
The act of placing restrictions on discourse is not a problem in and of itself. This message board is a prime example of that. If it was a problem in and of itself, you posters would have a problem with the rules that surround this place. Yet, the collective you largely recognize the importance of rules on discourse.
In fact many of you self-enforce the restrictions on other posters through your language directed at each other.
So, there's something of a disconnect when people who report the discourse of others for punishment or enforce restrictions on others with caustic language turn around and suggest that the very existence of restrictions is anathema to them.
Take your time. Come back next week once you've finally finished this excellent panel and got the answers to all your questions.
This fall under the "to each their own" category I suppose. At the same time most of us don't report (aka try to avoid uncomfortable situations) and instead deal with situations head on, or just avoid further interactions with problem posters.
Personally, I've hit the report button a few times - once while moderating a debate league thread, and once when reporting a clown who chose to type personal insults over substance. Both instances in an effort to keep discourse from devolving into personal attacks, not to shut down the convo.
That's fine but even if you're trying to keep discourse from "devolving into personal attacks", it's still a voluntary attempt to restrict the discourse of others since personal attacks are as much a form of free speech as anything else.
My point, which I think you can see, is that everyone is perfectly fine with speech restrictions when they're deciding what type of restrictions. They inherently recognize the need for society to have a mechanism for directing discourse in an effective direction.
Once we can acknowledge that simple truth we can drop the false claim that any restriction on speech is inherently wrong. We can return to the more defensible position that speech shouldn't be criminalized or punished by the state, leaving society free to regulate its own speech as it sees fit.
Did everybody got the chance to watch the first debate? I'll post the next one soon.
Steve Pinker was good in this discussion.
The left losses people when they are not truthful. When people feel they have not been allowed to hear the truth they will not trust that side. It would be much wiser for the left to talk about why the statistics show what they show and that over time these types of statistics can change. It better to go that route than have others cite statistics and come with up with less reasonable conclusions.
Stop assaulting me with your words.
I can get overly stressed by having to explain to you how speech can be violence. Then I might catch a cold because my immune system is down from my stress. I literally can get sick from dealing with you false assertion. Your assertion caused me to get ill and that caused me to feel pain. That is violence.
I'd like to interject to make a point about constraints, in general. In my field, optimization rules the day, so playing around with constraints is just a day to day thing. An important feature of constraints, such as, constraints on dialogue, is whether they're ''active'' or not. If a constraint is not active at optimality, you can actually remove it from the problem. It's not constraining anything. If a constraint is ''active'' then it cuts some region off. It's worth considering in this case, what is ''cut off'' by a particular constraint: say, twitter or reddit's TOS agreements.
We can check this, actually. Just go over to gab.ai, or voat, and see what really needs to be said that just can't be said on reddit or twitter. Is it a problem that what goes on there isn't just permitted everywhere? Why?
Because certain restrictions, in the name of etiquette, are implicitly imposed in any society. Most of us would agree you shouldn't curse or use racial slurs around kids, especially in public, even though its your right to do so. That's being PC.
The beezy with the big titties passing the mic could get it
In some societies not allowing drawing a picture of a dead pedophile warlord is considered PC. Their expectations of not being uncomfortable have led them to act irrationally when those expectations are not met.
A polite society isn't necessarily an honest or open one. Where's the line?
The line is at enforcement of PC more than what is PC IMO. As long as you're not being punished by the state or a mob I think its fine. You shouldn't be imprisoned or killed for drawing the Prophet but I also don't think you're entitled to be employed by a Muslim if you do so.