Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Daddy af, Feb 9, 2018.
This is an early contender for "quote of the year".
I value you're value of the first amendment.
Oh, I was trying to flatter you before I hinted that you should read a goddamn book about a topic I'm quite sure you have strong opinions on , but know nothing about.
I have no strong opinions on the subject wtf? I just asked a question lol. do people on here just try to pick a fight over everything?
chill stop begging for likes. I just asked a question
Might be a bit of an exaggeration. But I agree that the crusade to get people fired for speech unrelated to work is counter to the belief in free speech.
They even still make the wire ones? Figure Republicans would have outlawed them by now.
I suspect you've complained plenty about people getting fired for stupid shit they've said, claiming the first amendment protects them.
I have not. youre just making shit up now.
do you just dig for reasons to argue about shit? lol I just asked a question and youre freaking out
I don't believe you.
It definitely belongs on @Limbo Pete 's sig
What did you do to get those yellows? You didn't have them earlier I think.
How many people actually care about free speech to the point of inconvenience? Maybe one out of a hundred. Not really enough to make a difference.
The people back then, the ones with principles, who actually advanced the cause of free speech, were willing to deal with the potentially bad consequences of giving people the right to free speech. Consequences that were far more troublesome in previous times (when the threat of political instability and violent rebellion was much more real). Today, nobody seems to want to carry that responsibility. The tiniest bit of inconvenience, and offensiveness, is enough to make most people call for somebody's head.
The Muslim example in Europe, is a great one, because it illustrates how undeveloped our idea of free speech truly is, when measured against the context of a relatively primitive, pro-active religious community that is willing to commit brutal violence in order to silence criticism. That is what the man of the 1800's was measured against, if he criticized Christianity or decided to announce himself as an atheist, a communist, or whatever.
A violent backlash would potentially ensue, yet the men who stood by freedom of speech, wouldn't let hurt feelings or death threats determine what was acceptable or not. It was that type of a bull-headed, uncompromising mentality in regards to free speech which liberated the environment and normalized speech that would've previously been considered blasphemous. Today we rarely encounter violent responses to speech, but suddenly, when a more backwards religion puts our "free speech" to the test, a lot of people are willing to back down, to avert violence.
It just tells me that the people have changed very little in that regard. The amount of people that fundamentally believe in free speech, is no different from before, people have simply been conditioned to be more accepting of certain things, and perhaps less accepting of other things. When faced with a realistic threat towards their well-being, as a consequence of speaking their mind, they're as easily suppressed as ever before, perhaps even more so.
said I didnt like terminator 2.
ah yeah, you deserved em then.
It would be fun if you could tell your boss to fuck off and not get fired.
Unlike Europe, in America we care enough about free speech to actually have it. Not much if any legislation is proposed or enacted that violates it. Now if you said people don't care about the 2nd Amendment you'd have more of a case. Although it'd still be far more than 1/100.
Nobody dislikes assholes trying to get people fired over their hurt feelings more than me. I'd have no problem adding speech conducted outside of work to the laundry list of reasons people can't be fired. But as it stands, I have no problem letting employers decide who they employ and removing any and all protections/restrictions. So what principles should win out and where?
It does not really address the problem even if there was such a law written.
A government cannot truly impose a people to want free speech. If the people want other people's heads to roll for having the wrong opinions, then that is what they shall have, one way or the other. No matter what laws are written. They will find ways to "punish" the wrong-doers (or in this case, sayers).
To solve the problem we ought to address why it is that the companies feel prompted to fire their employees over mere speech. Part of that is because it has become a normalized and expected practise by the public, for "inappropriate conduct", part of that is a top-down agenda which corporations impose on their employees, as the expected standard of conduct (including political opinions).
I think we can address these problems largely through a cultural change, rather than through legislation. A change towards being more willing to stand "inappropriate" speech, and counter it with points of our own, instead of hoping that the system crushes the opposition, in our stead. The standard that is being set, with the latter form of behaviour, is one that only serves to decrease our individual worth, while increasing the hold of corporations over what we are meant to think, or to say.
Maybe it's because I live in America and understand those high-profile news stories of people getting fired are pretty uncommon. And when they do happen it's more fear on the part of companies than it is any real backlash by large numbers of people.
Bottom line, no place has more free speech than America so relatively speaking we must value it quite a bit. You ever thought of moving here? Alaska perhaps?
I think America having free speech is an illusion. But then again, no country can truly boast to having free speech.
It's the point of convenience that usually determines the amount of freedom in that regard. For most undeveloped countries, the point of inconvenience is met pretty quickly. Stretches a lot further in countries that are doing well, but you still reach the limits a bit too quickly for my tastes.
I prefer to reside in a country where the punishments are light, the populations docile and the systems very soft. I might be fined for saying the wrong things, but I'll just not pay it. Not like I'm going to be shot over it since the police don't even carry a gun, and largely avoid any sort of physical confrontations.
My only concern really is with how to weaken the system further, and make it even less capable of challenging the individual, while making it impossible for any potential abuser from elsewhere to cross over. That's the ideal sort of a society for me. Weak domestically (borderline anarchic) while standing strong against foreign influences.