The Law Freedom of Speech

[ShanDog]

Orwell was an antifa socialist.

Just sayin.

I know very well what he was. There were also overt fascists to fight in the final stages of British Imperialism when he graced our Earth, and held a level of disdain for many socialists who he thought were motivated more by a hated of the rich than compassion for the poor. Needless to say, he was a smart man.

 

[Antares]

Orwell was an antifa socialist.

Just sayin.

Hey buddy, guess what? Part of the reason he wrote Animal Farm and 1984 came from his disillusionment with the socialist cause at the time.

He learned, you didn't.

 

[FredLeDeux]

View attachment 638799

"They're bullying me!"
They're shouting me down!"

"I've been silenced!" Andrew Boltneck

 

[Carringbush2010]

I was at Jordan Peterson's lecture in Adelaide a few weeks ago and the chant from the protesters was "Fight the right".

Everyone is an idiot.

I think you've opened something here that is right in front of our noses.

Those protesters mistakenly believe that Jordan Petersen is a right winger. If anything he's anti extremism left or right and is primarily in a profession that is designed to help people. Seems to be sensibly centrist with practical views.

He is not politically motivated at least primarily but can't escape some of the ridiculous and thereby compelled to his "free speech".

There are views and opinions on how people are aligned politically, if you were to ask him he'd label himself as a centrist even though popular belief is that he is right wing.

 

[Carringbush2010]

View attachment 638799

That represents intentional offence and is irrelevant to what's being debated in this thread.

Here's an example of what "free speech" is that some people would take offence to.

"Generally speaking, male humans are physically superior to female humans"

Someone will find that offensive even though offence is not intended and is purely a factual statement and there are some pockets of social pressure that would want that deleted even though it is practical and logic.

 

[Chief]

That represents intentional offence and is irrelevant to what's being debated in this thread.

Here's an example of what "free speech" is that some people would take offence to.

"Generally speaking, male humans are physically superior to female humans"

Someone will find that offensive even though offence is not intended and is purely a factual statement and there are some pockets of social pressure that would want that deleted even though it is practical and logic.

You'll find that you might offend some people's sense of precision.

You are using a male-centric view of "superior" - I assume you mean males have more muscle mass or can run faster, all other things being equal.

But males are totally s**t at, for example, the physical act of giving birth.

So one could say that, generally speaking, females are physically superior to males.

If you give a frame of reference and don't tack on "so no wonder they get raped and killed all the time" you'd probably have your bases covered.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You'll find that you might offend some people's sense of precision.

You are using a male-centric view of "superior" - I assume you mean males have more muscle mass or can run faster, all other things being equal.

But males are totally s**t at, for example, the physical act of giving birth.

So one could say that, generally speaking, females are physically superior to males.

That's not the point I'm making and in fact you have unintentionally proven my point.

It looks as if you've gone into defence mode on behalf women when I've merely made a statement to use as an example.

The fact that people will get their nose out of joint about me stating males are generally superior physically and is not intended as offensive is exactly the thing ShanDog has stated previously in this thread about "social pressures". The objective to stymie me or anyone else making a factual statement because a minority might be offended even if it is not intended.

I was replying to Number37 who was using a cartoon that is clearly intentionally offensive that claims "this is what happens when you have open free speech" and that that cartoon is irrelevant to the debate in this thread.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You're complaining about not being able to say something you've already said.
You're an idiot. That just a statement of fact not intended to offend.

No I'm not complaining and I'm not offended even though that is your intention.

You're not making sense, if you can comprehend it correctly I'm not disputing not being able to state what I've already stated. I'm merely pointing out your cartoon example is irrelevant because no one on this thread is arguing that that sort of abhorrent behaviour should be accepted.

Your cartoon, free speech in the endth degree = yes

Should be held to criticism and consequence = Absolutely!

Would the behaviour in it be the norm = F*** no! And you'd be highly naive to believe so.

 

[Chief]

That's not the point I'm making and in fact you have unintentionally proven my point.

It looks as if you've gone into defence mode on behalf women when I've merely made a statement to use as an example.

The fact that people will get their nose out of joint about me stating males are generally superior physically and is not intended as offensive is exactly the thing ShanDog has stated previously in this thread about "social pressures". The objective to stymie me or anyone else making a factual statement because a minority might be offended even if it is not intended.

I was replying to Number37 who was using a cartoon that is clearly intentionally offensive that claims "this is what happens when you have open free speech" and that that cartoon is irrelevant to the debate in this thread.

It looks like that does it?

I was being a little bit facetious, but the point does remain that intention counts. Context counts.

But if you completely screw up but with the best intentions, you still screw up.

 

[Scotland]

I think you've opened something here that is right in front of our noses.

Those protesters mistakenly believe that Jordan Petersen is a right winger. If anything he's anti extremism left or right and is primarily in a profession that is designed to help people. Seems to be sensibly centrist with practical views.

Peterson is anti the intellectual left. That makes him anti the left, and therefore pro the right - if you compound the (feeble) logic. He's not anti left wing ideas per se, but he is anti the way people go about presenting said ideas by stifling debate and channelling every discussion that does take place into some form of group identity politics war.

It's usually pretty easy to pick left/right commentators because they say 'the left' and/or 'the right' over and over and ******* over. Milo, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Bolt. These guys say 'the left' more than Beyonce.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It looks like that does it?

I was being a little bit facetious, but the point does remain that intention counts. Context counts.

But if you completely screw up but with the best intentions, you still screw up.

Yeah I know you were, but some wouldn't be so light hearted as you. That's why I used your post to explain the point.

The context is clear: to say a factual statement that a minuscule minority might take offence to should not be scrutinized nor the person stating it be punished or ridiculed in any way.

Stating such a fact is not "screwing up"

That behaviour in that cartoon is blatantly and intentionally offensive and should be scrutinized and any person being intentionally offensive should be punished. That cartoon does NOT represent the behaviour of the majority of the population.

 

[Chief]

Yeah I know you were, but some wouldn't be so light hearted as you. That's why I used your post to explain the point.

The context is clear: to say a factual statement that a minuscule minority might take offence to should not be scrutinized nor the person stating it be punished or ridiculed in any way.

Stating such a fact is not "screwing up"

That behaviour in that cartoon is blatantly and intentionally offensive and should be scrutinized and any person being intentionally offensive should be punished. That cartoon does NOT represent the behaviour of the majority of the population.

If you completely screw up but with the best intentions, you still screw up.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Peterson is anti the intellectual left. That makes him anti the left, and therefore pro the right - if you compound the (feeble) logic. He's not anti left wing ideas per se, but he is anti the way people go about presenting said ideas by stifling debate and channelling every discussion that does take place into some form of group identity politics war.

It's usually pretty easy to pick left/right commentators because they say 'the left' and/or 'the right' over and over and ******* over. Milo, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Bolt. These guys say 'the left' more than Beyonce.

No Petersen is anti extremism, by and large he is a sensible centrist. Just because extreme left idealogues rubs him the wrong way doesn't make him aligned to the right. He's stated many times he's anti extremism from any view point.

Like the Beyonce gag btw - careful someone might take offence. But at least you're allowed to state it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's not meant too.

It's meant to represent the behaviour of many of the free speech warriors.

It does not represent the majority of those that believe in free speech.

Seems your in favour of free speech, hope you don't think that behaviour is acceptable. (Yes I'm being flippant - for good reason)

 

[Chief]

It does not represent the majority of those that believe in free speech.

Seems your in favour of free speech, hope you don't think that behaviour is acceptable. (Yes I'm being flippant - for good reason)

We have disappeared into the meta.

 

[Scotland]

No Petersen is anti extremism, by and large he is a sensible centrist. Just because extreme left idealogues rubs him the wrong way doesn't make him aligned to the right. He's stated many times he's anti extremism from any view point.

Like the Beyonce gag btw - careful someone might take offence. But at least you're allowed to state it.

I'm not saying he's a right winger, I'm saying that's the logical progression that gets you there.

His political positions are a relatively minor part of his public profile. Yelling over the top of anyone trying to speak isn't a left wing political ideology, it's just something that modern day lefties have decided they need to do now. If you silence debate and live in an echo chamber you don't need to articulate a position.

Peterson irks these types because he sees through it and doesn't react with yelling and shouting in return. He also sees through the strategy of shallow group identity politics and presses people towards intersectionality and they crumble.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If you completely screw up but with the best intentions, you still screw up.

And neither example is screwing up.

One is blatant and one is of logic.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not saying he's a right winger, I'm saying that's the logical progression that gets you there.

His political positions are a relatively minor part of his public profile. Yelling over the top of anyone trying to speak isn't a left wing political ideology, it's just something that modern day lefties have decided they need to do now. If you silence debate and live in an echo chamber you don't need to articulate a position.

Peterson irks these types because he sees through it and doesn't react with yelling and shouting in return. He also sees through the strategy of shallow group identity politics and presses people towards intersectionality and they crumble.

Agree with all of that completely, your post I replied to however you did state "therefore pro right"

 

[Carringbush2010]

You obviously have no understanding, at all, of what the cartoon represents.

I am in favour of people saying whatever they want.
Most of the free speech warriors on these boards aren't really interested in free speech they're simply interested in talking s**t about anyone and everything that doesn't conform to their agenda.

Your showing your naivety, I understand exactly what that cartoon represents = abhorrent bigoted behaviour.

To suggest that most in favour of free speech (which you stated you are) are using it as an excuse to intentionally offend is ludicrous and extremely naive. The fact that you and others believe so is very concerning.

It shows you have little faith in humanity itself which is sad.

 

[FireKrakouer]

The left need to win without censorship. I would be fine with this.

 

[Maggie5]

The left need to win without censorship. I would be fine with this.

I thought they have already won without censorship. Just check out the right whinger posts knowing they have lost resort to ad homs.

 

[TimmeT]

I thought they have already won without censorship. Just check out the right whinger posts knowing they have lost resort to ad homs.

The irony of this post.

 

[Maggie5]

The irony of this post.

Perfect example, thank you.

 

[TimmeT]

Perfect example, thank you.

LOL you're either trolling or stupid.

 

[Maggie5]

LOL you're either trolling or stupid.

Perfect example, why do you keep proving me right?