I’d like to get back to the topic of this thread.
Warp, Are you of the opinion that our site shouldn’t be leaving freenode at all?
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Warp, Are you of the opinion that our site shouldn’t be leaving freenode at all?
Nowhere have I said anything even remotely of the kind.
So what is your issue with our decision to move away from Freenode?
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Note that hate speech is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.
This is a rather new development (in fact, that term "hate speech" is quite a neologism in itself) and in serious danger of being abused because the notion is poorly defined. Such laws can too easily be abused for political persecution, especially when they aren't clearly and narrowly defined and delineated, and especially when even the little definition there is, is based on what people "feel" and how they "perceive" something.
As I mentioned earlier, there are, and must be, limits to freedom of expression, but these limits should be as narrow as possible and very, very carefully considered. If the limits become too lax and too fuzzy, they inevitably lead to abuse and political persecution via the legal system.
If you don't defend other people's freedoms, one day you might find yourself on the receiving end of the punishment system that you helped create.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
So what is your issue with our decision to move away from Freenode?
I don't have any issue with it. Nowhere have I said I have.
If your posts aren't related to this point, then I would like to kindly ask you to please refrain from derailing.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Because I hate it when people are being accused base on assumptions and words put into their mouths. The accusations being presented here are quite serious. There's no place for assumptions, only facts. That's why.
The original post would have been just fine without that one tidbit.
There's a difference between blind assumptions and conclusions based on patterns. Any single event on its own might not lead to that same conclusion. Altogether, this is a fairly easy conclusion to reach. And if it was a wrong conclusion, they certainly have not been eager to prove otherwise.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Because I hate it when people are being accused base on assumptions and words put into their mouths. The accusations being presented here are quite serious. There's no place for assumptions, only facts. That's why.
The original post would have been just fine without that one tidbit.
There have been plenty examples that support this fact that were pointed out to you countless times already. In fact the OP has links to several instances of Freenode owners doing exactly what we’ve been saying they’re doing. I have yet to see you respond to a single one of them.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist.
But here you are trying to control other people's speech?
Or is it only your speech you want to be free, Mr. Cruz?
Hate speech also isn't a new concept. It's just that it's actually applied to people and without fear of the death penalty.
In the 1700s you'd be put to death for saying "That King George guy, weird one isn't he?", note the lack of anything actually bad. In the 2010s you'd be publicly judged for saying a homophobic slur (which is actually offensive) about people who actually matter---commoners. No death penalty though.
You're not pro-freedom of speech, you're just pro-freedom from consequences. You have every right to speak your mind. Everyone else has every right to disengage with you if they don't like what you're saying and, if you represent someone or something (a company), people have every right to disengage with said entity.
No one is indebted to give you peace of mind. No one is indebted to pay you. No one is indebted to engage with you.
Okay, two pages of derailment is more than enough. Let me reiterate the important points.
1. Freenode has been taken over by people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be of the unscrupulous kind. There is more than enough proof for this for everyone to find in this very thread, and by the time it runs its course there will likely be much more. Additionally, it doesn't matter what policy they have on the site if they condone the behavior they allegedly disallow or discourage, and also give people who indulge in it operator privileges. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
2. We are moving from Freenode to Libera. This is already past the point of a debate, the process is underway, and it doesn't look like anyone has any arguments against it. Great to have everyone on the same page for once. This thread was meant to provide information on the process and the background, and collect feedback on the decision. Not to discuss separate concepts.
3. This thread is not for the discussion of the free speech principles or their implementation. Please go discuss them in a separate thread if you will. Any further derailment will be removed.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Warp, please let it be.
I guess it's time for a (concluding) rebuttal & a lecture on serious matters, even though I'm seeing that I'm rather late, since elaborating on this has taken quite some time.
[quote Warp]
Quote:
Unless Warp you actually like hate speech?
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist. I fully subscribe to the principle that Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
[/quote]
So what? Is that good or bad is what you should ask yourself instead.
[quote Warp]
There are two aspects to free speech: The legal meaning of "right to free speech", and the principle of free speech. If you say "free speech only binds the government" you are not actually supporting free speech. You are not subscribing to Voltaire's sentiment of "but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
If you think that when someone says something you don't like he should be punished in some manner, you do not support free speech. You support restricted speech.
When someone says "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" that's absolutely incorrect: That's exactly what it means. That's because if there are negative consequences to you because of your expression of opinion, that's not free speech. That's restricted speech. It's punishable speech. It doesn't make any difference whether the punishment comes from the government or from the people around you, the end result is the same: Your speech has been restricted. Your expression of opinion has been restricted. The people who are punishing you are not defending your right to free speech, and are instead actively trying to restrict your free speech, to silence you.
[/quote]
So what? Under what circumstances that's good or bad is what you likely should investigate for all of these considerations.
[quote Warp]
This is not about criticism. Criticism in itself is part of the fundamental right to free speech. Trying to silence criticism is trying to restrict people's fundamental right to free speech.
[/quote]
So what? And that's already where your argumentative reasoning stops?
[quote Warp]
If you are yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, then your free speech rights are being violated. You are being punished for your expression of opinion. It doesn't make one iota of a difference that it's not the government that's punishing you. It doesn't really matter who is punishing you. The end result is the same.
[/quote]
[quote Warp]
"Free speech absolutism" does not mean "absolutely everything is allowed to be said." It means "free speech is unconditional, inalienable". It's the principle that you retain your right to free speech regardless of what you may or may not have done or said. Your right to free speech is not conditional on anything. Past (or even present) crimes and infractions do not affect it. You don't lose your right to free speech because you may have committed a heinous crime. Your right to free speech is absolute, irrevocable, inalienable, unconditional. Your right to free speech should not be restricted nor limited because of your past actions. If you allow person A to express opinions, you should also allow person B to express opinions even if you find that person B to be absolutely detestable because of past actions.
[/quote]
So what? And that's still where your thought creation process for argumentative reasoning stops, repeatedly? Or is it the common type of self-inflicted delusion that arises from (for active debating inadequate) uncritical laziness or also arises from the at least in this instance unjustified (since not enough questioned) habit of mental reliance on falsely as complete & accurate enough memorized states of affairs, or is it a lack of feel or care for healthy reflection & self-critique?
[quote Warp]
There are limits to free speech, but those limits should be as narrow as possible and very carefully considered. A balance should be found that maximizes freedom while restricting criminal activity.
[/quote]
Because this at least is a good sign, but not good enough to rely on.
[quote Warp]
However, if they are merely banning you because they don't agree with your opinion and find it detestable, they are not adhering to the principle of free speech.
[/quote]
So what?
[quote Warp]
The principle of free speech entails many things. Among others:
- You are free to express your (non-illegal) opinions in a public forum without negative repercussions, and without being impeded or silenced. (Swearwords are not opinions. Not even if phrased as if they were opinions)
- You are free to comment on and criticize other people's opinions (preferably in a civil manner) without negative repercussions.
- You are not forced to listen to someone if you don't want to.
- You cannot be stopped nor interfered from listening to someone you want to listen to. The message being said cannot be censored or interfered with (e.g. with noise), with the intentional purpose of making it harder to understand or listen to.
- You are not compelled, forced or coerced into saying something (or performing any other form of messaging) you don't want to.
[/quote]
And once more, finally: So what?
Warp, part of the issue here may be that in your worldview you may be using an assumption of the form of speech in and of itself not having directly on it depending and to it susceptible logically (as opposed to temporarily) im-mediate causal (negative or sub-optimal) consequences, but in face of absurdly vast amounts of evidence against such a view, this would not be an assumption ethically worth to uphold.
No principle is excluded from being justifiedly restrictable if the circumstances ethically require it based on the purpose of optimizing for something more important than any single principle or all of them together, namely the overall, and especially future development of well-being of people. In more detail for this example case of a principle, as long as restricting people's free speech causally would necessitate worse consequences overall than if people kept someone's free speech to be allowed, it's better (and a wiser choice if this conclusion was deduced coherently based on arguments with merit) to avoid doing so. But this ethical justification for the protection of free speech has a finite, limited threshold, and once abuse of free speech surpasses it by rendering the alternative option (namely to confront the person on what they're doing and trying to better their behavior) ethically more beneficial now, that is the point at which free speech is fine (with ethical certification seal of approval, so to say) to be overruled, and this holds analogously for any other conceivable principles for which such a scenario is possible.
And the worth of any principle imaginable always has to be seen in view of the ethicality of the totality of its (immediate and long term) consequences. The generally solid though not ethically immune or infallible principles such as truth (speaking), personal opinion, or freedom (in general, or of personal will, or of any or certain speech) not being exempt or absolved from the axiomatically necessary subjection of them to the evaluation of their moral worth (just as this holds for everything else just as much for moral investigation) is unfortunately a fact that is far too rarely recognized, understood, and accounted for by people all over the world (and even someone like Kyle Kulinski who otherwise makes great points all around so far appears to fail to recognize this important justified critique of the common principles that come in too simple, smooth, undifferentiated forms for their own good), and I think we really don't need any more of it.
Ethicality is the sole ultimate measure stick for judgement in all moral affairs; philosophically it reigns above all. Do you understand me on this, Warp? It even is always to be at least as much preferred as, or above and beyond any and all written laws (of which the goal anyway is to approximate the former, and which are essentially not a glimpse more though also no less than written down opinions of people that can happen to be or for more meritorious reasons end up being ethically correct or not) e.g. that any country's people nominally may claim to abide by, and if those laws are from the past, present, or future or what authority they may come from doesn't matter the slightest for reasoning on their merits because that's not how the empirical and theoretical sides of the natural sciences work which unarguably encompass not just the origin of but also the entire realm of all moral reasoning. and don't even dare trying me on this one, or you're gonna have a bad time. And besides actually at least trying to learn how to do these mental moral assessments or approximate calculations, this probably is the most crucially important principle to understand for humanity on this planet, and is a fundamental, required step towards solving or at least alleviating the Bounded Ethicality problem: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/bounded-ethicality .
[quote moozooh]
3. This thread is not for the discussion of the free speech principles or their implementation. Please go discuss them in a separate thread if you will. Any further derailment will be removed.
[/quote]
Well, once it appears like there's need to do so, then remove it (by splitting it up into another thread), just don't outright delete it, or I ended up putting a lot of thought, time and energy into this for nothing and that then solely for trying to be thorough.
collect, analyse, categorise.
"Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;)
Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on.
1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans.
2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai.
(last updated: 18.03.2018)
This thread was meant to provide information on the process and the background, and collect feedback on the decision.
Given that that conversation is quite clearly over, do we have your permission to continue the conversation that was actually going on?
Given that the original post is very politically charged, it's unreasonable to not expect people to talk about related politics, dismiss it as "derailment", and stifle it.
If you want to create a topic related solely to the logistics of moving the IRC channel to another host, then by all means do so. To avoid political discussions, it's a good idea to make it as apolitical and neutral as possible. Overtly political statements elicit discussion and disagreement. If you make strong politically charged statements and accusations, expect equivalent feedback and criticism.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
moozooh wrote:
This thread was meant to provide information on the process and the background, and collect feedback on the decision.
Given that that conversation is quite clearly over
How is it "quite clearly" over? The last post before you came in, posted one day before your first post here, asked Nach a question about the process - which is not yet finished - and that question has not even been addressed yet. At this point, it has clearly been lost in the conversation, but it's still important to the topic.
Warp wrote:
Given that the original post is very politically charged, it's unreasonable to not expect people to talk about related politics, dismiss it as "derailment", and stifle it.
The subject of the topic is that we are moving away from freenode, and the post includes the reasons that made us decide to move. The subject of the topic is not the Constitution, or the abstract principles of free speech.
The only aspect that makes the post "very politically charged" according to this, is a decry of hate speech. If that's too politically charged, then I'm sorry for posting politically charged principles on a site with politically charged rules.
Or actually, that's not really true. I'm not sorry for decrying hate speech. I don't think it has a place on our site, and I don't think it has a place on any institution that our site wishes to associate with. I've seen enough evidence, both soft and hard, to refuse to continue associating this site with freenode. That's why this topic was made.
As for free speech, I'm exercising my free right to decry the actions of freenode and its current staff members. Freedom of speech goes both ways. If I were forced to associate with an institution that I have deep fundamental disagreements with, I wouldn't be very free.
And yes, I would much rather see this topic actually discuss the process of transition (which as a reminder again, is still ongoing), or other aspects or news related to freenode itself. This very abstract discussion about free speech is not conducive in that regard.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
The only aspect that makes the post "very politically charged" according to this, is a decry of hate speech.
And there you go again, distorting what my objection and point was, and making yet again another politically charged and provocative statement, this time putting words in my mouth, words that I never said nor implied.
You just can't help it, can you? That's the thing about politics. Especially this particular kind of politics.
You made this about politics, not me. Don't whine when someone responds and criticizes when you make such politically charged statements and allegations. If this thread is not supposed to be about politics, then keep politics out of it. If you can't do that, then don't complain when it becomes political and heated.
Can you point to where Moth first brought up politics to this thread?
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
The first post of the thread is a stated reason as to why we are moving away from Freenode. Do you believe that we shouldn’t have a stance against hate speech because it’s political in nature? Is it not part of our freedom of speech to reject hate speech?
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
The first post of the thread is a stated reason as to why we are moving away from Freenode. Do you believe that we shouldn’t have a stance against hate speech because it’s political in nature? Is it not part of our freedom of speech to reject hate speech?
I said that if the thread starts with politically charged statements and accusations, it shouldn't be surprising to get politically charged responses. If the thread is supposed to be solely about moving a service to another host and nothing else, then don't then complain about someone commenting on the politically charged parts of the post.
The argument "why are you criticizing the original post for its political statements? It's his right to free speech to be able to make those statements" is nonsensical. If it's his freedom of speech right to make those statements, then likewise it's my freedom of speech right to scrutinize and criticize those statements.
I'm getting tired of that line of asinine argumentation. Like this:
Acumenium wrote:
But here you are trying to control other people's speech?
Asking for facts and evidence is not "trying to control other people's speech". That's just asinine. It's like:
"The defendant entered the house illegally."
"Do you have any factual evidence of this?"
"Why are you attacking my right free speech?!? Why are you trying to control my speech?"
"WTF?"
I have explained in great detail what freedom of speech is, but apparently completely in vain.
Your criticism was about Moth supposedly putting words into the mouths of the new freenode owners, however you completely ignored not only the sources provided in the OP but also every response to you with those sources.
It’s pretty telling how you have not once addressed any of them, even after we’ve gone into the 2nd page of this argument you haven’t said anything about those sources at all. Instead we keep walking in circles arguing about free speech when that had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
There’s PROOF that the freenode owners are doing what Moth said, and you chose to ignore it.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
What are you even asking for aside from tangents about freedom of speech? I believe that it was originally about Moth's conclusion that they implicitly endorse hate speech. I believe plenty of evidence has supported Moth's claim. I don't see why moth should not have provided the conclusion he reached and the same one most people will reach. Is it because you view this as somehow "political"? Why should he not bring it up then if it is political?
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
The only aspect that makes the post "very politically charged" according to this, is a decry of hate speech.
And there you go again, distorting what my objection and point was, and making yet again another politically charged and provocative statement, this time putting words in my mouth, words that I never said nor implied.
What is the objection here? Is the "politically charged content" not about the hate speech we decry? If it's anything else, then I must have missed that, and so must the entire rest of this topic since you started posting in it, as nothing else of the first post has been subject matter at any point in this discussion.
I haven't even said anything about you or your stances in this post. I only lifted some direct quotes from your messages.
Also, is decrying hate speech a "provocative statement" now? This is your own words again, I'm not sure how else I should be interpreting those.
Warp wrote:
Asking for facts and evidence is not "trying to control other people's speech"
At no point in this topic have your posts been about asking for facts and evidence. This is easy to notice, because facts and evidence have been spread plenty throughout the first few pages of this topic, and you have been pointed to this timeandtimeagain and you have ignoredevery single instance of those.
You have come to this topic with the interest of debating the principles of free speech, sure. You can even argue that it's tangentially (at best) part of the topic. But at no point have you shown any interest in seeking for facts or evidence. There is no point in trying to pretend that you did.
This entire conversation exists now because you have only shown interest in debating the tangent. And all I have said is that I have preference for more discussion of the main point and less of the tangent.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
The only aspect that makes the post "very politically charged" according to this, is a decry of hate speech.
And there you go again, distorting what my objection and point was, and making yet again another politically charged and provocative statement, this time putting words in my mouth, words that I never said nor implied.
What is the objection here?
You are implying there that I objected to you "decrying of hate speech", when that's not what I did. What I objected to was the assumption that removing a part of a policy is "implicit endorsement of hate speech", as if something that's not being said is an endorsement of the opposite. It's the accusation that I was objecting to. An accusation based on something that's not being said rather than something that is being said. In other words, with the "implicit endorsement of hate speech" you are putting words in their mouths, words they haven't said. And by implying that I'm objecting to your "decry of hate speech", you are putting words in my mouth and distorting what I said.
Is the "politically charged content" not about the hate speech we decry?
No, it's about making accusations based on "implicit" words that have not been said. Implying policy that has not been stated. The whole "if they don't ban thing X, they are endorsing it" BS.
Also, is decrying hate speech a "provocative statement" now? This is your own words again, I'm not sure how else I should be interpreting those.
And you are doing it again. You are once again putting words in my mouth (quite directly this time), claiming that I have said something I have not. You honestly cannot see it?
I did not say that "decrying hate speech is a provocative statement".
At no point in this topic have your posts been about asking for facts and evidence.
My very first post was asking to keep to the facts rather than making implications and assumptions based on things that have not been said.
This is easy to notice, because facts and evidence have been spread plenty throughout the first few pages of this topic
Then why is the original post still making the exact same statement about "implicit endorsement of hate speech"? What's "implicit" about it if, according to you, there are so many facts?
Have they directly endorsed hate speech at freenode or not? As I said in my second post, I don't really give a flying f about what they may or may not have done elsewhere. I only care about what their official policy is at freenode.
You have come to this topic with the interest of debating the principles of free speech, sure.
I didn't originally come here to debate free speech. I originally objected to that one accusation of "implicit endorsement" in the original post. The free speech thing came when someone asked if I "like hate speech".
I guess it's time for a (concluding) rebuttal & a lecture on serious matters, even though I'm seeing that I'm rather late, since elaborating on this has taken quite some time.
[quote Warp]
Quote:
Unless Warp you actually like hate speech?
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist. I fully subscribe to the principle that Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
[/quote]
So what? Is that good or bad is what you should ask yourself instead.
[quote Warp]
There are two aspects to free speech: The legal meaning of "right to free speech", and the principle of free speech. If you say "free speech only binds the government" you are not actually supporting free speech. You are not subscribing to Voltaire's sentiment of "but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
If you think that when someone says something you don't like he should be punished in some manner, you do not support free speech. You support restricted speech.
When someone says "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" that's absolutely incorrect: That's exactly what it means. That's because if there are negative consequences to you because of your expression of opinion, that's not free speech. That's restricted speech. It's punishable speech. It doesn't make any difference whether the punishment comes from the government or from the people around you, the end result is the same: Your speech has been restricted. Your expression of opinion has been restricted. The people who are punishing you are not defending your right to free speech, and are instead actively trying to restrict your free speech, to silence you.
[/quote]
So what? Under what circumstances that's good or bad is what you likely should investigate for all of these considerations.
[quote Warp]
This is not about criticism. Criticism in itself is part of the fundamental right to free speech. Trying to silence criticism is trying to restrict people's fundamental right to free speech.
[/quote]
So what? And that's already where your argumentative reasoning stops?
[quote Warp]
If you are yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, then your free speech rights are being violated. You are being punished for your expression of opinion. It doesn't make one iota of a difference that it's not the government that's punishing you. It doesn't really matter who is punishing you. The end result is the same.
[/quote]
[quote Warp]
"Free speech absolutism" does not mean "absolutely everything is allowed to be said." It means "free speech is unconditional, inalienable". It's the principle that you retain your right to free speech regardless of what you may or may not have done or said. Your right to free speech is not conditional on anything. Past (or even present) crimes and infractions do not affect it. You don't lose your right to free speech because you may have committed a heinous crime. Your right to free speech is absolute, irrevocable, inalienable, unconditional. Your right to free speech should not be restricted nor limited because of your past actions. If you allow person A to express opinions, you should also allow person B to express opinions even if you find that person B to be absolutely detestable because of past actions.
[/quote]
So what? And that's still where your thought creation process for argumentative reasoning stops, repeatedly? Or is it the common type of self-inflicted delusion that arises from (for active debating inadequate) uncritical laziness or also arises from the at least in this instance unjustified (since not enough questioned) habit of mental reliance on falsely as complete & accurate enough memorized states of affairs, or is it a lack of feel or care for healthy reflection & self-critique?
[quote Warp]
There are limits to free speech, but those limits should be as narrow as possible and very carefully considered. A balance should be found that maximizes freedom while restricting criminal activity.
[/quote]
Because this at least is a good sign, but not good enough to rely on.
[quote Warp]
However, if they are merely banning you because they don't agree with your opinion and find it detestable, they are not adhering to the principle of free speech.
[/quote]
So what?
[quote Warp]
The principle of free speech entails many things. Among others:
- You are free to express your (non-illegal) opinions in a public forum without negative repercussions, and without being impeded or silenced. (Swearwords are not opinions. Not even if phrased as if they were opinions)
- You are free to comment on and criticize other people's opinions (preferably in a civil manner) without negative repercussions.
- You are not forced to listen to someone if you don't want to.
- You cannot be stopped nor interfered from listening to someone you want to listen to. The message being said cannot be censored or interfered with (e.g. with noise), with the intentional purpose of making it harder to understand or listen to.
- You are not compelled, forced or coerced into saying something (or performing any other form of messaging) you don't want to.
[/quote]
And once more, finally: So what?
Warp, part of the issue here may be that in your worldview you may be using an assumption of the form of speech in and of itself not having directly on it depending and to it susceptible logically (as opposed to temporarily) im-mediate causal (negative or sub-optimal) consequences, but in face of absurdly vast amounts of evidence against such a view, this would not be an assumption ethically worth to uphold.
No principle is excluded from being justifiedly restrictable if the circumstances ethically require it based on the purpose of optimizing for something more important than any single principle or all of them together, namely the overall, and especially future development of well-being of people. In more detail for this example case of a principle, as long as restricting people's free speech causally would necessitate worse consequences overall than if people kept someone's free speech to be allowed, it's better (and a wiser choice if this conclusion was deduced coherently based on arguments with merit) to avoid doing so. But this ethical justification for the protection of free speech has a finite, limited threshold, and once abuse of free speech surpasses it by rendering the alternative option (namely to confront the person on what they're doing and trying to better their behavior) ethically more beneficial now, that is the point at which free speech is fine (with ethical certification seal of approval, so to say) to be overruled, and this holds analogously for any other conceivable principles for which such a scenario is possible.
And the worth of any principle imaginable always has to be seen in view of the ethicality of the totality of its (immediate and long term) consequences. The generally solid though not ethically immune or infallible principles such as truth (speaking), personal opinion, or freedom (in general, or of personal will, or of any or certain speech) not being exempt or absolved from the axiomatically necessary subjection of them to the evaluation of their moral worth (just as this holds for everything else just as much for moral investigation) is unfortunately a fact that is far too rarely recognized, understood, and accounted for by people all over the world (and even someone like Kyle Kulinski who otherwise makes great points all around so far appears to fail to recognize this important justified critique of the common principles that come in too simple, smooth, undifferentiated forms for their own good), and I think we really don't need any more of it.
Ethicality is the sole ultimate measure stick for judgement in all moral affairs; philosophically it reigns above all. Do you understand me on this, Warp? It even is always to be at least as much preferred as, or above and beyond any and all written laws (of which the goal anyway is to approximate the former, and which are essentially not a glimpse more though also no less than written down opinions of people that can happen to be or for more meritorious reasons end up being ethically correct or not) e.g. that any country's people nominally may claim to abide by, and if those laws are from the past, present, or future or what authority they may come from doesn't matter the slightest for reasoning on their merits because that's not how the empirical and theoretical sides of the natural sciences work which unarguably encompass not just the origin of but also the entire realm of all moral reasoning. and don't even dare trying me on this one, or you're gonna have a bad time. And besides actually at least trying to learn how to do these mental moral assessments or approximate calculations, this probably is the most crucially important principle to understand for humanity on this planet, and is a fundamental, required step towards solving or at least alleviating the Bounded Ethicality problem: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/bounded-ethicality .
[quote moozooh]
3. This thread is not for the discussion of the free speech principles or their implementation. Please go discuss them in a separate thread if you will. Any further derailment will be removed.
[/quote]
Well, once it appears like there's need to do so, then remove it (by splitting it up into another thread), just don't outright delete it, or I ended up putting a lot of thought, time and energy into this for nothing and that then solely for trying to be thorough.
