|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 14, 2020 10:47:26 GMT -5
Anytime anyone says anything offensive, like "The Jews will not replace us" or "Slavery was a choice" or "Ross was the funniest Friend", we shoot them from a cannon into the sun. That's one way to reduce population overcrowding... |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 14, 2020 13:51:33 GMT -5
Anytime anyone says anything offensive, like "The Jews will not replace us" or "Slavery was a choice" or "Ross was the funniest Friend", we shoot them from a cannon into the sun. I'm an equal opportunity cannoneer "Friends was funny" will do. |
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 14, 2020 16:16:59 GMT -5
Government should treat them the same way it does people who slander individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 14, 2020 16:22:17 GMT -5
Government should treat them the same way it does people who slander individuals. This is agreeable, as it is functionally slander on a massive scale. I wonder how that works in the US, if you write ... are all pedophiles, could someone take the writer to court under the assumption that you as a member of the ... group is being slandered. I know you can file charges in the Netherlands for such claims as an individual. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 14, 2020 16:47:22 GMT -5
Government should treat them the same way it does people who slander individuals. While that does sound like a good thing, practically in the US it's hit or miss to the point that it's nearly implausible. Hence why we have CIVIL jury trials for these sort of things. You have to have standing, and the US there are three standing requirements: Now, let's use a real world example... Do I have standing to sue Wolfblade (aka PedoAnalLover) for this? Could the government intervene here because he's an asshole? Hurry and get cancer despic, you deserve it for defending the abuse of kids. ...or this? (Oh, and congrats on your father dying. If he's half as awful as you, him dying has made the world a better place.) If not, how is it different than your hypo? Put it this way: assume for the sake of argument that I had a girlfriend who was held as a slave by ISIS (and that I am in the US) . We break up and I become a raging asshole. If I post nude images of her online I get thrown in jail, if I set up a speaker's stand in locations I know she will hear me and loudly proclaim that I believe ISIS did nothing wrong and should take over the US in order to cause her mental anguish I'd, at worst, get a restraining order. Why is it that purposely causing someone mental anguish is considered a horrendous crime in one case (so-called "revenge porn") but not in the other (trying to bring back memories of being enslaved)? (note, it's different imo but wanted your take first) |
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 14, 2020 17:10:50 GMT -5
If I was given omnipotent control over the US legal system then you'd both get slapped and told to grow up, yes.
Having said that, calling someone PedoAnalLover is probably already slander, while calling someone despicable is not because one is subjective and the other is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 15, 2020 8:23:59 GMT -5
If I was given omnipotent control over the US legal system then you'd both get slapped and told to grow up, yes. That wasn't my question. I get the sentiment and I'm sure most folks wished that was true. In your and my previous scenarios, it seems that the "line" you're willing to distinguish is the "emotional anguish" of the target. Correct? If so, if the ex-GF in your scenario should have the government prosecute her asshole ex-BF over her "emotional angiush", do I not have the same opportunity to petition the government to prosecute Wolfie due to his profane comments? Both are subjective Wally. Slander requires that I know for sure that is untrue AND I'm doing it out of malice to harm his reputation. I don't know for sure that Wolfie does or does NOT have urges to McLovin ped's nether region. Is all of this juvenile and toxic to this discussion forum? Yes. However, I will not sit here and just "take it" because the other side refuses to abide some decorum of decency. I have enough history on this forum if you're willing to go back to show that I'm not the instigator of these crass behaviors. That's the genius of Dakka's "Be Nice" requirements, where I'm sure some of us are frustrated by the moderation there... at least the discussion topics had room to breathe for a bit until threadlocked. |
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 15, 2020 9:03:54 GMT -5
Sorry, should've been clearer: by "slapped and told to grow up" I meant "told to stop by people with handcuffs and long sticks", i.e. had legal action leveraged to stop it.
And yes, you'd have the option to petition the Gov't in that scenario, just as Wolfie would against you.
Regarding the second point, I still think you're far closer to slander. There is no objective way to corroborate whether or not someone is despicable because it is entirely based on opinion. Calling someone PedoAnalLover, on the other hand, is a statement that could be backed up with corroborating evidence such as video tapes or records of conversations, or through catching the slandered in the act of sodomizing children. It is implicitly understood that using a completely subjective pejorative doesn't carry any burden of proof because it is impossible; claiming that someone loves sodomizing children, however, can be backed up and as such you, as the person making the claim, would have to prove that claim.
I don't necessarily want the state to jail or even fine people for this, mind you. Let the state slap your (generic you) fingers and if you keep doing it then take action. I'm not wanting to go after people who post stupid shit in the heat of the moment (we've all done that I imagine), I'm after the bad-fatih actors who continuously spout vile drivel that adds nothing and just takes away all the oxygen in the room. The Dakka mods could not handle that for some reason (I would have imagined that such behaviour would be breaking #1), and so Politics was banned instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Aug 15, 2020 11:35:42 GMT -5
That's the genius of Dakka's "Be Nice" requirements, where I'm sure some of us are frustrated by the moderation there... at least the discussion topics had room to breathe for a bit until threadlocked. The genius is that thread got locked, and then all discussion on the topic ended up being banned? That's some weird kind of genius, really. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 18, 2020 13:58:20 GMT -5
That's the genius of Dakka's "Be Nice" requirements, where I'm sure some of us are frustrated by the moderation there... at least the discussion topics had room to breathe for a bit until threadlocked. The genius is that thread got locked, and then all discussion on the topic ended up being banned? That's some weird kind of genius, really. That's an indictment of the posters contribution to the thread lockage. If everyone abided by that rule, there wouldn't be any thread lockage. Right. |
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 18, 2020 21:05:14 GMT -5
Which illustrates perfectly why there must be limitations on speech. Otherwise the hecklers steal all the oxygen in the room, shit on the carpets and set the ceiling on fire. It kept happening again and again and instead of having some moral backbone the mods capitulated among cries of "why can't we just get along?!" because some of the guilty posters had contributed elsewhere in the forum. "Be polite to each other" is a fucking stupid rule when it is applied in a vacuum because it punishes people for speaking out when others are acting in bad faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 19, 2020 2:29:25 GMT -5
At least the Status Quo Warriors get the political forum they want, while they push out the more progressive minded. Sadly I lost touch with 40K, but if I ever get back in, Dakka doesn't exactly feel like a welcoming place anymore. For reference, in a discussion on the inherent political nature of even the hobby, another user implied obviously that I was a paedophile for pointing out that laws are not set in stone according to some all pervasive wisdom (just as how there is no perfect apolitical subject such as 'the hobby', its a point we agree on in the middle), most obviously displayed by the age of consent being all over the place in the US. But both sides equally bad, so nothing happened. I'm still salty as fuck about that one, because that user is still happily making those sorts of implications against other users of the 'wrong' political side every time I look at Dakka. But at least Dakka became a less toxic place by banning politics right?
As Walrus says, those toxic people are still there, edging over the line again and again. But when you defend yourself or point out what they're doing, it gets cracked down on in a 'both sides equally bad' manner. Just like the Coronavirus thread. Banning subjects, but not taking action against those that get those subjects banned, doesn't fix the problem in the long run, it just gets more and more subjects banned.
While Dakka isn't really a free speech type of place, it does show the value in limiting some forms of speech to enable reasonable discourse to occur, instead of there not being any because you let people run around screaming about subhumans and letting them all die (that actually happened).
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 19, 2020 5:37:56 GMT -5
I have a problem when standards are overlooked. A number of people on my facebook friends list at the moment at reposting "kill the pedophiles" posts, or some variation thereof. Not that I really disagree with the concept, but it does technically violate the terms and service of facebook, yet I have yet to see a single one censored. That is my concern with censorship. Often times the standards are set with a bias, or only really applied to protect the popular opinion. If the internet had been around in the 1950's and we were all having this discussion then we could very well be discussing if talking about equal rights for Gays was an immoral topic to be banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 19, 2020 6:00:09 GMT -5
I have a problem when standards are overlooked. A number of people on my facebook friends list at the moment at reposting "kill the pedophiles" posts, or some variation thereof. Not that I really disagree with the concept, but it does technically violate the terms and service of facebook, yet I have yet to see a single one censored. That is my concern with censorship. Often times the standards are set with a bias, or only really applied to protect the popular opinion. If the internet had been around in the 1950's and we were all having this discussion then we could very well be discussing if talking about equal rights for Gays was an immoral topic to be banned. To start off, standards without bias don't exist. We're all people born and raised in a society, which imposes certain views on us from the moment when learn how to speak (or even before, by say being baptised versus not). We have to find the standard that everyone is most comfortable morality wise (i.e. is it actually victimizing someone or is it just icky to our own bias?) while taking biases into account. This is exactly what companies like FB are doing, finding that bias from which the profitable majority comes, which does include the above group. The T&C are meaningless in that sense. But lets take your post example. While that is certainly a common and understandable opinion given the emotional factors, lets look at the other side of expressing it. Not all paedophiles have to or will molest children, its a sickness. People can be treated and/or watched for this sickness. Does allowing people to post "kill the paedophiles" harm more children in the long run, by driving these people into hiding instead of encouraging to find treatment or some form of help to try and prevent it? That is, normalizing the practice of publicly discussing it as an illness, without vilifying those who DON'T act on it. To carry on with the above, not letting people say that on FB certainly won't make paedophilia more widespread or acceptable, because we as society don't think it should be for good reason. So would limiting people's ability to say kill on FB and public be worth the trade off IF (and big if) that would enable society to treat more of them and hopefully have less victims? It might not be popular banning it, but would you if it helped in the long run? I think the equal rights for LGBTQ+ in the 50's argument is another factor, not part of the same as the above. Advocating for that isn't harming anyone else even indirectly. While saying kill this or that groups of people might do harm in the short or long term. |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Aug 19, 2020 11:36:25 GMT -5
If everyone abided by that rule, there wouldn't be any thread lockage. Yes despic. And if everyone followed the law there would be noone in prison, or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm looking at the end result. Trying to enforce those rules led to the mods giving up and banning the subject. So I guess those rules didn't work. |
|
