How to shut a liberal up: Opinion piece Part 2

[Wirey]

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet'

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet. No one should have that power,' said CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince

There's a thread below this one that has a link to a stupid article that's about 2 years out of date that has been disabled. Notice I said stupid article? That is my opinion. Do we really want to stop discourse here, especially when it shows how lowbrow conservatives are? I mean, when the article is actually so innocuous that it doesn't really seem to be dangerous in any way? What harm is there on explaining how to shut a liberal up when they talk about Dubya or Benghazi?

There have been several heated discussions here, and I've weighed in on a few. The free expression of ideas is one of the things I love about this place. If this article was about how to cook liberals or rob them or something I could understand, but it's about how to shut them up (quick tip: bag of weed and a hacky sack). I guess my question is, does anyone here, liberal or conservative, think we need to censor ideas that are not harmful just because they're a little angry?

 

[BSM1]

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet'

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet. No one should have that power,' said CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince

There's a thread below this one that has a link to a stupid article that's about 2 years out of date that has been disabled. Notice I said stupid article? That is my opinion. Do we really want to stop discourse here, especially when it shows how lowbrow conservatives are? I mean, when the article is actually so innocuous that it doesn't really seem to be dangerous in any way? What harm is there on explaining how to shut a liberal up when they talk about Dubya or Benghazi?

There have been several heated discussions here, and I've weighed in on a few. The free expression of ideas is one of the things I love about this place. If this article was about how to cook liberals or rob them or something I could understand, but it's about how to shut them up (quick tip: bag of weed and a hacky sack). I guess my question is, does anyone here, liberal or conservative, think we need to censor ideas that are not harmful just because they're a little angry?

Or offended.

 

[bobhikes]

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet'

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet. No one should have that power,' said CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince

There's a thread below this one that has a link to a stupid article that's about 2 years out of date that has been disabled. Notice I said stupid article? That is my opinion. Do we really want to stop discourse here, especially when it shows how lowbrow conservatives are? I mean, when the article is actually so innocuous that it doesn't really seem to be dangerous in any way? What harm is there on explaining how to shut a liberal up when they talk about Dubya or Benghazi?

There have been several heated discussions here, and I've weighed in on a few. The free expression of ideas is one of the things I love about this place. If this article was about how to cook liberals or rob them or something I could understand, but it's about how to shut them up (quick tip: bag of weed and a hacky sack). I guess my question is, does anyone here, liberal or conservative, think we need to censor ideas that are not harmful just because they're a little angry?

Personally, I like China's Take, people are not allowed to hide behind screen names but have to use their own name. Now I am sure China is doing this for certain reason's but I see no reason why people that comment should not have their real name and address listed. Just like the old days and the yellow pages. Allowing internet posters to hide behind alias's is the problem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There have been several heated discussions here, and I've weighed in on a few. The free expression of ideas is one of the things I love about this place. If this article was about how to cook liberals or rob them or something I could understand, but it's about how to shut them up (quick tip: bag of weed and a hacky sack).

I am confiscating your weed: it will be divided up, in a very Stalinist sort of way, among the Liberals of RF. But I'll just be straightforward, for every pinch they get, I get a pound of it.
But, the issue is, it won't shut me up. Instead, I'll just start talking more.

I guess my question is, does anyone here, liberal or conservative, think we need to censor ideas that are not harmful just because they're a little angry?

If it isn't explicitly calling for harm or discrimination, there is no reason to censor it. But once you begin to talk in ways that encourage harm and put others at risk, your speech should be limited and restricted. Beyond that, it's best to tolerate the rest to help keep them pacified.

 

[David1967]

does anyone here, liberal or conservative, think we need to censor ideas that are not harmful just because they're a little angry?

Not me. Where would the fun be in that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally, I like China's Take, people are not allowed to hide behind screen names but have to use their own name. Now I am sure China is doing this for certain reason's but I see no reason why people that comment should not have their real name and address listed. Just like the old days and the yellow pages. Allowing internet posters to hide behind alias's is the problem.

In places such as Saudi Arabia, Facebook's "real name" policy potentially puts real people in real harms way. If we expect people to use their real names, it may become impossible for some to exchange ideas, even if they are necessary ideas. In SA, this means criticizing the Koran, Islam, or the State, having your own name attached to it, providing evidence of your blasphemies.

 

[Mister Silver]

In places such as Saudi Arabia, Facebook's "real name" policy potentially puts real people in real harms way. If we expect people to use their real names, it may become impossible for some to exchange ideas, even if they are necessary ideas. In SA, this means criticizing the Koran, Islam, or the State, having your own name attached to it, providing evidence of your blasphemies.

Not to mention putting anyone in harm's way, just for expressing an opinion. Some people online would have no reservations with using that address listed to visit the house of some family to confront a minor who is probably just immature.

 

[idav]

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet'

'I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet. No one should have that power,' said CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince

There's a thread below this one that has a link to a stupid article that's about 2 years out of date that has been disabled. Notice I said stupid article? That is my opinion. Do we really want to stop discourse here, especially when it shows how lowbrow conservatives are? I mean, when the article is actually so innocuous that it doesn't really seem to be dangerous in any way? What harm is there on explaining how to shut a liberal up when they talk about Dubya or Benghazi?

There have been several heated discussions here, and I've weighed in on a few. The free expression of ideas is one of the things I love about this place. If this article was about how to cook liberals or rob them or something I could understand, but it's about how to shut them up (quick tip: bag of weed and a hacky sack). I guess my question is, does anyone here, liberal or conservative, think we need to censor ideas that are not harmful just because they're a little angry?

Great feedback and the thread you mention was under consideration. Should we, shouldn't we, when does bashing go too far, can bashing go too far, great questions.

 

[Wirey]

Great feedback and the thread you mention was under consideration. Should we, shouldn't we, when does bashing go too far, can bashing go too far, great questions.

I know, I rock.

 

[bobhikes]

In places such as Saudi Arabia, Facebook's "real name" policy potentially puts real people in real harms way. If we expect people to use their real names, it may become impossible for some to exchange ideas, even if they are necessary ideas. In SA, this means criticizing the Koran, Islam, or the State, having your own name attached to it, providing evidence of your blasphemies.

In the US we have freedom of speech, so you realistically don't have to worry about the government; however, Employment and other people yes you should be worried but that is the point. It is not freedom of speech if you are hiding.

 

[idav]

In the US we have freedom of speech, so you realistically don't have to worry about the government; however, Employment and other people yes you should be worried but that is the point. It is not freedom of speech if you are hiding.

I value differing opinions, like actual value, but not at the cost of causing undue hardship on someone. Around this place what I wonder more about are individuals across the world and their respective governments.

 

[bobhikes]

I value differing opinions, like actual value, but not at the cost of causing undue hardship on someone. Around this place what I wonder more about are individuals across the world and their respective governments.

Each country already has there own rules for internet access. I am not asking for changes for any government but the US.

 

[idav]

Each country already has there own rules for internet access. I am not asking for changes for any government but the US.

An employer in the US wouldn't be allowed to fire you if they found out you were atheist, for example, but that isn't the reality.

 

[Nakosis]

Currently, I'm undecided as to were we should draw the line. I support free speech but I suppose have have to accept the government does have restrictions of free speech that even I agree with.

Like child pornography, is that free speech?

I think we can agree that this causes harm, it should be illegal.

However a couple pejorative terms that folks get labeled with, like pedophile...

Racist, Nazi, White Supremacist, Misogynist, Rapist. Just being called one of these whether true or not can cause a person to be deplatformed.

The problem is whether a person is a racist, Nazi etc... Can't just be a matter of opinion. Like so and so said Antifa was a terrorist organization or BLM is a hate group, or they support Trump.

They have to actively encourage/support the ideas of racism or whatever ideology it has been decided is harmful because the label alone is harmful. Labeling someone a racist is as harmful as calling someone a pedophile. In fact I wouldn't do this at all unless they themselves acknowledge this is who they are.

Fortunately this hasn't been a problem that I've seen among the folks on RF.

I suppose I still trust the moderators on RF to be able to look past their personal bias when deciding what posts need to be deleted .

Google/Youtube I'm not so sure about.

 

[bobhikes]

An employer in the US wouldn't be allowed to fire you if they found out you were atheist, for example, but that isn't the reality.

I not saying they would fire you for that but, people have been fired for calling out sick and posting pictures at sporting events. I also heard that the one Nazi guy was fired, also Ceo's get let go for stupid remarks.

Edited: I don't care about the firing I want to know whose slamming me.

 

[metis]

I guess my question is, does anyone here, liberal or conservative, think we need to censor ideas that are not harmful just because they're a little angry?

Not I.

Now, otoh, I wish I could take a few people here at RF and fill their mouths with quick-hardening cement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the US we have freedom of speech, so you realistically don't have to worry about the government; however, Employment and other people yes you should be worried but that is the point. It is not freedom of speech if you are hiding.

This is probably worth it's own discussion. But, me, I hate my given birth name, my best friend hates her name, and I know some others that hate their name. Sometimes people do research online by visiting forums and presenting as regular member. It's also an issue of privacy, and being able to control how much information we disclose to others. We have no right to privacy in America, but if we cut corporate lobbyists out (especially those who push for the end of net neutrality) then we'd probably have a unanimous bipartisan decision to amend the Constitution to grant privacy as a right. But there is no profit in privacy.

I value differing opinions, like actual value, but not at the cost of causing undue hardship on someone. Around this place what I wonder more about are individuals across the world and their respective governments.

I've worried about more than a few members here. In America I can say pretty much anything, and the absolute worst that can happen is I'll get banned. Many members, even within RF rules, could end up in jail or dead if they were forced to use their real name.

Edited: I don't care about the firing I want to know whose slamming me.

You don't care about firings? As in, not caring that hiring/firing can revolve around social media use? Why should they have that sort of power over anyone? Granted, being on social media at work is on thing, but other than that they are not on company time.
And why is knowing who is slamming you so important? Someone bad mouthed you. Often that's a fight not worth pursuing.

 

[Mister Emu]

Personally, I like China's Take, people are not allowed to hide behind screen names but have to use their own name. Now I am sure China is doing this for certain reason's but I see no reason why people that comment should not have their real name and address listed. Just like the old days and the yellow pages. Allowing internet posters to hide behind alias's is the problem.

I disagree entirely. Anonymity is a purifier of discussion. We remove everything about the commentor and only the strength of the argument remains.

 

[Revoltingest]

What the big bird said.

 

[bobhikes]

I disagree entirely. Anonymity is a purifier of discussion. We remove everything about the commentor and only the strength of the argument remains.

I disagree, with anonymity the poster has no claim to the argument and can post for pure enjoyment. Trying to cause anger just so they can get a laugh. I you want strength in an argument you would be willing to back you claims with your name.