How to shut a liberal up: Opinion piece Part 2

[bobhikes]

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'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.

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.

In the US you have freedom to change your name, and it can be done multiple times.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the US you have freedom to change your name, and it can be done multiple times.

True, but it isn't free, and that wasn't the only point I brought up.

 

[Stevicus]

'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There's a thread below this one that has a link to a stupid article that's about 2 years out of date that has been disabled.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?

Well, as I wrote in another thread:

Do we need to run and hide from any ideas or forms of expression which we find offensive? Do we need to be scared of words?

In my view, the "clear and present danger" standard is a reasonable restriction on free speech. Unless someone does something truly egregious, like yelling "movie" in a crowded firehouse, then it should be left up to the public to decide. Other than that, in times of war or other national crises, censorship might be a temporary necessary evil - if there is a larger danger involved.

The other side of this is that, whenever someone censors an idea, it's as if to say that the general public is either too naive or that they're just like children. Too young and innocent to be exposed to such ideas. The implication is that we, the general public, are unable to handle certain ideas or forms of expression.

I suppose there may be some truth to that, at least for some people.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

If you want arguments attacking or uplifting the person, you remove anonymity. It purifies the argument itself because discussion killers can't be brought to bear. Social or legal ramifications can't be levied, arguments from authority and personage can't exist if all participants are anonymous, and demands based on identity are removed. I don't care if people make spurious arguments, they can be dismissed and who can troll an anonymous person?

Either way, I'll take the people who make argument for enjoyment in exchange for removing the all too common entirely irrelevant additions to an argument.