Wow, you said something intelligent. I agree.

He’s talking about protecting people from speech meant to incite hate against them. Y’know, like inciting attacks, death threats, yadda yadda. Not your imaginary “ban all mean words feminazi tumblrite” straw man that you’ve rolled out a million times already the past few weeks.


And there you go being an asshole to people again. You realize you don’t need to be a dick to get your point across, right? And that knowingly being a dick is only going to hurt your point as well?

And with that, I really feel like there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Your bizarre inability to understand the nuances of a debate, and your immediate default to insults when something isn't going your way, makes you a person that I really cannot talk to about anything where there is even the vaguest potential for it to become inflammatory.

No but, you see, if he's not constantly an asshole, people have no reason to attack him or feel attacked by him. And if people don't want to shut him up, his "evil tumblrinas want to ban free speech" rhetoric falls down.

Remember that whole thing I said about "don't take shit to heart"? Yeah? Do you remember that one?

And like I've discussed before, I think censorship of any kind is needless.

Yes, FurAffinity, my "evil tumblrinas want to ban free speech" rhetoric is the only argument I have. Even though I haven't mentioned Tumblr in a while and when I do it's a joke. We're having an actual discussion here.

No, the other argument you have is calling people names.

Aww did I hurt your poorly little feelings? No, the name-calling bit is not an argument, it is a joke. I think it's funny.

Yes, calling me FurAffinity not only hurt my feelings but it broke my heart. I was also being sarcastic.

Name calling isn't funny, it's immature, and you're an annoying asshole and I'll stop responding to your bullshit because you feed on it like some kind of troll.

On the one hand, you will never hear a Westerner say: "I am against freedom of speech".

On the other, it's common to say: "hey, of course I support freedom of speech, but...".

Vlam has, surprisingly, hit the nail on the head with that one.

I don't care what you think it is. I think it's funny and that's all that matters.

If I think it would be funny to hit you with a bus does that make it ok?

This is actually completely wrong. Let me try to explain:


You see, this ideal here? The whole “don’t take shit to heart� diatribe? It doesn’t work. It doesn’t mean anything. Do you know why that is?

It’s because pretty much every human being alive has different tolerances of bullshit they can or will put up with.

Let me put that in context for you: I can take a hell of a lot of insults. From the sound of it it seems like you can too. That’s great, it’s a pretty big asset to have in your favor, it means you can deal with more shit that people throw at you on a daily basis. But there are people out there who can’t take as many insults, or can’t take specific ones, for many possible reasons.

Most people are not carved from stone. Almost everyone on the planet will have things that they will take personally, that will upset them, to different degrees. Some people are in a position where they receive abuse daily, and that wears them down until they get sick of hearing it. Others might have things which just push their buttons out of nowhere.

Now you as a human being get to decide how to interact with every other human being you come into contact with. You can choose to be abrasive, to say things that others could very easily take issue with. Or you can choose to be respectful and empathetic, and try to avoid causing offence to people around you. Each of those will draw different reactions from people. Sometimes what you think might get one response will actually get another; everyone is different. You get to choose how to react to that as well – if you say something you thought was fine but it upset someone, or got them angry, you can choose to try to appease them or you can stand your ground, or even dig in deeper to antagonize. It’s all up to you.

But generally speaking, you’ll find that going around saying whatever you like to people or in a public space, saying things which you can generally assume someone around you is going to dislike or find offensive, is a good way to alienate yourself and draw ire from other people. And being stubborn, refusing to apologize when you do cause upset or antagonizing further will not endear you to anyone. Responding to those people with “don’t take shit to heart� misses the point, which is that you are saying something that’s causing harm to someone and you have the power to avoid doing it. If you don’t take steps to avoid it — or worse, you actively strive for it — then at best you are wilfully ignorant of other people and at worst actively malicious towards them.

So, basically:

• Everyone has different tolerances for what they find inappropriate, hurtful, offensive or upsetting.
• It is possible to knowingly or unknowingly overstep that tolerance and hurt someone.
• You have the choice in how you interact with others, and how you react to people when they dislike something you say.
• Intentionally being abrasive shows a lack of respect and empathy for others and will do you absolutely no favors in life.

People never really did me any favours in life in the first place, so under no circumstances will I go out of my way to avoid offending somebody.
That was a well written summary. But the thing is, I just don't care.
Once, I used to care. I really did. But at some point you just get sick of taking shit and say fuck it, I don't care.

I'll sum up my opinion with a quote from Ricky Gervais.

That’s a very bitter way of looking at things. Just because you feel others have done you no favor that does not justify you acting negatively towards others.


Yeah, I had a feeling, but I had to try.


And has that helped at all? Are you getting any less shit? Are you having an easier time in life for it?


There is a conspicuous difference between being offended by someone’s beliefs, actions or lifestyles and being offended by insults, abuse, or hateful comments aimed at you. Allow me to summarize with a counter-quote from John Stuart Mill:

It kinda depends on how someone is being a dick, no? Some people have it coming.

Give me ONE example where that is okay. Yeah it's much easier. It wasn't really a choice, though. I just came out of hospital one day to discover that I didn't give a fuck.

That quote is an excellent one, however jokes and arguments can not be equated to physical assault. Everyone has the right to insult everyone. Now when it becomes harassment, that's where you draw the line.
You block them, you don't cry about it though.

Not directly, of course – physical harm represents a more immediate threat to anyone and so is considered worse. But it’s an analogy which makes the point that taking an action that brings harm to another should be considered a bad thing to do, and we can assume that this is regardless of the amount of harm it would cause. Doing even a small amount of harm to another is still a negative action and should be avoided, even if it has no long-term repercussions.


Everyone has the right, but people do not always have the cause; and then there is also the right to response, which can include repercussions for the person doing the insulting which often makes it counterproductive for them to do it even if there was adequate cause.

Thought exercise: you’re walking down the street and you pass another person going the opposite way. They shove into you as you pass one another. Do you turn around and shout an insult at them? What if they look stronger than you? What if they look weaker than you? If not, why not?

And the reverse: As above, you’re walking down the street and you pass another person going the opposite way. In this case you do not make any kind of contact with them. Do you turn around and shout an insult them? If not, why not?


This makes the assumption that it is possible to block them, and that the offence in question can never be bad enough to cause upset. It’s easy to come up with situations where one or both of these is not the case.

I'd probably mutter something under my breath if it was a big guy. If it was a smaller guy I'd probably call him a dickhead. I generally don't want to get into fights because I'm quite a passive individual.

In the second instance, if course I wouldn't say anything, but that analogy doesn't work because it's a completely different environment.
When I'm around people I know, we toss insults left right and centre because it's just how we interact - it's banter. There's no animosity.

As for your second point, if you're being legitimately harassed irl then you go to the police

In both scenarios, saying something would significantly increase your chances of getting into a fight. If that’s something you want to avoid, why then would you insult them at all? Your chances would be better by not rising to their action in the first scenario. We can compare this to responding to one’s insult with an insult of your own – it is unlikely to do you any good, and puts you at risk of further negative consequences.

The reason I included the second scenario is to see what you would do in a neutral setting. The first scenario has an antagonist so it’s more likely you might respond, but the second it’s expected you wouldn’t take action – after all, if you don’t want to get into a fight, why would you make an unprovoked insult on someone? We can then take this response and generalize it – in a social situation where there is no prior antagonization it is better to avoid taking an action that would antagonize the other party.

This is the point that I’m trying to make. By not making any effort to avoid causing offence to others or by actively antagonizing others you put yourself at greater risk of negative consequences. It is therefore generally more beneficial to you to refrain from this behavior.


And that’s generally fine. You know each other’s boundaries, you have an idea of what is and isn’t appropriate to say to each other. But you have to remember that what you’re saying to each other isn’t always said in a vacuum – if you’re in a public space for example, people unfamiliar with you could very easily overhear and take issue with something one of you said.


There is a whole spectrum of situations where the police wouldn’t or couldn’t get involved. It’s not just a binary “minor slight� or “legitimate harassment�.

There’s also this other side to consider – if we only ever think of offensive behavior as something to block out, ignore or hide from, then we are not solving the root problem of that behavior. That’s why you get people who will tell you when they perceive something to be offensive – it’s a signal to the offender that this is behavior that may not be positive, and they are being given an opportunity to examine their actions. And that isn’t someone trying to censor you.

The thing I have an issue with most here is this:

So fucking what? I wasn't speaking to them, they have no right to call me out on it.
I agree that just blocking out harassment isn't going to solve the root of the problem, but can you think of anything that would? It's the way people are and it will never stop happening, so ignoring it is always the best cause of action.

Now on the forums, I speak my mind and I'm honest. When I call someone a name it's because I find it funny and it's not serious 99% of the time (unless I call them an idiot that's generally because they are being an idiot). If they get offended by that, I just don't care because I've got what I've wanted and I've had my laugh, and being offended serves no purpose.
If they are offended by actual opinions that I hold then again, I'm not going to coddle them because they can't handle it. It's their prerogative.

Being offended is the most useless thing a person can do. 8t advances no argument, makes no point and serves only to make them irrational and bring emotional arguments into the mix, which hold no water.

"Harassment" isn't being insulted. It's being constantly insulted, or bullied, or stalked or whatever. Calling someone a wanker is not harassing them.

I wouldn't say calling a black person a nigger is harassment, I'd say that's just being an arsehole.

But it was still said in a public space, and so free speech is in full effect. They have every right to reply to you.

Remember that just because something you say isn’t directed at a person, they can still hear it and can still be offended, upset, or just in disagreement of it. It’s their choice to make you aware of that just as much as it’s your choice to vocalize it in the first place.

And it’s fairly easy to come up with scenarios where what you say in public can have repercussions on the people around you. Consider the scenario of a man in a bar loudly talking about how horrible his day at work has been, with plenty of profanity mixed in to help illustrate. He may not be addressing anyone else around him except his friend, but other patrons can hear it and it’s putting them off their evening. In this case the people around him are no longer able to enjoy their evening, but also the bartender is in danger of losing patrons as this guy could irritate people enough that they leave.

There are plenty of other scenarios that you could come up with – someone making rape jokes in the vicinity of a rape survivor, for instance, or someone cracking jokes about immigrants in earshot of an immigrant.


Likely harassment is always going to remain an issue in society, sure. That doesn’t mean that steps shouldn’t be taken to minimize it – to educate people on what constitutes harassment so they know what not to do, to call it out when it happens and try to show someone what they have done wrong, and for people who partake in it to face consequences. Ignoring it doesn’t solve the problem, it just moves the problem elsewhere.


But in that situation all you’ve done is antagonize someone for the sake of your own entertainment. Can’t you see how that’s a shitty situation for everyone else besides you?


That’s fair enough, your opinions are yours and you have a right to them. But it’s worthwhile to acknowledge that there are ways of articulating and defending your opinions that can be both positive and negative, and it’s generally in your best interest to go the positive route for the reasons I’ve mentioned previously.


The state of being offended isn’t a conscious decision people take. There’s no option where someone says something to you and you get to sit back and think “did what they say offend me or not?�

You do have a decision in how you react, on whether you respond to the offence in some way. But that reaction is in part based on your emotional stake as well – if someone has just said something incredibly rude or upsetting to you, it can hit you in a way that prevents you from reacting rationally or from controlling your emotional response. And the more directed and antagonistic the comment is the more likely that will happen.

But if you are able to respond in a level, rational way – does brushing it off and ignoring it mean that the person will continue to act that way, will they say other offensive things to you or to others? If they then think you didn’t have an issue then they might even go on to say something worse. They might go on to repeat it to someone else who doesn’t have the same tolerance as you. Is it not then better to point out to them that you have an issue with something they said, as an opportunity to try and let them understand why what they said is problematic and so avoid future upset?


It can also be considered racial discrimination depending on the circumstances, which is something that often isn’t covered by free speech.

This isn't about going out of your way to avoid offending somebody. This is about you not going out of your way to intentionally offend someone.

So you're saying that there should be laws in place that the police can use to prosecute someone for harassment? You're in favour of limitations on freedom of speech?

I guess the key word there is "irl". I actually really dislike that term because of the way it perpetuates this idea that the internet isn't real life and nothing said or done on it can affect anyone.

REALLLLLLLY??

Better put on your hard hat then.

Freedom of speech should be maintained.

The recipient of the statement should be able to ignore it and does not have any lawful reason to sue the speaker.

The law should not be biased depending on the feelings of the judged.

In case someone physically harms another due to the things that the other said, the subject is guilty of harming the other.


This is what we studied at our law lessons. In German, though, so the terms I used here might be imprecise.

Except slander and libel.

I read some of these responses, not all.

I was just throwing it out there that I've noticed that many of those who I've had discussions/debates with on social media have been on the spectrum somewhere. I'm vaguely aware that those with Ass Burgers can take things literally...so maybe it is a case of them getting crossed wires and being all "WAIT, BUT...WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD AND WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE LAUGHING??"

Re: the topic -

I'm all for people saying whatever they want, so long as it stops at incitement to violence. I'm also all for people challenging views they dislike, so long as the Govt doesn't get involved or violence in anyway. Though, if the latter does happen - a certain responsibility falls on the person who's the cause. You can call that "blaming the victim", I guess, but it is still relevant.

When the recent attacks in Paris happened straight away I made a joke. Straight away I mocked folk who were using the attacks to bring attention to themselves. I got death threats and threats of violence in my inbox on FB...but, it's kinda expected. And if something did happen to me...then, okay. That's partly my fault. The perpetrators are still totally in the wrong and shouldn't be condoned...but I can accept my role in the whole...thing.

Re: comedy -

When a comic gets on stage you HAVE to believe nothing he says is true. He's saying things that may or may not be funny to make you laugh, or at least try to. Joe Rogan does a bit where he says just that. Now, will the comedian's story upset or offend you? Maybe. But you then want what to happen?

You want someone to punch someone for telling a story? You want someone to be arrested for that?

Crazy.

I don't know whether you even read what I said about saying things against comedians but just for the record I was referring to conversations with other people about them. Heckling them because of it is just shitty and annoying.

How many of them have actually been diagnosed by a psychiatrist, and how many are idiots on the internet who want to be magical diamonds in the rough?


Going to a comedy show is a social contract. And, frankly, you usually know what you're getting yourself in for when you bought the ticket. That's different to a socially maladjusted nutbag who insults someone for his own amusement, then tries to say it's justified because he's 'only joking'.

Frankly, as I've said elsewhere on the forums, if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech. Humour doesn't change the acceptability or offensiveness of speech in any way.

I don't know the relevance to stand-up but Kevin's parents failed.

The end.

People are going to be shitty. Especially kids. So you either PREPARE your child for that. Or you protect them from it.

Some people just shouldn't have children.

...

Whoa, sudden rush of DéjÃ* vu there. Weird.

That article is satire. It's making fun of people who think "don't worry brah it's just a prank" automatically rids you of blame.

People are going to be shitty. That doesn't mean you should just take accept their shittiness and just sit there and take their bullying. And victim blaming is especially bad.

Time to pop out the buzzwords.

Fun fact I only did that because I knew someone would notice my post faster this way. It doesn't even make sense with the rest of my post.

The rest of the post still stands though, and even the last sentence is true, if in a stand-alone kind of way.