"SJW" and the Spectrum...
 

Right, I don't know where else to go with this to find other people's opinions because folk seem to be fucking blind to it.

So, there have been a fair few instances when I've had debates/discussions/arguments with folk re: freedom of speech. What's acceptable. What's unacceptable. What the Government should step in to stop.

The most recent one is to do with a Canadian comic, who made a joke about wanting a disabled kid to die. Now, he's been dragged through the courts. Over a joke.

Now, in all my discussions (etc) I've had with people I've noticed that a VAST amount who take the stance of "Government should step in. Certain things shouldn't be allowed to be said. Feelings should be protected. SAFE SPACES!!" fall on the Autistic/Aspergers spectrum.

I'm just throwing that out there. Do you think this is the case, too? Have y'all noticed anything similar? If there are any folk who have experience with either of the two conditions, I'd like to hear from them, too. Feed me your info.

Discuss.

It's as you said. It's a fucking joke. The SJW lynch mob need to stay on Tumblr with their dragonkin or whatever the shit.

I've heard the regressive left say that PC culture is promoting free speech and making comedy better. I don't understand how they can smash two mutually exclusive concepts together and not realise how dumb they sound. You can't get more oxymoronic. Also moronic.

Now if you don't mind, I'm gonna head back into my safe space, where people don't get triggered by autism jokes or gay jokes or being called "smellody" on Twitter.

Remember, hurting people's feelings is the worst thing you can do.

Why are you so rude :'(

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech: to say whatever they want, one also has to accept that there are repercussions when they speak. Be that a punch to the face, or criminal proceedings.

I dunno about them being on the spectrum, but it definitely seems to me like SJW-type people somehow missed that stage where you learn and accept that other people have different opinions and the world isn't going to cater to your whims. They're acting like bratty children, essentially.

I'm all for promoting equality and open-mindedness and free speech all that, but the "us vs. them" attitude they have is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

In the US the law in the constitution is (Paraphrased obv) "you can say whatever you want as long as you don't threaten to harm somebody".

Of course there are drawbacks to laws like this which is why we still have KKK rallies in southern states. Though realistically they never last longer than 2 minutes because those bigots are incapable of peaceful protest.

I personally am very fond of Voltaire's line of thought on the issue of free speech.

"I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-- Voltaire.

As a matter of fact, Voltaire never wrote this sentence.

Being criminally punished for saying something is not freedom of speech. Also any kind of assault because they said something you don't like makes you a fucking arsehole.

He might not have said the specific thing (a false quote), but Voltaire was in general a supporter of free speech nonetheless

We live in a litigious society, so I think personal offense is something you can capitalize on to punish the offender if you have the money. I think the government can and does try to keep a lid on large-scale hatespeech and organized, aimless discontent but not so much that people are muzzled from saying whatever dumb shit they believe at all.

I don't think 'being offended' is a justifiable excuse for publicly retaliating against someone unless there was an implication of danger or threat in what was said, but that's how the law works anyway. No death threats.

Now, I'm not sure what to say about your assessment of those certain typically offended people as Autistic or on the spectrum because being a loser on the internet who complains about everything is not something exclusive to or symptomatic of autism. I also see the same mentality exhibited by the desperately 'anti PC' through ceaseless crocodile tears and unironic, pointless hatred.

I think it's more about the era we live in giving people an avenue to be malcontent and miserable on some level, about something, if they choose to. everyone can find a soapbox to stand on, everyone has at some point or another championed (or argued against) a slacktivist cause cause simply to feel relevant and culturally valuable, and everyone has to at some point face the fact that they are fucking alone and it sucks and they're going to die.

I think people who get offended the way you describe to the point of excess just want to project the idea that they cherish their world more than you cherish yours so they can feel better about being pretty powerless against what's actually wrong with the world.

What about threatening to break someone's legs, or burn down their house, or rape their daughter? We also have a law about "Racial vilification" here, where it's illegal to incite hate against a racial group publicly.

It gets brought into the limelight occasionally, and often gets criticism from prominent white men. It's an interesting one though. Should you be able to stand in the city and, for example, encourage people to stab aboriginal Australians?

But I do agree that in an overwhelming majority of cases being racist, insensitive or ignorant isn't something that the law should come into. If you're in a cafe or something and you don't like what someone's saying, you can take it to the owner and they can make the decision about what's reasonable to say in their private space.

Anyway I'm posting in a Jacob thread and I feel bad.

Yes, and if it just so happens that a maniac listened and then did kill somebody, he was probably a psycho already and would've done it either way.


I think people should be allowed to say whatever they want, unless it's an actual VIABLE death threat, then they should be questioned. If the identity of the person who's making the threat is known, however, it's very unlikely that it is a genuine threat and arresting them is a waste of time and money.
People can be as bigoted as they like, and if their ideas really are that bad then people won't listen to them. Idiots will listen, but censoring ideas you don't like is a very muddy and slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? What's okay and what isn't? The answer is everything is okay because discussion is important. About anything.
I think it's more that today, the more oppressed and victimised you are, the more power you hold. So now it's all about trying to become as oppressed as possible, racking up Patriarchy Points on your Tumblr card so that people hold your opinions higher than say that of a straight white man's.

I have not observed that it has anything to do with the autism spectrum. What I have noticed is people who want to be perceived as uber-polite and accepting that take offence on behalf of third parties who don't give a shit. Like people who police the phrase 'Merry Christmas' on behalf of Jews and Muslims who don't give a shit. And pseudo-allies who get all uptight at any vague hint at homophobia/transphobia/etc when an actual gay/trans person would just shrug and say 'whatever'.

I'm not saying anyone should face legal action because of their jokes, but this "it's comedy so it's okay!" argument gets on my nerves. Turning abuse or hate speech into a joke does not stop it being abuse or hate speech and should not affect its legal status. There's also nothing wrong with saying something against a comedian because you didn't like a joke they told, and shouting down people who do because it's "just a joke" gets old.

Something else I see just as often and that bothers me a lot more is this misconception about freedom of speech that because something isn't illegal to say people must provide a platform for you to say it. It's patently ridiculous to, for example, claim that banning someone, or discussion of a certain topic, from an online community is a violation of freedom of speech, yet I see it all the fucking time. Yelling about censorship when your post is removed only serves to dilute the conversation and give less weight to legitimate examples.

It's easy to dismiss those who complain about certain opinions or language as having their feelings hurt and overreacting. I can only assume people who do this haven't experienced what it's like to constantly hear people talking with hatred or disgust about them or a group they belong to. It's easy to shrug off an isolated incident of someone insulting you, but when it feels like the whole world thinks less of you because of who you are it starts to weigh down on you. Especially when people holding opinions like that can affect how easy it is for you to get a job or to get promoted and so on. Getting your feelings hurt and whining when someone points out that what you said is offensive is somewhat ironic.

It's also a pretty cheap tactic to try to make people seem less credible by associating them with obviously stupid ideas like that otherkin bullshit. Most people who promote social justice don't use Tumblr and most people who use Tumblr don't think people who claim to be otherkin are anything other than absurd.

What if that person is encouraging racial violence, and also pointing out a sale on hunting knives at a camping shop? Is there a line when they go from being a crazy person spouting shit to enabling violence?

What about serial offenders? If you often make threats of physical harm, or arson, or something and are freaking people out is that ok? I mean shit, I can think of a few people in my life who I would take very seriously if they threatened to burn my house down. If they do that all the time to scare people into giving them money or something, that shouldn't be legal.

Again, whoever goes and actually does that shit after listening to that person was going to do it anyway. 99.9% of people won't because they are not insane. The guy shouting that shit probably is though, and he has probably done some other bad shit that can get him locked up.


Okay sure, but that is at your discretion. If you are worried, then of course go to the police. I'm mainly talking about joke threats, like when that retard girl on Twitter tweeted that she was going to bomb an airline. She is a retard, sure, but arresting her for an obvious (albeit insanely unfunny) joke is just as, if not more retarded.


It's not an argument, it's a fact. When someone tells a joke, it's a joke. That's what comedy is. I wouldn't expect you to know a lot about it, though.

Hate speech is a retarded phrase. It shouldn't be illegal, either, because who gets to decide what is hate speech and what isn't? Does hate speech hurt anyone? No. It doesn't. It only hurts their feelings, and if you don't like what somebody is saying then stop listening to it.

Racist arseholes have the right to be racist arseholes with their racist areshole friends. Like what I said before, only idiots will listen to them.
Arresting them is fucking tribal. Shall we stone them, too?

God I hope you never go to a comedy club, because you are going to ruin a fuckton of people's nights. It IS just a joke. And even if there's some element of truth to it, or they believe it? So fucking what?! How does that affect you in any way? Grow a sense of humour, for fuck's sake. You don't like a joke somebody made? So fucking what?
I'm surprised you can even hear them from all the way up in your moral ivory tower.

No, because on a public forum that is OWNED by a private party, they have a right to make their own rules. Stick to them or don't. Discuss them or whatever, sure. They might be retarded, but someone owns the place and actually has a right to make them.
See, with a forum you can either decide to join or not, you can't really do that with society, which is why people make more of a fuss about government law.

I have had experience with all of that, for a very long time. And, I have been clinically depressed for the last 4 years. Do you know what I do when people insult me? I do not give a fuck because I am not a little baby who needs to be coddled.


That is what's known as a "joke", you braindead puss monkey. (That was also a joke so please don't go all triggered on me. Do you get it? Because you aren't actually a braindead puss monkey. That's what a joke is. It's funny. I doubt you have a sense of humour, though.)

lol

What a fantastic argument. How could I possibly come back to that shit? Fuck, I may as well just concede right now.

I guess women are shit at arguing too, as well as everything else. lololololool

lol @ negrepping me

Of course I'm going to negrep a shitty response like that.

Freedom of speech, as defined by the law, should mean the freedom to say anything you want without lawful prosecution from the government. That's it, that's all it should ever be. It does not protect you from someone who doesn't agree with you and wants to punch you in the dick for what you said. It doesn't protect you from lawsuit happy, easily insulted people either, because they can still take you to court if they want and given the US's backwards legal system they'd probably win because of 'emotional damages'. But the key factor is that the government doesn't throw you in jail because you say something that the people in power don't agree with.

As for safe spacers, those people are a joke and everyone should go out of their way to offend these people as much as humanly possible, just for the lolz. No-one has the right to not feel offended. I can tell someone they are a piece of shit and any human being with a spine will suck it up and not care about it for longer than the 2 seconds it takes for me to speak the words. I will make racist jokes and spread my dark humor all I want, because I find it funny and you need to be able to laugh about stuff like this. And if some safe spacer were to come up to me and tell me I've offended them with the stuff I say I'd tell them "good, now sit the fuck down before you hurt yourself".

Everything should be allowed to be said, I don't care how bad, dark, idiotic or downright retarded it is. Even completely denying the holocaust, which is a criminal offence in many European countries, should be allowed on the basis of freedom of speech and freedom of opinions, no matter how ill informed they may be.

The line should be drawn at promoting such opinions as fact, while they obviously aren't. Getting up on a pedestal and spreading (what we know for a fact is) misinformation to the masses should be illegal, because it degrades society and destroys knowledge as a whole. Allowing some douche muffin to spread the notion that 2 x 2 = 10 is not something that should ever be acceptable in a modern society.

In the same vein schools of any description shouldn't be allowed to base their teachings on personal beliefs and religion. US schools especially like to indoctrinate their children with their national anthem, and even going as far as teaching creationism as fact in certain remote places. But European schools can do a good job of that too. I attended a christian elementary school and was taught from the bible as being fact, which is just plain wrong, but apparently completely legal, which is insane.

So yes, freedom of speech should mean freedom of all speech, but not freedom to promote bullshit.

Ayn Rand is obviously well and strong in 2016 for some dumb fucking reason.

You know, for people who like to complain about people being offended, you sure like being offended literally all the time.

Also, I'd like to just get people's opinions on this jesus christ I can't wait, why oh why do we have the right to say whatever we want without repercussions?

What makes you think that's the case at all?

It's not, and it shouldn't be. You have (or should have) the right to say anything without the government silencing you. That doesn't mean private individuals (or companies) aren't allowed to get offended (or ban you from the premises).

Free speech protects you from being arrested for saying something. This does not mean that you are obliged to say it, that it is worth saying, or that anyone wants you to say it.

Or, in other words: if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. You don’t need to offend people.

I'm against freedom of speech.

Oh Vlam, you old card!

The problem is that, these days, people get offended by things that weren't MEANT to be offensive.

I'm against freedom of stupidity.

Okay, so I'm going to try and wade into this argument now that I'm not high as a kite, under the proviso that I ignore the childish supposition that restricting freedom of speech is called for by autistic people, and that that is even some sort of insult. I don't really know what Jacob was going for but I'm sure it's just unpleasant.

A lot of people who call for freedom of speech sort of destroy the credibility of their arguments just by their personality. This idea that there's an entitlement to say whatever you like and be free from any repercussions, is utter rubbish. What gives you this entitlement? Why do you deserve to say what you like without anything resulting from it? If I had a kid with down's syndrome and you took the piss for cheap laughs or something, I'd rightly curb stomp your face. It's funny, it tends to be white middle class boys who scream the loudest about freedom of speech when in reality, it is precisely this demographic who gets away with the most shit Scott-free.

Even the human rights act has a provision for when governments or organisations may need to stifle freedom of speech when necessary, or for instance, to protect individuals such as with the 'right to be forgotten', or when a persons libellous accusations threatens to damage your self irrevocably.

Saying you want to be free to say what you like just to call people faggots, trannies, cunts or whatever the fuck, makes you sound like an ignorant child who's probably very cloistered from reality.

You're an idiot. Nobody here was even making that argument and that's not what freedom of speech means.

Freedom of speech, bro.

You can say whatever you want, but don't be pissed when it makes you look like an idiot. I don't understand how you have no understanding of a concept we've discussed to death already. Nobody is saying someone should be free from repercussions, we're saying being arrested or physically harmed for saying something is fucking disgusting, no matter what it is.

No, what STM is saying makes perfect sense and it's you who looks like an idiot. Oh and by the way. Stop resorting to ad hominems. It's become boring for everyone involved.

You do realise being arrested of harmed for saying something is a repercussion though right? Again, let's drop the trite, blanket Ayn Rand, "being arrested for saying something is always wrong" thing though, because as I said, there are times when you absolutely must take a course of action to silence what someone is saying to protect an individual or a group of people.

Actually it's just the being arrested part. Being physically harmed for being a dick to someone is something I'm completely in favor of.

It's unacceptable, it's a fucking neanderthal response. Protect a group of people from words that they might not like or disagree with? Get the fuck out of here! You have got to be trolling!

Being physically harmed for being a dick to someone is literally worse than being arrested for hate speech or whatever. It's disproportionate retribution.

Is 70% of this website honestly libertarian? Because that's such a childish position to hold.