Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

[pErvinalia]

The thing is he has a history of wanting certain speech shut down. So there's a pattern developing. Our interpretations are not necessarily wrong.

Whatever. This shit about "he has a history of..." is horse hockey.

Either accept what he said, or don't. He's explained it.

This "pattern developing" nonsense is totally Ratskep in nature.

Yes, because there's no such thing as context.

[Brian Peacock]

The second just encompasses the advocacy of active discrimination against anyone justified on nominal group membership: skin colour, ethnicity, geography, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, income, political persuasion, taste in music, whatever.

That would mean that I can't call English people whinging pommy bastards!

Course you can. You just can't disregard our rights based on our superior Englishness.

[Hermit]

it is a general good to limit in law speech which seeks to incite others to violence or advocates differential treatment and regard for certain nominal groups.

The second just encompasses the advocacy of active discrimination against anyone justified on nominal group membership: skin colour, ethnicity, geography, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, income, political persuasion, taste in music, whatever.

That would mean that I can't call English people whinging pommy bastards!

Calling English people whinging pommy bastards does not incite others to violence or advocates differential treatment, but it does promote others hold them in lower regard - which they richly deserve. Same with the denizens of the USA, only there the proper attributes are ignorant and arrogant.

[Brian Peacock]

Hey, I find that deeply offensive, therefore FATWAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!

[pErvinalia]

I can't believe Hermit is allowed to say that. I believe in total free speech.

[Brian Peacock]

Exactly, people should be absolutely free to speech their minds without offending anybody.

[Forty Two]

The thing is he has a history of wanting certain speech shut down. So there's a pattern developing. Our interpretations are not necessarily wrong.

Whatever. This shit about "he has a history of..." is horse hockey.

Either accept what he said, or don't. He's explained it.

This "pattern developing" nonsense is totally Ratskep in nature.

Yes, because there's no such thing as context.

Of course there is, but if you're going to make an argument about a person's "history" being relevant to a point, then you're going to have to present the relevant history (or significant examples thereof). It's another common Ratskep tactic to just make a declaration about someone's "posting history" and when asked "what history are you referring to" -- just decline to present anything further.

it's quite convenient when you want to dismiss someone else's argument out of hand by just declaring them a persona non grata.

[Forty Two]

Does ignoring a racist make you a racist as well?

Not necessarily, but if a person makes a speech in favor of a racist public policy or law, and fellow panelists nod in agreement, and the audience claps and cheers, then that would seem be an expression of support.

Firstly, you shift the goal posts by introducing panelists, who are presumably there explicitly to discuss issues with each other, then you shift them some more by having the audience actually actively indicating agreement. You couldn't be any more blatantly devious and dishonest if you tried.

Not at all. You asked "does ignoring a racist make you a racist as well?" And, I answered "not necessarily." I then went on to describe how ignoring someone might be seen as support for that person. You make a fair point as to the applause, which is active agreement and not mere "ignoring" of the racist.

[Forty Two]

...
Firstly, 'horse hockey' is called Polo, and it's a fine game balancing individual skill and teamwork.

Secondly, imo it is a general good to limit in law speech which seeks to incite others to violence or advocates differential treatment and regard for certain nominal groups.

That's all well-and-good as far as it goes, however, the Devil is in the defining of terms. I agree, if incite is used in its traditional legal sense in Anglo-American jurisprudence, where it means to encourage, urge, spur on, goad, instigate or persuade another to commit violence. It's not enough that speech be such that it pisses people off and they become violent, and it's not enough that speech be hateful about a group of people and some listeners go batshit and start getting violent. Incite involves actually calling for violence -- urging violence. And, the violence called for must be immediate, not calls for the future.

Why all the conditions? If someone publicly calls for X-group to be hounded out of town does it matter if that happens directly after the meeting, or the following day, or the next Tuesday in the month?

The carrying out of the violence need not be immediate, but the call for violence must be immediate. The distinction I was trying to make was between someone advocating a revolution which may be violent down the road, and someone calling for the audience to go out and burn things down right now. The difference is that the former is an advocacy of an idea, whereas the latter is actually inciting violent conduct.

If someone declares X-group as undesirables antithetical to the kind of society they'd advocate for themselves, or advocates that a group don't deserve to have their rights respected, and therefore shouldn't have their rights respected, does it matter if 'some listeners go batshit and start getting violent' or not?

No, the speech is free in that example, or should be, regardless of whether any of the listeners go batshit crazy or not. The reaction of the listener is not the operative feature. It's what the speaker is calling for that is important. So, if I go on a soapbox in the town square and advocate that people should not have rights respected, or should have their rights taken away, that is (a) not a call for violence and (b) not even a call for criminal action. It's advocacy of an idea that some people or another should not have rights. That's political speech.

it may be a repugnant idea, in that most people think individuals should have equal rights, but the notion that everyone should have equal rights that are equally respected is not a sacred ideal that is outside the realm of public debate. If it pisses some people off, tough shit. The response must be more speech. Violent response to the offensive speech must not be tolerated, and the machinery of the State ought not be brought to bear to silence unpopular ideas.

You can incite hatred by speech just like you can incite differential treatment and regard,

So what? People are free to hate, and people are free to advocate hatred. Some people hate Republicans. People used to march in the streets with avowed hatred of George W. Bush, and they were hanging him in effigy. Free speech. And, if someone says we should repeal the Equal Protection Clause and there should be no equal protection under the laws, and that Missourians should be given preferred rights under the law, and Floridians should be kicked out of the country, that's not inciting anything. That's making bizarre and possibly offensive points. If the speaker was calling for violence against Floridians, however, then that's another story. "Go out and hang the Floridians!" is different than "expel the Floridians from the country." The latter may piss Floridians off, but hardly any political speech fails to piss someone off.

and you can threaten and intimidate a group without ever resorting directly to violence yourself.

Sure, but it all depends what you say. If I say that white people are worthless and evil, that's not a threat or intimidation. It's an opinion. It may piss white people off, but tough shit.

The fact that you frame the actual incitement here in terms of others violently objecting to speech speaks volumes, but as you say, the devil is in the detail, in the law, in the type of society the law aspires to secure, in the intent and effect of the speech concerned, and in the law's ability to limit it for the sake of public order and decency.

I did not frame it that way. I framed it as incitement being incitement, meaning that someone is calling for violence now. What I'm saying is that there should not be a "heckler's veto" -- in other words, just because speech pisses someone off and they become violent about it ought not make the speech illegal.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. Calling for discrimination or differential treatment is free speech. It's an unpopular opinion, but so what? When I was a kid there was a poll done and like 90% of people polled said that everyone should have the right to free speech in public. However, when asked if a Communist should have the right to free speech in public, a majority of people said no, the Communist should not. Why? Because what the Communist advocates was at the time very unpopular and pissed tons of people off, was considered a breach of public order and decency, and should be prohibited. However, if one believes in free speech then the advocacy of unpopular ideas is what needs the most protection. Ideas most everyone agrees with and which are tame and well-received don't need much protection, because popular views are not going to be silenced.

If you look at the American Supreme Court Case of American Nazi Party vs. Skokie, Illinois, where the American Civil Liberties Union defended the American Nazi Party's right to march down Main Street in Skokie, Illinois (at a time when Skokie was home to many Holocaust survivors, which is why the Nazis wanted to march there), you'll understand better where I am coming from.

In the US, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. So, merely saying that a race should be treated differently or some group should be disadvantaged is not enough, because that speech is not "directed to inciting imminent lawless action."

[Forty Two]

The second just encompasses the advocacy of active discrimination against anyone justified on nominal group membership: skin colour, ethnicity, geography, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, income, political persuasion, taste in music, whatever.

So you can't advocate for a change in the law to allow discrimination?

What about advocacy of active discrimination based on talent, wealth, penis size, hair color or shoe size?

Taste in music? you wold exempt from free speech the advocacy of discrimination against people who like Nickelback? Really? I would think that discrimination against Nickelback fans ought to be written into law as soon as possible, perhaps as part of the Omnibus Things That Suck Bill of 2016.

[Hermit]

Does ignoring a racist make you a racist as well?

Not necessarily, but if a person makes a speech in favor of a racist public policy or law, and fellow panelists nod in agreement, and the audience claps and cheers, then that would seem be an expression of support.

Firstly, you shift the goal posts by introducing panelists, who are presumably there explicitly to discuss issues with each other, then you shift them some more by having the audience actually actively indicating agreement. You couldn't be any more blatantly devious and dishonest if you tried.

Not at all. You asked "does ignoring a racist make you a racist as well?" And, I answered "not necessarily." I then went on to describe how ignoring someone might be seen as support for that person. You make a fair point as to the applause, which is active agreement and not mere "ignoring" of the racist.

You did not describe how. You made the observation that. Which is exactly what happens, granted. At least as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned. Unless ordinary Muslims in the USA and other occidental nations are concerned, they may as well have been applauding Islamic terrorism when they fail to come out in massive protests against it. Funny how that is not the perception in relation to Christians. Robert Lewis Dear Jr.'s murder of three people at a planned parenthood function was not representative of Christians generally. He was a demented person who just happened to call himself a Christian warrior, an exception. Well him, and the Christians involved in 40 other cases of murder, attempted murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, bombing, property crime and anthrax threats over the past 20 years in the USA alone. So there is no need for ordinary Christians to come out in massive protests against those incidents of terrorism. Well, guess what? Apparently members of the Taliban, Al Queada, ISIS et cetera are representative of all Muslims.

See the circularity yet? And the double standard?

[pErvinalia]

The thing is he has a history of wanting certain speech shut down. So there's a pattern developing. Our interpretations are not necessarily wrong.

Whatever. This shit about "he has a history of..." is horse hockey.

Either accept what he said, or don't. He's explained it.

This "pattern developing" nonsense is totally Ratskep in nature.

Yes, because there's no such thing as context.

Of course there is, but if you're going to make an argument about a person's "history" being relevant to a point, then you're going to have to present the relevant history (or significant examples thereof). It's another common Ratskep tactic to just make a declaration about someone's "posting history" and when asked "what history are you referring to" -- just decline to present anything further.

it's quite convenient when you want to dismiss someone else's argument out of hand by just declaring them a persona non grata.

It's not my problem that you are unaware of the Dodo's history. I no longer want to waste my time arguing with the disingenuous likes of you and Seth. If you don't accept my characterisation of Dodo, fine, I don't really care. I value your opinion on stuff at around about zero.

[Hermit]

I no longer want to waste my time arguing with the disingenuous likes of you and Seth.

I'll file that under "famous last words" then, shall I?

[pErvinalia]

Probably...

[Brian Peacock]

Ah, but aren't you're just putting you views out there, Socratically, for the interested lurkers rEv?