Kill Uncle : North Korean Style

[JimC]

Thought crime. It's what conservatives in the west want to prosecute as well.

I'm pretty sure it's the progressives that want to criminalize thought crimes like "hate speech" on your Facebook page.

There is some truth in this. However, it is a fairly grey area, in that the range of what people say or publish can go from innocuous criticism to truly hate-filled rants which incite violence and/or intimidate people into silence. The progressive PC brigade typically goes way too far in wanting stuff suppressed, but that does not mean there should be carte blanche to say anything whatsoever on any mass media.

[FBM]

Weren't there a couple of cases of online bullying this year that led to suicides? That needs to be stopped, imo.

[pErvinalia]

Thought crime. It's what conservatives in the west want to prosecute as well.

I'm pretty sure it's the progressives that want to criminalize thought crimes like "hate speech" on your Facebook page.

Hate speech is banned for a bigger reason. That is it incites hate and violence when in large enough numbers. It's not necessarily a victimless crime. It's unfortunate that individuals who harm no one in their speech have to be criminalised, but it's because of the bigger societal picture. Not out of some bollocks morality like is the case with conservatives.

[JimC]

Thought crime. It's what conservatives in the west want to prosecute as well.

I'm pretty sure it's the progressives that want to criminalize thought crimes like "hate speech" on your Facebook page.

Hate speech is banned for a bigger reason. That is it incites hate and violence when in large enough numbers. It's not necessarily a victimless crime. It's unfortunate that individuals who harm no one in their speech have to be criminalised, but it's because of the bigger societal picture. Not out of some bollocks morality like is the case with conservatives.

The sort of "hate speech" that might require action to be taken should be restricted to the extreme stuff. Just like in this forum, where we don't delete posts or censor users just because they are saying stuff the majority thinks is very nasty crap. Here, we even allow people (cough, cough) to suggest that "conservatives" should die horrible deaths...

I honestly think this sentence:

It's unfortunate that individuals who harm no one in their speech have to be criminalised, but it's because of the bigger societal picture.

is potentially dangerous. Operating in that way can allow the steady erosion of freedom of speech, which is a principle worth upholding; it should be a rare case which justifies limiting it.

And I'm interested what you would consider the sort of "thought crime" that a conservative morality would like to prosecute. I can see examples from the religious side, where religious conservatives wanted to ban "Piss Christ", for example, and the way that muslim clerics are pushing for UN sponsored declarations that blasphemy should be a crime. Other than such examples, what are you referring to?

[FBM]

I hate giving speeches. There. I said it. Do with me what you will.

[JimC]

I hate giving speeches. There. I said it. Do with me what you will.

Give one full of random gibberish, and you will not be invited to speak again...

[FBM]

I hate giving speeches. There. I said it. Do with me what you will.

Give one full of random gibberish, and you will not be invited to speak again...

That's the only kind I've ever given.

[pErvinalia]

Thought crime. It's what conservatives in the west want to prosecute as well.

I'm pretty sure it's the progressives that want to criminalize thought crimes like "hate speech" on your Facebook page.

Hate speech is banned for a bigger reason. That is it incites hate and violence when in large enough numbers. It's not necessarily a victimless crime. It's unfortunate that individuals who harm no one in their speech have to be criminalised, but it's because of the bigger societal picture. Not out of some bollocks morality like is the case with conservatives.

The sort of "hate speech" that might require action to be taken should be restricted to the extreme stuff. Just like in this forum, where we don't delete posts or censor users just because they are saying stuff the majority thinks is very nasty crap. Here, we even allow people (cough, cough) to suggest that "conservatives" should die horrible deaths...

I honestly think this sentence:

It's unfortunate that individuals who harm no one in their speech have to be criminalised, but it's because of the bigger societal picture.

is potentially dangerous. Operating in that way can allow the steady erosion of freedom of speech, which is a principle worth upholding; it should be a rare case which justifies limiting it.

Obviously. But the fact that you agree that there are cases means that "the bigger societal picture" is important. That's what governments are actually for, as opposed to what libertarians think they are for. They manage society. The rules of society are always going to impinge on personal freedoms to some degree. It's about getting that balance right. As a left-libertarian (of sorts) I think the balance is too far to the authoritarian (i.e. too far to the state, from the individual), but since I'm not a lunatic right libertarian I understand that certain freedoms flows forth from the protections that a stable and civil society provide. I think the balance needs to flow back more to the individual, but not so much as to create an insane anarcho-capitalist/objectivist society.

And I'm interested what you would consider the sort of "thought crime" that a conservative morality would like to prosecute. I can see examples from the religious side, where religious conservatives wanted to ban "Piss Christ", for example, and the way that muslim clerics are pushing for UN sponsored declarations that blasphemy should be a crime. Other than such examples, what are you referring to?

Porn is the obvious one. Not that access to porn should be a big issue for individuals in society. But I have no doubt that there would be plenty of conservatives who would want to prosecute you for all sorts of things that you might write in your private journals. If I wrote about killing politicians, or having sex with children, I'd be certain there would be conservatives that would seriously like to prosecute me. Their fucking stupid moralities are all over our societies. Marriage and divorce. The amount of shit you've got to go through to divorce is ridiculous. There's obviously some legal issues that need to be carefully documented, but other than that I can only see conservative religious morality behind the insane amount of hoops you've got to jump through to get divorced. Stem cells. Stupid conservative morality all over it. Same with euthanasia. Same with gays. I'd be willing to bet there are conservatives that want to prosecute people for having same sex relationships. And I could go on and on and on. Fuck conservatives and the bible they rode in on.

[JimC]

The "killing politicians" example is one you shouldn't be surprised to be of pragmatic interest of security organisations, and is also close to what you agreed was potentially worthy of censure, in terms of hate speech inciting violence... We know it's just rEv letting off steam, but security personal have no sense of humour...

The "sex with children" thing is an interesting example. Most serious paedophiles have bucket-loads of child pornography on their computer, or subscribe to such sites. They may go through life never actually touching a live child, but in being part of the demand for child pornography, they create conditions where others hurt children for profit.

All the rest of the morality examples are directly or indirectly down to appallingly narrow religious thinking, I quite agree...

[pErvinalia]

The "killing politicians" example is one you shouldn't be surprised to be of pragmatic interest of security organisations, and is also close to what you agreed was potentially worthy of censure, in terms of hate speech inciting violence... We know it's just rEv letting off steam, but security personal have no sense of humour...

If it's in a personal journal (i.e a thought), then it is of no harm to anyone and can't incite anything. I'm not surprised in the least that conservatives get their panties in a twist over what people think about in their spare time. Their whole life is driven by the concept of "moral hazard". They are fear driven creatures (more so than us more sane progressives). I'd like to show them some real fear!

The "sex with children" thing is an interesting example. Most serious paedophiles have bucket-loads of child pornography on their computer, or subscribe to such sites. They may go through life never actually touching a live child, but in being part of the demand for child pornography, they create conditions where others hurt children for profit.

I'm talking about writing it down, not actually doing anything.

All the rest of the morality examples are directly or indirectly down to appallingly narrow religious thinking, I quite agree..

You ever wonder why conservatism and religious moralising often overlap? It's no fucking surprise to me. It's about fear and control. Pretty much as simple as that.

[pErvinalia]

I'm going to drag you further to the left, Jim! It's gunna happen!

[JimC]

I'm going to drag you further to the left, Jim! It's gunna happen!

I doubt it, since I've already occupied the only political position available to a truly rational person. One cannot improve on perfection...

[Warren Dew]

The "sex with children" thing is an interesting example. Most serious paedophiles have bucket-loads of child pornography on their computer, or subscribe to such sites. They may go through life never actually touching a live child, but in being part of the demand for child pornography, they create conditions where others hurt children for profit.

Exactly. rEv will of course bring up the cases where no actual children are involved, but that's exactly cognate to the hate speech cases where no actual violence occurs. If rEv were consistent about the "bigger societal picture", he would allow for banning of child pornography even if it doesn't involve actual children, just as he would allow for banning of hate speech even if it doesn't involve violence.

Me, I'd rather only ban the use of actual children in pornography, and the incitement of actual violence in speech. That way you can dispense with pornography possession and hate speech laws entirely.

[JimC]

The "sex with children" thing is an interesting example. Most serious paedophiles have bucket-loads of child pornography on their computer, or subscribe to such sites. They may go through life never actually touching a live child, but in being part of the demand for child pornography, they create conditions where others hurt children for profit.

Exactly. rEv will of course bring up the cases where no actual children are involved, but that's exactly cognate to the hate speech cases where no actual violence occurs. If rEv were consistent about the "bigger societal picture", he would allow for banning of child pornography even if it doesn't involve actual children, just as he would allow for banning of hate speech even if it doesn't involve violence.

Me, I'd rather only ban the use of actual children in pornography, and the incitement of actual violence in speech. That way you can dispense with pornography possession and hate speech laws entirely.

Your last two sentences contradict your earlier "exactly". All jurisdictions would ban "the use of actual children in pornography", so it doesn't really need mentioning. However, the point about accessing or possessing child pornography is that it directly supports and extends the actual use of real children in exploitative sex, which is the reason why it is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions.

If child pornography could be manufactured solely via computer generated avatars (which is conceivable in the future), such an argument would no longer be valid, though I'd still regard them as sick fucks...

[pErvinalia]

edit: fucking rant redacted.

Warren, looking at cartoon pictures of child porn (presumably) doesn't lead to any harm to anyone. If it did, then I would agree that it should be banned/regulated like hate speech. It's not fucking rocket science. Unless one is a conservative.