You're viewing a single thread.
Almost as if the threat of criminal prosecution is all we need for those who break the social contract for their own personal gain and self aggrandizement to rescind their shitty views and cower in a corner pissing themselves.
Take your TERF bullshit and shove it all the way up inside your butthole.
She isn't facing a criminal prosecution.
She could, this is not a civil lawsuit. This is a criminal complaint, the state prosecutor will decide if she should face criminal charge or not.
Unfortunately.
Gross.
Fine. Civil litigation and threats against her royalty checks in France.
Yet
I am sure your ardent support for thought policing will never backfire!
Her thoughts, such as they are, are not at issue here.
You can't control my thoughts! Even medicines can't control MY thoughts!
The thought in question is that a specific group of people should stop existing. I'm sure that won't backfire either.
First they came for the TERFs, and I said nothing. Because fuck TERFs
When you have a thought that isn't just an echo in that empty skull the "thought police" will come for you.
The first amendment only applies in America.
In a healthy society people can have different opinions.
This is all fine, but I should be able to say "A is B", where A is a person, a group, an idea, even anything in the things listed, and B is any kind of insult.
People calling for criminal prosecution over words are insecure and cowardly. And the small feeling of domination they get if things go they way is sufficient to make it unacceptable.
"Won't someone rid me of this turbulent poster?"
And if I had a large enough following for some folks to take action and they started threatening or hunting you down, you'd still be A-OK with what I said right? They're just words! As another example, you must have no problem with dictators like Stalin or Hitler, because they didn't personally kill anyone, they just used their words!
That's the difference. When you have a large enough following, what you say on online platforms ceases to be "just words" they become a call to action, even if that wasn't your intent. This is a pretty new concept in humanity, that some of us can reach hundreds of thousands to millions with a single message. You can't treat it the same as a regular person just stating their opinion. This isn't a schoolyard or barroom debate anymore. When you have people that are obsessed and hang on your every word, then your simple insults toward groups become a demonization of that group and has wide reaching effects
Try thinking just the tiniest bit past your own mouth.
Calls to action are fine. We have to do that sometimes. To call people to come to streets, to take arms, to disobey governments.
All these can and will be equal in law to things like this.
Try thinking past the examples you personally like more.
This is a pretty new concept in humanity, that some of us can reach hundreds of thousands to millions with a single message.
In Gutenberg's times something like this would be said.
This isn’t a schoolyard or barroom debate anymore. When you have people that are obsessed and hang on your every word, then your simple insults toward groups become a demonization of that group and has wide reaching effects
... But those abusing this are never prosecuted, despite laws and rules still being there.
... But those abusing this are never prosecuted, despite laws and rules still being there.
This is... The comments section of a tweet explaining more details from where someone is being prosecuted for literally that.
No, they are about someone being prosecuted for expressing an absolutely normal point of view.
Yes, making shit up about someone and starting a hate campaign because you don't like a certain group of people is certainly "an absolutely normal point of view". /s
Yes, it's what your ideological buddies do all the time. So pick one, either it's normal or maybe you shouldn't. In the latter case please invent a mechanism which would stop you when you yourself don't see that. If you can't, then I've won.
Whatever bub.
Ok boomer.
- Some things don't change over decades and even centuries, 2) I'm 28.
Big Boomer Energy
A) what?
- Huh?
D- your list is atrocious
valuing personal liberty over collective liberty is both selfish and less conducive to a functioning society.
There's no such thing as collective liberty without personal liberty.
Also when person A says to person B "kill C" and B kills C, you don't have to prosecute speech to punish A. They've made a request, or a command, which B follows.
There's countries where the personal right to not be harassed is valued higher than the right to harass people. France is one of them. UK as well I believe.
You also don't get to spread lies about someone and make them a target.
There’s countries where the personal right to not be harassed is valued higher than the right to harass people. France is one of them. UK as well I believe.
Completely irrelevant who wrote what in which law.
You also don’t get to spread lies about someone and make them a target.
Telling lies is an attack on the listener. To determine lies in specific situations is sometimes a problem.
ok dismiss it without thinking about it. I guess things like human rights theory are wrong about individual and collective rights.
Theory can be objective on something objectively existing. Theory of a thing in itself can't be right or wrong.
Apparently when internet commenters want to argue my opinions, the best of them decide not to.
This 28 year old libertarian has it all figured out, everyone else can go home now
Not it all, just you
What's the difference between a request or a command and speech?
Well, if one gets me in trouble, then i did the other.
One is participating in a decision, another is all communication.
Do you ever have to use anything to augment your vision when you're splitting hairs that fine?
One has to split them that fine as a civilized human.
Because free speech is not about letting people you agree to disagree with speak, it's about letting people you'd want quartered speak. That is, not deciding whether they speak at all.
It's defamation (libel since it was written), so that would be a criminal offense.
Pulling some laws is completely irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. What you said, is that it should be perfectly fine to insult someone, and within certain parameters it is. You can say all sorts of insulting things about people. What you cannot do, however, is say things that are not true that would also jeopardize future earnings, freedom, and or their safety (essentially to do harm to a person). Beyond that Rowling is a public figure with a large audience which means she is, or should be aware that her comments have a greater influence than the general public. She made ignorant and mean comments, with the intent to harm the reputation of Imane Khelif as well as jeopardize her competitive status in boxing and furthermore her current and future earning potential. Beyond that, with all the fervor this has caused, Rowlings comments could have put Imane's safety at risk. That's certainly not trivial, nor irrelevant.
What you cannot do, however, is say things that are not true that would also jeopardize future earnings, freedom, and or their safety (essentially to do harm to a person).
Agreed.
My incentive to argue that this is not a limitation of speech is that if you use this as an argument that limitation of speech is OK, then that'll spread to other possible limitations of speech. While this can be banned similarly to how poisoning people being illegal is not a legal limitation of cuisine.
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
My point is that you can't ban people who in your opinion are wrong. "For the general good" is not a justification, pun intended since we are discussing Rowling.
She made ignorant and mean comments, with the intent to harm the reputation of Imane Khelif as well as jeopardize her competitive status in boxing and furthermore her current and future earning potential. Beyond that, with all the fervor this has caused, Rowlings comments could have put Imane’s safety at risk. That’s certainly not trivial, nor irrelevant.
Yes, I've read up on this now more attentively and realized that it's about complete misinformation. See, if IK were a transgender, there would be reasons to argue whether she's eligible. Men are physically stronger than women, gender affirming medications and surgeries do not change that completely (depending on age of transition I guess).
My brain just couldn't accept that the whole argument is about some rumor or weird idea that this is the case.
However, I maintain this :
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
You're using the free speech rhetoric. No one is saying speech is illegal. However, there are well defined limitations to free speech, you can't use it to inflict real tangible harm. You can be arrested for falsely yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. Similarly, hate speech is an offense as it can incite violence. Most reasonable people can use their words without crossing those lines. I think it says a lot about Rowling that, as an author, she couldn't manage not to cross those very well defined lines.
Edit: spelling
so a celebrity with millions of fans or a politician saying something like "white people are blood sucking vermin that are violent and dangerous" is a-ok, is it?
or a politician saying something like “white people are blood sucking vermin that are violent and dangerous” is a-ok, is it?
I mean, if by "white people" (American bullshit categories) they mean Europeans from ex-colonial cultures (including Americans), then that's about right. So yeah, many times yes.
way to go against your own advocacy there and completely miss the point of the question.
what if the definitive word was "black" instead?
way to go against your own advocacy there
You don't know what my "advocacy" is. You've imagined some bullshit because your American brain is too atrophied to actually think.
what if the definitive word was “black” instead?
About right too, there are many bad places in Africa.
I'm not American, not even close. but that shouldn't be a surprise since you have a knack for being wrong about everything.
also you clearly don't know what words mean, so i don't think anyone can take you seriously about what's free speech or not.
so i don’t think anyone can take you seriously about what’s free speech or not.
Anyone of people who'd usually talk to you for more than one time - surely.
Just go away, you're a fool.
I never said people should "agree to disagree", and people should debate opinions they think are bad. A good debate can show strengths and weaknesses of arguments.
People have tried this for ages. It has not worked. These bigots are not debating in good faith. The only response is the verbal or legal equivalent of bapping them on the nose with a newspaper and going, "NO! BAD!"
Debate does not work if they are not arguing in good faith
While i agree with the spirit of what you're saying here, I'd just like to add that's it is important to not let these bad faith arguments go unanswered. Anybody that reads the conversation later on will (hopefully) see one side is trying to have a debate/conversation, while the other side is basically full of it.
What is the advantage of someone arguing in bad faith?
Isn't labeling someone "bad faith" just an excuse not to respond in a considered manner?
Arguing in bad faith is advantageous because your arguments are able appeal to existing biases or emotional responses or "common sense." Those biases, emotional responses, and "common sense" are by definition conservative and populist and so they hurt marginalized groups and stand in the way of progress. A rational debate requires a certain level of disconnected and objective reasoning, which bad faith arguments do not do. It also requires the principle of charity, where you interpret your opponent's argument in the most charitable way rather than rejecting it outright or latching on to some detail they got wrong. Bad faith arguments don't do that either.
This is why uneducated people and people with limited life experience are more likely to be conservative as well, they only know the default culture they absorbed through their existence, and new ideas are scary. They're scary for everyone, at first, but progressives are just people who have become accustomed to them and allowed their knee jerk reactions to succumb to reason.
Thanks for your comments on bad faith arguments, listening and responding to the opponent is essential for a decent discussion.
Bad faith arguments are probably prioritising publicising their own opinion, rather than trying to change others (or their own).
If your goal is to win an argument, then using bad faith offers no advantage.
If your goal is just to do whatever the fuck you want, to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives, or to badger people into giving up the exchange, then arguing in bad faith is highly resistant to considered arguments and offers a never-ending supply of counters.
do whatever the fuck you want,
Here, not engaging has no effect.
to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives,
Yes, if the hidden motives are to irritate, waste time or troll the other person
or to badger people into giving up the exchange,
Here it's more the other way around. The bad faith accuser gets to quit while claiming victory. If someone's arguments are not logical then they should just be called out.
A persons existence and identity are not opinions. There is no debate there. It's just bigotry.
By doing so you're validating those opinions and giving fringe nut job opinions the same airtime (and therefore the same weight and import) as non bat shit opinions.
The BBC is particularly bad for this, in the interest of being "balanced" they give climate change denier loons space alongside highly researched climate scientists. That's not balance though, because it makes it seem like the loons views are just as valid as the scientists.
Ok debate the strengths and weaknesses of "you don't get to live"
Go.
Did JK Rowling actually say that?
Of course not, she just believes in protections for "natal" women, or at least that's where all this started. The reaction to that seemed to radicalise her, which is a pattern I'm seeing a lot of.
Once you’re cast out of the group you’re in, you either embrace the other outsiders or you go it alone. It’s Sherwood Forest writ large.
If you wanted to "debate"something like whether black people have lower IQ based on their head shape, we'd rightfully call you a racist piece of shit.
There's nothing to debate when it comes to how Rowling attacked a non-trans person, stated that she was a man who enjoyed beating up women, and led a public campaign against her using her influence.
What exactly is the point that you think is up for debate?
Didn't give oxygen to shitty ideas
It's an equivalent idea.
Why aren't people more tolerant of Nazi beliefs?
Would you tolerate someone trying to kill you?
When your differing opinion threatens a whole group of people it has no place in a healthy society.
As a German, we are taught that every worst nightmare begins with people shaming other ppl for their race, ethnicity or beliefs. And if you call that you're belief, you are at the other side of the tolerance paradox and that means every action to further your opinion is and should be considered a crime.
That's why saying all that fucked up stuff about Rothschild should lead you straight to prison. It's not a worldview anymore, it's a fucked up mental state and a wildfire waiting to undermine democratic principles.
Hang on. Why should a certain surname shield someone from criticism.
Idk if you have looked into all that fucked up stuff ppl say about Rothschild, but most of it is just insane conspiracy theories and the majority of them have been thoroughly debunked multiple times.
No one is exempt from criticism, but no one is allowed to continuously defame ppl from a specific family name without having hard evidence. There is no evidence there.
This is called defamation.
And considering what some ppl say about the Rothschild family, they are making criminal threats and intimidations. With no basis at all.
So
why should a certain surname shield someone from criticism?
Because at this point it's defamation and sometimes it's also reaching into criminal conduct. Both are actionable because they are outside of the first amendment protections.
And on a personal note: accusing a family of awful things over the span of centuries is what I call absolutely disgusting and inhumane. You're not a bad person, just because of your last name. At least not in my world.
It was the introduction of a specific family name into this discussion about TERFs that was strange.
Whilst I agree no-one should be targeted because of their surname, I also think it shouldn't act as a shield.
A rich, organised group of people who, through their investments, have invisible influence over large parts of the world's industry, banking and media should certainly be not be beyond discussion.
I brought this up as an example, to make you understand how a family can be hunted merely because of their name, not because of what the actual people in it do.
If you say "the Rothschilds are this powerful manipulative family" that's fucked up. If you tell me which people you mean it's easier to debunk it, but this thinking of groups makes conspiracy theories stick like tar to a group of people of whom the majority won't have anything to do with it anyway.
This family is off limits for me in many ways because to be blunt ppl use them as a scapegoat for basically the same fucked up ideologies and actions that got us started with the Nazis in the third reich.
I'm gonna be honest here, you trying to regurgitate the same reasons why they've been basically hunted by extreme right wing nuts makes me vomit. It also makes me suspect you're trying to instigate something as well and I don't appreciate that.
I know you want a nuanced discussion but this is not the time nor the subject for that. There's a lot of powerful people, and if you at least read up on the awful conspiracy theories and how they are easily debunked, you will realize how fucked up it is to reiterate the reasons making them a target.
https://time.com/6311698/antisemitism-conspiracy-theories-rothschild/
Oh and if you're one of those people trying to put another target on the backs of a whole family tree, then I think we're done talking. No one deserves to be under constant threat for their last name, no exceptions.
I brought this up as an example, to make you understand how a family can be hunted merely because of their name
Which is strange because we are discussing an Olympic athlete suing a TERF.
If you say "the Rothschilds are this powerful manipulative family" that's fucked up.
So don't say that then. I certainly didn't write that quote.
This family is off limits for me in many ways because to be blunt ppl use them as a scapegoat for basically the same fucked up ideologies and actions that got us started with the Nazis in the third reich.
Oh yes. Targeting people because they are Jewish is certainly wrong. But family members of the Rothschilds are as open to just as much criticism as the Rockefellers or the Murdochs.
I'm gonna be honest here, you trying to regurgitate the same reasons why they've been basically hunted by extreme right wing nuts makes me vomit.
I've regurgitated nothing. You are the one pushing an irrelevant topic and using fake quotes to trying and start an antisemitic argument.
It also makes me suspect you're trying to instigate something as well and I don't appreciate that.
Pure projection. This thread is about JK Rowling and Imane Khelif.
There's a lot of powerful people, and if you at least read up on the awful conspiracy theories and how they are easily debunked, you will realize how fucked up it is to reiterate the reasons making them a target.
Again, it's only you repeatedly mentioning conspiracy theories.
No one deserves to be under constant threat for their last name, no exceptions.
Agreed. And to reiterate my original point made in response to your irrelevant interjection, no-one gets to avoid criticism just because they happen to have a particular last name.
In a healthy society people have the critical thinking skills you lack.
The differing opinion being that a group of people shouldn't exist?
Yeah, totally. That sounds like a healthy society to me!
Go fuck yourself.
Yeah, I also think it's a massive euphemism to call bigoted lies and delusions "a differing opinion."
intolerance is not an opinion. it's aggression. in a healthy society, intolerance cannot be tolerated.
Yes. A healthy society, however, does not include respecting delusions and bigoted lies. Not even if people call them "opinions."
People's right to exist is not a matter of opinion. It is an affront to the basic social constructs upon which all of our society is built.
It's amazing the lengths people will go to defend billionaire Nazi shit bags.
Go bootlick somewhere else.
In a healthy society people can see that there is a difference between holding an opinion, and bullying or slandering someone.
As long as it does not infringe on another's right to be treated with respect and as an equal.
Can you believe how much this has been downvoted, it's beyond satire.
Maybe it's being downvoted because it completely ignored the paradox of tolerance.