That’s just insane. I don’t have words for how wrong that is. Not every type of speech is legal in my country (for instance, threatening violence when you have the means to deliver on the threat is a crime in my state), but merely uttering a disrespectful word?
I’ll say it again, that’s insane.
They’d still need the help of the corporations to process it and to find meaning in it. The government can snap their fingers, but they are helpless when corporations don’t roll-over by 100%, and they’ll never do this.
It probably depends on who you look at. If you are male and another male looks at you for 5 seconds, this might be seen as an attempt to dominate the other, which will be replied to by looking away or escalation.
I mean yeah, putting a general time limit on how long to look at someone sounds weird, but I think it is just a reaction to a formerly toxic work environment. It’s not a great reaction, but unless everyone takes practical responsibility, it’s one of these things that will happen.
Personally, I don’t shy away from eye contact, but I’ve learned to somewhat negotiate between my own curiosity and the fears of others. I won’t look at a guy for too long, because I don’t want to make him afraid and the same counts for women. Not that their outfit, haircut, something in their face or whatever wouldn’t spark my curiosity to go beyond 5 seconds from time to time, but knowing the signs people show when they feel intimidated, I choose to not make their life hard. It’s a case by case base of course.
If you stare at someone for prolonged times and you see it makes them uncomfortable/anxious, you’re not a rebel, just the opposite of it. You follow the age old logic of “I’m gonna do whatever the fck I want no matter what it does to other people” and as such, you live in the past.
Introducing behavioural rules is a weak reply to problems we have, including sexual violence. The better solution for people who don’t want their daughters, mothers, girlfriends, female friends, colleaques, neighbors etc. to be raped, harassesed and made victims, is to come together as a community and take care of the few idiots who think we are still living in the stone age. Maybe just put them all together on an island or give them their own planet where they enjoy the company of their equally hatebreed peers.
P.S. if that didn’t become clear: I’m neither a fan of people becoming actual victims nor everyone assuming they could be victims (for realistic or unrealistic reasons). People should be strong, every single one of us. If I have to chose between being annoyed by people overly self-victimizing themselves and people becoming actually victims, I will unhappily choose the former. But actually I don’t like either options and the only solution to that is for everyone to grow a backbone and show strength in being good to other people.
No, it’s awesome.
You’re probably only seeing yourself caught in a dilemma with the justice system you have in the US. You would probably imprison every black man for using the n-word on themselves, but give only a fine to the white man when he uses it. That’s what’s insane.
No, it is insane.
Words do not cause harm. What causes harm is the emotional immaturity of the person who feels “offended”. People who need professional help, like depressive people, do not count in this argument. They need help.
For everyone else it is lack of emotional maturity. When all of society has to live by rules that only cater to a minority, eventually all of society turns into this minority and - over generations - the amount of censorship can only grow, because for the new people the “status quo” is simply not enough. See also "One More Nerf"™.
Censoring words, because they “hurt”, reinforces the idea that one is not responsible for his reactions.
Are you familiar with the works of Stefen Pinker. If not, I highly recomen that you look him up. The peoblem today is that we have a completely deranged perception of what is going on because the media obviously never reports on the good stuff that is happening.
He has a talk where he looks and a wide range of different metrics, like wealth, healthy, life expectency, happyness, etc. and the reality is, on a global average, they are all increasing. The problem is thst those processes are slow and don’t make good news and so we end up thinking the world falls apart because everything seems to get worse.
And most of those postive developmemts are in fact the result of a more or less working capitalism.
There are extremes on both ends. And what you describe as wrong with the left I would describe as moderate. The extreme left wants to get rid of capitalism and replace it with sitomething which has been shown to end in totalitarian states all the time.
There is no other working system. There never was.
I’m going to do whatever I want no matter how it affects someone else’s FEELINGS. As long as I’m not physically hurting them, or in some way affecting them materially, they have zero to say about it.
It’s as literal a definition of freedom as I can come up with. People do things I would not do and even things that I find to be rude or even disgraceful in front of me in public all the time, all day long. No part of me thinks I should be putting them in jail for it.
I work in a place where there are lots of foreign tourists mixed in with some rather unsavory domestic types. Many times I’ve had foreign tourist come up to me and report some kind of behavior to me that they thought I should do something about. Behavior that does not rise to the level of being criminal (I do ask, I say" “did you see anyone being touched physically” or "did it seem like the person was trying to steal something, to which the answer is always no).
They seem perplexed that I won’t do anything about it. I always think “wow, what’s it like in their country”. This thread reminds me of those days.
Do not do so again, or I will take action.
You are in no position to question my mental health. Furthermore doing so is inappropriate, a violation of forum rules regarding conduct towards other players, and legally defamation/libel.
Ill let this slide this time, but if you or anyone else tries this strategy again, Im reporting it to CCP without warning.
Every time you type you prove how ignorant you are. Let me guess, there are no black people where you are from?
You’re the one who catches bans, not me. Take what action you like, your behavior seems…Unusual to the point of being unhealthy to me.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean people may offend each other without consequences, there have to be boundaries, but ensuring those boundaries by law doesn’t solve anything if it fires back at freedom of speech.
In my country the word itself is not illegal, but if you use it in a derogatory context you’ll face charges, maybe prison time. It is actually pretty comparable to the law in your state. You could argue that a threat of violence is not the act itself, but it is clearly forbidden for the reason that the other has to assume it is real. The same goes for the derogatory use of certain words. If a person has reason to believe that you just expressed that you see him or her as a less valuable human being and depending on the specific word (its historic context etc.), you might express a willingness to physically harm them and/or derive them of their rights or break the law to their disadvantage because you don’t believe it applies to them, it is very similar to an attack. That plus the fact that most countries consider “honor” to be something that is worth protecting just as physical integrity.
In that sense what you try to call “disrespectful” is a breach of the silent contract of civilized peace we live in. Try this: walk up to a couple and call the wife the most harassing sexist word you can imagine. Let the wife or the husband beat you up and then go to court. Unless the violence in reply is considered too extreme, you will be considered the perpetrator, because you breached the peace.
“Disrespectful” is a completely different category. It means that you behave or speak to a person in a way that might make them feel uncomfortable or angry, but a normal person wouldn’t consider that a good reason for a violent reply. For instance, disrespectful would not be saying “hello” or shaking a hand that is offered to you. Using the “n-word” in derogatory way is not that. It’s a breach of peace.
There were times when people, who crossed a line, got bitchslapped in the face.
It worked perfectly.
It worked so well, the situation we have today could not actually happen. People would not dare to behave like they do now, because they knew it had actual consequences. Today, on the other hand, everyone chicken ■■■■ coward hides behind either a screen, or the government.
No bitchslapping some respect into them allowed anymore.
I’m sorry, but that exactly what freedom of speech means. I realize that a lot of you come from places without a strong tradition of freedom of speech.
the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Ah well… time to leave you alone again.
Curious to how far this will go when I am back again.
It might have something to do with everyone arming up and bitchslapping someone could get you stabbed or shot.
That is the case in the USA. China is the opposite.
They do it all the time. Intel and AMD chips have hardware backdoors, companies use(d) encryption with government backdoors, Windows 10 is a mass surveillance OS, Facebook and Google are willingly handing over data straight to the NSA.
If there’s profit in it, or it would harm their profits, US companies won’t think twice about helping their government as opposed to denying it. They’ll take the route of more profit, which is just doing what their government wants.
And why would they? The money is with clickbait and junk news. Sensationalizing of everything. Nobody wants to read about the good stuff. The money spent on it doesn’t produce any meaningful return. So why would a capitalist newspaper write about these things when they can make (much) more money with something else?
You can only ensure boundaries by law, because when you don’t and the fall out of an offense leads to other criminal offenses such as assault, then the intial offender goes free while the offended gets sentenced.
Simple example, someone offends you or your family with words and you punch them in the face. You get to face charges for assault, but the offender goes free.
Our law recognizes both acts and measures them against each other.
The Freedom of Speech in the US Constitution clearly excludes harassment and things said only to dishonor others. That’s the necessary compromise for having that right without destroying the society which allows it to exist.
Sure, they work hand in hand, but my point still is that the corporations are in control over what is being collected, and we don’t know what they’re giving to the government. They could be giving them false data, too, or only the part which serves them without harming their own business.