inb4Fleeruinsanothermarvelthreadonceagain

This actually looks pretty decent.

Quote from: Flee on November 25, 2015, 07:04:40 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 25, 2015, 06:09:16 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 24, 2015, 10:36:14 AM

role with the punches

Well I'll be fucked.

How's the police state going?

Pretty alright. Threat level lowered in all of the country except for Brussels. Campus reopens today after being closed Monday and Tuesday.

Professionally?

Get my second Master's in IT and IP law.
Hopefully get a job at this great research center for Interdisciplinary IT and IP Law that's linked to my university.
Hopefully get the chance to work on a doctorate and get a PhD.

That's about it so far.

4 hours for me tonight. Not looking forward to it.

This definitely deserves more attention. I was aware of this but didn't realize the magnitude of the problem and the more recent institutionalised nature of the persecuting and bloodshed.

If you're well aware of the potential side effects incurred from restriction on speech then I'm not really sure why you're arguing for such a notion when you haven't provided any kind of benefits with the exception of 'less people will end up hearing it.' I've supplied you with evidence. You haven't. Nothing much more to say on it really.

No, you have not supplied me with evidence. Evidence would be showing me that more people adhere to these extremist ideas if they're censored than if they're allowed to spread their ideas freely. Evidence is showing me that by restricting a certain group from inciting hate publicly, the amount of people who end up supporting the group and its ideas would be larger than if you'd let them appear on national television, radio and magazines to call for hate and discrimination against these groups. The reason for this is because you can't, as this evidence does not exist. I'm still waiting for you to actually make a worthwhile point and show me that we're better off letting hate speech and incitement to violence and discrimination go unrestricted. And seeing how you can't do that, you're right in saying that there's nothing much more to say on it.

You are the one positing regulation on speech, not me. You asked me why the far right populist parties have gained so much traction within recent years and I provided contextual psychological evidence as to how it may be happening. If you want me to stop treating you like a 'moron,' or whatever it is you seem to think I'm doing here perhaps you should stop acting like one and listen to what I'm saying.

But you don't have anything even remotely valuable to say. "Oh boy, far right is on the rise. This surely has nothing to do with the increased multicultularism in our society, the higher rates of immigration and a response to a predominantly pro-EU and left-leaning policies, but it's all to blame on restrictions of freedom of speech despite the fact that these have existed for decades". Give me a break. That is a piss poor argument and you know it. Unless you have actual evidence to suggest that this is the case (which, again, you don't), then why should I even bother with this? As I already mentioned to Slash, there exist dozens of cases where taking the wind out of the sails of people spreading hate and violence resorted in their message becoming lost and not reaching as many people as it otherwise would. Are there still racists out there who think all niggers should be lynched in the streets? Of course. But on the other hand, it is now far harder from them to find a mutual platform for this and there no longer exists an openly racist party spreading these hateful ideas through mass media which reaches thousands.

Answers were provided several posts back. If we already agree that censorship is harmful and the only exception that should be taken towards speech is incitement to violence then I really don't know why we're having this discussion. Because you failed to acknowledge the answers I was providing which you have vehemently requested for several posts now.

Again, you have provided zero answers to my questions. Do you or do you not have any evidence to suggest that preventing certain groups and people from inciting hate, discrimination, inequality and even violence has resulted in their message reaching and affecting even more people than it would've had there existed no restrictions on their speech? The answer is that you don't. And as such, I'm going to continue questioning your idea that leaving it all to run its course is the best possible action to take. This is a practice that has existed in Europe for decades and that has seen the support of our most brilliant judges and legal experts who agree that it is desirable to on this continent restrict the freedom of expression for certain reasons, under certain conditions and with several safeguards in place, because it avoids the message gathering more supporters. So unless you actually have any evidence at all to suggest that this is all wrong and that the only thing censorship results in is more extremism, more hate and the easier spread of these incitements, I'm gonna believe the opposite which makes sense to me and the thousands of far better educated men involved in this.

So what the fuck is it you're even trying to argue at this point? Your initial contention was 'restriction on speech is sometimes necessary' in which I subsequently responded with empirical data as to how lucratively damaging it can be to implement such kinds of restrictions. Now you're back-pedalling and claiming that censorship is bad? Either restriction on speech is bad or it isn't. If restriction is beneficial counteract my evidence with evidence of your own, and stop whining about erroneous claims of misrepresenting your argument.

If that is what you got out of my argument in which I did everything I could to make my point clear short of putting it in a single all caps sentence, then I really do wonder why we're even discussing this. If you can't grasp the nuances of my post and only gather "censorship is either completely good or bad" from it, then this all really is pointless.

"Certain restrictions on free speech have been globally accepted for about 70 years now, and I haven't noticed my society getting much closer to a dictatorial rule of what I can or cannot criticise."

What quality reading comprehension if you take that as me saying that censorship is all good "because it doesn't affect me".
 

Proof has already been provided. Don't know what else I can do to remedy your personal predicament of not understanding the evidence.

Lol. Just lol. Providing research that suggests there may be downsides to censorship absolutely does not equal answering my actual question that I've posed 4 times now.

The concept underlying censorship always sounds reasonable. That's the problem with it. People like yourself treat dangerous ideas like a viral pathogen. You can't quarantine them or kill them, like germs, because ideas are like a vast, rushing body of water that will uproot checkpoints and reconfigure a landscape if barriers are placed in its way. In fact, the history of speech restriction shows that it is completely useless in stamping out ideas: the fastest way to spread an idea is to censor it. The best way to destroy an idea is to address it in open discourse. This is incontestable.

Fortunately we can do both and properly address hate speech while simultaneously stopping the  message from potentially gathering increasing amounts of supporters.

They do not. Question answered.

What a quality and reasoned response based on the mountains of irrefutable evidence you're providing.

When you leave an idea unchallenged from a dissenting opinion for so long the only outcome you're going to get is a vitalized position of extremist beliefs that have been unchecked for so long nobody can even fucking contest it.

As I said above, we fortunately can do both. I also haven't really seen any of these extremist positions that are now beyond contesting simply because its spreading was regulated.

On that note, I'm gonna call quits on this argument. There's no real evidence to support your position and other than numerous single instances of certain restrictions having good results, neither is there for mine. There's not much of a point in continuing this discussion as it's not going to lead us anywhere. If you would actually find evidence to answer my question in your favor, send me a PM. I'm always trying to keep an open mind and am very open to evidence to the contrary. But this is just taking up a bit too much of my time that I could spend on other things. Good talk nevertheless.

Did you even bother to read my links?

I most definitely did. I just wonder if you actually read my posts too. I already said that censorship can very well lead to people becoming more curious about the exact message that was restricted in one way or another. Not once did I contest that or imply anything different, so I'm a little confused as to why you are insisting on shoehorning me into a position I do not hold.

Linguistic restriction elicits responses in people that causes curiosity in a belief they were discouraged, and perhaps even coerced into not adopting. It is a psychological response called reactance, and happens even in incremental restrictions in speech.

Again, I do not contest that these are potential side effects of restrictions on the freedom of speech. This is the third time I've tried making that clear, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop attacking a point that I'm not making or accuse me of being an uneducated moron on some of the most basic principles of psychology.

I don't know what else to say to you at this point.

You know, actually give me the answer to the question I have been asking all along rather than misconstruing my argument and pretending that you've made an excellent point when you've done nothing but address a fringe element of my argument that I actually agree with you on.

I've answered and responded to pretty much every one of your questions and points with empirical data

That's not even close to being true. You've blatantly accused me of not understanding basic psychology and are now pretending that I implied censorship could never lead to certain people's curiosity being sparked by, again, posting data on something that I never even contested in the first place.

and all you've done in response is say "nuh uh not true because I'm personally not affected by this"

Literally when or what? If you're going to make these outlandish accusations of a misconstrued argument you're pretending that I've made, at least back it up with an actual quote.

without also providing any assertions or evidence of your own to counteract what I'm saying.

That's primarily because I'm simply questioning your statement. Burden of proof and all that. You're the one claiming that restrictions to free speech do nothing but cause extremism. You're the one who is boldly stating that European far right parties are a testament to our laws regarding free speech which according to you result in these parties thriving and more people falling for their ideology. I am still waiting for you to provide any sort of proof that backs this up.

I can't make it any clearer than this. I already said it twice, but let's hope that third time is indeed the charm. Not once have I argued against the possible effect of sparking curiosity that restrictions to free speech can carry. Not once have I suggested that restricting a certain expression will make it so that no one is going to interested in hearing about it. My entire point that you have ignored pretty much this entire time is that you should look at the bigger picture. By censoring the hate speech and incitement to violence and inequality that a certain group spreads, it is indeed very likely that some people will be more curious than they were before. But the real question is whether this reverse effect would result in more extremists adhering to those ideologies than if the group was allowed to simply continue on. Imagine that they publish a magazine, spread leaflets, send out newsletters, have a radio channel and appear on television shows, always calling for hate, violence and discrimination. By taking those platforms away, you might have people still searching for their ideas, but it seems reasonable to assume that they're going to reach significantly less people that way than if they'd still be allowed to spread their message freely.

And that is my entire point that you have consistently failed to even address or recognize. I'm well aware of the possible side effects of censorship. I am simply questioning whether these side effects are so significant that they outweigh the upsides of these restrictions. Because you might have a few hundreds people say "this is outrageous, let me go indulge in their ideology just because they're banned", but that is a price worth paying when it means that thousands of others pay no attention to it, which is something they might not have done had the message been on the news, magazines and radio.

So please, stop misconstruing my argument and pretending that you're actually addressing my point by hammering on the same vague psychological notions that I don't even contend. If you want to trash my argument, actually show me definitive and current proof that these restrictions to free speech do nothing but cause harm, foster extremism and are directly responsible for the far right racist and nazi ideologies in Europe that would otherwise be basically non-existent had there not existed any restrictions on free speech.

While I do agree that people here can be unnecessarily hostile to one another and that it might help our (active) member count if some could be a little nicer to new members, you do need a bit of a thick skin to deal with a forum like this. Pretty much every veteran member on here gets shit for one thing or another, whether it's because you're gay/weeb/brony/black/jew/trans/religious or something else entirely. We've already established that the mods take action when it gets to the point of being too personal or downright harassment, but otherwise you just have to roll with the punches. The single worst thing you can do is take it to heart and actually start drama to try and get people to stop, as this will only make things worse. If you just let it go, people will eventually settle and aside from the occasional "god's not real" or "horsefucker" comment, no one will give two fucks anymore.

As Psy said, learn to laugh at yourself and not take yourself too seriously. It'll help you a ton, both on here and elsewhere.

Quote from: Flee on November 24, 2015, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: Mordo on November 24, 2015, 06:56:57 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 07:11:10 PM

And if anything, they are a testament to the fact that the European restrictions to free speech do not stifle actual political discussion even with far right parties.

No, it just invigorates extremism.

[citation needed]

Unless you can actually show me that there would somehow be less right wing parties that openly advocate nazism, racism and hate against minorities if there existed no restrictions on free speech, I'm gonna call doubts on that claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/21/barack-obama-and-the-psychology-of-the-birther-myth/the-echo-chamber-effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=65
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103173900723
I honestly thought you would've been more educated on this Flee.

None of that answers my question and most of that is irrelevant, though. It provides absolutely no proof that restricting certain forms of expression results in an increase of people resorting to extremist beliefs as opposed to letting them flourish freely.

Yes, I am familiar with the Streisand effect and the concepts of group polarization and reactance, yet I don't see how they support the idea that censorship fosters extremism. Sure, a small amount of people will be triggered by the censorship and read more about the extremist ideology about it. But I find it likely to assume that the amount of people who do so is going to be smaller than the amount that would actually get into the ideology had it been allowed to be spread freely. Additionally, not all of the people who seek out the information end up supporting it afterwards and I reckon that many will agree with it being censored.

So, I'll just say it again. Despite the psychological effects you linked earlier, I still find it to make a lot more sense that restricting open, public and widespread calls for hate, discrimination, inequality and violence ends up discouraging and decreasing the amount of people who end up supporting, adhering to and potentially acting on the ideology. While censorship might result in some people reading into it just because it's censored, I don't think the harm caused by this reactance outweighs the opposite. And unless you can give me some actual proof to the contrary rather than a handful of very general and not particularly relevant psychological concepts, I'm still gonna go ahead and say [citation needed].

Yeah, if Flee can't convincingly make his argument, I'm inclined to stick to my guns: under no circumstance should speech be limited.

My argument is really pretty simple.

Not all freedoms are considered absolute and free speech is rarely one of them. Under certain conditions, for certain purposes and with certain safeguards in place, it is sometimes acceptable and even desirable that a person's ability to express certain ideas in a certain way is limited by law. This is a virtually universally accepted truth by legal scholars that is backed up by our most fundamental treaties, conventions and constitutions regarding human rights.

It is and will always be a question of balancing different interests and human rights, and it sometimes is desirable for the freedom of expression to give way in order to protect other interests. Examples of this are myriad in both of our societies. We limit certain ways of expression as they have negative consequences for public order or decency (think of spreading child pornography or publishing a book detailing how to successfully abduct, rape and kill a kid, which can be prohibited on grounds of outright obscenity). We limit others to protect security and safety (do not yell "fire" in a crowded theater, do not incite masses of people to take up arms and attack a certain person or group of people, do not make direct threats). We limit our right to free speech to protect economic interests (copyright restrictions, intellectual property and non-disclosure rules). We accept restrictions to protect the reputation, dignity and well-being of others (laws regarding defamation, libel and slander, bullying, vocal harassment). We restrict in what way broadcasting companies and the press can express themselves in shows and news. We very often take measures not against the content of the speech but the way it is being expressed (you may have the right to call Obama a Muslim lizardman, but you can't always do that at 4 in the morning with a microphone in the middle of the street). We accept everyone's right to demonstrate and picket, but that may be subject to certain regulations and the acquisition of a permit. Based on this, it should be clear that these accusations of a slippery slope are largely unfounded. Your own freedom of expression has been restricted in several different ways for decades and yet you aren't any closer to being hung for questioning Obama's policies.

In light of what happened during the WWII, Europe codified some of those restrictions to ensure that something like that would never happen again. Radical and harmful ideologies that may pose a real threat to our democratic and pluralistic society founded on the principles of equality, human dignity, freedom and the rule of law can therefore be addressed when certain conditions are met. This is not in arbitrary support of hurt feelings when someone says something shocking or offensive. This is not to protect the feeble minds of those who cry persecution when faced with legitimate criticism. It is a case-by-case concrete balancing exercise of weighing different interests and rights to protect what our society stands for.

I do not advocate the arbitrary banning of what might be offensive to some people. I definitely don't support restricting people's ability to voice their legitimate concerns and criticisms. But I do fully believe that under certain conditions, with certain safeguards in place (independent judiciary overview, based on a law) and for a select few purposes, it can be acceptable and even desirable to restrict in what way people can express certain ideologies that can be particularly harmful to our society. I do not expect anyone here to agree with me, as this is a notable cultural difference. Most of you are American and live in a country that never endured the same challenges or hardships when it comes to this. It's easy to proclaim the absolute values and merits of a completely free speech when one of its most horrible outcomes did not take place in your own society but on the other side of the world almost a century ago. As such, I do think that there is little to nothing wrong with the nations here accepting certain reasonable restrictions on a person's freedom of expression.

And you can rightfully persecute them when they have commited those acts or given further evidence outside of speech on committing those acts

"Rightfully", you can prosecute them for the spreading of those ideas too. As I already said, it's very well accepted that the right to free speech is not absolute and can be subject to restrictions. Regardless, I hold the opinion that acting proactively and addressing those who seek to incite these feelings and actions with others is acceptable and probably more effective than waiting.

Now this is a slippery slope

"Allowing people to spread hateful ideas means that it definitely will result in people acting on them" would be a slippery slope. I am merely suggesting that it is more likely that when those ideas are spread freely and without restriction, someone will act on them in one way or another. I feel that it only stems to reason that allowing a very popular radio station to constantly talk about how brown people are all nigger cockroaches that rightfully deserve to be hurt and eradicated by whoever is around, does increase the odds of someone adopting the idea and actually acting on it.

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:24:29 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:13:52 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:08:25 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:01:30 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AM

Pretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.

Such as?

Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.

You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.

We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.

And that makes it right?

For good enough reasons? Sure.

I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.

The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.

You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."

We're not talking about thought here, we're talking about speech and expression. It's only when those Islamic ideas go to far that they need to be addressed, as is the case for any other type of speech.

I'm not sure why you think censorship is the appropriate response to addressing radical speech though. Tackling speech through subversive means only galvanizes the idea's being espoused and gives people a victim status to latch on to.

History has shown otherwise, though. In theory it sounds perfectly reasonable to assume that any restrictions will just create martyrs and light the fire of the "victims" spirts to fight harder, but that does not really seem to be the case as measures taken often do seem to be effective at preventing certain ideologies from gathering large amounts of followers.

The continual rise of populist far right parties in Europe would like a word.

Far right parties have as much of a right to exist as other parties. It's perfectly possible to be right wing without being racist, inciting violence or spreading hate speech.

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:05:44 PM

Quote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 05:57:29 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AM

Pretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.

Such as?

Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.

You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.

We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.

And that makes it right?

For good enough reasons? Sure.

I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.

The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.

Funny, Hitler felt the same way when he shut down subversive elements like Bolshevism within Germany.

Hitler was also 75 years ago in a completely different age and society. This is a slippery slope.

"muh slippery slope" is not a fallacy when discussing social and policy change which is, surprise, drawn out and gradual.

You're gonna have to do better than that. Certain restrictions on free speech have been globally accepted for about 70 years now, and I haven't noticed my society getting much closer to a dictatorial rule of what I can or cannot criticise.

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AM

Pretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.

Such as?

Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.

You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.

We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.

And that makes it right?

For good enough reasons? Sure.

I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.

The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.

You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."

We're not talking about thought here, we're talking about speech and expression. It's only when those Islamic ideas go to far that they need to be addressed, as is the case for any other type of speech.

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PM

Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AM

Pretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.

Such as?

Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.

You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.

We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.

And that makes it right?

For good enough reasons? Sure.

I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.

The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.