This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 99100101 102103 ... 243
3001
« on: November 25, 2015, 09:12:39 AM »
 Yes.
3002
« on: November 25, 2015, 09:10:35 AM »
Sincerely doubt it. They had close ties to Al-Qaeda during the Iraq War but that's about as close as they ever came to US funding.
3003
« on: November 24, 2015, 02:37:29 PM »
"I do not have evidence to substantiate my claims so I'm going to waffle several paragraphs that don't really get us anywhere intellectually."
Wew lad.
You have kinda done the same thing over the past few pages. This topic is really a matter of opinion. There is research showing support for and against censorship on varying levels. You may not like the idea of censorship, but it has been a part of your life forever. You experience it on a daily basis and it is probably largely overlooked.
There is no evidence to suggest that censorship works. Just because it has been implemented in Europe for several decades does not translate into something that can be interpreted as 'successful.' Drug criminalization has also been around for quite a while but that does not necessarily mean it has worked, or provided any benefits since its implementation.
3004
« on: November 24, 2015, 02:28:52 PM »
"I do not have evidence to substantiate my claims so I'm going to waffle several paragraphs that don't really get us anywhere intellectually." Wew lad.
3005
« on: November 24, 2015, 02:08:13 PM »
☆ＳＥＩＮＷＡＶＥ☆２０００☆
3006
« on: November 24, 2015, 01:59:05 PM »
t h e v i r t u a l p l a z a w i l l b e o p e n s h o r t l y
3007
« on: November 24, 2015, 01:53:54 PM »
nice A S S T E T I C S
3008
« on: November 24, 2015, 01:34:47 PM »
>he shitposts on a backwater spinoff of a videogame forum unironically
3009
« on: November 24, 2015, 01:28:34 PM »
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. That's not even close to being true. You've blatantly accused me of not understanding basic psychology Because you failed to acknowledge the answers I was providing which you have vehemently requested for several posts now. 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. 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. Literally when or what? " 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."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. Proof has already been provided. Don't know what else I can do to remedy your personal predicament of not understanding the evidence. 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. 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. 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. They do not. Question answered. 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. 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.
3010
« on: November 24, 2015, 11:24:48 AM »
An actual Battlefront game.
3011
« on: November 24, 2015, 11:21:58 AM »
I honestly don't even remember that much of it.
3012
« on: November 24, 2015, 11:12:48 AM »
Nah man. Uninformed voting is probably more dangerous than not voting.
3013
« on: November 24, 2015, 11:05:39 AM »
KEBAB REMOVER GOT FUKIGN REMOVED BY KEBOBS!!!!11
3014
« on: November 24, 2015, 10:55:28 AM »
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].
Did you even bother to read my links? 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. I don't know what else to say to you at this point. I've answered and responded to pretty much every one of your questions and points with empirical data and all you've done in response is say "nuh uh not true because I'm personally not affected by this" without also providing any assertions or evidence of your own to counteract what I'm saying.
3016
« on: November 24, 2015, 07:34:26 AM »
3017
« on: November 24, 2015, 07:07:23 AM »
and argument.
lel
fug :-DDDD
3018
« on: November 24, 2015, 07:01:45 AM »
You really need to get rid of this massive fucking chip on your shoulder. Being a sanctimonious prick does not constitute an argument.
3019
« on: November 24, 2015, 06:56:57 AM »
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.
3020
« on: November 24, 2015, 06:51:50 AM »
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.
Why? Partially arbitrary social rule is not unprecedented in law, what is a jury of peers.
Haven't got a fucking scooby what this is trying to say mate.
American law has never been absolutely concrete and has lended itself towards societal interpretation in plenty of contexts. If common citizens can assess guilt how can they not also assess what is and what is not offensive?
I'm just saying. If you're going to criminalize certain sects of speech deemed "offensive" then you may as well just go ahead and restrict everything else considered offensive seeing as how you've already started. If one group of people manages to get something banned then everyone else will more than likely get the bright idea of banning something they don't like.
3021
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:47:14 PM »
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.
I never said they didn't have a right to exist. They're simply a testament to how pointless speech restriction laws are in Europe. Myriad far right parties essentially just bastardize the swastika in attempt to get around the legislation restricting its usage, whilst simultaneously making ideologies such as Nazism more attractive.
3022
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:38:40 PM »
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Belgium
I fucking love Germany's law. "downplaying the acts", the fuck does that mean? Spreading the truth and clearing public misconceptions is illegal? Oy vey my 6 million, Goy.
*600 gorillion you filthy goy. this hate talk is like a second shoah
3023
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:25:41 PM »
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.
3024
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:22:23 PM »
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Belgium
3025
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:15:40 PM »
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."
How about we stop clamping down on anything like a bunch of intellectual pussies hiding behind Big Daddy Gubbamint's boots?
If an idea must be silenced because it is "damaging" or "dangerous" to the prevailing worldview, that pretty clearly indicates a problem with the prevailing worldview. If an idea cannot defend itself from all others through discourse, it isn't a very good idea.
I believe our liberal society can defend itself well enough without us resorting to beating down "subversives".
Simmer down fam. I was using Islam to illustrate how retarded Flee's argument is.
3026
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:13:52 PM »
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.
3027
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:03:47 PM »
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.
Why? Partially arbitrary social rule is not unprecedented in law, what is a jury of peers.
Haven't got a fucking scooby what this is trying to say mate.
3028
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:01:30 PM »
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."
3029
« on: November 23, 2015, 05:53:29 PM »
choice meme
3030
« on: November 23, 2015, 05:43:42 PM »
 NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH NO BODY NO DEATH
Pages: 1 ... 99100101 102103 ... 243
|
Show Posts
