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.

Quote from: Mordo on November 24, 2015, 08:35:01 AM

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].

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.

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.

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.

I personally don't think the state should be able to limit free speech in either case.

Question. For anyone really...
If a man was standing on a street corner talking about how attracted he is to 6-9 year old girls, how much they turn him on and what have you, would it be okay for the police to arrest him? Would it be okay for him to then be put under surveillance for expressing his sexual desires?

"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.

Quote from: Ginger on November 24, 2015, 02:28:40 PM

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 24, 2015, 02:23:22 PM

Quote from: Ginger on November 24, 2015, 02:11:04 PM

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 01:01:57 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.

I personally don't think the state should be able to limit free speech in either case.

Question. For anyone really...
If a man was standing on a street corner talking about how attracted he is to 6-9 year old girls, how much they turn him on and what have you, would it be okay for the police to arrest him? Would it be okay for him to then be put under surveillance for expressing his sexual desires?

Until he provides further evidence of intent or actually commits the act, no.

Would what he said be enough evidence to put him under investigation?

I don't think so but pedophilia is such another larger issue. This boils down less to "should he have the right to say these things without arrest" and more to "if someone expresses interest in pedopholia they should be physiologically treated and helped with that problem not condemned and prosecuted."

So with our current system of condemnation and persecution do I think he should be put under investigation for simpley expressing that he is indeed attracted to children?

No not until he is found in possession of child porn, explicitly expresses specific intent to commit an sexual act upon a child, or actually commits a sexual act upon a child.

In my imagined system of rehabilitation for pedophiles do I think he should be evaluated for treatment and help of pedopholia for expressing sexual attraction to children?

Yes

It is all part of a larger issue. The fact of the matter is that expressing violent, deviant or abnormal thoughts is enough to justify some amount of intervention/investigation. A government could not protect its people if it did not take those statements seriously.

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.

I'm talking about any form of censorship. Here are some articles for you to look through:
Suicide in Films: The Impact of Suicide Portrayals on Nonsuicidal Viewers' Well‐Being and the Effectiveness of Censorship; B Till, T Niederkrotenthaler, A Herberth
Correlates of support for censorship of sexual, sexually violent, and violent media; RD Fisher, IJ Cook, EC Shirkey
Sex, lies, and video compact disc a case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship; SC Chia, KH Lu, DM McLeod

Censorship of unpopular opinions no matter how dumb they may be is abhorrent. Why the hell do we have to argue about this shit?

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 07:47:33 PM

Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 07:33:47 PM

ITT: Reactionaries

Oh wise one why don't you enlighten us with your masterful argumentative skills and wisdom like you did in this thread? Please I'm begging you to try and argue your case again and inevitably just stop replying because you're wrong.

Lol, yeah

That's why I stopped responding, kiddo

Because I'm wrong, and not because the opposing answer is always "NUH UH UR A DUMMY"

Free speech and other slippery slope arguments on this topic are nothing more than fear mongering against some imagined "other side". Hell, this thread is fully of people that use the term 'SJW' unironically, you really think it's worth my time to argue with you people?

Then why are you on here if you don't want to argue with us?