|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:09 am
Though that the definition of "hate crime" is nebulous in itself makes that a lot less clear cut.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:50 pm
Exxos Though that the definition of "hate crime" is nebulous in itself makes that a lot less clear cut. Oh yeah to be sure it's a very complex issue. 3nodding Unfortunate for those who need black and white answers to most things in their lives rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:06 pm
Camwen Exxos Though that the definition of "hate crime" is nebulous in itself makes that a lot less clear cut. Oh yeah to be sure it's a very complex issue. 3nodding Unfortunate for those who need black and white answers to most things in their lives rofl I don't know why it left out the quote portion. Camwen Freedom of Speech just means you can't be persecuted/thrown in jail by the government unless it is deemed a hate crime. That I was referring to that a hate crime does not even have a remote definition in freedom of speech criteria. That it can easily be whatever the whim of the day is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:42 pm
Exxos Camwen Exxos Though that the definition of "hate crime" is nebulous in itself makes that a lot less clear cut. Oh yeah to be sure it's a very complex issue. 3nodding Unfortunate for those who need black and white answers to most things in their lives rofl I don't know why it left out the quote portion. Camwen Freedom of Speech just means you can't be persecuted/thrown in jail by the government unless it is deemed a hate crime. That I was referring to that a hate crime does not even have a remote definition in freedom of speech criteria. That it can easily be whatever the whim of the day is. Well in most cases speech alone, no mater how ugly, isn't a hate crime. My understanding is a hate crime is an actual violent/destructive act - only difference between other types of crime is the motivation behind it. So yeah, it's very different from freedom of speech. I shouldn't have lumped it together at all. Or is that what you meant? I'm sorry - my brain isn't processing exactly what you meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:46 am
Camwen Exxos Camwen Exxos Though that the definition of "hate crime" is nebulous in itself makes that a lot less clear cut. Oh yeah to be sure it's a very complex issue. 3nodding Unfortunate for those who need black and white answers to most things in their lives rofl I don't know why it left out the quote portion. Camwen Freedom of Speech just means you can't be persecuted/thrown in jail by the government unless it is deemed a hate crime. That I was referring to that a hate crime does not even have a remote definition in freedom of speech criteria. That it can easily be whatever the whim of the day is. Well in most cases speech alone, no mater how ugly, isn't a hate crime. My understanding is a hate crime is an actual violent/destructive act - only difference between other types of crime is the motivation behind it. So yeah, it's very different from freedom of speech. I shouldn't have lumped it together at all. Or is that what you meant? I'm sorry - my brain isn't processing exactly what you meant. That because of the nebulous nature of things and how they are interpreted, that there is a point where freedom of speech makes a normal crime into a hate crime even if it is not a hate crime. That we live in a world where interpretation and reality are so detached from each other that many forms of freedom of speech could be seen as promoting or related to hate crimes even if they have nothing to do with anything and we are going steadily closer to a UK/Australian system where it is basically censorship based on insane, knee-jerk reactions and ephemeral, pointless definitions of what may or may not be hate/offense/insensitivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 3:35 pm
Exxos Camwen Exxos Camwen Exxos Though that the definition of "hate crime" is nebulous in itself makes that a lot less clear cut. Oh yeah to be sure it's a very complex issue. 3nodding Unfortunate for those who need black and white answers to most things in their lives rofl I don't know why it left out the quote portion. Camwen Freedom of Speech just means you can't be persecuted/thrown in jail by the government unless it is deemed a hate crime. That I was referring to that a hate crime does not even have a remote definition in freedom of speech criteria. That it can easily be whatever the whim of the day is. Well in most cases speech alone, no mater how ugly, isn't a hate crime. My understanding is a hate crime is an actual violent/destructive act - only difference between other types of crime is the motivation behind it. So yeah, it's very different from freedom of speech. I shouldn't have lumped it together at all. Or is that what you meant? I'm sorry - my brain isn't processing exactly what you meant. That because of the nebulous nature of things and how they are interpreted, that there is a point where freedom of speech makes a normal crime into a hate crime even if it is not a hate crime. That we live in a world where interpretation and reality are so detached from each other that many forms of freedom of speech could be seen as promoting or related to hate crimes even if they have nothing to do with anything and we are going steadily closer to a UK/Australian system where it is basically censorship based on insane, knee-jerk reactions and ephemeral, pointless definitions of what may or may not be hate/offense/insensitivity. Ahhh ok I see what you're saying. I agree there can be a lot of gray area and yes some very zealous and oversensitive positions. However, I wouldn't lump it all into the same category. As nebulous as some definitions are, I think there are also many that are very clear cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:17 pm
Camwen Exxos Camwen Exxos Camwen Oh yeah to be sure it's a very complex issue. 3nodding Unfortunate for those who need black and white answers to most things in their lives rofl I don't know why it left out the quote portion. Camwen Freedom of Speech just means you can't be persecuted/thrown in jail by the government unless it is deemed a hate crime. That I was referring to that a hate crime does not even have a remote definition in freedom of speech criteria. That it can easily be whatever the whim of the day is. Well in most cases speech alone, no mater how ugly, isn't a hate crime. My understanding is a hate crime is an actual violent/destructive act - only difference between other types of crime is the motivation behind it. So yeah, it's very different from freedom of speech. I shouldn't have lumped it together at all. Or is that what you meant? I'm sorry - my brain isn't processing exactly what you meant. That because of the nebulous nature of things and how they are interpreted, that there is a point where freedom of speech makes a normal crime into a hate crime even if it is not a hate crime. That we live in a world where interpretation and reality are so detached from each other that many forms of freedom of speech could be seen as promoting or related to hate crimes even if they have nothing to do with anything and we are going steadily closer to a UK/Australian system where it is basically censorship based on insane, knee-jerk reactions and ephemeral, pointless definitions of what may or may not be hate/offense/insensitivity. Ahhh ok I see what you're saying. I agree there can be a lot of gray area and yes some very zealous and oversensitive positions. However, I wouldn't lump it all into the same category. As nebulous as some definitions are, I think there are also many that are very clear cut. I was not lumping it all into the same category, just pointing out that there is a large enough volume of nebulous definitions that it presents a "slippery slope" situation that concerns me. Like so many other things in life today, if we lived in a sane, actually functional world, this sort of thing would not be a concern, but all too often there are forces that seek to twist and mismanage for horrible reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:29 am
Exxos Camwen Exxos Camwen Exxos I don't know why it left out the quote portion. That I was referring to that a hate crime does not even have a remote definition in freedom of speech criteria. That it can easily be whatever the whim of the day is. Well in most cases speech alone, no mater how ugly, isn't a hate crime. My understanding is a hate crime is an actual violent/destructive act - only difference between other types of crime is the motivation behind it. So yeah, it's very different from freedom of speech. I shouldn't have lumped it together at all. Or is that what you meant? I'm sorry - my brain isn't processing exactly what you meant. That because of the nebulous nature of things and how they are interpreted, that there is a point where freedom of speech makes a normal crime into a hate crime even if it is not a hate crime. That we live in a world where interpretation and reality are so detached from each other that many forms of freedom of speech could be seen as promoting or related to hate crimes even if they have nothing to do with anything and we are going steadily closer to a UK/Australian system where it is basically censorship based on insane, knee-jerk reactions and ephemeral, pointless definitions of what may or may not be hate/offense/insensitivity. Ahhh ok I see what you're saying. I agree there can be a lot of gray area and yes some very zealous and oversensitive positions. However, I wouldn't lump it all into the same category. As nebulous as some definitions are, I think there are also many that are very clear cut. I was not lumping it all into the same category, just pointing out that there is a large enough volume of nebulous definitions that it presents a "slippery slope" situation that concerns me. Like so many other things in life today, if we lived in a sane, actually functional world, this sort of thing would not be a concern, but all too often there are forces that seek to twist and mismanage for horrible reasons. It's kind of a catch 22 situation. You either end up with those awful no tolerance laws that are very clear but often punish people for ridiculous things (like some poor kindergartner getting charged with sexual harassment because he was proud of his new Superman underwear and showed them to his friend) . Or you have reasonable case by case guidelines that selfish people use to twist in their own favor resulting in no creativity because a work of art may offend someone. Do absolutely nothing though and you end up with crosses burning in someones yard. It's one of the most complex and difficult things to regulate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:04 am
Camwen It's kind of a catch 22 situation. You either end up with those awful no tolerance laws that are very clear but often punish people for ridiculous things (like some poor kindergartner getting charged with sexual harassment because he was proud of his new Superman underwear and showed them to his friend) . Or you have reasonable case by case guidelines that selfish people use to twist in their own favor resulting in no creativity because a work of art may offend someone. Do absolutely nothing though and you end up with crosses burning in someones yard. It's one of the most complex and difficult things to regulate. Aye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:25 pm
What Exxos brought up about the UK/ Australia reminded me of this : This article . And i find that scary . Number one , because it makes me think of that quote that goes " becoming what you hate ... " . I mean i understand why europe would be so knee jerk about anti-semitism . THey had the nazis to deal with. BUT, with these type of censorship laws that the author of the article brings up it's like they are on the same path as the people they fear. I might be wrong but isn't that how the nazis started ? With censorship , and propaganda ? Now for the scary part, now we have a candidate for president that wants to take our rights to " freedom of the press " . And he seems to be a fan of dictators.... EDIT : having gone back to my post in that " offensive item thread " . And reading the subsequent posts it seems like mines was overlooked . Now i was going to post again , to mention that the item itself has violated TOS. Meaning that the user and gaia violated TOS . Though i doubt that gaia violated TOS on purpose . And it got me thinking, (if what i am reading correctly ) if the author of the thread gets their way , all religious iconagraphy would be removed from the site . ( or bloody iconography ) . But wouldn't that extend to all iconography ? Like for example all the rainbows or sexual orientation items ? Wouldn't some of those items be offensive to some people ? The way i see it is, no . No it would not extend to the other items on Gaia ,because of the intent behind them. Those other items where either created with either the intent to show support , or as artistic interpretaton or created with artistic liberty . Devoid of any hidden meaning or maliciousness. So having said this , is my post wrong ? Should i bring up this point in that thread ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:17 am
Guin - Aoiichi What Exxos brought up about the UK/ Australia reminded me of this : This article . I am amazed they allowed a voice of sanity on Slate. Guin - Aoiichi And i find that scary . Number one , because it makes me think of that quote that goes " becoming what you hate ... " . I mean i understand why europe would be so knee jerk about anti-semitism . THey had the nazis to deal with. It's one of those situations where they can cater to the whims of the minority by manipulating the majority at the expense of the entirety. They seek to control public thought. This is a reason why you often see them clamping down on discussing things even benignly – all you need is the official worldview, citizen! Guin - Aoiichi BUT, with these type of censorship laws that the author of the article brings up it's like they are on the same path as the people they fear. Yes, but that's politics in general. When what you fear is what you already are, you tend to go down the path of being what you are. Different costumes, different mechanics, same death machine. Guin - Aoiichi I might be wrong but isn't that how the nazis started ? With censorship , and propaganda ? The nazis basically started as Germans being screwed over after WWI, growing resentment, and then they came in and channeled a lot of the energy of the day. Propaganda during the rise of the nazis was kernel of truth stuff. Then when they solidified power, the propaganda turned more and more false and inflammatory. Then the last thing was censorship as they tried to crystalize and control the thoughts of the people by giving them an "approved mindset." Basically what we have seen in the US from 1972 to today... Guin - Aoiichi Now for the scary part, now we have a candidate for president that wants to take our rights to " freedom of the press " . And he seems to be a fan of dictators.... And thanks to Obama's executive order precedents, he'd likely be able to circumvent the legislative branch. But then again, I think Trump would be the best option because he'd blow the powder keg early giving the world a chance to dodge disaster. Hillary or the Repubs would march us steadily towards it. Sanders would give us a four year hiatus before spilling us into the oblivion of whoever follows him. Guin - Aoiichi EDIT : having gone back to my post in that " offensive item thread " . And reading the subsequent posts it seems like mines was overlooked . Now i was going to post again , to mention that the item itself has violated TOS. Meaning that the user and gaia violated TOS . Though i doubt that gaia violated TOS on purpose . Gaia violates the TOS on purpose all the time because they are above it. Guin - Aoiichi And it got me thinking, (if what i am reading correctly ) if the author of the thread gets their way , all religious iconagraphy would be removed from the site . ( or bloody iconography ) . But wouldn't that extend to all iconography ? The one star of david is an overlay of a background featuring a nuclear war scene and burning – it's worse than the blood one. But anyway, there is a strong enough difference between religious and not. So they could ban religious iconography if the heat got to them. Guin - Aoiichi Like for example all the rainbows or sexual orientation items ? Wouldn't some of those items be offensive to some people ? The way i see it is, no . No it would not extend to the other items on Gaia ,because of the intent behind them. Those other items where either created with either the intent to show support , or as artistic interpretaton or created with artistic liberty . Devoid of any hidden meaning or maliciousness. Yes, there is a slippery slope. We can see the intent. Especially as most of the other items (especially rainbows) are not supporting anything, they are just rainbows. But what you're arguing is irrelevant as the intent is aimed at whatever idiocy the gaia developers are experiencing at the moment. These are not people that make sane, well-balanced decisions with regularity and the average gaia user is, to put it mildly in regards to the standards of our generation and prior, a mix of psychologically unstable, mentally retarded, and/or socially/politically disturbed. And I do not mean any of those in an offensive, name-calling sense, I mean it in a literal, clinical sense. Guin - Aoiichi So having said this , is my post wrong ? Should i bring up this point in that thread ? I think you are right. And I think you need to be a voice of reason against the slippery slope plus knee jerk reactions that this is flaring into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:29 am
Exxos And thanks to Obama's executive order precedents, he'd likely be able to circumvent the legislative branch. But then again, I think Trump would be the best option because he'd blow the powder keg early giving the world a chance to dodge disaster. Hillary or the Repubs would march us steadily towards it. Sanders would give us a four year hiatus before spilling us into the oblivion of whoever follows him. Err what?!? I can't even... Are you talking about environmental disaster? Economic? Social? All of them? I see this line of thinking a lot lately where people believe that the best option is to usher in a disaster (i.e. whomever you believe to be the worst possible presidential choice) in order to shake things up enough for people to "wake up" to what's "really going on." Honestly I think that's just a fantasy. You don't blow up your house because it needs to be fixed and then expect that a brand new house will appear in it's place. Political coups often leave things in a worse situation than before. ... also, if real change is to be made, the focus on ONLY the President is a waste of time. The local elections matter more than people think. *sigh* it's probably a mistake to even get into this debate and I'm guessing I'll regret it. But it's been bothering me enough to not want to come back to the forum here so there's that. Maybe we can switch to the problem of anti-intellectualism next? rofl rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 12:56 am
Camwen Exxos And thanks to Obama's executive order precedents, he'd likely be able to circumvent the legislative branch. But then again, I think Trump would be the best option because he'd blow the powder keg early giving the world a chance to dodge disaster. Hillary or the Repubs would march us steadily towards it. Sanders would give us a four year hiatus before spilling us into the oblivion of whoever follows him. Err what?!? I can't even... Are you talking about environmental disaster? Economic? Social? All of them? I see this line of thinking a lot lately where people believe that the best option is to usher in a disaster (i.e. whomever you believe to be the worst possible presidential choice) in order to shake things up enough for people to "wake up" to what's "really going on." Honestly I think that's just a fantasy. You don't blow up your house because it needs to be fixed and then expect that a brand new house will appear in it's place. Political coups often leave things in a worse situation than before. ... also, if real change is to be made, the focus on ONLY the President is a waste of time. The local elections matter more than people think. *sigh* it's probably a mistake to even get into this debate and I'm guessing I'll regret it. But it's been bothering me enough to not want to come back to the forum here so there's that. Maybe we can switch to the problem of anti-intellectualism next? rofl rofl All of the above and then some. It's not let's make it a disaster, it's let's have a much smaller disaster now while there is a chance to fix it instead of trudge towards a much larger disaster we can't overcome. The disaster is guaranteed. That's my thinking. It's not that I want him to win (I actually want the government dissolved because it's about almost entirely detrimental), it's just that if anyone would make things so bad that the people would have to get off their asses and actually do something, it would be this Oompa-Loompa from Hell. You don't blow up your house and expect a new one, you realize your house and neighborhood are a lost cause and set fire to the greenbelt to make a firebreak and keep the fire from spreading any further so you can maybe put it out. I am sorry for offending. I will shut up about it now that I have clarified my position better than 4AM out of one bloodshot eye language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
