|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:41 pm
I was talking to my friends about this, like one problem that was brought up was racism. A lot of people want free speech but don't agree with racism, true freedom of speech gives you the freedom to be racist if you want to be, that doesn't make it right, but people still get put down for being racist.
I'm not racist in general, but we all have some inherited racism, with a few exceptions out there who really do like everyone equally.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:00 am
Miss_D_White I was talking to my friends about this, like one problem that was brought up was racism. A lot of people want free speech but don't agree with racism, true freedom of speech gives you the freedom to be racist if you want to be, that doesn't make it right, but people still get put down for being racist. I'm not racist in general, but we all have some inherited racism, with a few exceptions out there who really do like everyone equally. Issues like these have nothing to do with rights and prejudice; but rather vague and ineffective communication. A true inconsistency would be encouraging freedom of expression, but outlawing something like 'pink hair' in schools because it is too "distracting". Because even if the student doesn't have an agenda to attract attention, to promote free expression is counter intuitive to banning something that commands attention in order to express the message in the first place. In your free speech vs. racism comment, that's more of a breakdown in communication all together; because free speech and racism are not counter intuitive. The real issue clarifying what is racism, and what is just poor communication skills. Rather than use black people, I'll use clowns. If you want to see obvious racism, just watch to see how people respond to clowns. The body paint isn't natural, but the emotional reactions they get are. For the sake of the argument if I were an employer I can legally be racist and say I openly refuse to hire clowns. Mainly because they're ugly and scary, but also because they won't conform to the company dress code which states "no makeup" ("No black skin"). That is racism. Now if I say I hate clowns, the freedom of speech act allows me to openly say I hate clowns. And a lot of people hate clowns. They are terrified of them and don't want to be near them. All clowns must sit at the back of the bus. Or better yet, cram them into a tiny bus. Cramming them into a tiny bus would be racist because that excludes them from other members of society. does not allow for cultures to mix. But if someone says they hate them, and that they're scared. by asking them many questions you can identify their hate as a natural emotional reaction to something they think is visually frightening; even if they have nothing against the person. Burn victims get this reaction a lot think Harvey TwoFace. Even a white hansome guy who reveals a facial deformity can experience the same rejections from society.But through regular exposure, decensitization, and small steps, people can grow to learn there is nothing to fear, just like with snakes or puppies. There are some clowns out there who come out on stage as a normal person, and slowly dress up and apply makeup so that he can welcome the audience to get used to the clown and who the clown really is. Compare that to a stampede of clowns bursting through a tent. and bouncing everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:15 pm
Tympest So, my post from yesterday was removed for one reason or another and I got these lovely PMs from your own Shuyajin: Now, it is a given that people are likely to disagree with me and I with them. It is also a given that you as a collective might be a bit put off by my initially asking you to prove that you aren't as bad as the monolithic government you claim is trying to steal all of our rights. Taking those into account, I still fail to understand your insistence on making sure that I am not heard. If you are going to vilify any government that limits or out right bans freedoms of speech,and if you are going to make any form of fuss about censorship you might want to start by looking at your own guild's policies on dissenting view points. WOW. That is NOT how someone in power should act. (And yes, as crew they are given a limited amount of power over other people) Jesus, she/he should be reprimanded for those private messages. Totally uncalled for. Whats curious, is when I look at the crew I'd say 3/4th of them are mules or noob accounts....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:50 am
Call Me Apple Tympest So, my post from yesterday was removed for one reason or another and I got these lovely PMs from your own Shuyajin: Now, it is a given that people are likely to disagree with me and I with them. It is also a given that you as a collective might be a bit put off by my initially asking you to prove that you aren't as bad as the monolithic government you claim is trying to steal all of our rights. Taking those into account, I still fail to understand your insistence on making sure that I am not heard. If you are going to vilify any government that limits or out right bans freedoms of speech,and if you are going to make any form of fuss about censorship you might want to start by looking at your own guild's policies on dissenting view points. WOW. That is NOT how someone in power should act. (And yes, as crew they are given a limited amount of power over other people) Jesus, she/he should be reprimanded for those private messages. Totally uncalled for. Whats curious, is when I look at the crew I'd say 3/4th of them are mules or noob accounts.... I would agree with you there. My original posts were asking why I should believe the guild when their big thing is to not trust anything you read with out doing research of your own. Should have been, but based on anything else from Gaia I rather doubt that anything would happen. There seem to be a ton of mule and noob accounts Gaia wide. Why should here be any different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:26 pm
Funny, I was talking with my not-so-friendly school board representative about Freedom of Expression due to the fact that in a public school, we have uniforms, no cell phones, and very recently, a change in schedule everyone is openly against.
Now, he asked me where in the constitution is Freedom of Expression in school?
Reading the constitution, I see something that states the amendments are in effect for all races, genders, etc. I don't see why minors are any different. Until I realized that this was going against the teachers who didn't want it.
The fact that rights can be amended makes it like a children's game- when something doesn't go your way, just add a rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:47 pm
There is no such thing as free speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:53 pm
The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. Sure there is. Speech isn't taxed now is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:07 pm
Azkeel The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. Sure there is. Speech isn't taxed now is it? If your speech ever gets to the point that it threatens the popularity of an owner, you will die. Why do you think we can send people away forever and murder them? There is no reason to believe that people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are still alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:31 pm
The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. "free" is subjective and implied. "Able Speech" is more accurate, politically, and socially. You have no ability to speak without permission or paying a price. Even at public meetings until questions are allowed (permission given). Shouting out would be disruptive in a controlled environment where your permission to speak is not given if -you- and what you say are not relevant to the meeting/broadcast. How much people tolerate you varies depending on the situation. "Free" and "Able" speech are entirely separate from "Unpunishable Speech" As long as there is no law that mandates all babies must have both vocal cords cut, you will always have "able speech" whether or not you have permission or have to pay for air time to talk and have your say. "Free speech" never has, nor ever will exist as it is a fabricated "idea" and not real. The term "free speech" is actually a biproduct of poor communication skills. People shout their right to free speech, but they do not know what 'free speech' even is, and what constitutes 'free speech'. You might as well stand up and protect your right to "free flatulence", in which case babbling through your a** is a little more socially unacceptable than babbling out your mouth. Even though there are no laws against flatulence even at meetings or TV whether it's public or private.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:40 pm
The rose in spring Azkeel The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. Sure there is. Speech isn't taxed now is it? If your speech ever gets to the point that it threatens the popularity of an owner, you will die. Why do you think we can send people away forever and murder them? There is no reason to believe that people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are still alive. You're neglecting the power of association. Do you think nobody would notice if Julian Assange and Manning were assassinated publicly or privately? The family and friends would spread that information like a plague, especially supporters of Assange. Even if nobody in the media mentioned it, it would be all over YouTube, and broadcasted by Anonymous which is very supportive of Assanage. FYI (to my knowledge) Assange is on house arrest. He even made a fake Mater Card commercial which people are sharing since his trials. Protect the internet with your life, and you will ALWAYS have able speech. Even if people cut your vocal cords and chop off your hands so you can't use sign language. You can always type a message, write documents, and mail/email them to anyone anywhere in the world. And if you are killed, people will know. The special interests won't assassinate anyone unless you are directly causing significant financial damage and limiting access to their resources. Assange and Manning weren't doing either, but what they were doing was publicly humiliating to the special interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:10 pm
The rose in spring Azkeel The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. Sure there is. Speech isn't taxed now is it? If your speech ever gets to the point that it threatens the popularity of an owner, you will die. Why do you think we can send people away forever and murder them? There is no reason to believe that people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are still alive. Oh you mean freedom from consequence. I agree there. But we can still say what ever we want no matter where we are. Speech is truly free to use we just don't know what will happen because of it! wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:26 pm
Sephroe Zion The rose in spring Azkeel The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. Sure there is. Speech isn't taxed now is it? If your speech ever gets to the point that it threatens the popularity of an owner, you will die. Why do you think we can send people away forever and murder them? There is no reason to believe that people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are still alive. You're neglecting the power of association. Do you think nobody would notice if Julian Assange and Manning were assassinated publicly or privately? The family and friends would spread that information like a plague, especially supporters of Assange. Even if nobody in the media mentioned it, it would be all over YouTube, and broadcasted by Anonymous which is very supportive of Assanage. FYI (to my knowledge) Assange is on house arrest. He even made a fake Mater Card commercial which people are sharing since his trials. Protect the internet with your life, and you will ALWAYS have able speech. Even if people cut your vocal cords and chop off your hands so you can't use sign language. You can always type a message, write documents, and mail/email them to anyone anywhere in the world. And if you are killed, people will know. The special interests won't assassinate anyone unless you are directly causing significant financial damage and limiting access to their resources. Assange and Manning weren't doing either, but what they were doing was publicly humiliating to the special interests. Words don't go far if the owners don't want it to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:57 am
For someone who has a lot to say about the lack of free speech that is oppressed against people who don't want you to have free speech, you certainly are able to make your words travel quite far. Even without opening your mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:08 pm
The rose in spring Sephroe Zion The rose in spring Azkeel The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. Sure there is. Speech isn't taxed now is it? If your speech ever gets to the point that it threatens the popularity of an owner, you will die. Why do you think we can send people away forever and murder them? There is no reason to believe that people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are still alive. You're neglecting the power of association. Do you think nobody would notice if Julian Assange and Manning were assassinated publicly or privately? The family and friends would spread that information like a plague, especially supporters of Assange. Even if nobody in the media mentioned it, it would be all over YouTube, and broadcasted by Anonymous which is very supportive of Assanage. FYI (to my knowledge) Assange is on house arrest. He even made a fake Mater Card commercial which people are sharing since his trials. Protect the internet with your life, and you will ALWAYS have able speech. Even if people cut your vocal cords and chop off your hands so you can't use sign language. You can always type a message, write documents, and mail/email them to anyone anywhere in the world. And if you are killed, people will know. The special interests won't assassinate anyone unless you are directly causing significant financial damage and limiting access to their resources. Assange and Manning weren't doing either, but what they were doing was publicly humiliating to the special interests. Words don't go far if the owners don't want it to. And just who are these "owners" supposed to be? Who's got you so convinced that consequence free speech doesn't exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:28 pm
Tympest The rose in spring Sephroe Zion The rose in spring Azkeel The rose in spring There is no such thing as free speech. Sure there is. Speech isn't taxed now is it? If your speech ever gets to the point that it threatens the popularity of an owner, you will die. Why do you think we can send people away forever and murder them? There is no reason to believe that people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are still alive. You're neglecting the power of association. Do you think nobody would notice if Julian Assange and Manning were assassinated publicly or privately? The family and friends would spread that information like a plague, especially supporters of Assange. Even if nobody in the media mentioned it, it would be all over YouTube, and broadcasted by Anonymous which is very supportive of Assanage. FYI (to my knowledge) Assange is on house arrest. He even made a fake Mater Card commercial which people are sharing since his trials. Protect the internet with your life, and you will ALWAYS have able speech. Even if people cut your vocal cords and chop off your hands so you can't use sign language. You can always type a message, write documents, and mail/email them to anyone anywhere in the world. And if you are killed, people will know. The special interests won't assassinate anyone unless you are directly causing significant financial damage and limiting access to their resources. Assange and Manning weren't doing either, but what they were doing was publicly humiliating to the special interests. Words don't go far if the owners don't want it to. And just who are these "owners" supposed to be? Who's got you so convinced that consequence free speech doesn't exist? The owners are the big business owners, politicians and the assorted people of extreme wealth. The people are in control of our every lives through the forces of money directly or indirectly and this has always been the case. Long before capitalism, long before Rome and long before currency, the wealthiest of the nation were always the ones who controlled it. After all, money is power. It is more powerful than the lives of others and the longevity of nations and the bourgeois control it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
