i dunno, all for freedom of expression but once you tattoo your face the chance of any normal employment kinda goes out the window

That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.

this is exactly way i think it's important to separate "islam" from "muslims" and why i think the critique of the ideology needs to give its followers the opportunity to adapt. islam may be rigid, have its problems, and may even be "incompatible with civilization" (a sentiment i don't necessarily share) but there is nothing like opportunity, upward mobility, and freedom of expression to shake the foundations of rigid religious ideology and bring people, whatever their belief, into the fold of cultural, civil, and intellectual advancement.

I love civil liberties.

I wish the 'float all boats' rhetoric was as taken to heart as its claimed to be.

In that regard, negatively invoking the NRA requires some cognitive dissonance. NRA members are regular people, and they're all around. 1/3 of U.S. homes are armed. The NRA guards those people's rights. That's why the NRA is so strong.

Civil liberties also includes the freedom of expression. That's at odds with curtailing anti-<name a group> rhetoric.

I'm all for maximal civil liberties. But folks need to realize that it involves letting others live their lives in a way that you might not like - and that you might be living a life that others don't like.

I'm ok with that. But there are a lot of people that can't stand other people going about their own business in a disapproved of manner. And there are a lot of people that can't stand being disliked (even when left alone). These sorts of people inevitably cause problems when they feel compelled to do something about how other people live.

-scheherazade

Hmmm. That doesn't sound like a therapist or guidance counselor to me. "Advising students" is not the same thing by far, and therapist, not at all....at least not in my eyes. More like a 'campus manager' to me.
I agree, it sounds different from 'teacher', but it's even farther away from 'head cuddler'. His job is, in part, to ensure a variety of ideas and ideals are free to be represented on campus, all with safety and respect for the others' rights to express THEIR viewpoints, and to squash any group that actively tries to hinder that freedom of expression. Anyone asking for "safe space" should calmly be asked to leave campus, as it's not 'safe' for their fragile mindsets, indeed it's designed to challenge them.

^ There appears to be a lot of sand in my vagina today! Sorry if that came across as overly harsh.

It would appear arguing with SJW trolls on youtube is harmful to ones soul.

Pretty sure I'm to some extent projecting my frustration with other similar styles of movement here. Though my underlying concern about such propaganda still stands I think. (& PETA can still more or less fuck off)


@iaui I have absolutely nothing against you and none of my vitriol was at all directed towards yourself. This was a perfectly legit thing to be sifting and I would hate for you to take anything I've said as an attack on yourself.

I'm not even sure it was really an attack on this specific movement, outside the insidious nature of it's propaganda.

It just left a bitter taste and much like I find myself having to stand up for people I deeply dislike and disagree with (re: freedom of expression). I also find myself having to take people to task even though I might like them or agree with the underlying premise of their position (a bad argument is a bad argument).

I'm now going to go away and watch frolicking kittens until I stop feeling like such a touchy twat...

ok, this is much harder. First up, he's right that context absolutely matters.

But the Colbert thing was far more about stupid people not getting a joke than censorship. There was more backlash to the outrage than there was outrage in the first place.

But here's the thing, if you value freedom of expression, then you have to value people's freedom not to support forms of expression they find distasteful. People saying "I'll boycott X" is NOT censorship. Freedom of expression does not mean that private companies are required to provide you with a platform.

Are you fucking kidding me? It's called nationalism, and America is far from alone in having it. Yeah we like our flag, but that's because it is a symbol of our country and in general, despite it's faults, we love our country.
We also believe that people have the right to burn our flag, piss on it, wipe their ass with it, or whatever they want to do with as a freedom of expression. But whatever you do, don't get spanked on the ass with the Mexican flag! Oh and by the way, this woman is a complete ignorant bitch. Couldn't watch the whole video, due to her stupidity. It's America, fly whatever fucking flag you want, but if you're American just fly ours higher out of respect.

If you believe the baker should be able to turn away a gay couple on the basis of having the freedom to express their beliefs in who they conduct business with, you're free to do so. But if you want to be consistent, then you should also believe that the gay couple should be able to express their opinions to others about the baker's bigoted practice.

If you're taking about someone threatening or blackmailing another person, there's a legal code you can refer to, and that's entirely a different matter.

Y'know, with the US now ranking 43rd, one notch above Haiti and one below New Guinea, or something like that, in freedom of the press, I'm not sure how much your freedom to express yourself without legal interference is the result of "imperfect men."

But that's just me.

Good luck.

It's a set-up for what's going to be ubiquitous in less than 20 years A10anis, cameras on every pole (wi-fi, infrared, audio, facial recognition software) and a cop's nose up every corner of your ass at the great cost of having ended the 'great experiment' -

Feinstein is only a shill for power-brokers and a miniature version of someone whose mentality of "I, Me, Mine" let's a few people dictate the their will over of every person on the planet who is not in their small circle.

Mind you, they believe that the bulk of humanity are not suited to dictate the course of the planet but hey; The same people who have chosen to guide the course of humanity's burst off the planet would keep us rhesus monkeys in small, manageable boxes while they romp freely around the globe with the bulk of our assets and the maximum amount of power to dictate further every aspect of our lives.

The real power they will not wield is to provide for the basic needs and education of the throw-backs of humanity who would rather perpetrate violence and promulgate fear to maintain arcane sensibilities and uncivilized backward ideologies which are anti-evolutionary and savage, using anti-evolutionary and savage people to enforce what looks like order, which is in actuality, the same barbaric practice of subjugation, imprisonment, and fear.

The solution is to limit expansion of population until these ideologies are stamped-out like the insectoid disease that they are, that of a limited perspective based on arcane patterns of thought. We could do this through compassion and education but the established powers see a different solution that will protect their interests-

People like Diane Feinstein and her ilk see the rest of humanity as dogs and cattle. Unprivileged, unworthy flesh with which to extort from them their labor, their minds and souls to their utopian ends, at the cost of our unique humanity.

The same virulence that atheist's have against the western Christan diaspora, these elites have for anyone not aligned with their totalitarian ends.

That they justify their courses of action with propaganda like this, fear-induced surrender to force and control, is against all that is humane and righteous.

Bombs in subways?? Solution: No one has privacy or freedom of expression or thought beyond that which exist behind their eyes and between their ears-Greeeeeat. Your world, not mine.

Next will come thought crimes, cordoned neighborhoods, etc.

Start now by getting some of the comparatively neanderthal segments of humanity into those boxes, limit THEIR freedoms through educating them to at LEAST the level of 17th-century socialization before turning the entire world into a forced labor-camp.

Bread and circuses only work for so long before the emperor's clothes are set alight by those less inclined to hear shit as well as being forced to eat it.

Anarchy would solve some of the discord in civilized countries.

Fucking China-Get those insects to stop cranking-out useless consumption items at an exponentially toxic pace as well-Their version of the world makes Orwell's look like a clam bake. How? Stop using it. Create artisans and craftsman again and develop in every human an appreciation for THAT WHICH LASTS, rather than I WANT NOW, FIRST!

Americans, Europeans drunk on technology, disposable clothing, instant gratification and entertainment are a herd of disposable mental midgets to the Diane Feinsteins of the world.

Sick dance we're learning....I just hope we can stand the dervish without blacking-out.

I use my powerpoints to suppress, humiliate, and dehumanize people. Why would I want an expiration date on that? Seriously it's like the only bastion of power I have left in my life, and now you want them to expire? I am using my powepoints to *obliterate your freedom to express views contrary to my own!

Make your mind up. You're obviously not for freedom of thought, speech and expression because the whole point of your post is to say that kunt shouldn't have expressed his right to thought, freedom and expression. What you mean is that everyone can say what they want as long as it doesn't upset you. I don't know why we shouldn't upset you, maybe you're more important than the rest of us. Who knows?

If you're going to be censorious at least have the balls to stand up and be counted, rather than hiding behind mealy mouthed platitudes. If you think it's wrong, just bloody say so.

As for the song, it made me laugh. Funnily enough I still think Jimmy Saville was an awful person and child rape is wrong. Go figure.

I think the problem is when a director gets so much credit as Nolan, the studios go against their normal habit and give the guy as much freedom and money as they can afford. I don't say that freedom of ones creativity is a bad thing in general. But I think it can produce a situation in which decisions of the director aren't questioned anymore, because who dares to question the almighty Christopher Nolan. They end up doing everything like one guy thinks is cool and we end up with something like Star Wars: Episode 1.

Although this sounds contradictionary, I think a good artist needs boundries for his work as much as he needs the freedom to express himself.

>> ^Engels:

Why is it that any time this topic comes up guys have to go on about wether they'd date/fuck a TG person? Who asked you that? When you walk into a McDonalds and see the cashier behind the counter and she happens to be female do you IMMEDIATELY wonder about sticking your dick in her? Is that the be-all-end-all of your relationships with women? If so, yes, its you, its not them.


Well, that seemed relatively uncalled for.

There was nothing in this thread about wanting "To stick a dick in 'her'" no "I'd tap that" nothing.

Infact, there's a genuine discussion going on right now where a couple people have said "I don't think I could have a relationship with her". Not "I don't think I could have a sexual relationship" just relationship. And then, those same two people actually saying "And I feel bad about it."

Basically I think the discussion is the realization that because the person is TG, they automatically associate that with the male aspect, and would think that dating that person is effectively being in a gay relationship in a weird and twisted way.

And.. as for who asked, this would be a community where, fortunately, free speech and freedom of expression are allowed, even if it wasn't asked for. That's generally how the best topics get discussed, one person says something, people either agree and add to the conversation, or disagree and a discussion rages on making the website, you know, interesting.

(oh, and for the record, it WAS asked "would you date a girl who used to be a guy")