# Hate Speech



## cots (Dec 17, 2018)

The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of.

What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration? How would you feel? It’s hypocritical to act in some of the same way that your say your “so-called” oppressors have.

Can people not see that their actions are which parallel those who participate in hate speech are no better or even worse? Are not we supposed to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes? It’s okay to label people by race (Government forms ask for your race, Doctors base your treatment on race, Political Parties pander to certain races – is this not racist?!?), but God forbid you simply do so in a manner that is not acceptable by a certain group of people.

If we are to learn from the past we must realize that if our actions are going to reflect those of the past that nothing is going to “change”. The fact is that there will always be a definition of what is considered “bad” and that you cannot control people to conform to what you consider to be “the right way” and ruining peoples lives because they do not agree with you or act the same way you do is only repeating history.

People claim to care about others, but this is only based on others who act in a way they deem to be collectively appropriate. Shouldn’t we treat people with respect due to the fact they are “human” - which is what we as a society claim to be doing. Examples of such are universal health care, counseling for prisoners, mental health treatment services, assistance with food and support for immigrants. In theory this is great, but limiting these services to those who you only deem fit to receive them (based on how they act or what they say) is defeating the purpose. Is it okay to deny these services to people because they simply said something you do not agree with?

So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things?


----------



## FierceDeityLinkMask (Dec 17, 2018)

_The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity._ *(Seems Legit so far)
*
Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? *(Here we go.)* The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of. *(Nobody ruins someones life because they engage in hate speech. Often times when someone starts spewing hate and suffers for it, it's at some public place or public platform.)*
What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration? *(What if you suddenly had to take responsibility for the things you say???)* 
How would you feel? It’s hypocritical to act in some of the same way that your say your “so-called” oppressors have. *(Who is a "so called" oppressor? LOL.)*
Can people not see that their actions are which parallel those who participate in hate speech are no better or even worse? Are not we supposed to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes? It’s okay to label people by race (Government forms ask for your race, Doctors base your treatment on race, Political Parties pander to certain races – is this not racist?!?), but God forbid you simply do so in a manner that is not acceptable by a certain group of people. *(Yeah goys it should totes be okay to throw slurs around at work. Why must people be fired for so called hate speech, am i right?)*
If we are to learn from the past we must realize that if our actions are going to reflect those of the past that nothing is going to “change”. The fact is that there will always be a definition of what is considered “bad” and that you cannot control people to conform to what you consider to be “the right way” and ruining peoples lives because they do not agree with you or act the same way you do is only repeating history. *(Blah)*
People claim to care about others, but this is only based on others who act in a way they deem to be collectively appropriate. Shouldn’t we treat people with respect due to the fact they are “human” - which is what we as a society claim to be doing. Examples of such are universal health care, counseling for prisoners, mental health treatment services, assistance with food and support for immigrants. In theory this is great, but limiting these services to those who you only deem fit to receive them (based on how they act or what they say) is defeating the purpose. Is it okay to deny these services to people because they simply said something you do not agree with? *(Nobody that argues for those services argues that these services shouldn't be available to everyone. NOBODY! Don't worry oppressed white men, most people on the left who argue for those services also want you to have them too.)*
So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things? *(As children we learn what to say and do in public and what to say and do in private. We learn that our actions have consequences. Toughen up and get over it.)*


----------



## Attacker3 (Dec 17, 2018)

Free Speech only applies to government prosecution. If you're on public property, you're allowed to say anything unless it's a direct call to violence. Hate speech doesn't exist, but bad reactions to things you say does.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 17, 2018)

"What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration?"
Such things are already present in DC I believe. Similarly you are appearing to confuse concepts. The government as a whole is not a person and thus can't be discriminated against. To be partyist or whatever you would have to deny say employment based on party affiliation or something like that. Different concept entirely.

"Doctors base your treatment on race"
"Is this not racist?"
No. People with a lot of melanin in their skin suffer proportionally less skin cancer, but might have a harder time with vitamin D. There are also a whole magnitude of other things associated with being from a relatively isolated genetic stocks for all those millennia. To that end it is often demonstrably useful to base treatment on such a thing.

"Political Parties pander to certain races"
"Is this not racist?"
They will probably tell you they target certain demographics in certain locations, not races (whatever that might be). I should also note racism tends to be defined using phrases like on the basis that you believe one race to be superior (or a given one to be inferior). Saying that you want to help fix a given race's problem not counting as that.

"So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things? "
Ruining is an odd one to qualify. While you are free to make the speech the repercussions of it are yours as well.

"slander"
Slander is against the law. You may have issues with the enforcement, or lack thereof, of such codes but its inclusion in your list poses you problems.

"Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time."
Not really. It tends to concern immutable characteristics that have no real relevance to the matter at hand (classic mental exercise being you meet a person on the street or interview them for a job, would that characteristic tell you much of anything about them or change their ability to do the job). Any further additions will likely have to be clarifications based around that principle. If things have changed it is usually considered a crying shame it got to that point in the first place where a ruling had to be made or a law repealed.

Different post but screw it.
"Free Speech only applies to government prosecution. If you're on public property, you're allowed to say anything unless it's a direct call to violence."
Ignoring that there are further qualifications with regards to intellectual property, the fire in a crowded theatre thing and a few others, then technically free speech is an ideal espoused by various enlightenment thinkers, one you are perfectly free to try to employ in your own life, as well as being one that various governments around the world attempt to include in their legal codes (often as a fairly fundamental aspect).



Back to the OP. I certainly have my issues with much of what you appear to be looking at (people being fired for jokes, stripped of what appear to be fairly key services or otherwise basic ones, and access to platforms that appear to be both representing the proverbial public square whilst being nominally curated but enjoying protections associated with being a simple data carrier, all for what can only be described as ideological reasons, said ideologies often running directly against notions of free speech and even logic at times) but your arguments are not terribly well formed, or indeed that relevant to it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 17, 2018)

free speech doesn't exist like in anger just now on a youtube video about nintendo winning that loverom's lawsuit "I wish someone had the balls to hack NO just like PSN years back" and "i do what i do not because of the roms issue but because they took down fan games upon completion" will i get in trouble? probably if Nintendo watches the comments on the vid but idc i have no future they cant take away anything i don't have everything already was, well the bailif better protect thos damn lawyers from me thats for sure


----------



## GameboyMicro (Dec 17, 2018)

Your only option is to ignore those people. If they're that sensitive to words then I'd do my best NOT to converse with them. Find people that are willing to converse and not shit down your neck for saying something they might disagree with. Let's be real too, we live in a fucking twitter world now. Nowadays a 12 year old girl  ho reads a buzzfeed article and rants on twitter is considered 'political' now.


----------



## tbb043 (Dec 17, 2018)

"Hate speech" needs protection more than any other speech. I mean no one attempts to infringe on something because it's popular or too kind or whatever. No, just if it gets someone all butthurt, then they try and stop it starting by calling it "hate speech".


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 17, 2018)

You have the right to free speech
As long as
You're not dumb enough to actually try it


----------



## guicrith (Dec 17, 2018)

Free speech means you have the right to say it without being locked up or killed, thats it!
This applys to threats of violence too, your not going to be locked up for threatening violence, you are going to be locked up to prevent you from committing violence, the threat just gives probable cause for the preventing.

"Free Speech" doesnt mean you can say it without consequences from others, or that a company or person is required to host it.
If you want to stand on the corner of the side walk shouting whatever crazy shit you think, it is your right, its also others right to shout back or ban you from whatever non government service they operate.

If that is an issue for someone then there are "anything goes" platforms such as gab.ai, 4chan and kiwifarms.

But everyone else wants to discuss things such as emulation or console hacking without the random attacks over petty disagreements and that is OK too.


----------



## cots (Dec 18, 2018)

tbb043 said:


> "Hate speech" needs protection more than any other speech. I mean no one attempts to infringe on something because it's popular or too kind or whatever. No, just if it gets someone all butthurt, then they try and stop it starting by calling it "hate speech".



You have a good point. Simply disagreeing with someone is somehow considered "hate speech" if if involves certain characteristics such as race or sexual identity. What I find to be the problem is the way society is handling people who are accused of participating in "hate speech". Did you post something that is now considered homophobic 10 years ago? If so you should lose your job or the position you've been appointed to when in all reality it was acceptable and not consided hate speech at the time of the post.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 18, 2018)

cots said:


> Did you post something that is now considered homophobic 10 years ago?



Is there anything considered homophobic now that would not be considered as such 10 years ago*? There are plenty that appear to experience a complete sense of humour failure, or indeed removal, but that is not the same issue. There is also the "when do we write things off as harmless youthful transgressions, especially as the internet might as well be forever".

*I suppose in before "that's appropriating gay culture".


----------



## Subtle Demise (Dec 18, 2018)

AmandaRose said:


> You have the right to free speech
> As long as
> You're not dumb enough to actually try it


Sad but true.

My thoughts on the matter are that no government has any right to legislate hate speech. What is considered hate speech has become so broad and subjective, that it opens the door for government to use it as a tool to suppress political dissent.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



guicrith said:


> Free speech means you have the right to say it without being locked up or killed, thats it!
> This applys to threats of violence too, your not going to be locked up for threatening violence, you are going to be locked up to prevent you from committing violence, the threat just gives probable cause for the preventing.


See, I think threats of violence should be investigated, and proper steps taken to protect the potential victim, but speech is speech and most threats are made during heated moments and most people making them have no intention of ever following through. The phrase "was that a threat?" also proves that what is considered a threat is also subjective and subject to abuse by authority.


----------



## cots (Dec 18, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Sad but true.
> 
> My thoughts on the matter are that no government has any right to legislate hate speech. What is considered hate speech has become so broad and subjective, that it opens the door for government to use it as a tool to suppress political dissent.



Which is what the Democrats are pushing for. They are littering their media sites with examples of how it's okay to ruin others lives because they say something that you don't agree with and have policies in place "like hate crimes" that take into account what you said during the crime and if they consider it hate speech they throw on 10 extra years in Prison. Although, you shouldn't be committing crimes in the first place.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Dec 18, 2018)

cots said:


> Which is what the Democrats are pushing for.


I try not to play into the left vs. Right dichotomy, being a centrist independent myself, but you seem to be correct about that. Suppression of any speech is dangerous and sets a terrifying precedent.


----------



## cots (Dec 18, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I try not to play into the left vs. Right dichotomy, being a centrist independent myself, but you seem to be correct about that. Suppression of any speech is dangerous and sets a terrifying precedent.



If the Republicans were doing the same I would have mentioned their political party instead.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Dec 18, 2018)

cots said:


> If the Republicans were doing the same I would have mentioned their political party instead.


To be fair, I do see a lot of right wingers (not necessarily the politicians themselves, but the people supporting them) pushing their idea of a Christian theocracy, saying things like freedom of religion is not freedom from religon (which in the case of public school and other government institutions, they are wrong!), and wanting things like satanism and the occult to be illegal, which is definitely trampling on free speech. Like I said though, these people tend not to gain any political foothold thankfully. On the other hand, an outspoken socialist has been elected to Congress on the basis of being "a common person, one of us" and anyone who criticizes her ideals are just jealous because "she's an attractive hispanic female, so you must be racist and misogynist." Dark times ahead my friend.


----------



## notimp (Dec 18, 2018)

Free speech in general is something that pretty much never was an actual thing. If state interests are concerned f.e. no one even cares about constitutional rights anymore - at least not "on the spot".  (Ups - millitary law? Now you are guilty until proven innocent. Haha - value reversal...  )

You could also take a look at the Snowden case, and how confident he was, that the US whistleblower protection laws would provide him with a fair trial.  But that would be US bashing again, and the general notion is rather, that free speech never was an actual thing in general. 

What is a thing in western democracies though is the right of public opposition. So that current critics of the status quo also can mobilize, congregate, and actually get a public voice and forum. Interestingly enough - this mostly resulted in forms of "managed oppositions" with real propensity for "change" (doesnt have to be the good kind..  ) strangely enough at least recently having been seen developing either on the outer edges of societies, or on "new fronts" (the traditional left and right, protesting on the streets of france "together"). Which is shorthand for "managed opposition" usually also serves the status quo - which isnt necessarily a bad thing. Because as an intelligent leader, you adopt some opposition talkingpoints - and then have managed change.

There are two additional "fields" where free speech "loosing out" comes into play - one is the private sector as someone already stated - that is in no way held to any standards against censorship, in fact for them its message control basically throughout the whole thing. The rather "new" (last 20 years  ) development here is, that the private sector in the west got the "primat" over politics. So that in many cases the goals of the private sector have decided political action more so, than any communal, or national, or political goals (you could have voted on) to begin with. (Thanks to the CEO of Airbus BTW, who has delivered the chinese all our engineering secrets on a silver platter, for the small price of ordering 100 airplanes over 10 years. Now they are building their own. You were a true european hero.) This has to do with politics having lost all their big narratives or convictions. People argue that since the 80s i has basically been political opportunitism serving a globalized capitalism, with national interests coming into play maybe once in a while.

The current "most likely" scenrio of continued corporate influence on politics has been coined "censorocracy", so increased censorship in all public venues - incentives to act within unwritten guidlines, and so on... (Chinas "social score" model, partly also applied in the west, since those are the new "hot" technologies of social control (before that it was democracy, before that it was, ...)).

So censorship actually is increasing, even in the west.

There are f.e. documented instances of famous chinese desidents, being blocked on facebook, for writing critical articles about the chinese government. Those are corporate policies at play.

Another social mechanism along those lines is universal "human rights", which are actually violated more frequently than ever, because to put it vaguely global power systems are shifting, and faced with that, no one cares so much to be seen as "the good guy" in the public media system of another country.  It still works to "mark the mad guys" towards your own populations, but at the same time - you pronounce all your "needed" dictators of the world as a "necessary evil" and dont measure them by the same standards.

Thats the main criticism we europeans always hear in foreign policy. That we measure things by different standards.  And its actually true.

The UN are currently basically defunct, and human rights also somewhat on a downwards slope. 

Thats the short and oversimplified overall assessment. 

Also - you cant hold the majority responsible towards western constitutional standards on morality grounds. The majority will always think alike and try to lynch everyone that doenst make it bigger. Mass behavioral psychology - you cant change that.  You need constitutional courts to stop that behavior. (Elitism..  )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

"Regulating hate speech" is basically censorship. You can do it - but then you have to be extremely careful, that this doesnt become a slippery slope towards the authoritarian model.

The modern "left" is also renown for trying to impress each other by "who is more socially repressed", and trying to deplatform everyone that doenst conform to arbitrary PC speech rules - which is a freaking horrible and frightening thing.

Because If we cant vent our conflicts in speech (because we lack the words, or all potential leaders of social movements have been "deplatformed" successfully), guess whats next... (Looking at france...)


----------



## notimp (Dec 18, 2018)

FierceDeityLinkMask said:


> *(As children we learn what to say and do in public and what to say and do in private. We learn that our actions have consequences. Toughen up and get over it.)*


Who is a good serve? Who's a good serve!

That guy learned self censorship on the facebook and in his family. What a wonderful story.

Then he started bullying people that speak out against perceived issues!

In germany we have a phrase for that. "Bow towards the mighty, while kicking the weak with you boots". Its there to basically describe the worst kind of human out there.

But then currently this is also a viable motto for the left. Of course, all while complaining, how much they had to bow... Strangely they also arent connecting with voters anymore. In most of the world.. 

Now lets all fight climate change! For the children! (Ups sorry, cynicism...)

Ah, there is also a running gag in history departments. Humanity never learned from the past. (Once the symbols where gone, so was the "learning effect".. 

This only changed with humanity developing the atom bomb, and the Nash equilibrium. That stuff, for some reason seems to hold..  (No one wants to be seen as the leader that destroyed the world, in that instance they all listen to their advisers...  ))


----------



## subtleglow87 (Dec 18, 2018)

wikipedia: Chilling_effect

Example: "The point is to create an atmosphere where all criticism of Israel is seen as dangerous and risky, so that people won't even try to speak out"

Kind of like how programming was fine but all of a sudden some mentally ill people started pushing codes of conduct.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 18, 2018)

cots said:


> The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
> 
> Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of.
> 
> ...


I believe you should be able to say whatever you want as long as you aren't threatening violence of any sort. It's pretty scary nowadays what can be done to a person just for a difference of opinion.


----------



## cots (Dec 18, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> I believe you should be able to say whatever you want as long as you aren't threatening violence of any sort. It's pretty scary nowadays what can be done to a person just for a difference of opinion.



Liberals tend to abuse the entire "Hate Speech" debacle and try to make it encompass anything that is said that they disagree with. If you support the President of the United States you're a hate speaking racist bigot. If you won't drop your own values and take up their values you're the same thing. However, I wasn't referring to the people that are abusing the terminology. I was referring to actual hate speech.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 18, 2018)

cots said:


> Liberals tend to abuse the entire "Hate Speech" debacle and try to make it encompass anything that is said that they disagree with. If you support the President of the United States you're a hate speaking racist bigot. If you won't drop your own values and take up their values you're the same thing. However, I wasn't referring to the people that are abusing the terminology. I was referring to actual hate speech.


Pretty much. We should be able to have differences in politics and such and still get along.


----------



## cots (Dec 18, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> Pretty much. We should be able to have differences in politics and such and still get along.



Well, it's a little off topic, but our enemies who wish to see our country destroyed want to divide us. The Liberals are just pawns in the entire game. I feel empathy for them. Hopefully they do not get their way and then have to find out what real oppression is all about. However, using a way to limit our expressions via coining it "hate speech" is just another way to gain more control over the populous.  I am not going to fall for it. I don't go around spewing actual hate speech. However, I speak about things that are unpopular and disliked by Liberals and am verbally attacked and abused because of it. How is acting in such a manner towards another person solving the problem? Heck, even if I did participate in actual hate speech the same thing applies. How is treating anyone in such a demeaning manner going to solve anything?


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 19, 2018)

cots said:


> Well, it's a little off topic, but our enemies who wish to see our country destroyed want to divide us. The Liberals are just pawns in the entire game. I feel empathy for them. Hopefully they do not get their way and then have to find out what real oppression is all about. However, using a way to limit our expressions via coining it "hate speech" is just another way to gain more control over the populous.  I am not going to fall for it. I don't go around spewing actual hate speech. However, I speak about things that are unpopular and disliked by Liberals and am verbally attacked and abused because of it. How is acting in such a manner towards another person solving the problem? Heck, even if I did participate in actual hate speech the same thing applies. How is treating anyone in such a demeaning manner going to solve anything?


I guess treating people who think differently like shit for them is a confidence booster? Who would you say our enemy is?


----------



## cots (Dec 19, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> I guess treating people who think differently like shit for them is a confidence booster? Who would you say our enemy is?



Anyone who wants to abolish our Constitution and way of life and enslave us with their own religion.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 19, 2018)

cots said:


> Anyone who wants to abolish our Constitution and way of life and enslave us with their own religion.


I agree completely .


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

So, a few things to unpack here.  First and probably most important: *freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.*  Besides the obvious examples like yelling fire in a crowded theater or making death threats, you're likely to get your ass beat or banned from local businesses if you're always running your mouth.

*We advertise ourselves as having freedom of speech, but in practice it's extremely limited.  *Freedom of speech does not apply anywhere where private business has authority.  Which means everything from social media to your house if it's owned in the majority by a bank.

*Certain politicians attack the first amendment near-constantly and without consequence.*  There have been a number of examples over the years, but it's never been more blatant than today.  If you want to protect freedom of speech then you have to call out anyone who is threatening it, regardless of which team they play for.

*Hate speech isn't about exercising your own freedoms, it's about infringing on others' freedoms.*  Pretty self-explanatory here, attacking other people on the basis that they don't belong in this country as much as you do is not cool.  Just don't be a piece of shit.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Many things to be offended by in here already.. 

First I take offense, that "liberals" are using the hate speech argument to censor opposition. Thats insane.  I dont know what image you have of "liberals" - but thats definitely wrong.

You have a new left wing congregation (millennials with a safe space complex - trying to safe everyone from themselves and their words) thats famous for currently doing that, but they also get ridiculed by everyone and their mother - and rightfully so (there is pushback).

The issue here was, that all YOUR privately sponsored top 10 universities, just saw "censorship of speech" as a new leftwing political movement, with professors being so afraid to be deplatformed and loosing their cushy jobs, that they didnt speak out against it, and in cases where they did -where punished by university leadership - because in turn, they now where afraid of missing a trend. This all ended with people shouting how very oppressed they were - then dont listening to counter arguments, but retreating in a neighboring room, where morals support animals where waiting for them. And I'm not even joking. Come to think of it, those where liberal arts colleges - but thats really not what liberals are all about. Please give them the benefit of the doubt on that.


cots said:


> Well, it's a little off topic, but our enemies who wish to see our country destroyed want to divide us.


Thats insanity as well, because your country does the best to destroy itself on its own, yet again.
Lets list it. You have -
- implemented extensive surveillance of the rest of the world
- managed to reach energy independence, and now want to bully people and sell them your fracking gas on top of it, and on top of still somewhat being the milletary protector state that you always were (in recent history)
- deconstructed your entire media system (NPR aside) to the point where the rest of the democraticed world laughs about your news neworks and rightly so
- brought the world facebook, the advertising agencyeveryone is now supposed to communicate over to get their social scores (instagram ftw.)
- your democrats successfully staged a coup and lost the election for it
- your political export on the left was the afformentioned social justice warriors. Your political export on the right was a populism revival.
- you decided to retreat from the world stage - discarding the imperialist model (the thing where you have your warships alongside every trade route in the world and have everyone pay for oil in them dollars), and become isolationist - but no worries, democrats would have done the same - just slower
- you elected to president, ...
- There was something about wall street and the world economy also - if only I could remember... Something about why millennials will never own a thing in their lives... Something about why europe decided to give out credit based on peoples life savings in banks, which got devalued alongside that (0% interest rates)

Oh, that and that your miletary leadership, never won a war in the last four centuries. Despite starting several. But lets not list that as a negative.

I'm sorry, but that - and complaining that your "outside enimies" want to destroy you - is too much for a gentile soul like me...


Oh, and did I mention that global power dynamics are shifting, already? (Chiiiiiina (spoken with the intonation of your president)) has mounted a 20 year plan (its somewhat public), investing 1000 billion USD into infrastructure projects around the world.


Xzi said:


> Hate speech isn't about exercising your own freedoms, it's about infringing on others' freedoms.


And thats entirely wrong as well. Free speech doesnt infringe on others free speech. The squads of police officers with miletary equipment (see, you fought all those wars, now you have this nifty equipment laying around - and gave that to your state police departments, because they asked for it - thats another consequence of having an industrial millitary complex that composes more than a third of your economy.. ) do.

As do the "facebook style" chatmods, that are never seen participating in any discussion, but censor the heck out of every heated discussion - because - it became so heated.. And thats bad for the advertising business.

Ah - yes, and your "digital giants" are destroying the media systems in the rest of the world, while not paying taxes. Thats fun as well. But when europeans want to tax them the Donald back room staff is all like "tarifs then, tradewar!".

If it werent for hollywood, we would really have to stop loving you at some point, I tell you..


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> And thats entirely wrong as well. Free speech doesnt infringe on others free speech.


Horse shit.  If you're yelling racial slurs directly at an individual, the purpose is no longer free speech.  Your intention is to attack that individual directly and infringe on their ability to express their first amendment rights.  Your intention is to make that person feel less than human, and thus no longer have constitutional rights at all.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Yes, but then nobody really was.

I mean - before people around the world thought, that bringing back "populism" was a grand idea. And who was on the forefront of that movement? 

I have literally arguments in stock from the liberal left, against the liberal left, that the way to bring on social change is not to shout at everyone how terribly oppressed you were - but to actually act civil (not PC, civil - as in "a discussion is still possible"), and go for the long attrition route - where you convince societies through arguments, and not through doctrine.

But in essence yes - at the point where everyone is throwing racial slurs, you cant have a discussion anymore.

But then - you are now censoring even comedians to the point where they cant do their jobs anymore - out of a fear to have their carreers destroyed on twitter - so... eh, I'd say that we are in "suff has gone too far already" territory. (In my opinion.)


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> But then - you are now censoring even comedians to the point where they cant do their jobs anymore - out of a fear to have their carreers destroyed on twitter - so... eh, I'd say that we are in "suff has gone too far already" territory. (In my opinion.)


I can definitely agree with that.  'PC' culture has gone too far when it's digging up the past of people who made jokes to a different culture at a different time and punishing them for that.  Hell, even Obama wasn't totally on board with legalizing gay marriage at one point.  Freedom of speech gets attacked from both sides of the political spectrum, but I'm more concerned when the people at the top attack it than the people at the bottom.  OTOH, it _is_ just amazing the amount of power we grant to social media these days, and that gives random internet jackasses the ability to get James Gunn fired from directing Guardians of the Galaxy 3.  We all lose when shit like that happens, so just stop it people.

Point is, there's a middle ground to be found here.  Yes, culture/society evolves and we evolve along with it, but one goddamn tweet shouldn't define a person or a career.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Sorry, I forgot to mention amazon, ruining our commerce and inner cities, also without paying taxes - but thats probably, because we actually like that, its so convenient.

And Uber, currently being outlawed by several european legislatures, because they are trying to do the same with inner city transport.

I mean I'm all for global trade and everything - but do I think, that I have to order my selfdriving car in europe using an app that pays taxes in california and has done away with all worker rights alongside its path to glory? Then demanding a 30% margin for doing literally nothing, whatsoever? (Once they get into owning an actual fleet of selfdriving cars, the argument will change...) No.

The gig economy - another wonderful US invention. See:


You just always wanted to have your personal accountant work out of Botswana, didnt you. Smilieface.

Why are you all so strangely unaware of those developments? Is it because of your outside enemies?

Or because even your most popular Late Night host, has now resided to public alcoholism? Whilst ridiculing your president. Hm.

You know that the rest of the world sees that, right?

And that:

h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ghssbkf3CY
sorry - top search result on youtube is from RT, so I'm at least not embedding that...  But the link goes to them.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> Or because even your most popular Late Night host, has now resided to public alcoholism? Whilst ridiculing your president. Hm.
> 
> You know that the rest of the world sees that, right?


I mean, they see the president, so they probably understand the alcoholism in response.  We're a dark joke to the rest of the world at the moment.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

"Hate speech" == thought crime. Being prosecuted for offering a dissenting opinion or not complying with groupthink or accidentally using the wrong fucking pronouns is an obscene abuse of power. Orwell was right about everything, except the year it would happen.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Sorry - I'm just floored watching this: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKFQjh0RSU - if I'm continuing on this path, this will become an off topic thread, so I'll stop here - but wow...

Seymour Hersh droping positive comments on the early part of Dick Cheneys (there is a name to remember) "reign", and doubling down on the fact that Obama started the inner US war against whistleblowers. Listing that as a primary cause, why he couldnt publish a tell all book about the former administration. Because he couldnt protect his sources.

Thats your free speech moment of the century. You'll find nothing that can top that.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> "Hate speech" == thought crime. Being prosecuted for offering a dissenting opinion or not complying with groupthink or accidentally using the wrong fucking pronouns


That's not what hate speech is.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's not what hate speech is.


Tell that to the radical left.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> Tell that to the radical left.


Gladly, if I ever actually meet anyone who qualifies as such.  Regardless, they only have as much power as you grant them in your own mind.  It's not like they're going to shoot you if you don't conform to their ideas, that's the radical right.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Horse shit.  If you're yelling racial slurs directly at an individual, the purpose is no longer free speech.  Your intention is to attack that individual directly and infringe on their ability to express their first amendment rights.  Your intention is to make that person feel less than human, and thus no longer have constitutional rights at all.


Yelling anything whether that be racial slurs or not does not mean you are infringing on a person's  ability to Express their rights.


Xzi said:


> Gladly, if I ever actually meet anyone who qualifies as such.  Regardless, they only have as much power as you grant them in your own mind.  It's not like they're going to shoot you if you don't conform to their ideas, that's the radical right.


It could go either way. Radicals are called just that for a reason.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Gladly, if I ever actually meet anyone who qualifies as such.  Regardless, they only have as much power as you grant them in your own mind.  It's not like they're going to shoot you if you don't conform to their ideas, that's the radical right.


No, the radical left is more insidious than that. We now live in a world where "misgendering" somebody is a criminal offence, even if it was unintentional. And why is that? Because the left have campaigned for it to be that way. They have altered the definition of "hate crime" so that something is classifiable as a "hate crime" _if the victim *feels* it was a hate crime._ Not because it was objectively a hate crime; not because it could be established that it was intended to be hateful; not because there is any fucking evidence. No, it's all about the "feelings" of the "victim".

I respect the rights of everybody to do whatever they want as long as it's not harming somebody else. If somebody wants to live their life as the opposite sex, then that's fine of course. I don't care. But if I slip up and innocently use the wrong pronoun then I can be accused of a hate crime. The law will be on the side of the "victim" and I will be considered to have acted hatefully and maliciously, even though that was not my intention.

So no, they don't "only have as much power as you grant them in your own mind". They have as much power as we, as a society, grant them to affect legislation. And currently, that is a lot of power.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> It's not like they're going to shoot you if you don't conform to their ideas, that's the radical right.


Oh by the way: Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all socialists. So don't tell me people on the radical left don't kill people who don't conform to their ideas.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

On the "should (some) form of hate speech be outlawed" topic.

We actually have such laws in germany - where using Nazi slogans, symbols, or historical revisionism of what happened in those days, is actually outlawed.

And I have to admit, I've never been able to make myself think, that that was a bad thing. (It has two functions basically, first making the lives of the victims of that regime, in country, at least somewhat bareable - second, to have a cut towards the pull those symbols and speeches had in the past, but it also allowed for society to not speak about those things at all (which lead to a minor "revolution" in the sixties, where the younger generation confronted their parents/the power elites)).

But this is held up as an exception to the rule. Its made special, by no one even attempting to get other stuff placed near that mode of censorship. So it hasnt become a slippery slope - that ended in a totalitarian vision of society.

Would I trust todays SJWs to do something along those lines - benefiting society at large, by REALLY - and I mean REALLY making sure, that no one talkes about certain topics? Hell no.

But I have to admit, that it can work in principal. Even in democratic societies. Its just that I dont wish that scenario onto anyone. (As indeed "thought crime", is a related concept.)


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> We actually have such laws in germany - where using Nazi slogans, symbols, or historical revisionism of what happened in those days, is actually outlawed.


How is "use" defined in this law? Are you allowed to, for example, portray the Nazi symbol for the purpose of education? Are you allowed to discuss Nazism? Or is it literally the case that you're not allowed to even mention it? Because...



notimp said:


> it also allowed for society to not speak about those things at all ... making sure, that no one talkes about certain topics



... is really fucking dangerous.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> No, the radical left is more insidious than that. We now live in a world where "misgendering" somebody is a criminal offence, even if it was unintentional.


We don't live in a world where that's the case.  It might be like town law somewhere I guess, but don't exaggerate.



arcanine said:


> Oh by the way: Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all socialists. So don't tell me people on the radical left don't kill people who don't conform to their ideas.


That's disingenuous as fuck and you know it.  All three are more commonly known as militaristic right-wing despots.  Neo-nazis don't tend to vote Democrat.  And none of them were Socialists.  They just used Socialism as the carrot, and Fascism/fear of being murdered by the state as the stick.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> How is "use" defined in this law?


Good question. I believe the most notable part of it is public speech or symbols in those cases are outlawed, so if someone can prove that you did that - or used that, you can be indicted. I write can - because, there is sort of a leeway space, where police can do the usual slap on the fingers, now - never do that again, and now scram. But they will stop even the attempt in any case.

(Of course recently we also have had popular rightwing uprisings, so - they might not walz them down, if they are in the minority (bad idea), but they have stopped demonstrations for that reason, and as it is also universally denounced (and I mean REALLY denounced) - no one gets up and finds that offensive.)

Also - if you are hording that stuff (Nazi devotionalia) in private, and people find out, you'll be in trouble. Same for selling it, ...

So its really somewhat an all encompassing law/social taboo.

Witch also births the some idiots might think its "cool" because its outlawed transmutations... But then, since it is such a universally accepted taboo, you never get a critical mass there...

For the most part, we hear it being exercised, when some political actor on the regional level thinks he has to talk to "his peoples" feels on facebook again.

Ah, and talking about facebook, they also remove that content from german "streams", while they dont on US platforms I believe. We made them do that.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> We don't live in a world where that's the case.  It might be like town law somewhere I guess, but don't exaggerate.


Well, ok, more accurately we live in a world where those laws exist. I have no idea what "town law" means, but here in the UK, this is nation-wide legislation.



Xzi said:


> That's disingenuous as fuck and you know it.  All three are more commonly known as militaristic right-wing despots.


Uh, no. They were totalitarian dictators, but they were absolutely socialist. Didn't you know that Stalin was a Marxist? Or that Mussolini wrote communist literature and was a prominent member of the Italian communist party? Or that Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party?



Xzi said:


> none of them were Socialists.  They just used Socialism as a carrot, and Fascism/fear of being murdered by the state as the stick.


Are you serious? You do know, right, that just as one example, Stalin claimed ownership of *everything* on behalf of the state and then meted it out to the population, and those who didn't think this was a great idea were thrown in the gulag, or just left to starve to death? Or that both Mussolini and Hitler espoused socialist views? Sure they moved to the right subsequently, but that's not the point. They used socialist doctrine to coerce the population, and only when they had control started killing people who didn't like it.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> Well, ok, more accurately we live in a world where those laws exist. I have no idea what "town law" means, but here in the UK, this is nation-wide legislation.


Well that's Democracy for you I suppose.  Imperfect as it might be, your country chose that for itself, nobody else chose it for you.  I seriously doubt the punishment is that harsh regardless.



arcanine said:


> Are you serious? You do know, right, that just as one example, Stalin claimed ownership of *everything* on behalf of the state and then meted it out to the population, and those who didn't think this was a great idea were thrown in the gulag, or just left to starve to death? Or that both Mussolini and Hitler espoused socialist views? Sure they moved to the right subsequently, but that's not the point. They used socialist doctrine to coerce the population, and only when they had control started killing people who didn't like it.


Obviously you don't understand Socialism in the least if you think it's compatible with one person controlling all the money and power.  Stalin/Mussolini/Hitler never ruled over Socialist nations, they were purely dictatorships.  Like I said, they used the promise of Socialism to keep workers happy, but ultimately it was never about shifting the focus of power to the workers.  Those men were "Socialist" in the same way that modern-day Republicans are "Christian."  Almost entirely lip service.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well that's Democracy for you I suppose.  Imperfect as it might be, your country chose that for itself, nobody else chose it for you.  I seriously doubt the punishment is that harsh regardless.


The country didn't choose it. There was no public vote on it. It's a small lobby pushing for legislative change. Placing this responsibility in the hands of the population as a whole "because democracy" is slightly overstating the power of the vote. You know we have to wait several years between elections, and in the interim, people can do things that are not within the control of the population.



Xzi said:


> Obviously you don't understand Socialism in the least if you think it's compatible with one person controlling all the money and power.


Not one person, but one entity. How do you think Marx intended that commodities would be shared equally across the population? What, people aren't selfish and greedy and desperate? Of course they are. You have to have a political superstructure to take ownership of all of that and then share it out. And, you know, murder anyone who wants to keep their stuff.



Xzi said:


> Stalin/Mussolini/Hitler never ruled over Socialist nations, they were purely dictatorships.


Dictatorship and socialism are not mutually exclusive. A dictator is just someone who has total control. That control can take any form.



Xzi said:


> Like I said, they used the promise of Socialism to keep workers happy, but ultimately it was never about shifting the focus of power to the workers.  Those men were "Socialist" in the same way that modern-day Republicans are "Christian."  Almost entirely lip service.


Except the parts about seizing commodities from the people and then redistributing them, which is socialism through and through.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> The country didn't choose it. There was no public vote on it. It's a small lobby pushing for legislative change. Placing this responsibility in the hands of the population as a whole "because democracy" is slightly overstating the power of the vote. You know we have to wait several years between elections, and in the interim, people can do things that are not within the control of the population.


Well, it's representative Democracy, and like I said, still far from perfect.  You guys have several major political parties, right?  Not sure how they all agreed on the misgendering thing.



arcanine said:


> Dictatorship and socialism are not mutually exclusive. A dictator is just someone who has total control. That control can take any form.


You're correct that they aren't mutually exclusive, which is why dictatorships don't have any issue taking root in Capitalist nations or (Banana) Republics either.



arcanine said:


> Except the parts about seizing commodities from the people and then redistributing them, which is socialism through and through.


True, but we already do that in America to a lesser degree in the form of taxes and social spending.  The only problem is that the vast majority of money always gets redistributed to the top instead of the bottom.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, it's representative Democracy, and like I said, still far from perfect.  You guys have several major political parties, right?  Not sure how they all agreed on the misgendering thing.


Because they're all too spineless to stand up to these rad-left miscreants.



Xzi said:


> You're correct that they aren't mutually exclusive, which is why dictatorships don't have any issue taking root in Capitalist nations or (Banana) Republics either.


Quite. But I wasn't arguing that _only_ socialism is compatible with despotism. I totally agree that it can (and does) exist in capitalist nations also.



Xzi said:


> True, but we already do that in America to a lesser degree in the form of taxes.  The only problem is that the vast majority of money always gets redistributed to the top instead of the bottom.


Well, taxation is a necessary evil in my opinion. If we want to live in democratic societies (which most of us would agree that we do) then somebody has to be in control. And that control requires resources, and those resources cost money. So yes, we have to surrender a proportion of our wealth to the state. But we get to keep most of it for ourselves. Sure, there is always going to be work to do to improve the usage and redistribution of tax money, but I don't think that makes tax a bad thing as a concept.


We're off-topic here, so lets try to refocus. I made the point that hate-speech has been redefined (in some places) to include anything the "victim" doesn't like the sound of; you responded that there is a limit to what someone from the left will do in response to that, and that it's only the right who will enact violence in response; I responded with examples of people who at least start out as radical leftists and carried out horrific acts of violence. Also, it's not difficult to see instances of violence carried out by left-wing campaigners. There is violence on both sides, but I've seen situations where leftist demonstrators have instigated violence against peaceful right-wingers, as well as the opposite. And aside from the violence aspect, who do we see campaigning for free speech to be limited? It's not the right, but the snowflake left. And as much as I'd like to say that the views of those people are irrelevant, it's not true. The mainstream media is reflecting these views and attitudes all the time, and it's seeping into legislation.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 19, 2018)

At the end of the day, speech is just words. Grow some thicker skin and fuck your feelings, snowflakes.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 19, 2018)

Jayro said:


> At the end of the day, speech is just words. Grow some thicker skin and fuck your feelings, snowflakes.


Sticks and Stones can break my Bones but Words can never Hurt me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I support hate speech. It’s funny.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> We're off-topic here, so lets try to refocus. I made the point that hate-speech has been redefined (in some places) to include anything the "victim" doesn't like the sound of; you responded that there is a limit to what someone from the left will do in response to that, and that it's only the right who will enact violence in response; I responded with examples of people who at least start out as radical leftists and carried out horrific acts of violence. Also, it's not difficult to see instances of violence carried out by left-wing campaigners. There is violence on both sides, but I've seen situations where leftist demonstrators have instigated violence against peaceful right-wingers, as well as the opposite. And aside from the violence aspect, who do we see campaigning for free speech to be limited? It's not the right, but the snowflake left. And as much as I'd like to say that the views of those people are irrelevant, it's not true. The mainstream media is reflecting these views and attitudes all the time, and it's seeping into legislation.


I concede that extremists and violence can come from either side.  It's not usually a big deal if extremist groups are just beating the shit out of each other.  I'm not sure about there, however, but in America, deadly attacks on innocent victims have come almost exclusively from right-wing extremists lately.  'PC' culture is a problem that needs reigned in, but it's not life-threatening.  Now, when the president starts attacking freedom of the press, then you know you've got a big fucking problem based on historical context alone.  I don't think even Trump is stupid enough to try to repeal the first amendment, but he did question the legality of 'Saturday Night Live' recently, so who knows.

But I digress: the problem isn't necessarily hate speech in isolated incidents.  The problem is normalization of and de-sensitization to hate speech.  Hitler's rise to power and subsequent consolidation of power didn't happen over night.  The hearts and minds of the people had to be slowly poisoned against a singular scapegoat first.


----------



## barronwaffles (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The hearts and minds of the people had to be slowly poisoned against a singular scapegoat first.



Hitlers rise to power has very little to do with scapegoating any particular group.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

barronwaffles said:


> Hitlers rise to power has very little to do with scapegoating any particular group.


True, that was more the 'consolidation of power' part, but it's semantics.  Despots throughout history have always needed a boogeyman to turn the native/majority population against.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Lets bring another aspect into it. You dont use hate speech, if you are clever.

As in never.

Not even as a demagog (then you are only hinting at certain symbols).

Reason: You'll never reach the biggest audiences in the proverbial political center.

So what I (as actually more than left leaning) am actually "mad about" in terms of the SJW movement, is, that their "targets" already are oppressed minorities.

Remember that they have to get into those battles, about "whose actually more oppresed" (repressed.  ) as a result of that?

Thats basically not touching any actual "big" societal issues, but trying to make your name on them social media streets, for being the toughest bully around. Sorry, the most oppressed victim. All them other victims dont even come close...

Then again, as a result you can majorly benefit the (lg)btq community (lg) in brackets, because they have reached societal acceptance, before you reached the stage. Which is wonderful, dont get me wrong - but in unfair comparison to the "Big picture stuff" - it hardly matters at all.

As in - those where "issue groups" so small, that every political movement didnt care about them, because it just hadnt gotten the people base.

And as a result, the president can now make one comment on "cracking down on that progress" - and undo all your "work" - because no one actually really cares (slow attrition route of winning over societies, vs doctrine).

From the point of view of a real person in power, I'd love me my SJWs - they dont cost me anything. They can be outraged about a whole bunch of stuff, that I don't care about either way. Now thats an opposition I don't even have to manage..  Hey, I sponsor a whole entire college wing, just for that! 

But them people are so horrible, and repressive - yes, but they dont have power, they just ignorrant. You dont fight the ignorrant, you fight for the ignorrant to be able to get access to education. You fight misuse of power structures. If you reached a left leaning college. Thats what your student years are for. Not petting emotional support animals. (Well ...  )


----------



## barronwaffles (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> True, that was more the 'consolidation of power' part, but it's semantics.  Despots throughout history have always needed a boogeyman to turn the native/majority population against.



Even his consolidation of power was almost exclusively based on political maneuvering internal to the party and 'playing' the system as it existed - exploitation of what were preexisting hostilities towards particular ethno-religious groups and other minorities among the majority of the population at the time play virtually no part.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Dec 19, 2018)

isn't it pretty much logically proven that tolerance for intolerance leads to the destruction of tollerance?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> isn't it pretty much logically proven that tollerance for intollerance leads to the destruction of tollerance?


You are correct.  There's a neat little infographic about this:


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

I think it would be helpful if we as a society could define what we actually mean by "tolerance". I will "tolerate" pretty much anything as long as it isn't harming me or unduly impinging on me. But it seems that these days that isn't enough, and "tolerate" has come to mean "embrace". Which means that failing to embrace something renders you "intolerant". Some people need to realise that you don't have to like something in order to tolerate it.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

arcanine said:


> I think it would be helpful if we as a society could define what we actually mean by "tolerance". I will "tolerate" pretty much anything as long as it isn't harming me or unduly impinging on me. But it seems that these days that isn't enough, and "tolerate" has come to mean "embrace". Which means that failing to embrace something renders you "intolerant". Some people need to realise that you don't have to like something in order to tolerate it.


Absolutely, which is why this specifies 'movements that preach intolerance and persecution' as the only ones which should be banned by law.  You have to put in effort and be outspoken about it to be intolerant.  If you just keep your head down and go about your day, nobody is going to randomly accuse you of being a homophobe just because you walked by a gay pride parade without dancing.  Tolerance is almost always the easier path.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Absolutely, which is why this specifies 'movements that preach intolerance and persecution' as the only ones which should be banned by law.  You have to put in effort and be outspoken about it to be intolerant.  If you just keep your head down and go about your day, nobody is going to randomly accuse you of being a homophobe just because you walked by a gay pride parade without dancing.  Tolerance is almost always the easier path.


I'd love to believe that, but sadly it isn't true:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...entation-and-transgender-identity-hate-crime/

I quote:



> What is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident?
> 
> Something is a homophobic or transphobic hate incident *if the victim or anyone else thinks* it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation or transgender identity.
> 
> This means that *if you believe something is a hate incident, it should be recorded as this* by the person you are reporting it to.



(emphasis added). So in the UK, if you innocently and accidentally refer to a trans person as the wrong gender, and they _*believe*_ this was done out of hostility or prejudice, the police are required to record this as a hate crime. Whether they prosecute or not is not the point. It will go on that person's record as a crime. I work with children and have to disclose my (clean) criminal record. Can you imagine what it would do to my career if some SJW rad-left nutcase didn't like the fact that I said "dude" and reported me for hate crime?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 19, 2018)

Back when I were a lad I found myself doing the whole 90s hacker thing. Which is to say information wanted to be free, actions talk, bring logic (not feelings) to your arguments and people will listen, and everything else was so much noise ( https://joshhighland.com/2007/08/28/mentors-last-words-the-hacker-manifesto/ ). Back then most of the push back seemed to be coming from religious types that wanted all sorts of things banned (a good starting point being the nonsense that was the various satanic panics in the US). Today they have died off, or become an easily ignored element (probably as religion died as well), but the new push seems to come from people that seem to want to deem knowledge as a construct and go from there. This leads to a lot of very odd things I find myself disliking. It also seems to have glommed onto some flavour of left wing politics (stretching and diluting things too) and that makes me somewhat sad as in there somewhere are the things I would like to see in the world, probably will still happen but a lot slower and with some hiccups along the way.




Xzi said:


> Horse shit.  If you're yelling racial slurs directly at an individual, the purpose is no longer free speech.  Your intention is to attack that individual directly and infringe on their ability to express their first amendment rights.  Your intention is to make that person feel less than human, and thus no longer have constitutional rights at all.


I just farted and will deem it an attack as you describe on you. Such a thing has likely made not a whit of difference to your day, life, or ability to get on with either.
Though I suppose a further quote of yours actually says it better


Xzi said:


> Regardless, they only have as much power as you grant them in your own mind.






notimp said:


> On the "should (some) form of hate speech be outlawed" topic.
> 
> We actually have such laws in germany - where using Nazi slogans, symbols, or historical revisionism of what happened in those days, is actually outlawed.
> 
> ...



And what country in Europe is responsible for most of the censorship we saw in games?




Xzi said:


> Obviously you don't understand Socialism in the least if you think it's compatible with one person controlling all the money and power.  Stalin/Mussolini/Hitler never ruled over Socialist nations, they were purely dictatorships.  Like I said, they used the promise of Socialism to keep workers happy, but ultimately it was never about shifting the focus of power to the workers.  Those men were "Socialist" in the same way that modern-day Republicans are "Christian."  Almost entirely lip service.



Maybe dictionary socialism has never quite been managed but when every attempt to go whole hog, whether independently or seeded, has gone down such a path, or exploded before even getting there, one does tend be a bit wary. You might even ask if it can practicably be achieved.



Xzi said:


> I concede that extremists and violence can come from either side.  It's not usually a big deal if extremist groups are just beating the shit out of each other.  I'm not sure about there, however, but in America, deadly attacks on innocent victims have come almost exclusively from right-wing extremists lately.  'PC' culture is a problem that needs reigned in, but it's not life-threatening.  Now, when the president starts attacking freedom of the press, then you know you've got a big fucking problem based on historical context alone.  I don't think even Trump is stupid enough to try to repeal the first amendment, but he did question the legality of 'Saturday Night Live' recently, so who knows.
> 
> But I digress: the problem isn't necessarily hate speech in isolated incidents.  The problem is normalization of and de-sensitization to hate speech.  Hitler's rise to power and subsequent consolidation of power didn't happen over night.  The hearts and minds of the people had to be slowly poisoned against a singular scapegoat first.




If they are going to beat each other in a field in the middle of nowhere, fix any injuries caused themselves out of their own pockets and promptly slink off then while still not ideal so be it. When people start blocking streets, damaging public property, attacking police and otherwise being a nuisance I can't see ignoring them as being a good way to set about things.

Similarly one does not have to be deadly to be life altering. There are plenty of examples of extreme left types attacking people, frequently without any justification.

As for tolerance of intolerance then I am still going with unless direct incitement (be it kill that guy, or kill all purple eyed people) is involved then it gets to play, with some limited scope for prior actions informing future assembly options. By all means laugh at, counter and disparage the notions put forth but to utterly deny them the right to have a go... nah. If the world is not big enough and ugly enough to take it then may something better arise which can.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

barronwaffles said:


> Hitlers rise to power has very little to do with scapegoating any particular group.


That sounds like historical revisonism to me...

Mr Hilters rise to power had only to do with scapegoating a particular group, sounds much more true to me.

I mean, have you heard his speeches? (Sportpalast, ... ) Hilter was a _nothing_ but a gifted speaker. And he used the populist mold to rise to power.

And that is basically scapegoating 1-o-1. Scapegoating the movie.

Here is it in principal.

We all know, that people have it bad today. And its the fault of our common enemy the eurasians. As everyone knows, the eurasians are bad people, they steel your money by giving you credit, and have those big noses, and brown skin. Now lets all confiscate their wealth, and build autobahns with it (or walls?) - whos with me?

Then you feed them some "you are the chosen people" stuff, and strip up a war economy in no time, because you also had them march in lockstep, which made them feel strong. And what did they have in mind while doing so? Fighting the enemy. The eurasians, the polish people, the french, the british, the russians, the americans, the... Wait a minute... I think there is scapegoating going on.. 

Damn mexicans! (*I kid, i kid...*)

Also - can we please not let this end on godwins law..  Americans fascination with fashist germany, I tell you...


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I just farted and will deem it an attack as you describe on you. Such a thing has likely made not a whit of difference to your day, life, or ability to get on with either.
> Though I suppose a further quote of yours actually says it better


My quote doesn't really apply any more when we're talking about the people in power.  Far-right extremists rise to power all the time, and that's why we have to stay vigilant in order to keep the racists/bigots from rallying behind a single racist/bigot leader.



FAST6191 said:


> Maybe dictionary socialism has never quite been managed but when every attempt to go whole hog, whether independently or seeded, has gone down such a path, or exploded before even getting there, one does tend be a bit wary. You might even ask if it can practicably be achieved.


Indeed, a purely Socialist system would be hard to implement properly.  The core idea is solid if a bit overly-aggressive, which is why Socialism-inspired programs work better when implemented piecemeal in a Democracy.



FAST6191 said:


> As for tolerance of intolerance then I am still going with unless direct incitement (be it kill that guy, or kill all purple eyed people) is involved then it gets to play, with some limited scope for prior actions informing future assembly options. By all means laugh at, counter and disparage the notions put forth but to utterly deny them the right to have a go... nah. If the world is not big enough and ugly enough to take it then may something better arise which can.


It would be different if intolerance accomplished anything whatsoever, but it never does.  It doesn't advance a conversation or debate.  It doesn't make for a salient point.  The only purpose is to attack the other for not being exactly like you.  The world has been down the 'ugly' road of hatred and bigotry numerous times already, we shouldn't need a fourth reich just to be taught this lesson _again_.  Tolerating intolerance simply does not work.  It's the fastest possible path to _everyone_ losing their freedom of speech along with other rights.


----------



## Kigiru (Dec 19, 2018)

Hate Speech = A nice looking buzzword used by vile people to look like they have a point and attack others. Just push hard enough that someone's using "disgusting hate speech" to assault any minorities and you can win any argument in modern days. And considering how the definition of it is extremely vague and unclear, you can easly declare that everything is a hate speech. Some people tried to push that T-Posing, ok-sign or a fucking milk are hateful, remember it.

Paraphrasing old saying about dildos - "Everything is a hate speech if you are bravestupid enough."


----------



## barronwaffles (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> We all know, that people have it bad today. And its the fault of our common enemy the eurasians. As everyone knows, the eurasians are bad people, they steel your money by giving you credit, and have those big noses, and brown skin. Now lets all confiscate their wealth, and build autobahns with it (or walls?) - whos with me?



Wow, a reductionist version of history with very little basis in reality.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Its a mix of history, the 1984 narrative, and Trumps way into power, yes. 

But the part how "blaming the jew" gave a germany suffering under economic depression, some common "thing" to unite against, is very true. Sadly.

If I paid enough attention in my lectures, the "blaming the jew" narrative at the time didnt start with the Nazis, but by god did they use the living sh*t out of it, and by god did they "make up for it". (They made them nice bands they had to wear on their arms, and fashioned nice songs about them, and printed advertising - that featured them, and they even made them a final solution. And those are about the limits of talking about this stuff cynically.)

Them using the confiscated wealth to actually bootstrap the first "economic revival" - actually also was a thing. All in all maybe less important than giving people a common enemy again (a minority oh how fitting...). But the truth nevertheless.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> My quote doesn't really apply any more when we're talking about the people in power.  Far-right extremists rise to power all the time, and that's why we have to stay vigilant in order to keep the racists/bigots from rallying behind a single racist/bigot leader.
> 
> 
> Indeed, a purely Socialist system would be hard to implement properly.  The core idea is solid if a bit overly-aggressive, which is why Socialism-inspired programs work better when implemented piecemeal in a Democracy.
> ...


OK. A goal I applaud even. Do it some other way than sacrificing the ability to say things.

Don't disagree with the latter, however that is not what we were discussing there. Go a different version. We want to do a perpetual motion machine and thus we talk about ways of lowering entropy -- theoretical physics allows for all sorts of cool things, and some things beyond that, it would be of a fairly minimal practical value as far as actually engineering anything to even come close.

Stereotyping works to an extent. It is a poor way and will cause you to miss out on things, and others to miss out on things (one day which may include you), and would happily discourage it and things that fall from it. Similarly the right to talk does not mean the requirement to say something salient. I wish it did happen more than it does but that is a different discussion.
I still say drive someone underground (especially in such a poor way as borderline word filter*) and you give them mystique and such. Allow them to spew utter bollocks, and just as importantly others to counter it, and they get laughed at. In higher levels of debate you are encouraged to learn the "normal" arguments and counter arguments for a given subject and I would say such a thing applies up and down the levels. Or if you prefer I don't expect a person to be able to cover developmental psychology, history of society, history of the world, geography, animal biology, plant biology, group psychology... to know why various people groups were in the positions they were in and probabilities of things today, however I do expect that they have met a black guy that is more than capable and thus know it can be done so when someone says some dubiously sourced nonsense they can say "hold on".
Even if that effect was far diminished I still can't get to it being a if it is allowed it will inevitably wreck shit, or stand a far too high a chance of doing such. Leaving aside the nature of modern war between people that can handle themselves (something we have never really seen), and nature of modern legal codes (far from perfect but far more robust than they were) making for interesting modifiers compared to past events** I would look to economics -- those that willingly slice out a class of capables are going to fail in the years to come as things trend in that direction with automation and whatnot -- as it stands today I have routinely seen people with more interesting skill sets interviewed, hired and sidelined or put in a proverbial play pen waiting to come online as people realise they are going to need all they can get and it is a limited resource.

Similarly it need not be "exactly like you" -- it is entirely possible to be a racist straight person who is happy to have the gays around.

*the drip fed stuff we might have each done to inculcate people against things they might not fully comprehend at this moment works almost as well if applied to less than ideal concepts.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I still say drive someone underground (especially in such a poor way as borderline word filter*) and you give them mystique and such. Allow them to spew utter bollocks, and just as importantly others to counter it, and they get laughed at.


The end result is the same and the person is driven underground either way, but I wouldn't say that posting on 4Chan/Gab lends any extra prestige or mystique to a person's words.


----------



## petethepug (Dec 19, 2018)

cots said:


> The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
> 
> Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of.
> 
> ...


This is actually true. And i'm in for your support (that's the bare summary of what I agree with you with, is your thread title.
As far as the discussion. What I can best conclude is that love is reaching its peaking point with family bonding.

I wouldn't take this as a word of warning (yet.)


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> isn't it pretty much logically proven that tolerance for intolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance?


You can destroy democracy with democratic means, yes.  Thats a design flaw. Or not. Depending on who you ask. 

The goal is to have enough people "immunized" (flipside is indoctrinated..  ) against a populist draw, of blaming everything on them mexicans (and bad trade deals, I believe), so that a "takeover" by a highly different ideology ("boo, them are journalists, boooo" "I know, lets all read breitbart!") doesnt happen.

Didn't quite work in america. But those where glorious pictures, of your next leader on escalators, I have to say. And those Les Moonves quotes about them Donald stories being so good for business... Damn, those were good jokes.

It happened in european countries as well. Even more so, because there in one case they've gotten the numbers to even restructure the legislative system. (Think constitutional courts.) They basically voted out liberal democracy.

But to return to the initial comment. In debates you have several ways to solve this. You can solve it by distributing time for a speech equally between proponents, or you can solve it by having a moderated debate, or by adhering to standards, that the debaters voluntary agree upon.

You cant fix this on social media though. Its impossible. Its the "everyones opinion needs to be able to be heard" nature of the format, that doesnt allow for it. Its the "optimising for what peaks peoples interests" business models that make sure, that the bullsh't gets the highest traction. Its the (economically driven) insistence, of "we just a platform - we no responsible", that makes sure - that at best you are ending up with automated censorship in the future - and then all think, that thats a good thing - while still staying in bubbles.

Its the insistence, that "fact checking" will safe you, when the most prominent fact checking agencies themselves already have gone public saying - we dont even make a dent, we were just used as crisis PR.

You have people not exchanging opinions anymore - if they are not basically identical - how do you think thats going to work out longterm? You even have the media landscape to support it. (Individualized news networks.. Even fringe. No american knows the highest regarded 10 newspapers in his country anymore. They dont even know the source of what lands in their newsfeeds.)

Its like people all being very confused how you can solve this - when the answer really is, you have to care about sources, and means of distribution.

If you dont. And if you trust an ad agency to supply you with your important news stories - its over.

You can even end up consuming the far right outlets for a while if you must - over time you might notice, that they follow a certain profile - same with outlets on the left. The great thing about this internet thing? You can read them all - and in the end you'll end up somewhat informed.

Thats part of the solution.

The other part of it is having political parties, that have somewhat of a profile again. And by that I dont mean we hate mexicans, and are for making america great again - because thats just you being nigerian email scammed again..  (Please dont go for populist speeches. If you ask someone what they plan on doing, and they tell you "we will build a wall to keep the bad people out" - run.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> And what country in Europe is responsible for most of the censorship we saw in games?


Please dont equate that with censorship of speech.

The guys censoring games in europe simply are old conservatives that think that they youth has to be protected from them bad influences - of "whatever is new at the time". This has almost no political dimension to it at all.

Also the games are art argument, currently is so weak, that I'd not even let that count anymore. Games, nowadays are inherently commercial products not political ones. Censoring them is - meh, something you do so moms around the world dont insist on buying you wooden toys anymore. The publishers even do it voluntarily to get into certain markets. They dont care.

GTA V - which might be the most political game of the recent past, got its point across - even censored..  Didnt even need gore for that.

Also to answer your question, thats the individual countries themselves. If they havent gone for the ESRB rating, which is an industry selfcontrol proposal.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> Please dont equate that with censorship of speech.
> 
> The guys censoring games in europe simply are old conservatives that think that they youth has to be protected from them bad influences - of "whatever is new at the time". This has almost no political dimension to it.
> 
> ...


So a government imposes restrictions upon an artistic medium under the grounds that its contents are too dangerous for the minds of.. someone, this despite any amount of evidence you like to the contrary (and seemingly none sought). Speech need not be political to be free. I also can't get to just because not all stuff is political that none of it is.

I don't doubt it was some combo of religious weirdos and special interest groups that missed the boat that provided the biggest onus, however nobody took it on with arguments for speech and there was no wide scale defiance enough to make it change.

Similarly I am not sure what pubs trying to play the game to get into a market really means here. I should probably also point at Sony vs the a bunch of their Japanese devs this last few weeks. Plenty are upset about that.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

I've been on the other side of that argument before. 

Its not the same. I'd live with all my games being censored for the next 100 years, if that means, that open political debates could take place on public stages again.

Heck, if blood is green instead of red, in lets say Fortnite, maybe someone doesnt like that so much, that they stop using games as escapism for a while - that would be something.

With Kojima being sacked by Konami, all publishers going for "virtual entertainment experiences" (play game for 200 hours, buy microtransactions, dlc, and season pass), only sequels ever getting greenlit - and projects being created by 300+ people without a unified vision. Games have seized being art. Now indies are supposed to always compensate.

The Witcher 3 maybe was the last game that deeply impressed me, and where I'd argue for it being more then just pop art (which is a commercial substitute.. ). And if a head rolled or not - didn't matter in that game all that much.

I'd still prefer to see the "creators intent" (/300), but I'm not opening the same amount of hellraising righteousness I'd do for peoples believes and political opinions not being censored.

Because one changes societies, and one does not. (The chilling effect stuff.)

My believe that art can change the tracks of societies is about as close to zero as possible, compared to how I felt about it in previous years - so that doesnt help much either..  (Thats personal opinion, not some truth I'm flogging..  )


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> I've been on the other side of that argument before.
> 
> Its not the same. I'd live with all my games being censored for the next 100 years, if that means, that open political debates could take place on public stages again.
> 
> ...



While one would be a lesser trauma to the world at large if you are going to stand up for your principles... stand tall or don't stand at all is where I am going, and beyond that "give them a tiny bit of power and they will only come back for more". It is quite literally the same underlying reasoning as the "while I would be delighted for the racist cunts of the world to actually take a look at how it all works, see it is not so and go from that there is no way I would trust a governing body to ban the words of that"

So the big pubs have abandoned all pretence of artistry. Never mind that such a thing could well be a transient state games can be made by anybody, pretty much always have been and now distribution is even easier than that.

From a functional perspective I don't disagree that much of what we have seen does not impact things as it stands today*, however I want the option to see what might happen if given the chance. Most silent film does not have the power to move me but to assume it was always going to be that... (the first film was 1888, the first sound film/talkie was 1927 if we go with feature films, a bit less time than today back to pong but not by much, in fact we would just be getting Asteroids).

*on the matter of green and red blood I will always remember the talk I saw from an advert maker that relayed the call they got from a young girl saying her period was not blue. Similarly I am still not sure that no blood is the better way to go -- if you aim to discourage violence a bit of realism tends to do wonders there (how many times have you seen some youngster on the stand saying "I only hit him with a glass" and thought the one struck would just get up or just stagger a bit?).


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 20, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> So a government imposes restrictions upon an artistic medium under the grounds that its contents are too dangerous for the minds of.. someone, this despite any amount of evidence you like to the contrary (and seemingly none sought). Speech need not be political to be free. I also can't get to just because not all stuff is political that none of it is.



I take it you're still talking about Germany? What you describe isn't the case here. There's not really any government restrictions on entaintainment other than using Nazi imagery (which itself is in the proccess of being overturned rn).
There's two peculiarities regarding the German rating system:

There's a government agency that examines media to protect youth, if it deems it dangerous to youth it will be put on an index, which doesn't mean it's banned but that it can't be advertised or be displayed in store shelves (other things that have advertising restrictions include tabacco for example). It can still be bought "over the counter", if that makes sense, by people over 18. We have a store in our home town that sold imported, uncut versions of games and it's perfectly legal to do so.
There's a self rating board and most games that are heavily censored are that way because the publisher targeted younger audiences. For example: Quake 4's original version was put on the index but the censored version for the German market was rated 16+ by the self rating board. They could've targeted 18+ and put more gore in it.
Fun Fact: Germany had a strong LAN culture during the 2000s where you had LANs run by various local clubs almost every week in a region. People going to LANs were happy if a multiplayer focused game, like Quake 4, got a 16+ version because it meant a 16+ LAN would be able to run tournaments for it.

Going back to what has been mentioned earlier about restrictions to free speech here in Germany regarding Nazi imagery or Holocaust denial. The government agency responsible for putting media on an index has recently decided not to put the uncut version of Wolfenstein 2 on the index, even though Nazi imagery in the game is purely for entertainment and not for educational purposes. The self rating board is currently in the proccess of deciding whether it wants to allow the uncut version on the German market. There's also games like Doom that have been taken off the index in recent years. It seems like the agency is loosening up it's definition of what is dangerous to youth.

TL;DR
Games publishers/developers won't be denied access to the German market for their uncencored version. Restrictions that are comparable to other things dangerous to youth (alcohol, tabacco) will be in place. The decision to compromise their art by censoring is purely their own.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 20, 2018)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I take it you're still talking about Germany? What you describe isn't the case here. There's not really any government restrictions on entaintainment other than using Nazi imagery (which itself is in the proccess of being overturned rn).
> There's two peculiarities regarding the German rating system:
> 
> There's a government agency that examines media to protect youth, if it deems it dangerous to youth it will be put on an index, which doesn't mean it's banned but that it can't be advertised or be displayed in store shelves (other things that have advertising restrictions include tabacco for example). It can still be bought "over the counter", if that makes sense, by people over 18. We have a store in our home town that sold imported, uncut versions of games and it's perfectly legal to do so.
> ...



Going by previous discussions it seems the self censor board was set up in reaction to a piece of government legislation and is official recognised, and appears to also then legally prohibit advertising and I think it was display of such games... not really a voluntary thing then.
From http://www.usk.de/en/


> It is the officially recognized institution responsible for the classification of computer and video games in Germany in accordance with the Children and Young Persons Protection Act (JuSchG) as well as for online contents in accordance with the Youth Media Protection State Agreement (JMStV)



The Nazi thing. I can see why it was done at first but I reckon it massively overstayed its welcome (and initial projections of how long it would remain in effect if various things from around the time it was all enacted are to be believed), probably such that it should have definitely have been gone by the 1980s and thus not really bothered games.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 21, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Going by previous discussions it seems the self censor board was set up in reaction to a piece of government legislation and is official recognised, and appears to also then legally prohibit advertising and I think it was display of such games... not really a voluntary thing then.
> From http://www.usk.de/en/



Yes it is officially recognized and USK must rate in accordance to JuSchG (Jugendschutzgesetzt translated as Young Persons Protection Act, more literal translation would be Youth Protection Act), I don't see where the problem is with that.
I'd be interested where you get the idea that unrated games are prohibited from advertising and display. I can't find any information on it. This is a bit complicated because of a different institution BPjM so let me try to explain.

Some time Ago (like 15 years or so) BPjS (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften, Federal Department for Writings Harmful to Young Persons) had to examine any media that a citizen request to be examined for content harmful to youth.
This lead to some games, like Unreal Tournament, being examined years after release and put on the index

BPjS was then reformed and renamed BPjM (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien, Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons), now they have to examine every game that gets a release in Germany, Publishers can either turn it in ahead of release or just release it.
There's been games in the past that have been available for a few days or a week in its uncut version. Stores would often put it on display as soon as they got it instead of waiting for official release day. The copy of Quake 4 in the uncut version that I have, was bought 2 days ahead of release in a regular electronics store.

Putting stuff on the index is beyond just an 18+ rating, porn would be something that's 18+ but not on the index.
Any restrictions regarding advertisement or display in stores only apply to media on the index!
USK will put an age rating on the game which IS voluntary, if a publisher won't have a game rated it can still be sold (albeit only to persons over 18) and it can be advertised and displayed. It can, however, be put on the index by BPjM after the fact and the restrictions would apply.
Maybe you misunderstood things when researching because on the USK website's FAQ for publishers they combine the aswer to whether things can be sold without a rating with a warning about restrictions to games on the index.

USK is not allowed to rate a game that they believe should be on the index and instead have turn it over to BPjM
I believe this is a fair process. Over here we have moved to make other things harmful to young persons less accessible. You have to verify your age at cigarette machines with your ID, driver's license or bank card, whenever a cashier at a store drags a product over the scanner that's 16+ it will signal a beep and the cashier has to physically press a button to confirm the person they're selling to is of age.

I would agree that BPjM/BPjS was too harsh when it came to putting stuff on the index but they've recently removed games like DOOM and DOOM2 from the index and in general seem to loosen up. They recently decided that the uncut version of Wolfenstein 2 will not be put on the index.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 21, 2018)

Regarding hatespeech and specifically tolerance of intolerance I would believe that people don't who are calling for that don't really think it through.

Up until now a system of free speech with as little restrictions as possible has created the best outcome. On principle I would agree that intelorance should not be tolerated, the question really is how to go about it and I don't think violence is the answer. Let's face it you will always have fringe whacko minority groups that believe in some outlandish stuff.

I think there's a point at which trying to regulate would do more harm than good because it's virtually impossible to draw a line and evenly apply it to all people. I think it's a worthwhile experiment to think about how you would enforce such rules in specific situations.

In a channel 4 survey 52% of british muslims disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Great Britian
@Xzi what would be the appropiate response? Should I be intelorant towards muslims for their intolerance toward gays? Would that make me an intolerable intolerant?
I grew up in a mutlicultural soceity and I'm grateful for it. My parents fled socialism before me and my brother were born and I'm deeply grateful for that. At school, the majority of the classroom was of non German descent and I learned a lot from different cultures and it was great. However, towards the end of my time in high school I also experienced how my Jewish neighbour's kid was treated by my Muslim friends after transferring to my school. I was a young adult and I was just so confused, I didn't know what was going on.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 21, 2018)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Yes it is officially recognized and USK must rate in accordance to JuSchG (Jugendschutzgesetzt translated as Young Persons Protection Act, more literal translation would be Youth Protection Act), I don't see where the problem is with that.
> I'd be interested where you get the idea that unrated games are prohibited from advertising and display. I can't find any information on it. This is a bit complicated because of a different institution BPjM so let me try to explain.
> 
> Some time Ago (like 15 years or so) BPjS (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften, Federal Department for Writings Harmful to Young Persons) had to examine any media that a citizen request to be examined for content harmful to youth.
> ...



As far as advertising and such goes I might be misremembering specifics but it came up in a discussion of Gal Gun 2 earlier this year. https://gbatemp.net/threads/gal-gun-2-denied-classification-in-germany.496384/ . Though that might be more denied classification than not bothering or getting a high one. Either way I still see a piece of legislation and a board, officially recognised at that, that is set to enact it, or multiple versions thereof if indeed it is two bits of legislation and two boards.

Second question though "harmful to young persons". What is that and how does that work as it pertains to media (comparing it to fags and alcohol is a bit of a stretch)? How would you explain the massive disparities between countries -- if there was some biological, psychological or sociological basis I would not expect much in the way of differences across Europe? Going further as you say most of this is tissue thin as far as proper proper enforcement and in some ways availability -- between older siblings, fake IDs, parents that don't care, shops that don't care, being able to download games since decades ago (and whatever the local equivalent of computer fayres was before that) and friends with access to all of this everybody seems to still be OK, nothing burning in the streets with sky high whatever rates of something nasty.

Anyway the original point I was aiming to make was it was said that Germany, save for the Nazi stuff (a thing of dubious merit from where I sit), has fairly robust protections of speech. I saw its approach to games and found that in stark contrast to that supposition.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 21, 2018)

> As far as advertising and such goes I might be misremembering specifics but it came up in a discussion of Gal Gun 2 earlier this year. https://gbatemp.net/threads/gal-gun-2-denied-classification-in-germany.496384/ . Though that might be more denied classification than not bothering or getting a high one.



Thanks for linking the article, unfortunately it contains a lot of misinformation. Denial of classification by the USK would most likely lead to it being put on the index by BPjM which doesn't mean it would prevent a retail release it would only mean it can't be advertised or displayed in stores and that's that. Saying they would deny it to exist is ludicrous. I would say publishers don't want to go through the hassle of setting up distribution channels for a product they aren't allowed to advertise.



> Either way I still see a piece of legislation and a board, officially recognised at that, that is set to enact it, or multiple versions thereof if indeed it is two bits of legislation and two boards.



It kinda is yes, it even has government representation on but again, I don't see the problem with that and it doesn't mean it's not voluntary. Media that would not be turned in by publishers to be rated / classified will not be denied access to the market, however, it will only be able to be sold to adults as a precaution.
As I've said before there's a second federal institution that places certain media on an index which is what restricts advertisement and display and doesn't even deny access to the market.



> Second question though "harmful to young persons". What is that and how does that work as it pertains to media (comparing it to fags and alcohol is a bit of a stretch)? How would you explain the massive disparities between countries -- if there was some biological, psychological or sociological basis I would not expect much in the way of differences across Europe?



Harmful to young persons is a pretty broad legal term over here which is supposed to literally contain everything that's harmful to underage persons including alcohol, cigarettes, glorification of violence (legal term), or porn. This is specific to the German market and I don't know why you would bring Europe into this. As for science, the video games industry and particularly its ability to create games that contain graphic violence is still very young. You wouldn't have expected scientists to have researched its effect on the development of young persons well enough by the time Wolfenstein, DOOM or Mortal Kombat was released.
My Opinion is that clamping down on this as a precaution rather than just allowing free access is favorable. I'd rather have it this way than have childs smoking which was literally the case to the point there were brands specifically targeting children here. Again, it seems to loosen up now that things are better understood.



> Going further as you say most of this is tissue thin as far as proper proper enforcement and in some ways availability -- between older siblings, fake IDs, parents that don't care, shops that don't care, being able to download games since decades ago (and whatever the local equivalent of computer fayres was before that) and friends with access to all of this everybody seems to still be OK, nothing burning in the streets with sky high whatever rates of something nasty.



Making things "harmful to young persons" accessible to them is illegal, literally every possibility you listed for an underage person to gain possession requires a person of age to commit a crime. Let my give you an even more extreme example which I learned as an IT professional

As an employer, if you employ underage persons, you are liable if they are able to access media harmful to young persons because you are obligated to care for them, essentially giving you comparable duties to a teacher or kindergarten teacher. This means every business that employs underage persons is required by law to block sites with stuff like gore or porn.
I agree that the system falls short when it comes to online distribution, technically it falls under broadcast regulations which I haven't looked into how that works with games specifically. This is because laws usually mention media (text, audio, video, games, everything) and not games in particular.



> Anyway the original point I was aiming to make was it was said that Germany, save for the Nazi stuff (a thing of dubious merit from where I sit), has fairly robust protections of speech. I saw its approach to games and found that in stark contrast to that supposition.



If I'm not mistaken the law doesn't even mention Nazi imagery but it's often conflated. Technically it's symbols representing organizations that are a threat to the German constituion i.e. any terror organization, nazi imagery, etc.
For an organization to be deemed a threat to the constitution is a very lengthy and difficult proccess. There's been two proccesses to ban what's essentially a Nazi party (and I don't use that term lightly) and both failed to do so.

The only thing that really sticks out to me that has to do with Nazis specifially is that holocaust denial over here is illegal, which considering our constitution was established in 1949 I'm fine with.

I would agree that we have pretty robust protections of speech.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 21, 2018)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Thanks for linking the article, unfortunately it contains a lot of misinformation. Denial of classification by the USK would most likely lead to it being put on the index by BPjM which doesn't mean it would prevent a retail release it would only mean it can't be advertised or displayed in stores and that's that. Saying they would deny it to exist is ludicrous. I would say publishers don't want to go through the hassle of setting up distribution channels for a product they aren't allowed to advertise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you prevent advertising and display that is tantamount to denying things from where I sit. "I only beat them into a coma, did not kill them".

If it works for you then so be it -- your risk tolerances and things you will accept may well be different and that will probably be where any interesting conversations end up. Again though it was more that Germany was put forth as some kind of model example of the government not getting in the way of speech (with the proviso) and that sat in stark contrast to that. By some technicality it might not be a law but it is a de facto law, one put forth and enforced by the state, and at that point you are splitting hairs.
I would probably agree the rest of it pretty good (for now at least, some of the stuff I saw proposed for various social media type setups was a bit scary. I am also not a fan of some of the religious stuff, Section 166 if a search is accurate, but different discussion there), however the games thing I am not inclined to let slip by, especially as it has had knock on effects for the rest of Europe.
I would also say no group voluntarily organises a setup like that and grants it any power (while some might choose to follow your recommendations you get taken out by people willing to provide more cool things to see, see also how Sony and Sega variously took down Nintendo from their once lofty position). Such things are almost inevitably the result of some politicos rattling a sabre.

Computer games and research at the point of enacting the laws. Maybe not. However we had panics over radio, film, TV, comics and such before then (not sure about the German specifics of each of those as much as those in the English speaking world but I am not expecting anything radically different, and what little I do know here is pretty similar). Just in case "but they are different and so much more realistic"... guess what you can find almost word for word for those other (older) mediums in that list? Maybe it really is the case this time.

"to commit a crime"
Ignoring my misgivings on whether it should be a crime, or something even close to it (especially not the siblings, parents and such stuff), that was not where I was heading there.
I was saying that regardless of the laws it is available to anybody that made even the slightest effort (bypassing restrictions when we were kids being an ever popular topic), and everything is still just fine and no regression studies or anything say your local psychos would have been fine without access to games or whatever, or that there are more of them than there would be without access.
This is also skipping over how silly I find it to conflate media with fags and alcohol (both addictive chemicals with negative effects) -- I would be willing to listen to an argument but the harm profiles are so very different that to compare them that way is silly. If the government finds it expedient to group such things under one working group and body of law then so be it (I can well see it avoiding duplication of services and related problems with having parallel systems), however to read anything more into it than that would be illogical from where I sit. 

I was bringing Europe in for if there was some basis in said sciences for such things they would all broadly align*, but they don't. If there is something other than science/evidence based reasoning involved I tend to perk up and question it and as these differences exist it stinks of puritanical busybodies and I dislike such things. Why a kid in Cologne should be subject to different things to a kid in Brussels (same latitude, same weather give or take a couple of days, both in technologically advanced countries, similar styles of education, both countries have a fairly shared history... dress them the same and get them to shut their mouths and you will have a hard time telling them apart is what I am saying, and you can repeat that trick for most of Europe) if there was a demonstrable basis for it all rather than people stabbing in the dark. If you can't show reason for your decisions then get out of my laws. Do your own thing if you want but laws I am supposed to follow as well.. No thanks.

*go anywhere in the world and car crash deaths taper off for males at about 25, many military doctrines and insurance company estimates reflect this as well. Psychology also notes a drop off of risk taking behaviours around then as well. You can base things on stuff like that.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 21, 2018)

> If you prevent advertising and display that is tantamount to denying things from where I sit. "I only beat them into a coma, did not kill them".



I agree that it's denying "things", it's just not denying "existence" or "access to the market" as was stated.



> By some technicality it might not be a law but it is a de facto law, one put forth and enforced by the state, and at that point you are splitting hairs.



I don't know, maybe there's a misunderstanding. It is law, we agree on that, I'm just saying I don't have a problem with it and that an artist wouldn't have to compromise their art because of it, because market access or existence won't be denied.
Considering that selling anything to minors is a gray area in Germany as people under 18 are considered incapable of agreeing to a contract by law, the only thing it really does is open up a way to sell within that gray area. Not getting a rating doesn't necessarily mean it gets indexed by the BPjM which is when restrictions would apply, it would only mean you can only sell to people over 18. (BTW this really means that if a minor buys something and the parents don't agree with it, the store has to take it back as a purchase is a contractual agreement)

Let's say a Mario game would never be put on the index and Nintendo decides not to submit the next installment to USK for a rating. It would only mean it can only be sold to people over 18.



> If it works for you then so be it -- your risk tolerances and things you will accept may well be different and that will probably be where any interesting conversations end up.





> This is also skipping over how silly I find it to conflate media with fags and alcohol (both addictive chemicals with negative effects) -- I would be willing to listen to an argument but the harm profiles are so very different that to compare them that way is silly.



I agree that this is where the interesting discussion would likely be and I believe this is likely where we disagree. I like to draw from experience so here's an anecdote.

One of my partners is a UTM-Firewall (universal threat management) manufacturer. They have a department that does nothing but categorize websites based on their content. Categories include gore and porn. I've been talking to these people and all of them need couseling to manage what they look at for their job.
So, from what people who have extensive experience with the media in question tell me, it seems to have a harmful effect. I would say you could compare them to drugs in a broader sense for the sake of discussion, specifically regarding accessibility by minors.

Would I say that games have this kind of effect? No. Would I say that at the time (early 90s) an educated guess that games have no harmful effect would be reasonable? No.
A type of media where the consumer has agency in violent acts in such a manner to reach a goal has been pretty new and I think it's fine to err on the side of caution with regards to minors. It's also worthwhile to consider the perception of the portrayal of violence at the time. I read a piece that said at the time it was realeased the violence in "A Clockwork Orange" was perceived as very realistic whereas today it is perceived as heavily stylized, meaning DOOM was perceived completely differently when it was first released 25 years ago.



> If the government finds it expedient to group such things under one working group and body of law then so be it



To clear things up, the "Young Person Protection Act" which is a pretty decently sized book, is what deals with things "Harmful to Young Persons". To my knowledge, it doesn't really compare tabacco or alcohol to media. I made this comparison because I think it's a worthwhile comparison when talking about accessibility in the market.



> I was bringing Europe in for if there was some basis in said sciences for such things they would all broadly align*, but they don't. If there is something other than science/evidence based reasoning involved I tend to perk up and question it and as these differences exist it stinks of puritanical busybodies and I dislike such things.



We're on the same page here but you have to account for developments where the science (for example long-term studies) just isn't ready yet. The favorable scenario would be where an educated guess and precaution has to make way for laws founded in scientific evidence.

With regards to ratings in Europe, there's PEGI whose labels are mandated to be on games by law in several countries indluding Austria, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Irsreal, the Netherlands or UK. Germany has decided against implementing PEGI because at the time it came around the USK has already been established for almost a decade.


I think we can agree that government regulation should be as minimal as possible and that the proccess of adjusting law to scientific evidence is probably too slow. I guess we have different levels of risk aversion when it comes to potentially harmful things when all that can be known is an educated guess.



EDIT:
I'd also like to add that the internet and my lack of TV watching may have skewed my perception of how big of a deal restrictions on advertisement are and that I might have subconciously changed my mind about it. Back then the information about games would mostly be obtained by reading magazines in the good old time when it was a trade press and before writers had their manic episode about suddenly becoming journalists. Even then, writers found their way around restictions, referring to games on the index, such as Quake, as "Beben" (the literal german translation for the word quake). With access to international gaming news and self publishing services like twitter, facebook or youtube, these days it's even less of a problem.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 21, 2018)

Games that don't get advertised don't get purchased -- for all else we have probably both seen game companies not part with a single cent if they are not getting something back. If you are not allowed to advertise by law then...

I shall have to look into the human classifier thing. I saw the one for facebook the other month ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawo...acebook-after-experiencing-ptsd/#4e4aa00841c8 ) but it was considered something of an isolated incident, I have spoken to a few people doing emergency calls and some vaguely similar happens. That said constant unwavering exposure else you don't eat would be a different thing. Constant exposure, much less to purportedly real stuff, does seem to be a common factor with most things (it is not the first explosion that gets you, but it happening for days on end for months at a time).
On the flip side and for long term studies. It has been 26 years since wolfenstein 3d (or 25 since Doom). Reasonable then that a few which played it underage, something not likely to be a small number, is a grandparent at this point (apparently Germany skews somewhat high here at 29.4 if https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html is to be believed but is hardly a scandalous timeframe). We are all still standing and living in the most peaceful time in human history. While I still await the long term studies and discussion thereof I will take the continued good existence of the world, and general lack of anecdotal accounts here (do we have any serial bad guys that say it was the games that did it?). Alternatively this is the sort of thing regression studies are made for -- if said groups managed to keep games out of the hands of kids in a country/area then there will be lots of groups where they did not.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 21, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Games that don't get advertised don't get purchased -- for all else game. If you are not allowed to advertise by law then...
> 
> I shall have to look into the human classifier thing. I saw the one for facebook the other month ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawo...acebook-after-experiencing-ptsd/#4e4aa00841c8 ) but it was considered something of an isolated incident, I have spoken to a few people doing emergency calls and some vaguely similar happens. That said constant unwavering exposure else you don't eat would be a different thing. Constant exposure, much less to purportedly real stuff, does seem to be a common factor with most things (it is not the first explosion that gets you, but it happening for days on end for months at a time).
> On the flip side and for long term studies. It has been 26 years since wolfenstein 3d (or 25 since Doom). Reasonable then that a few which played it underage, something not likely to be a small number, is a grandparent at this point (apparently Germany skews somewhat high here at 29.4 if https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html is to be believed but is hardly a scandalous timeframe). We are all still standing and living in the most peaceful time in human history. While I still await the long term studies and discussion thereof I will take the continued good existence of the world, and general lack of anecdotal accounts here (do we have any serial bad guys that say it was the games that did it?). Alternatively this is the sort of thing regression studies are made for -- if said groups managed to keep games out of the hands of kids in a country/area then there will be lots of groups where they did not.



I pretty much agree to all you've said.

Regarding advertising. If you know a game is likely to be put on the index you make the most of advertising leading up to release (if a game is not submitted beforehand it will be examined after release). Games media will also still write about your game. I agree that it's not a perfect situation but I think it's a decent compromise.

Regarding the long time since release of DOOM or Wolfenstein, I already mentioned that I would say lawmakers are slow to adjust and that's regrettable. However, I also mentioned that things are loosening up, it's only a handful of games per year these restictions apply to (2017 it was 4 according to this list: https://www.schnittberichte.com/svds.php?Page=Indizierungen&Kat=Games#indizierung-game-ablehnung , not counting rereleases)
What I haven't mentioned yet is that every piece of media will be reevaluated after 25 years, DOOM has already been taken off the index, I expect more to follow as we go on.


----------



## Flame (Dec 21, 2018)

if ive ever seem too long didnt read definition.... this thread is it.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Dec 21, 2018)

The original post and this post are both "hate speech". Cuz you know, I hate it when someone gives a hate speech on hate speech.


----------



## Glyptofane (Dec 21, 2018)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Thanks for linking the article, unfortunately it contains a lot of misinformation. Denial of classification by the USK would most likely lead to it being put on the index by BPjM which doesn't mean it would prevent a retail release it would only mean it can't be advertised or displayed in stores and that's that. Saying they would deny it to exist is ludicrous. I would say publishers don't want to go through the hassle of setting up distribution channels for a product they aren't allowed to advertise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't find it odd at all that you are forced to believe in something or go to prison for saying otherwise?


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 21, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> You don't find it odd at all that you are forced to believe in something or go to prison for saying otherwise?



Oh it’s odd for sure. What I was saying was that I understand it was a concern at the time (1949) for good reasons.

What’s more irritating is that it’s sort of a taboo to talk about this. This year a Journalist went after an owner of an online TV station, going as far as reporting him to the police for holocaust denial because they talked about how weird it was it’s illegal to deny the holocaust with two guests on air. This is not a right leaning station btw and they mentioned how absurd it is to deny the Holocaust as well.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 23, 2018)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Oh it’s odd for sure. What I was saying was that I understand it was a concern at the time (1949) for good reasons.
> 
> What’s more irritating is that it’s sort of a taboo to talk about this. This year a Journalist went after an owner of an online TV station, going as far as reporting him to the police for holocaust denial because they talked about how weird it was it’s illegal to deny the holocaust with two guests on air. This is not a right leaning station btw and they mentioned how absurd it is to deny the Holocaust as well.


"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Dec 23, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> "To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"



Nah, the case against the TV station owner was dismissed within a couple of days. This doesn't really apply.


----------

