Twitter agrees to Elon Musk buyout, a reminder we're on Mastodon

You can claim that believing other rights exist and/or should exist is arbitrary, but I don't see what makes other rights arbitrary but speech rights not arbitrary.
Anyway, everyone is opposed to unlimited freedom of speech. Including you. Do you push for the repeal of libel laws? Do you back permitting death threats and open calls for assassinations? I'm thinking no. So, we both back limits on freedom of speech. You just apparently find constraints on racism and gay-bashing, by private rather than governmental entities, to be where you draw a line, where that's not particularly something I have a problem with.

I find that liberals define terms like "racism" and "gay bashing" broadly to the point of absurdity such that statements that are neither of those things are often targeted for censorship, and that's the problem. For example, if I were to point out that according to FBI statistics, blacks in the US commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes compared to whites, I bet you would call it racist and demand it be censored even though it's nothing more than a plain statement of fact. Or if I were to point out that according to the Bible, being actively homosexual is a sin, you would decry it as gay bashing even though it is, again, a plain statement of fact. In both instances, I should be allowed the freedom to say them without fear of reprisal, but liberals would demand that I be punished in some fashion, either by having my comments removed, my posting privileges revoked, or, most probably, both. Some of the more extreme brand of liberals might even try and to "dox" me and get me fired from my job.

It comes down to this: I believe that one's fundamental rights should be protected only to the point that they do not infringe on someone else's fundamental rights. So what are these fundamental rights? I believe the Declaration of Independence has as good a definition as any: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that "not getting your nose out of joint because someone said something that offends you" is not on the list.

One problem here is that some of this stuff stops people from pursuing happiness so hard that they end up committing suicide, which kind of takes care of the "life" part as well.
Really, I have problems taking this objection very seriously. What you're complaining is "When I was mean on the internet, people were mean to me on the internet! Make them stop!!!"

What is this truth of yours in the service of?

So, you want the right to point out that the Bible calls being actively homosexual a sin. Why, exactly? Well, so that you can get on gays' case and make their lives miserable. I can't think of any other reason. You're not making this observation as a quaint historical footnote. You're not raising the question to compare it to other Biblical sins that you completely ignore, like strictures on eating shellfish, getting tattoos, leaving your tent while menstruating, or wearing cloth with mixed fibres (OMG, poly-cotton blend! Stone 'im!), let alone usury which, compared to one or two throw-away lines for homosexuality, has whole friggin' stories and major exhortations about how horrible it is but which so-called "biblical literalists" actively encourage. No, you're raising it because you want people to feel that homosexuality is bad in the real world, you want other people to also be against them, and you want the homosexuals themselves to feel like shit.

Similarly with blacks. You don't want to raise that statistic to point out that the poor in general commit more violent crimes and therefore the high black violent crime rate is just one more thing that shows they remain on average an economic underclass, as if the statistics on wealth and income levels weren't enough. Nor do you want to talk about the higher likelihood of blacks vs. whites getting arrested for committing the same act, and of getting charged if arrested, and of getting convicted if charged, thus skewing the statistics further. No, you want to use that carefully cherry-picked statistic to imply without quite having to say it that there is something inherently wrong with blacks qua blacks that makes them more violent. And that therefore, it is probably good to, say, let cops have pretty free rein in killing them, or to block them from voting, or to racially profile them in your store, or whatever. In short, the purpose for which you raise that (true, as far as it goes) statistic is to victimize blacks and to propose false inferences from the true statistic.

So yeah, I don't care if such misleading, victimizing bullshit has real quotations in it, and I don't really care if curtailing such evil behaviour (and yes, I said evil, I meant evil) requires limitations on an absolute freedom of speech which never existed anyway. Not that you've even pointed to any such limitations existing--you're saying it's terrible and an outrage that people say angry things in response to you, which is to say, you want to limit their free speech in their responses to you. At this point I believe a conservative would say "Suck it up, snowflake."

As to doxxing, technically that's an exercise of free speech--one which I oppose and am quite willing to regulate by law, but which, according to what you've been claiming, in theory you should support. And it's an act that conservatives do a lot.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 2 August 2022 at 11:45 pm UTC

You can claim that believing other rights exist and/or should exist is arbitrary, but I don't see what makes other rights arbitrary but speech rights not arbitrary.
Anyway, everyone is opposed to unlimited freedom of speech. Including you. Do you push for the repeal of libel laws? Do you back permitting death threats and open calls for assassinations? I'm thinking no. So, we both back limits on freedom of speech. You just apparently find constraints on racism and gay-bashing, by private rather than governmental entities, to be where you draw a line, where that's not particularly something I have a problem with.

I find that liberals define terms like "racism" and "gay bashing" broadly to the point of absurdity such that statements that are neither of those things are often targeted for censorship, and that's the problem. For example, if I were to point out that according to FBI statistics, blacks in the US commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes compared to whites, I bet you would call it racist and demand it be censored even though it's nothing more than a plain statement of fact. Or if I were to point out that according to the Bible, being actively homosexual is a sin, you would decry it as gay bashing even though it is, again, a plain statement of fact. In both instances, I should be allowed the freedom to say them without fear of reprisal, but liberals would demand that I be punished in some fashion, either by having my comments removed, my posting privileges revoked, or, most probably, both. Some of the more extreme brand of liberals might even try and to "dox" me and get me fired from my job.

It comes down to this: I believe that one's fundamental rights should be protected only to the point that they do not infringe on someone else's fundamental rights. So what are these fundamental rights? I believe the Declaration of Independence has as good a definition as any: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that "not getting your nose out of joint because someone said something that offends you" is not on the list.

One problem here is that some of this stuff stops people from pursuing happiness so hard that they end up committing suicide, which kind of takes care of the "life" part as well.
Really, I have problems taking this objection very seriously. What you're complaining is "When I was mean on the internet, people were mean to me on the internet! Make them stop!!!"

What is this truth of yours in the service of?

So, you want the right to point out that the Bible calls being actively homosexual a sin. Why, exactly? Well, so that you can get on gays' case and make their lives miserable. I can't think of any other reason. You're not making this observation as a quaint historical footnote. You're not raising the question to compare it to other Biblical sins that you completely ignore, like strictures on eating shellfish, getting tattoos, leaving your tent while menstruating, or wearing cloth with mixed fibres (OMG, poly-cotton blend! Stone 'im!), let alone usury which, compared to one or two throw-away lines for homosexuality, has whole friggin' stories and major exhortations about how horrible it is but which so-called "biblical literalists" actively encourage. No, you're raising it because you want people to feel that homosexuality is bad in the real world, you want other people to also be against them, and you want the homosexuals themselves to feel like shit.

Similarly with blacks. You don't want to raise that statistic to point out that the poor in general commit more violent crimes and therefore the high black violent crime rate is just one more thing that shows they remain on average an economic underclass, as if the statistics on wealth and income levels weren't enough. Nor do you want to talk about the higher likelihood of blacks vs. whites getting arrested for committing the same act, and of getting charged if arrested, and of getting convicted if charged, thus skewing the statistics further. No, you want to use that carefully cherry-picked statistic to imply without quite having to say it that there is something inherently wrong with blacks qua blacks that makes them more violent. And that therefore, it is probably good to, say, let cops have pretty free rein in killing them, or to block them from voting, or to racially profile them in your store, or whatever. In short, the purpose for which you raise that (true, as far as it goes) statistic is to victimize blacks and to propose false inferences from the true statistic.

So yeah, I don't care if such misleading, victimizing bullshit has real quotations in it, and I don't really care if curtailing such evil behaviour (and yes, I said evil, I meant evil) requires limitations on an absolute freedom of speech which never existed anyway. Not that you've even pointed to any such limitations existing--you're saying it's terrible and an outrage that people say angry things in response to you, which is to say, you want to limit their free speech in their responses to you. At this point I believe a conservative would say "Suck it up, snowflake."

As to doxxing, technically that's an exercise of free speech--one which I oppose and am quite willing to regulate by law, but which, according to what you've been claiming, in theory you should support. And it's an act that conservatives do a lot.

Your frequent use of the straw man fallacy makes this debate rather tiresome. At no point did I say or imply "When I was mean on the internet, people were mean to me on the internet! Make them stop!!!" Frankly, I have no desire to "make them stop". As a Christian, I often find myself the unprovoked target of some of the most hateful utterances you can imagine, but I don't demand that people be censored or punished for it as I believe they have every right to make fools of themselves. To use a famous quote, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. This is called tolerance, something that liberals vocally espouse but rarely practice.

As for the rest of your post, you make my point for me. I can dispassionately state an objective fact without further comment, but then you come along and imagine all sorts of sinister motives behind it that do not exist in actuality, and then you demand, unjustly, that I be punished for it. For example, if I point out that certain behaviors are a sin, you claim, falsely, that it can only be because I wish to make people miserable. On the contrary, I believe it's the truth, and that it's only by knowing and accepting the truth that someone can experience the indescribable joy of being freed from sin.

You call yourself a "radical leftist", but I think "rancid leftist" is more appropriate.

Your frequent use of the straw man fallacy makes this debate rather tiresome.

Hey, back at ya. You're the one claiming the limitations I would favour on free speech would be "arbitrary" when the only description I had given was that they would involve balancing speech rights with other rights.

At no point did I say or imply "When I was mean on the internet, people were mean to me on the internet! Make them stop!!!" Frankly, I have no desire to "make them stop". As a Christian, I often find myself the unprovoked target of some of the most hateful utterances you can imagine, but I don't demand that people be censored or punished for it as I believe they have every right to make fools of themselves. To use a famous quote, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. This is called tolerance, something that liberals vocally espouse but rarely practice.

Liberals tolerate everything except intolerance. That's the point. It's much the way genuine advocates of freedom don't allow the free behaviour of enslaving people.
But OK, if you say you're not trying to make them stop, then I misunderstood. You seemed to be citing certain speech behaviour of liberals as examples of the kind of limitations on speech you oppose, and which therefore should not be allowed to happen. This is a very common pattern; my mistake.

As for the rest of your post, you make my point for me. I can dispassionately state an objective fact without further comment, but then you come along and imagine all sorts of sinister motives behind it that do not exist in actuality

Sure sounds like they do.

, and then you demand, unjustly, that I be punished for it.

Being prevented from doing something is not a punishment.

For example, if I point out that certain behaviors are a sin, you claim, falsely, that it can only be because I wish to make people miserable. On the contrary, I believe it's the truth, and that it's only by knowing and accepting the truth that someone can experience the indescribable joy of being freed from sin.

Gee, are you really fooling yourself so hard that you don't realize that's nonsense? On many levels.

So on the impact level: No, gays never experience indescribable joy from this kind of bullshit. Studies make it clear that instead they get really badly fucked up, many commit suicide, others suffer from depression and anxiety all their lives, still others live in fear. They also never, ever stop being gay because of this kind of talk. And this is very well known. The only way for you to hide your head in the sand deep enough to avoid knowing it is if somewhere deep down you already do know it well enough to avoid ever finding out for sure, so you will be able to keep telling yourself you're not harming anyone. But you are harming them; trying to make people reject what they are (if you believe in a creator God, what God made them) harms them, and the more they believe you and try to do what you want, the more harm they suffer. This is amazingly well documented, you're just flat out factually wrong to a massive degree.

This is hardly surprising because much like strictures on what food you can eat, it has no ethical support. Nobody has ever been able to say what might be ethically wrong with homosexual acts, as opposed to just saying "but Big Daddy says no!" There are some things the Bible considers sinful, which are also ethically wrong; I can believe that for those, ceasing to do it and repenting might indeed be a positive experience--and indeed, can be so for irreligious people as well. But nobody's going to get a lovely cleansed feeling from ceasing to eat shellfish, unless maybe they're allergic. That's because it has no ethical content--like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

On the level of truth: It's true that the Bible says some stuff about certain homosexual acts being a sin. That's a fact, just as you previously said. But now you're saying such acts actually are a sin. That's not a truth or a fact, it's just a religious opinion. Someone else could have some other religion that didn't say that. Someone else again could be an Atheist who thinks the whole thing is a bunch of superstitious nonsense (that would be me).

But it's actually less even than a religious opinion, in the sense that it's mainly a cultural prejudice that leans on scripture for support. Again, the passages making reference to homosexuality in the Bible are very sparse and small. There are hundreds of admonitions that have similar weight; the majority of them are not considered sins today by conservatives (or anyone else). Worrying about that specific thing being a sin, while tacitly considering most of the other things obsolete, is not a religious position, it's just a cultural position. Which would be fine if it was benign, but it isn't, it causes a lot of harm to a lot of people.

As to your intent in saying these harmful things . . . What does it say about you if you refuse to believe you're doing harm, or stop doing it, even though the evidence is stark and massive? I have to think at some level it must be really important to you to do that harm. You may tell yourself whatever you please, but I don't think people insist on continuing to do damage out of benevolence.

You call yourself a "radical leftist", but I think "rancid leftist" is more appropriate.

Don't give much of a damn what you think.
You know, on the internet we're just jawing. But I have a gay kid. If we lived in the same area, and I caught you talking this shit to my kid, we wouldn't just be having words.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 3 August 2022 at 3:26 am UTC

I think this is at the point where it's a good idea to close as the comments have gone wildly off topic.