zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:08 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:25 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1998
Location: suburbs of Mrin
This was wrtieen before Travis' reply.
jal wrote:
mèþru wrote:
I know that there are legal differences between these concepts, but this comes from legal redefining the word speech.
I'm not sure why you think this is "redefining", as there is no "natural" definition of speech (this is a language forum, I assume you are not so daft as to try to quote a dictionary).
What I mean is that the law uses what I think of as a non-intuitive and uncommon meaning, possibly not in usage before free speech had to be defined in a court case. Outside of the legal context, I usually hear something that encompasses all oral, signed and written communication, including speech acts. Therefore, free speech would imply the freedom of speech acts as well, and the freedom to spread libel, or claim that cocaine wine is a contraceptive while wearing a metaphorical teacher's hat. One thing that I hate about legal systems, in general, is their tendency to use language which their average citizens (excluding those who didn't complete high school) cannot understand and find counterintuitive.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:36 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
I think you need to show that this indeed was the original usage of the term.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:42 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1998
Location: suburbs of Mrin
I can't support my own argument based it being original, but looking on it again, it was a terrible argument in the first place. It is what is the common, intuitive definition in the present which matters (it would make an interesting survey, but I don't think I can prove that either)

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:58 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Netherlands
mèþru wrote:
What I mean is that the law uses what I think of as a non-intuitive and uncommon meaning

Law is a specific area, with its own terminology. Law typically isn't formulated in "intuitive" language, nor can it be, as "intuitive" language is typically very imprecise. You can't have that in law. (A similar thing is "theory" in science, where millions of people shout "it's just a theory" when the topic of evolution is up.)

mèþru wrote:
It is what is the common, intuitive definition in the present which matters (it would make an interesting survey, but I don't think I can prove that either)

The thing is, people don't understand "free speech", neither the concept nor the implications.


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:39 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Swamp
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:45 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Netherlands
I'm at loss to understand what your intention is with this...


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:47 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
My original reaction was that this was somehow an inept attempt to argue that we should have legislation against, in this case, racist speech in general. But then I realized this was cunningham posting, and that seemed inconsistent with cunningham's posting pattern here at all.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:59 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Swamp
My point was

a) If you don't like something, walk away
b) Need some comedic relief because this conversation is getting a little too technical


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:13 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
It's not so simple. When it's someone who has power or authority over you, you cannot just walk away. When it's someone who works with you or studies in the same classes as you, you cannot just walk away.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:28 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Swamp
Words are only offensive when you make them offensive. If someone calls me a faggot, I won't hesitate to laugh it off. There's no point in 2016 to get offended by words over the Internet.

If your boss or colleague is blackmailing you, that is a different story. That is how cyberbullying should be defined, not saying "words"

The Marxists in Academia keep redefining words. Racism used to mean feeling that your race is superior to other races. Now it's just "prejudice + power" or "white people". Rape used to mean "penetrating sex without consent". Now it's become synonymous to sexual assault and trivialized to the point where catcalling is considered rape as well. And now cyberbullying means "someone said something mean to me on the internet." Hate speech is now "someone has a different opinion than me"

And then comes censorship and forcing people to use pronouns and bla bla bla slippery slope I know. This is how totalitarianism begins.

Welcome to 1984.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:29 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1998
Location: suburbs of Mrin
cunningham wrote:
Marxists in Academia
Again, Marxists aren't everywhere, and Academia is where social change is popularized, whereas its source is people who actually take action against discrimination rather than denounce it.
cunningham wrote:
If your boss or colleague is blackmailing you, that is a different story. That is how cyberbullying should be defined, not saying "words"
If someone's words are causing people to kill themselves, it doesn't matter if they are actually threatening someone or merely taunting.
cunningham wrote:
Racism used to mean feeling that your race is superior to other races. Now it's just "prejudice + power" or "white people". Rape used to mean "penetrating sex without consent". Now it's become synonymous to sexual assault and trivialized to the point where catcalling is considered rape as well. Hate speech is now "someone has a different opinion than me"
None of these are true, and calling an opposing view "hatred" is an old trick employed by people all across the political spectrum.
cunningham wrote:
And now cyberbullying means "someone said something mean to me on the internet."
I have no idea about how true this is, but I definitely think that you narrow down what cyberbullying is too much.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:30 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Austin, TX, USA
I have yet to understand what it is about conlanging and linguistics that apparently attracts racists...:P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:28 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 2633
Location: Netherlands
cunningham wrote:
(words)

Basically you are saying online bullying doesn't exist because you personally can shrug it off. That's insensitive and denying reality. Also, it is invalidating people who actually got PTSD from online bullying, or killed themselves. It's really great, cunningham, that you yourself are immune to the garbage some people receive, but this is not about you, and when your opinions all basically come down to "because I feel that way", you could as well give the world a big finger and shut up.

Quote:
Marxists (...) totalitarianism

Yeah yeah, bla bla. Get off your high horse please, nobody's listening.


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:38 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
To me the problem with the term cyberbullying is that it implies that it is special somehow and thus needing differentiation from normal bullying, which people can too get PTSD or kill themselves as a result of.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:49 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2144
Location: Britannia
Vijay wrote:
I have yet to understand what it is about conlanging and linguistics that apparently attracts racists...:P

It's on the Internet, where anonymity is normal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:49 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Posts: 2316
Location: Bonn, Germany
Travis B. wrote:
To me the problem with the term cyberbullying is that it implies that it is special somehow and thus needing differentiation from normal bullying, which people can too get PTSD or kill themselves as a result of.

Do you really think that using the term cyberbullying implies that normal bullying doesn't cause PTSD or suicides? I think it's a useful term inasmuch for normal bullying you need physical presence, and it often involves physical abuse, while for cyberbullying, the bully doesn't need to be physically near the victim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:01 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
hwhatting wrote:
Travis B. wrote:
To me the problem with the term cyberbullying is that it implies that it is special somehow and thus needing differentiation from normal bullying, which people can too get PTSD or kill themselves as a result of.

Do you really think that using the term cyberbullying implies that normal bullying doesn't cause PTSD or suicides? I think it's a useful term inasmuch for normal bullying you need physical presence, and it often involves physical abuse, while for cyberbullying, the bully doesn't need to be physically near the victim.

I think that focusing on cyberbullying takes attention away from normal bullying, when they should both get attention, together.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:39 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Posts: 2316
Location: Bonn, Germany
Travis B. wrote:
hwhatting wrote:
Travis B. wrote:
To me the problem with the term cyberbullying is that it implies that it is special somehow and thus needing differentiation from normal bullying, which people can too get PTSD or kill themselves as a result of.

Do you really think that using the term cyberbullying implies that normal bullying doesn't cause PTSD or suicides? I think it's a useful term inasmuch for normal bullying you need physical presence, and it often involves physical abuse, while for cyberbullying, the bully doesn't need to be physically near the victim.

I think that focusing on cyberbullying takes attention away from normal bullying, when they should both get attention, together.

Well, like with all issues, in some circumstances it's more reasonable to treat them together (especially where physical bullying and cyberbullying come together, or when discussing the attitudes leading to bullying or the damage done by it), and in other circumstances it's more reasonable to treat them separately (especially when talking about technical methods of preventing them or about policing the spaces where they happen).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:01 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
hwhatting wrote:
Travis B. wrote:
hwhatting wrote:
Travis B. wrote:
To me the problem with the term cyberbullying is that it implies that it is special somehow and thus needing differentiation from normal bullying, which people can too get PTSD or kill themselves as a result of.

Do you really think that using the term cyberbullying implies that normal bullying doesn't cause PTSD or suicides? I think it's a useful term inasmuch for normal bullying you need physical presence, and it often involves physical abuse, while for cyberbullying, the bully doesn't need to be physically near the victim.

I think that focusing on cyberbullying takes attention away from normal bullying, when they should both get attention, together.

Well, like with all issues, in some circumstances it's more reasonable to treat them together (especially where physical bullying and cyberbullying come together, or when discussing the attitudes leading to bullying or the damage done by it), and in other circumstances it's more reasonable to treat them separately (especially when talking about technical methods of preventing them or about policing the spaces where they happen).

Well yes, I would agree with viewing them in this manner.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:11 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
Umm isn't claiming that all white people are fascists and white supremacists racism against white people, in that ascribes a particular nature to white people as a whole, as if races could even have natures in the first place, rather than to various white people as individuals? Or are you one of those people who insist that only white people can be racist?

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:45 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 3687
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
Travis B. wrote:
Umm isn't claiming that all white people are fascists and white supremacists racism against white people

Whether it is or isn't is moot because he didn't claim that. Try again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:49 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
linguoboy wrote:
Travis B. wrote:
Umm isn't claiming that all white people in American society are fascists and white supremacists racism against white people

Whether it is or isn't is moot because he didn't claim that. Try again.

Okay, I forgot the mention of "in American society". Or maybe you are somehow trying to differentiate between "all white people in American society are fascists and white supremacists" and claiming that all white people in American society have "fascist tendencies and white supremacist beliefs", and if you are, I do not know what you are attempting to get at.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:56 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
thetha wrote:
Travis--
-It's one thing to say that all members of a class have some quality and another to say that this quality is a part of their "nature". If there's any non-trivial sense in which things have natures, it certainly doesn't include 'literally any relational quality they happen to have', e.g. I can affirm that all white people are within 50 billion miles of the Sun, weigh under 5000 pounds, contain at least one cell, etc. but I don't see how I'm affirming that this is in their nature. The fact that you decided to ignore Chagen's qualifier that these beliefs are "thanks to [their] culture" is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

But "thanks to [their] culture" is implying that that culture, in that form, is universal to all white people in America; it seems to be splitting hairs to distinguish between a nature of white people in America and a quality universal to all white people in American because of a culture they univerally share. In the end you are speaking of all white people in America as a group rather than as individuals regardless (because if it was as individuals, then it would be left open for some white Americans to not share said culture).

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:48 am 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 21
Chagen wrote:
not counting the continued genocide of non-whites committed by the American police every day, of course

Aren't most black people killed by other black people?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:22 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1998
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Some of the police involved were black themselves. Most police are not the terrible people in the news. What is needed is more measures to counteract violent and racist officers and for innocent policemen to condemn their dangerous bretheren. There is a problem of systematic racism against minotities, but the extent Chagen is talking about is exaggerated to such a large extent that it is like saying that Pluto is too small to be a planet: it is the size of an atom. Such attitudes only harm the peace by promoting hatred of white people and offending non-racist white people. Think about what would happen if someone said the following:
Quote:
Black society is also by definition black supremacist. That doesn't mean that blacks are lynching white people in the streets (though I don't doubt they would if it weren't discouraged socially), but one of the most core fundamental tenets of both African-American society and Black society as a whole is the supremacy of Black people (enforced by civil rights leaders--that's indeed their main purpose), with the other social races below them. That is why whites are socially disadvantaged as a whole. It's not active virulent hatred, but more of an overarching society hierarchy that pervades all aspects of life silently.

People support these black supremacists out of the desperate fear that whites will take away their livelihood and jobs (hence their rhetoric about all whites being evil racists). They have no policies to speak of, their narcissistic rapists, and they have the verbal faculties of third-graders. No one supports them for their policies. They represent an idealized America that Blacks dream of: a world where those self-righteous, racist, white liberals and conservatives and other races know their place, where everyone has a stable job and plenty of money, and where the social order is maintained at all costs. Ironically, mant of their supporters are poorer Blacks who will be royally fucked over by their policies, but fascists never cared for the people they courted with demagoguery--they were always useful idiots to get them into power.

(white supremacist figure) really was right. Fascism really did come to America wrapped in the chains of slavery; the chains that will kill whites. I guarantee you that if black supremacists continue to grow in power, within 50 years Robert Mugabe 2.0 will win the American office and we'll have a second holocaust on our hands. The idea that one could find (white supremacist figure) distateful is hilarious idiotic, given that their opponents are the potential harbringers of another horrific genocide little over a century since the last one (not counting the continued genocide of whites committed by black thugs every day, of course).
The quote is obviously far from being a perfect anology and probably is somewhat unfair. I definitely do not endorse the position that is advocated by my fictitious quote. Yet the fact that it is so similar to Chagen's that is should make people think twice about saying either of these.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Last edited by mèþru on Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group