Apple's CEO Tim Cook: No Place for Hate Speech on Apple Product Platforms

Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
Maybe you would be so inclined to come up with an actual argument rather than asking questions to something I didn't even say.
Disdain for free speech implies that someone is being prohibited from speaking freely and the person expressing disdain doesn’t care.

As @Nymphae succinctly said, free speech is a value, one that merits being defended. I find the current pseudo-intellectual trend among the far-left to view free speech as the scapegoat for societal ills more worrisome than some Alex Jones level conspiracy nutter publishing his ridicule views on the world.

It is the right to free speech that put an end to the authoritarian regimes of the past, it is the right to free speech that facilitated the abolition of slavery and it is the right to free speech that gave women the right to vote. Seems to me, we need more of that stuff, warts and all, instead less of it.

A well education population has nothing, absolutely nothing to fear from your boogeymen. Unfortunately, the far-left seems to have long since forsaken that enlightenment ideal, opting instead for a more censorial approach. But hey, don't let that detract you from asking fallacious questions that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I'm sure it makes you feel mighty smart.
Is there supposed to be an argument hidden somewhere amidst this dreadfully self-serious and pretentious posturing and strawmanning?


Why is the difference between advocating violence and the right to free speech so difficult for you people to grasp? Your own militant rhetoric seems to have eroded your already poor grasp of terminology to the point that you can't even follow a simple line of argumentation.
You’d have to actually offer a line of argumentation, first, rather than an exercise in huffing your own farts.

And, of course, the line where political speech ends and incitement begins is and always has been notoriously difficult to draw. You’d know this if you had any interest in or knowledge of the subject.
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,387
245
Disdain for free speech implies that someone is being prohibited from speaking freely and the person expressing disdain doesn’t care.
Oh, you mean like you and your fellow sycophants who, time and time come here to defend the idea that free speech should take second seat to your poorly defined notion of "hate speech", i.e. ideas that run contrary to your own dogmatic views. You know, the very same people who coined the term "Freeze Peach" in order to openly mock those who seek to defend freedom of expression and the liberal exchange of ideas.

I'm really trying man, but short of getting myself a lobotomy I really don't know how.
 
Apr 18, 2018
4,937
6,916
395
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm really trying man, but short of getting myself a lobotomy I really don't know how.
Pffft, you're thinking way too hard on this.

Just come up with someone you'd like to completely silence and then call whatever they say "hate speech"! Why put in so much extra effort like "thinking logically" and "coming up with rationale" when the current adherents certainly aren't. :pie_thinking:

I suppose this means you need to become a bigot but hey, we can't have this hate speech floating around. The march of history cannot be held back by petty moral squabbles. Since the government defines our efforts as acceptable speech (what's this nonsense about free speech as a value?) you will be safe.

Sometimes ... history needs a push.
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,115
476
830
Taylorsville, Ky!
When one side holds cultural sway, they seek to silence opposition. This is the norm, so I am not surprised to see the cultural left trying to silence any dissent, as they dominate all the heights of our culture.

It is just a great irony to see today's Berkleyite shitlibs argue in favor of corporate repression.

I will say that when I become dictator, the First Amendment goes in the shredder, followed by the corpses of anyone who disagrees with me and anyone who puts ketchup on a hot dog.
 
Aug 3, 2011
912
1
460
Who and what gets to define what 'normal' is?
In this case, Apple does. It's their platform. They are not the government. According to capitalism, if enough of a need is there, a competitor should arise to fulfill that need.

As for the US Government, most hate speech has currently been ruled as free speech. If hate speech were to become a thing in the US (highly unlikely), it'd fall under this very important part of the US legal system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
When one side holds cultural sway, they seek to silence opposition. This is the norm, so I am not surprised to see the cultural left trying to silence any dissent, as they dominate all the heights of our culture.

It is just a great irony to see today's Berkleyite shitlibs argue in favor of corporate repression.

I will say that when I become dictator, the First Amendment goes in the shredder, followed by the corpses of anyone who disagrees with me and anyone who puts ketchup on a hot dog.
As someone who without question holds considerably more extreme opinions on what should be done to private corporations than you, your definition of "corporate repression" fucking stinks.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
Oh, you mean like you and your fellow sycophants who, time and time come here to defend the idea that free speech should take second seat to your poorly defined notion of "hate speech", i.e. ideas that run contrary to your own dogmatic views. You know, the very same people who coined the term "Freeze Peach" in order to openly mock those who seek to defend freedom of expression and the liberal exchange of ideas.
Who the fuck are you talking about? I'm responsible for what some other guy said now?

You need to get a grip. Tim Cook doesn't want to publish the Daily Shoah on Apple podcasts. Big fucking deal. Stop being such a hysterical baby and catastrophizing everything.
 
Dec 3, 2018
147
167
105
You need to get a grip. Tim Cook doesn't want to publish the Daily Shoah on Apple podcasts. Big fucking deal. Stop being such a hysterical baby and catastrophizing everything.
The problem is that Apple doesn't just host podcasts. They also run a rather large and influential app store, publish news and periodicals through their apps and iBooks, controls a massive digital library of tv shows and movies, maintains probably the largest music store in the world, and creates multiple operating systems which people use to access the internet for education, entertainment, and business (one of which I'm writing this on right now). At the point that Apple decides that it is going to decide what content they allow on their devices, we should all fucking worry.
 
Likes: Liberty4all
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
The problem is that Apple doesn't just host podcasts. They also run a rather large and influential app store, publish news and periodicals through their apps and iBooks, controls a massive digital library of tv shows and movies, maintains probably the largest music store in the world, and creates multiple operating systems which people use to access the internet for education, entertainment, and business (one of which I'm writing this on right now). At the point that Apple decides that it is going to decide what content they allow on their devices, we should all fucking worry.
Worry about what? That we won't be able to get the Turner Diaries in apple books or the Triumph of the Will on itunes? I'm not seeing the problem.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,022
2,914
360
People who value their safety over their freedom of thought is the reason why we've gone from this...


...to this.

I have rarely ever heard something make me physically feel ill, but those Berkeley students are very close to succeeding in that aspect.
Who the fuck are you talking about? I'm responsible for what some other guy said now?

You need to get a grip. Tim Cook doesn't want to publish the Daily Shoah on Apple podcasts. Big fucking deal. Stop being such a hysterical baby and catastrophizing everything.
You personally, no. However, the ideology that you so fervently defend, that you so ardently showcase in every other post of yours? Yes.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
I have rarely ever heard something make me physically feel ill, but those Berkeley students are very close to succeeding in that aspect.


You personally, no. However, the ideology that you so fervently defend, that you so ardently showcase in every other post of yours? Yes.
Ah, the ideology now is it? So fervent, so ardent. What ideology is "who gives a shit if Apple doesn't publish everything"?
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
Banning hate speech is banning free speech. Period. I reiterate, hate speech is not a constitutionally recognized thing. Don't go trying to make a distinction between hate speech and free speech - there isn't one. Not in the US. Either all speech is protected, or none of it is.
I like this one. Can we keep him?
 
Aug 3, 2011
912
1
460
At the point that Apple decides that it is going to decide what content they allow on their devices, we should all fucking worry.
They've been doing this since the beginning of the app store. It's their system, they can put or not put what they want on it (I believe there's a case on this going through the courts actually).

We're heading down another gay cake debacle. Who's societal free speech matters more, that of a company or that of the public seeking services from that company? It's clearly not a simple answer.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
267
296
195
Ah, the ideology now is it? So fervent, so ardent. What ideology is "who gives a shit if Apple doesn't publish everything"?
Apathy it is then, ill leave you with this,

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a socialist.​
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a trade unionist.​
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a Jew.​
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​

I'd also love to know when did the people labeled as fascists became the ones arguing in favor of free speech.
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
Yes. I am concerned about that, and you should be too.
Why?

Apathy it is then, ill leave you with this,

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a socialist.​
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a trade unionist.​
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a Jew.​
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​

I'd also love to know when did the people labeled as fascists are then ones arguing in favor of free speech.
Who is Apple sending to the camps? Nobody.

Pithy historical quotes are not an argument. Not everything is Hitler.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
147
167
105
They've been doing this since the beginning of the app store. It's their system, they can put or not put what they want on it (I believe there's a case on this going through the courts actually).
Yes, Apple has been getting progressively more terrible for a while now.

We're heading down another gay cake debacle. Who's societal free speech matters more, that of a company or that of the public seeking services from that company? It's clearly not a simple answer.
I think it is. Getting someone to make you a cake isn't a right. Being able to have, share, and act upon your beliefs kind of is.

Where Apple is different is that Apple is an intermediary. They do not create the content, nor do the consume the content. Instead, they deliver the content - and I don't think intermediaries should have the ability to impede, modify, or deny that passageway from creator to consumer. For example, I don't think Comcast should have a say in the kind of porn I consume or which movies I watch on Netflix.

Social media giants, like Apple, Twitter, and Facebook, have a certain amount of protection that comes from being intermediaries. Because they are not publishing the content, they are not legally liable for what that content is. If someone on Facebook slanders (or libels - not sure which is appropriate here) Trump, that person could be sued, but Facebook could not. At the point that these companies stop being intermediaries - that is, they decide what content is and isn't allowed on moral or ideological grounds - they become publishers and lose that protection. Maybe rightfully so. After all, if they allowed libel against one person but not against another, they are supporting and contributing to it.
 
Jun 13, 2017
267
296
195
Who is Apple sending to the camps? Nobody.

Pithy historical quotes are not an argument. Not everything is Hitler.
Letting someone silence the people you don't like sounds good until you're the one that is being silenced. I might disagree with you, but I don't want you gone from the forum, I'm not claiming moral grounds and demand that you're excluded from voicing your opinion.

Silencing people just radicalizes them, they won't stop having views you don't like just because you can't hear them anymore. The quote means more than just its historical context.
 
Dec 3, 2018
147
167
105
I'm concerned because ideology never bans a single book. It always bans a group of books. And that group is ill defined, with fuzzy boundaries, and errs on the side of censorship. And the worst part of this isn't the overreach, but the simple fact that hearing an idea doesn't make you accept it, and nobody has ever become wise by avoiding knowledge.

Do you believe that if I were to read Mein Kampf, I would become Hitler? Because I have, and I didn't. I did a book report on it in 8th grade.
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,227
370
1,060
It's a symptom of. the same shit that happened on old GAF, that currently happens on Retardera...

Individuals who think it's "obvious" what the right side of history is, that would ban any and all thoughts that run contrary to their own.

There are PLENTY of people who feel Trump is a fascist, that feel conservative thoughts are borderline hate speech (say wanting to deport dreamers for example, or even just wanting closed borders). Or those people who feel gender is binary, or don't believe metoo has been a good thing... Etc

That's the problem with defining hate speech, we all don't agree with what it is, yet several people in this very thread have said it's OBVIOUS what it is.

It's not, and banning speech on public platforms is dangerous and authoritarian.

As a previous poster mentioned, these tech companies have protections from slander based on their supposed neutrality. If they don't want to be neutral anymore then they shouldn't have these protections.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
671
475
190
Apathy it is then, ill leave you with this,

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a socialist.​
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a trade unionist.​
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—​
Because I was not a Jew.​
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​

I'd also love to know when did the people labeled as fascists became the ones arguing in favor of free speech.
That’s because they don’t really believe those people are fascists or that Trump is Hitler. They say it to justify their immoral behaviour and actions.

Also their agenda is revealed by asking them if they want Trump and his administration to define what hate speech is and regulate it, they’ll all say NO, because THEY themselves want to define and control speech. It’s nothing but power/totalitarianism masquerading as social justice fighting for muh mARgiNalizzzed GroUPies
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,968
677
380
Letting someone silence the people you don't like sounds good until you're the one that is being silenced. I might disagree with you, but I don't want you gone from the forum, I'm not claiming moral grounds and demand that you're excluded from voicing your opinion.

Silencing people just radicalizes them, they won't stop having views you don't like just because you can't hear them anymore. The quote means more than just its historical context.
But nobody is being silenced. If Apple won’t carry certain content, that content isn’t wiped from the face of the earth. It’s just marginally harder to get. Why does Apple have a moral obligation to help anyone and everyone reach as wide an audience as possible?


I'm concerned because ideology never bans a single book. It always bans a group of books. And that group is ill defined, with fuzzy boundaries, and errs on the side of censorship. And the worst part of this isn't the overreach, but the simple fact that hearing an idea doesn't make you accept it, and nobody has ever become wise by avoiding knowledge.

Do you believe that if I were to read Mein Kampf, I would become Hitler? Because I have, and I didn't. I did a book report on it in 8th grade.
It has nothing to do with bad ideas making people bad. If Apple does not want to be a megaphone for ideas it finds abhorrent, what is wrong with that? Those ideas aren’t wiped from the face of the earth, they’re still accessible, they just aren’t available through one outlet.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
Letting someone silence the people you don't like sounds good until you're the one that is being silenced. I might disagree with you, but I don't want you gone from the forum, I'm not claiming moral grounds and demand that you're excluded from voicing your opinion.

Silencing people just radicalizes them, they won't stop having views you don't like just because you can't hear them anymore. The quote means more than just its historical context.
That is not the argument being made. The argument being made is that allowing certain views a platform is to give them legitimacy and may entice people to join their cause. If ISIS is allowed to give speeches at university campuses then the concern is that they will radicalize those amongst us who are more impressionable. "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose tip begins" is what is being espoused. The idea is that society is at risk by simply allowing racists, white supremacists, ethno-nationalists and their ilk to be allowed a spot in the public discourse.

I myself am not convinced of the above argument but I agree that with all forms of freedoms inherent risks must be understood and accepted.

If you would have no speech be censored and all speech allowed then you must accept the risk there will be those who abuse it and potentially harm you and your loved ones. I like free speech but I also like to sleep at night without my neighbor blasting music at 3AM. I wouldn't hesitate to call the police if they insisted on doing so, their free speech be damned.

I myself would take that risk that allowing those into the public discourse does more harm than good because I value individual liberty and responsibility above all else but if presented with sufficient evidence that the risk is becoming actualized I would also be willing to fight against those who would abuse our rights to change society as they see fit. Democracy must be adhered to and treated with responsibility but in the case that literal, self-identified Nazis use democracy to take power over those they would subvert then democracy has failed and the only action left is the action that all political ideologies are subject to, violence.

Or if the angle is that corporations have too much power and hold sway over public discourse and opinion then that's really an issue with unfettered capitalism, not so much hate speech.
 
Likes: FuddyDuddy
Dec 3, 2018
147
167
105
It has nothing to do with bad ideas making people bad. If Apple does not want to be a megaphone for ideas it finds abhorrent, what is wrong with that? Those ideas aren’t wiped from the face of the earth, they’re still accessible, they just aren’t available through one outlet.
How are they acting as a megaphone? Are they promoting the podcasts? Putting it on the front page, going, "Yo, check this out, bro!" Or are they simply acting as a catalogue of podcasts? Because a catalogue of literally hundreds of thousands of podcasts that does not actively promote a specific one is, in no way, acting as a megaphone for anything.

As for ideas not being wiped from earth, Alex Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, Apple (both podcasts and apps), and even PayPal. Gab has been banned by GoDaddy, PayPal, Stripe, Joyent, and had Microsoft web services ban them. Stormfront, after being kicked off Reddit and Facebook, had Cloudflare refuse to serve them. The idea that you can simply go somewhere else when nobody will host you or take payment for you is absurd when there is only a few companies basically running the entire internet (currently), and they all seem to operate with the same ideological bent.
 
Likes: Nymphae
Jun 10, 2018
117
76
205
Hate speech spewing assholes suck. We all agree, but does no one find issue with Apple and other tech companies doing this?

Outside of direct, personal, and truly threatening speech, the Supreme Court says hate speech is okay under the first admendment. So all of these tech corporations are taking it upon themselves to police our speech? That does not sit well with me. These deplatforming actions are setting a very dangerous precedent for the future. We need to start fighting against this right now.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
It's a symptom of. the same shit that happened on old GAF, that currently happens on Retardera...

Individuals who think it's "obvious" what the right side of history is, that would ban any and all thoughts that run contrary to their own.

There are PLENTY of people who feel Trump is a fascist, that feel conservative thoughts are borderline hate speech (say wanting to deport dreamers for example, or even just wanting closed borders). Or those people who feel gender is binary, or don't believe metoo has been a good thing... Etc

That's the problem with defining hate speech, we all don't agree with what it is, yet several people in this very thread have said it's OBVIOUS what it is.

It's not, and banning speech on public platforms is dangerous and authoritarian.

As a previous poster mentioned, these tech companies have protections from slander based on their supposed neutrality. If they don't want to be neutral anymore then they shouldn't have these protections.
I think there are accepted laws agreed upon by modern society, where people understand that a world free of bigotry is preferable to one where attitudes and behaviors that marginalize the defenseless and promote the hate of others for arbitrary traits. There's a reason conservatives feel the walls closing in on them. Their views are retrograde, the kind that don't assist in the social and cultural progression of our race. If you hold views that gays shouldn't marry, that transwomen shouldn't be called and identified as who they are, that racism is acceptable, you will soon not be welcome in the circles of most society. You can go to the Midwest and huddle the rest of the people who don't want to join modern civilization. But, right now, millions of us are getting fed up with the hate, Tim Cook included.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
Do you really think someone who believes sandy hook was a staged government conspiracy deserves a platform to shill?
Not trying to defined Alex jones for the sake of doing so but he never actually said this and all the court cases against him have failed on that front. He had a guest on that questioned the legitimacy of the event and even talked about wolf blitzer being behind a green screen but didn't actually say no kids were killed.

Now with that said, there are other subjects to touch on with this particular character. hehe
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
Do you really think someone who believes sandy hook was a staged government conspiracy deserves a platform to shill?
Not trying to defined Alex jones for the sake of doing so but he never actually said this and all the court cases against him have failed on that front. He had a guest on that questioned the legitimacy of the event and even talked about wolf blitzer being behind a green screen but didn't actually say no kids were killed.

Now with that said, there are other subjects to touch on with this particular character. hehe
 
Apr 18, 2018
4,937
6,916
395
USA
dunpachi.com
There's a reason conservatives feel the walls closing in on them. Their views are retrograde,
Hate speech.

the kind that don't assist in the social and cultural progression of our race.
More hate speech.

If you hold views that gays shouldn't marry, that transwomen shouldn't be called and identified as who they are, that racism is acceptable, you will soon not be welcome in the circles of most society.
Sounds like hate speech plus threatening others.

You can go to the Midwest and huddle the rest of the people who don't want to join modern civilization. But, right now, millions of us are getting fed up with the hate, Tim Cook included.
Segregation, therefore hate speech!
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
Just the people building their hardware.

It's so weird cons only invoke gigantic capitalist entities exploitation whenever they come as staunchly against social conservatism. Are you trying to say if they're so morally depraved they're willing to adopt slave labor they should also be horrible enough to adopt socially conservative views as part of their marketing campaign and online presence?
 
Jul 19, 2018
446
239
185
D
So you simply don't know about the reality that Alex Jones' lies and conspiracy theories led his followers to harrass these parents of school shooting victims? His whole livelihood is based on riling people up against imagined enemies.

The issue with hate speech isn't simply "hurt feelings", it's normalizing hate against certain groups to the point where susceptible assholes start believing the hate is acceptable and justified - and then ACT on it.

Is there a perfect definition of hate speech and is there no room for abusing the label? Of course not, but I'm not gonna let you pretend that it's "just words" so it should be ignored.
So. Last I checked people have agency or nah?
 
Likes: RedVIper
Dec 3, 2013
15,448
7,503
555
It's so weird cons only invoke gigantic capitalist entities exploitation whenever they come as staunchly against social conservatism. Are you trying to say if they're so morally depraved they're willing to adopt slave labor they should also be horrible enough to adopt socially conservative views as part of their marketing campaign and online presence?
I am not a con. But do you binary playa!

I thought it was a witty response ripe for picking. But since you cannot attack the position, without looking like an apathetic monster, you attack the poster. :pie_eyeroll:

They are virtue signaling first world western false altruisms, while still having zero issues with their third world eastern slave labor. Wait a minute, thought policing, censorship, and slave labor practices, now where does that sound familiar, comrade? :pie_thinking:
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2013
15,448
7,503
555
Yes. Of all the things that Apple is synonymous with, it is their altruistic work to support the 'defenseless and margonalised'.

[Cough. Splutter]

Goddamnit, I just spat my Ben & Jerry's Pecan Resist over my nice new iPad.

Siri: Set reminder to tell others to check their privilege.
"Resist, but please do not take away our BigAg subsidiaries, ktnx." - B&J
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,205
4,547
700
Australia
It's so weird cons only invoke gigantic capitalist entities exploitation whenever they come as staunchly against social conservatism. Are you trying to say if they're so morally depraved they're willing to adopt slave labor they should also be horrible enough to adopt socially conservative views as part of their marketing campaign and online presence?
I’m not surprised that you have no understanding of why we criticise hypocrisy.
 
Jun 13, 2017
267
296
195
It has nothing to do with bad ideas making people bad. If Apple does not want to be a megaphone for ideas it finds abhorrent, what is wrong with that? Those ideas aren’t wiped from the face of the earth, they’re still accessible, they just aren’t available through one outlet.
If that's the case then everything that is said trough Apple platforms is endorsed by platform and they should be legally bound to it.

That is not the argument being made. The argument being made is that allowing certain views a platform is to give them legitimacy and may entice people to join their cause. If ISIS is allowed to give speeches at university campuses then the concern is that they will radicalize those amongst us who are more impressionable. "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose tip begins" is what is being espoused. The idea is that society is at risk by simply allowing racists, white supremacists, ethno-nationalists and their ilk to be allowed a spot in the public discourse.

I myself am not convinced of the above argument but I agree that with all forms of freedoms inherent risks must be understood and accepted.

If you would have no speech be censored and all speech allowed then you must accept the risk there will be those who abuse it and potentially harm you and your loved ones. I like free speech but I also like to sleep at night without my neighbor blasting music at 3AM. I wouldn't hesitate to call the police if they insisted on doing so, their free speech be damned.

I myself would take that risk that allowing those into the public discourse does more harm than good because I value individual liberty and responsibility above all else but if presented with sufficient evidence that the risk is becoming actualized I would also be willing to fight against those who would abuse our rights to change society as they see fit. Democracy must be adhered to and treated with responsibility but in the case that literal, self-identified Nazis use democracy to take power over those they would subvert then democracy has failed and the only action left is the action that all political ideologies are subject to, violence.

Or if the angle is that corporations have too much power and hold sway over public discourse and opinion then that's really an issue with unfettered capitalism, not so much hate speech.
We come back to who get's to defy who's views are acceptable? I say let them speak as long as they don't ask for acts of violence (Which I guess would be hard considering their rethoric). I think teaching your population is probably better than trying to hide them from that you deem reprensable.

"The idea is that society is at risk by simply allowing racists, white supremacists, ethno-nationalists and their ilk...", you focused on these groups specifically, not Antifa, not the idiots calling for the death of white people, just the people you deem reprehensible, you can see why having someone decide what acceptable or not is not a good idea, people are fallible, you can't always be objective.
(I'm not saying you endorse those btw)

I prefer the risks associated with free speech than the ones associated with it's oppression. That's kinda a bad argument, some idiot listening to music at 3am is already imposing on your ability to sleep, asking him to stop listening to music on full blast is not stepping on his free speech.

Do we have any evidence though? Who are these self-identified Nazis you speak of? Is every Trump voter a nazi? Do you really believe half the country are nazis? If that was true you'd probably at war already, so I don't think you really believe that. Let stupid people express their stupid opinions and laugh at them, show them why they're wrong, instead of hiding them away until they become an issue you can't no longer ignore.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2007
9,227
370
1,060
I think there are accepted laws agreed upon by modern society, where people understand that a world free of bigotry is preferable to one where attitudes and behaviors that marginalize the defenseless and promote the hate of others for arbitrary traits. There's a reason conservatives feel the walls closing in on them. Their views are retrograde, the kind that don't assist in the social and cultural progression of our race. If you hold views that gays shouldn't marry, that transwomen shouldn't be called and identified as who they are, that racism is acceptable, you will soon not be welcome in the circles of most society. You can go to the Midwest and huddle the rest of the people who don't want to join modern civilization. But, right now, millions of us are getting fed up with the hate, Tim Cook included.
I think there are accepted laws agreed upon by modern society, where people understand that a world free of Jewish influence is preferable to one where their attitudes and behaviors that marginalize ordinary Germans and promote the hate of German society and ideals. There's a reason Jews feel the walls closing in on them. Their views are retrograde, the kind that don't assist in the social and cultural progression of our race. If you hold views that Germans are not the master race, that racism against The Great Germanic people is acceptable, you will soon not be welcome in the circles of most German society. You can go join them in the camps and huddle with the rest of the people who don't want to join modern German civilization. But, right now, millions of us are getting fed up with the hate, Adolf Hitler included.

.....

I mean I barely had to change anything you said just change the target of your attack on who is "the danger of civilized society"

Which is why this kind of dehumanization rhetoric the left is spewing is a harbinger of terrible things that could come if we don't stand against it now.

Perhaps the irony of it all is the complete lack of self awareness you have that your words are simply a rewording so many authoritarians have used before to justify removing from society so called undesirables (deplorables one might say).

This is the reason so many of us defend freedom of speech and ideas and outright reject "Right side of history" bullshit that has been used countless times throughout history to enact mass murder.

The alternative is a repeat of the 20th centuries Cultural Revolution, political dissent camps and worse.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
I prefer the risks associated with free speech than the ones associated with it's oppression. That's kinda a bad argument, some idiot listening to music at 3am is already imposing on your ability to sleep, asking him to stop listening to music on full blast is not stepping on his free speech.

Do we have any evidence though? Who are these self-identified Nazis you speak of? Is every Trump voter a nazi? Do you really believe half the country are nazis? If that was true you'd probably at war already, so I don't think you really believe that. Let stupid people express their stupid opinions and laugh at them, show them why they're wrong, instead of hiding them away until they become an issue you can't no longer ignore.
Asking people to not play music at 3AM is not stepping on their right to free speech formally speaking but the police coming to tell them to stop under the threat of violence or detainment absolutely is. Society has made its peace with that sentiment in the same sense that inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater is also not protected by free speech, that is, the potential harm is greater than any good. That is what is being argued by those who would restrict hate speech, not simply a matter of "I don't like it".

Also, I would redirect you to my sentiment that I feel the same as you but if under a hypothetical scenario where racists used democratic processes and the "marketplace of ideas" to gain leverage in society then those systems carry an inherent risk and are perhaps at fault. Democracy and rational thought must be given priority but in the instance that societies are abused by ill-doers (Nazi Germany) then violence is the only practical recourse from then on out. We're not anywhere close to that of course but the belief that certain bad groups would take advantage of our skepticism is not illogical.
 
Likes: FuddyDuddy
Nov 11, 2007
9,227
370
1,060
Hahaha these poor snow flakes spout free market but once it bites in the in the ass they throw a tantrum and are saying that private companies HAVE TO host there content . Tho im not suprised hypocrisy has always been the right strong point.
Actually I see people saying that if private companies want to control content then they should lose their neutral party status that protects them from lawsuits.

The point being that they currently have their cake and want to eat it too.