|
Post by Amadan on Jan 18, 2017 11:24:45 GMT -5
Well, the problem with the last is determining who is a troll, no? Someone has to/gets to make that call. And that's problematic, I think. People get labelled as trolls on occasion not because they are trolls, but because the people doing the labeling want to discredit them and their opinions. It's a cheap rhetorical tactic. It's quite simple, really. Anyone who proposes the use of force against any peaceful individual, for any reason, is a troll. That's my definition, anyway. Is everybody happy with that? I thought not. To take that more seriously than you intended - the precise reason why I object to banning "trolls" or "hate speech" is because the "What reasonable people agree on" test will very quickly break down in the real world. We could all agree that no one should be allowed to advocate force against a peaceful individual... except I know libertarians would put basically everyone who works for the government in that category. All of us here agree Milo is a troll. Okay. If we passed a Ban Milo From Speaking At Universities law, it would only affect Milo, and while free speech purists (like me) might grit their teeth on principle, it doesn't really endanger anyone else. The problem is, it would not stop at Milo. Those UC Davis protesters, I have zero doubt, would be perfectly fine with banning the College Republicans if they thought they could get away with it. Or anyone else expressing an illiberal point of view. It's easy to say "Ban hate speech" when you assume we're talking about "Kill black people" or "The Holocaust didn't happen." (I'd still be against banning it, but I'd certainly agree that that sort of speech is hateful and deserves social censure.) But we know that (particularly campus) leftists will define such things as "Women belong in the home and not in the workforce" or "Gay people should not be allowed to adopt" or "There is a genetic/racial component to intelligence" as "hate speech" and try to outright prohibit such sentiments from being expressed. (And that's still taking fairly extreme positions - I have seen much milder sentiments also labeled hate speech, though I try to draw a distinction between "Serious proposals by academic leftists" and "Insane rants by Tumblrinas who are triggered by the sun rising.")
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 18, 2017 13:39:11 GMT -5
It's quite simple, really. Anyone who proposes the use of force against any peaceful individual, for any reason, is a troll. That's my definition, anyway. Is everybody happy with that? I thought not. To take that more seriously than you intended - the precise reason why I object to banning "trolls" or "hate speech" is because the "What reasonable people agree on" test will very quickly break down in the real world. We could all agree that no one should be allowed to advocate force against a peaceful individual... except I know libertarians would put basically everyone who works for the government in that category. All of us here agree Milo is a troll. Okay. If we passed a Ban Milo From Speaking At Universities law, it would only affect Milo, and while free speech purists (like me) might grit their teeth on principle, it doesn't really endanger anyone else. The problem is, it would not stop at Milo. Those UC Davis protesters, I have zero doubt, would be perfectly fine with banning the College Republicans if they thought they could get away with it. Or anyone else expressing an illiberal point of view. It's easy to say "Ban hate speech" when you assume we're talking about "Kill black people" or "The Holocaust didn't happen." (I'd still be against banning it, but I'd certainly agree that that sort of speech is hateful and deserves social censure.) But we know that (particularly campus) leftists will define such things as "Women belong in the home and not in the workforce" or "Gay people should not be allowed to adopt" or "There is a genetic/racial component to intelligence" as "hate speech" and try to outright prohibit such sentiments from being expressed. (And that's still taking fairly extreme positions - I have seen much milder sentiments also labeled hate speech, though I try to draw a distinction between "Serious proposals by academic leftists" and "Insane rants by Tumblrinas who are triggered by the sun rising.") Actually, it was intended to be taken seriously - as a demonstration that the "What reasonable people agree on" test will very quickly break down in the real world. As you said, most reasonable people can agree with that definition... except they then grant a huge exemption to those who claim to rule them! "Oh, we as individuals can't take other peaceful people's stuff or beat them if they resist, or kidnap them... but our rulers can!" I see that as the most unreasonable, illogical act of all.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 20, 2017 9:24:57 GMT -5
But we all here agree that Milo is a troll, and we are all reasonable. We should set up a committee. The Troll Identification Committee (TIC). At what pint did I become reasonable?
Your entire argument is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 20, 2017 16:58:32 GMT -5
At what pint did I become reasonable? Depends upon how much you like beer. E.g., I myself become more reasonable at the very thought of a pint of Yuengling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 17:10:05 GMT -5
I find nearly everyone seems reasonable after 3 or 4 pints -- assuming I'm the one drinking them.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 20, 2017 17:50:56 GMT -5
I find nearly everyone seems reasonable after 3 or 4 pints -- assuming I'm the one drinking them. I don't drink. 😞Booze are for cooking
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 18:19:45 GMT -5
well, no wonder we all seem so unreasonable to you.
|
|