Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
"A CALL TO ARMS FOR DECENT MEN"
Posts
KingArthur
View playlists
Closeauthor=alteregoAll I'm saying is that everyone has the right to voice their opinions freely, regardless of the intentions being good or bad and regardless of the potential consequences.author=KingArthurMmh... I'm not sure if I follow. I'm not talking about people just giving you the stink eye, I'm referring to actually getting the police on your case if you threaten someone or if you incite to violence, stuff like that. Perhaps there should be nothing prohibiting people from doing it, but as far as I know there are laws about it, and while the line is set very high (for example, in the case of threats the harm must be deemed as "imminent" or something like that) there is one and most people will agree that there should be one.
You're misunderstanding the extent to which Freedom of Speech applies. Things like slander and threats are in fact looked down upon by society at large, this much we agree, and there are consequences for such behavior, but there is (and should be) nothing directly prohibiting me from slandering or threatening someone.
The recent Islamic uproar regarding some crappy movie depicting Muhammad is a good example: Yes the movie ended up offending a whole crapload of Islamic people, but the people who made that movie are also guaranteed the right to create and publish their work under the right to Freedom of Speech.
author=DyhaltoWhile it's true that I would be protected from being lynched by a mob for saying that "KKK is awesome", I would still be treated appropriately for having said that (being viewed with disdane, for one) and I would face the consequences of my actions one way or the other.
Fundamentally, I agree with you. I wish we could have a society where people would acknowledge the freedoms we have and use them responsibly, but humans are flawed and practical application has to be considered.
AE already mentioned situations where speech can be used to incite violence. The very nature of push is to become shove. Gang members talking trash is harmless, until it becomes a shooting war. Your own example of saying "KKK is awesome" then being lynched by a mob works against your own point. Freedom of Speech would protect your right to irritate and harass people, but you're also legally protected from their violent response, thus, no consequences for your abusive actions. Pretending that people will stop at verbal slander and never degrade to fist fighting is naive. Hell, common advice for dealing with bullies is to knock them hard on their ass.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like this hyper-politically correct society either. There's a balance to be maintained, and we've gone way off the deep end, but I'd rather see Freedom of Speech invoked to protect people who speak out against their government, than to protect shit-talking gamer kids.
edit : grammar correction of my own
That said, I'm glad we agree on the core principal of the matter. Freedom of Speech is a right that many people have shed their blood to achieve and maintain, a right that is so fundamental and essential to a well-functioning society that it is invaluable.
I just feel that given how hard-fought and priceless Freedom of Speech is, we shouldn't be so quick to compromise on that right, or even compromise at all, especially in exchange for "safety" of a person; Benjamin Franklin's quote again comes to mind, anyone who would trade freedom for security deserves neither.
Sometimes, I think many of us take Freedom of Speech for granted.
Whoa! Whoa! People, slow down your horses. xD ...First and foremost, I think this was the core of LockeZ's initial comment:
If you think of it, this is a fairly reasonable argument. Don't let the mention of the KKK make you loss focus of the subject at hand... It is absurd for the author of that article to condemn bullying in online communities and then glorify bullying as the means to combat it.
Since when is a peaceful demonstration an injustice? That's something perfectly legal, as far as I know. On the flipside, going around showing your butt to other people could get you in jail for public indecency or something like that. ;)
Did the KKK? ...Ahem! I mean, did the members present at that demonstration? Because if not, why should that matter? At the time of the event more than a decade had passed since the last lynching, and the guilty parts were convicted.
_
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad there is line between freedom and criminal behavior, but it worries me when people is willing to draw that line much lower just because they don't like certain groups of people, no matter how legitimate that dislike may seem... Society don't need to be 'oppressive' to combat bigotry. If anything it needs to remain logical. Too much 'humanity' can only compromise things. xP
The KKK was actually doing a peaceful demonstration for a change, and everyone started bullying and mocking them, doing exactly what I thought you were trying to prevent people from doing to women. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you think of it, this is a fairly reasonable argument. Don't let the mention of the KKK make you loss focus of the subject at hand... It is absurd for the author of that article to condemn bullying in online communities and then glorify bullying as the means to combat it.
author=Feld
Are you really fucking defending the KKK what is going on here. Unless you are trying to say that meeting injustice with any sort of aggression is wrong, which is equally hilariously incorrect and dependent on the situation to apply.
Since when is a peaceful demonstration an injustice? That's something perfectly legal, as far as I know. On the flipside, going around showing your butt to other people could get you in jail for public indecency or something like that. ;)
author=Link
the protestors did not set fire to, blow up, or hang members of the KKK. or did they and I'm not aware?
Did the KKK? ...Ahem! I mean, did the members present at that demonstration? Because if not, why should that matter? At the time of the event more than a decade had passed since the last lynching, and the guilty parts were convicted.
_
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad there is line between freedom and criminal behavior, but it worries me when people is willing to draw that line much lower just because they don't like certain groups of people, no matter how legitimate that dislike may seem... Society don't need to be 'oppressive' to combat bigotry. If anything it needs to remain logical. Too much 'humanity' can only compromise things. xP
The mere fact that an organization like the KKK exists is an injustice. Them 'playing nice' for an instance doesn't erase that. Legality is irrelevant to morality in many instances; Rosa Parks got arrested too.
I think mooning the Klan no matter how immature it might be, was completely justified. The Klan are a horrible group of people.( and that highway they are adopting in Georgia or whatever could potentially be a place of crime for their little hate organization. Wait how in the heck are they allowed to be here? Give them a chance and they will do over the holocaust-like thing all over again.)
Dyhalto
7536
Guys, chill. The KKK isn't worth anyone's ire anymore. They're irrelevant. Just a bunch of alcoholic wife-beaters burning scarecrows.
The only reason the internet hasn't turned them into a hilarious meme yet is because people go into conniptions at the very mention of them. Sit back, have popcorn, and let history recognize them as the bad joke they are.
The only reason the internet hasn't turned them into a hilarious meme yet is because people go into conniptions at the very mention of them. Sit back, have popcorn, and let history recognize them as the bad joke they are.
What if there is another country like nazi germany where eradicating jews is considered justice or atleast a civic duty? Now lets say they dont start a war but keep the genocide within their own borders.
Should we go in and murder them all?
Should we go in and murder them all?
Irili
3198
Wow, it didn't take long to get side-tracked.
I only brought this article up because I realized that I never thought about the issue of internet bullying before and I wondered if it was a big problem. This was not meant to be about the KKK.
I only brought this article up because I realized that I never thought about the issue of internet bullying before and I wondered if it was a big problem. This was not meant to be about the KKK.
author=DespiteOn the one hand, what they do within their borders is their business and none of ours. Just because some African people go topless by tradition, should we go in and tell them to wear a certain style of clothes?
What if there is another country like nazi germany where eradicating jews is considered justice or atleast a civic duty? Now lets say they dont start a war but keep the genocide within their own borders.
Should we go in and murder them all?
On the other hand, the particular example you've given is an obvious violation of human rights.
While I'm leaning towards the former, not intervening in others' affairs, I will say neither choice results in a clear-cut "good" answer depending on the context.
author=Feldschlacht IV
The mere fact that an organization like the KKK exists is an injustice. Them 'playing nice' for an instance doesn't erase that. Legality is irrelevant to morality in many instances; Rosa Parks got arrested too.
Agreed, when legality and morality do coincide it's almost always mere coincidence. (Poe's Law footnote: this is a genuine opinion I'm expressing, if an extreme one, it's not meant as sarcasm.)
fuck da popo
Dyhalto
7536
author=KingArthurauthor=DespiteOn the one hand, what they do within their borders is their business and none of ours. Just because some African people go topless by tradition, should we go in and tell them to wear a certain style of clothes?
What if there is another country like nazi germany where eradicating jews is considered justice or atleast a civic duty? Now lets say they dont start a war but keep the genocide within their own borders.
Should we go in and murder them all?
On the other hand, the particular example you've given is an obvious violation of human rights.
While I'm leaning towards the former, not intervening in others' affairs, I will say neither choice results in a clear-cut "good" answer depending on the context.
These days, the world is so intertwined in trade that foreign nations can lean on the offending country without resorting to open war. Sanctions or other forms of cross-border restriction can threaten that country's regime. If they still don't get it, there's always espionage. We can even send in Hans Blix.
Why? ...Ok, the thread got sidetracked a bit (But to be fair that's in part fault of the author of the article. Bring up touchy subjects to provoke an emotional reaction and you'll get one) but it has gone without incidents thus far. - Rather than wishing you could lock the topic, you should share your opinion on the main subject And the others too, why not? =P
Solitayre does not share his infinite wisdom directly with the mortals, much preferring to observe their actions and cast judgment on them from afar.
Dyhalto
7536
Changing topic is the nature of conversation.
I've never understood why mods/admins will lock a topic just because we've digressed from the thread title. As long as it hasn't degraded into mud-slinging, where's the problem?
(also, the topic looks pretty darn over now)
I've never understood why mods/admins will lock a topic just because we've digressed from the thread title. As long as it hasn't degraded into mud-slinging, where's the problem?
(also, the topic looks pretty darn over now)
