- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,960
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iZTOy70m-28[/YOUTUBE]
under 4 minutes.
under 4 minutes.
-
Features
Sasha Baron Cohen Gets Serious
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Eldarion Lathria
Member
My only advice about him is, if he is in it, watch something else.
Eldarion Lathria
Eldarion Lathria
repoman
Contributor
He wants to unbell the cat.
I didn't realize that holding social media companies accountable for what they put on their platforms is anti free speech. And I didn't realize hate speech is exactly the same as satire. I guess you learn something new every day. Jason Kessler, Borat what's the fucking difference amirite?
Hate speech is free speech.
If you are against hate speech you are against free speech.
Elixir
Made in America
Wow, half a battalion of our under-represented conservatives rallying against it - seems to have struck a nerve. Especially since their objections consist entirely of characterizations without one single word actually contesting the contents of the video. I'll have to watch it again! 
Wow, half a battalion of our under-represented conservatives rallying against it - seems to have struck a nerve. Especially since their objections consist entirely of characterizations without one single word actually contesting the contents of the video. I'll have to watch it again!
He wants tech companies to regulate speech he doesn’t like; as is done in China, Iran, and North Korea.
He's spot-on and it's one of the most important topics to discuss and act on. The internet is one of the most dangerous things modernity has come up with.
It's funny that anyone ever thought the internet meant everyone would get smarter. It's the old falsehood about "more is better" rearing its ugly head again. It was bound from the start to make people more ignorant and even stupid. Social media's just the most popular part of the hugest pile of misinformation in the known universe.
It has the potential to unite the world and share useful information, like those optimists about it hoped would happen. But, as quality books are chosen by libraries (which isn't a trampling of free speech), that can never happen without guidance.
It's funny that anyone ever thought the internet meant everyone would get smarter. It's the old falsehood about "more is better" rearing its ugly head again. It was bound from the start to make people more ignorant and even stupid. Social media's just the most popular part of the hugest pile of misinformation in the known universe.
It has the potential to unite the world and share useful information, like those optimists about it hoped would happen. But, as quality books are chosen by libraries (which isn't a trampling of free speech), that can never happen without guidance.
Elixir
Made in America
If a significant majority of people's representatives don't like it either and consider it the macro-equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater, then it should be regulated. If Trump can convince a significant majority of elected representatives that his efforts to silence all criticism of him and his actions should be codified into law, then that is what should happen.
That's democracy. Get used to it.
Elixir
Made in America
... and information. The known universe is but the sum of human opinions about it, a place where there is no real way of distinguishing information from misinformation. Long before the internet, info and misinfo were on equal footing, with superstitions ruling the roost where they did collide. That hierarchy has not gone away with the advent of the internet, nor was there any reason to think that it would. Cruelty and ignorance have always been the order of the day among coalitions of Alpha-types, and I think every one of us harbors at least some vestiges of whatever superstitions helped enable HSS to become the planet's apex predator and proliferate to the detriment of all other vertebrates on the planet (except domestic [esp food] animals of course).
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Yikes. Elixir: it's rare for me to disagree with you, but can't disagree here more. What you are highlighting here is "Tyranny of the majority". The constitution and the bill of rights are meant to protect us for the tyranny that can come out of democratic decisions. In particular, we must have protection of speech against our elected leaders. I apologize if I misunderstood your above post as being irony.
BTW: my favorite quote for freedom of speech " “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” ― Christopher Hitchens
We should call this “guidance” by a friendly name. Like, Big Brother.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,519
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
During World War One, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America printed fifteen thousand pamphlets that said the draft was unconstitutional and urged citizens to resist the draft by peaceful means. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act for this, and sentenced to ten years, because a significant majority of people's representatives didn't like it and evidently considered it the macro-equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. That's the case the whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument comes from. You really think socialists speaking out against the draft should have been regulated and ten years in prison is what should have happened to them?
It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote
Incidentally, that Supreme Court decision was overturned in 1969 by a later Supreme Court. Never mind "should" -- it's been fifty years since you've even had the law on your side.
ronburgundy
Contributor
If you're against companies who choose to profit by helping to promote hate speech, then you are in no way against free speech, which is only related to government decriminalization of speech.
And if you find satire about group stereotypes funny and non-offensive, it doesn't mean you should have no problem with hate-speech.
In fact, your twisted logic behind callng him a hypocrite is based is based on the same presumption of the left-wing anti-comedy snowflakes, namely that satirical jokes that reference cartoonish stereotypes are the same as hate speech seeking to cause real harm to particular groups and thus should be treated as such.
ronburgundy
Contributor
No he isn't. He isn't advocating for speech to be criminalized by the government and therefore is in no way against free speech. In fact, he is pro-liberty. He wants social media companies to use there liberty to choose not to help people promote hateful violence against others. And he wants consumers to use their liberty to choose not to give their money to social media companies that get rich by helping to spread such violence promoting speech.
Well, no. The social media companies benefit from government protection as they have been cast as platforms not publishers. If they want to act like content regulators, they should lose that government protection and be subject to the same civil liability as any publisher or broadcaster for content.
There's no reason to suppose that "funny" must also mean "non-offensive".
That's exactly the point. Baron-Cohen's own work would get him banned, depending on how he chose to use his characters on social media.
Misgendering somebody (like calling a trans woman--a biological male--"he") will get you permabanned from Twitter. Misgendering somebody, even on purpose, is not hate speech by any reasonable standard, but it's treated as if it is.
ronburgundy
Contributor
They are private for profit companies who regulate what is done on their platforms in countless ways and have freedom to do so. Thus, requests for them to do so in a way that impedes attempts to promote violent bigotry is in no way against free speech. What their liability is for their content should be is a separate issue from their liberty to control that content. Unlike a traditional publisher or media company, the people posting harmful content are their customers not their employees, then they would have similar liability more similar to the liability of a company whose product is used by a customer to cause harm despite there being nothing inherently harmful about the product itself. Companyies have every right to refuse to sell their product to people who use it to harm others, whether that product is a stapler, admission to a sports venue, or access to a social media platform.