When "free speech advocates" don't give a fuck about free speech being suppressed...

[Bomb#20]

I'm not following. What inference rule takes you from the premise to your conclusion?

Oh, oh, let me!

"The failure to bring up some given travesty of free speech does not itself make someone hypocritical. There is not enough time to discuss all such events. It is a logical fallacy to say "they are not advocates", merely because they are, in your estimation, bad advocates. It is, in fact, a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Therefore your argument does not follow to your conclusion, so it is... Can you guess it?"

In the event that ld decides to provide an explanation for his inference, it's a safe bet that his explanation will be (a) inadequate, and (b) much better than yours.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not following. What inference rule takes you from the premise to your conclusion?

Oh, oh, let me!

"The failure to bring up some given travesty of free speech does not itself make someone hypocritical. There is not enough time to discuss all such events. It is a logical fallacy to say "they are not advocates", merely because they are, in your estimation, bad advocates. It is, in fact, a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Therefore your argument does not follow to your conclusion, so it is... Can you guess it?"

In the event that ld decides to provide an explanation for his inference, it's a safe bet that his explanation will be (a) inadequate, and (b) much better than yours.

Ah, so, not only did you invoke a no-true-scotsman fallacy, you continue to fail to see it when it is pointed out explicitly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

One thing I've noticed about this forum is barely a week goes by where a thread is started describing some obscure event around the world where the implication is that free speech is suppressed. There isn't a lot of context provided in these incidents, they rarely if ever involve people in power and normally it's defending someone's "right" to say or do something controversial to a group that historically has either been persecuted or discriminated against. This isn't unique on this forum; just about every example of "cancel culture" can be summarised as someone being a cunt and then being held accountable for their actions. But apparently in internet circles, immunity from consequences and defending free speech are the exact same thing. So when an elected official abuses their power in using standover tactics and actually suppressing free speech in the 21st century equivalent of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", I thought the usual suspects who claim that the right to free speech allows one to be homophobic in baking a cake or whatnot would be legitimately outraged.

What I call cancel culture is a populace with a very low tolerance to unpopular opinions. It's a cultural tendency of immediately bending to avoid conflict or even unpleasant thoughts.

It's more nuanced and subtle than what you're making it out to be.

If expressing an unpopular opinion is enough to get celebrities fired we will get celebrities who don't express themselves on anything controversial. We will get a bland soup of a boring culture. Public intellectuals will stop being interesting.

My issue with cancel culture is a criticism of normal people and their tolerance of dissidence.

 

[Gospel]

One thing I've noticed about this forum is barely a week goes by where a thread is started describing some obscure event around the world where the implication is that free speech is suppressed. There isn't a lot of context provided in these incidents, they rarely if ever involve people in power and normally it's defending someone's "right" to say or do something controversial to a group that historically has either been persecuted or discriminated against. This isn't unique on this forum; just about every example of "cancel culture" can be summarised as someone being a cunt and then being held accountable for their actions. But apparently in internet circles, immunity from consequences and defending free speech are the exact same thing. So when an elected official abuses their power in using standover tactics and actually suppressing free speech in the 21st century equivalent of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", I thought the usual suspects who claim that the right to free speech allows one to be homophobic in baking a cake or whatnot would be legitimately outraged.

What I call cancel culture is a populace with a very low tolerance to unpopular opinions. It's a cultural tendency of immediately bending to avoid conflict or even unpleasant thoughts.

It's more nuanced and subtle than what you're making it out to be.

If expressing an unpopular opinion is enough to get celebrities fired we will get celebrities who don't express themselves on anything controversial. We will get a bland soup of a boring culture. Public intellectuals will stop being interesting.

My issue with cancel culture is a criticism of normal people and their tolerance of dissidence.

Genghis Khan was one of the meanest cancel culture figures of all time. Cancel culture people of today got a lot of work to do before moving my threat meter. Just sayin.

 

[ZiprHead]

One thing I've noticed about this forum is barely a week goes by where a thread is started describing some obscure event around the world where the implication is that free speech is suppressed. There isn't a lot of context provided in these incidents, they rarely if ever involve people in power and normally it's defending someone's "right" to say or do something controversial to a group that historically has either been persecuted or discriminated against. This isn't unique on this forum; just about every example of "cancel culture" can be summarised as someone being a cunt and then being held accountable for their actions. But apparently in internet circles, immunity from consequences and defending free speech are the exact same thing. So when an elected official abuses their power in using standover tactics and actually suppressing free speech in the 21st century equivalent of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", I thought the usual suspects who claim that the right to free speech allows one to be homophobic in baking a cake or whatnot would be legitimately outraged.

What I call cancel culture is a populace with a very low tolerance to unpopular opinions. It's a cultural tendency of immediately bending to avoid conflict or even unpleasant thoughts.

It's more nuanced and subtle than what you're making it out to be.

If expressing an unpopular opinion is enough to get celebrities fired we will get celebrities who don't express themselves on anything controversial. We will get a bland soup of a boring culture. Public intellectuals will stop being interesting.

My issue with cancel culture is a criticism of normal people and their tolerance of dissidence.

When was there a time this didn't happen?

 

[laughing dog]

And that certainly appears to be the case.

, your entire argument is invalid.

I'm not following. What inference rule takes you from the premise to your conclusion?

Your argument depends on the premise about intent "proving political opponents are wrong". If that is not the intent of the OP, then your argument is based on a false premise.

 

[DrZoidberg]

One thing I've noticed about this forum is barely a week goes by where a thread is started describing some obscure event around the world where the implication is that free speech is suppressed. There isn't a lot of context provided in these incidents, they rarely if ever involve people in power and normally it's defending someone's "right" to say or do something controversial to a group that historically has either been persecuted or discriminated against. This isn't unique on this forum; just about every example of "cancel culture" can be summarised as someone being a cunt and then being held accountable for their actions. But apparently in internet circles, immunity from consequences and defending free speech are the exact same thing. So when an elected official abuses their power in using standover tactics and actually suppressing free speech in the 21st century equivalent of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", I thought the usual suspects who claim that the right to free speech allows one to be homophobic in baking a cake or whatnot would be legitimately outraged.

What I call cancel culture is a populace with a very low tolerance to unpopular opinions. It's a cultural tendency of immediately bending to avoid conflict or even unpleasant thoughts.

It's more nuanced and subtle than what you're making it out to be.

If expressing an unpopular opinion is enough to get celebrities fired we will get celebrities who don't express themselves on anything controversial. We will get a bland soup of a boring culture. Public intellectuals will stop being interesting.

My issue with cancel culture is a criticism of normal people and their tolerance of dissidence.

When was there a time this didn't happen?

Denmark, Holland, France, the UK. Germany.

With a sharp contrast to USA, Sweden, the Middle East and China where loose lips can ruin your life.

No, cancel culture is neither normal, natural or universal. But there is, internationally, a trend toward it.

As a Swede living in Denmark I am reminded every day how precious this kind of intellectualy free environment is how important it is to defend. Sweden is a lost cause. Its a woke intolerant hell hole were conversations go to die.

It wasn't until I left Sweden that I understood just how warped my own thinking had become, just by living there. It poisons and destroys everything.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As far as I am concerned the type of people who are intolerant assholes and Christians becomes fundamentalists. If they're secular they become woke.

It's the same deluded idea that they've seen the light and now need to convert the world to the true way of thinking.

 

[Gospel]

As far as I am concerned the type of people who are intolerant assholes and Christians becomes fundamentalists. If they're secular they become woke.

It's the same deluded idea that they've seen the light and now need to convert the world to the true way of thinking.

Good thing you're here to enlighten all of us.

 

[Bomb#20]

Denmark, Holland, France, the UK. Germany.

With a sharp contrast to USA, Sweden, the Middle East and China where loose lips can ruin your life.

Holland? I'm pretty sure loose lips ruined Pim Fortuyn's life.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not following. What inference rule takes you from the premise to your conclusion?

Your argument depends on the premise about intent "proving political opponents are wrong". If that is not the intent of the OP, then your argument is based on a false premise.

You don't think Patooka and Metaphor are political opponents and Patooka's intent was to prove Metaphor wrong? Okay. What do you think the intent of the OP was?

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah, so, not only did you invoke a no-true-scotsman fallacy, you continue to fail to see it when it is pointed out explicitly.

You didn't "point it out explicitly"; what you did was "assert it based on nothing". I did not invoke a no-true-scotsman fallacy; you show no sign of knowing what a no-true-scotsman fallacy even is; and without rational justification you imputed to me "they are, in your estimation, bad advocates". In point of fact, in my estimation Metaphor is an excellent advocate for free speech.

 

[Emily Lake]

When was there a time this didn't happen?

Denmark, Holland, France, the UK. Germany.

With a sharp contrast to USA, Sweden, the Middle East and China where loose lips can ruin your life.

No, cancel culture is neither normal, natural or universal. But there is, internationally, a trend toward it.

As a Swede living in Denmark I am reminded every day how precious this kind of intellectualy free environment is how important it is to defend. Sweden is a lost cause. Its a woke intolerant hell hole were conversations go to die.

It wasn't until I left Sweden that I understood just how warped my own thinking had become, just by living there. It poisons and destroys everything.

I suppose it depends on what time period you're limiting this to. I suspect that, for instance, various Jewish people might find flaws in your view that this phenomenon has never happened in Germany or the UK. Or perhaps the descendants of Huguenots might think France has done this too. Kind of like the whole beheading of people who didn't get fully on board with that whole revolution thing. And you know, various crusades and inquisitions throughout history. Plus that witch burning thing where women who didn't toe the line got set on fire for having minds of their own.

That said, let's be clear: Just because a phenomenon has happened frequently in the past does NOT mean that it's a good thing, and it certainly doesn't suggest that the normalization of that phenomenon in modern days is not a problem.

I mean, seriously people. Slavery has happened repeatedly throughout the course of human history... so hey, why waste our breath talking about people who are actually being sold into slavery today? It's not like it's "new" or something, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah, so, not only did you invoke a no-true-scotsman fallacy, you continue to fail to see it when it is pointed out explicitly.

You didn't "point it out explicitly"; what you did was "assert it based on nothing". I did not invoke a no-true-scotsman fallacy; you show no sign of knowing what a no-true-scotsman fallacy even is; and without rational justification you imputed to me "they are, in your estimation, bad advocates". In point of fact, in my estimation Metaphor is an excellent advocate for free speech.

So, your inability to read simple sentences seems to be too deeply seated to recover at this point. Welcome to the Ignore list, I guess.

The phrase used was "It is a logical fallacy to say "they are not advocates", merely because they are, in your estimation, bad advocates."

Now, you agreed that this was your argument, that "they" whoever they were, were NOT free speech advocates as a function of not advocating for free speech in a specific event, despite the impossibility of what you ask: there will always be such an event that someone fails to impugn.

This would mean that for any given person, I could use such a criterion (a missed opportunity to be critical) to invalidate the status of ANY person, which would just be arguing in bad faith at that point...

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not following. What inference rule takes you from the premise to your conclusion?

Your argument depends on the premise about intent "proving political opponents are wrong". If that is not the intent of the OP, then your argument is based on a false premise.

You don't think Patooka and Metaphor are political opponents and Patooka's intent was to prove Metaphor wrong? Okay. What do you think the intent of the OP was?

I think the intent if the OP was too illustrate that some free speech warriors (not just one) don’t gave as an expansive view of free speech as they claim.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Denmark, Holland, France, the UK. Germany.

With a sharp contrast to USA, Sweden, the Middle East and China where loose lips can ruin your life.

Holland? I'm pretty sure loose lips ruined Pim Fortuyn's life.

Now you know why so many Dutch have a problem with importing Middle Eastern Conservative refugees. This is what happens. The slippery slope of intolerance ends in murder

 

[ZiprHead]

Denmark, Holland, France, the UK. Germany.

With a sharp contrast to USA, Sweden, the Middle East and China where loose lips can ruin your life.

Holland? I'm pretty sure loose lips ruined Pim Fortuyn's life.

Now you know why so many Dutch have a problem with importing Middle Eastern Conservative refugees. This is what happens. The slippery slope of intolerance ends in murder

So you cancel the refugees.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On Free Speech. Let us think a bit.

Citizens United. Very Rich people can freely give very large amounts of money to political candidates. Giving away large amounts of money to political candidates constitutes free speech.

Georgia 2021. Giving away a bottle of water to a voter in a long line in Georgia on a hot day is now illegal. Conclusion, the governor of Georgia has outlawed free speech in Florida. Giving away a bottle of water to a thirsty voter does not constitute free speech.

Have I got this right?

 

[J842P]

Denmark, Holland, France, the UK. Germany.

With a sharp contrast to USA, Sweden, the Middle East and China where loose lips can ruin your life.

Holland? I'm pretty sure loose lips ruined Pim Fortuyn's life.

Now you know why so many Dutch have a problem with importing Middle Eastern Conservative refugees. This is what happens. The slippery slope of intolerance ends in murder

Never heard of that guy, but damn, he only spent 12 years in a Dutch prison. I think assassination might be worth it in the Netherlands.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, your inability to read simple sentences seems to be too deeply seated to recover at this point. Welcome to the Ignore list, I guess.

The phrase used was "It is a logical fallacy to say "they are not advocates", merely because they are, in your estimation, bad advocates."

Now, you agreed that this was your argument,

That never happened. Why do you make up garbage out of nothing and impute it to your political opponents? Do you imagine that people are literate enough to read your false claims and will uncritically believe them because they aren't literate enough to read the thread and check? No, I did not agree that that was my argument. That was not my argument. What the bejesus is wrong with you?