Writing this first part solely regarding what Carmack said and before I read what Hyde has written: It's all good claiming to be a "hard core free speech advocate", but as is clear with the example that Grummz pointed out regarding Palmer Lucky being fired, it rings hollow whenever these claims about being a "hard core free speech advocate" is thrown around only when it's regarding the extreme free speech of one side and not the other.
Selective application of such a principle is ultimately a betrayal of that principle. Sure, you didn't actively go against it, but you didn't stand by it either when it should have been stood by. It betrays where a person can ultimately stand on the matter.
And now reading what Sam has said, I don't disagree, and despite that, I still think it's at least important to try and maintain some principles while ending the endless benefit of "the doubt" that these people have been given time and time and time again. The Benefit of The Doubt is to be given on matters of doubt, not where a pattern of behaviour has been shown time and again. I agree with Carmack that these people should ultimately have free speech and not be punished for it, but that doesn't mean their words shouldn't be taken very, very seriously in telling you exactly the kind of people they are and informing you of just what their actions mean. Not punishing a person for their speech and totally disregarding what they say are two different things.
Also, while cancel culture is not exactly nice, it isn't necessarily an instance of censorship either. Freedom of association is also a human right, and nobody is entitled to a job, nor is there any definition where employment is a human right.
There definitely is an argument in favour of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". I'd still prefer to stick by my principles, but I have to admit that it's the most compelling argument out there that these people deserve to be treated how they treat others, and that's not a failing to want it to happen.
If someone hates you and wants you dead, no appeal to their humanity will ever get them to stop using an evil tactic against you. The only way to make them stop is to use it against them, good and hard, until they relent and agree to a ceasefire.
see, this is where it gets sticky. though. If you advocate for freedom of speech for those who want to destroy freedom of speech, are you effectively protecting the principle?
I am going to repeat what I said in a previous post.
Their particular speech is NOT constitutionally protected. The First Amendment does not cover it. Their speech is ACTUALLY illegal because it's a direct call or promotion for violence. As in - the glowies can actually come to your door and haul your ass out for saying something that promotes direct violence against a sitting political official.
The left's version of "hate speech" is Constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
However, the garbage THEY are spewing about wanting to see Trump killed is NOT. It is actually illegal speech, one of the few out there.
You can actually spin this whole thing by accusing companies of promoting laws being broken if they continue to allow their employees to say shit like this, because it is.
In other words, I have no moral qualms about taking the high road. The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced, and because incitement to violence is AGAINST THE LAW and not only that, and promoting peaceful speech is the bedrock of a civilized first nation, I have no problems seeing people lose their livelihoods for PROMOTING VIOLENT RHETORIC.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Freedom of Speech as a Human Right.
The constitution is intended to protect Human Rights, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper.
The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced
That's not a "high road". That's the status quo for most knuckle dragging dipshits. Okay, in this instance you're pro-law enforcement. What's your stance on any number of immoral laws? You pro-enforcement then? You just gonna shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, the law's the law"? The Freedom Convoy in Canada broke some laws. They're getting what's coming, right? What about J6? The response is blown out of proportion, but there were broken laws. You're pro-enforcement there too, right?
To cut to the chase, is this statism, or are you just utilising statism because it's convenient against your enemies?
That's not a principle in my opinion, it's an excuse to break principles as you see fit on a selective basis. Don't like a person? Enemy. Like a person? Friend. Friend did something I don't like? Now they're an enemy!
Part of the issue is that there's too much laxness because politics is filled with friends that don't punish each other. That's why they go after Trump like they have. He's an outsider. Pre-2015, Trump was relatively loved by Democrats. He was literally friends with the Clintons. Then he entered the political domain. And lo-and-behold, the uni-party instantly turned on him. Because he was an outsider.
Good This For Friends Bad Things For Enemies is, funnily enough, a big thing that caused all of this shit. And I don't buy the idea that more of the same will reverse course. That doesn't mean course doesn't need to be reversed, but I do believe things have to get worse to the point that people are actually willing to risk what they have rather than cling to their comforts first. I don't think anything will change until then. Midwits look at censorship and political jailings and love to make the comparisons to 1984, but the reality is far closer to Brave New World where our comforts and relative luxury keep us docile and placated. And I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give up what they have. I certainly don't want to risk my life, my family, or my loved ones either. I completely get it. But it's these ties that keep the problem advancing.
Ah yes, the good ol' conflation of Freedom of Speech with the First Amendment.
I wasn't talking about the First Amendment. I was explicitly talking about the human right to Freedom of Speech. Tell me, is there any other human right that is only considered immoral because the government engages in it? Is slavery worse if it's the government but better if it's private citizens owning or trading people? Is it less evil to be forced to house people if it's a private entity forcing you to relinquish your property?
Yes, everyone has the right to association, and I do hold that in higher accord than freedom of speech. HOWEVER, Freedom of Speech even on an individual level should be strived for, and so eagerly abandoning it is silly and is what has lead to websites like Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc all having direct communications to working with the state to easily and quickly get around these restrictions.
So yes, they have these freedoms. That doesn't mean it should be abused. Just like I also think that any other human right can also be abused, be it screaming in peoples faces, bearing arms against the innocent, or arbitrarily barring people from publicly-accessible private property. You have the freedom. It doesn't make it instantly right to do so.
Writing this first part solely regarding what Carmack said and before I read what Hyde has written: It's all good claiming to be a "hard core free speech advocate", but as is clear with the example that Grummz pointed out regarding Palmer Lucky being fired, it rings hollow whenever these claims about being a "hard core free speech advocate" is thrown around only when it's regarding the extreme free speech of one side and not the other.
Selective application of such a principle is ultimately a betrayal of that principle. Sure, you didn't actively go against it, but you didn't stand by it either when it should have been stood by. It betrays where a person can ultimately stand on the matter.
And now reading what Sam has said, I don't disagree, and despite that, I still think it's at least important to try and maintain some principles while ending the endless benefit of "the doubt" that these people have been given time and time and time again. The Benefit of The Doubt is to be given on matters of doubt, not where a pattern of behaviour has been shown time and again. I agree with Carmack that these people should ultimately have free speech and not be punished for it, but that doesn't mean their words shouldn't be taken very, very seriously in telling you exactly the kind of people they are and informing you of just what their actions mean. Not punishing a person for their speech and totally disregarding what they say are two different things.
Also, while cancel culture is not exactly nice, it isn't necessarily an instance of censorship either. Freedom of association is also a human right, and nobody is entitled to a job, nor is there any definition where employment is a human right.
I think I agree with tim pool on this one; these people don't want freedom of speech, whiy should we force it on them?
There definitely is an argument in favour of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". I'd still prefer to stick by my principles, but I have to admit that it's the most compelling argument out there that these people deserve to be treated how they treat others, and that's not a failing to want it to happen.
If someone hates you and wants you dead, no appeal to their humanity will ever get them to stop using an evil tactic against you. The only way to make them stop is to use it against them, good and hard, until they relent and agree to a ceasefire.
see, this is where it gets sticky. though. If you advocate for freedom of speech for those who want to destroy freedom of speech, are you effectively protecting the principle?
Is their freedom of speech the thing that is destroying freedom of speech, or is it their actions?
I am going to repeat what I said in a previous post.
Their particular speech is NOT constitutionally protected. The First Amendment does not cover it. Their speech is ACTUALLY illegal because it's a direct call or promotion for violence. As in - the glowies can actually come to your door and haul your ass out for saying something that promotes direct violence against a sitting political official.
The left's version of "hate speech" is Constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
However, the garbage THEY are spewing about wanting to see Trump killed is NOT. It is actually illegal speech, one of the few out there.
You can actually spin this whole thing by accusing companies of promoting laws being broken if they continue to allow their employees to say shit like this, because it is.
In other words, I have no moral qualms about taking the high road. The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced, and because incitement to violence is AGAINST THE LAW and not only that, and promoting peaceful speech is the bedrock of a civilized first nation, I have no problems seeing people lose their livelihoods for PROMOTING VIOLENT RHETORIC.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Freedom of Speech as a Human Right.
The constitution is intended to protect Human Rights, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper.
That's not a "high road". That's the status quo for most knuckle dragging dipshits. Okay, in this instance you're pro-law enforcement. What's your stance on any number of immoral laws? You pro-enforcement then? You just gonna shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, the law's the law"? The Freedom Convoy in Canada broke some laws. They're getting what's coming, right? What about J6? The response is blown out of proportion, but there were broken laws. You're pro-enforcement there too, right?
To cut to the chase, is this statism, or are you just utilising statism because it's convenient against your enemies?
The most vital principle of all is "good things for friends, bad things for enemies" and a very close second is "my values aren't a suicide note".
That's not a principle in my opinion, it's an excuse to break principles as you see fit on a selective basis. Don't like a person? Enemy. Like a person? Friend. Friend did something I don't like? Now they're an enemy!
Part of the issue is that there's too much laxness because politics is filled with friends that don't punish each other. That's why they go after Trump like they have. He's an outsider. Pre-2015, Trump was relatively loved by Democrats. He was literally friends with the Clintons. Then he entered the political domain. And lo-and-behold, the uni-party instantly turned on him. Because he was an outsider.
Good This For Friends Bad Things For Enemies is, funnily enough, a big thing that caused all of this shit. And I don't buy the idea that more of the same will reverse course. That doesn't mean course doesn't need to be reversed, but I do believe things have to get worse to the point that people are actually willing to risk what they have rather than cling to their comforts first. I don't think anything will change until then. Midwits look at censorship and political jailings and love to make the comparisons to 1984, but the reality is far closer to Brave New World where our comforts and relative luxury keep us docile and placated. And I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give up what they have. I certainly don't want to risk my life, my family, or my loved ones either. I completely get it. But it's these ties that keep the problem advancing.
Didn't read past the first sentence, keep the retard babble to yourself next time.
Ah yes, the good ol' conflation of Freedom of Speech with the First Amendment.
I wasn't talking about the First Amendment. I was explicitly talking about the human right to Freedom of Speech. Tell me, is there any other human right that is only considered immoral because the government engages in it? Is slavery worse if it's the government but better if it's private citizens owning or trading people? Is it less evil to be forced to house people if it's a private entity forcing you to relinquish your property?
Yes, everyone has the right to association, and I do hold that in higher accord than freedom of speech. HOWEVER, Freedom of Speech even on an individual level should be strived for, and so eagerly abandoning it is silly and is what has lead to websites like Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc all having direct communications to working with the state to easily and quickly get around these restrictions.
So yes, they have these freedoms. That doesn't mean it should be abused. Just like I also think that any other human right can also be abused, be it screaming in peoples faces, bearing arms against the innocent, or arbitrarily barring people from publicly-accessible private property. You have the freedom. It doesn't make it instantly right to do so.