JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[viper37]

I'm okay with the government stepping in and preventing people from inflicting harm on minors.

But only on minors?

Okay, you got me.  I would also support government stepping in to stop persecution of anglophones in Quebec.

Already done.  The Federal govt gives them a fuckton of money while they don't raise a finger for French speakers outside of Quebec

Poor oppressed anglos living in squalor on the outskirts of Montreal.   You should donate to the Red Cross, they probably have a specific fund for the Bronfman family

[Zoupa]

Examples?

Like if you say that certain people should not receive the same rights as others because of their identity. From the topic of this thread, e.g. trans women not being treated as women because they were not assigned as such at birth.

Being treated as a woman isn't a right.

No, too often it is more a combination of right, left, slap.

Ouch.

[viper37]

I have no idea what Viper and Raz are actually talking about since their conversation is entirely in the passive aggressive voice 

Raz believes Quebec nationalists like me are sending english speakers and immigrants to work camps in the North and as such feels like he should help these kindred souls to break their chains

Now, the original topic was about peer pressure in religious communities.  For certain communities, you will be shunned by your entire family and friends, the only people you know, if you choose to leave that religious community.  It's not as easy as switching cable company, like Grumbler seemed to imply when he said a mistreated woman could simply choose to attend another institution.

Would you leave your religion if it meant never seeing your kids again?  If it meant your older brothers would kill you for dishonoring them?

That's why the State has a role to play in making sure religious communities don't get to that point, by preventing the rise of extremists in their rangs.

It's distateful, but religions, like any ideology can be extremely dangerous if left uncheck.

I have no problem with someone being a racist, as long as they keep it to themselves. They can also believe women are inferiors and worth less than a male child.  I would object to them denying their kids opportunities though, like attending a regular school, or at least following the basic curriculum established by the State, even if that goes against freedom of religion.

Some people believe freedom of religion to be an absolute, and in the words of our former Premier, radicalism is a personal choice.  I object to that. 

Curbing religious freedoms to preven radicalisation is a necessary infringement on personal freedom. 

Just like the stupid mask could possibly be for the pandemic, or just like the speed limits on the highways.  They're stupid rules, but necessary, because you can't always trust people to act in their own best interest and in the best interest of others.  And a society has the right to protect the collective freedoms of its members, that is why we often have a paradox where we must reduce the personal freedoms of some to protect the liberty of the collectivity.

Hate speech is censored in Canada, and can lead you to prison time.  I used to dislike it.  I'm now more leaning toward a necessary evil.  No matter how much truth you spread, the comforting lies always spread easier and faster. 

There's been a few stories of Canadians with asians origins being verbally assaulted by other bystanders.  Or arab women being told to go back where they came from.

You could say its only words.  But in the words of Garak but I got off several cutting remarks which no doubt, did serious damage to their egos, I would think that it can hurt a lot.  Especially if they are repeated.  Sure, on a scale of evilness, it's always worst to be physically attacked than verbally attacked.  I'd much prefer being called fucking frog or coonass a few dozen times than being beaten to an inch of my death, like the left currently enjoys a lot.

That is unfortunately why the State has to step in, and prevent an escalation of hostilities.  Before someone retaliates with a gun, the perpetrator of the insults would be sent to prison or fined.  These act as a deterrent, I suppose.  Racial incidents do happen, but they don't seem to appear as often as the left would like us to think.  Maybe the anti hate speech laws have a role in this.  Maybe other measures, just as distateful from a liberal view are also necessary.

[Solmyr]

You are not censored afterwards. You have said what you wanted to say. If the result of that is that other people no longer want to employ you or have anything to do with you, that's their freedom.

So it's okay for this kind of freedom to impinge on other people's freedom of speech, just not the other way around?

How does that impinge on anyone's freedom of speech? Nobody is blocked from saying anything. Or are you essentially arguing for freedom without responsibility? Should one be free to do absolutely anything regardless of the harm it inflicts on others, and suffer no consequences?

[grumbler]

You are not censored afterwards. You have said what you wanted to say. If the result of that is that other people no longer want to employ you or have anything to do with you, that's their freedom.

So it's okay for this kind of freedom to impinge on other people's freedom of speech, just not the other way around?

How does that impinge on anyone's freedom of speech? Nobody is blocked from saying anything. Or are you essentially arguing for freedom without responsibility? Should one be free to do absolutely anything regardless of the harm it inflicts on others, and suffer no consequences?

I have no idea what this "debate" is about.  Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish (so long as it doesn't directly harm others or directly call for the harm of others), but not the freedom to escape the consequences of that speech.  If one of the consequences is that your boss feels the need to fire/transfer/demote you, then he has that freedom (unless contracts or laws prohibit).  And those who agree with your original speech have the freedom to decry his actions/boycott his products/whatever.

I don't think that any of those assertions of mine are unreasonable or even controversial.  So I agree with Solmyr.

[Razgovory]

I have no idea what Viper and Raz are actually talking about since their conversation is entirely in the passive aggressive voice 

Raz believes Quebec nationalists like me are sending english speakers and immigrants to work camps in the North and as such feels like he should help these kindred souls to break their chains

No, I just want to protect classes of people you don't like.

[Valmy]

I have no idea what this "debate" is about.  Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish (so long as it doesn't directly harm others or directly call for the harm of others), but not the freedom to escape the consequences of that speech.  If one of the consequences is that your boss feels the need to fire/transfer/demote you, then he has that freedom (unless contracts or laws prohibit).  And those who agree with your original speech have the freedom to decry his actions/boycott his products/whatever.

I don't think that any of those assertions of mine are unreasonable or even controversial.  So I agree with Solmyr.

I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed.  I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.

[grumbler]

I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed.  I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.

I don't see anything that indicates that Solmyr believes that the legal system should punish free speech, even post hoc. 

[Valmy]

I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed.  I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.

I don't see anything that indicates that Solmyr believes that the legal system should punish free speech, even post hoc. 

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

Emphasis mine

[grumbler]

I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed.  I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.

I don't see anything that indicates that Solmyr believes that the legal system should punish free speech, even post hoc. 

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

Emphasis mine

Okay.  I didn't see that (or maybe read it properly) but I concede the point.  Speech that can be punished by the legal system post-hoc isn't free speech.  Libel isn't free speech, for instance, even though it can only be punished post-hoc.

[DGuller]

I have no idea what this "debate" is about.  Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish (so long as it doesn't directly harm others or directly call for the harm of others), but not the freedom to escape the consequences of that speech.  If one of the consequences is that your boss feels the need to fire/transfer/demote you, then he has that freedom (unless contracts or laws prohibit).  And those who agree with your original speech have the freedom to decry his actions/boycott his products/whatever.

I don't think that any of those assertions of mine are unreasonable or even controversial.  So I agree with Solmyr.

My argument is that if exercising a freedom brings about prohibitive consequences, to the point than any reasonable person would not exercise that freedom, then you actually do not have that freedom.  Prohibitive consequence are exactly what makes for lack of freedom.  It seems fairly self-evident to me, so I likewise do not understand why there is even a debate about it. 

Having freedom to do something by definition means having the power to do something without hindrance, and it would require a lot of sophistry to claim that prohibitive consequences do not constitute a hindrance.  Freedom of speech involves more than just the physical protection of your vocal cords.

[grumbler]

My argument is that if exercising a freedom brings about prohibitive consequences, to the point than any reasonable person would not exercise that freedom, then you actually do not have that freedom.  Prohibitive consequence are exactly what makes for lack of freedom.  It seems fairly self-evident to me, so I likewise do not understand why there is even a debate about it. 

It may be self-evident to you, but is so vague as to be meaningless.  The exercise of freedoms will often entail consequences, but whether they are "prohibitive" to "any reasonable person" is largely an entirely subjective judgement, particularly beforehand. 

Now, there are some clear exceptions, like exercising the freedom to vote for any presidential candidate but Saddam Hussein during his rule over Iraq or exercising rights under the PRC's constitution stating that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration."  But everyone knows that these rights were never meant seriously and were articulated merely to make it easier for outside governments to pretend that the PRC or Iraq were not occupied by governments consisting of the enemies of their peoples.

Having freedom to do something by definition means having the power to do something without hindrance, and it would require a lot of sophistry to claim that prohibitive consequences do not constitute a hindrance.  Freedom of speech involves more than just the physical protection of your vocal cords.

That definition of freedom does not all all say that freedom only exists were there is no consequences to its exercise.  You want to go by dictionary definitions?  Then look at the words you are using:  hindrance "a thing that provides resistance, delay, or obstruction to something or someone." Consequences do none of those things, so your attempt at sophistry in claiming that consequences are a hindrance is doomed to failure.  Some consequences are designed to limit freedoms, that is true.  I've mentioned libel before.  But not all consequences mean a lack of freedom.  Freedom of speech means more than just a freedom from all the consequences of speech.

[DGuller]

Nothing obstructed you from voicing a criticism of Stalin in 1937 Soviet Union.  The lack of freedom of speech in that case would be manifested in the consequences such criticism would entail, not in the obstruction preventing you from getting that criticism out of your throat.

[Solmyr]

Nothing obstructed you from voicing a criticism of Stalin in 1937 Soviet Union.  The lack of freedom of speech in that case would be manifested in the consequences such criticism would entail, not in the obstruction preventing you from getting that criticism out of your throat.

Getting shipped off to a gulag is hardly in the same ballpark as getting fired by your boss.

[Josquius]

Not to mention that was an actual legal consequence. The government arresting you.
Not your boss using their right to fire somebody for the justifiable reasons that having a loud racist on the team  won't sell well with half of the customer base and brought the company into disrepute