Lumbo,
Even though we disagree on some points, what you experience here always happens on political topics such as this one.
It doesnt really matter anymore anyway; world wide ppls are rebelling against globalism; left and right and turning towards nationalism/conservatism and there is even a massive revival of christianity. From Brazil to Japan and from Italy to Estonia. Ppl have had it with the madness.
A lot of things will change coming years. And big (multinational) corporations will have no chance but to adapt. And they will, or cease to exist.
More on topic; this will also affect free speech. Nobody should be surprised if govs pass laws for social media companies and other big players on internet to guarantee free speech. In practice it means the days of safe spaces and âmuh feelingsâ are over.
And that is a good thing.
Happy NY everyone ;]
Laws are not even needed. The market itself will take care of that issue. And tbh, the only âlawsâ I see coming are concerned with making google/facebook/twitter/etc. to pay taxes in each individual European country.
This is exactly why Iâm a globalist. Nationalism/conservatism thrives in a closed enviroment, and returning to the social values of 50 years ago would be an absolutely horrible development for pretty much everyone. (Iâm from the netherlands to by the way)
And we havenât even talked about the massive increase in wealth and human well being globalism has brought to the entire world. It makes me sad to see people advocating against it. It seems to be a feels over reals argument to me. Based in ignorance and fear.
You do realize youâre advocating for authoritarianism here right?
Edit: Just to add for clearness: Just because Iâm a globalist doesnât mean I donât think there are problems with globalism right now. It does mean that I see globalism as a net gain, and the only way forward considering the increasing interconnectedness of the world.
1 Like
Im 58, dutch, philosopher and studied other fields aswell.
Its not open for discussion. Ive had that discussion for over 30 years.
I spit on sentences like: âBased in ignorance and fearâ. It practically means you just repeat the false narrative of some others. It also means its not worth discussing it with such a person.
You can jump up and down and from left to right, it wont matter.
No i am not voting for authoritarianism, you are. The EU is totalitarian. Corporatism is authoritarian. Globalism is totalitarian. Cultural marxism is totalitarian. And fascist aswell.
It is not what ppl want and not what ppl need. It inevitably leads to destruction and genocide. It already has. Which is exactly why ppl all over the world are rebelling against it.
Because being rude means the feedback isnât constructive or valuable?
Sheesh.
You youngstersâŚ
There are terms they use to describe people like you, but judging by what you tend to write on these forums, âphilosopherâ wouldnât be one of them.
1 Like
If you believe in the Cultural marxism meme then I have no chance of convincing you of anything. Iâve talked to Jordan Peterson fans before, and I still have headaches thinking about those times.
If you are in favor of goverments jumping in to regulate speech you donât like (muh feelings and safe spaces) on private platforms then yes, youâre in favor of authoritarianism, and against the free speech you say you love so much.
2 Likes
I will not be minimized to âa fan offâ and then pushed aside because of it.
I nowhere said i was in favor of govs regulating speech. On the contrary! I said govs have to guarantee free speech. I have been defending that position for over 3 decades.
Isnât that what the goverment would be doing though? If the goverment actively start guaranteeing every sort of speech on private platforms, then the goverment would be compelling private entities to condone and allow speech they may not agree with. And there would be legal consequences if they refused. Kind of like how Peterson said that Bill C-16 compels the speech of private citizens (which is a misunderstanding of the bill, by the way).
sounds authoritarian to me.
Iâd much rather leave it to the companies themselves to regulate the speech they want to allow on their platforms. Like Blizz and Twitch are doing.
Itâs the governments job to allow free speech in the public space, and I agree with you that speech should be protected there. Edit: within the boundaries of the law ofc. Hate speech does have to be fought.
1 Like
No it doesnât. Hate speech is just a vague term which cannot be defined unanimously. The only reason itâs used is to obstruct free speech.
It can be defined though, by law. Differs with each country obvioulsy. Like in the US hate speech is protected by law. Itâs something you can debate about a lot, but yes, itâs very definable.
No. It is not what the gov would be doing.
You seem to misunderstand enforcing a right to speech, with mandatory speech. The first is a general principle, the other is a specific form.
The state would not be saying âyou have to use this or that wordâ, but would stop others from limiting speech and mandatory speech.
The first is a right to speech, the second is mandatory speech. Totally different things. And opposing things for that matter.
You cannot trust companies with defending rights, bc companies are a-moral. They do what brings in most money.
Again⌠the public spaceâŚ
It can easily be argued now that social media (but also massive platforms like this) are the new public space and should therefor be treated as such.
Things have to be reasonable. I dont think anyone would object to a narrow corner of the web where ppl are somewhat protected from confrontational views. But the massive social media platforms are definately the new (or added) public space and should therefor fall under free speech principles.
There is no such thing as âhate speechâ. The only valid hate speech would be the direct call for physical harm of ppl. But it is used to silence opposing political views and are therefor the most rotten laws ever seen in the modern west.
They will not last.
Youâre basically repeating what I posted. Thereâs no some objective way to define it, so itâs just a kludge to prevent free speech.
Those political views that are silenced often champion violence against certain groups of people, so I think the silencing is valid.
Of course there is no objective way to define it. Morals and values arenât objective. But in the context of those morals and values hate speech can be defined.
And they do, just not in private spaces.
A point I would consider. Especially in the case of Twitter and Facebook. Definitely not in the case of Twitch and Blizz though.
1 Like
Btw, you said you were dutch⌠so you should know the details ![:slight_smile:](https://d1bg94bbsh66ji.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")
Article one of our constitution starts with:
IN SIMILAR CASES
It is not a law like any other law. Laws are all strict and define very precisely what and how. That is why all these laws need laywers, bc for a normal human being it is hard to get some truth or meaning out of them. But not this one.
It is not a law, but an intention. The anti-dicrimination of specific groups: racial, age, gender, etc. No one person should be judged based on any criterium they cannot help.
But⌠first off, elderly ppl are ridiculed all the time. Thats all fair game. Men ⌠same. It are only specific groups that fall under its protection.
And to make matters even worseâŚ
In similar casesâŚ
Who determines which cases are similar???
Right, the judge. So it is ultimately subjective. And that is exactly the reason Fortuyn wanted the damn thing gone. And he was right and it will be scrapped in the near future.
Which is exactly what happened in all of the eastern European countries and Russia - people died in concentration camps because of telling a joke about the âleaderâ !
I suppose that explains your bias against the likes of Peterson.
And no, laws donât define âhate speechâ.
Itâs 100% subjective, even if a law âdefinesâ it.
BS!
All violence the last 70 years came from the left. Nothing from the right. There wasnt even a right in NL!
I havent seen anyone calling for this. But yes, NOW ppl are starting to say it. And that is exactly what i spent my entire adult life to prevent.
So congratulations⌠the left idiocy got us to that piont.
Im so friggin happy about that⌠NOT.
I mean⌠the article is very clear. And itâs up to the judges to interpret it. Thatâs what judges are for. I donât get your point.
Age and gender falls under the protection, men as well. You can put it in the front of the judge if you think you have a case.
Violence has come and comes from both sides. And I donât condone it.
If you reply to this, Iâll read it tomorrow. Itâs bed time for me. Holidays be over sadlyâŚ
1 Like