The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Zenith]

though it's certainly what we try to do in Europe, where we lock people up for questioning history or telling jokes.

Can you link me to the instances you're referring to?

 

[Famine]

That is not really true.

It's wholly true.

No heed whatsoever should be paid to the concept of offensiveness because no two people find the same set of things offensive. If you limit speech based on what might be offensive, you censor all speech, because offence may be taken at any time by anyone and for any reason.

For instance I find the concept of censoring speech offensive...

People should realise that when they speak the meaning needs to be 100% clear, in my opinion. (Except for when people are joking, which is not the case here.)

And you've just neatly illustrated the contradiction.

You've deemed, for some reason, that something that someone can take offence at in normal conversation they should not take offence at in a joke. Why? Jokes can be offensive - there's an entire culture built up around offensive jokes, jokes that are literally designed to cause offence. See Sickipedia - they're all jokes which, by your reasoning, means you cannot possibly take offence at them. I suspect you will though.

Someone in the UK got locked up for 12 weeks for making a joke - stolen from Sickipedia - on Facebook about the kidnap and probable rape and murder of 6 year old girl April Jones. I bet her family found the joke about her kidnapper raping her to death to be quite offensive...


Speech should not be censored. Ever.

That doesn't guarantee you a platform to speak from or the freedom from the consequences of that speech, only that you may say whatever you wish if you choose to.

Can you link me to the instances you're referring to?

Yarp.

David Irving imprisoned for 3 years for Holocaust denial (Austria).

Matthew Woods imprisoned for 12 weeks for telling joke about schoolgirl kidnap (UK).

 

[Callum B]

Yarp.

David Irving imprisoned for 3 years for Holocaust denial (Austria).

Matthew Woods imprisoned for 12 weeks for telling joke about schoolgirl kidnap (UK).

By that rate Frankie Boyle should be locked up for life

 

[FoolKiller]

Reply to first bold text:
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order , or of public health or morals".

- Quoting wikipedia.

I do not hold the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as the expert source of anything. It is a self-contradictory document full of feel good wishes that no country has lived up to 100%. If it were true international law then we are all in violation.

That said, the part you underline tells me that you either purposely ignored or did not understand the part of my post you didn't bold. "public health or morals." Think about what that meant in society 30-50 years ago, or even 100 years. Racial segregation was considered moral. Homosexuality was considered a threat to public morality, and a sin. To restrict freedom of speech the way you suggests means that society could never change or progress because it would be illegal to suggest change of moral attitudes.

But really look at what it is talking about with restrictions and responsibilities. You can't yell fire in a theater because you are putting lives at risk. You can't slander or libel in an official way (rumors and gossip are not purposefully telling untruths) as you are intentionally trying to ruin a person's reputation and bring financial harm to them. You cannot directly threaten bodily injury or harm. But you see, these are all precursors to other crimes. Not crimes of speech. These are things that are you causing manslaughter, conspiracy to murder/assault, or financial theft by deception.

But if I believe the holocaust didn't happen or that a gay teacher may make my kid gay, or abuse my kid I may be ignorant, but I am allowed to voice my opinion. Jailing a holocaust denier only prevents people feeling safe to announce a true government conspiracy/scandal.

Reply to second bold text:
I agree that sometimes people overreact to things. But look at it the other way. Why use vocabulary that might be offensive so casually?

Why be so quick to offense? I don't get up in arms about nerd jokes. I don't get upset at jokes about my medical conditions. In fact, people on this very site can tell you that I have made a few at my own expense. My friends and I harass each other with nothing off the table, this includes my gay friends and even some gay family. And none of us have ever uttered the phrase, "I'm offended by that."

But then, maybe it's because my heart is scarred and damaged that prevents me from feeling these kinds of emotions.

I mean, it's not hard to use a different saying and all would be well. Why use sayings that could possibly be offensive/hurtful if there is no need at all for them?

In many instances because culture changes faster than language. Common phrases become habit. And sometimes words, like gay and queer change their meanings over time. Calling someone queer meant you thought he was strange. Calling them gay meant they were excessively happy. There was a time when saying, "That's gay," actually meant something was odd.

And sometimes, previously offensive things have become innocent. For example, Eenie Meenie Minie Moe, a rhyme to pick things randomly when I was a kid, was used by a stewardess flight attendant in the US. An elderly black woman became offended because when she was little it was a taunt toward black people before someone got attacked. The phrase "pick a tiger by its toe" used to not say tiger. The woman sued the airline. Was it the flight attendant's fault that the elderly black woman was offended by something that most of society forgot used to be a racist taunt? Or was offense taken where only less than 1% of society could even know it might be offensive?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/t/story?id=123728&page=1

Hopefully this is maybe an eyeopener:
http://www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

Can I make a website counting all the times the term "heartless" is used without meaning to offend me?

I agree with you Gonales. I also think that certain stuff shouldn't be allowed to say. Hate speech comes to my mind.

Define hate speech and what actual harm it causes.

Personally, I find all the anti-capitalism rants offensive to my sense of morality and hateful. Should I demand all the 99% protesters be arrested?

Why is it that successful, rich, and/or white people can get called "white Devil," "greedy pig," and various other things by these protesters, but no one mentions hate speech?

Society will and does censor itself. Anyone who doubts that just needs to ask Michael Richards or Gilbert Godfried how their careers are doing.

 

[Sureboss]

You want consistency? Pah! (Not at FK)

 

[ShobThaBob]

I agree with you Gonales. I also think that certain stuff shouldn't be allowed to say. Hate speech comes to my mind.

What's wrong with hate speech? It makes you feel something not good?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Define hate speech and what actual harm it causes.

Well, maybe it's indeed needed thatI explain what I mean with hate speech.
I'm talking about threats and discrimination of certain groups.
Like the KKK does, or Nazi parties etc.
No one should be allowed to voice death threats or whatever.

The harm it causes contains people who are afraid, violence aroused by someone talking bad, discrimination and persecution.

Why is it that successful, rich, and/or white people can get called "white Devil," "greedy pig," and various other things by these protesters, but no one mentions hate speech?

While I am a slight part of the 99% protesters and think the whole system needs some changes, insulting people just because they're successful and rich is hate speech and when someone uses the skin color (never mind which) it's over.

There's also a huge difference in voicing an opinion and stating something like a fact.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, maybe it's indeed needed thatI explain what I mean with hate speech.
I'm talking about threats and discrimination of certain groups.
Like the KKK does, or Nazi parties etc.
No one should be allowed to voice death threats or whatever.

I have seen a KKK march with no death threats. Racial epithets and chants to go back to Africa, but no death threats. Been a while since I've heard of actual Klan violence outside of marches becoming confrontational.

Neo-nazis have a more recent history of violence and threats, but they do manage their rallies and marches within the law in order to maintain their ability to obtain permits.

The harm it causes contains people who are afraid, violence aroused by someone talking bad, discrimination and persecution.

Unless the speaker put forth a call to violence (which is a different crime) they are not responsible for the actions of others. If causing people to be afraid without a direct threat is a crime then arrest Santa Claus because he scares my daughter.

While I am a slight part of the 99% protesters and think the whole system needs some changes, insulting people just because they're successful and rich is hate speech and when someone uses the skin color (never mind which) it's over.

So the ones that do that should be arrested? It should be illegal?

I (aka all white men) was called white devil by a women's studies professor once. You know what I did? I argued her points in class. That's it. I have thicker skin than she does and never once took offense to her clear stance that I should have white guilt for actions taken generations before my family was in this country. The last thing I suggested was that she be taken for legal action.

There's also a huge difference in voicing an opinion and stating something like a fact.

Sometimes that difference is just ignorance (think Archie Bunker) and has zero mice behind it. They believe it is fact.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I'm not saying that everyone should be put to jail or whatever because of one or two stupid sentences. My point's just that "freedom of speech" has an end somewhere (you actually wrote that yourself).

Sorry for not posting a bit more in-depth, but it's 3:40 am and my English skills aren't the best right now.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not saying that everyone should be put to jail or whatever because of one or two stupid sentences. My point's just that "freedom of speech" has an end somewhere (you actually wrote that yourself).

You said not allowed. All legal action may come to prison and even use of guns. It's the only power government truly has to back up its rules.

And those limits are when it becomes part of a different crime, such as inciting violence, commiting manslaughter, or conspiring to murder. But that can be done through more than just speech. They are not crimes of speech, but crimes of bodily injury.

And making it rules of law (not allowing it) is wholly unnecessary. We see it every time a celebrity has a hate filled rant recorded or someone tweets or Facebooks a hateful, even lewd, comment. Mel Gibson was caught making an anti-semetic rant. Should legal action, such as a fine or arrest, be taken? Or is the fact that he hasn't had a major film release (some straight to home video stuff only) enough? Society deemed him worthy of losing untold millions of dollars. Why should there be more?

In comparison, violent, criminal acts just get you a one year suspension from being praised, like Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, or Roman Polanski.

When you compare their careers to Michael Richards' after an on-stage racial tirade, I'd say hate speech is treated far more harshly than violent crimes. Why call for anything more?

 

[Gazumagi]

When you compare their careers to Michael Richards' after an on-stage racial tirade, I'd say hate speech is treated far more harshly than violent crimes. Why call for anything more?

Because then what will stop people that don't have anything to lose in terms of lesser careers from utilizing hate speech? Someone that's already made a bajillion dollars won't be punished if he doesn't make another 1/4 of a bajillion dollars. He's already set up for life, and unless the government can use it's own power as a form of punishment, it is essentially a free ride to verbally attacking however you want...

 

[Famine]

Because then what will stop people that don't have anything to lose in terms of lesser careers from utilizing hate speech?

They'll continue having lesser careers.

There'll always be a niche of people who want to give their money to racists, homophobes, sexists and so on. But the majority of people don't and will vote with their wallets.

Someone that's already made a bajillion dollars won't be punished if he doesn't make another 1/4 of a bajillion dollars.

The punishment is no longer having a platform from which to speak because no-one's interested in employing them.

He's already set up for life, and unless the government can use it's own power as a form of punishment, it is essentially a free ride to verbally attacking however you want...

As soon as government uses its power to punish any speech it's a free ride to not being allowed to say anything except mandated phrases - once one word or phrase is banned it's a legal precedent to ban more. That might include, for instance, banning any phrase that criticises government in any way (which is clearly offensive, since a plurality of people voted for the government and telling them they're wrong might offend them).

Of course the mandated phrases can still cause offence, because anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time.


If you can be insulted you should be happy you live in a society where those insults are permitted by law because they guarantee your right to object to them. It's just as easy to ban you from objecting to the insults as it is to ban the insults - and I'm not sure how happy you'd be in a society where you could go to prison for calling someone an ignorant dinosaur after they call you a homo...

 

[Gonales]

They'll continue having lesser careers.

Do you really think people would actually care if someone on GTP or GT5 called someone else a fag? I don't care about their careers, nor anything else, simply because it's my opinion to honor a simple and polite request (if it brings you no harm).

There'll always be a niche of people who want to give their money to racists, homophobes, sexists and so on. But the majority of people don't and will vote with their wallets.

Which is exactly what is wrong with this world, letting money decide who you vote on. The people that give money to racists because they know he is racist, are actually the ones doing the right thing... If it wasn't for the person being racist. (I hope that made sense.)

The punishment is no longer having a platform from which to speak because no-one's interested in employing them.

I'm sorry, but i think Hitler is the perfect example of the fact that you're wrong here in my opinion. Just because someone says something that's probably offensive doesn't mean they will lose anything. Because they will always find an employer that thinks the same way or does not care.

As soon as government uses its power to punish any speech it's a free ride to not being allowed to say anything except mandated phrases - once one word or phrase is banned it's a legal precedent to ban more. That might include, for instance, banning any phrase that criticises government in any way (which is clearly offensive, since a plurality of people voted for the government and telling them they're wrong might offend them).

This is extremely far fetched. Saying you're not okay with someone's vote has no way of offending someone because there will always be space for debates / arguments that are not offensive.

Of course the mandated phrases can still cause offence, because anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time.

Hello Famine! (Are you offended because i said hello?) If i said 'Hello idiot!' or 'Hello *****!' you might. See the difference? :s I can speak perfectly fine to lots of people without offending anyone. Isn't that called being politically correct?

If you can be insulted you should be happy you live in a society where those insults are permitted by law because they guarantee your right to object to them. It's just as easy to ban you from objecting to the insults as it is to ban the insults - and I'm not sure how happy you'd be in a society where you could go to prison for calling someone an ignorant dinosaur after they call you a homo...

So i should be happy someone can insult me, just 'cause I can insult him back? Sounds a lot like an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth to me.

 

[Famine]

Do you really think people would actually care if someone on GTP or GT5 called someone else a fag?

Do you?

If so, then yes. Since you linked to a page counting how many times people on Twitter say "fag", I'd guess at yes.

I don't care about their careers

You should do. I'll explain below.

Which is exactly what is wrong with this world, letting money decide who you vote on.

You seem to have misunderstood the phrase "vote with your wallet" there. "Vote with your wallet" means "Pass your opinion on anything by using your spending power to let the creators know how you feel.", not "Place a tick in an election depending on how much money is at stake". For example, I feel that Ubisoft's DRM is ridiculous and hurts genuine gamers, so I've chosen to vote with my wallet and never buy an Ubisoft game until they ditch it. By losing a customer, their profits are hurt (however slightly) and they lose market share. If enough customers do it, they'll notice it and change their practices in order to better compete and get customers back.

Say a company brings out a new product and markets it as "Not for fags". Here's what happens:

• Some people will find this hilarious and buy it on those grounds alone.
• Some people will buy it because they like the product and ignore homophobia - it's just a joke (you said jokes were okay, so you'd be fine with this).
• Some people will buy it because they've always bought that kind of product from that company
• Some people will not buy it because of the homophobia and will never buy anything from that company again, no matter what

Personally, I'd put myself in the last category and I suspect most other normal people would too. The company would probably go under from such a stupid marketing campaign. This is why companies don't do this even though they're probably free to. And look, no laws were needed.

Freedom of speech means being able to say what you want free of censure, but it doesn't guarantee you a platform from which to say it.

The people that give money to racists because they know he is racist, are actually the ones doing the right thing... If it wasn't for the person being racist. (I hope that made sense.)

Meanwhile the people not giving money to the racist because they know he is racist are also doing the right thing. And they're not feeding racism.

I'm sorry, but i think Hitler is the perfect example of the fact that you're wrong here in my opinion.

Which is ironic, because Hitler quite liked denying people the right to speak freely...

Just because someone says something that's probably offensive doesn't mean they will lose anything. Because they will always find an employer that thinks the same way or does not care.

Maybe. Maybe not. You certainly limit your career opportunities if you're known for being bigotted - how many companies would want it known that they employ outspoken racists? See above...

This is extremely far fetched. Saying you're not okay with someone's vote has no way of offending someone because there will always be space for debates / arguments that are not offensive.

One thing guaranteed to rile most people is to tell them they're wrong. People find that one of the most offensive things you can say to them...

If you were paying attention to the US Presidential Election recently, you'll have noticed just how easy it was to offend people by telling them their vote for Obamney was wrong.

Hello Famine! (Are you offended because i said hello?)

I might be. Perhaps I might be offended that you addressed me in English because I'm based in the UK when I prefer being addressed in Welsh, Gaelic or Urdu. Perhaps I have a speech impediment for the letter "l" and was taunted by people at school saying "HELLO" at me repeatedly. Maybe I was the victim of the Hello Rapist.

Anyone can take offence at anything at any time and for any reason.

I can speak perfectly fine to lots of people without offending anyone.

To the best of your knowledge. People you speak to might cry themselves to sleep each night because you say hurtful things to them without ever realising it.

Isn't that called being politically correct?

I thought speaking to people without being deliberately offensive was just called "speaking", personally.

So i should be happy someone can insult me, just 'cause I can insult him back?

No. You should be happy you live in a society where someone can exercise the right to free speech and insult you if they choose to - because it means you have the right to free speech and can insult them back if you choose to.

Without the choice, the right choice loses all its good motives. When forced to do good by law, there are no good people.


As soon as you're done making laws to ban people from saying certain things, you've made a precedent for people to make laws that ban you from saying certain things. There is no end point, just the banning of all communication.

 

[Gonales]

Do you?
If so, then yes. Since you linked to a page counting how many times people on Twitter say "fag", I'd guess at yes.

Those are the people like me, who disapprove the use of those words. Yes, there are some more like me.

You should do. I'll explain below.

Not really, the only people that are important to me are me, my wife and the small part of family I have left. If Obama had been a homophobe i'd have hated him, but since Romney is, i don't. No matter what their career is like. Every person on the street that is homophobic should face some kind of correction, no matter who it is.

You seem to have misunderstood the phrase "vote with your wallet" there. "Vote with your wallet" means "Pass your opinion on anything by using your spending power to let the creators know how you feel.", not "Place a tick in an election depending on how much money is at stake". For example, I feel that Ubisoft's DRM is ridiculous and hurts genuine gamers, so I've chosen to vote with my wallet and never buy an Ubisoft game until they ditch it. By losing a customer, their profits are hurt (however slightly) and they lose market share. If enough customers do it, they'll notice it and change their practices in order to better compete and get customers back.

Say a company brings out a new product and markets it as "Not for fags". Here's what happens:

• Some people will find this hilarious and buy it on those grounds alone.
• Some people will buy it because they like the product and ignore homophobia - it's just a joke (you said jokes were okay, so you'd be fine with this).
• Some people will buy it because they've always bought that kind of product from that company
• Some people will not buy it because of the homophobia and will never buy anything from that company again, no matter what

Personally, I'd put myself in the last category and I suspect most other normal people would too. The company would probably go under from such a stupid marketing campaign. This is why companies don't do this even though they're probably free to. And look, no laws were needed.

No I would belong in the 4th as well, and you're wrong, there is a law there. Supply and demand. Those people that sold the game will lose a lot of demand. Which means less sales, less profits. (Punishment, by a law. Even if it's not a law made by politicians, but economists.)

Freedom of speech means being able to say what you want free of censure, but it doesn't guarantee you a platform from which to say it.

There is always a platform. And it won't stop, unless someone does something against it.

Meanwhile the people not giving money to the racist because they know he is racist are also doing the right thing. And they're not feeding racism.

So, people can stop giving money to someone because he is racist, but I can't ask and correct people when they are homophobic?

Which is ironic, because Hitler quite liked denying people the right to speak freely...

Yes, but he only got to do so AFTER he got elected, right? And why did he get elected? By blaming everything on jews, gays, and a lot more kinds of people.

Maybe. Maybe not. You certainly limit your career opportunities if you're known for being bigotted - how many companies would want it known that they employ outspoken racists? See above...

The only ones that would care are the ones that know. Which they won't if things are being said on GTP, GT5, or any other online game.

One thing guaranteed to rile most people is to tell them they're wrong. People find that one of the most offensive things you can say to them...

Depends on how you say it. And it depends on what the question is. Because, in the presidential election you couldn't be wrong... You would just be a 'minority' that voiced a different opinion.

On the other side, with exact sciences you can prove people they are wrong. If those people take offense it's because they think to greatly of themselves.

If you were paying attention to the US Presidential Election recently, you'll have noticed just how easy it was to offend people by telling them their vote for Obamney was wrong.

See above.

I might be. Perhaps I might be offended that you addressed me in English because I'm based in the UK when I prefer being addressed in Welsh, Gaelic or Urdu. Perhaps I have a speech impediment for the letter "l" and was taunted by people at school saying "HELLO" at me repeatedly. Maybe I was the victim of the Hello Rapist.

Anyone can take offence at anything at any time and for any reason.

If you are offended by the fact I said Hello, that's not my fault. Plus, you could tell me and i would apologise, which a LOT of people don't do when they call people fags and I ask them to watch their vocabulary.

To the best of your knowledge. People you speak to might cry themselves to sleep each night because you say hurtful things to them without ever realising it.

If they don't tell me, I can't help it. I don't mind asking someone to not use offensive vocabulary in my presence, and a lot of friends both in real life and in game try to take that into consideration, for which I'm grateful.

I thought speaking to people without being deliberately offensive was just called "speaking", personally.

"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent."
(Quoted Wikipedia.)

No. You should be happy you live in a society where someone can exercise the right to free speech and insult you if they choose to - because it means you have the right to free speech and can insult them back if you choose to.

Which means, like i said before... An eye for an eye. Why not grab a gun and shoot people instead? Because they can't shoot me back when they're dead?

Without the choice, the right choice loses all its good motives. When forced to do good by law, there are no good people.

But no bad ones that go unpunished either. Plus, you can ALWAYS do good things, doesn't matter if it's related to conversation or not.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because then what will stop people that don't have anything to lose in terms of lesser careers from utilizing hate speech?

Seriously?

A two second Google found me this:

13 People Who Got Fired for Tweeting

17 People Who Were Fired for Using Facebook

I personally don't add anyone from work to my social media stuff, and then what little I post is kept private, because I do know that if I choose to speak my mind it can hurt my job.

Someone that's already made a bajillion dollars won't be punished if he doesn't make another 1/4 of a bajillion dollars. He's already set up for life,

Yet, they want to keep working, have a desire to make more movies, music, or whatever. Whether they won't feel happy until they make $50 bajillion or they just love their art form, they are being punished. And then being a social pariah that everyone recognizes any time they go out will likely have them taunted and called horrible, hateful names.

and unless the government can use it's own power as a form of punishment, it is essentially a free ride to verbally attacking however you want...

When you give government power the end result is never what you want. It sets a precedent that will be abused repeatedly. In the end government is force and prisons and guns are not the way to deal with outspoken ignorance and bigotry.

And how would you enforce it on a personal level? How do you prove it? Can anyone just claim they were spoken to in an offensive manner? Must it be on tape? Must there be witnesses? How do you prove the intent was to be hateful?




I am still waiting for someone to address the fact that if this government enforcement of speech were around only 50-100 years ago that homosexuality and racial integration would be concepts considered harmful to the public morality and offensive to those in power and thus we would not even be having this conversation right now.

You cannot have what you want without having to hear the opposing view publicly or personally, and sometimes in a way that you do not like. Homosexuals cannot achieve equal rights unless it is an open forum, and if those who want to claim that homosexuality is an abomination are not allowed to say so in part of the discourse, you live in a dictatorship.

By forcing a rule of law against openly speaking about things you don't want to hear you are the one being intolerant. You are the one suggesting someone be oppressed for their political or moral views. You are no longer better than those you wish to silence. And if that concept offends you, I am sorry that the truth is offensive, maybe we should put a ban on truth.




EDIT:
Gonales, you do realize that we are discussing the legal enforcement of speech limitation, right? You are allowed to say when something offends you, but don't expect those who haven't lived your life or are as thin-skinned as you to understand. As I have said before, I personally hear heart and cyborg jokes all the time (check my sig for links if this makes no sense to you), but I know a joke when I hear it. I know the difference between hateful speech designed to insult me and people having a laugh at my expense, even when the words are the same. I also don't expect people to understand what it is like to not have partial use in one limb and so when someone says something about handicap (I have a handicap parking pass) or something being gimpy I don't jump to offense. But like I've said, I am heartless (I got a doctor's note to prove it).


And I defend your right to speak out for your offense. I do not defend the idea that it should be a legal mandate to not happen. As for political correctness: I say Merry Christmas at this time of year. I am told I should say Happy Holidays. But I don't celebrate multiple holidays, I celebrate Christmas. Am I being offensive or celebrating in the way that I choose without doing any harm to others?

 

[Famine]

Those are the people like me, who disapprove the use of those words. Yes, there are some more like me.

They would be most people.

Not really, the only people that are important to me are me, my wife and the small part of family I have left. If Obama had been a homophobe i'd have hated him, but since Romney is, i don't. No matter what their career is like. Every person on the street that is homophobic should face some kind of correction, no matter who it is.

Uh, you're kinda all over the place here. First only you, your wife and family are worth caring about, then some politicians are...

Romney isn't homophobic because he doesn't support gay marriage. He's anticonstitutional because he doesn't support gay marriage. That's worth not voting for - just like not voting for Obama was because he supports the execution of teenage Americans without due process.

No I would belong in the 4th as well, and you're wrong, there is a law there. Supply and demand. Those people that sold the game will lose a lot of demand. Which means less sales, less profits. (Punishment, by a law. Even if it's not a law made by politicians, but economists.)

You're now massively all over the place.

By your own argument here, supply and demand is effective at preventing homophobic behaviour from commercial interests without any necessity for involvement from government.

We're arguing that freedom of speech should not be curtailed by regulation, not that anyone can say anything free from any recriminations.

There is always a platform. And it won't stop, unless someone does something against it.

Doing so by banning all communication is the wrong way to do it.

So, people can stop giving money to someone because he is racist, but I can't ask and correct people when they are homophobic?

Where have you pulled this from?

Yes, people can stop giving money to racists. Yes you can ask people not to be homophobic.

Yes, but he only got to do so AFTER he got elected, right? And why did he get elected? By blaming everything on jews, gays, and a lot more kinds of people.

It's quite a complex history that starts with the economic problems of the Weimar Republic - but to hold up a man who relished in banning groups he hated from speaking (and living) as an example of why we should ban groups we hate from speaking is ridiculous.

The only ones that would care are the ones that know. Which they won't if things are being said on GTP, GT5, or any other online game.

Really?

We've forwarded people's behaviour on here to their employers and administrators - when they have done so on their employer/school network. They've faced very real consequences indeed. What happens when they go for future employment and an employer sees that they were fired/expelled for violent, abusive, homophobic and racist behaviour?

Depends on how you say it. And it depends on what the question is. Because, in the presidential election you couldn't be wrong... You would just be a 'minority' that voiced a different opinion.

Yes you could. Which is irrelevant to the point that people take offence at being told they are wrong.

On the other side, with exact sciences you can prove people they are wrong. If those people take offense it's because they think to greatly of themselves.

But they still take offence. If it's something they can take offence at - and you know this - you're being offensive to them. Your own requirements for censoring speech say you shouldn't be allowed to do this.


Remember, anyone can take offence at anything at any time and for any reason. Why is none of your business.

If you are offended by the fact I said Hello, that's not my fault. Plus, you could tell me and i would apologise, which a LOT of people don't do when they call people fags and I ask them to watch their vocabulary.

If they don't tell me, I can't help it. I don't mind asking someone to not use offensive vocabulary in my presence, and a lot of friends both in real life and in game try to take that into consideration, for which I'm grateful.

Do you not see the issues above in the context of banning offensive speech?

"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent."
(Quoted Wikipedia.)

Oddly, I learned to speak before Wikipedia existed. And, in fact, before the concept of political correctness became widespread. We always called speaking to people "speaking". We didn't have a term for "speaking to people without being offensive to them" because the alternate term of "speaking to people while being offensive to them" was called "being a nobhead". But then we didn't have people calling for any form of communication to be regulated or banned and people thrown in prison for telling a joke.

Funny old world.

Which means, like i said before... An eye for an eye. Why not grab a gun and shoot people instead? Because they can't shoot me back when they're dead?

I'm reasonably sure you didn't actually read what I wrote.

But no bad ones that go unpunished either. Plus, you can ALWAYS do good things, doesn't matter if it's related to conversation or not.

You don't generate good people by forcing them to do the right thing by law. You just generate a subculture of bad people.

You cannot have what you want without having to hear the opposing view publicly or personally, and sometimes in a way that you do not like. Homosexuals cannot achieve equal rights unless it is an open forum, and if those who want to claim that homosexuality is an abomination are not allowed to say so in part of the discourse, you live in a dictatorship.

By forcing a rule of law against openly speaking about things you don't want to hear you are the one being intolerant. You are the one suggesting someone be oppressed for their political or moral views. You are no longer better than those you wish to silence. And if that concept offends you, I am sorry that the truth is offensive, maybe we should put a ban on truth.

A thousand times this.

 

[arora]

You guys reminded me of something, it took me way to long to remember who wrote it or where I saw it. I even think I managed to tie this freedom of speech stuff into the thread topic lol(as long as someone knows who this is)

William Lloyd Garrison(Free speech and free inquiry)

He who is for forcibly stopping the mouth of his opponent, or for burning any man at the stake, or thrusting him into prison, or exacting a pecuniary fine from him, or impairing his means of procuring an honest livelihood, or treating him scornfully, on account of his peculiar view on any subject * * * is under the dominion of a spirit of ruffianism or cowardice, or animated by that fierce intolerance which characterized Paul of Tarsus in his zeal to exterminate the heresy of Christianity. On the other hand, he who forms his opinions from the dictates of enlightened reason, and sincerely desires to be led into all truth, dreads nothing so much as the suppression of free enquiry - is at all times ready to give a reason for the hope that is in him - calmly listens to the objections of others - feels nothing of anger or alarm lest his foundation be swept away by the waves of opposition. It is impossible, therefore, for him to be a persecutor, or to call upon the strong arm of violence to put a gag into the mouth of any one, however heretical in his sentiments. In proportion as we perceive and embrace the truth, do we become meek, heroic, magnanimous, divine.

Most everyone could learn from that, some more then others

Or there is always this for the tl;dr crowd.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

 

[Gonales]

Here is the last thing I'm gonna say on this topic: People can say what they want, but if i asked them politely not to, I'd keep suggest they keep quiet. Simply because I do NOT ask everyone to stop talking about homosexuality, only the ones that are offensive, and those that are, are mostly on purpose.

And even if I'm considered intolerant to people that tell me I'm abomination, so be it. I will always remain polite until someone crosses the line. Otherwise people can just go around offending people without limitation, and I will not support that.

 

[mazdaman]

If you weren't a homosexual would you still feel this way?

 

[Famine]

You can ask anyone to stop saying anything you wish - on the same basis that anyone can take offence at anything at any time for any reason. Just as you're free to do that, they're free to ignore you. They'd be a dick if they did, but they're free to be dicks if they choose to be.

But introducing legislation to prevent them from saying it in the first place? That's fascism step 1.

 

[Gonales]

If you weren't a homosexual would you still feel this way?

I'm not black, but I don't like discrimination of coloured people either. Nor Transgender people. Nothing basically. Every person is equal, until they take action that proves otherwise

You can ask anyone to stop saying anything you wish - on the same basis that anyone can take offence at anything at any time for any reason. Just as you're free to do that, they're free to ignore you. They'd be a dick if they did, but they're free to be dicks if they choose to be.

But introducing legislation to prevent them from saying it in the first place? That's fascism step 1.

If i have to be a fascist to be able to ask people not to use vocabulary that is likely to be insulting, than I'll be a fascist.

But the thing is... I shouldn't have to be.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not black, but I don't like discrimination of coloured people either. Nor Transgender people. Nothing basically. Every person is equal, until they take action that proves otherwise

And that equality stretches to being able to say what you want.

Saying what you want =/= Doing what you want. There is a fine line to be drawn here.

I should have as much right to say that being gay is acceptable as those who say it is unacceptable. We're entitled to our own opinions.

 

[Famine]

If i have to be a fascist to be able to ask people not to use vocabulary that is likely to be insulting, than I'll be a fascist.

No. You're either not reading or not understanding what I'm typing.

ASKING PEOPLE not to say offensive things is fine.
MAKING LEGISLATION to make it illegal for them to say offensive things is not fine.

 

[Liquid]

^That.

A lot.

 

[Keef]

If i have to be a fascist to be able to ask people not to use vocabulary that is likely to be insulting, than I'll be a fascist.

But the thing is... I shouldn't have to be.

You don't have to be. Didn't you read what he said? You can ask them. Fascism is a political ideology based around force, and forcing somebody to be nice is different than asking them to be nice.

So what do you want to do, do you want to ask them to be nice or do you want to force them to be nice?

 

[Dennisch]

I heard that Indigo facepalm across the North Sea.

 

[Danny]

You don't have to be. Didn't you read what he said? You can ask them. Fascism is a political ideology based around force, and forcing somebody to be nice is different than asking them to be nice.

So what do you want to do, do you want to ask them to be nice or do you want to force them to be nice?

Be quiet.


Please.

 

[Gonales]

No. You're either not reading or not understanding what I'm typing.

ASKING PEOPLE not to say offensive things is fine.
MAKING LEGISLATION to make it illegal for them to say offensive things is not fine.

Quote from my first post on this thread:

What I would like to state and ask, is simple. Let us be who we are, with the same pride and dignity everyone else has.
This, not specifically, but partially means not using the sentences: 'You're gay', or: 'That's so gay!', 'No homo', 'Fag' etc etc.

I'm not the person who started talking about laws and such, but it doesn't mean I oppose that idea.

 

[Famine]

Quote from your second post on this thread:

Freedom of speech is the trump card of the averagely intelligent. You do realise that FoS is not allowing people to be discriminating or offensive in any way?

This is what lead to the discussion of freedom of speech.

I'm not the person who started talking about laws and such, but it doesn't mean I oppose that idea.

The same rights that mean someone can call you a fag mean you can identify as a homosexual. Take away their rights with laws and you start on the path to taking away your own. Better still, if people thought as you 100 years ago, they'd have banned all talk of the offensive homosexuality and you'd not be allowed to even mention it - much less be one.

Reread this and understand what you ask for when you ask that people are legally banned from being rude:

You cannot have what you want without having to hear the opposing view publicly or personally, and sometimes in a way that you do not like. Homosexuals cannot achieve equal rights unless it is an open forum, and if those who want to claim that homosexuality is an abomination are not allowed to say so in part of the discourse, you live in a dictatorship.

By forcing a rule of law against openly speaking about things you don't want to hear you are the one being intolerant. You are the one suggesting someone be oppressed for their political or moral views. You are no longer better than those you wish to silence. And if that concept offends you, I am sorry that the truth is offensive, maybe we should put a ban on truth.