Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Bullying Until recently, Bullying has been identified as a major concern in our Society.


Thanks Tree20Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 11th, 2018, 05:04 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
We all know that the cucknadians rolled over and took it as language laws are put into effect up their, we really don't need any advice from you guys on much besides being pushed around by the French, thanks though.
Well, isn't this just the cutest damn thing,.."cucknadians"??? Is that just a little smooch on the old ass of your boy Bannon or what?

LOL...nasty children...
Thanks from iolo
Hollywood is online now  
Old January 11th, 2018, 07:02 AM   #52
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,614
Leftists attacking free speech

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/lefts...ar-free-speech
webguy4 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 07:26 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 23,282
Free Speech was ORIGINALLY intended to be the right to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal (a logical desire from a nation freed from a country in which a monarch could behead a citizen for making anti-government comments or writing such commentary).

Now, the right wing seems to think that Free Speech means the right to lie, deceive, slander, libel, demean and dehumanize minorities, etc.

I don't think it means that - and hope it never does.
Thanks from Gordy
tristanrobin is online now  
Old January 11th, 2018, 07:31 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
Free Speech was ORIGINALLY intended to be the right to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal (a logical desire from a nation freed from a country in which a monarch could behead a citizen for making anti-government comments or writing such commentary).
Congratulations....you finally said something I can agree with....

Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
Now, the right wing seems to think that Free Speech means the right to lie, deceive, slander, libel, demean and dehumanize minorities, etc.
And then you fall off the wagon....That line is all hysterical hyperbole for which you have no proof.....and according to your definition, I could call that "Hate Speech".....But I won't,...I'll just call it "silly"......
Thanks from webguy4 and guy39
Jimgorn is online now  
Old January 11th, 2018, 08:32 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
Free Speech was ORIGINALLY intended to be the right to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal (a logical desire from a nation freed from a country in which a monarch could behead a citizen for making anti-government comments or writing such commentary).

Now, the right wing seems to think that Free Speech means the right to lie, deceive, slander, libel, demean and dehumanize minorities, etc.

I don't think it means that - and hope it never does.
Prime example of why your or anyone else should never ever ever get to decide what hate speech is in regards to banning speech

Oh my feelings are hurt waaaaaaaa
guy39 is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 05:19 AM   #56
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
Free Speech was ORIGINALLY intended to be the right to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal (a logical desire from a nation freed from a country in which a monarch could behead a citizen for making anti-government comments or writing such commentary).

Now, the right wing seems to think that Free Speech means the right to lie, deceive, slander, libel, demean and dehumanize minorities, etc.

I don't think it means that - and hope it never does.
So now you support Trumpís statement threatening the license of broadcasters who lie?
webguy4 is offline  
Old March 12th, 2018, 01:38 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 846
Even in cases of threats/direct calls to violence, it is not clear that speech should be banned--or, at least, where the line should be drawn. For instance, guys often tend to "talk tough" some of which is an innuendo toward physical violence, if not an overt statement/threat. Much of that is relatively minor "sport-type" level talk/threat/action. Also, when I used to play Xbox live, I sometimes would hear people make some outrageous statements with anonymity (and impunity), though I don't think they should have the police called on them to face legal consequences for relatively brief, minor offenses. There is a strong danger in becoming overly alarmist.

Now, if the KKK or some other mischievous group is holding a private (or public) rally which is a soft/miniature version of the Nuremburg Rally's, I don't think it should be the speech that is made illegal, rather the police should investigate the matter since particular claims are being made with some background support. If, upon investigation, their statements seemed overwhelmingly credible (i.e. they absolutely intended to follow through on extreme acts of violence toward another group offensively), then police action can occur in this respect.

Importantly, it is not their words that would have gotten them into trouble, but their actions. For instance, if they say "Meet up at 'x' (location) on 'y' (time) with weapons, and from there we will attack group 'z'", and police investigate to see if their words were at all credible, I think it would be justified if legal intervention occurred at this point provided the members meet up at 'x' on 'y' with weapons--since they told us how that story ends.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, another point, I think the legal system has expanded well too far into "common violence" and relatively minor disputes that are best sorted out amongst the individuals/groups themselves without a centralized authority intervening and "breaking it up". In fact, (overwhelmingly) this has given highly passive-aggressive people (near) impunity in carrying out "bullying"-type behavior (since they know they are protected as long as they never cross the line of physical contact).

Consider, now bullies do not even require any courage whatsoever and the victims are handicapped in their ability to address the issue(s) since they can only be passive aggressive in return (even if they have courage to stand-up for themselves), rather than strong direct confrontation that may or may not lead to low level violence. For instance, if a bully were to taunt/tease another, post nasty/humiliating content on social media, ect. ect. ect. there is little (to nothing) the "victim" can do to stand up for themselves in this situation, as the bullies are now in the clear since the domain of direct confrontation has been pulled off the table. The Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" depicts this quite well (as do some other teenage/young adult series).
This is a very different dynamic than Gen X and before grew up with, where one had the ability to confront their attackers and undergo a process of self-growth by standing up for themselves. Now, spineless-type passive-aggressive bullies have free reign with Social Media and the helicopter/nanny state handicapping the "victim(s)". It is very sad to see all of the Social Media related humiliation/bullying suicides that occur nowadays. This was Progressives solution to a real social issue? Make it superficially look prettier though in reality orders of magnitude worse? This is gilded politics

Consider, in sports such as Basketball, if a "trash-talker"/taunter acts up directed at one or multiple players, they can be confronted with inside the context of the game in a "rough" though reasonable manner--which will definitely cause the "trash-talker" to think-twice before continuing the behavior. However, in every-day social life now (particularly for kids k-12 through college, ect.) this option has been taken off the table and in response they Progressive-types claim it has been "dealt with" since teasing, social media humiliation, ect. ect. "can't hurt you" while if you so much as put a finger on your attacker/abuser through direct confrontation (which actually requires courage, unlike Social Media abuses & passive aggressive behavior) then you are way "out of line" and subject to expulsion/arrest/criminal record/ect. ect. The lack of nuance I find truly astonishing
Thanks from Sabcat
xMathFanx is offline  
Old March 20th, 2018, 09:47 PM   #58
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
Even in cases of threats/direct calls to violence, it is not clear that speech should be banned--or, at least, where the line should be drawn. For instance, guys often tend to "talk tough" some of which is an innuendo toward physical violence, if not an overt statement/threat. Much of that is relatively minor "sport-type" level talk/threat/action. Also, when I used to play Xbox live, I sometimes would hear people make some outrageous statements with anonymity (and impunity), though I don't think they should have the police called on them to face legal consequences for relatively brief, minor offenses. There is a strong danger in becoming overly alarmist.

Now, if the KKK or some other mischievous group is holding a private (or public) rally which is a soft/miniature version of the Nuremburg Rally's, I don't think it should be the speech that is made illegal, rather the police should investigate the matter since particular claims are being made with some background support. If, upon investigation, their statements seemed overwhelmingly credible (i.e. they absolutely intended to follow through on extreme acts of violence toward another group offensively), then police action can occur in this respect.

Importantly, it is not their words that would have gotten them into trouble, but their actions. For instance, if they say "Meet up at 'x' (location) on 'y' (time) with weapons, and from there we will attack group 'z'", and police investigate to see if their words were at all credible, I think it would be justified if legal intervention occurred at this point provided the members meet up at 'x' on 'y' with weapons--since they told us how that story ends.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, another point, I think the legal system has expanded well too far into "common violence" and relatively minor disputes that are best sorted out amongst the individuals/groups themselves without a centralized authority intervening and "breaking it up". In fact, (overwhelmingly) this has given highly passive-aggressive people (near) impunity in carrying out "bullying"-type behavior (since they know they are protected as long as they never cross the line of physical contact).

Consider, now bullies do not even require any courage whatsoever and the victims are handicapped in their ability to address the issue(s) since they can only be passive aggressive in return (even if they have courage to stand-up for themselves), rather than strong direct confrontation that may or may not lead to low level violence. For instance, if a bully were to taunt/tease another, post nasty/humiliating content on social media, ect. ect. ect. there is little (to nothing) the "victim" can do to stand up for themselves in this situation, as the bullies are now in the clear since the domain of direct confrontation has been pulled off the table. The Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" depicts this quite well (as do some other teenage/young adult series).
This is a very different dynamic than Gen X and before grew up with, where one had the ability to confront their attackers and undergo a process of self-growth by standing up for themselves. Now, spineless-type passive-aggressive bullies have free reign with Social Media and the helicopter/nanny state handicapping the "victim(s)". It is very sad to see all of the Social Media related humiliation/bullying suicides that occur nowadays. This was Progressives solution to a real social issue? Make it superficially look prettier though in reality orders of magnitude worse? This is gilded politics

Consider, in sports such as Basketball, if a "trash-talker"/taunter acts up directed at one or multiple players, they can be confronted with inside the context of the game in a "rough" though reasonable manner--which will definitely cause the "trash-talker" to think-twice before continuing the behavior. However, in every-day social life now (particularly for kids k-12 through college, ect.) this option has been taken off the table and in response they Progressive-types claim it has been "dealt with" since teasing, social media humiliation, ect. ect. "can't hurt you" while if you so much as put a finger on your attacker/abuser through direct confrontation (which actually requires courage, unlike Social Media abuses & passive aggressive behavior) then you are way "out of line" and subject to expulsion/arrest/criminal record/ect. ect. The lack of nuance I find truly astonishing


And that is how the Canadians ended up w/ justin treadau..that is definitely someone who has never gotten their ass kicked.
Thanks from xMathFanx
Sabcat is online now  
Old March 20th, 2018, 09:52 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
And that is how the Canadians ended up w/ justin treadau..that is definitely someone who has never gotten their ass kicked.
@Sabcat

Honestly, the legal structure is (in many ways) resentful & hateful toward 'masculinity'--which, due to modern 'feminism' (and similar movements/ideologies) is viewed to be synonymous with 'evil'.
xMathFanx is offline  
Old March 21st, 2018, 01:53 AM   #60
Riot Grrrl
 
Lyzza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Stage Left
Posts: 5,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
@Sabcat

Honestly, the legal structure is (in many ways) resentful & hateful toward 'masculinity'--which, due to modern 'feminism' (and similar movements/ideologies) is viewed to be synonymous with 'evil'.
Ok, you are just fucking amazing..... how the hell did you work that comment into this?
Lyzza is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Tags
hate, speech



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Free Speech vs Hate Speech webguy4 Americas 18 September 17th, 2017 02:31 PM
Hate Speech or Free Speech? Sabcat Freedom of Speech 27 December 10th, 2016 11:52 AM
Hate Speech webguy4 Freedom of Speech 45 September 30th, 2016 02:04 PM
hate speech Sabcat Political Talk 4 July 26th, 2016 09:02 AM
Right wing nutjob hate speech GhostRider Americas 18 July 17th, 2016 03:09 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.