Guns don't kill people

Moderators: I am nobody, Deku Tree

User avatar
New! Tazy Ten
Posts: 29322
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Flipping a Switch
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 74 times
Contact:

Re: Guns don't kill people

#21

Post by New! Tazy Ten » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:28 pm

As a, rather extreme, jumping off point I'll use the Tiananmen Square protest. A large month long strike by college students demanding various changes for freedoms in the country of China. The government made fun of them, didn't want to do anything they asked for, even hated them as the world started taking notice of something that made them look weak. Eventually, the government sent in the military and cleared them out with force and violence. Anyone that condoned or even supported this protest was removed from power. You're not allowed to speak about what happened without severe punishment and as a result, people can not act in response and the ideas they were fighting for have died.

Am I saying that can happen anywhere? F**k no. China has a lot of problems and they compounded together resulting a lot of deaths that even those involved regret causing (if that's worth anything). What I'm getting at is that, by its nature, a protest is public demonstration made to show anger towards a subject, usually the government, and there is a history of governing powers doing everything they can to silence protests and dissenting opinions even in the most sophisticated first-world countries. Only difference are these freedoms that protect the people from those in power.

As an example, let's say the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives f**ks up. Not hard to imagine, since a number of spree killings are caused by guns given to the wrong people a result of misfiled paperwork, and an inability to do adequate background checks. There's some blame to put there. So there's a protest and let's say someone calls on the acting deputy director to quit due to their refusal to act. Except, uh oh, the current deputy director is Regina Lombardo, a woman. Do you know how women feel to see a woman being told to leave office? If it's successful, it might hurt all women going forward. So, the government can decide that this isn't allowed and suddenly you're guilty of hate speech; fines, jail time, and whatever else is needed. Okay, so don't bring her up. Tell everyone that you have to skirt around her and call out anyone who disagrees. Except, what if she then goes on record saying that she hates your group, and will never do as you ask so long as she's in power? What can you do then? Beg? How can you call for change in this manner if you're not allowed to harshly criticize someone making mistakes?

What's that? That's not an example of hate speech and I'd be reaching to say that it is? Well, since it's a law anyway, how about we go to court to figure that out? A long winded, character defaming court case that might have one or two members of the protest, or could possibly implicate everyone in said protest of hate speech because silence is violence, or some s**t. By that point, the government wins. Either they get a guilty verdict and make it a severe risk to criticize anyone in a position of power that can be negatively profiled, or they lose but by that time the protest is killed by the legal proceedings, and who cares what happens after that? It's legal to protest in the United States as a right, but we already bust up protests by using another law to get around that right. What's destroying freedom of speech, but allowing an easier avenue to stop dissension?

To turn it back into the example, freedom of speech only improves the right to protest in that it prevents opposing parties from shutting your protests down and throwing you in with the Poland haters because you "spread hate".

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13140
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#22

Post by I am nobody » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:09 pm

Tazy, I don't mean to be rude, but that's nonsense. Women are told to resign, even by other women, all the time. It's happening in Puetro Rico literally right now without anyone losing their mind about whether any woman will ever hold office again, and the Nazi-dog hating UK seems to have been perfectly fine with people telling Theresa May to step down. I'm sure loads of women would be thrilled if Sarah Sanders quit, as I'm sure they were when any of the other dozens to hundreds of women who got themselves into scandals over the years stepped down. This is not a problem that exists.

Further, you assume a totally corrupt government and powerless or incompetent judiciary. If it was as easy to take protesters out with spurious charges as you're claiming, than they'd already be having a field day with the existing laws concerning defamation, fighting words, obscenity, and more. The only way the situation you're describing is possible is if the government no longer cares about the rule of law, in which case it doesn't matter what any piece of paper says, even if it's 200 years old and in a fancy museum. If you honestly think this country is at any risk of that, then prospective hate speech laws shouldn't even make the top hundred of your concerns right now.

Also, you're talking about this like someone endorsed the ****ing death penalty for hate speech. It's a *civil* offense. You might get a fine. It won't look great in a background search. If the government starts abusing the law to hand out arbitrary $100 fines, in what world is that going to scare people so badly that everybody goes home and takes it?

User avatar
smol Kat
Posts: 9648
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: a s s i m i l a t e
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#23

Post by smol Kat » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:20 pm

On top of that, there's a pretty obvious difference between "resign because of this thing you did" and "resign because of this identity you have."
we built our house of cards
but it feels like it's still ours...

User avatar
New! Tazy Ten
Posts: 29322
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Flipping a Switch
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 74 times
Contact:

Re: Guns don't kill people

#24

Post by New! Tazy Ten » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:35 am

*sigh*

My computer turned off and ate my post.

So I'm just gonna disengage from this. I'm not in the right headspace for a real discussion and I feel like I'm just digging my feet into the sand. At that point I should just say "I'm not backing down from this so I have nothing more to say." I'm not gonna change my mind, and I'm irritated because of outside things going on around me so it's better if I back off.

All I have left to say is that the government already does what it can to harm activists for many reasons and I can't see hate speech laws doing anything but more damage. I don't think it will help with any racial divide, and at it's worst it could actually hurt the very people it's trying to protect. If not right now, then it will eventually and then we're not even back to square one, but behind it at square zero. I do not see how even the best of intentions can justify an erosion of freedom, even the most minor ones.

That's it. I do not care if it has no basis of reality, that's what I think.

(EDIT: Or maybe I won't leave, but I need to stop making posts that take an hour to make and edit through because that's part of the reason I'm burning myself out on this. If that means discussion ends, then that's fine.)

User avatar
steeze
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 9:52 am
Location: Konoha
Has thanked: 135 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#25

Post by steeze » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:37 am

I am nobody wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:09 pm
I'm sure loads of women would be thrilled if Sarah Sanders quit, as I'm sure they were when any of the other dozens to hundreds of women who got themselves into scandals over the years stepped down.
I thought she did quit or "step down." The White House didn't frame it as being because of the investigations and her lying but I'm sure it had something to do with it. She'd never admit that though. The administration just framed it like, "oh we need her for the campaign!" It's alright though. History won't remember her fondly. I doubt she'll hold any official position ever again if Trump loses the election. Hopefully because Republicans will be scrambling to distance themselves from this administration to one who's not running a campaign of obvious xenophobic ideals and mismanaged brain cells. I can't wait for his last day in office to see if he pardons himself of any crimes. Which would be framed as his admission of guilt for everything that has gone on. I doubt he will though because he's to proud to admit that he's committed any crimes. He'd rather be charged and try to clear his name but with the conviction rate of all the people around him, chances are he'd be charged. Which is exactly what Pelosi wants.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13140
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#26

Post by I am nobody » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:15 pm

New! Tazy Ten wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:35 am
*sigh*

My computer turned off and ate my post.

So I'm just gonna disengage from this. I'm not in the right headspace for a real discussion and I feel like I'm just digging my feet into the sand. At that point I should just say "I'm not backing down from this so I have nothing more to say." I'm not gonna change my mind, and I'm irritated because of outside things going on around me so it's better if I back off.

All I have left to say is that the government already does what it can to harm activists for many reasons and I can't see hate speech laws doing anything but more damage. I don't think it will help with any racial divide, and at it's worst it could actually hurt the very people it's trying to protect. If not right now, then it will eventually and then we're not even back to square one, but behind it at square zero. I do not see how even the best of intentions can justify an erosion of freedom, even the most minor ones.

That's it. I do not care if it has no basis of reality, that's what I think.

(EDIT: Or maybe I won't leave, but I need to stop making posts that take an hour to make and edit through because that's part of the reason I'm burning myself out on this. If that means discussion ends, then that's fine.)
To be clear, my disagreement is just with the slippery slope argument. I don't see any evidence that Canada, France, etc, have lost any ability to protest as a result of their hate speech laws, but I also don't see much evidence that they're much better off in terms of extremists. At the end of the day, the worst content is always shared either in-person or on the internet, so the best any law can realistically do is make it harder to normalize by sharing similar views in public. Even then, people are clever and they'll find ways to dogwhistle.

I think the danger of hate speech laws is less that the government is going to use them to suppress critics and more that we'd spend a decade's energy on a political war over how to define it instead of making an effort to understand and address the root causes of extremism. On top of that, like I said before, nobody changes their mind over a fine. You just end up with a slightly poorer extremist who may have gotten free news coverage worth far more than their penalty.

User avatar
smol Kat
Posts: 9648
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: a s s i m i l a t e
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#27

Post by smol Kat » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:37 pm

I see your point but I'm also out of patience for this kind of crap, and I feel there needs to be some effective way to address it.

The work I do is just so unbelievably draining sometimes and I cracked a long time ago.
we built our house of cards
but it feels like it's still ours...

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”