Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

3. Free speech. You’re offended? Well then you’re not that bright. To register offense is to apply to the referee. Now, of course, if you play the refs well, good strategy on you. But the offended Maher skewers aren’t playing anyone. They’re dangerous and frivolous, much like climate change deniers. Or the religious. Maher has a consistency to him in this regard.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by free speech. Your consistent take seems to be that people should be able to say whatever they want without consequences. But if Maher says something offensive, and somebody else calls hims out for being offensive, why is that not just more free speech? Also, why is being offended such a sin in your mind? If someone tells me that most blacks are shiftless criminals, I am going to be offended, and also let my opinion be known that I think the person is a racist piece of shit. How is that anti-free speech?

As for the anti-vaccine bullshit, maybe it's unfair, but it colors the way I think about everything else he says. In the same way that I think you and I would both react to someone who appears to truly believe the tenets of Scientology. They may have other, non-Scientology-related beliefs that make sense and are not lunatic fringe, but I'm a lot more skeptical.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Look, dude, frankly, it's just been TMI on you and Maher. I mean, whatever turns you on, I don't want to chill your kink, but you don't need to broadcast. Because, for most of us, ewwwwwwwwww.

I didn't bring up the Congresswoman. I was responding to your description of the episode you apparently watched. I don't want to chill anyone's masochism, but I think it's perceived as rude not to reply.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

As for the anti-vaccine bullshit, maybe it's unfair, but it colors the way I think about everything else he says. In the same way that I think you and I would both react to someone who appears to truly believe the tenets of Scientology. They may have other, non-Scientology-related beliefs that make sense and are not lunatic fringe, but I'm a lot more skeptical.

1 I can only assume from this that you’ve been vaccinated.
2 You constantly reply to Sebby with posts that say “I’m not sure what you mean,” or similar expressions of not understanding.

Is it not possible that the vaccinations contributed to your mental inability to discern Sebby’s posts?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by free speech. Your consistent take seems to be that people should be able to say whatever they want without consequences.

Two responses:

1. If done for comedic or non-nefarious reasons, yes. As Carlin said, there are no taboo topics. You just have to do it right.

If you're saying something odious in earnest, you do not receive this pass. If you post alt-right shite, expect harsh blowback. You deserve it.

2. Response is always fine. If you don't like a joke, your exercise of free speech allows you to say so. But when you cry to the refs for a deplatforming of the comic, or pundit, you're beyond your free speech rights. You're asking for penalties to be applied to another for his use of free speech. This is chilling, and disproportionate. The penalty for offense should not be a mob compelling a network to remove someone from a movie or newspaper column.

But if Maher says something offensive, and somebody else calls hims out for being offensive, why is that not just more free speech?

Yes. Totally fine. Moving to have him thrown off HBO? Creepy. Overkill. Highly un-American.

Also, why is being offended such a sin in your mind?

Because it's whiny. The bigger person ignores it, or mocks the offender. And in regard to comedy, it shows lack of intelligence. Show me a guy who is easily offended by jokes and I'll show you one with limited capacity to grasp irony. And it's clinically established that lack of capacity to grasp irony, or humor more generally, correlates with low intellect.

It's also a character flaw to apply to the refs. Rather than cry for a foul, isn't it more effective, indeed showing more character and self-reliance, to throw a few elbows? I could have cried to mommy as a kid when I was picked on, but I found it much more effective to kick the kid's ass instead. (After which his friend who was stronger kicked my ass, but that's another story.) You get the point. I had a hell of a time doing plaintiff's work for this reason. I hated using the phrase, "Give him compensation he deserves" in court. Even when I thought it was a good case where it was indeed deserved.

I understand we need refs. It's okay to go to them when one has to do so. But it should never be one's first move.

If someone tells me that most blacks are shiftless criminals, I am going to be offended, and also let my opinion be known that I think the person is a racist piece of shit. How is that anti-free speech?

As I stated above, I have no problem with attacking the shit out of people who espouse those positions. It's the ninnies who whine about some joke made in poor taste who are the problem. Like the objection that Maher is sexist or trans-phobic because he does jokes that can be perceived insensitive. Comedy often scars. Good jokes often have a bit of meanness to them. If you can't understand that, you're dumb, and therefore whatever point you make will be dumb. I can ignore that, of course, which I will. But when you seek to deplatform someone, now you're fucking with my entertainment. You've gone too far.

(This is not to excuse Maher's idiotic slur of a months ago. He should have been and rightly was taken to the woodshed about that joke, which went too far. But even for that, taking his show away from him would have been an execution for a misdemeanor.)

As for the anti-vaccine bullshit, maybe it's unfair, but it colors the way I think about everything else he says.

Agreed. I have a problem with that, as I do with any moron who supports an anti-vaxx policy. But I can compartmentalize. He's an entertainer, not family.

In the same way that I think you and I would both react to someone who appears to truly believe the tenets of Scientology. They may have other, non-Scientology-related beliefs that make sense and are not lunatic fringe, but I'm a lot more skeptical.

I disagree. Scientology is a way of life. You're either a soulless cynic in it for the payoff, or a complete fucking loon. Being anti-vaxx is just a really dumb view of a limited subject.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

A blue cheese and Cholula egg white omelette should not work. But my lord, it does.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Two responses:

1. If done for comedic or non-nefarious reasons, yes. As Carlin said, there are no taboo topics. You just have to do it right.

If you're saying something odious in earnest, you do not receive this pass. If you post alt-right shite, expect harsh blowback. You deserve it.

2. Response is always fine. If you don't like a joke, your exercise of free speech allows you to say so. But when you cry to the refs for a deplatforming of the comic, or pundit, you're beyond your free speech rights. You're asking for penalties to be applied to another for his use of free speech. This is chilling, and disproportionate. The penalty for offense should not be a mob compelling a network to remove someone from a movie or newspaper column.



Yes. Totally fine. Moving to have him thrown off HBO? Creepy. Overkill. Highly un-American.



Because it's whiny. The bigger person ignores it, or mocks the offender. And in regard to comedy, it shows lack of intelligence. Show me a guy who is easily offended by jokes and I'll show you one with limited capacity to grasp irony. And it's clinically established that lack of capacity to grasp irony, or humor more generally, correlates with low intellect.

It's also a character flaw to apply to the refs. Rather than cry for a foul, isn't it more effective, indeed showing more character and self-reliance, to throw a few elbows? I could have cried to mommy as a kid when I was picked on, but I found it much more effective to kick the kid's ass instead. (After which his friend who was stronger kicked my ass, but that's another story.) You get the point. I had a hell of a time doing plaintiff's work for this reason. I hated using the phrase, "Give him compensation he deserves" in court. Even when I thought it was a good case where it was indeed deserved.

I understand we need refs. It's okay to go to them when one has to do so. But it should never be one's first move.



As I stated above, I have no problem with attacking the shit out of people who espouse those positions. It's the ninnies who whine about some joke made in poor taste who are the problem. Like the objection that Maher is sexist or trans-phobic because he does jokes that can be perceived insensitive. Comedy often scars. Good jokes often have a bit of meanness to them. If you can't understand that, you're dumb, and therefore whatever point you make will be dumb. I can ignore that, of course, which I will. But when you seek to deplatform someone, now you're fucking with my entertainment. You've gone too far.

(This is not to excuse Maher's idiotic slur of a months ago. He should have been and rightly was taken to the woodshed about that joke, which went too far. But even for that, taking his show away from him would have been an execution for a misdemeanor.)



Agreed. I have a problem with that, as I do with any moron who supports an anti-vaxx policy. But I can compartmentalize. He's an entertainer, not family.



I disagree. Scientology is a way of life. You're either a soulless cynic in it for the payoff, or a complete fucking loon. Being anti-vaxx is just a really dumb view of a limited subject.

You can try to impose your arbitrary rules (comedy is off-limits from attack, provided it meets your subjective definition of "doing it right"), but nobody cares what you think. If I decide that Maher is an asshole and I think that he should be kicked off HBO, I am going to say so. That is my free speech, and you are anti-free speech for suggesting that I need to engage in some proportionality analysis. I can say what I want. If you think I should not be allowed to demand that Maher be kicked off HBO, then you can say so. But stop your whining about it, or invoking your non-existent right to the entertainment of your choosing. And stop saying things like I am "beyond my free speech rights," which I assume is just shorthand for you saying that you don't like my speech, as no actual "free speech rights" have been implicated whatsoever. You're just crying to the refs about other people crying to the refs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You can try to impose your arbitrary rules (comedy is off-limits from attack, provided it meets your subjective definition of "doing it right"), but nobody cares what you think. If I decide that Maher is an asshole and I think that he should be kicked off HBO, I am going to say so. That is my free speech, and you are anti-free speech for suggesting that I need to engage in some proportionality analysis. I can say what I want. If you think I should not be allowed to demand that Maher be kicked off HBO, then you can say so. But stop your whining about it, or invoking your non-existent right to the entertainment of your choosing. And stop saying things like I am "beyond my free speech rights," which I assume is just shorthand for you saying that you don't like my speech, as no actual "free speech rights" have been implicated whatsoever. You're just crying to the refs about other people crying to the refs.

Okay. Well then when you cry for someone to be fired, someone who disagrees with you can doxx you, and subtly suggest how great it would be for people to throw eggs at your house. He can amass a group of people to spam the shit out of your facebook page, put up deep fakes of you making odious comments. He can create a boycott of your employer such that you get fired.

This is where this stuff goes. It's dumb. And your argument here is an example of reductive reasoning's limitations.

People call the serially offended crybabies for a good reason. It's meant to shame and degrade them because if complaining about minor things should become a form of truly exerting power to chill free speech, we might as well throw the concept of free speech out the window.

Elite sensibilities must be allowed to govern subtle rights like free speech. You can't hand that over to a mob of necessarily middling intelligence, or hyper-sensitive types (that's redundant, but those characteristics should be broken out). And as I noted earlier, ease at which one is offended is inverse to intelligence. If you think I'm wrong, consider how the smartest people you know handle offense and how the dumbest do so. "I'm offended" is a relic of Honor Culture. It's adopting the lexicon of Foghorn Leghorn -- "I say, I say... I am insulted, and I demand sat-is-faction."

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Okay. Well then when you cry for someone to be fired, someone who disagrees with you can doxx you, and subtly suggest how great it would be for people to throw eggs at your house. He can amass a group of people to spam the shit out of your facebook page, put up deep fakes of you making odious comments. He can create a boycott of your employer such that you get fired.

This is where this stuff goes. It's dumb. And your argument here is an example of reductive reasoning's limitations.

People call the serially offended crybabies for a good reason. It's meant to shame and degrade them because if complaining about minor things should become a form of truly exerting power to chill free speech, we might as well throw the concept of free speech out the window.

Elite sensibilities must be allowed to govern subtle rights like free speech. You can't hand that over to a mob of necessarily middling intelligence, or hyper-sensitive types (that's redundant, but those characteristics should be broken out). And as I noted earlier, ease at which one is offended is inverse to intelligence. If you think I'm wrong, consider how the smartest people you know handle offense and how the dumbest do so. "I'm offended" is a relic of Honor Culture. It's adopting the lexicon of Foghorn Leghorn -- "I say, I say... I am insulted, and I demand sat-is-faction."

All of that stuff you describe, however odious, is free speech until it crosses a line to becoming a crime. You can whine all you want about which odious speech should be inviolable (e.g., comedy, when done right) and which should be chilled (e.g., disproportionate calls for someone to be fired), but nobody gives a fuck what you think.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

All of that stuff you describe, however odious, is free speech until it crosses a line to becoming a crime. You can whine all you want about which odious speech should be inviolable (e.g., comedy, when done right) and which should be chilled (e.g., disproportionate calls for someone to be fired), but nobody gives a fuck what you think.

No one gives a fuck what you think, or anyone else thinks, either. That's why people who want to flip out at every joke they don't like take it to the next level, by calling for boycotts, deplatforming, firings, etc. No one listens to these people unless they gin up a mob and start causing economic impacts. Why? Because they’re sophomoric and their complaints are usually just annoying.

It was dumb when right wing religious loons like Focus on the Family organized boycotts of advertisers buying time on racy TV shows in the 80s. Why has the Left chosen to adopt this troglodyte approach?

I'm not whining about what should be inviolable. I'm telling you that among evolved, intelligent people, call-out culture, cries for boycott, etc., are considered low behaviors. Embarrassing behaviors. That James Dobson on the Right, or some mob of hyper-sensitive loons on the Left, can boycott things does not mean we should welcome such behavior. You're correct that all I can do is insult it. But insult and mockery are effective. When we hear someone crying for a deplatforming for a minor offense, we should assume that person a fool or an officious gnat, and ignore him. If he becomes effective, we should mock him as the over-exercised simpleton he is. If he removes art over which he is "offended," at cost to the rest of us, we should seek to make him pay a price, so that others will not follow his lead. But that last reaction should only occur when we have exhausted all others, as that is playing to the refs. That's playing his game. And he is low, a crank with a bullhorn, playing to the sentiments of the most common. Only stoop to his level when there's no other option.

ETA: There’s also a strong desire among low people to take down their betters, or those more successful. But that’s a whole other discussion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But when you cry to the refs for a deplatforming of the comic, or pundit, you're beyond your free speech rights.

Who are "the refs"? And why are you offended by free speech when it's about other free speech?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who are "the refs"? And why are you offended by free speech when it's about other free speech?

Refs are any actor who can deplatform a speaker or create adverse economic impacts on speaker adequate to shut the speaker up.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

As for the anti-vaccine bullshit, maybe it's unfair, but it colors the way I think about everything else he says.

I mean, sure, maybe it's not really right, but the fact that he takes all credibility he might have, wads it up into a little ball, soaks it in his spit, and flings it in my face leaves me thinking may he doesn't have any credibility left and maybe, just maybe, he's an asshole, too.

But there are some people who like assholes without any credibility, so it's all good, give him a megaphone!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Refs are any actor who can deplatform a speaker or create adverse economic impacts on speaker adequate to shut the speaker up.

My God someone has been reading too much Breitbart.

"Deplatform"? "Adverse economic impacts"?

So you're saying that when someone bad-mouths religion so it gets in the way of Franklin Graham monetizing his hate, they ought to shut the fuck up, and if they don't the state ought to stop them or the right-thinking good guys ought to deplatform them, is that what you're saying?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A blue cheese and Cholula egg white omelette should not work. But my lord, it does.

You're talking about a buffalo omelet. Fundamentally, the buffalo approach of hot sauce and blue cheese works on an enormous universe of food, even if most of the world only does it with chicken. It is one of the few things upstate NY has figured out that the rest of the world hasn't. It is also about the only spicy thing you'll find north of yonkers. Have some salt potatoes on the side.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not whining about what should be inviolable. I'm telling you that among evolved, intelligent people, call-out culture, cries for boycott, etc., are considered low behaviors. Embarrassing behaviors.

You're lying. You're not expressing a preference as to how civilized people should behave. You said:

"Response is always fine. If you don't like a joke, your exercise of free speech allows you to say so. But when you cry to the refs for a deplatforming of the comic, or pundit, you're beyond your free speech rights."

And I'm trying to figure out what exactly these "free speech rights" are that you claim have been exceeded -- do they come from the Constitution, from God? -- and why someone who claims to be so concerned about protecting free speech is sitting here lecturing us about what people should and should not be allowed to say. You may not like boycotts or calls for someone to be fired, but they are just as much "free speech" as anything else. I would express surprise that you are unable to grasp this, but I understand it is if hard to stay focused when you're trying to keep all those cocks in the air.