Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523402)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 523404)

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.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523405)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523408)

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.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523410)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523411)

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."

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523412)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523408)

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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523414)

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

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523405)

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

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523415)

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

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523409)

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

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523413)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 523417)

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?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 523418)

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.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523419)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523415)

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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523423)

So an editor or a publisher. In other words, you're offended by letters to the editor.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523422)

I see no difference between those loathsome “spend the little guy into the ground” tactics and organized mob panics of low people seeking a famous person’s head for some comment they find offensive.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523424)

Too silly for response. Reload.

ETA: A publisher can be a ref, yes. But it’d be an unethical one. One who allowed dollars to overrule all else. By which I guess I would mean most editors who would fire a reporter or pundit to satisfy the boycotters or social media mobs.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523425)

Really? You can't see any difference there? Do these two look the same to you?

https://i.imgflip.com/34aire.jpg

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523426)

I don't understand who your refs are, if not publishers, or the editors they hire. You're not talking about government actors, and the only other people who can respond to a boycott are publishers. I agree it's all silly, but the basic problem is that you haven't figured out who you are analogizing to referees.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523426)

I don't understand who your refs are, if not publishers, or the editors they hire. You're not talking about government actors, and the only other people who can respond to a boycott are publishers. I agree it's all silly, but the basic problem is that you haven't figured out who you are analogizing to referees.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 523429)

Here's the thing, Sebby's attacks on me here are an attempt to deplatform me, they are "beyond his free speech rights", so you need to ban him from this site. You're the mod, you're the ref.

I am continually astounded. I think Sebby's said the dumbest thing ever, and then, viola, another post, and the bar is lowered again. How Sebby managed to use the phrases "deplatform" and "beyond free speech rights" without everyone thinking it was ironic tells us how low he has gone.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523425)

Really? You can't see any difference there? Do these two look the same to you?

https://i.imgflip.com/34aire.jpg

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523422)

You are somewhat beyond free speech rights in seeking to destroy someone financially. You can be sued for that. Are you suggesting I am advocating that crim prosecution be an available sanction against Twitter mobs and boycott nuts? I think I’ve made clear I’m 100% opposed to that.

You should be allowed to say anything you like. As a society, we should judge as odious all attempts to silence speakers via economic means. It’s legal, of course, and it must remain so, but just as Trump’s gaming of the system in endless ways should not be celebrated, shutting speakers up by taking their jobs or pushing advertisers via boycott is “hacking” or end-running around free speech, which contemplates a self-regulating market of ideas. That gaming deserves to be viewed as what it is - a dumb thug’s response.

Trump is the king of crushing critics via lawsuit. I see no difference between those loathsome “spend the little guy into the ground” tactics and organized mob panics of low people seeking a famous person’s head for some comment they find offensive.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523431)

There are many ways to take on an idea you don’t like, but two tend to be most used.

1. Attack idea on its merits.

2. Attack and silence the source.

Both are fine tactics. But 2 is a thug’s move, and it avoid possibly useful discourse. 1 should be encouraged over 2. 2 should be considered low behavior.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523428)

The refs are editors, advertisers, employers... They are anyone the mob can apply to to punish the speaker economically. I use “playing to the refs” because it describes the type of person who tries to shut down a speaker. He’s the kid who doesn’t want to engage. He wants to have the opponent taken out on fouls so he doesn’t have to compete.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523431)

There are many ways to take on an idea you don’t like, but two tend to be most used.

1. Attack idea on its merits.

2. Attack and silence the source.

Both are fine tactics. But 2 is a thug’s move, and it avoid possibly useful discourse. 1 should be encouraged over 2. 2 should be considered low behavior.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523436)

The focus on an idea, or a statement, should be exclusively on the idea, or the statement. That's how you expose a bad idea or statement as flawed, imbecilic, malevolent, etc.

People can always say what you wrote above. They have that right. But the first response should be to attack what you find offensive on its merits. Which should be pretty easy. (If it's not, you probably don't have a good reason to be offended and should reconsider your sensitivities.)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523436)

No and yes. Maher's joke a few months back comes to mind. It wasn't funny. It was flat, and he was testing a third rail just to test it.

Yes. Her comment was simply a racist ejaculation. Indefensible. She was not trying to be funny. She was simply saying something crude, moronic, and of no entertaining value at all.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523436)

Comedians and pundits should be given wide berth to provoke or to test edgy comedy or explore touchy subjects. Sarah Silverman does this. Chris Rock does it. Stern does it all day long. Entertainers should be able to be cruel, and to offend, without consequence. It's art, and all's fair in art. Roseanne was not engaged in art. She was saying something she believed, and it was stupid and beyond the pale. No pass. Similar to the Opie and Anthony controversy of years ago. Those guys were always idiots, but along with Jimmy Norton, they tested politically correct views for ironic, comedic purposes. But when that one of them (I forget which one) went off on that totally earnest rant about how he hated blacks, he was just saying, "Hey, I'm a racist, and here's what I think." You do that, you reap the fallout. Caveat emptor.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523436)

Art has to have leeway to offend and not suffer the wrath of Twitter mobs or politicians demanding their networks or other platforms fire them.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523436)

That's why we have so much terrible "art" these days. That's why pay TV, where no one is beholden to advertisers, and therefor no one has to worry about boycotts or Twitter's wrath scaring advertisers, is so much better than everything else.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523436)

If you don't like seeing "Piss Christ," don't look at it. If you think Howard is a sexist, don't listen. If you don't want to hear an asshat like Laura Ingraham says the asshat things an asshat like her will say, why on earth tune in to her? Etc.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523437)

He wants not only to counter somebody's (Maher's) idea. he wants to use economic means to ban Maher from speaking.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523438)

No. But this hypo doesn't fit. Regarding deplatforming, we are talking about someone saying, "I do not like what Maher has said and I am going to go talk to management of this building about throwing him off the premises."

It's not about his chance to speak. It's about his continued ability to do his shows.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523441)

I see. It's not really about free speech. It's about Maher's right to have a TV show. And not just Maher. As Anatole France said, more or less, the law in its infinite majesty gives the rich and poor alike the right to offend people on their own HBO show.



You say that, but you don't want to let anyone short ideas that suck.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523441)

I see. It's not really about free speech. It's about Maher's right to have a TV show. And not just Maher. As Anatole France said, more or less, the law in its infinite majesty gives the rich and poor alike the right to offend people on their own HBO show.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 523441)

You say that, but you don't want to let anyone short ideas that suck.