Bus With Anti-Transgender Message Banned

[Hashirajima]

Clearly, you aren't understanding the implications of what I've been saying, and aren't reading my arguments properly.

If you were, you'd understand what I'm saying instead of misconstruing it so badly that I wonder if reading comprehension exists.

Nah, your arguments are filled with authoritarian spinzel that is completely unsavory in the United States.

Hmmm.... I'm assuming you're from the US then?

Void, how about you?

Also: The issue in the OP isn't in US anyway. So I really don't see how bringing the USofA into this is relevant.

[The V O I D]

I am protecting people. Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean somehow I want to violate anyone's "freedumb to b dumb" and nothing else.

It isn't authoritarianism, either. It's just blocking out the anti-facts and the hate. Neither of those things are needed to allow society to function. In fact, quite the opposite, really.

No. No you aren't. You aren't protecting anybody. What you'd be doing is wasting time and money trying to amend the constitution to shit on freedom of speech because of the deluded goal that it will somehow end discrimination and misinformation. People would still be just as discriminatory as before and if you think you can stop the spread of misinformation in the Internet age you're just out of touch with reality.

I am protecting people. Just because you don't think it will doesn't mean it won't. And I'm not shitting on freedoms, I'm shitting on freedumbs (freedoms used improperly or with the goal of harming others).

As for the Internet age - the FBI and other organizations shut down websites on a daily basis in the deep web and such. How do I know this? Seen it happen. Just because you don't see information and such being blocked and censored doesn't mean it isn't happening. Just apply the same tactics to the surface 'net. Censor all sites spreading hate and misinformation. Plain and simple. It is you who are out of touch with reality if you think the internet is somehow a safe haven. It isn't.

Even if the FBI and such can't censor all sites, Google and other web searches and such can have their algorithms modified to block out the filth and no one would know the difference. We'd just need to give incentives to do as such. Google and other search engines do it for other countries; just enforce it so they have to do it, in general. Solves the problem of not being able to find every single site for the FBI, NSA, etc.

Really, there are numerous ways to enforce the law, even on the internet. Just cause we haven't used them on the surface 'net doesn't mean we can't or won't.

Ending real life discrimination and misinformation is also rather easy. Purge all forms of misinformation and hate speech, and enforce laws that allow people to use any business (read: store, shop, or service [like wedding camera guys, wedding cake bakers, etc.]) that they wish regardless of the owner's preference and regardless of the person's sexuality, sex, gender identity, race, etc.

[The V O I D]

Nah, your arguments are filled with authoritarian spinzel that is completely unsavory in the United States.

Hmmm.... I'm assuming you're from the US then?

Void, how about you?

Also: The issue in the OP isn't in US anyway. So I really don't see how bringing the USofA into this is relevant.

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

[Hashirajima]

Hmmm.... I'm assuming you're from the US then?

Void, how about you?

Also: The issue in the OP isn't in US anyway. So I really don't see how bringing the USofA into this is relevant.

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

Oh welp. Good to know I guess. Just curious.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No. No you aren't. You aren't protecting anybody. What you'd be doing is wasting time and money trying to amend the constitution to shit on freedom of speech because of the deluded goal that it will somehow end discrimination and misinformation. People would still be just as discriminatory as before and if you think you can stop the spread of misinformation in the Internet age you're just out of touch with reality.

I am protecting people. Just because you don't think it will doesn't mean it won't. And I'm not shitting on freedoms, I'm shitting on freedumbs (freedoms used improperly or with the goal of harming others).

As for the Internet age - the FBI and other organizations shut down websites on a daily basis in the deep web and such. How do I know this? Seen it happen. Just because you don't see information and such being blocked and censored doesn't mean it isn't happening. Just apply the same tactics to the surface 'net. Censor all sites spreading hate and misinformation. Plain and simple. It is you who are out of touch with reality if you think the internet is somehow a safe haven. It isn't.

Even if the FBI and such can't censor all sites, Google and other web searches and such can have their algorithms modified to block out the filth and no one would know the difference. We'd just need to give incentives to do as such. Google and other search engines do it for other countries; just enforce it so they have to do it, in general. Solves the problem of not being able to find every single site for the FBI, NSA, etc.

Really, there are numerous ways to enforce the law, even on the internet. Just cause we haven't used them on the surface 'net doesn't mean we can't or won't.

Ending real life discrimination and misinformation is also rather easy. Purge all forms of misinformation and hate speech, and enforce laws that allow people to use any business (read: store, shop, or service [like wedding camera guys, wedding cake bakers, etc.]) that they wish regardless of the owner's preference and regardless of the person's sexuality, sex, gender identity, race, etc.

The Internet very much is a safe haven if you get your stuff set up in a country that doesn't cooperate with us. Since you want to bring up the deep I'll just point to Alphabay as a great example.

You're also not doing anything to help show this isn't authoritarian, lol. Trying to be witty and saying dumb shit like freedumbs lel doesn't change the fact that your position is inherently authoritarian and opposed to personal freedom. That's reason enough for me to oppose it.

[The V O I D]

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

Oh welp. Good to know I guess. Just curious.

As for your point - pretty sure the point of discussion is if this should happen in general, not if it should only happen in Spain or if Spain should be commended or condemned for this.

[Hashirajima]

Oh welp. Good to know I guess. Just curious.

As for your point - pretty sure the point of discussion is if this should happen in general, not if it should only happen in Spain or if Spain should be commended or condemned for this.

That *is* true, though I'm just... I would say puzzled but I'm not. Just rather annoyed, that every time this occurs, it goes back to the 1st A.

I'm pretty certain if we are talking about a global perspective, there are at least a handful of countries where this would be considered illegal, in the "you WILL be arrested and prosecuted" sense. Something about anti-hate speech legislation.

[The V O I D]

I am protecting people. Just because you don't think it will doesn't mean it won't. And I'm not shitting on freedoms, I'm shitting on freedumbs (freedoms used improperly or with the goal of harming others).

As for the Internet age - the FBI and other organizations shut down websites on a daily basis in the deep web and such. How do I know this? Seen it happen. Just because you don't see information and such being blocked and censored doesn't mean it isn't happening. Just apply the same tactics to the surface 'net. Censor all sites spreading hate and misinformation. Plain and simple. It is you who are out of touch with reality if you think the internet is somehow a safe haven. It isn't.

Even if the FBI and such can't censor all sites, Google and other web searches and such can have their algorithms modified to block out the filth and no one would know the difference. We'd just need to give incentives to do as such. Google and other search engines do it for other countries; just enforce it so they have to do it, in general. Solves the problem of not being able to find every single site for the FBI, NSA, etc.

Really, there are numerous ways to enforce the law, even on the internet. Just cause we haven't used them on the surface 'net doesn't mean we can't or won't.

Ending real life discrimination and misinformation is also rather easy. Purge all forms of misinformation and hate speech, and enforce laws that allow people to use any business (read: store, shop, or service [like wedding camera guys, wedding cake bakers, etc.]) that they wish regardless of the owner's preference and regardless of the person's sexuality, sex, gender identity, race, etc.

The Internet very much is a safe haven if you get your stuff set up in a country that doesn't cooperate with us. Since you want to bring up the deep I'll just point to Alphabay as a great example.

You're also not doing anything to help show this isn't authoritarian, lol. Trying to be witty and saying dumb shit like freedumbs lel doesn't change the fact that your position is inherently authoritarian and opposed to personal freedom. That's reason enough for me to oppose it.

The Internet really isn't a safe haven, whatsoever. All countries have to do is en masse start regulating it and regulating search engine companies and such, boom. Done. No more filth for the surface web. As for the deep, the US pretty much owns the software and hardware, and the US pretty much owns the company that allows access to the deep web and such. (Or, at least, the majorly popular service that allows access). Therefor, as a "business owner" (for lack of a better term), the US government and co. has every right to go through the deep web sites accessed and created using this service and then to shut them down, regardless of country of origin.

And as for your delusional belief that this somehow makes me authoritarian and opposed to personal freedoms, well, I won't address something that is an obvious delusion that you're trying to use in hopes that somehow it discredits my arguments.

[Galloism]

1. Which ones? Not all scientists, agree, you know. For instance, there's at least a handful of scientists who think talking about Climate Change is a misinformation campaign.

Not many, but some.


2. So saying men can be victims of domestic violence is hate speech, at least by some definitions, because it's viewed as extreme sexist speech by a significant segment of the population.

There's no way this could go wrong.

1. We follow with the majority of scientists, if that majority has the evidence backing their claims (e.g. for climate change, evolution, etc.)

A majority of scientists once thought the earth was flat and that time was absolute.

2. No. That's not how it works.

Yes, it's exactly how it works. You should hang around more often.

Hate speech wouldn't even bother with domestic violence claims and such. It is only for blatantly extreme sexist speech (i.e. "Women all should return to the days of being in the kitchen, not voting, not having a job and not meddling in politics at any level", or "women shouldn't be allowed to control their own bodies!" gets a fine, or arrest if the person is trying to start a riot) and other such things that hate speech laws should apply.

No. Because that also applies to claims regarding men, feminism, and domestic violence. Observe:

"Attacking feminism is inherently misogynist."

And let's not forget Greg Elliott, who was charged with criminal harassment for disagreeing while the people who organized an internet campaign against him and harassed his work were charged with nothing.

Not to mention that I personally get death threats and mail accusing me of being a misogynist because I run a small online help service for men who are victims of rape and domestic violence. If what you proposed was actually the law, I would probably be prosecuted now because I care.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Internet very much is a safe haven if you get your stuff set up in a country that doesn't cooperate with us. Since you want to bring up the deep I'll just point to Alphabay as a great example.

You're also not doing anything to help show this isn't authoritarian, lol. Trying to be witty and saying dumb shit like freedumbs lel doesn't change the fact that your position is inherently authoritarian and opposed to personal freedom. That's reason enough for me to oppose it.

The Internet really isn't a safe haven, whatsoever. All countries have to do is en masse start regulating it and regulating search engine companies and such, boom. Done. No more filth for the surface web. As for the deep, the US pretty much owns the software and hardware, and the US pretty much owns the company that allows access to the deep web and such. (Or, at least, the majorly popular service that allows access). Therefor, as a "business owner" (for lack of a better term), the US government and co. has every right to go through the deep web sites accessed and created using this service and then to shut them down, regardless of country of origin.

And as for your delusional belief that this somehow makes me authoritarian and opposed to personal freedoms, well, I won't address something that is an obvious delusion that you're trying to use in hopes that somehow it discredits my arguments.

Friendo the US hasn't owned that stuff in a long time now. It went private and freely available 13 years ago. That's not how any of this works, lol.

I'm not saying it discredits your arguments. I'm just saying you need to quit lying to yourself and admit it's an authoritarian position.

[The V O I D]

The Internet really isn't a safe haven, whatsoever. All countries have to do is en masse start regulating it and regulating search engine companies and such, boom. Done. No more filth for the surface web. As for the deep, the US pretty much owns the software and hardware, and the US pretty much owns the company that allows access to the deep web and such. (Or, at least, the majorly popular service that allows access). Therefor, as a "business owner" (for lack of a better term), the US government and co. has every right to go through the deep web sites accessed and created using this service and then to shut them down, regardless of country of origin.

And as for your delusional belief that this somehow makes me authoritarian and opposed to personal freedoms, well, I won't address something that is an obvious delusion that you're trying to use in hopes that somehow it discredits my arguments.

Friendo the US hasn't owned that stuff in a long time now. It went private and freely available 13 years ago. That's not how any of this works, lol.

I'm not saying it discredits your arguments. I'm just saying you need to quit lying to yourself and admit it's an authoritarian position.

If I'm authoritarian, then you're an anarchist.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Friendo the US hasn't owned that stuff in a long time now. It went private and freely available 13 years ago. That's not how any of this works, lol.

I'm not saying it discredits your arguments. I'm just saying you need to quit lying to yourself and admit it's an authoritarian position.

If I'm authoritarian, then you're an anarchist.

Almost, I'm a minarchist.

[The V O I D]

If I'm authoritarian, then you're an anarchist.

Almost, I'm a minarchist.

Sorry, sorry; correction. Because you're pro-capitalist and minarchist, obviously that means you're ancap.

That is, if my ideals are 'authoritarian' (kek, what a joke).

[Washington Resistance Army]

Almost, I'm a minarchist.

Sorry, sorry; correction. Because you're pro-capitalist and minarchist, obviously that means you're ancap.

That is, if my ideals are 'authoritarian' (kek, what a joke).

I'm okay with that label actually. That means I get to use dank ancap memes.

"Attacking feminism is inherently misogynist."

And let's not forget Greg Elliott, who was charged with criminal harassment for disagreeing while the people who organized an internet campaign against him and harassed his work were charged with nothing.

Not to mention that I personally get death threats and mail accusing me of being a misogynist because I run a small online help service for men who are victims of rape and domestic violence. If what you proposed was actually the law, I would probably be prosecuted now because I care.

You really get death threats over that of all things? That's fucking absurd.

[Wallenburg]

A majority of scientists once thought the earth was flat and that time was absolute.

Scientists did not really even exist back when a flat earth was the accepted model. Also, both those thoughts were not actually based on evidence, but rather on assumptions that certain things were just obviously true.

[Vassenor]

A majority of scientists once thought the earth was flat and that time was absolute.

Scientists did not really even exist back when a flat earth was the accepted model. Also, both those thoughts were not actually based on evidence, but rather on assumptions that certain things were just obviously true.

Pretty sure the idea of a flat earth has been obsolete since Ancient Greece.

[Galloism]

A majority of scientists once thought the earth was flat and that time was absolute.

Scientists did not really even exist back when a flat earth was the accepted model.

I don't think you and I have the same definition of "scientist".

Also, both those thoughts were not actually based on evidence, but rather on assumptions that certain things were just obviously true.

Well, all evidence at the time suggested the latter. The former was held by the majority of what could be called "scientists" for a time after the circumference of the earth had already been calculated.

[Galloism]

"Attacking feminism is inherently misogynist."

And let's not forget Greg Elliott, who was charged with criminal harassment for disagreeing while the people who organized an internet campaign against him and harassed his work were charged with nothing.

Not to mention that I personally get death threats and mail accusing me of being a misogynist because I run a small online help service for men who are victims of rape and domestic violence. If what you proposed was actually the law, I would probably be prosecuted now because I care.

You really get death threats over that of all things? That's fucking absurd.

Yep.

Apparently it's rank misogyny and hatred towards women to suggest or entertain the notion that women can rape men.

[Mechanisburg]

Not "political opponents", nope. I might be a die-hard communist but I have yet to start kneecapping people who support capitalism.

No, just opponents of the truth, who use language to weave a web of lies, especially when those lies harm people. Those can rot in jail until they either can prove they are not lying or make a public apology and amend to their earlier words.

That's a very small distance away from just offing political opponents.

Are those political opponents people who might even be on the same quadrant as me on the political compass spreading lies and misinformation? Are they saying homoeopathy works, despite plentiful of evidence to the contrary? Are they pushing faith healing and alternative "medicine" over proper, evidence-based medicine? Are they saying vaccines cause autism, when this claim has been debunked and was very weak in the first place, thus leading to a reduction in vaccinations and loss of herd immunity? Are they saying climate change isn't real, and that there's controversy when more than 97% of the community agrees it is a thing? Are they either completely misunderstanding the issues of sex, gender and sexuality based on a middle school level knowledge of biology, or spreading misinformation and hate speech because they are in fact pushing an agenda?

I have no problem, no problem at all, with these people rotting in jail until such time as they can either prove they were right, which would be rather easy if they were in fact not lying, or make a public apology and retract their false statements.

And I'll just point out that there is, in fact, quite a big distance between this - stopping misinformation and hate speech, which is already done in most of the world through libel and slander laws - and offing political opponents. Because one involves a conditional jail sentence which is quite easy to get out by just admitting one was wrong or lying, and the other involves killing people.

And I'll just point out that this would only apply to "alternative" facts or opinions peddled as facts, without a shred of believable support. Opinions like "I won't take vaccines and come to work when ill" or "fags are degenerate" can be handled through social ostracism like we already do, but opinions peddled as facts like "homoeopathy works better than drugs" or "fags are actually all paedophiles" should not have a free pass just because of free speech.

Don't make this about bloody politics. This is not about bloody politics. I don't give a fuck about politics. One of my friends, a trusted comrade of the Party, could be saying "homeopathy works, big pharma is keeping us down" and I'd slap them in jail myself.

[Noraika]

Pretty sure Ad Hitlerum or whatever it's called is an fallacious argument (e.g. trying to say someone's opinions or views are invalid by comparing them to Hitler).

It'd be different if he was literally Hitler.

I wasn't saying her opinions were invalid by comparing her to Hitler. I merely pointed out that Hitler also supported the suppression of his political opponents.

(^fixed)

To be fair, reasonable suppression of speech is literally allocated in the Declaration of Human rights. Its because doing anything in the absolute has negative effects that need to be allocated for.

In the case of free speech, there needs to be some allocation to limit hate speech, harassment, and similar situations, for the health of people who would otherwise have to be subject to it in their day-to-day lives, which can have, and is well-documented to have, negative consequences to their mental health and general life outcomes. In addition, it also causes people to feel excluded in society, which also only adds to division in society that's unnecessary and causes yet more harm and damage not only to mental health, but also to the relations of people in society.

Its in the best interest in the mental health of people in society, and the people's day-to-day lives, and their ability to relate to one enough, and to have a sense of community and belonging (which is a human psychological need), as well as additional fundamental issues with quality of life, to ban hate speech.

[Luminesa]

Almost, I'm a minarchist.

Sorry, sorry; correction. Because you're pro-capitalist and minarchist, obviously that means you're ancap.

That is, if my ideals are 'authoritarian' (kek, what a joke).

You have said before that you want for everyone to be a quasi-hive-mind. Either that's authoritarian or you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Luminesa]

So you support the suppression of people you don't agree with? You know who else supported the suppression of political opponents?
This guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Just saying.

Pretty sure Ad Hitlerum or whatever it's called is an fallacious argument (e.g. trying to say someone's opinions or views are invalid by comparing them to Hitler).

It'd be different if he was literally Hitler.

The term is Poe's Law.

[Uxupox]

That's a very small distance away from just offing political opponents.

Are those political opponents people who might even be on the same quadrant as me on the political compass spreading lies and misinformation? Are they saying homoeopathy works, despite plentiful of evidence to the contrary? Are they pushing faith healing and alternative "medicine" over proper, evidence-based medicine? Are they saying vaccines cause autism, when this claim has been debunked and was very weak in the first place, thus leading to a reduction in vaccinations and loss of herd immunity? Are they saying climate change isn't real, and that there's controversy when more than 97% of the community agrees it is a thing? Are they either completely misunderstanding the issues of sex, gender and sexuality based on a middle school level knowledge of biology, or spreading misinformation and hate speech because they are in fact pushing an agenda?

I have no problem, no problem at all, with these people rotting in jail until such time as they can either prove they were right, which would be rather easy if they were in fact not lying, or make a public apology and retract their false statements.

And I'll just point out that there is, in fact, quite a big distance between this - stopping misinformation and hate speech, which is already done in most of the world through libel and slander laws - and offing political opponents. Because one involves a conditional jail sentence which is quite easy to get out by just admitting one was wrong or lying, and the other involves killing people.

And I'll just point out that this would only apply to "alternative" facts or opinions peddled as facts, without a shred of believable support. Opinions like "I won't take vaccines and come to work when ill" or "fags are degenerate" can be handled through social ostracism like we already do, but opinions peddled as facts like "homoeopathy works better than drugs" or "fags are actually all paedophiles" should not have a free pass just because of free speech.

Don't make this about bloody politics. This is not about bloody politics. I don't give a fuck about politics. One of my friends, a trusted comrade of the Party, could be saying "homeopathy works, big pharma is keeping us down" and I'd slap them in jail myself.

Time to jail who you disagree with.

[The V O I D]

Sorry, sorry; correction. Because you're pro-capitalist and minarchist, obviously that means you're ancap.

That is, if my ideals are 'authoritarian' (kek, what a joke).

You have said before that you want for everyone to be a quasi-hive-mind. Either that's authoritarian or you have no idea what you're talking about.

That's actually the endgame of my transhumanist views, not my ideal government.

[Vassenor]

Pretty sure Ad Hitlerum or whatever it's called is an fallacious argument (e.g. trying to say someone's opinions or views are invalid by comparing them to Hitler).

It'd be different if he was literally Hitler.

The term is Poe's Law.

Godwin's Law. Poe's law is when reality has gotten so ridiculous you can't tell who's a troll and who is seriously advocating a platform.