RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

There's absolutely nothing wrong...

in itsokaytobewhite •  5 years ago  (edited)

IFF you think Booing is not Freedom of Expression than you Think that Booing is not Freedom of Expression. You Think That Someone Expressing themselves by Shouting is not protected speech, it should be stifled, censored and suppressed, and at least it should be ridiculed as Idiotic Moo Cow behavior.

IFF you think booing is Freedom of Expression then You're An Idiot Moo Cow Equivalent.

Ultimately.
Moooo.

(if you didn't get it, you make a value judgement about what is and isn't Freedom of Expression)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.

However, when noise is generated that indiscriminately silences (CENSORS) another's free speech, it is a violation of the other person's free speech ("your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face").

To attempt to argue that booing is more important (to protect) than actual speech is absurd. One person can boo as long as the other person still has a chance to speak (equal time principle).

A reasonable (civil) person would simply leave the room (or click the "mute button") when they've decided to reject a person's viewpoint wholesale.

Do you also believe "disturbing the peace" (midnight road construction as performance art for example) is sacrosanct free speech?

A reasonable (civil) person would simply leave the room (or click the "mute button") when they've decided to reject a person's viewpoint wholesale.

Yeah, unless they were uncivilized and tried to censor the other by booing, violating their speech, raping them.

However, when noise is generated that indiscriminately silences (CENSORS) another's free speech, it is a violation of the other person's free speech ("your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face").

It only violates the others speech if they were to do something more than Boo, like stopping that person from speaking with force. You seem to think that it's a violation of that other person's freedom of speech should they try and disrupt or express their disagreement that strongly, because that person is entitled to only certain kind of disagreement and no disruption, should he be disrupted or distracted that constitutes a violation of speech, stop disturbing, you're violating...

You cannot silence someone by being louder than them exactly like you cannot stop someone from writing by writing everywhere and anywhere that they suck. In both instances they can continue unabridged by your commotion, unless they are terminally devoid of confidence abd lack any conviction that they live entirely by suggestion and only for the approval of others, then you can try to argue that they have been violated, these poor feeble minded retards.

When noise is generated to silence it ought to be pretty quiet. O yeah, it's idiocy 101 over here, people are censoring BY booing, in robot terms: "when noise is generated". It's called freedom of expression, the conundrum is that freedom of expression is perched on what is acceptable to you and others as you try and suggest:

A brief chuckle, or booing or clapping can be an expression of your general agreement or disagreement.

Yeah, freedom of expression for general disagreement, not strong hatred.

"if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

To attempt to argue that booing is more important (to protect) than actual speech is absurd. One person can boo as long as the other person still has a chance to speak (equal time principle).

There's absolutely no either or. They both are protected, the booing doesn't violate the actual speech, exactly like the speech wouldn't violate anything it disrupts or it has hate for, if someone wants to boo no body has the right to stop them, and should someone try to boo louder to stop them great, even if they do stop, it has not violated them and it couldn't, unless they were retarded.

...you cannot stop someone from writing by writing everywhere and anywhere that they suck.

Air-horning someone in person is the equivalent of black-marking over all of their written words.

Sure the words are still technically on the page, but nobody can read them.

It's not the equivalent at all. You keep asserting so though despite that censorship is not Broadcasting what you want to censor with a loud noise over it, especially when you don't have the only copy and cannot stop anyone from writing or speaking by such ridiculous "tactics", the difference is between a speaking engagement being stopped vs being disrupted, exactly like steem, nobody can stop anyone from writing no matter how much they try to disrupt them, and disruption is only in terms of how much conviction one has as someone with a strong conviction will not relent in the face of such little adversity.

Hello @baah,
I edited my comment again after having read all of your exchanges wit @logiczombie.

so... I am leaving without my former question.

What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?

Censorship is not about intentions. Censorship is either happening or it isn't, it is the results that matters and not the intent, and it must be a result that arrives at solely because of that act and does so with repeated frequency, so being booed once or a million times, regardless of who's being booed, must every time result in being silenced, which it never does, EVER. One boo or a million boos won't make it censorship because it doesn't stop anyone from speaking, exactly like one downvote or a million cannot stop someone from writing and posting. You can keep believing that one boo magically becomes censorship when it is longer than normal, I'm sure you also believe that standing up for freedom to express oneself is advocating whatever or however that said one was expressing themselves,
and much like you seem to believe that intentions is what constitutes censorship, ergo, if I intend to silence someone with a boo or a downvote, I tried to censor, despite the resulting disregard of either that is obvious option numero one as a response to my "censorship" (intent).

Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.

What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?

Why do you want to know because I have a hard time relating what that has to do with censorship and freedom of expression.

Yeah, freedom of expression for general disagreement, not strong hatred.

Well stated.

That's an excellent distinction between Civil-Protest and HARASSMENT/CENSORSHIP.

If I hate my neighbor (and everything they stand for), is it an exercise of my free-speech to follow them around the city with my air-horn, honking at them any time the open their mouth?

What are you talking about? Booing is not censorship. The speaker at the event is not entitled to silence from the audience. A boo is not the equivalent of censorship since the speaker can speak regardless of boos from the audience. Freedom of expression is forever more for expressing Strong Hatred than for expressing "general" or strong disagreement.

Now you want to equate someone booing at someone else as censorship, which is fine, in idiot land. Good luck stopping said "censorship".

Freedom of Expression (booing) is Censorship. Stop the Censorship (freedom of expression).
Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.

If I hate my neighbor (and everything they stand for), is it an exercise of my free-speech to follow them around the city with my air-horn, honking at them any time the open their mouth?

  ·  5 years ago (edited)

Are you trying to suggest that harassing someone is Censorship now? You are grasping at straws, trying to make it seem that people can do anything they want as long as they claim it's protected by the freedom of expression, and that I suggested or said anything to that effect. Your question is a Complex Question Fallacy, as it's a yes and no question with a loaded premise that damns me if I agree or if I disagree as I must accept the premise regardless if the premise is false, and it is false because I never suggested that people harass or disturb others and do so because it's their freedom of expression, but here you are yet again still repeating the same vain nonsense that tries to suggest that.

People have a right to Boo and Booing is not censorship. It's not censorship to harass people, it's harassment. Censorship is the act of Suppressing or Stopping someone from expressing themselves. Censorship is not Freedom of Expression, and that is exactly what Booing someone who is giving a speech is. Booing someone all over town is Harassment, Booing someone at a speaking engagement is neither Harassment or Censorship. Booing someone all over town is not Censorship, as even then the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.

Are you trying to suggest that harassing someone is Censorship now?

I'm suggesting that harassment is functionally-indistinguishable from censorship.

If you disagree, please present your preferred definitions of "harassment" and "censorship".

It's not functionally indistinguishable in numerous ways and circumstances. If you disagree exemplify how someone can STOP or SUPPRESS someone expressing themselves by harassing them.

I'll put this here:
You seem think that downvoting someone is harassment, yet nothing stops the individual being harassed from expressing themselves while being downvoted, so in effect You think they are being harassed but they clearly are free to express themselves regardless of downvoting. You also seem to think that someone booing someone else is no different from censorship even though someone booing does not stop someone from speaking WHILE the other individual is booing them, even if it's to the point of being considered harassing, they can still express themselves WHILE the other person is harassing them.

I never suggested that people harass or disturb others and do so because it's their freedom of expression,

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

Do you personally think it's possible to harass someone with downvotes?

Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness. In the legal sense, these are behaviors that appear to be disturbing, upsetting or threatening. They evolve from discriminatory grounds, and have an effect of nullifying or impairing a person from benefiting their rights. When these behaviors become repetitive, they are defined as bullying.

No. Downvoting is expressing disagreement or disapproval, no one can use it to demean or otherwise attack the person.

Censorship is the act of Suppressing or Stopping someone from expressing themselves.

Downvoting someone into negative rep clearly SUPPRESSES them from expressing themselves (all of their posts are automatically hidden, which is another way of saying "suppressed").

Booing someone all over town is not Censorship, as even then the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.

How? How can someone "still express themselves" over the sound of an air-horn blast?

I said how: the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.

What Are you talking about?

There are no parallels to draw between booing a speaker at a speaking engagement and indiscriminately booing your neighbor all over town. Poor analogy.

Analogy
Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion", from ana- "upon, according to" [also "against", "anew"] + logos "ratio" [also "word, speech, reckoning"]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, in which at least one of the premises, or the conclusion, is general rather than particular in nature. The term analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often (though not always) a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, as well as decision making, argumentation, perception, generalization, memory, creativity, invention, prediction, emotion, explanation, conceptualization and communication.

—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

I agree. We must let those we hate express their views with their words (which is how you most effectively communicate your thoughts and intentions and beliefs).

If you don't like what someone says, use the "mute" button or walk away.

And or blog about how much you hate them and why (which will likely only draw more attention (notoriety) to the person you are hating). I mean, for example, Ben Shapiro wasn't widely known until he got CENSORED (shouted down) by the SJWs.

That's not censorship. He wasn't stopped by 'sounds' from expressing themselves.

Was he physically assaulted?

booing doesn't violate the actual speech,

Extended booing (and air-horns) effectively CENSORS the person speaking (using actual words).

By saying you want to protect "both", you're essentially endorsing CENSORSHIP/HARASSMENT.

It "effectively" doesn't censor, exactly like "hidden" posts don't censor.