God that stupid comic. I wonder how after years of this same argument people havent realised what the other side is talking about.
The free speech crowd clearly thinks that freedom of speech applies to social consequences too, not only the government.
You cant exclude someone else freedom of speech to support yours, this contradiction means that they probably dont have a point here, but getting fired from a job is much more than companies exercising their fredoom of speech. How the fuck the left, that is all about " if you lose your job you might as well starve " doesnt see this?
I think they do, they just dont give a fuck about a racist and his family ability to eat.
they just dont give a fuck about a racist and his family ability to eat
And rightly so. Why should I give a fuck if a racist, who wants to segregate and deport my friends and neighbors, is starving? He could go and get thrashed by a mob and killed for all I care. Fuck him.
Plus the entire premise is wrong. "Free speech" only explicitly refers to the government if you want it to. Munroe himself actually seems to believe he's speaking ex cathedra, otherwise especially his political cartoons wouldn't use strategies that should be immediately obviously dishonest to anyone who prides themselves in their understanding of logic and linguistics.
As in the words of the great Nick Mullen (listen to cumtown): "(smug myopic fat dipshit voice) freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
Because why argue about anything when you can regurgitate reddit?
You don't have to know things about the country you were born in to be a citizen of that country. I think that in order to graduate high school, you should be required to pass a citizenship test. There are people around my age that has no idea what the 3 branches of the government are. Don't even try to ask them the symbolism of the US flag. They will usually get the stars correct, possibly pick up on the 13 stripes, but never what the colors of the flag stands for.
It's a trick question. It's a question that most people would assume there was an answer to. They do that to make sure that you really looked for the answer. How can there not be symbolism in the flag with the colors they used? It's because they didn't intend on it. I have asked that question to many people and so far the guy above is one of the very few that got it right.
It's still on the citizen test. It's a trick question for sure. They can't have everything on there that requires an actual answer. Things like that show that they really do know what they need to. Most people would throw a guess in hopes of it being the correct answer. Having a question and the answer is nothing makes it for sure people will most likely get it wrong unless they really looked.
There are restrictions on free speech in the United States as well you know. I bet you couldn't name 3 of them off the top of your head and I would say 99% of the americans who discuss free speech could not name a single exception.
You're comparing a personal example to a political one. This tendency to con flare the two is precisely why the far left is so despised by anyone not a part of them.
We're not dealing with a bright one. He really believes his political opinions deserve special protection.
lol, he says it explicitly:
It is obviously precisely those opinions that the population finds hateful and disgusting that need protection.
Hi. I'm your typical pseudo-intellectual, faux-liberal stick figure. Normally, as a self-identified lefty, I would be critical of large private corporations' political impact on wider society. The reason for that is that I realize that they have a far larger impact on wider society than whether I'll be able to buy hamburgers cheaply. I realize that they are (1) grossly powerful compared to their employees, due to weak unions, (2) can effectively bribe politicians by donating to them (quid-pro-quo), and (3) can much more easily tax-dodge than normal working people. Just to name a few.
So normally I would be critical of corporations doing things that I would think are politically harmful. Like for example IT corporations who operate world-wide social platforms silencing certain political opinions because it's not in their interest to have such speech be "free". Or to fire people without a sufficient reason, or for some reason that might be biased against certain people and have nothing to do with whether they did a good job or not.
But since the "winds of PC" are blowing in my side's favor right now, I will opportunistically choose to not give a shit about the above. Instead, I'll employ standard libertarian talking points to argue that whoever I disagree with effectively being silenced is no-big-deal, because blah blah free market, blah blah it-only-applies-to-the-government, blah blah someone getting fired due to public pressure is them just getting their just deserts.
But don't worry. Once the winds of PC starts blowing in the opposite direction, I'll be right back on screaming and whining against the big corporate interests.
29 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-02-18
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a ThatOtherPromise 2017-02-18
God that stupid comic. I wonder how after years of this same argument people havent realised what the other side is talking about.
The free speech crowd clearly thinks that freedom of speech applies to social consequences too, not only the government.
You cant exclude someone else freedom of speech to support yours, this contradiction means that they probably dont have a point here, but getting fired from a job is much more than companies exercising their fredoom of speech. How the fuck the left, that is all about " if you lose your job you might as well starve " doesnt see this?
I think they do, they just dont give a fuck about a racist and his family ability to eat.
n/a flipkt 2017-02-18
And rightly so. Why should I give a fuck if a racist, who wants to segregate and deport my friends and neighbors, is starving? He could go and get thrashed by a mob and killed for all I care. Fuck him.
n/a xKillerDreag 2017-02-18
I agree. Mayocide when
n/a chanilastname 2017-02-18
Now.
n/a 47BAD243E4 2017-02-18
maybe your friends and neighbors shouldn't have illegally crossed the border.
n/a flipkt 2017-02-18
LOL they are probably here long before you were even born, but nice try deflecting it to "illegal".
n/a 47BAD243E4 2017-02-18
then they have literally nothing to worry about
n/a CaliggyJack 2017-02-18
They're still illegal though.
n/a ThatOtherPromise 2017-02-18
I used to be, for 10 years of my life, an illegal, and somehow I dont want that kind of person losing their jobs.
n/a flipkt 2017-02-18
I was brought up in a Bible belt town, I voted trump and I'm a die hard conservative, but somehow I want racists to be lynched.
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-02-18
in the eyes of most anti-free-speech lefties you are a nazi
n/a Hemic 2017-02-18
Edgy
n/a massenkompatibel 2017-02-18
Plus the entire premise is wrong. "Free speech" only explicitly refers to the government if you want it to. Munroe himself actually seems to believe he's speaking ex cathedra, otherwise especially his political cartoons wouldn't use strategies that should be immediately obviously dishonest to anyone who prides themselves in their understanding of logic and linguistics.
n/a Wordshark 2017-02-18
What's "ex cathedra?"
Good comment though
n/a massenkompatibel 2017-02-18
The pope invoking papal infallibility speaks ex cathedra.
n/a Wordshark 2017-02-18
Thanks
n/a Cloughtower 2017-02-18
Literally "From the seat" (of authority)
n/a Wordshark 2017-02-18
Thanks, much appreciated
n/a xKillerDreag 2017-02-18
As in the words of the great Nick Mullen (listen to cumtown): "(smug myopic fat dipshit voice) freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"
Because why argue about anything when you can regurgitate reddit?
n/a wowbagger88 2017-02-18
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, which is why I had to mace that girl wearing the "Make Bitcoin Great Again" hat."
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-02-18
Canadians don't have The Right to Free Speech.
Like how can you even be this retarded.
>The Government can't arrest you for what you say
>Canadian arrested for what he said
How the fuck can literally all of these people who are arguing know nothing about Canada?
You don't have protected Hate Speech in Canada like you do U.S.A. because of their Hate Speech Laws.
n/a ThatOtherPromise 2017-02-18
Lmao you are right I didnt even look at the sub
Oh this website ...
n/a icyhat 2017-02-18
You don't have to know things about the country you were born in to be a citizen of that country. I think that in order to graduate high school, you should be required to pass a citizenship test. There are people around my age that has no idea what the 3 branches of the government are. Don't even try to ask them the symbolism of the US flag. They will usually get the stars correct, possibly pick up on the 13 stripes, but never what the colors of the flag stands for.
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-02-18
Yea but there is a difference between being dumb about something
& being dumb and going online to argue with other people about it.
n/a icyhat 2017-02-18
Sure is, one is more entertaining than the other.
n/a ExilesReturn 2017-02-18
The colors of the U.S. flag have no meaning. The colors of the pales and the color of the Chief, in the Great Seal, however, do.
http://www.usflag.org/colors.html
n/a SoButtscrewed 2017-02-18
Thanks I felt stupid for a second
n/a icyhat 2017-02-18
It's a trick question. It's a question that most people would assume there was an answer to. They do that to make sure that you really looked for the answer. How can there not be symbolism in the flag with the colors they used? It's because they didn't intend on it. I have asked that question to many people and so far the guy above is one of the very few that got it right.
n/a icyhat 2017-02-18
It's still on the citizen test. It's a trick question for sure. They can't have everything on there that requires an actual answer. Things like that show that they really do know what they need to. Most people would throw a guess in hopes of it being the correct answer. Having a question and the answer is nothing makes it for sure people will most likely get it wrong unless they really looked.
n/a geraldo42 2017-02-18
There are restrictions on free speech in the United States as well you know. I bet you couldn't name 3 of them off the top of your head and I would say 99% of the americans who discuss free speech could not name a single exception.
n/a JohnTheOrc 2017-02-18
That would be a pretty stupid thing to say, tbh
n/a cruelandusual 2017-02-18
We're not dealing with a bright one. He really believes his political opinions deserve special protection.
lol, he says it explicitly:
n/a flipkt 2017-02-18
Read: he wants to call his black colleagues niggers and sue the employer if they fire him for it.
n/a some-other 2017-02-18
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
Hi. I'm your typical pseudo-intellectual, faux-liberal stick figure. Normally, as a self-identified lefty, I would be critical of large private corporations' political impact on wider society. The reason for that is that I realize that they have a far larger impact on wider society than whether I'll be able to buy hamburgers cheaply. I realize that they are (1) grossly powerful compared to their employees, due to weak unions, (2) can effectively bribe politicians by donating to them (quid-pro-quo), and (3) can much more easily tax-dodge than normal working people. Just to name a few.
So normally I would be critical of corporations doing things that I would think are politically harmful. Like for example IT corporations who operate world-wide social platforms silencing certain political opinions because it's not in their interest to have such speech be "free". Or to fire people without a sufficient reason, or for some reason that might be biased against certain people and have nothing to do with whether they did a good job or not.
But since the "winds of PC" are blowing in my side's favor right now, I will opportunistically choose to not give a shit about the above. Instead, I'll employ standard libertarian talking points to argue that whoever I disagree with effectively being silenced is no-big-deal, because blah blah free market, blah blah it-only-applies-to-the-government, blah blah someone getting fired due to public pressure is them just getting their just deserts.
But don't worry. Once the winds of PC starts blowing in the opposite direction, I'll be right back on screaming and whining against the big corporate interests.
Cheers!