When trolls meet in real life

[dude_girl]

Actually having free speech is a license to be insensitive. That's what the "free" part means. It's a license to be insensitive. It's a license to be sensitive. It's both a license to be a jerk and a license to be compassionate. Being an asshole isn't a crime. When it becomes one we'll have to build concentration camps again. Free speech.. and dealing with things that we don't like or that make us uncomfortable sometimes, are in my opinion infinitely preferable.

I don't think any of us aren't saying people can't say insensitive things, we're just saying that their free speech also allows for criticism of those comments. I understand the whole free speech argument - even though I myself am far less supportive of the absolutism that people interpret from the Constitution - but it doesn't guarantee them a place in society.

[Jackie Treehorn]

Actually having free speech is a license to be insensitive. That's what the "free" part means. It's a license to be insensitive. It's a license to be sensitive. It's both a license to be a jerk and a license to be compassionate. Being an asshole isn't a crime. When it becomes one we'll have to build concentration camps again. Free speech.. and dealing with things that we don't like or that make us uncomfortable sometimes, are in my opinion infinitely preferable.

I don't think any of us aren't saying people can't say insensitive things, we're just saying that their free speech also allows for criticism of those comments. I understand the whole free speech argument - even though I myself am far less supportive of the absolutism that people interpret from the Constitution - but it doesn't guarantee them a place in society.

What absolutism is that?

[dude_girl]

What absolutism is that?

That some speech - hate speech for example - provides no benefit to public discourse, and should be banned.

[artibus]

What absolutism is that?

That some speech - hate speech for example - provides no benefit to public discourse, and should be banned.

Who determines what is "hate speech" and what's not?

[Jackie Treehorn]

What absolutism is that?

That some speech - hate speech for example - provides no benefit to public discourse, and should be banned.

There are an infinite number of things that provide no benefit to public discourse. Shall we ban them all? Who gets to define "hate speech"? We (and by your reference to The Constitution I assume you mean the United States) already have laws on the books that deal with incitement to violence, threats of physical harm and/or to riot. There are countries with so-called "hate speech" laws but there is no law in the US regarding hate speech. It is not nor should it be illegal to express an opinion based on anything. You may refer to me as an asshole. This is your Constitutional right. You may say you would like to kick my ass. Also your right. The problem with "hate speech" is that no one seems to be able to clearly define it and this by it's nature leads to very selective enforcement. To wit it is impossible to enforce with any semblance of justice. It would be easier to enforce prohibition.

Is vile speech a benefit? Likely no. But the laws that protect vile speech are the same laws that protected those that spoke out against legally protected and codified yet repugnant institutions (Dredd Scott comes to mind). They are the same laws that protected people speaking out against unjust wars and against unjust laws. To think that a selective interpretation of "hate speech" laws will not cut both ways eventually and be used to oppress is naive and boundlessly foolish.

I was fortunate to be taught to listen to things that hurt my feelings; that it was a part of life. I am also fortunate that I was taught to discern who matters and who doesn't and that loudmouths and boors generally fade away in our society and that decent people and the ones that don't insult you are the ones that matter and remain. I am not however unrealistic and I fully realize where we are (all) headed. I have no doubt that the speech and thought police will win in the end and those of you who at this moment bear the curse of youth may very well be witnesses to these laws being put into place and when you finally realize that the monsters that you've been fictively fighting against for all these years are the ones you've put into power it will be too late.

[dude_girl]

Who determines what is "hate speech" and what's not?

There are an infinite number of things that provide no benefit to public discourse. Shall we ban them all? Who gets to define "hate speech"? We (and by your reference to The Constitution I assume you mean the United States) already have laws on the books that deal with incitement to violence, threats of physical harm and/or to riot. There are countries with so-called "hate speech" laws but there is no law in the US regarding hate speech. It is not nor should it be illegal to express an opinion based on anything. You may refer to me as an asshole. This is your Constitutional right. You may say you would like to kick my ass. Also your right. The problem with "hate speech" is that no one seems to be able to clearly define it and this by it's nature leads to very selective enforcement. To wit it is impossible to enforce with any semblance of justice. It would be easier to enforce prohibition.

Is vile speech a benefit? Likely no. But the laws that protect vile speech are the same laws that protected those that spoke out against legally protected and codified yet repugnant institutions (Dredd Scott comes to mind). They are the same laws that protected people speaking out against unjust wars and against unjust laws. To think that a selective interpretation of "hate speech" laws will not cut both ways eventually and be used to oppress is naive and boundlessly foolish.

I was fortunate to be taught to listen to things that hurt my feelings; that it was a part of life. I am also fortunate that I was taught to discern who matters and who doesn't and that loudmouths and boors generally fade away in our society and that decent people and the ones that don't insult you are the ones that matter and remain. I am not however unrealistic and I fully realize where we are (all) headed. I have no doubt that the speech and thought police will win in the end and those of you who at this moment bear the curse of youth may very well be witnesses to these laws being put into place and when you finally realize that the monsters that you've been fictively fighting for all these years are the ones you've put into power it will be too late.

If we want to bring up the Constitution I'm good with that (that's what I went to college for). There are exceptions to free speech that are unfortunately not very well defined, even in major Supreme Court cases. The Brandenburg case introduced the concept of "imminent lawless action", but is super vague about what that means. When it comes to the free speech part of the First Amendment it's a bit of a mess, but it's also used to strike down just about any curtailing of free speech that either federal or state governments have attempted to pass. Simply put, after spending years studying it I find the Constitution to be a rather rubbish document - especially the Bill of Rights (not saying the intent is bad, but the text was written entirely out of fear).

As far as a blueprint I'd point to the UK, who have had an anti-hate speech law for quite a while. The basis to their laws are built off of speech that attempts to cause a person harassment, harm or distressed based on an individual's race, disability, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. They also affect speech that intends to stir up hatred based upon those factors. No impact on legitimate and robust debates about major topics that impact everyday life - especially when you consider that the right to protest and petition the government are still part of the First Amendment even if hate speech is curtailed.

I think that part of the confusion is this slippery slope hypothesis, that once you curtail some forms of speech it's only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down. The countries that have anti-hate speech laws are not modern manifestations of Orwell's "1984" - which by the way is far too referenced to American society - they're just countries.

I think it's important to state that I understand how people - particularly Americans - have a repulsion to curtailing freedoms, and I don't expect many people to share the same opinion that I do. I just answered a question posed to me based on one of my previous comments. There's not ill intent directed at anyone, and in this case especially I think there exists the chance for an actual substantive discussion.

[Jackie Treehorn]

Imminent lawless action is based on a credible threat. If you are drunk in a bar in Barrow, Alaska and say, "I'm going to kick Mike Tyson's ass!" and Mike Tyson is in New Jersey. Nobody will take that as a credible threat. If however you are a recently fired employee of a company and you post a live video of yourself waving a gun around and announcing that you're about to go in the company building and shoot the place up, that would be a credible threat. Calling someone a nasty name is not a threat to imminent violence.

[dude_girl]

Imminent lawless action is based on a credible threat. If you are drunk in a bar in Barrow, Alaska and say, "I'm going to kick Mike Tyson's ass!" and Mike Tyson is in New Jersey. Nobody will take that as a credible threat. If however you are a recently fired employee of a company and you post a live video of yourself waving a gun around and announcing that you're about to go in the company building and shoot the place up, that would be a credible threat. Calling someone a nasty name is not a threat to imminent violence.

It's not just intent, it's also the likelihood of their actions inciting harm. A good example of this would be members of the KKK giving a speech with some racially charged and antagonizing language. The Klan have a history of violence, so would that speech qualify as imminent lawless action? The Court said no, but there is demonstrated evidence of violence happening at rallies. This is what I mean when I say vague.

[artibus]

Imminent lawless action is based on a credible threat. If you are drunk in a bar in Barrow, Alaska and say, "I'm going to kick Mike Tyson's ass!" and Mike Tyson is in New Jersey. Nobody will take that as a credible threat. If however you are a recently fired employee of a company and you post a live video of yourself waving a gun around and announcing that you're about to go in the company building and shoot the place up, that would be a credible threat. Calling someone a nasty name is not a threat to imminent violence.

It's not just intent, it's also the likelihood of their actions inciting harm. A good example of this would be members of the KKK giving a speech with some racially charged and antagonizing language. The Klan have a history of violence, so would that speech qualify as imminent lawless action? The Court said no, but there is demonstrated evidence of violence happening at rallies. This is what I mean when I say vague.

The Klan have a history, had a history, and in 2021 are pretty much history, aside from when they hold their small marches. Although viewed pretty much as ignorant and bigoted, they do at least obtain a permit to hold a gathering and/or a march, and for the most part are non violent. Ignorant, but non violent. They (thankfully) are pretty much irrelevant these days.
So....how do you feel about BLM and ANTIFA, both of which are far more liable to be associated with violence and destruction these days?
I'm not here to defend the KKK by any means! That said, I seriously doubt in 2021 that you would be accosted by the Klan and assaulted if you don't stand and salute their agenda. BLM and Antifa have repeatedly demonstrated those tactics in 2020/2021.

[dude_girl]

The Klan have a history, had a history, and in 2021 are pretty much history, aside from when they hold their small marches. Although viewed pretty much as ignorant and bigoted, they do at least obtain a permit to hold a gathering and/or a march, and for the most part are non violent. Ignorant, but non violent. They (thankfully) are pretty much irrelevant these days.
So....how do you feel about BLM and ANTIFA, both of which are far more liable to be associated with violence and destruction these days?
I'm not here to defend the KKK by any means! That said, I seriously doubt in 2021 that you would be accosted by the Klan and assaulted if you don't stand and salute their agenda. BLM and Antifa have repeatedly demonstrated those tactics in 2020/2021.

Okay, relax... I'm not heading down that rabbit hole. I used the Klan example because that is the Supreme Court case that established the imminent lawless action test. Also, please try to keep your politics out of a discussion about Supreme Court cases, it's bad faith to argue from a political affiliation.

[artibus]

The Klan have a history, had a history, and in 2021 are pretty much history, aside from when they hold their small marches. Although viewed pretty much as ignorant and bigoted, they do at least obtain a permit to hold a gathering and/or a march, and for the most part are non violent. Ignorant, but non violent. They (thankfully) are pretty much irrelevant these days.
So....how do you feel about BLM and ANTIFA, both of which are far more liable to be associated with violence and destruction these days?
I'm not here to defend the KKK by any means! That said, I seriously doubt in 2021 that you would be accosted by the Klan and assaulted if you don't stand and salute their agenda. BLM and Antifa have repeatedly demonstrated those tactics in 2020/2021.

Okay, relax... I'm not heading down that rabbit hole. I used the Klan example because that is the Supreme Court case that established the imminent lawless action test. Also, please try to keep your politics out of a discussion about Supreme Court cases, it's bad faith to argue from a political affiliation.

This was the initial post that "stirred the puddin" in this thread, and you "liked" it.

"Re: When trolls meet in real life
Post by SuperStylist » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:18 pm

From what I can tell there are a number of people here who share some pretty outdated ideas and cry when others call them out on their antisocial behavior. I like to call them conservative snowflakes. Thin skinned bullies screaming about free speech and censorship while trying to suppress anyone who doesn’t agree with them, reveling in their privilege by punching downwards.

Are they the trolls you are complaining about? Or are you referring to the anyone here that calls out this bullshit?
These users thanked the author SuperStylist for the post (total 3):
klaatu48 • dude_girl • Ddisp"

Sorry, you guys don't get to throw out accusations at one group who is doing shitty stuff without acknowledging the shitty stuff being done by the side you probably agree with...not if you want to be seen as objective anyway. You're not gonna get a whole hell of a lot of "unity".
That's not my "politics", just real life.
FWIW, I'd love to compare my background and "privilege" to yours..

[dude_girl]

This was the initial post that "stirred the puddin" in this thread, and you "liked" it.

From what I can tell there are a number of people here who share some pretty outdated ideas and cry when others call them out on their antisocial behavior. I like to call them conservative snowflakes. Thin skinned bullies screaming about free speech and censorship while trying to suppress anyone who doesn’t agree with them, reveling in their privilege by punching downwards.

Are they the trolls you are complaining about? Or are you referring to the anyone here that calls out this bullshit?

Sorry, you guys don't get to throw out accusations at one group who is doing shitty stuff without acknowledging the shitty stuff being done by the side you probably agree with...not if you want to be seen as objective anyway. You're not gonna get a whole hell of a lot of "unity".
That's not my "politics", just real life.
FWIW, I'd love to compare my background and "privilege" to yours..

Dude, calm down... I didn't realize me bringing up the Klan would spark this kind of reaction from you. If this clears it up I'll discuss it. Sure... if a left wing group with a history of antagonism and violence wants to have a charged rally I think those also count as being imminent lawless action that should be subject to the same laws as the Klan. I really don't care which side of the political spectrum a group is, if they act like assholes then they're assholes - the story about BLM you're referencing is pretty crappy, no one should be pressured to feel like they have to support a movement (and I've never been a big fan of the tactics that antifa uses).

I have to believe that unity will eventually prevail, otherwise my existence as a trans woman will forever be contentious to a large portion of the public.

And as far as privilege, I had privilege for the first 35 years of my life by living as a white cishet male who was happily married in a solidly middle-class home. Since I've transitioned I have experienced a whole level of interaction from the public. I've been called "it" or "that", I've been followed around department stores by customers who want it clear that they see me, my father basically disowned me for living as myself, and my middle-class life effectively ended when my wife left me because she' not attracted to women. And the crazy thing about all of the crap I just mentioned is that I'm super-privileged as a white trans woman. Not only do I have a place to live - trans people are significantly more likely to be homeless - I also live in a state where you can't evict somebody from their apartment for being trans - 28 states still allow for housing discrimination against trans people. Though I've had threats of violence I have yet to be a victim of violence - in the US alone nearly one trans person was killed every week this year despite being only 0.5% of the population. Trans people of color - especially black trans women - experience all of these things in addition to the discrimination that comes with being black.

I think you are of the assumption that I'm some kind of SJW, when in reality I'm not. The reality is that in most situations I only involve myself in these discussions when the concept of gender identity is brought up in an antagonistic manner - as it's an issue that, for obvious reasons, is super close to me. In most situations you will find me asking to keep from using transphobic language, but I'll also go out of my way to signify compassion and a genuine desire to help educate people on a super complex concept like transgenderism.

[artibus]

This was the initial post that "stirred the puddin" in this thread, and you "liked" it.

From what I can tell there are a number of people here who share some pretty outdated ideas and cry when others call them out on their antisocial behavior. I like to call them conservative snowflakes. Thin skinned bullies screaming about free speech and censorship while trying to suppress anyone who doesn’t agree with them, reveling in their privilege by punching downwards.

Are they the trolls you are complaining about? Or are you referring to the anyone here that calls out this bullshit?

Sorry, you guys don't get to throw out accusations at one group who is doing shitty stuff without acknowledging the shitty stuff being done by the side you probably agree with...not if you want to be seen as objective anyway. You're not gonna get a whole hell of a lot of "unity".
That's not my "politics", just real life.
FWIW, I'd love to compare my background and "privilege" to yours..

Dude, calm down... I didn't realize me bringing up the Klan would spark this kind of reaction from you. If this clears it up I'll discuss it. Sure... if a left wing group with a history of antagonism and violence wants to have a charged rally I think those also count as being imminent lawless action that should be subject to the same laws as the Klan. I really don't care which side of the political spectrum a group is, if they act like assholes then they're assholes - the story about BLM you're referencing is pretty crappy, no one should be pressured to feel like they have to support a movement (and I've never been a big fan of the tactics that antifa uses).

I have to believe that unity will eventually prevail, otherwise my existence as a trans woman will forever be contentious to a large portion of the public.

And as far as privilege, I had privilege for the first 35 years of my life by living as a white cishet male who was happily married in a solidly middle-class home. Since I've transitioned I have experienced a whole level of interaction from the public. I've been called "it" or "that", I've been followed around department stores by customers who want it clear that they see me, my father basically disowned me for living as myself, and my middle-class life effectively ended when my wife left me because she' not attracted to women. And the crazy thing about all of the crap I just mentioned is that I'm super-privileged as a white trans woman. Not only do I have a place to live - trans people are significantly more likely to be homeless - I also live in a state where you can't evict somebody from their apartment for being trans - 28 states still allow for housing discrimination against trans people. Though I've had threats of violence I have yet to be a victim of violence - in the US alone nearly one trans person was killed every week this year despite being only 0.5% of the population. Trans people of color - especially black trans women - experience all of these things in addition to the discrimination that comes with being black.

I think you are of the assumption that I'm some kind of SJW, when in reality I'm not. The reality is that in most situations I only involve myself in these discussions when the concept of gender identity is brought up in an antagonistic manner - as it's an issue that, for obvious reasons, is super close to me. In most situations you will find me asking to keep from using transphobic language, but I'll also go out of my way to signify compassion and a genuine desire to help educate people on a super complex concept like transgenderism.

No need for you to begin every response with "relax" or "calm down". I don't see anyone here exhibiting anything other than just conversation.
I grew up very poor in rural North Georgia with eight siblings and an alcoholic, abusive father who passed away when I was 15. Two uncles were klansmen, and my cousin and I were recruited at age 17. We both politely but firmly declined. Thank God and The US Army, I was able to move on and grow. My opinion of the KKK remains now as it was then...not much. Ignorant, and sad people.
Trust me, you will not have a stronger ally than myself when it comes to standing up for those who are maligned and mistreated. That includes, but is not limited to, race, religion, and gender identity. I can understand every emotion you have regarding the mistreatment of trans people, and it's something that should absolutely be brought to attention...and stopped.
As long as we agree that the tactics of any group that involve bullying, violence, and/or property destruction as "warranted" and "normal" are actually in fact WRONG, then we're pretty much on the same page I'd say.

[tat00x]

To most of you

I'm really tired of everyone reporting everyone in this and that D-Queen thread.
Calm down or you all that keeps reporting posts in background or sending me PMs will take a free 1 month holiday really soon.

cheers to everybody

[SuperStylist]

To most of you

I'm really tired of everyone reporting everyone in this and that D-Queen thread.
Calm down or you all that keeps reporting posts in background or sending me PMs will take a free 1 month holiday really soon.

cheers to everybody

Ban me, please. You would be doing me a favor. Your board is toxic and it’s your own fault for not dealing with people IMO.

[dude_girl]

To most of you

I'm really tired of everyone reporting everyone in this and that D-Queen thread.
Calm down or you all that keeps reporting posts in background or sending me PMs will take a free 1 month holiday really soon.

cheers to everybody

Ban me if you want your board is toxic and it’s your own fault.

There's nothing to complain about here. Please read the conversation before treating a thread as hostile as you are right now. Banning people for a political conversation seems silly when people are expressing things in a civil way. There's no insults here, if you want that go to the D-Queens topic where I've been called a "human fruitfly", "mentally ill", a child, and a waste of someone's time all because I had the audacity to ask someone to not make transphobic jokes.

[SuperStylist]

To most of you

I'm really tired of everyone reporting everyone in this and that D-Queen thread.
Calm down or you all that keeps reporting posts in background or sending me PMs will take a free 1 month holiday really soon.

cheers to everybody

Ban me if you want your board is toxic and it’s your own fault.

There's nothing to complain about here. Please read the conversation before treating a thread as hostile as you are right now. Banning people for a political conversation seems silly when people are expressing things in a civil way. There's no insults here, if you want that go to the D-Queens topic where I've been called a "human fruitfly", "mentally ill", a child, and a waste of someone's time all because I had the audacity to ask someone to not make transphobic jokes.

Dude_girl, it’s not worth it. Arguing with right wingers is a colossal waste of time, especially on a forum that hardly anyone reads. There is hair content literally all over the web. If a handful of trumpers want to rule over a dying corner of the internet, let them.

I genuinely hope that you find a better community than this, you seem awesome!

[dude_girl]

Dude_girl, it’s not worth it. Arguing with right wingers is a colossal waste of time, especially on a forum that hardly anyone reads. There is hair content literally all over the web. If a handful of trumpers want to rule over a dying corner of the internet, let them.

I genuinely hope that you find a better community than this, you seem awesome!

Aww... Thanks! You seem pretty great yourself.

[artibus]

Ban me if you want your board is toxic and it’s your own fault.

There's nothing to complain about here. Please read the conversation before treating a thread as hostile as you are right now. Banning people for a political conversation seems silly when people are expressing things in a civil way. There's no insults here, if you want that go to the D-Queens topic where I've been called a "human fruitfly", "mentally ill", a child, and a waste of someone's time all because I had the audacity to ask someone to not make transphobic jokes.

Dude_girl, it’s not worth it. Arguing with right wingers is a colossal waste of time, especially on a forum that hardly anyone reads. There is hair content literally all over the web. If a handful of trumpers want to rule over a dying corner of the internet, let them.

I genuinely hope that you find a better community than this, you seem awesome!

Then go find that hair content and enjoy it...bye! Just for our curiosity....will you be "Elina" or something similar when you return yet again? Just asking for all of us?

tat00x has provided this site, and much more, for FREE for years. Feel free to leave without ceremony if you want to dis on the founder of this great site. Here's an idea ....how about contribute something other than your self pity here?

[SuperStylist]

There's nothing to complain about here. Please read the conversation before treating a thread as hostile as you are right now. Banning people for a political conversation seems silly when people are expressing things in a civil way. There's no insults here, if you want that go to the D-Queens topic where I've been called a "human fruitfly", "mentally ill", a child, and a waste of someone's time all because I had the audacity to ask someone to not make transphobic jokes.

Dude_girl, it’s not worth it. Arguing with right wingers is a colossal waste of time, especially on a forum that hardly anyone reads. There is hair content literally all over the web. If a handful of trumpers want to rule over a dying corner of the internet, let them.

I genuinely hope that you find a better community than this, you seem awesome!

Then go find that hair content and enjoy it...bye! Just for our curiosity....will you be "Elina" or something similar when you return yet again? Just asking for all of us?

Tat00x has provided this site, and much more, for FREE for years. Feel free to leave without ceremony if you want to dis on the founder of this great site. Here's an idea ....how about contribute something other than your self pity here?

You’re just a moron. I haven’t got anything to say to you.