https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOXeTDjx8vg
>>7840844
From Sam Harris to Christopher Hitchens, every single person who has the freedom to speak their minds deeply hates SJW. But it's only a big deal if you make it so. Being offended doesn't give people rights, so all you have to do is ignore them.
You seem pretty unsupportive of privilege checking anon. Would you like to make a public apology ?
>>7840853
i lold 3 times
the garbage collection has been totally haphazard and unreliable ever since this new mayor got elected.
>>7840863
>Being offended doesn't give people rights, so all you have to do is *shutup and never say anything rational unless you want to be fired and ostracised*
Did you forget about the Yale free speech email scandal already?
>>7840866
>>7840880
im not familiar with it
>>7840882
That is of course totally not mandatory, since we do not believe in forcing our beliefs onto people. But I must make you aware that this would be highly appreciated by the community, and should grant you the opportunity to participate in our Raising Awareness To Everyone courses.
I'm not trying to coerce you in the least bit, but your behaviour has earned you a high Intolerance rating, which you might like to lower to regain access to your full citizenship rights.
>>7840882
Hi, I'm part of a grass roots movement I'm not associated with >>7840896, but I have noticed your high intolerance rating. I'm going to have to ask you to publicly apologise, of course you totally don't have to, but if you don't them I'm going to mobilise everyone I can to write to your employer informing them of your despicable views, after that we're going to write to your sponsors/customers/other also informing them of your intolerant views, finally we're going to start a petition with the soul purpose of getting you expelled/fired.
Now you could avoid all of that by just apologising. But in the end it's completely up to you.
>>7840880
>Did you forget about the Yale free speech email scandal already?
>Yale free speech
>free speech
>at a private institution
If you're going to go on a Crusade to defend Western Civilization, could you at least learn about what the rights you pretend to champion actually mean.
>>7842285
Private institutions cannot negate human rights.
>>7840844
>Oh God, science is under attacks by the SJWs!!! Watch this video!
>"scientists are emotionless autistic nerds"
>"global warming is not a consensus, just look at this online petition!"
Really? Thank you for once again proving that /pol/tards are just as retarded as SJWs. Now go back to your containment board.
>>7842311
How did Yale negate human rights?
>>7842334
The point was that a private intuition cannot limit free speech or it is violating that human right. Same way you cannot voluntarily sell yourself off to slavery since that private contract cannot negate the overriding human right.
>>7842370
The act of taking someone into slavery is illegal. The act of telling someone to piss off because of what they say is also protected speech. The freedom of speech prevents you from being criminally prosecuted for whatever stupid shit you say, it does not protect you from being fired for saying stupid shit.
>>7842370
Yeah and I'm asking you how Yale violated free speech. Did they hold someone at gunpoint? Did they threaten them? What did they do?
>>7842285
>>7842391
You're right. Yale is a private institution...that takes government money.If Yale wants to exert their right as a private institution and censor its own students and teachers, then it's time for Congress to stop giving taxpayer's money to schools that restricts the rights of taxpayers who attend classes at Yale.
>>7840863
>all you have to do is ignore them.
You don't get it. They're getting people fired and moving into positions of authority. They're having effects on law and policy.
If you ignore them, if you back down from conflict with them, one day you're going to find that you're under their supervision in every sphere of life.
The extreme, obvious ones shift the standards. They make the insidious ones look reasonable.
Have you noticed that women now must be treated as complete equals but also protected and not held as accountable for their decisions? That they are every bit as capable as men, but somehow the cause of women holding less desirable positions is men? That insane doublethink is completely mainstream now.
You need to join in pointing out that "social justice" simply means "injustice".
First they want you "let them have a voice" and "not be harassed", both of which mean not disputing what they say. They'll plead whatever special psychological fragility they need to make that seem important. Next they want "positive representations" and "preventing stereotype threat", which mean you giving lip service to their claims and turning every substantial form of speech at least partly into their propaganda. They'll find fault with your compliance with their often-contradictory, ever-changing demands, and demand "diversity officers", "codes of conduct", "sensitivity classes", and "equal representation" in positions of authority, all of which means power for them, to do with as they please.
>>7842383
>The freedom of speech prevents you from being criminally prosecuted for whatever stupid shit you say, it does not protect you from being fired for saying stupid shit.
No actually. You're confusing freedom of speech with the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech does mean you can say things without punishment like being fired. Now having someone debunk stupid shit is not a punishment but their freedom to say what they want. Also realize that it isn't always dumb things that are censored, often they are uncomfortable truths.
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
>>7842451
This is the third time you've avoided the question. How did Yale violate free speech?
>>7842458
No, freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. There is no right to say whatever you want without being fired, because there is no right to a job, or to someone else's property without their consent. You are not immune from being "punished" by others for your speech as long as the actions involved in the "punishment" are within the rights of these individuals.
>>7842317
I think you missed the point
>>7842478
>There is no right to say whatever you want without being fired
Yeah there is, it's called freedom of speech.
I'll say it once more: Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
The 1st amendment only protects your speech from government but not to its fullest.
>because there is no right to a job, or to someone else's property without their consent.
No, that's not how it works. It's not a right to work but rather a right to not be punished for saying something. So you cannot be punished (like in the case of being fired) for something you say or the person who fired you has violated your freedom of speech.
>You are not immune from being "punished" by others for your speech as long as the actions involved in the "punishment" are within the rights of these individuals.
No, if we have free speech then you cannot be punished for things you say. It's that simple. No quotes on punishment btw. Punishment != consequence.
>>7842482
I didn't miss the point. Read my post again. You're a hypocrite for feigning to care about SJWs harming science while you attempt to harm science in the same breath.
>>7842317
You know people can hate SJWs and believe in global warming right?
>>7842490
He's not saying that. Just that polturds are as bad as SJWs, which is true. Just I would argue as it now stands SJWs are more destructive because of how far reaching their influence is.
>>7842483
>Yeah there is, it's called freedom of speech.
Ah, so freedom of speech mean that you have the right to be hired by me?
>I'll say it once more: Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
Yes, and someone exercising their right to hire and fire whomever they want is neither censorship nor punishment.
>The 1st amendment only protects your speech from government but not to its fullest.
That's because censorship and punishment are generally products of legalized coercion, which only the government wields.
>No, that's not how it works. It's not a right to work but rather a right to not be punished for saying something.
Are you retarded? They're the same thing in this context, since compelling someone to employ you against their wishes is the result. If you walk up into my house with a megaphone and start spouting some retarded rants, do I not have the right to remove you from my property, even though this would be "punishing" your "freedom of speech"?
>>7842492
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
The US has regulated thw workplace massively, by your logic all of these laws would be illegal and you should have the right to underpay women, and profile people by color when considering a position.
The Constitution also gives the right for the people to change it.
https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cwa-union.org/nlrb-free-speech&ved=0ahUKEwjloqK2wufKAhXGzz4KHT39ArwQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNEy8baqJ2atmlvm6KlnLN_S7BoWCw&sig2=h5f8ePlaCfUbVVvD-nCIqg
There is protected free speech in some sense.
>>7842485
Did you even watch the video? He says that scientists are objective thinkers. He is all for the kind of objective, detached truth that the "autistic nerd" scientists expose.
>pls click on my video to gibe me some money
didn't watch
also, from the comments:
>"2 + 2 is 4, no matter how many people it offends"
you know we define the symbol 4 as a composition of other symbols... in this case, 2 and + used in this way: 2 + 2
if we decided tomorrow that 2+2 != 4, then 2 + 2 would not be 4.
tl;dr, math isn't a science, it's tautological. stop using it as an example of "science"
>>7842507
>The US has regulated thw workplace massively, by your logic all of these laws would be illegal and you should have the right to underpay women, and profile people by color when considering a position.
Constitutionally, you do.
>>7842508
Except for when it conflicts with his precious dogma. Did you watch the entire video? This is not about science, this is about the age old shitty political spat that both SJWs and /pol/tards are trying to bring into every facet of life and shit everything up.
>>7842459
>Yale would be violating human rights in so doing.
You don't have a human right to government funded college.
>>7842467
>This is the third time you've avoided the question
You're a liar.
>>7842458
That's the answer.
>How did Yale violate free speech?
As long as as Yale takes federal dollars, Congress can require Yale to end its bullshit or not get another dime from the taxpayers.
>>7842521
Again, I'm asking how did Yale violate free speech. This does not mean "explain what your opinion of free speech is and how it can be violated," this means tell me specifically what Yale did. As in, actual events that occurred.
>>7842492
>Ah, so freedom of speech mean that you have the right to be hired by me?
No, I explained that.
>Yes, and someone exercising their right to hire and fire whomever they want is neither censorship nor punishment.
No, but once hired if they decide to fire an employee for what they said then they have punished that employee for their speech and in so doing violated their freedom of speech.
>That's because censorship and punishment are generally products of legalized coercion, which only the government wields.
No, they are the products of authority. And government isn't the only authority just the top.
>Are you retarded? They're the same thing in this context
No they're not. A consequence is people not liking you for something you said. A punishment would be an imposition of a penalty such as taking away your job.
> If you walk up into my house with a megaphone and start spouting some retarded rants, do I not have the right to remove you from my property, even though this would be "punishing" your "freedom of speech"?
You can remove me from the premises for disturbing the peace. What I'm saying is that when someone is fried for something they posted on Twitter or whatever then their freedom of speech has been violated.
>>7842507
>by your logic all of these laws would be illegal
If we were to uphold freedom of speech to the fullest then yes.
>you should have the right to underpay women, and profile people by color when considering a position.
Actually no, you see in the same way you can't discriminate people for their identity you shouldn't be able to do so for things they have said. We have laws prohibiting discrimination of people on religious grounds, now religion is known for spouting some of the dumbest things out there but you cannot disqualify a potential candidates for their religious beliefs. Now if we had full freedom of speech neither could one be discriminated for things they said.
>>7842521
>You don't have a human right to government funded college.
Never said we did. Just if we have a right to free speech Yale is violating peoples human rights by imposing speech codes and penalties for not complying.
>>7842524
I never said they did violate it. I did say if Yale wants to restrict speech on campus, Congress can cut all federal funding to Yale.
>>7842525
Not all those laws, sorry meant some. Didn't bother checking your link when I responded.
>>7842528
If Yale restricts speech then they violated the human right of free speech. It's that simple.
>>7842525
>You can remove me from the premises for disturbing the peace. What I'm saying is that when someone is fried for something they posted on Twitter or whatever then their freedom of speech has been violated.
What if you are not disturbing the peace? What if I invited you into my house for a nice dinner, and while we are having dessert you say something I do not like? Am I not allowed to take away the slice of pie I served you (punishment)? Am I not allowed to remove you from the house and refuse to hear what you say (censorship)? If yes, then why the hell am I not allowed to do the same thing simply because you are working for me instead of eating dinner with me? It's because you think you have a right to that job regardless of my consent. Which is simply wrong. Your right to free speech ends where my right to eject you from my property begins.
>>7842531
>>What if I invited you into my house for a nice dinner, and while we are having dessert you say something I do not like? Am I not allowed to take away the slice of pie I served you (punishment)?
You gave me that slice already. So that would be stealing technically.
>Am I not allowed to remove you from the house and refuse to hear what you say (censorship)?
Here is the crux of the matter. And you raise a good point. And its the choice of society in how to deal with this conundrum. Your right to your private property trumps other rights. But seeing as this is a punishment for speech you are also violating my freedom of speech in so doing.
The way I would deal with this is in the same manner that businesses can't discriminate against religions. You are allowed to eject religious people from your residential private property but you can't fire them.
>>7842530
It's a private Institute. If the government is funding it has no weight on the discussion. Governments also give taxpayers money to a lot of farms and they still aren't public.
>>7842539
You also have the right to not listen to anypone you want. You have a core misunderstanding on what freedom of speech actually means.
>>7842531
How about you bring your side of the discussion out of your perfect libertarian dream world and into reality?
Here in the real world, colleges aren't just places where people go willingly to talk and learn, they're places where people have to go to receive certain papers of legal significance, which are required for many basic economic activities, like a driver's license except you're in line for four years.
With taxes and regulations, subsidies, contracts, and bail-outs, the government controls business and decides which companies and communities survive and which die.
We don't have freedom. We have wiggle room, sometimes. There is no true private sector anymore, just shorter and longer leashes.
>>7842544
Just because it's a private institution doesn't mean it doesn't violate free speech, it just doesn't violate the first amendment.
>>7842550
Freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment you fucking tard. The UN hasn't changed anything to it.
>>7842546
>You also have the right to not listen to anypone you want.
Yes you have that right, nothing I said contradicts that though.
>You have a core misunderstanding on what freedom of speech actually means.
Rich coming from the guy who confused freedom of speech with the first amendment.
>>7842554
>Freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment you fucking tard
No to its fullest. Just from the government.
How many times do I need to repeat this?
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
>>7842546
No one has a right to a captive audience. That is true.
But no one has a right to keep others from hearing. You can't stop others from hearing just because you don't want to hear it.
>>7842539
>You gave me that slice already. So that would be stealing technically.
I don't think that brilliant legal argument would fly in court.
>The way I would deal with this is in the same manner that businesses can't discriminate against religions. You are allowed to eject religious people from your residential private property but you can't fire them.
That doesn't make sense though. Why is discrimination through employment different from discrimination through who I invite into my home? It's an arbitrary distinction that is not derived from the principle of rights but your wish for this specific action in this specific context to be protected regardless of rationale.
>>7842555
Tell me the in which part of the Constitution does it says, oh yea, because of international treaty brought up by the UN freedom of speech is now extended to private institutions you moron.
>>7842561
>I don't think that brilliant legal argument would fly in court.
In the kangaroo courts we have to deal with? No it probably wouldn't.
>Why is discrimination through employment different from discrimination through who I invite into my home? It's an arbitrary distinction that is not derived from the principle of rights
Some line needs to be drawn when conundrums arise. Now since we have protection for religious beliefs which are retarded then it makes sense that speech should be protected in the same way.
>>7842560
So if you convince people through freedom of expression and legal ways that they shod not hear that other guy is that going against freedom of expression?
>>7842567
>Tell me the in which part of the Constitution
That was my point all along that the constitution does not sufficiently protect human rights.
>>7842570
>if I define/interpret human rights in my own way then they are wrong
Wew lad you are a complete retard.
>>7842547
But that's exactly my point. The argument I'm responding to is not based on freedom of speech as claimed, it's based on pure political expediency to reach the desired end of the person arguing it. And if we want to talk about political reality, that person is losing the argument.
>>7842569
No obviously not. People have a right to listen to whomever they want regardless of their reasons. And people have a right to convince others from listening to others through speech.
Concerned liberal here, what I want to know is, when are we going to do away with this "Constitution" meme?
it's just a piece of paper, why should we care about what's written on it?
>>7842576
So.we agree then
>>7842573
>if I define/interpret human rights in my own way then they are wrong
Nice starwman, completely missed the point too.
I'll say this one last time even though your extra 21st chromosome prevents you from comprehending it:
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
>>7842576
we're all just a bunch of computers running around trying to reprogram one another.
>all this talk about yale
Are you guys referring to the time when some old dude told some 18 year olds not to dress like whores on halloween?
>>7842585
it is every american girls right to dress like a slut on halloween. how dare you impede the most sacred of halloween traditions.
>>7842568
>Some line needs to be drawn when conundrums arise.
Exactly, and I prefer to draw the line where it preserves both parties' rights. Every individual has the right to free speech, and every individual has the right to eject people from their property. Both can be true at the same time if we simply delineate one ending where the other begins. My ejecting you from my property does not stop you from speaking, and my speaking does not stop you from ejecting me from your property.
>Now since we have protection for religious beliefs which are retarded then it makes sense that speech should be protected in the same way.
And if punching others is made legal then murder should also be legal. I'm arguing neither should be legal in the first place.
>>7842583
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
You are taking that definition out of your ass.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
>>7842589
>Both can be true at the same time if we simply delineate one ending where the other begins.
Well once defined, it's delineated by the definition. If we arbitrarily say one ends where the other begins then these things lose meaning. Rather we need to establish when one trumps the other when there is overlap. So like I said you punishing me for my speech does violate my freedom of speech but your right to your private property isn't infringed. I just think it should apply to residential property and not businesses like with the religious discrimination rules.
>And if punching others is made legal then murder should also be legal.
In this case you have it switched I'd say. Saying something that people don't like is not nearly as detrimental as religion.
>>7842578
Lol
>>7840853
>fugin racist birds on my side of the hood
still not sure how that works, wouldnt they be racist if they weren't on their side?
>>7842591
You do realize that's where all human rights come from there don't you? Not mine specifically, but someone made them up. They're not found in nature and I'm pointing out the folly in just restricting government. It's based on the false assumption that government is the only authority that can restrict the exchange of ideas. The whole point of free speech being of course that people can come in contact with new ideas.
>>7842595
They only overlap because you have incorrectly delineated them. Again, me firing you does not affect your right to free speech. I am simply taking back what is mine. You can say whatever you want regardless of whether I hire or fire you, and I'm not obligated to buy you a megaphone.
>>7842600
>They only overlap because you have incorrectly delineated them.
No there is overlap because of the definition of free speech:
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
>Again, me firing you does not affect your right to free speech.
You're punishing me for what I said. So yes you are, that's how censorship works. It's the treat of punishment for saying something.
>>7842595
There problem with defending freedom of speech in the workplace is that you take many rights of the owner including the right he has to make a contract with you in many ways. Say you work for pepsi and in your contract you have signed that you cannot say what the recipe is to anyone. By your logic, this would go against freedom of speech.
Yes we can be sensible and protect certain opinions in the workplace but that ratification goes beyon the first amendment.
>>7842599
Sure, private individuals and groups can restrict the expression of ideas through threats and violence, but that's already illegal. What you are calling a restriction of the exchange of ideas is simply someone deciding that they no longer want to associate with that person because they don't like what they are saying. Not associating with someone is not a restriction. Me not paying for a megaphone so you can say something is not a restriction, buy your own damn megaphone.
>>7842609
Another good example of where there is this overlap when we have to decide which rule trumps which. I guess in this example a company secret, it's hard to say which should win over. Pepsi could probably operate without telling many people about their formula but without the NDA will those few who know the recipe not leak it.
>>7842605
>Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
Yes, and me refusing to associate with you is neither punishment nor censorship unless you twist those words out of their context in order to reach your favored conclusion. Taking away what you never had a right to in the first place is not a punishment. You don't have the right to be employed by me, or associate with me, or eat pie with me in my house. Not doing any of these things is not a restriction on your speech. They may be inconvenient for you, but that's your problem.
>>7842611
>gets rekt
>don't listen to him he's triggering me
Great way to argue, hombre.
>mongoloid
Cool it with the racist remarks.
>>7842624
>>>/tumbler/
>>7842618
>overlap
Pepsi would sue your ass and you would lose. Do you know what a contract is?
>>7842613
>Sure, private individuals and groups can restrict the expression of ideas through threats and violence, but that's already illegal
Well taking away someone's livelihood does the same.
>What you are calling a restriction of the exchange of ideas is simply someone deciding that they no longer want to associate with that person because they don't like what they are saying.
No, again taking away someone's job is more than association, it's their livelihood. We're silencing people by the fear that if they dare say their opinion they will be out on the street.
>>7842622
>Taking away what you never had a right to in the first place is not a punishment.
A punishment is the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. So firing me for saying something is punishing me for saying that.
>>7842628
Contracts should not be able to violate a person's rights. A contract that violates the laws of a country is null and void. Sadly we don't live in a country that values human rights over corporate interest.
>>7842637
>>7842634
That's it, if you are going to argue in what ifs and what you deem as the correct interpretation of freedom of.speech then there is point in moving on. The point is, today 8 of February 2016, any company has the right to fire you for what you think. This is also protected by the UN and fuck off with your punishment or censorship crap. That is your own personal view in how it should be but nowhere neer to what it means.
>>7842643
The interpretation I provided (which isn't my own) is closer to what freedom of speech in its fullest sense actually means and does a better job at reaching the set goals which is the free flow of information. Anyway I gotta go to bed. Night.
>>7842647
Then why it is not in the Constitution? We were discussing if what yale did was constitutional and you said it wasn't then you backpedaled into oblivion into saying "they're just worda" you massive faggot.
Gn you fucktard.
>>7842656
You're moving the goal post: the question is was what Yale did a violation of freedom of speech? Not are Yale's actions constitutional? And you know my answer, nowhere did I backpedal. That's just your imagination.
Night.
>>7842458
Your argument is absurd because it requires suppressing what has been ruled protected speech as others. You cannot say what you want without fear of social stigma because what you say influences what people think of you and they have the same freedom of speech. If they no longer want to associate with you after you say something retarded by doing something like firing you, that is similarly protected speech.
>>7843013
So I can fire people for being Muslim because I don't like what they're saying?
I can fire people for being gay because I don't like when they say gay marraige should be legal?
I can fire a women because she spoke out against openly displaying hentai tentacle rape art around the office?
>>7840844
thought police. nice that he read 1984 but calling these examples a thought police is extremely exaggerated. I hate it when people exaggerate, like he did about scientists. maybe it*s true that there are more autists AND nerds in science but to depreciate every scientist in general as an autistic nerd is against the facts. how we are supposed to get pussy when people watch shit shows like his?
>>7843021
>So I can fire people for being Muslim because I don't like what they're saying?
You can't fire them for being Muslim, but you could fire them for proselytizing during work hours or creating conflicts with other workers over religious beliefs.
>I can fire people for being gay because I don't like when they say gay marraige should be legal?
In most places, you can just fire them for being gay, no pretext necessary. If you are in a jurisdiction where they are protected from discrimination due to sexual orientation, espousing political views which create conflicts in the work place is a valid reason to fire someone.
>I can fire a women because she spoke out against openly displaying hentai tentacle rape art around the office?
See above. You aren't firing her because she is a woman, but because she is creating conflict.
>>7843021
You can fire people for any reason if you can figure out a way to be offended about it.
>>7840863
>Sam Harris
>SAM
>HARRIS
Off yourself
>>7843013
>requires suppressing what has been ruled protected speech as others.
No it doesn't, it expands protected speech. Anyone can reply to whatever has been said. Social stigma is a consequence not a punishment. It isn't a penalty but a condition. Now this condition is usually one which leads to penalties but it's not a penalty in itself. Same with having one's shit debunked is a consequence, not punishment. In of itself you're not penalized if your shit is debunked.
The problem is we have protection from speech from the government but not corporations. If corporations cannot discriminate based on religion then speech should be covered way more. Corporations should be as restricted if not more than the government to maximize individual freedoms.
