Well guess what pal, I don't use death threats or rape jokes in my subjective trolling. I, however, acknowledge that others will use death threats and rape jokes as trolling.
That's not trolling. That's, again, (i) a literal criminal offence (depending on the country); (ii) blatant and obvious sexism; and (iii) a general embarrassment to humanity.
Dictionaries say a lot of things, but it's irrelevant to how the word is used by the SJWs at this point. When a society thinks racism/sexism/homophobia is wrong, when it is illegal to discriminate against somebody based on such factors, there is no need for special attention to be paid to "inclusiveness".
I'm going to zero-in on the bold portion of this post. Your subsequent message makes it quite clear you support discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (and, alternatively, gender), in respect of same-sex marriage. So, even by your own logic, there would be a need to pay attention to inclusiveness, since we aren't at this mystical point of pure equality.
As this thread points out, there is absolutely no consensus on what constitutes sexist behaviour - see e.g. the bizarre and unbelievable defenses of honest-to-god rape threats as "trolling". But by all means, feel free to ignore how words are literally defined and used.
That's an amusing definition of victory that wouldn't win many battles for sure. It's not in line with my views of what constitutes marriage but I've never bothered protesting or writing some politican about it. So do please go on and tell me what a terrible person I am. Do inform me how I am now trying to block a "fundamental right" that isn't listed in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or anywhere else. No person is denied the right to marriage anyway, but no sole citizen has the right to determine what the legal defintion of marriage is. So should I feel ashamed for supporting the exercise of democratic principles in believing that individual states should decide that for themselves by voting? (Isn't that outrageous concept what the SJWs wanted to crucify Orson Scott Card for a year ago?)
But I suppose I am just not an enlightened part of some "self-respecting circle". Which way to reeducation comrade? Because why bother trying to convince anybody that something is a good idea when you can just shame them instead?
I can't comment specifically on American Constitutional principles, because I'm not an American lawyer. That being said, there are a number of decisions available in the United States that specifically outline why it is that, for example, a state ban on same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional. The basic answer (you can read about the legal history of the case here: http://en.wikipedia....rauss_v._Horton) is that bans akin to California's Proposition 8 are a ban of the so-called "Equal Protection" clause of the US Constitution (which as I understand is the 14th Amendment to your Constitution). You can find a further discussion of how the "Equal Protection" clause applies to sexual orientation when it comes to its own wikipedia page (the link is available here: http://en.wikipedia....l_orientation).
Edit: There was just another influential appellate ruling that held that a Utah law outlawing same-sex marriage was held to be unconstitutional (see here:http://www.sltrib.co...ls-sex.html.csp), continuing the pattern by US courts in finding that, indeed, same-sex marriage is as much a fundamental right as anything deriving from the 14th Amendment.
I'll avoid the more inflammatory aspect of your post.
It is a funny thing to defend bigoted rhetoric by saying that you are trolling. The way I see it, there is a universal human right to free speech, which unfortunately includes the right to offend people for whatever reason you want, whether that be the belief that you are fighting to save someone's soul by offending them, offending someone just to amuse yourself, or just because you don't like the person you are trying to offend. Sure, our right to offend may hurt certain groups of people disproportionately and being a straight white male makes it easy for me to defend hate speech. However, I still believe our Right to Offend to be a necessary evil, because without it, governments could too easily ban legitimate criticism, by using some contrived excuse to call it hate speech.
Now with that said, I also believe that victims of hate speech have the right to strike back; to use their own freedom of speech to publicly shame bigots and call them out on their BS, and this is where the "I was just get trolling" defense gets absurd. Sure, if you want to say outrageous things in order to offend people for your own amusement, then you have the right to, but the fact that you only did it to amuse yourself does not make what you said less outrageous. If you say bigoted things, then you could argue that you are not actually a bigot yourself because you not actually believe the things you said, but it could also be argued that if you respected the feelings of the groups you smeared, you would find better ways to amuse yourself.
My point is, if you've decided to troll, you should be prepared to have people assume that you meant every word you said, and never assume that your motivation for offending people should make you immune to criticism. I've never really understood whether self-identified trolls actually feel like SJWs treat them unfairly, or if they just say so in order to troll people like me who admire legitimately funny trolls.
Free speech is not an unlimited right. It depends on the country, of course, but the traditional example is the idea that one is not free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded workplace when it endangers the life of others. You use the parallel of hate speech, but rape and death threats are not akin to hate speech at all. They are akin to harassment, and direct threats to the liberty of others. The analogy here is the old "the right to swing your fist ends at my face" line.
No one would argue - at least no one who is against what amounts to a dictatorship - that the state should censor offensive speech. If someone wants to have a pro-KKK speech, then we allow that. But we do not allow a member of the KKK to send death or rape threats to, because that is an entirely different kind of crime.
Otherwise, I think that the appropriate solution is for any private forum or corporation to simply release the real name of any person that engages in actual bigoted speech, with their offending line attached (so that the public can judge). If GreyWardenForever99 wants to say horribly sexist things, then the world should find out that 28 year old John Smith is a sexist.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
