GameBanshee Forums

What do you all think is more important:
- Freedom of speech, to say whatever you want
- Or not being allowed to discriminate people.

Note that discrimination when for example applying for a job dousn't change and is still a crime.

I will give my opinion when there are some reply's...

I'm sure the traditional debaters are typing up their posts right now, or will be soon. But I might as well voice my underaged opinion upon these politics, especially since I am studying the Civil War... hee. ^^

Anyways, the way I see discrimination is a way to express your bigot opinions about a race or a particular person through inequal treatment, especially in the work force. It still goes on today--many employers employ only white males. However, we do have laws against that, and require that many people hire certain amounts of minority, i.e. 4% Asian, 12% African, 5% Native American, etc. It's a very confusing issue. However, there is a major problem with this system. Many people who are of certain color may not be hired once their quotas for race/gender have been met. I did a project on this in History earlier in this year, so my knowledge is fairly recent.

The only reason this system came about is because of the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960's. With the abolishment of the old "separate but equal" rule, came the law that we must hire certain number of minority of each individual race. Where I am, there is a very wide variety of races, and for many jobs you must speak several languages, i.e. Spanish, Italian, French, Japanese, Chinese, German, and Laodecian. It's difficult to get a job in many fields, especially psychological help, if you cannot speak the language of all the local minority.

Now back on the topic of the debate. Freedom of speech was originally intended to mean you can voice your opinion. However, that does not mean to attack people with words--the attacked people have rights too. You can't make a CD that says "F*** President Bush he is a freak" on it and expect to get away with it. That is not freedom of speech or expression--that is harassment. America has very strict laws against harassment. But many musicians today have been taking this too far. Especially in the Rap genre. Many rap artists say derogatory comments about white people in their music, and if you take someone like Eminem who just insults whoever he feels like, he won't make it much farther. Harassment is illegal. If you were expressing Freedom of Speech, you would say "I don't like George Bush because..." rather than "F*** the President, F*** the Government, F*** this country". I'm sure there is a song with lyrics like that.

Discriminating against people and calling it freedom of speech is one of the worst things you can do. Discrimination is apparent in much music, particularly metal and rap. The sad part about that is that many young people in America willingly listen to this music, and pick up on the discriminating messages portrayed in the vocals. There is a fine line between music and bogus speech. If you listen to a song on an older station, or on a Country station, you're less likely to hear Neo-Nazi people voice their opinion, than if you were to put on something that plays music that if you listen carefully to the words, you're disgusted. I'm not saying that older music or country music isn't bad, I mean there's some good in all genres. I just feel as though more people use music to portray values of indecency and filth to young people in some attempt to create a cult, rather than through literature that someone could buy separately and read on their own. True, people do choose to listen to that stuff, but that's only because they like the way it sounds. But who wants to listen to people sing quickly written crap about how they want to get high, steal, kill, and rape women? Is this really what we want the next generation to believe in? Or is there no escape now?

The times are changing... and in a politically correct world, political incorrectness is allowed to thrive under the guise of "Freedom of Speech". A closer inspection would show many songs and books are indeed illegal, because all they do is harass and discriminate. Nobody needs that stuff when there's always something better out there... and I for one don't want to waste my time listening or reading about murdering and breaking laws.

P.S. I don't believe that ALL metal/rap is bad, but a good chunk of it is.

Now my hand is asleep... and so is the teacher in here... oooooh...

Excellent thread. .

I am with SS (can we call you that now?...nah..a little disrespectful). Alright, I am with Shadow-S to an extent. A lot of people say 'Who are we to decide who's opinion should be expressed and who's shouldn't?', but to go for that one cold equally well say 'Who are we to decide whether killing people is bad or not?'. The fact is that claiming that people should have a right to say whatever they want whenever is just the same as giving people the right to do whatever they want...unless one considers physical damage the only type of damage for which one should be punished for inflicting.
Saying that, there can be big gaps in this.

'You hurt my feelings and defamed my character!'
'No I didn't.'

In a situation like that, there can be no proof really, and serious criminal issues can fall to human judgement, which is always dangerous and bad, because obviously everyone's judgement is different...

Can't see a way around that one just now, and need to go watch TV. Will post interesting things later...

Don't know if I am too convict( not good to be this way), but I don't feel greater doubts on this duality; clear from what I see;

More important to not discriminate people.

By Stilgar:
What do you all think is more important:
- Freedom of speech, to say whatever you want
- Or not being allowed to discriminate people.

The first phrase seems selfish. Some can speech more and loudly than others. Some control media better than others. Obviously this phrase benefict the strongers; an in extreeme observance can be justification of major agreessions. Like for example past KKK speechs.

The second phrase is based on the principle of solidariety and equity, benefict the minority, favor the non-agression and is an example and promoter of cidadany and peacefull relationship in the modern siciety.

AR has a point, even if he is not communicating it in the most user friendly manner possible. (Or he did a minute ago, but Sleep deleted his posts because they were offensive).

Where shall we put the limit? Obviously, if I want to, I can sit here and think about how much I hate foreigners, or whatever, and noone will stop me. Even if I am racist (for example), as long as I don't try and do anything about it, noone cares. So how big is the difference between thinking, saying, and doing?

Originally posted by frogus
AR has a point, even if he is not communicating it in the most user friendly manner possible. (Or he did a minute ago, but Sleep deleted his posts because they were offensive).

Who is "AR"? the IAM NOTAR guy?

By Frogus:
So how big is the difference between thinking, saying, and doing?

The limit must be placed in the "saying" and "doing"; because only these two act( of the three proposed) can offend , hurt .....


I think this is the diference, and is not little






BTW, This IAM NOTAR guy, who will not least too much here, is a great example, and argumentative strenght for this thread and for my first post . How better was if he only think such kind thing he is typing here.

Originally posted by AragornReturms
why do you keep deleting me sleep? i have posted nothing offensive. i have broken no rules. that is irresponsible.

You are being deleted, or whatever it is your talking about, because Buck made a decision to ban your account from the forums. By returning, you are in fact disregarding Buck's decision.

Aragorn, since you're still reading Gamebanshee threads, I suggest rather than constantly trying to get back in, why not just stay out for a while, and then ask Buck if he'll let you come back. Although after all your alter egos I don't think he'll be so leniant.

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield
Although after all your alter egos I don't think he'll be so leniant.

ROFLMAO

Would you be? I believe Buck tried to be leniant with an ex-member and had to end up banning (this person). Some will never learn. This is a fact of life. I say Buck needs to call (this banned member's) ISP and complain.

Where's McBane??? Let's see if we can sue.

Thorin's suggestion makes a lot of sense, AR. You might still be able to salvage your chances of being reinstated, but as things stand now you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that this is Buck's site, considering GB doesn't pay for itself and Buck often has to put in funding out of his own earnings the least we should do is abide by his decisions.

Who is "AR"? the IAM NOTAR guy?

He is a banned member. He used to be called Aragorn Returns, and is now making some slightly silly attempts to get back in, under names like I AM NOT AR and Aragorn Returms. However, I can tell you that he is absolutely not a Nazi, and is not so dumb as to just post racism for the sake of it. He is making a point (admittedly he's also making loads of sick tasteless and defeatist posts too) - or at least I read a serious point between the lines of his post. He's making a point subtely however, not just saying what he thinks. We could discuss language and meaning in another place. The same sentence takes on a different meaning when different people say it, so when a non-racist says racist things, we have to try and see what the real meaning is.

The limit must be placed in the "saying" and "doing"; because only these two act( of the three proposed) can offend , hurt .....

I agree. Now, if only there were someone with a different point of view...

Okay, I'll bite.

Idealogically I would say freedom of speech is more important so long as both sides of any issue have the same freedom of speech, and partial freedom of speech doesn't go far enough. However, being a part of the majority race etc. here in Australia I have rarely been a victim of discrimination on any grounds besides that of personality and choice of lifestyle, so I can't really give any judgement that is equally informed on both sides of the issue.

Sorry for the spam...

Just in case someone wanders why Aragorn Returns was banned you can see this thread.

He seemed such a nice person before.. What made him post something like this?

What did he have to say as IAM NOTAR? (I've called my latest BG character that, it actually sounds like a name)

Aragorn Returms told me specifically not to believe anything that I AM NOT AR had to say. ...

anyway, back on topic:

Idealogically I would say freedom of speech is more important so long as both sides of any issue have the same freedom of speech, and partial freedom of speech doesn't go far enough.

So are you saying that I should be free to say that all black people are subhuman scum, as long as they can say the same about me?

EDIT - and more importantly, should G W Bush be allowed to say that he hates all foreigners (for example)...he has freedom of speech too, right?

Freedom of speech

IMHO, anyone should have the right to say anything they dang well please. Hateful talk is distasteful, but by no means does it have the ability to harm people – it does not violate their rights in any way. Maybe some of us are minorities, and maybe we have heard some pretty offensive talk about our people. So? I mean, if some idiot comes up to me and goes off about how people like me shouldn’t be allowed in the US, or whatever, my immediate reaction is: wow – what an idiot this dude is. I don’t get mad, I don’t get sad, I just plain ignore it. Why on Earth give an ear to ideas which are so irrational? There is no point. Let the rednecks talk all they want – the more they talk, the more stupid they look, and the less people will listen to them.

it does not violate their rights in any way

There are a great many things one can do to someone else which are incredibly cruel and bad, but do not violate their Human Rights. Are you talking about Human Rights, or some other rights? Abstract rights? In any case, we are discussing whether one should have a right not to be discriminated against verbally. What about those less impervious than you?

Originally posted by frogus
Aragorn Returms told me specifically not to believe anything that I AM NOT AR had to say. ...

anyway, back on topic:

So are you saying that I should be free to say that all black people are subhuman scum, as long as they can say the same about me?

EDIT - and more importantly, should G W Bush be allowed to say that he hates all foreigners (for example)...he has freedom of speech too, right?

I just realized I misspelt ideologically.

In a nutshell, yes. So long as they have the same right to respond as you do, and so long as you accept that there will be consequences (people will change their opinions of you according to what you say etc.-very important for a politician like Bush), I don't see any problems with freedom of speech big enough to warrant placing limitations of it.

However, as I said before, I'm not exactly the best person to argue in this as I haven't undergone serious discrimination, so my experience in this is limited.

What did IAM NOTAR have to say, anyway?

What I AM NOT AR had to say was very offensive (to some people) and not really suitable for reproduction....It wasn't very interesting anyway...

Anyway, why is it that people should be able to *say* what they like, as long as they accept the consequences, but are not allowed to *do* what they like, even if they do accept the consequences?

The usual post-banned AR spiel, then? As long as I didn't miss out on anything worth reading.

As for why people can't do what they like if they accept the consequences, I don't know. Whilst I can see the point behind laws that prohibit theft, murder, and things that hurt other people, if you're not making trouble for other people I see no reason why you should be prevented from doing as you please. The best example of this I can think of is the anti-cannabis laws that are so prevalent nowadays. I won't go into detail on that issue, as it has already been discussed in SYM.