Free speech.

[pritch]

Your rationale is flawed.

Thank you. If you had agreed with me I would have been worried.

[Gremlin]

Free speech. Spouting crap.

Not the same and shouldn't be confused with each other.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Should anyone dare to voice an opinion outside the norm they're instantly deemed to be a conspiracy theorist, a peddler of hate speech or any other form of social pariah that is the current flavour of the month.

There's a particularly vocal band on here, who with the complete complicity of the moderators, will work their little socks off to get topics they don't want discussed moved from the view of the wider public.

The corollary of your free speech is my free speech. and my ability, some might say duty. to call bullshit, or debate or ridicule things. You can't have it both ways: You can't be free to say whatever the fuck you want, even if in my opinion it is retarded, and me not be free to voice my opinion.

So, your premise doesnt work.

Also, to address your final paragraph, at what point did you begin to mistake this for a democracy? It isn't, The internet isn't. Its actually a theocracy or maybe an oligarchy. So, the powers that be, i.e. the people who OWN IT and RUN IT, don't have to do other than whatever pleases them. and if it pleases them to PD stuff or delete it entirely, then that's the way it is. It is literally a case of if you dont like it and they wont change it, your remaining choice is to leave.

Sorry to have to break it to you like that.

[Katman]

All you could see was Mills and Boon.

I was being polite.

[Katman]

The corollary of your free speech is my free speech. and my ability, some might say duty. to call bullshit, or debate or ridicule things. You can't have it both ways: You can't be free to say whatever the fuck you want, even if in my opinion it is retarded, and me not be free to voice my opinion.

And I have no problem with that - as long as people are happy that ridicule can go both ways.

Also, to address your final paragraph, at what point did you begin to mistake this for a democracy?

I didn't.

You should probably try reading the thread.

[Mike.Gayner]

Oh look another one of these threads.

I enjoy my freeze peach for dessert.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Democracy at its most basic means that everyone gets to express their opinion but whatever option gets the majority of support gets to call the shots. One might argue that the majority of the members on here do not share your opinions Katman, in fact they tend to the opposite view and that is what holds sway. Democracy of sorts?

Limitations on academic freedom and curtailing of the freedom of speech are not new ideas. In fact as well as not being new, the debate never went away. Free speech always seems to be a problem to those who find themselves in disagreement or the wrong side of what is being expressed. For example, it would not be the first time the Vice Chancellor of a University takes steps to control what the academics at their University say in the public domain. Its all about power and control.

That aspiration to power and control does not exclude those trying to persuade others to the legitimacy of the theories (conspiracy or otherwise) they are espousing. I do not actually know you as a person but the vast majority of the posts I have read which come from your account could justifiably make me think you are an intolerant individual who struggles with those who disagree with or denigrate your position. I have no doubt you will correct me if I am wrong, as is your right. I appreciate the language is directed at a special few but name calling and keyboard abuse is not actually a way to persuade others of the validity of your argument. I couldn't give a fig that you use colourful language, its the sentiment behind the words which counts.

I agree with you, it is right and proper that we do not accept things at face value. Government should not be trusted absolutely. There are individuals who do NOT seek the public interest yet are in positions of power. The Israelis are not blameless. The NZDF is not without flaws.
That all said we should not accept without question anything that brings these or other institutions or individuals into question. Rightly or wrongly conspiracy theorists do seem to accept without question anything which challenges the establishment. That does not help their position and adds to the cry-wolf tendencies associated with those theories.

Something I try to remember (and often fail to implement) is a great piece of advice attributed to William Howard Taft: "Do not write so that you can be understood, write so that you cannot be misunderstood" Maybe if we all tried to do that when making our point, then others will not have to be called cunts, fuckwits, retards, morons and silly people.

[Mike.Gayner]

LOL, this guy.

[Katman]

Democracy at its most basic means that everyone gets to express their opinion but whatever option gets the majority of support gets to call the shots. One might argue that the majority of the members on here do not share your opinions Katman, in fact they tend to the opposite view and that is what holds sway. Democracy of sorts?

So if the majority get to shout down the minority, who are the intolerant ones?

[Ulsterkiwi]

So if the majority get to shout down the minority, who are the intolerant ones?

Well my point there was about what defines an environment as democratic. If everyone gets to state their view and then decide on what option to take I am not sure what that has to do with tolerance necessarily. Intolerance I would have thought, is more about refusing to accept that there is more than one position or indeed reality. That is an issue if we are to have free speech (that was your original thought was it not?). An environment which is intolerant is not the same as one where majority decisions take place. How do any of those enjoying suffrage get to make their choice? If they cannot hear all view points (as might happen in an intolerant environment) then democracy is being compromised.
If the majority decision is in favour of something you want changed then it is your responsibility to persuade the majority of the validity of your position and get the majority to decide otherwise.
A style of argument which runs along the lines of "you fucking sheeple are all morons, can't you understand what I am trying to explain to you? fuckwits!" is not the most effective way to achieve that change of position.

[Katman]

Well my point there was about what defines an environment as democratic. If everyone gets to state their view and then decide on what option to take I am not sure what that has to do with tolerance necessarily. Intolerance I would have thought, is more about refusing to accept that there is more than one position or indeed reality. That is an issue if we are to have free speech (that was your original thought was it not?).

And I've made no mention of the idea of democracy - other than to say I'm well aware that KB isn't run as one.

My point is that we're seeing more and more instances of the majority thinking it is ok to shut down the free speech of the minority.

I think that's fundamentally wrong.

[Ulsterkiwi]

And I've made no mention of the idea of democracy - other than to say I'm well aware that KB isn't run as one.

Which sort of qualifies as mention of democracy...
In any event, you chose to pick up on my mention of the idea of democracy, so why not include it in the discussion? After all, free speech is often considered a hallmark of democracy. Others specifically address the idea of KB being/not being a democracy, I was contributing to the discussion with another angle. (A discussion by the way, I would consider worthwhile)

My point is that we're seeing more and more instances of the majority thinking it is ok to shut down the free speech of the minority.

I think that's fundamentally wrong.

And I think fundamentally that you are correct.

There is a double edge however to allowing freedom of speech. I will hazard a guess that you might just agree with me. Here is one scenario:
For many years, homosexual relationships were illegal. Marriage or union between same sex couples was illegal, or at best not possible.
Those laws were in place because of the morality of the time. Campaigning, debate and a shift in public opinion led to that being changed. The majority were persuaded that the previous position was untenable, not one for progressive right thinking societies. The argument for change won over.
Now, does that mean those who are in opposition to that change should be quiet? Does it mean they should not be allowed to hold their position? Does it mean their value set has no place in society and should not be heard? Should they be barred from protest against liberalisation of the laws around same sex relationships and marriage? I would say absolutely not in every case. They have the right to free speech, the right to express their view and the right to try and persuade others of that view.
I do not believe we can ever say, right, the law is now correct, she should not allow for any deviation or change from that, we KNOW we have things the way it should be.
If that were the case then slavery, rape within marriage, limited suffrage, discrimination due to gender, race and sexuality as a few examples would all still be very much part of our society from a legal standing.
If the change which free speech brought about is correct, then it should stand the test of counter argument by itself, without the help of others determining what can and cannot be thought or said.

Another way to look at it. Jim Jeffries discusses gun control in the US. He talks about the assertion of 2nd amendment rights. That the statement is often made: "you cannot change my 2nd amendment rights" or "you cannot change the constitution and what it gives me". He (very cleverly) points out the element of the constitution which asserts those rights is THE SECOND AMENDMENT. It only happened because of change to the original. At some point it was determined that things needed updating or changing. So why not again?

Its with respect to this point that I think the issue lies. Noone has the right to determine their way of thinking is the right one, no matter how populist or politically correct that thinking may be. In a democracy (sorry, that word again) we exercise freedom of speech and get to make our own minds up, rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse. I happen to believe we can expect to NOT be called a fucktard in the process.

[Swoop]

What gets my goat is the name-calling, threats and generally immature responses. That's not what constitutes a discussion and is why I can't be arsed on KB.

I presume you are referring to steve's automatic "Pavlovian" response to criticism against some of his attention-seeking threads? Have you received any of his vitriolic red-rep that confirms his psychological dispositions?

Free speech. Spouting crap. Not the same and shouldn't be confused with each other.

Spot on!

My point is that we're seeing more and more instances of the majority thinking it is ok to shut down the free speech of the minority.

Perhaps you might see it as people not tolerating or enabling your simple, attention seeking disorder? I doubt it though. You refuse to accept any position apart from your own and diverging to another positional viewpoint is as likely as a religious fanatic swapping sides. So "free speech" is a straw man argument you put up to defend your own issues.

You could elect to leave the site, if people "annoy" you so much.
Or simply commence your threads in Pointless Drivel and permit them to be repositioned into R&R if/when a discussion becomes sensible? Food for thought?

[HenryDorsetCase]

You should probably try reading the thread.

As if! why would I start that now?!??!

[HenryDorsetCase]

it is right and proper that we do not accept things at face value. Government should not be trusted absolutely. There are individuals who do NOT seek the public interest yet are in positions of power. The Israelis are not blameless. The NZDF is not without flaws.

Hippie! Commie! hippie-commie!!