Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How to answer/address a comment made by my Daughter-in-law

Maestrophil

By Maestrophil
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
52 minutes ago, Esrom said:

Maybe I've missed something, but in reading his comments, all I've seen is him expressing views that may be unpopular, which DO serve to spur discussion and greater understanding.  I've seen worse disrespect by a frequent poster here I won't mention by name.  What is it with this new thing about trying to cancel free speech that doesn't match the prevailing, more enlightened view?  It makes me sick.

I resent your insinuation about me.

Also:

free_speech_2x.png

 

5
Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I resent your insinuation about me.

Also:

free_speech_2x.png

 

you fail to understand how "showing the door" to those with unpopular views utterly destroys freedom of speech.  Echo chambers are dangerous.  Brave souls died for our rights to free speech.  And pile ons are modern day mobs with pitchforks. 

And no, I wasn't referring to you in my earlier comment.

Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What are you talking about? No one is canceling free speech. What’s with the entitlement from these snow flakes that makes them assume private parties have to host their hate speech!?

I totally consider efforts calling for bans on posters they disagree with to be a form of cancelling free speech.  These online forums have become defacto marketplaces of ideas and debate.  I am not talking about hate speech, tho honest folks would admit that the designation of what constitutes "hate speech" or your designation of "snow flake" is subjective.  But conflating hate speech with "I don't like that guys point of view" are worlds apart.  And to me its more snow flake to be unable to tolerate a divergent view.

Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Assuming you are a Latter-day Saint, I assume you would have no problem with me coming into your worship service, standing at the pulpit and going into an anti-Mormon dialogue right!? I mean we wouldn’t want to interfere with my “free speech” rights. 

I consider private worship gatherings to be a different species than a public discussion forum, but again I'm speaking of banning persons with unpopular views, not those who may violate the terms of service.

Link to comment
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Esrom said:

you fail to understand how "showing the door" to those with unpopular views utterly destroys freedom of speech.  Echo chambers are dangerous.  Brave souls died for our rights to free speech.  And pile ons are modern day mobs with pitchforks. 

And no, I wasn't referring to you in my earlier comment.

No, it doesn’t. The First Amendment was not intended to defend people against social scorn or expulsion from groups or organizations.

2 minutes ago, Esrom said:

I totally consider efforts calling for bans on posters they disagree with to be a form of cancelling free speech.  These online forums have become defacto marketplaces of ideas and debate.  I am not talking about hate speech, tho honest folks would admit that the designation of what constitutes "hate speech" or your designation of "snow flake" is subjective.  But conflating hate speech with "I don't like that guys point of view" are worlds apart.  And to me its more snow flake to be unable to tolerate a divergent view.

You can consider it whatever you want but you are wrong.

Some online forums do fit that description. Others are not. It is up to the people that own and run them to set the rules as to what they want to allow and disallow. You are demanding that “free speech” requires that everyone let everyone into your house/forum/whatever so they can be heard. That is not what “freedom of speech” means or what it was meant to mean.

Snowflakes who want everyone to have to tolerate them invading every space made up this definition so they can scream loudly about how their constitutional rights are being violated every time they get the boot. No one should believe them.

4
Link to comment
  • Popular Post
SeekingUnderstanding Grand Master

SeekingUnderstanding

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Esrom said:

I consider private worship gatherings to be a different species than a public discussion forum,

This is most certainly not a public discussion forum any more than your church is. Membership on this forum is a privilege granted by the host just like church.  There are rules out the wazoo here. If you follow the rules you are allowed to post. If you don’t you are excommunicated- just like church. There are lots of cesspools on the internet. If this place isn’t to your liking go hang out in one of them. 

5 minutes ago, Esrom said:

but again I'm speaking of banning persons with unpopular views, not those who may violate the terms of service.

Ahab’s posts are against site TOS. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
7
Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

No, it doesn’t. The First Amendment was not intended to defend people against social scorn or expulsion from groups or organizations.

You can consider it whatever you want but you are wrong.

Some online forums do fit that description. Others are not. It is up to the people that own and run them to set the rules as to what they want to allow and disallow. You are demanding that “free speech” requires that everyone let everyone into your house/forum/whatever so they can be heard. That is not what “freedom of speech” means or what it was meant to mean.

Snowflakes who want everyone to have to tolerate them invading every space made up this definition so they can scream loudly about how their constitutional rights are being violated every time they get the boot. No one should believe them.

so which of my statements do you disagree with?  1) banning unpopular views undermines free speech.  2) echo chambers are dangerous.  3) brave souls died for our freedoms.  4) pile ons are but modern day mobs?

Because all I see is you trying to derail my argument into a convoluted denial of allowing free speech in forums without resorting to the weak minded "lets ban him".  Geez.

Link to comment
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Esrom said:

define extreme.  

Not interested in investing any more time in reading his stuff again, once is enough….plus board rules are not to debate mod rulings iirc, so really not interested.

Edited by Calm
2
Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is most certainly not a public discussion forum any more than your church is. Membership on this forum is a privilege granted by the host just like church.  There are rules out the wazoo here. If you follow the rules you are allowed to post. If you don’t you are excommunicated- just like church. There are lots of cesspools on the internet. If this place isn’t to your liking go hang out in one of them. 

Ahab’s posts are against site TOS. 

Public in the sense that people may join in the discussion under a set of rules established by the private host.  If your use of public holds, then I can't even think of any public forums.  That's why I said online forums have become such defacto.  And it's why so much litigation on tech control is forthcoming.  

Link to comment
  • Popular Post
SeekingUnderstanding Grand Master

SeekingUnderstanding

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Esrom said:

under a set of rules established by the private host.

And if you violate said rules you are kicked off. Which is what happened to Ahab. If you want to go visit sites which allow people like Ahab to post, no one is stopping you. Go create one even. I don’t want to hang out with people like Ahab, so that’s why I post at sites like this one. None of this has ANYTHING to do with free speech. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
5
Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And if you violate said rules you are kicked off. Which of what happened to Ahab. If you want to go visit sites which allow people like Ahab to post, no one outs stopping you. Go create one. I don’t want to hang out with people like Ahab, so that’s why I post at sites like this one. None of this has ANYTHING to do with free speech. 

I don't know Ahab.  The comments of the person I read and referred to were by someone else, who was deemed unpopular, and one or two said it was Ahab under a different name. I have no idea.  Also, I don't need you to invite me to visit or create such sites as you mention.  I don't believe we have anything further to discuss as you consistently try to squash anyone who disagrees with you.

Link to comment
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Esrom said:

well I'll tell you this ...if extreme comes to mean unpopular, it's very sad.  

I will give you one example that stood out in my mind…that a rapist wouldn’t be committing rape as long as he could convince the victim they hadn’t been raped, but consented to it…then rape would be consensual sex.

Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted

I'd certainly never agree with him on that, if that is a correct rendering of his comment.  In fact, I didn't agree with any of his points.  But to me, that's a separate matter.  I recall some years ago that there were efforts to have an LDS conservative pulled from the airwaves.  I didn't align with his views but I found it so offensive that people wanted to silence him.

Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will give you one example that stood out in my mind…that a rapist wouldn’t be committing rape as long as he could convince the victim they hadn’t been raped, but consented to it…then rape would be consensual sex.

I'd certainly never agree with him on that, if that is a correct rendering of his comment.  In fact, I didn't agree with any of his points.  But to me, that's a separate matter.  I recall some years ago that there were efforts to have an LDS conservative pulled from the airwaves.  I didn't align with his views but I found it so offensive that people wanted to silence him.

Link to comment
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Esrom said:

I'd certainly never agree with him on that, if that is a correct rendering of his comment.  In fact, I didn't agree with any of his points.  But to me, that's a separate matter.  I recall some years ago that there were efforts to have an LDS conservative pulled from the airwaves.  I didn't align with his views but I found it so offensive that people wanted to silence him.

I supported that movement.

39 minutes ago, Esrom said:

well I'll tell you this ...if extreme comes to mean unpopular, it's very sad.  

Why must extreme fascism be so unpopular???????

Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted

Fascism, extreme, toxic, gas lighting...all terms that no one can agree on.  It's because they're used subjectively to create wider division.  I used unpopular to differentiate from the common accepted view.  Mormonism itself fits that very definition since it began.  

Link to comment
Esrom Enthusiast

Esrom

Posted
Posted
Just now, Esrom said:

Fascism, extreme, toxic, gas lighting...all terms that no one can agree on.  It's because they're used subjectively to create wider division.  I used unpopular to differentiate from the common accepted view.  Mormonism itself fits that very definition since it began.  

Fascism, extreme, toxic, gas lighting...all terms that no one can agree on.  It's because they're used subjectively to create wider division.  I used unpopular to differentiate from the common accepted view.  Mormonism itself fits that very definition since it began.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...