/lit/ - Literature

Thread deletion in 5

>>7339861
Wait, why?

try this

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

>>7339867
Cause we don't like free speech 'round these parts stranger

Hate speech isn't free speech and all that jazz

>>7339870
haha, upvoted ;p

>>7339872
thanks man

>>7339875
k

>>7339856
Umm, "free speech" is a defensive construct of established power structures to allow them to stealthily determine the narrative through money-backed media and astroturfing. People who babble on about free speech are the same types who carry rifles into restaurants and have sex with drunk girls like its no big deal.

>>7339898
Unsubtle, but appreciated.
>mfw free speech will soon be replaced by safe speech on campus

>>7339898
>have sex with drunk girls like its no big deal
wat about drunk men?

>>7339908
Stupid, stupid frogposter, reacting violently to his loss of privilege and lashing out when asked to treat others like real people.

>>7339917
You mean act like pussies?

>>7339927
Now you're just being childish. Let's have a reasonable dialogue about what kind of speech is appropriate from an oppressor group sharing space with marginalized bodies.

>>7339936
You talking like a pussy. Accept that people are going to say things you don't like and fucking deal with it.

>>7339936
If you are not a troll, please define the "oppressor group" and explain what you mean by "marginalized bodies."

>>7339898
>>7339917
>>7339936
I know this is satire, but it's extremely worrisome to think that people want to ban free speech that's offensive. Walking on eggshells to please everyone isn't being respectful, it's treating minorities like children. I suppose that's what millennials want, though, because it seems anything at all ego-bruising is considered intolerant. A world without the freedom to offend is a world without the freedom to dissent.

>>7340015
It takes about 5 seconds to learn which words aren't acceptable in a professional environment. Not sure why you need to walk on eggshells

>>7340022
Demonstrably false. There are nuanced things that you should not mention depending on the nature of your work.

I wouldn't expect an unemployed undergraduate to understand.

>>7340022
That's not the issue here, it's long been unacceptable to shout "NIGGER FAGGOT TRANNY CUNT LARDASS" in the workplace.

>>7340015
>implying anything that isn't violent hatespeech is "treading on eggshells"
strawmanning as usual

>>7340032
Well fuck you too, retard

>>7340026
>cries demonstrably false without providing a demonstration
>makes an argument from supposed authority
You'll forgive me if I take nothing you say seriously

THE WORLD CANNOT MOVE FORWARD UNTIL ALL WHITE "PEOPLE" ARE FINALLY CLEANSED FROM THIS EARTH

>>7340026
Are you buttmad about things you can't say in the workplace? what would you say if you weren't being so horribly repressed?

>>7340026
Tell me about one of those unmentionable nuanced things. I'll bet it's self evident or trivially deduced by anyone without a developmental disorder.

>>7340044
I don't need to demonstrate anything to you, bum. The politics of different industries vary, but once again I wouldn't expect an undergraduate to understand.

>>7340046
Huh?

>>7340055
> I'll bet it's self evident or trivially deduced by anyone without a developmental disorder
Yet there are plenty of competent people that lose their jobs each year because of this. Your head is up your ass.

>>7340056
You're whinging about free speech. So presumably there are things you want to say but can't say because you'll be vilified. I'm wondering what the things are that you want to say.
everyone brace yourself for more torrents of ad hominem from this poor confused anon

>>7340045
>be white, cis, heterosexual male
>see some dindu landwhale tweets this
>assemble the WOTO security commission (White Oppressor Treaty Organization)
>determine that we must make a preemptive strike as a justifiable act of self-defense
>wipe out all shitskins and feminists

Is this really the american intellectual elite?

>>7340063
they're too socially retarded to keep their jobs

>>7340056
Spoken like a true crumb. All vitriol, no substance.

>>7340073
I blame affirmative action

>>7340022
>It takes about 5 seconds to learn which words aren't acceptable in a professional environment.
Yeah, except this is no longer about what's said 'in a professional environment'. Having certain thoughts at all, even if you expressed them years ago, can now make you anathema to corporations.

>>7340067
Openly aligning yourself with any politician, taking sides on controversies like abortion, wealth redistribution, drugs and other various social policies. Your views on the economy and on religion can all get you fired (especially if you mention them to your coworkers or post on social media) or ostracized at the very least.

> more torrents of ad hominem
Such sweet irony.

I love these snarky one liners you call responses, it just reeks of undergraduate.

>>7340081
That's always been true. If your boss found out you were a Communist you'd be looking for a new job.

KILL ALL HETEROSEXUALS

>muh free speech
why is it that the only people who complain about this are hicks and edgy 20 something libertoon white males, the exact kinds of people who dont deserve free speech in the first place?

look kids, you cant just go around calling african americans niggers IRL.. it doesnt make you cool or funny. it makes you a dick.

It's really not a change in political climate at all, it's just a change in representation. Gays are visible enough that it's rude to make homophobic statements. Blacks constitute more of academia so they have more of a say in the direction of discourse. You'll notice that no laws are following this so called degeneration of free speech

>>7340087
Fifty years ago, sure. And we now call that McCarthyism and look back on that period of American history with shame.

>>7340075
This is not always the case. Seemingly innocent statements can have you talking to HR if not ousted immediately.

>>7340079
Once again, there is no reason to explain this to undergraduates because all working professionals understand it. The irony in your post betrays your unemployed, undergraduate nature.

>>7340082
Why do you think anyone cares about your opinions on any of this shit?

Talk about to people who care like friends or relatives who bring out or politicians who supposedly are there to represent you.

>>7340099
But the entire argument of libertarian bros is based in "le end of free speech" and "PC fascism"

>>7340114
Excellent reading comprehension, my undergraduate friend. Try and follow the chain of replies will you.

>>7340092
People need to be less offended

>>7340092
You need something to bitch about to make yourself feel better. For SJWs it's racism or sexism. For these guys, it's free speech and gun rights.

>>7340115
What the fuck is libertarian about supporting free speech? If anything, libertarians are the ones on the side of corporations' rights to fire anyone for anything, including what they think. It's basic liberal, humanist decency that says a person's right to express a certain political viewpoint should not damn them to financial destitution.

>>7340119
Why do you think people should tolerate your opinions on social media?

>>7340120
>it's a moral imperative that I never be compelled to examine my own language

>>7340082
Most workplace contracts these days include a caveat against bringing up/discussing or associating the company with 'inflammatory subjects.' The companies simply do not want the drama of two employees feuding over 'how drunk makes a rape' or 'is killing a fetus murder' - the company itself doesn't care if you're pro or against, and it doesn't care how strongly you believe in these issues, it cares about productivity. Arguing employees are not producing, indignant employees are not producing, a company maligned on social media is not able to sell as much, and so its productivity is hurt.

In any case, why should you be allowed to bring your personal opinions into a professional environment? Why shouldn't you be fired for breaching the contract you signed when you started working for the company?

You site something about your views on the economy getting you fired if you mention them on social media. What you're really angry about is corporate penetration into our personal lives, not a free speech infringement. As another anon said, being sympathetic to the communists in the sixties got you fired, but if you were sympathetic is was much easier to hide it than it is now in 2015.

>>7340127
Lol all the homeless people saying "it all went downhill when I disagreed with #BlackLivesMatter on Facebook"

>>7340140
Please slit your own throat, yuppie scum. :^)

>>7340109
>undergraduate
Time to buy a new horse, buddy.

>>7340131
Not going full retard with free speech, but the way things are going with "trigger warnings" and "microagressions" people are becoming way to sensitive to language.

>>7340139
>You site something about your views on the economy getting you fired if you mention them on social media. What you're really angry about is corporate penetration into our personal lives, not a free speech infringement. As another anon said, being sympathetic to the communists in the sixties got you fired, but if you were sympathetic is was much easier to hide it than it is now in 2015.
Well, we have clear cases of corporate penetration into personal lives now manifesting itself as free speech infringement. And again, that aspect of that period of American history is looked back upon with shame, and has been for several decades.

I haven't read this but I like the guy who wrote it http://www.amazon.com/Speech-Pornography-Radical-Attacks-Doctrine/dp/0813327091

Also idk OP, almost nobody really thinks your right to free speech ends when other people get offended. They usually think it's their right to shout you down and shut you up, but that's their free speech too. I'm not really so worried about curbing rights to free speech until somebody's arresting you for your dumb comments, which definitely isn't happening. (Above-referenced hate speech and pornography laws excepted, of course.

>>7340154
you hurt my feelings

>>7340157
europe is a different story

>>7340156
>Well, we have clear cases of corporate penetration into personal lives now manifesting itself as free speech infringement.
You're still free to hold those opinions and to speak them. Potential unemployment due to breaching your contract might pressure you into keeping your opinion to yourself, but it's not an outright denial of your right to speak your mind. You can still go off on rants about the inherent inferiority of african americans who probably deserved to get shot, but you don't have the right to drag the company along for the ride. By firing you they're protecting themselves and every other employee under their care. Personally, I think it's a little bit silly to think your right to say something unpopular trumps everyone elses right to work in a drama-free environment.

>>7340165
Explain to me where and how in Europe your right to free speech ends when someone gets offended. Houllebecq hasn't been arrested. I know about Nazi laws in Germany, which are dumb. What else?

>>7340176
You don't think corporations shouldn't have the right to fire people for expressing opinions deemed unpalatable on facebook or twitter? Free speech is not just the first amendment. Corporations are as oppressive and unequal a force in most people's lives as government is, and if you give them arbitrary power to dictate what a person can and cannot openly profess or debate on his own time, you really have no basis at all to claim to care about working class people.

Hell, if we want to be pedantic about it, unless they sew your mouth shut, even the government can't stop you from expressing your opinions. All they can do is lock you in a cell somewhere where you're free to express yourself to your heart's content.

>>7340154
>the way things are going
Slippery slope fallacy

>>7340092
Why do white males not deserve free speech?

Free speech is pretty gay to be honest.

>You can't say that, it's offensive!
Isn't that the point, nigger?

>>7340220
But don't they have the freedom to articulate their offense and don't others have the freedom to respond to that in whatever way they wish?

>>7340157
you just described 'hate speech'

>>7340119
Do you understand what reading comprehension means?

all i wanted was some book recommendations...

free speech is written into the constitution, sjw safe spaces arent, luckily the founding fathers werent gigantic self hating faggots.

Free speech is a bourgeoisie idea
Even /r/Anarchism opposes it

>>7340249
>Free speech is a bourgeoisie idea
So is Marxism.

>>7340239
I hope you get triggered in a public place and lose it. It will happen to you eventually. Safe spaces are a requirement for a functional society.

>>7340257
this desu
Syndicalism is the only TRUE workingmans ideology

>>7340249
>Free speech is a bourgeoisie idea
>/r/anarchism
where am I?
help?

>>7340303
>>7340249
/r/anarchism is filled with liberal SJW females
Not real anarchists
Dont they realize that the state is the only thing that prevents me from using my might to turn them into my property?
Ive never understood how a female can be an anarchist
I'd have a harem of (female) sex slaves and shit without the state

>>7340249
>go on /r/anarchism
>Fallout 4 fans, how much potential do you think player settlements will have to reflect an Anarchist community?
wew lad

>>7340249
>b-but it's borjawsee!
'I have no argument: leftism edition'.

How can you have non-free speech without a government to repress dissenters, anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot5TgvvOYdA

>>7340310
anarchism doesn't mean a lack of laws you idiot

>>7340223
exactly this. for so many of these people free speech = me saying whatever offensive shit I want and being immune from criticism or scrutiny

>>7340310
>using my might
lol

the writings of thomas paine might be a good perspective

>>7340368
Nobody thinks this, you fool. It's just a liberal strawman. I can say whatever I want, you can respond however you want, whatever.

As media and the internet become more privatized, though, we're going to see a more serious threat to free speech. What happens if my views threaten profit margins? I'll have no place to express them without Reddit/Facebook/Twitter deleting them; if 4chan shuts down, there'll be nowhere with complete freedom of expression on the internet.

>>7340392
It may not be a view held in this thread, there are certainly people who have that attitude though so its not always a strawman.
I agree with you that that is a real threat to free speech.

>>7340363
>>7340381

>anarchism doesn't mean a lack of laws
who would enforce these laws?
Keep in mind me and my friends are all very powerful and would simply form our own laws, where sex slavers are permitted
None would threaten us because any man with the might too fight us would simply join us,the only opposition would be from women and moralistic wealkings

>>7340458
>implying you wouldnt immediately abolish sex slavery and start coming after me when I take your qt twink teenage son and turn him out

>>7340597
I woudlnt even know
THe state is the only thing that makes males raise children
In a truly free society I wouldnt even know my kids

>>7340458
maybe research what anarchist political systems have been thought up before you open your gaping retarded mouth. many intelligent men have supported anarchism and syndicalism - it doesn't mean chaos and lawlessness.

i would suggest reading a book since you're on a literature board - start with proudhon, then kropotkin, and finally read bakunin. make sure you read marx aswell so you understand bakunin's arguments.

do you really think those people who support a system of anarchism are so retarded as to think it would work out with no system at all? jesus christ. anarchism is an abolition of hierarchy- a pure direct democracy and jury state, for example, could fall into anarchism.

>>7340626
You do not define what anarchy is
ive read Stirner, go fuck yourself

>>7340626
>b-but my theorists say
it doesn't fucking matter what shitty idealists say, what matters is the reality
the idea that hierarchy could ever be abolished is absolutely ridiculous

>>7340626
If anarchism is true, then god exists, but god doesnt exist so anarchism is false

>>7340650
can you show me the data that shows that any unhierarchical collectivism is unsustainable? I will even accept any recent theories. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is just something you thought up and you have nothing meaningful to back it up.

>>7340635
put a woman in charge, theyll fuck shit up

>>7340650
this
I would love to see the look on your face when me and my friends, who are all 6'+ and trained in military tactics rob you and enslave your female aquantences before disposing you, as you sit just rattling off "e-excuse me guys proudhon says that under anarchism you're techniqually still no allowed to do this". Might even keep you around so me and my bros could cuk you for the rest of your life

>>7340675
you would go to jail. we don't need a hierarchy for a justice system to work.

how did the intelligence of lit drop so quickly after /his/ came? what the hell happened here

>>7340683
>you would go to jail.
No,I'd rather not

>>7340683
>we don't need a hierarchy for a justice system to work.
oh yeah, private prisons sure are a great idea

>>7340695
>>7340675
I wish you would just read literally JUST the wikipedia page on anarchism before posting in this thread.

>>7340668
>can you show me the data that shows that any unhierarchical collectivism is unsustainable?
try the entirety of human history
how about you prove that it can work

>>7340704
hierarchy would naturally emerge,and what would quickly develop would just be feudalism
Your theories mean nothing to me as my might justifies all actions against you and your property
I would make your very ideas my property

>>7340707
>a form of government hasn't been tried yet
>therefor it cannot work
do you have to try to be this stupid?

>>7340711
apply yourself

>>7340715
>hasn't been tried yet
>what is Catalonia and the Free Territory

>>7340715
>>7340711
>>7340707
>anarchists who believe in objective morality, laws, and states
Literally libertarians who smoke weed
Get outta town Kiddo, if you only knew the atrocious things human beings are capable of you would never advocate for an ideology as inherently violent as anarchy would be

>>7340109
you're the only undergrad here chief

>>7340751
please read anything. maybe "a history of anarchism" or chomsky's "on anarchism" or really just anything at all about the subject.

>>7340761
anarchism can only exist if everyone literally agreed on everything, which is just a fantasy that exists in the delusional mind of the anarchist.

>>7340761
>"read this"
*adjusts banana facemask*
*lights molotov*
>"fuck capitalism, anarchy FOREVER!"
*smashes burning molotov bottle in your face*
*rapes you furiously*
>"pfffft no police are gunna save you now"
*cums softly*
Literally life onanarchism

>>7340770
yeah democracy never works

>>7340770
>>7340793
>Not being an AnCap
Best of both worlds desu senpai

>>7340793
the unhierarchial democracies that anarchies believe in don't work. they can't even exist.

>>7340800
A corporate bootlicker and shitty roads

utopia

If anarchists don't believe in hierarchy, why does /r/anarchism have active mods?

Do any of you so called "anarchists" believe in "natural rights"
if the answer is yes you are not an anarchist

>>7340818
yeah, they are VICIOUS sjw that will ban you for the slightest questioning of their ideals

>>7340190
>
Hell, if we want to be pedantic about it, unless they sew your mouth shut, even the government can't stop you from expressing your opinions. All they can do is lock you in a cell somewhere where you're free to express yourself to your heart's content.
This is the only violation of freedom of speech that's even been mentioned in this entire conversation threads and it's definitely unconstitutional to get arrested for having a political opinion (as long as you are not inciting others to break the law or endangering others)

>Corporations are as oppressive and unequal a force in most people's lives as government is, and if you give them arbitrary power to dictate what a person can and cannot openly profess or debate on his own time, you really have no basis at all to claim to care about working class people.
Corporations are not breaking the law when they terminate business with people who they do not want to continue working with. People proudly withhold business from a groups or individual they have moral disharmony with, why would this be any different? Employment is basically a transaction, right? You seem to be very intent on maintaining the normal power relations of the workplace even though they are clearly incongruent with your political beliefs, why is that?

>>7340860
>Corporations are not breaking the law when they terminate business with people who they do not want to continue working with.
No shit. They're also not breaking the law when they donate millions to presidential candidates, even if it's clearly fucking nefarious.

>Employment is basically a transaction, right?
A transaction where one party has a vastly disproportionate amount of influence and power and a much wider pool of alternatives to choose from, yes.

>>7339856
Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate

>>7340032
Have you heard of micro aggression? It would actually not surprise me to hear that sjws, with the support of universities, have started work on a newspeak dictionary... to cleanse the English language of structures of bias which segregate the oppressors from the marginalised.

>>7339872
>The most recent example of this occured in March 2012 when Fabrice Muamba, a professional football player, collapsed during a televised game. Liam Stacey took to twitter, mocking the stricken player and then hurling racist abuse at people who responded negatively to his tweet. He was sentenced to 56 days in jail.
what the fuck i didn't know about that

thanks for the link

>>7340860
>Corporations are not breaking the law when they terminate business with people who they do not want to continue working with.
A trainee in Germany was fired because of hateful facebook statements.
>People proudly withhold business from a groups or individual they have moral disharmony with
Not in Germany anymore, pic related.

You do some really broad statements.

>>7339856
I know what you mean. I can't go anywhere cause of people telling me to stop calling blacks 'niggers'.

>>7339856
Free speech is actually a terrible thing and only leads to decadence and degeneracy. The press SHOULD be censored, anti-regime ideologues SHOULD be censored, degenerate literature SHOULD be censored.

>>7341493
And what if a regime in power that is the opposite of your political views were to censor the works that most espouse them?

You memelords have such one track minds.

>>7339856
Dis one is bretty gud.

>>7341517
>I am superior because I regurgitate the political ideology fed to me by American television

I'm so bored of listening to midwits spout democratic memes. Stalin would be a preferable alternative to democracy. I would expect any politically opposed regime to censor its ideological opponents. In a stable society there would not be topsy-turvy regime change every 4 years anyway.

ITT people who believe saying 'nigger' and 'faggot' in public like they do on the internet is a revolutionary act

>>7340181
'Hate speech' in the UK is illegal

>>7341577
Its not a revolutionary act but it is a rebellious act.

Stop being so dialectal-centric shitlord

>>7339856
How to be good public speaker like hitchens?

>can't write a book
>I'll just go hold a sign outside maybe that will help

>>7340268
triggers dont exist

>leftists have gone too far with political correctness, it's censorship, it's an attack on free speech

hate speech is literally legally upheld in the united states, including burning a cross in a black person's backyard, westboro baptist church's protests, kkk and nazi party rallies and demonstrations are permitted, you can post slurs on 4chan, etc etc

libertarian, conservative, and otherwise reactionaries who actually flatter themselves as intellectual literally believe that their free speech rights are in danger. they also in most cases literally believe the right to free speech is unlimited and absolute. in some rare cases they somehow are aware and astute enough to read up on some case law but dense enough to believe this right should be unlimited and absolute. it is not uncommon to find these people supporting the second amendment in a similar way.

their vigorous response to sjw discourse is ironic. they are being triggered by people who complain about being triggered. they like to parrot "your rights end where my feelings begin," even though there has been no curtailment of any of their rights. they are essentially saying the exact same thing to sjws. the sjws' rights (to free speech, for example holding a protest or making complaints on social media) end where the reactionary's feelings (feeling threatened or angry) begin.

if there was an actual piece of legislation they were protesting, i wouldn't have a problem. but they don't have anything to protest, all they have is upvoting anti-sjw threads on reddit and posting slurs on 4chan.

so congrats, lads. you guys are heroes. you are at the front line of an orwellian dystopia, and standing your ground by shitposting on forums and social media. you will all be remembered by future generations for your courage, your priorities, and your insight.

>>7341737
Great fart of a post anon.

>>7341737
>you should only oppose something if it's being made into legislation
no thanks, would rather nip it in the bud

>>7341738
sorry, ill post a trigger warning for you next time

>>7341740
yeah, because that legislation is looming, right? its not like there aren't hundreds, if not thousands of things that are actually currently law that are worth your time. nope, better get ahead of those sjws who have draft legislation looming on the congressional floor. there's no telling how many of their lobbyists have representatives in their pocket. campaign donations from anti-hate speech groups are in the THOUSANDS of dollars, like MAYBE.

oh yeah, and you nip that in bud by doing what exactly? posting on 4chan? paul robert cohen would be fucking proud, boy. go get em

>>7341737
>burning a cross in a black person's backyard
That's private property. You can't do that.

>>7341760
sure you can

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

it was their front yard tho, whoops

>>7341758
I'm not even American

>>7341764
>The Court concluded, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."

Wouldn't it still be illegal under something like vandalism, trespassing, or arson?

>>7341776
probably. thats what the quoted part of the opinion seems to be saying.

>>7341758
Post a bore warning DESU

***WARNING THIS POST CONTAINS A CENTRISTS PRETENSE FILLED ATTEMPT AT IMPARTIALITY***

Just ctlr+c that shit and paste it at the top of all your posts from now on.

>>7341776
exactly.

>>7341787
Yeah so you can't.

>>7341799
no, you can't trespass, vandalise, or burn another person's property. you can't be charged for hate speech, however.

>>7341804
Sure. But you can't burn a cross on someone's property. It's not illegal because it's hate speech. It's illegal because it entails violating someone's property.