Worldwide Politics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 7164
  • Start date Start date
Benyi Netanyahu up for a historic 5th term after a conservative campaign full of hardline promises...
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/10/asia/new-zealand-gun-law-reform-intl/index.html

I shared this article on my FB about how NZ voted to change gun laws with an overwhelming majority after the massacre. A friend of mine, originally from Canada, but has lived in the U.S since 2000, replied by criticizing the move and also mentioned that NZ is assaulting free speech. That comment referencing NZ plea to FB to ban hate speech.

This lead to an interesting chat about free speech. My personal views aside, I decided to play devil's advocate and goad him. I stated that Many countries curtail or flat out prohibit Hate speech, a measure he labeled, "tyranical." I asked him if he saw Canada and Germany, two famous examples of outlawing hate speech, as tyranical and he said yes. He also went as far as to say that it will be the U.S' duty to pressure allies into protecting free speech and likely the world. I told him that, while Canada is an extreme example, not being able to say jewish jokes in Germany wasn't that big of a deal. Not to mention that the U.S can go fuck itself and shouldn't meddle in other countries local policies and laws as it is an infringement on their soverenty. I also pointed out it is today's paradox, can and should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant? He said yes. I said no, specially if it is a matter of national security.

PBS Frontline did a piece on FB and how its algorithm was exploited to manipulate the public in the Ukrane and the U.S to sway elections and public opinion. Zuckerberg is not an idiot. He went to Harvard, his business is worth billions, BUT... his childlike naivete that people are good and will ONLY use FB for good is flat out moronic.

The Question I have for you guys, since this is an international forum, what are your country's laws regarding free speech? Do you agree with them completely? Partially? Not at all?

In Mexico they are limited. On paper they're just like in the U.S, Free press, free speech. We can criticize and mock the government without being jailed or killed like in Russia, but being an authoritarian government journalists have been murdered and disappear for writing scathing articles. Heck 25 years ago the presidential candidate of the PRI, Luis Donaldo Colosio was murdered by his own party for criticizing them at a rally.
 
I like US free speech laws. I think limiting it is a very dangerous idea You (they generic you, no on in particular) might be in favor of what is being limited now, but I can promise at some point you will not like how speech is being regulated. I think the problem with what NZ did, and others are doing, is they are knee jerk reactions to an event (as horrible as it was), knee jerk reactions are generally not that well thought out.
 
bearfan said:
I like US free speech laws. I think limiting it is a very dangerous idea You (they generic you, no on in particular) might be in favor of what is being limited now, but I can promise at some point you will not like how speech is being regulated. I think the problem with what NZ did, and others are doing, is they are knee jerk reactions to an event (as horrible as it was), knee jerk reactions are generally not that well thought out.
Click to expand...

I think it was far from a knee-jerk reaction. Social media IS an issue:

But I do understand it can become a slippery slope like it is in Canada. First you can't say blatantly racist things, but later if you don't address a non-cis gender individual by a new pronoun like "zed" instead of "he/she", you can be in legal trouble.

While I like the freedoms in America it has recently lead to violence and even deaths. And neither guns or speech is being regulated. I understand protecting freedoms, but those same freedoms WILL be its own downfall if not address in ANY way.
 
The generic "ban hate speech" is the knee jerk and IMO really dangerous. There are obvious examples of what it is, but the grey areas are really scary to me.

There is the old quote, which I believe is pretty dead on

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
I concur, but it isn't temporary we are talking about. Also I recommend watching the documentary when you get the chance. Both parts.
 
I actually think permanent is much worse. I will watch the documentary at some point. I do a lot of work in big data (Facebook was actually almost one of our clients at one point) ... so always interested in how the data is used.
 
I haven't read anything about the NZ freedom of speech issue, but NZ gun law changes aren't knee jerk surely? Scotland changed gun laws after Dunblane. The comparison seems obvious.
 
This might be a stupid question, but we have one thread for Worldwide politics, one for USA politics and one for European politics. Why the split? Is it just based on the parts of the world where the Maidenfans community members are from?
 
For the split, I am guessing most people here are from North America or Europe ... so worldwide is a catch-all for everywhere else.

To the speech issue, I think it is real clear in the US Constitution and I would not change a word of this

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
 
GhostofCain said:
But the USA politics thread does not cover the whole of North America. What about Canada and Mexico?
Click to expand...

True, I think it should just be North American ... I know Canada comes up there occasionally .. but who really wants to talk about Canada anyway :) ... Mexico come up often, though usually vis-a-vis relations with the US.
 
I'm going to just say this - one of the things I hate in my daily interactions is when I greet someone with "good morning" and they throw a serious look at me replying with "...good afternoon" (*). I don't give a fuck about your current awake time, I wanted to greet you asshole.

(*) It's "good day" and as such doesn't exist as English phrase in this context, therefore this happens before noon.
 
Zare said:
I'm going to just say this - one of the things I hate in my daily interactions is when I greet someone with "good morning" and they throw a serious look at me replying with "...good afternoon" (*). I don't give a fuck about your current awake time, I wanted to greet you asshole.

(*) It's "good day" and as such doesn't exist as English phrase in this context, therefore this happens before noon.
Click to expand...
It seems like you're so angry about it you couldn't find your way to the Rant Thread.
 
Zare said:
I'm going to just say this - one of the things I hate in my daily interactions is when I greet someone with "good morning" and they throw a serious look at me replying with "...good afternoon" (*). I don't give a fuck about your current awake time, I wanted to greet you asshole.

(*) It's "good day" and as such doesn't exist as English phrase in this context, therefore this happens before noon.
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to "zdravo"?
 
Nothing it's just that dobro jutro / dobar dan is more official and sounds more fitting if talking to a stranger. This usually happens at a tobbaco/newspaper stand where as a customer I have an option of saying "Give me article X" in a neutral tone, or try to be more human and go with "Hello, can I please have article X". I do the latter as a rule and as automatic behaviour because I was brought up with a notion of greeting people politely. So when I get nitpicked about how I say "hello" it really does bring negative feelings to me. It also clearly demonstrates an egocentric perspective of the other party where everything is about them. To me it is morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top