freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 7:25pm:


What agenda is that FD? That I want to shut people up for insulting Islam - by force if necessary? You'll have to explain that one to me.

The only person who thinks people shouldn't say whats on their mind (if they are interested in freedom) is you. You couldn't have been more clear on this - self censorship is vitally important when terrorists are involved. Say it isn't so FD - why do you continually avoid this inconvenient truth?

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:


Rubbish. Expressing my opinion that causing offense for offense's sake is wrong is not "getting" people to do anything. This entire discussion you've been running with the absurd notion that I can't disagree with particular expressions without undermining free speech. Thats what it comes down to. You obviously know its completely ridiculous, so in a desperate attempt to make it sound tenable you pretend I'm actually advocating self-censorship. And you do it (seemingly) without even realising that its actually you who is advocating self-censorship.

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:


I looked up the definition when this discussion started, and I haven't altered from the definition that I found, which is refraining from certain speech *NOT* because you don't believe its the right thing to say, but because you are intimidated/cajoled by external factors.

I am not interested in "getting" people to refrain from saying whats on their mind. If people really want to be dicks then its actually better for them to feel they can be dicks uninhibited, rather than feel they have to self-censor because of pressure from outside - either perceived or real. Thats your domain FD, as you have so ably demonstrated. But of course its far far better for them to not want to be dicks in the first place - and thats what I'm interested in. And not being deterred or intimidated by "context" to say what is wrong is wrong - is vitally important for this. For anyone actually interested in defending free speech - obviously we avoid the FD solution - which is to scream "ooooh we mustn't say that those people who tried to get a rise out of muslims for kicks - are dicks who shouldn't have done what they did..." - whenever terrorists are around.

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 7:08pm:


Oh I don't know FD - a little thing called freedom perhaps? Because I damn well want to say it? When I hear something I think is wrong I have an urge to speak out against it. Strange no? Human nature I guess. And the funny thing is, the more people like you say I should self-sensor in the interests of freeeeedom, the stronger the urge to speak out. Its a little bit like how your stupid faarking profanity filter gives me an overwhelming urge to subvert it as often as I can.

Like I said, I am interested in changing views, especially bigoted ones. Why do you think I'm here? I express my objection to speech I think is wrong, and put my case for why it should be considered wrong. What would be the point if I didn't want to change people's views? Thats what people do FD, they put their views forward and make their case - and its frankly beyond belief that you would somehow interpret this as calling for self-censorship. And almost as stupid as actually calling for self-censorship in the interests of freedom.

Quote:


But not getting people to change their views, or getting people to change how they express themselves? What is it you object to with this phrasing? Is it sinister to suggest Muslims are trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed? Is this something to do with your decision to start spinning your agenda as having nothing to do with self censorship? What happened to that 'definition' of self censorship that you were prepared to paraphrase for my benefit. Can you no longer find it?

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2015 at 12:39pm:


FD is my definition of self-censorship wrong? If so, tell me. Not sure why the only "valid" one is one that I quote from a dictionary.

Self-censorship: refraining from saying something *NOT* because you don't believe its worth saying, but because you feel pressured/cajoled/intimidated to do so by external factors. Is that too "paraphrasy" for you? If you think its wrong, stop the tricky BS and just come out and say what you think it is.

And once you've verified what you consider the correct definition to be, your next task is to explain to me how objecting to offense for offenses's sake is promoting self censorship, but saying that in order to stand up for freedom, we must "refrain" from expressing such objections (when terrorists are lurking) is not promoting self censorship. Can you do that for me FD?

Presumably Sprint would have no problem with being called a bigoted troll then?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 7:27am:


you won't get beheaded for it.

As you would under the cult islam

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:


No I don't believe I did. Can you quote me?