Idiocracy.

[Shiranu]

Every fucking time. Deal with it.
There again, you can ignore it. Can you? I think not.

Don't you see? I am giving you a reason to whine, which is your hobby.

Yes, just ignore reality. I have a feeling you're a master at that.

Also, you admit you post misinformation just to upset someone? You realise how that contradicts your not lying, right?

[Shiranu]

Whether PR's claims here are BS or not, that doesn't take away from the reality that the young liberal (scratch that, authoritarian, not liberal) kids are out to destroy civilization with PCness. 40 percent and growing are against free speech.

Eh...

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/false-alarm-on-millennials-and-free-speech.html

I was wrong; it shouldn’t have jumped out at me. A bit of digging into past poll results shows that this just wasn’t an unusual result. Yes, broad attitudes over free speech change over time â€" more on this in a bit â€" but there’s a general pattern to how Americans answer these questions: They’ve shown over and over again that they favor free speech in theory, when asked about it in the broadest terms, but they also tend to be fairly enthusiastic about government bans on forms of speech they find particularly offensive (what’s considered offensive, of course, changes with the times). On this subject, millennials are right in line with reams of past polling, and it would be wrong to hold up last week’s results as an example of anything other than an extremely broad tendency that’s existed for a long time.

Again, as fun as it is to blame the youth for all the problems of today... the reality is that they are hardly any different than the generation before them.

And when compared to the rest of the world...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

Compared with people we surveyed in dozens of nations, Americans as a whole are less likely to favor the government being able to prevent speech of any kind. The debate over what kind of speech should be tolerated in public has become a major story around the globe in recent weeks â€" from racial issues on many U.S. college campuses to questions about speech laws in Europe in the wake of concerns about refugees from the Middle East and the terrorist attacks in Paris.

Let's be honest; the United States is still the crusty bastion of crude bastards, and that way of life is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Let's look at this a different way. Let's say that 40 percent of young people were in favour of bringing back slavery, and that number was growing year by year. Would you say that that is not something to be worried about?

I'm sorry, but the censorship of speech that is intentionally aimed at dehumanizing minorities and sparking racial tensions is just not more or less the same as a practice which involves the stripping away of a person's entire identity, making them nothing more than livestock, and declaring that they have no right's what-so-ever.

How about we imagine that almost half of young people want to do away with freedom of religion. Let's say they want to get rid of all of the mosques and make it illegal to practice Islam.

This one is actually a much more solid comparison than slavery, but a more like-for-like comparison would be if 40% of young people wanted to do away with allowing Islam that promotes radicalism, violence and hatred. To be fair, I feel like that is something you yourself (as well as everyone else here including, GASP, me!) would be okay with.

Again... the more you actually look at the issues, the more you see it's impossible to just make it a black-and-white, good-vs-evil, intelligent adults vs stupid kids on our lawn! argument. And it's really quite understandable because that is just how the media presents the news to us; it's always "us vs them" because the conflict breeds ideologists who are more likely to click that article they agree with on that page they like to lurk than someone who is less emotionally involved in it. I know I sure as hell use to fall for that, and still do from time to time, but it's something I really work on being more aware of.

The only reason I get overly involved now is because positions I agree with are attacked with either outright lies or misbending of the truth that, if you look at the actual sources... are not nearly as nefarious or outrageous as the talking head who wants more advertising revenue for his site makes it out to be.

[pr126]

Yes, just ignore reality. I have a feeling you're a master at that.

Also, you admit you post misinformation just to upset someone? You realise how that contradicts your not lying, right?

Really Shiranu. Get a life.

You are spending way to much time on AF. Is AF your "safe space"?

You really need to get out more.

[Shiranu]

Really Shiranu. Get a life.

You are spending way to much time on AF. Is AF your "safe space"?

You really need to get out more.

Me right now...



Scorched. Damn that hurt.

Btw, why are your knickers in such a twist that you got called on your bullshit? If you didn't mean it maliciously, wouldn't the normal human being reaction be, "Oh, shit, so it is. Derp, my bad!" rather than lashing out at the person who called you out?

[JBCuzISaidSo]

Wait, so period things, also offered in men's rooms, these are the new harbingers? Of America's total demise?

Guess I also "need to get out more", because this original article is a laugh and a half.

[pr126]

It's getting late. Go to sleep, Shir. Good night.

[Shiranu]

It's getting late. Go to sleep, Shir. Good night.

It's 12:15 on a Saturday night, the day is still young for those of us with no life!

[pr126]

It's 12:15 on a Saturday night, the day is still young for those of us with no life!

And you spend the time on AF?
Get out, get drunk, find a girl, smoke a joint.
Or just protest at some University for something important, like tampons for men's restrooms.

So many choices!

[FaithIsFilth]

Eh...

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/false-alarm-on-millennials-and-free-speech.html

Thank you for that. It seems I probably have been overreacting a bit.

This one is actually a much more solid comparison than slavery, but a more like-for-like comparison would be if 40% of young people wanted to do away with allowing Islam that promotes radicalism, violence and hatred. To be fair, I feel like that is something you yourself (as well as everyone else here including, GASP, me!) would be okay with.

I would not be ok with that. They can preach their hatred all they like. The same goes for people like Alex Jones. You said you wanted them not to be able to call themselves news. Well, what exactly is that going to accomplish? You aren't going to hurt these people by telling their fans that the government doesn't approve of their speech. That is only going to help them. People watch Alex Jones and others specifically because they think that mainstream media are just a bunch of shills for the government. You tell these people that they can't call themselves news, and that will only help them and make it seem like the government fears them.

[Shiranu]

]I would not be ok with that. They can preach their hatred all they like.

I see no reason for the government to sanction hatred.

It's all a matter of what sin we view worse; You see the government restricting freedom as terrible, I do not. I see the government restricting hatred as acceptable, you do not. Neither of our positions are so much of logic as much as just personal ethics and the cultures we grew up in.

You said you wanted them not to be able to call themselves news. Well, what exactly is that going to accomplish?

Precisely what should have happened in this thread; intelligent people would not for a second been tricked into thinking this was a legitimate piece of news instead of a .tabloid piece of filth. There would have been absolutely no infringement on the right to write, share and spread it, but it would have to advertise itself as what it is; garbage.

No more limiting of free speech than forcing cigarettes to carry cancer warnings or snake oil to disclaim that it is not a scientifically backed medicine. If people don't want to heed their warnings, fair enough.

You aren't going to hurt these people by telling their fans that the government doesn't approve of their speech. That is only going to help them.

I have no interest in hurting them, I only want neutrals to be aware that when an article is posted that is complete bullshit, they don't even have a second of, "Oh my god, this actually happened!?!". For every 10 that get proven wrong, one slips through, and they slowly but surely warp public perception to believe that group x is out to get them because of the hateful rambling of some idiot with a keyboard and too much fear in his life.

People watch Alex Jones and others specifically because they think that mainstream media are just a bunch of shills for the government. You tell these people that they can't call themselves news, and that will only help them and make it seem like the government fears them.

Let them think that way, that is perfectly within their rights. I am not concerned with changing their mind, I am concerned with making sure that blatant lies are not presented as reality.

[FaithIsFilth]

I see no reason for the government to sanction hatred.

It's all a matter of what sin we view worse; You see the government restricting freedom as terrible, I do not. I see the government restricting hatred as acceptable, you do not. Neither of our positions are so much of logic as much as just personal ethics and the cultures we grew up in.

You have to let them spew their hate. You just have to. If you start disallowing certain speech, how long until Obama's words come true? "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." You don't want to set that precedent, or it's only a matter of time until your speech is the speech that is considered so hateful that it must be censored. You have to let everyone spew their hate, whether they are in the KKK, or whether they praise the leader of ISIS and other Muslim terrorists. They have a right to say that they like what the terrorists are doing, as long as they don't literally call for people to carry out terrorist attacks themselves. At that point, they are crossing the line and that is no longer free speech.

If you're not going to let alt media be called news, you shouldn't let CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and dozens of other mainstream outlets call themselves news either. CNN's Don Lemon actually said something along the lines of "We've done just about everything possible in our power to get Hillary Clinton elected." while laughing. Dr. Drew got fired from CNN's sister network because he talked about Hillary's health problems and refused to take back what he said. So their stance is literally "You can't be employed by us if you tell the truth about Hillary".

[Shiranu]

You have to let them spew their hate. You just have to.

No, really don't. Absolute freedom of speech has never been a thing in human history, and I think we have done pretty well for ourselves.

If you start disallowing certain speech, how long until Obama's words come true? "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." You don't want to set that precedent, or it's only a matter of time until your speech is the speech that is considered so hateful that it must be censored.

Again, I don't think the slope is really anywhere near as slippery as you make it out to be, no more than putting warnings on cigarettes has banned us from eating potato chips.

They have a right to say that they like what the terrorists are doing, as long as they don't literally call for people to carry out terrorist attacks themselves.

Completely agreed, which is more or less what I said; mosques, churches, synagogues, Klan rallies and any other meeting that teaches it's flock to be violent should be limited.

If you're not going to let alt media be called news, you shouldn't let CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and dozens of other mainstream outlets call themselves news either.

Again, agreed. I think it should be tiered; there should be "Proper News" that is opinionless and just the information and then work your way down to "Opinion and Commentary on Facts" and bellow that "Tabloids and Factually Incorrect". Few news outlets today would fall into the "Proper News" category.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Who gets to decide what the "facts" are for the proper news? The government? Yeah, there's no way the current or the next administration would use that to its advantage.

[Shiranu]

Who gets to decide what the "facts" are for the proper news? The government? Yeah, there's no way the current or the next administration would use that to its advantage.

The facts generally would dictate that.

"Did X happen?"
If yes, you are news. If no, you are lying.

It's fucked one way or another; if you leave the media basically 100% free, then you get into the shitfest we are in where finding the actual truth becomes more and more a pain in the ass. If you leave it where the government can penalize for telling lies, the chance of someone using their power to use it to their advantage "increases".


That said, I trust politicians that work for me more than corporate whores who only care about what sells and not what is true. And you think the CEOs of these news agencies aren't using the ability to say what ever the hell they want with no consequence aren't abusing the system to their advantage?

It's lose-lose, but at least with the government it's something I have an inch of control over... and that is more important to me. From a logic standpoint, the odds are more in my favour with government regulation increasing than by leaving the market free.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

The facts generally would dictate that.

"Did X happen?"
If yes, you are news. If no, you are lying.

Who decides if X happened? Facts aren't some concrete thing clearly evident simply by value of being facts. In other news, wheat production in Oceania is up 5000%.