Space5000 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (91)
-
On the post: Connecticut Is Now The First State To Make Calls From Prisons Free For Inmates
-
On the post: Parody Post About Nintendo’s IP Bullying Hits All The Right Notes
Space5000 ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2022 @ 11:54amOnce the Mario Copyright Extension Act gets announced, then it will be very accurate to say that Nintendo is the Disney of video games in general.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 12 Apr, 2022 @ 05:04pmSorry for like a longer wait. If you don't want to debate, you don't have to.
If you’re right next to the prick and you don’t either distance yourself from the bastard or criticize him openly…
Yet how does me distancing myself make a difference?They still did the bad thing and got away with it, though.
Getting "away with it" is on itself (at least, maybe depending on the case) victimless, nor does it rule out the possibility of changing for the good after doing so. Many people learn from not exactly being exposed, usually for stupid crap.Because even if a Catholic priest only ever molested one child and never did it again, his not being turned in to the authorities by his superiors means he got away with molesting a child. The molester and his superiors would all be complicit in both the molestation of a child and the subsequent cover-up.
If you mean "complicit" by helping the person get away after the fact, then "accessory after the fact" would be the better argument here. Even though, none of this changes the fact that people can change for the good without being caught after the fact. This isn't to say that we should let people get away with bad things, as my argument was situational.But if you knew that asshole had a history of doing what they did, you knew they were likely to repeat that behavior, and you brought them in anyway? That’s on you.
Some of your other argument sounded a little different if I remembered right. But anyway, one of my points is that there is no difference between trusting an "innocent" person than a person with a history. If he does it again while trusting, it's either on both, or none. It can be hard to tell what is "likely".But the existence of a pattern of bad behavior, regardless of any alleged reform since said behavior, will always make people wary.
What people think doesn't change the reality here. I was basing off logic, and realism, not people's feelings, even if it's understandable.You made a shitty point in a shitty way.
Mine wasn't a shitty point. Also make sure to join the army if you can. You KNOW there is a war going on against Ukraine, and if you don't, then you're a complicit, like those who who you think is a complicit for wanting to stay out of politics involving BLM. -
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: Scans Of ‘Super Mario 64’ Manual Taken Down Via Copyright Claim
Space5000 ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 05:11pmRight?
Does Nintendo even have a right to take down the existence of such a manual in the archive alone? Destroying such history like that is not a human right and I certainly think it's absurd if there is no copyright limitation that defends such preservation. Destroying such thing clearly damages the point of Copyright too. Also I feel like sharing such manual needs to be fair use judging by the situation.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2022 @ 04:51pmHonestly, I was often focused on the morality side. I started with showing that cancel culture exists (which was mainly referring to the moral issue side). I do believe I should of said it better however though.
You’re complicit if you see people doing shitty things and don’t raise your voice about it. Or to put it another way: You’re complicit in a racist act if, say, a white person yells the N-word at a Black person and you don’t say or do anything to that white person about their bullshit—even if you would never say the word or think racist thoughts yourself. (I’m not saying it’d be right to punch that racist prick in the face for their bullshit…but I’m not saying it’d be wrong, either.)
But he already said it. I am not sure what he is doing now. I'm not obligated to try to bring in criticism every time I witness something hateful that already been done, even if he's likely going to do so again. I never, in this case, was the causation in the first place, so I have no duty do anything special of that unless I am required by law. Same goes for the millions of other Americans who moved on. Going back at the BLM thing, this was more about not exactly knowing who is planning here and there despite likelihood. If you say I'm a complicit anyway, then you're saying that to billions of people in the world.If you knew the person was abusive in the past and showed no signs of remorse for it, but you let them into your community anyway? Yes, you’d be responsible for letting them abuse people in your community.
Think of the Catholic Church’s child abuse scandals: The higher-ups kept shuffling priests to different churches even though said higher-ups knew those priests had abused, and would likely continue abusing, young children. Those higher-ups were responsible for letting child rape continue in their churches because they knew it was happening, they could’ve stopped it from happening, and they instead chose to let it keep happening.
I heard that a person not reoffending for many years is on itself evidence of change for the good. Your concept of that being "responsible" vs. trusting out of good faith due to some form evidence doesn't seem to show a physiological difference too. This isn't to say that I would let an offending pedophile person with a recent known past with no signs of strong improvement in, that would probably be reckless, I'm just making a point.Trusting someone with a known pattern of bad behavior means trusting them not to do this thing they’ve done before (likely multiple times) despite the evidence saying they’ll likely do it again. Trusting someone with no known pattern of bad behavior means trusting them not to do a thing they haven’t been known to do before. Your being unable to grasp this difference is your problem, not mine.
In the end, you're still responsible in a way for trusting the person into a place you control. Some people act like trusting an innocent person is always better just because of "innocent" even though sometimes a person with a bad past could be safer than some "innocent" people. This was part of the reason why I made that comparison.Not really. Our prison system being shitty is no excuse for keeping people in said system for the rest of their lives.
I'm against LWOP with no exception, I was just trying to make a point about the whole responsibility argument. And yeah I know I'm about 3 days late. But if you do reply, I might try to end it with a basic message about the whole enabler thing. -
On the post: Apparently Unwilling To Learn From Florida & Texas’s Failures, Georgia Moves Forward With Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill
Space5000 ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2022 @ 03:45pmMixed
I mean if we can have anti-hate laws prohibiting companies from saying anything that discriminates against another person for their orientation, then I can sort of understand passing a law prohibiting companies flat-out censoring or banning people for a regular non-harassing political opinion in a large place that normally allows typical politics, since a lot of people builds their lives around needing a job on social media these days. I don't really see anything in the law that violates the first amendment. However, the law is so dangerously broad, that I wish they could write it better. As for 'common career', I'm not even sure what that is. Perhaps I can understand the argument that you need internet these days in the modern times to get a normal job, or having a regular job on YouTube but that's about it.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2022 @ 06:27pmI was gonna try blockquoting stuff here, but I think I'm just going to suggest reading that one part of the comment I posted to you right around the same time talking about the issue with some places being allowed to ban a person for their speech or whatever it was. The free speech thing was about acting like it's dumb or somehow "wrong" ethically, not about who has the right. Taking away an 1-million subscriber audience over saying "death penalty is hypocritical, accept it conservatives!" where it would require an insane amount of, if not, impossible work to re-find those people, is an example of what's clearly debatable. So the "You can say it somewhere else" really doesn't work well here because it limits the ability to let such voice heard and permanently takes away time to re-find the same people outside, if not impossible exactly. I think sometimes this is an issue, and not a black and white "who has the rights?" issue either.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2022 @ 06:11pmLooking at some of the stuff here, I'm just gonna re-write the entire point I was trying to make: Is YouTube allowed to ban people off their platform for any reason why want to (as long as they aren't violating certain laws (e.g. anti-hate laws)? Yes. Are people allowed to say "Hey, I am outraged by this person saying that Nazies were not as bad as this or that! This person needs to be banned!!!11"? Yes. Is YouTube allowed to bend down, or even abuse their policy by banning the person for something that out-raged a lot of people? Yes. The entire point of this part I was trying to make is that it's still a morally debatable thing, not as a "legal argument" but as a debatable moral thing. e.g. "I think firing that person from Burger King because of a drug crime 30 years ago is a bit too far." despite them being allowed to do it. The amount of people who care about the individual being fired, exists too. I think the whole social issues under what is allowed by law can still be considered abusive at times. Sometimes a new group of people recognizing that issue some call "cancel culture" that makes certain individuals suffer more can help solve these issues, to help not fire certain people who needs money to feed their family. I.e. To not fire or ban the type of people who really doesn't, safety wise, deserve it. The movement to so-called hold some people "responsible" is not itself new, but it's been rising and getting way more noticeable, and the issue is that some of these cases (including some pattern) has been making so much stuff worse, which is being recognized by good people, which is a good thing I think. If you still have an issue with what I'm saying and you know what I mean here, then I find that rather suspicious and hypocritical. Now I might bother not addressing a couple of points before the "enabler" part, but I'm just gonna state that for now I'm going going to bother addressing it and nothing else. _
But it is still the responsibility of those within the community to do something about its worst people—especially if someone has knowledge of one of those people being a shithead.
You didn't even prove how. There is no difference between an abuser (as in, a person that keeps doing it) simply enjoying Minecraft or MLP mods of it, than same abuser not enjoying that. Since when is it morally obligated of those people to control it? Just because the person "likes what they like" of MLP mods? Is witch-hunting against the person who likes to talk about MLP mods of Minecraft in their own spaces (not to be confused with aiding access to a big group of people) and then kicking/harassing the person out of that even really going to fix the problem when the risk is still no different?If you know that person is being an abusive shithead and you do nothing about it, it’s 100% no different than knowing someone is poisoning food they’re serving to others.
If I worked at a Chili's and I saw the person poison to food at the restaurant, then I think some moral obligation justice is due. Knowing that a person is planning to go after another individual who likes MLP is not an issue about the abuser liking MLP alone, it's just social issue. The "MLP mod fandom" is not like a restaurant, and any needed moral obligations should not mean special just because the person merely shares the same interest of a random cartoon blocky pony.“… I swore never to be sil...
OK look, listen, I heard of this kind of stuff before I think. I even remembered when Netflix tweeted out something about silence being a complicit, but that is still debatable, and it's wrong to accuse people who NEVER promoted racism in the first place just because they prefer being busy focusing watching some TV show instead of going outside to protest in favor of BLM. Besides, the "complicity" thing could only be useful for those that wish to do something about it, but I wouldn't consider that LITERAL complicity whenever there is no causation of the individual toward any racist. And again, why aren't you joining the police force when you know that crime happens every day? Maybe you're a complicit to criminals out there then?But if that someone can prove (or at least reasonably seem as if) they’ve changed their behavior, cautiously trusting them again isn’t an issue. Everyone deserves a second chance.
The point I'm trying to make is that, it's hard to know for sure. If I allowed an "ex-abuser" back into a community I control (well, a group within it more likely) but it turns out the person abused again. Is it my fault? If so, then what's the difference between that and trusting a person with no bad past, out of faith, when something could cause them to lose their mind at nearly any time? Same with trusting a complete stranger online?But if they break your trust again and you insist on giving them more chances, that shit is all on you.
If you mean right away, then that makes a little sense (depending on what I intended, and if I really aided the person into getting more access to an area where abusive behavior is possible.).Watching a man beat up his wife and doing nothing to stop it is horrific. Even calling the cops would be better than standing there watching a woman getting beaten. What in the actual fuck made you think I’d agree with the notion that doing nothing about an act of violence happening in front of you is “at least questionable”?
When I said it's at least questionable, I was saying it in the least when concerning the person who watched it. It can also be horrible too. It might also be depending on what the person intended, or froze while panicking and not knowing what to do is possible for some, when it comes to questioning the witness alone. Of course I encourage the witness to properly handle it, but don't act like the witness is as evil alone depending on how the person handled it.A person released from jail may or may not go on to re-offend.
You’re responsible for letting a crime happen only if you know said crime is going to happen and you do nothing to prevent it from happening. How do you not understand that?
... Remember the whole argument I was making about the community thing, and seeing a recent past of say, a wife beater, or an online abuser? You kept saying that the community should police itself against abusers (which I assumed you meant, those who recently did it, not necessary knowing that they will plan it right in there somewhere). Yet, you seem to be alright with letting a criminal back out on the streets knowing how sh*** the US prison system is. Isn't that like, really hypocritical? If the entire thing you were trying to argue about "enabler" was involving those that plan to abuse again, and the witness knew the person's plan and does nothing about it (while I argued that it shouldn't be a "community" thing in some cases, but rather a social issue in general), then I really want to point out that when I first mentioned the enabling thing, I was talking about talking to a person who has recently did bad things, but don't exactly know if they will do it again, even if it feels likely in some cases. _ One of the things I've witness was that a mob and including the victim and the friend of such person ended up acting like it was wrong to merely "contact" a "groomer" (who wasn't even really a pedophile due to 2-year gap) BTW, just mentioning this to show how ridiculous it was) against a person who contacted the abuser trying to encourage the person to get proper help. In this case, nobody knew if the "groomer" was going to act again, and took offense acting like somehow this letting the person "sneak" back in the community despite no real aiding to any new offending happening as far as I know I think. To rephrase one thing, this "groomer" had no known negative plan, and was just talking about wanting to be better and someone contacted the person in favor of that. Though the person did state of not being friends or letting the person back into the "community"(group, or just having a innocent interest? IDK), even though I don't think being friends matter, and mob still went against that. -
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2022 @ 05:04pmImportant Element of Lawful Speech
One main crucial thing about lawful speech is the ability to spread it. To try limiting that in some cases, are alone debatable. This "But you can still say it out loud with less people." thing doesn't work well here. "But YouTube has a right to listen to normies moaning about a reasonable but controversial opinion" doesn't change the fact that we are allowed to debate about how something goes so far. I feel a sense of hypocrisy here... I remember hearing Facebook censoring or limiting some political messages because Facebook staff was one-sided in the political area of things. I think it's perfectly fair to call that out, even if they legally allowed to do so. Some got so pissed off about it that a law was being discussed about it.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2022 @ 04:50pmOh I know, I just wanted to show my somewhat agreement with you.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 11:41pmNo, it doesn’t. The abuse would happen if I didn’t know. Therefore my knowing and not acting doesn’t change anything. And thus I don’t enable anything.
Exactly I think. This person is even saying that I'm an enabler of racism because of the "silence" I'm apparently likely doing by simply not wanting to get on the bandwagon involving politics of BLM. At least maybe he's not being hypocritical about the logic as far as I know, but damn. I think moral responsibility of another person's choice requires causation at first of some sort. So like, aiding a serial offending pedophile to a group of children in a place would be one of them. I really hope his concept of responsibility isn't as popular as I'm fearing it is. -
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 11:26pmNobody has a right to force others into helping spread that speech. Any anti-queer bigot who gets banned from major social media services because of that bigotry can either make their own platforms, find platforms that are okay with that bigotry, or dive into the Dead Sea while wearing concrete shoes.
The idea I have is about defending the idea that there are people who wants to use the platform or wishes the platform to ban a person for a controversial opinion that is already allowed by law and YouTube, and part of the idea is about calling that culture out.YouTube is allowed to dictate what speech it will and will not host.
And people are allowed to call YouTube out for sometimes being over-reactive, or banning a person for what some find not a big deal. < Do you see the point I'm trying to make now?And you’re doing an awful job of it because it’s redundant as fuck.
Except that part of the moral argument was regarding what is allowed by law and policy. My argument isn't a black and white thing about the entire "cancel culture", or "what should and shouldn't be allowed." flatout.Define “cancel culture freaks”. Be specific and aim for clarity.
I mean the type of people that sucks at handling it.Vagueness can be a moral imperative in certain situations. Issuing an apology for being a shithead isn’t one of those situations.
For the love o.. I'm just gonna make an example: |Person gets exposed for being racist three times at his work during the week| person apologizes: "Hey, about those allegations involving me at work with that behavior according to those allegations, I'm sorry about it and I have improved. I am afraid of being clear due to certain people watching me, but for those that know it, you know it."Most organizations would want to avoid looking as if they employ bigots.
Well a lot of people are realizing that a joke made years ago doesn't really define the true person, so some of those companies might understand that too.If that employee hasn’t changed their views in 20 years, and their views (as expressed through that joke) make clear that they’re a bigot, you’re likely going to end up losing business from whatever class of people your employee insulted (as well as anyone with a sense of decency).
This was intended to be about people for jokes where they don't use it at their new job. For some of these cases I don't even think you need proof of change due to how long ago. The way of how it's handled can be debatable.But a community can always police itself. And if you’re knowingly letting an abusive asshole run rampant inside a community—through either action or inaction—you’re enabling that asshole.
No regular individual can police even stuff like "Mincraft x My Little Pony", because it's not a single controlled place of interest about Minecraft and MLP, which can exist in their own groups. To say it can "always police itself" sounds like a support for most people there witch-hunting against anyone who has a right to share the same interest (gatekeeping?). Letting a person play Minecraft and MLP and sharing that with adults in a safe environment =/= enabling the person to the rest of the "community". The only thing that can truly control an area, is certain places (e.g. that popular MLP forum, a Discord group about it). Respecting an abuser just liking MLP and talking about it by itself while moving on lawfully is 100% no different than liking food. "Communities" like those isn't a REAL place. It's basically just an abuser having an innocent interest alone.Your refusal to act on the knowledge that your “friend” is abusing people does enable their abusive behavior.
But this isn't about cartoons, this is about a person being friends with a person (a social issue, regardless of specific communities), and even then I was more focused about a person not knowing what the person is thinking about despite past.If you learn that a man has been beating his wife since before you knew him, and you refuse to do anything to stop him from beating his wife after you learn about the abuse, you would hold responsibility for letting her receive another beating. You’d be an enabler of abuse.
#How am I supposed to know that the person will do it again? If I learned about the person's past, and just wanted to stay away from the person (which is also no different than the effect of working with him on a completely unrelated innocent tool), and THEN the person thought of re-offending and doing it, while the innocent person had no encouragement and/or aiding of such idea, then it's wrong to blame moral responsibility to said innocent person backing off. Seriously if I'm assuming right of you, your concept of "what is responsible" sounds made up.You might not be considered an accomplice in a legal sense, but you’d sure as shit be one in a moral sense.
##This concept of "moral sense" you have here is clearly debatable. If you support calling out people for not breaking the law of certain stuff, because of your delusional concept of moral responsibility, then you're making up crap as an excuse to support public shaming and/or harassment toward an innocent person. Despite what I said about "moral argument" about the whole example of certain jobs and certain cases of free speech, a society completely making up what "responsibility", having nothing to do with criminal complicit theory, is highly objectionable. At this point I might as well say that you're an enabler of criminals if you support some cases of cancel culture due to the evidence of how it discourages some criminals from changing.All you have to do is stay quiet.
So you're literally calling me an enabler of racism and probably as bad as them just because I want to stay out of politics involving the whole BLM matter thing. Again, you could say the same thing about me not joining to police force at this point, knowing 99% likely (like the racist thing) that crime happens somewhere out there. sigh this is what happens when society thinks they can make up bullshit about complicity having nothing to do with the the criminal complicit theory. This is why law should be the only one in charge of that.But if you knew they were a dick and you brought them in anyway…
This "when is it time to trust again." thing has been badly debated. What's the difference between trusting a person to not be a dick again than trusting a person with no bad past when you don't even know them? Besides, letting the person back into the "community" by letting them just enjoy Minecraft and talking about it with controlled adults isn't different than letting them move on away from it. One possible issue is aiding the person have access to a group of potential victims.…fucking what
(not hyperlinked, too lazy to re-enable that) I was saying it's questionable at least. I mean I thought I was on your side on that part...?I’m confident in saying that if a man has been beating his wife since before you found out about it, chances are good that he’ll do it again after you find out about it. Inaction on your part would enable that beating to happen.
Please refer to # and ## here. I learned that US prisons makes most criminals worse or same. If I was having that job to release a criminal (as part of my job) knowing the research, I guess I'm an "enabler" of any reoffending he's done then. -
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 07:47pmCorrection I Think
"Those are just people sharing a common interest." I think I mean that it's filled with different people sharing a mere interest into being into those, maybe. I vote for a limited comment editing system here.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 07:43pmI couldn't figure out how to. I'll just try to use the generic kind and see if it works. Also I am not a lawyer, just in case I need to say that for certain stuff.
Oh, am I not allowed to say or even think that “ideas” like advocacy for the psychological (and often physical) torture of queer people known as “conversion ‘therapy’ ” should be considered bullshit that no reputable social media service would want to align itself with?
It's not about that you're not allowed to criticize bad stuff, it's trying to forcefully limit certain speech from being spread.Being able to use YouTube is a privilege, not a legal right. That privilege can be revoked if you break YouTube’s rules. They get to decide what is acceptable speech on their platform, even if such speech is legally protected by the First Amendment. Don’t like it? Tell your reps to make YouTube host any and all legally protected speech—you know, get them to take a big fat shit all over that same First Amendment.
Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The main argument I'm trying to say is that it's morally debatable. I feel like you're confusing morality and law here. Remember that I use the term "lawful" and "policy allowed" to make a more specific setting to serve the argument I'm trying to make. Looking at some other things you said in the comment, I think I would still suggest the message above this.No, it means they’re saying a lovely little platitude to bullshit people. (The degree of that bullshitting is irrelevant.) Vagueness is “I’m gonna get better”; clarity is “I’m going to do [x] to get better”. Clarity is always better than vagueness.
It still doesn't change that some people get what some mean, as someone who's seen a lot of commentary over some apologies. I feel like the reality is that cancel culture freaks are trying to make up excuses, and I've seen a lot of commentaries showing that. Trust me, I may not be the best writer in the world, but that doesn't mean I suck at debating this as someone who actually look at some commentary from both side. Also some people are afraid to be clear due to fear of terrible things, and I mean really terrible things.You’re talking about companies (Disney, Warner Media) that can largely ignore blowback from this sort of shit if they really want to.
Still proving my point I think. Some companies survive. Besides, due to mixed feelings of some people, there is a big chance that if the Japan Olympics didn't fire the person, the company would of still been fine. If I owned a certain job, and some guy who worked at my place got exposed for an old joke, I would not only keep the person in, but I would probably even tell the public that we should not be firing a person for a 20 year old joke. Seeing how a lot of people are realizing how stupid firing people is for stuff like that in general, I got a feeling I would get praise anyway. Maybe not the crazy Twitter freaks, but some other people yeah.Allowing a known abuser into a community—your community—would be your fault. Failing to “control” their behavior would be your fault. You don’t get to escape responsibility for bringing someone you know to be a shithead into your community and letting them be a shithead to others only because that person acted horribly. Their actions are on them; your actions are on you.
Define "community". Nobody owns the cartoon, gaming, and Minecraft community for example. Those are just people sharing a common interest. The 'interest' wouldn't be more or less risky in general, than merely being outside and respecting the person eating a large piece of pizza from some fridge. Being friends with a shitty person and respecting the person's right to enjoy a cartoon isn't "causing" or "aiding" the person to abuse cartoon animators. Allowing a shitty person in a group you control that talks about it, is a whole different thing. Perhaps you mean that?Knowing someone is an abusive asshole but doing nothing about it enables their abuse;
In terms of responsibility, I think that only makes sense when you are responsible of aiding the person into the more possibility first. For example, a physical relationship, one knows how abusive the person is and doesn't stand up against it. Being together being the 'causation'.Not really. An enabler would be someone who knows a crime is going to happen and either does nothing about it or actively aids in the commission of that crime.
I don't think merely knowing a crime is enough to being responsible for the conduct of another, assuming you want to compare "enabling" with that kind of stuff. https://www.wklaw.com/knowing-about-a-crime-and-not-saying-anything/ I already know racism is still real, but don't do much about it. Am I supportive of racists all of a sudden? Also want to point out that knowing what will happen is not the same as knowing a person without knowing what they will do in the future. I still would look at this as a different issue when it comes to abnormal high risk though.Your alleged disapproval of their behavior means less than nothing if you know someone is acting shitty but you refuse to call them on it or warn others about it.
Watching someone beat up his wife and doing nothing about it is at least questionable. This becomes different however if you knew the person's past and just leave the person alone (friends or not) without knowing what will happen. The bad person reoffending is a separate fault regardless if you supported him as a friend, or isolated the person entirely as long as you didn't aid him in any way to it. -
On the post: The Ratchet: Even Demonstrably Ineffectual And Unnecessary Copyright Laws Are Never Repealed
Space5000 ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 06:34pmA Special Kind of Cancer
Copyright's corruption is like a special kind of cancer. No known cure, but you can slow it down, maybe even at least stop it from becoming worse, which is kinda happening these days with the Copyright extension thing, hopefully. I have often thought what would happen if we reduce Copyright's term, and it just feels like it wouldn't happen any time soon due to the likelihood of backlashes from a bunch of "creators". That part near the end of the article nearly, if not, pretty much sums my feelings up about the possibility, and it's depressing. The only hope I can really think of is protesting for reducing bad Copyright laws by many people to change it for the good, as I feel that it's the most likelihood effective way since a lot of law makers don't much rely on evidence based research only.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2022 @ 02:44pm"I can want someone off YouTube all I want; that wouldn’t mean I want them permanently silenced everywhere. That would be unethical." You would still be wanting to limit the freedom of such certain speeches from being spread because you don't like the idea of it being spread. And while you can 'want' it all you want, it can be debatable depending how you want it. "…on one platform." Doesn't change the fact that it's debatable to be banned from YT just for having a policy allowed and lawful speech sayings of an opinion. It's like defending government censorship on certain speech from the government banning a public protest on one street. I'm pretty dang sure that if I had a million subscribers where I wanted to state my opinion, and was banned for it and didn't have that much of an audience elsewhere, I would probably find it fair to feel (but not 100%) silenced that way. "It really isn’t. In both cases, someone wants another person banned because they were an asshole (and likely broke the rules). Usi..." I should of probably used "policy allowed" too for the YouTube example. And to be frank, I was focused more about policy allowed and lawful speech being more of an 'opinion'. For example: "I think homophobia isn't that bad.". "Should an employer accept the fact that they’ve got someone working for them who happens to be an asshole when that employee is off the clock? To re-use my example: Shoul..." That depends. If I'm an asshole to an IRL friend but my job doesn't aid me into that, then I don't see why. "Vagueness allows anyone to bullshit an audience. Saying “I’m gonna get help” can mean anything anyone wants it to mean; saying “I’m gonna do [specific action]” means something far more concrete." I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge to see someone saying "I'm gonna get the proper help." to mean getting help to not do those bad things anymore, even if a bit broad sometimes. I don't think a lot of people will know how specifically they will, but for the right people, it's at least a step in the right direction. "Two things. ..." Yeah I mean lawful as in having a career that isn't illegal and doesn't involve illegal activity. lol Yeah of course it is their own problem, but a lot of people exist like that, and physiologically speaking, it did make a lot of things worse. "“Sometimes”?" Some people already get what some meant. "Hey, it’s your company’s funeral—..." When Disney rehired James Gunn through redemption, did company go out? When Adult Swim realized the bad taste pedophilia joke from whatshisname, but allowed a second chance, did the company get ruined? I think when more people stand up against this one problem, there is a chance that only the boycott from s**** people won't much effect certain companies for what they stand for. "But if the “guilty party” (so to speak) showed no capacity for remorse or change, I’d say “let them stay gone”. Anyone unwilling to make a sincere attempt at being a better..." I meant: "Even if you do improve enough, you still can't come back." | "Come back as a better enough person." would be a much better message. "A person who makes a Holocaust joke c..." I'm not sure if this is the best example. Being a comedian being a bit offensive but not in an illegal way, isn't itself morally wrong, so I think that depends what kind of job the person has. Maybe I suggest seeing how a lot of other people feel about "cancel culture" or "mob mentality" handling similar topics, including the story I shared about the 1998 joke. Not that I depend on popular vote as the source of an argument though. "But giving material support to shitty people and/or refusing to call out their shitty behavior makes someone an enabler." Helping the person with an innocent tool having nothing to do (including no aiding) with RL bares no responsibility of such person beating his wife. If said crook decides to beat his wife again, then that's 100% his own fault and anyone that is actually a complicit to it.. I can understand allowing a person access to a group of people online where such person had a recent history of online abusive behavior but even then that could probably be controlled and dumb trust mistaking would still have such abuser more responsible, but one should be careful next time. I assumed "enabler" means aiding a person to be, or continuing to be around other people where such behavior could happen. The last part of what you said is dangerous as it literally applies millions of people. Simply not applying a job at the police station and instead playing Super Mario Bros. would be "enablers" of several criminals according to what I assume is your logic. | A person being friends with a bad person vs. not being friends with an abusive person where the first person isn't calling out the behavior but isn't supporting his bad behavior doesn't seem to feel different too. I assume you have other comments replied to me. I think for now I'm going to just focus on this as I'm a bit tired looking around here for the other ones and wish to make this easier here. To let you know, I'm not saying you're harassing me or anything like that, just wanted to let you you know.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2022 @ 02:03pmIt's not that being silenced technically is always bad. The concern is usually more about trying to prevent someone from spreading certain messages because it's deemed offensive to a group of people. Similar to censorship (removing certain stuff through some kind of outrage or whatever the definition of it requires). I'll admit there might be lines here too.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2022 @ 01:55pmI'm just gonna mainly ignore the other stuff here and only respond to the last part. "You should’ve been specific about the speech they were saying, too. Vagueness doesn’t make for a great argument." As I said kinda, a group mention can sometimes be specific enough to serve the whole point of an argument. Better example, "People shouldn't be fired from a regular lawful job for having an opinion in their own head." does not require any specifications of what opinion that is, because part of the argument is that people shouldn't be fired for any belief in their own head, no matter how horrible it is, even if they have the right to fire someone for it.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2022 @ 01:43pmNote that I will try to short some stuff with "..." within "quotes" to make the reply seem more simple. It's not to ignore everything not shown. "That isn’t an unethical take on free speech. Someone is allowed to say “I want that dipshit off YouTube” about any dipshit YouTuber." "Anyone is allowed to ask YouTube i..." I don't entirely agree. If someone is offended by a controversial, but lawful speech existing on YouTube to the point that they want to limit the freedom to share such freedom of speech by banning the person off of YouTube, then at least maybe, it's an unethical take on free speech. Like I said maybe, just because certain reactions to it are 'allowed' doesn't change that it's a reaction showing the desire to limit the person's free speech from being spread. If someone wants to ban a person who keeps abusing other members directly because of the abusive behavior, even though that might limit certain speeches that are innocent as a side effect, then that's different. "For me, that’d depend on the circumstances. For example: Is the joke taking a potshot at people that your hypothetical ex-comedian might end up interacting with as part of their job? Because you shouldn’t want to have someone telling pro-Nazi jokes working at a Holocaust museum unless you think that, in and of itself, is somehow hilarious. (In which case: The GOP would like you to run for public office.)" The only time I can think it's worth firing is if the person made the joke during such a job, and doesn't realized how poor it was or something like this. In this one case, the joke was over 15 years old, and even then the new job was in the Olympics. I think it can be an issue to fire a person from such a place who brought innocent joy, over a small dumb joke he doesn't even do anymore. "The “apologies” you’re referring to are those..." The problem with some public reactions is that they try to dictate that apology by requiring things not needed. All the person needs is to show regret, and show getting proper help or shown that he's done such a thing if already done so and if necessary, be clear enough. Psychologically speaking, some things also do force people to choose bad things and some people want to point that out without intending to not improve. There was even this apology I recently found saying that he was going to get help and deal with the problems, and a bunch of people hated it because he wasn't THAT specific (I don't this one was that necessary due to the message) or expressed of wanting to come back after improving. That's my issue with why it usually makes it worse, because no matter how one apoligize, one get hated more likely, except for maybe something that means "Hey, I'm sorry. I'm going to leave the very lawful career that made me so happy and never return.", because a lot of society hates the idea of giving second chances to lawful careers to certain people that improved enough. That being said, I'm not defending every "apology", and sometimes being clear is important. "Again, that comes down to a totality of circumstances. An employer might not want to keep someone on the p..." Even then, your concept of "circumstances" is debatable. If I ran a company and kept someone who made a really bad offensive joke 20 years ago, I'm not gonna let that stop me from hiring him, even if it made me "look bad" by what, a bunch of weirdos on Twitter? I would rather spread the message saying that it's important to allow a job to those no longer causing problems, rather than discriminate in favor of s**** people. "What you’re noticing is people finally getting tired of bigots being able to escape the consequences of their actions/words and doing something to make some form of consequences stick—even if it’s o..." The thing I noticed are three things: The message of "Get proper help, but don't come back, ever." Going after people for merely being friends with bad people, supporting the person, as a person, while improving, and/or for supporting a person coming back to some things while improved enough or at least out of good reasonable faith of improvement. Some of these people don't know what being responsible mean apparently. Someone I knew a bit got attacked for working on an innocent tool just because the tool was connected with a person who likely beated his wife and had some awful opinions. Some scream "enabler". Spreading concern to many individuals simply having a platform after they did their time. As if it should be the public to decide that. These three things are something to be concerned about. This isn't the same as saying "banning a person is always wrong." either. "I have to wonder if you’ve ever gotten popped in the mouth for saying something stupid." Except I wasn't being stupid. Maybe I should try to explain a few things better, but I wasn't acting stupid.
-
On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It
Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 07:54pmJust in case this is about the "certain speech" thing, I meant that I didn't want to feel responsible for any speech that promotes illegal activity. The only other reason why I said it was likely to make the first part of the example more innocent to further justify my point about one thing. If it's that one thing, when I said "lawful political opinion", I meant any lawful political opinion. Even saying "I think the nazies was good people.", assuming it's legal to say that, on their Twitter page would be dumb to get fired over. A group mention can still be specific in it's own right, and this one was clearly one of them, as this was about the idea of firing someone for having a political opinion while still protected by the US first amendment. I probably should of been specific about where the person was saying that though (some jobs require people to keep politics to themselves), but that's about it. If not then I think I'm done talking about this.
Honestly I think true justice is about fixing criminals and then bringing them back into society. I've seen some documents about a prison in Norway that I think is about it. Heard that the way criminals are treated in prison in US generally creates more victims. I think the only payment that brings value beyond rehabilitating is certain amends, which can be good.