While I think I understand what you’re getting at, (you’re sort of generalizing here, I’m having a hard time following you), just going off some of the examples in this thread you’re kind of allowing yourself to get sidetracked from making your point by trying to address anything and everything that you feel detracts from your message.
And I get it, nobody likes feeling like they’ve been misunderstood, it’s inevitable and bound to happen, I’d rather ask you to pursue only those conversations that can help you make your point. Sounds to me like you already understand how you can be baited by meaningless bickering into a conversational dead end, so no advice needed there.
I just read (well, skimmed) most of this discussion, and I missed any reference to how free speech was an issue when shopping malls were replacing town plazas as places where people would congregate. Many of these issues being discussed here are the same, with a privately owned space being so ubiquitous that it becomes an issue of whether it counts as a public space or not.
I also noticed that many arguments about free speech are similar to the arguments for smoking in enclosed spaces like restaurants. Those expressing an unpopular opinion do seem to have the same social effect as blowing smoke into the face of those disagreeing with them, and harm their own arguments.
It’s having the skill from practicing your guitar* every day to the point of annoying everybody around you and being in the right place at the right time.
Who knows.
* no, not the plastic kind with four-colored buttons, CH!
Slept on this - wait a second - why would “Death to Israel” be ok, but “Death to Jews” not? Who the hell do you think lives in Israel? Is it because one is a more specific group? What is the number of people you can wish death upon before it gets too broad to become illegal?
There are still laws governing parts of speech, it isn’t truly “you can say anything”. And there are levels of judicial discretion as well.
Which would be even worse with out the 1st Amendment, wouldn’t it? How would your law structure protect you against a government that is biased or corrupted? (Serious question, maybe you have safe guards or checks and balances, I don’t know. Also, we are talking about Australia? I don’t recall.)
If the government made a law banning what ever, how would you challenge it and what legal basis do you have? Here we have groups like the ACLU who will attempt to fight suppression of speech, and the ultimate card they can play is the law is unconstitutional. This often gets settled in lower courts, but some times go all the way to the supreme court.
And in reference to your image, that sort of speech isn’t protected in the work place under the civil rights act and other anti-discrimination laws. In addition, the HR polices of many companies are even more restrictive on what is appropriate conversation and sexual harassment, rude or lewd comments, and jokes of bad taste can get you fired. My company just got bought and sold so I had a whole new HR book let and web training videos on how to behave like a decent person.
I don’t know if @Wanderfound is aware of this or not. It isn’t like one can say or do anything and not get in trouble for it.
The High Court of Australia has made a few rulings arguing that there is an implied right of free political speech in the constitution, but they’re a bit of a stretch [2]. We’re also signatories to a bunch of international human rights treaties, some of which are enforceable in Australian courts.
The first stop for a complaint related to those would usually be the government-funded but independently-run Australian Human Rights Commission. You could also attempt to challenge a law in court on the basis that it conflicted with some overriding law (such as one of the Federal or State Anti-Discrimination laws).
Australian law is based on English common law; it’s a thousand years of interrelated precedents rather than a short list of commandments. Things often get a bit complicated.
But, really, the way you challenge shitty laws over here is by booting out the government and replacing them with one that promises to overturn those laws. The unitary executive/legislative branch means that the incoming administration usually has the ability to enact most of their intentions [3].
.
[1] The main social divide during the first century of Australian independence was Irish Catholic working class vs English Protestant middle/upper class. The ALP represented the Catholic workers, the Liberal Party the Protestant bosses.
[2] The Oz constitution is nearly entirely concerned with interstate trade and tariffs.
[3] Limited partially by the possibility of an obstructive Senate, but there are ways to work around that. And the nature of Parliamentary leadership means that a party that pushes too far is unlikely to hold government for long.
Rob kept asking you to begin another thread because you were off-topic. You kept refusing, hence my original post (which Rob did not move over to this thread). In my post, I asked you to give up the off-topic argument (“give it a rest”) or start a new thread. It was two sentences–hardly a lecture. Then you decided to engage with me. I didn’t take the off-topic bait, but I explained the rules. I guess you felt embarrassed because you then sent me a private message asking me to pm you or flag you when you go off-topic.
Your recollection of events is very cloudy, and I’d appreciate it if you stick with facts rather than feelings. Yes, that’s free speech; you can misrepresent what exactly happened. However, don’t get upset when I call you out on this.
The villainizing gone on for days. None of you would want to be treated this way for having a different opinion. It’s bordering on bullying from my prospective, and I’d sure hope you wouldn’t treat someone in the same room this way.
The funny thing is, I agree with you to a certain extent on your main point–i.e. that the focus on individual misbehaviors is both socially wasteful and counterproductive. However, I disagree with the broad reaching extent that you wish to have it applied.
Furthermore, I feel that you’ve been rude, aggressive, belligerent, and antagonistic to everyone that is trying to talk with you, regardless of their originating tone. That goes even to the people that are trying to agree with you or simply answering questions that you’ve had; such as myself, when you asked what a “concern trolley” was, and I answered. My “reward” for attempting to help you? A page-long screed, filled with logical fallacies and being aggressively belligerent towards both myself and the community at large, and one that made me agree that the label was correct; you may not be a concern trolley in that you are doing this with the active desire to waste everyone’s time for your own ego, but the end result is much the same.
On top of that, I feel that you’ve been attempting to cultivating a martyrdom aura by claiming persecution, bullying, and ostracism by the community, first by claiming that you were going to be “moderated” and have your account deleted. Then, when that didn’t happen, you moved and continue to move the goalposts, claiming now that simple disagreement and failure to treat your concerns with dignity and reverence are the same as bullying–while at the same time you verbally abuse the other people on this thread.
You have the right to voice your opinions here, certainly. And the rest of us have the right to mock those opinions, ask you to be quiet, or simply consign you to the mental folder of “trolley” based on your behavior. Demanding more out of us is not something that you have the right to do so. Or, to be more concise: you have the right to say what’s on your mind. You do not have the right to demand that you have an audience, or that that audience consider it. But you are choosing to blame the lack of consideration for your point on the audience, and not the person presenting it, or that person’s methods.
(I was gonna post a Frozen ‘let it go’ meme, but that one is funnier, IMO.)
Not necessarily; there’s always the Luck Dragon, who has little patience with our petty squabbles.
A derailment would actually be more entertaining, at this point.[quote=“Medievalist, post:240, topic:85122”]
It’s true. They get very whiny or very obstreperous, depending on personality.
[/quote]
I disagree, emphatically.
When I first became a member here 6-7 months ago, I wasn’t exactly ‘welcomed with open arms.’
And given the small but steady influx of those who like to stir the pot and push people’s buttons, now I completely understand why that was the case.
I know I made some waves; and I can totally own that it was my approach and tone that ruffled some feathers initially.
But instead of lashing out or acting victimized, because no one was automatically “warm & fuzzy” with me, I adjusted my way of engaging others (less Regina George and more RuPaul) and I adapted to the community I’d joined.
And eventually the community accepted me as one of their own in return, but I had to earn it.
You’re not being villanized. You are meandering though. I’d suggest you make your point as best you can and be satisfied that you were able to articulate your concerns, even if people don’t agree. You’ll get more traction that way.
