Jump to content
IGNORED

Freedom of Speech


Message added by DavecUK,

This thread is no longer compliant with current rules on the forum....locked as part of a maintenance exercise.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Find another forum that fits your desire to express political and other views more frequently . It’s a coffee forum mate, I don’t come here for political discussion , people’s views on brexit , the le

I'll try and lay it out for you. As someone who is mixed race, I'm also married to a Chinese girl and my Kids are mixed race. My Mother is not English and my father was true blue English as they come.

I'd like to put a few broad points on the gist of this thread. 1. The key is having the original post in 'off topic'. I can't see why people are getting uppity about having a thread that doesn't

Posted Images

I'd like to put a few broad points on the gist of this thread.

1. The key is having the original post in 'off topic'. I can't see why people are getting uppity about having a thread that doesn't relate to coffee in an 'off topic' sub. How can people complain about it being non coffee related when it's there? (I accept the OP may have not been originally in this case). This is a bit like the censorship of comedians that crack jokes that people don't like....if you don't like it, don't watch it.

2. The algorithm or whatever it is, to remove a post automatically when 'x' amount of people report it is ridiculous in my humble opinion. That's not to take away from mod'ing being time consuming and done by people that likely don't get paid for doing the work. But I'm a big believer in people not giving offence, people choose to take it. So just because 'x' amount of people don't like what I write doesn't mean it's inappropriate. This allows censorship of anything and everything. If I had a vendetta against coffee beans from Braziil, any time anyone posted about a nice Brazillian coffee I could just create 5 different accounts and report it, purely to get the viewpoint deleted. Ironically, I get the feeling this is exactly how twitter works and why any viewpoint that's not 'woke' seems to disappear rather quickly. 

This 21st century culture of 'I'm offended' and 'people must apologise' is weak in my opinion. In life, you will come across things, people and opinions you don't like. Just deal with it. Show some tolerance of said opinions (the irony....).

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rapid said:

But I'm a big believer in people not giving offence, people choose to take it.

You might be a believer in this, but it doesn't make it so. This seems like you are absolving yourself of the responsibility that is part of being able to speak freely - you can say what you like, in the knowledge it might be hurtful to someone, but it's then their fault that you can't be civil. 

I'm not sure why this is so important to people. For example, I hate being told what to do/what I can say/what I ought to think, as much as anyone. But, at the end of the day I'm a person, who has relationships with other people. I like other people & value these relationships. So, if I were to say something (about something they have no control over, nor decision in) that visibly caused hurt in their eyes, then I obviously feel bad. Why would I then continue to do it? How much more important is it for me to be unnecessarily hurtful, than to make a minor adjustment in what I say & be a better friend to people?

I have no problem arguing/debating with people if I have a different point of view, or think they are objectively wrong, but I take these points in isolation and it bears little relationship to my feelings towards the person in question.

Twitter's posts are checked  if they see a "targeted attack" & enforced based on a human checking them. Obviously this can allow bias depending on the adjudicator's viewpoint, but Twitter isn't law. As with comedians, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MWJB said:

You might be a believer in this, but it doesn't make it so. This seems like you are absolving yourself of the responsibility that is part of being able to speak freely - you can say what you like, in the knowledge it might be hurtful to someone, but it's then their fault that you can't be civil. 

I'm not sure why this is so important to people. For example, I hate being told what to do/what I can say/what I ought to think, as much as anyone. But, at the end of the day I'm a person, who has relationships with other people. I like other people & value these relationships. So, if I were to say something (about something they have no control over, nor decision in) that visibly caused hurt in their eyes, then I obviously feel bad. Why would I then continue to do it? How much more important is it for me to be unnecessarily hurtful, than to make a minor adjustment in what I say & be a better friend to people?

I have no problem arguing/debating with people if I have a different point of view, or think they are objectively wrong, but I take these points in isolation and it bears little relationship to my feelings towards the person in question.

Twitter's posts are checked  if they see a "targeted attack" & enforced based on a human checking them. Obviously this can allow bias depending on the adjudicator's viewpoint, but Twitter isn't law. As with comedians, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

It is possible to be truthful, honest and civil, all at the same time.

If you can't tell the truth, then tell no lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MWJB said:

You did what you did, openly for everyone to see. Take ownership of that, or stop doing it.

Your political views were irrelevant in that case. What you did was poor etiquette, however you lean politically.

Apology accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MWJB said:

You might be a believer in this, but it doesn't make it so.

That's absolutely right, because it's not fact, it's my opinion. But I'd like to have that opinion, all the same. What I don't want is to have my post removed because someone may have been offended by it, upset by it, hurt by it, disagreed with it, take your pick. I know you weren't, I'm generalising here but you see my point. 

8 minutes ago, MWJB said:

I'm not sure why this is so important to people. For example, I hate being told what to do/what I can say/what I ought to think, as much as anyone. But, at the end of the day I'm a person, who has relationships with other people. I like other people & value these relationships. So, if I were to say something (about something they have no control over, nor decision in) that visibly caused hurt in their eyes, then I obviously feel bad. Why would I then continue to do it? How much more important is it for me to be unnecessarily hurtful, than to make a minor adjustment in what I say & be a better friend to people?

In one sentence; because some people are snowflakes.

Allow me to elaborate. I could post something on social media that literally 1 million people like but 1 person finds 'hurtful' as you put it. Should I have made that post? Should I edit the post? Should I even.....apologise for it? No. Because you will always find someone or some kind of minority of people that will always dislike it. Linking to the above quote, that's exactly what I meant. For something to be 'hurtful' is opinion. So it's perfectly acceptable that someone's opinion is different to mine. Where is line? Should the 1 out of 1 million person that was 'hurt' be the person to decide if something if censored or not? Of course not. 

Just to balance this, I'm not talking about anything involving malice or hatred (or incitement of), that's different. But being offended just because you disagree with a point of view is where I draw the line. This is where I wouldn't stop, apologise, edit etc. 

I don't think we're actually disagreeing about much here by the way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Blue_Cafe said:

It is possible to be truthful, honest and civil, all at the same time.

If you can't tell the truth, then tell no lies.

There's also the phrase "The truth hurts" and some people don't like to be told home truths about themselves. In fact some people get very defensive and play the victim, hoping the one confronting them is turned into the outcast.

Input: 'Terranovered’ Versalab M3  + Niche

Output: Slayer One Group + La Pavoni + V60 + AeroPress + Syphon + Bialetti Induction Moka Pot + Bialetti Mucka Express + jar of instant for visitors..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rhys said:

There's also the phrase "The truth hurts" and some people don't like to be told home truths about themselves. In fact come people get very defensive and play the victim, hoping the one confronting them is turned into the outcast.

The truth hurts because truth is difficult to give and difficult to hear.

As with everything if something is worth doing, it's usually not easy. 

Much like coffee lol. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue_Cafe said:

The truth hurts because truth is difficult to give and difficult to hear.

As with everything if something is worth doing, it's usually not easy. 

Much like coffee lol. 

Very true. Often the truth is given to those you care about.

Only difference being in times when I was a kid when parents could smack you, they'd often say "This is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you.." as they take their slipper off... Throwing a bit of Lego on the floor under their foot sometimes made it true :classic_laugh:

Input: 'Terranovered’ Versalab M3  + Niche

Output: Slayer One Group + La Pavoni + V60 + AeroPress + Syphon + Bialetti Induction Moka Pot + Bialetti Mucka Express + jar of instant for visitors..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rhys said:

There's also the phrase "The truth hurts" and some people don't like to be told home truths about themselves. In fact some people get very defensive and play the victim, hoping the one confronting them is turned into the outcast.

There aren't any truths in a post modern world. 

 

49 minutes ago, MWJB said:

This seems like you are absolving yourself of the responsibility that is part of being able to speak freely - you can say what you like, in the knowledge it might be hurtful to someone, but it's then their fault that you can't be civil. 

Civility relates to how not what you communicate. Speaking freely is a fundamental right providing it doesn't break any law.  Taking offence has become akin to an art form to disingenuously shut down debate when the 'wrong' opinions are aired. 

  • Like 3

Screenshot 2021-04-29 at 17.29.11.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points here, but you are digressing from the point I was trying to make with this thread. I believe in the PRINCIPLE of Free Speech.....that is I can say what I want about who I want when I want.....if I overstep the rules that maybe associated with for example a forum, then I can be moderated. If I break the libel laws I can be sued....BUT, no one should not be shut down and have their character assassinated simply because they dare to offer an opinion which differs to that of another 

1808484491_dfk41toffee2.JPG.78120b8fa5b4a1ac62bd0d035cf72d1f.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Systemic Kid said:

There aren't any truths in a post modern world. 

 

Civility relates to how not what you communicate. Speaking freely is a fundamental right providing it doesn't break any law.  Taking offence has become akin to an art form to disingenuously shut down debate when the 'wrong' opinions are aired. 

So you won't be offended when I tell you this is over-privileged drivel, based on nothing other than misleading tabloid headlines and your own bias. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dfk41 said:

Some interesting points here, but you are digressing from the point I was trying to make with this thread. I believe in the PRINCIPLE of Free Speech.....that is I can say what I want about who I want when I want.....if I overstep the rules that maybe associated with for example a forum, then I can be moderated. If I break the libel laws I can be sued....BUT, no one should not be shut down and have their character assassinated simply because they dare to offer an opinion which differs to that of another 

Why don't they have the right to express their opinion about your post being out of order to a moderator then? That's not covered under your version of freedom of speech. How convenient for you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, grumble said:

So you won't be offended when I tell you this is over-privileged drivel, based on nothing other than misleading tabloid headlines and your own bias. 

Absolutely not. That's your right.

And I have the right to disagree with you.

Screenshot 2021-04-29 at 17.29.11.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and as a result f this thread, I have done something I have never ever done before in over 8 years of membership. I have decided to block certain members. I am not happy about doing this but there you go. I am sure I am on plenty of peoples blocked list

1808484491_dfk41toffee2.JPG.78120b8fa5b4a1ac62bd0d035cf72d1f.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Systemic Kid said:

There aren't any truths in a post modern world. 

 

Civility relates to how not what you communicate. Speaking freely is a fundamental right providing it doesn't break any law.  Taking offence has become akin to an art form to disingenuously shut down debate when the 'wrong' opinions are aired. 

The nail on the head. 

I'll define 'wrong' for you - non woke/anything other than left wing. 

There's plenty of purpose to it though. The reason that these people don't want to debate certain issues is because they get shown up to be either downright wrong, or an opinion that isn't shared by the wider audience. It's plain censorship and information is king. Controlling that information can lead to indoctrination which of course, is the main goal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rapid said:

The nail on the head. 

I'll define 'wrong' for you - non woke/anything other than left wing. 

There's plenty of purpose to it though. The reason that these people don't want to debate certain issues is because they get shown up to be either downright wrong, or an opinion that isn't shared by the wider audience. It's plain censorship and information is king. Controlling that information can lead to indoctrination which of course, is the main goal. 

I am not so sure about that.

I feel this move towards being hyper woke (good grief) is because modern society (read the youth) have developed a distinct distaste for authority and seniority as they see that only as standing on a footing of power and its abuse, rather than sat on a foundation of authority and seniority born from knowledge, experience and wisdom.

Look to the church and its rampant abuse of power and privilege over the eons,

Look to the government and its agents and their abuse of power and privilege,

Look to the establishment and the constant stream of scandal and hedonism.

And so on and so forth.

Who have they left to  judge themselves against?

 

God is dead, after all. In his place, chaos awaits....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of offence is interesting. If somebody is offending to the senses, say they're ugly or they smell bad, should they apologise for that? Should they wear a mask or deodorant? Society would not pressure somebody to wear a mask because their appearance is unpleasant but there's not so much refrain when it comes to telling people to wear deodorant or take a shower. There are no funny advertisements in which someone looks in the mirror, pulls a disgusted face, and happily slaps on a mask before they triumphantly leave the house having beaten the thing that made them offensive to other people. 

So you've got offensive to the senses -- as above or somebody playing loud music through crappy tinny speakers on a train might be asked politely or not to turn it off -- and you've got offensive to the mind, ideas so alien and incompatible with your views they appal you.

Then you've got emotional offence. It's interesting because emotion isn't caused by external stimulus, it's caused by your own thoughts. It's impossible to know what is going to cause emotional offence in other people. E.G I could have a t-shirt with a ginger cat on it and somebody might see it and burst into tears because it resembles a recently lost pet, or they might be deathly afraid of ginger cats (or of grown men wearing t-shits with cats on them). Nobody is responsible for causing emotional offence really because nobody is in control of what anybody else thinks. Though if you're aware there are buttons to push this becomes a grey area. You could shout abuse in somebody's face and they might just laugh in response, somebody else might burst into tears and try suicide, another might punch you. Are you singularly responsible for any of these reactions?

 

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, as a newcomer here, I'm glad for this thread. It allows me to quickly see who the various posters are and what their beliefs are. Free speech is great, but anonymity breeds outright contempt. If you're walking down the street and you see someone who looks stupid to you, normally you don't call them out & tell them your opinion of their appearance. At least you don't if you're not a dick. But why not? It's your right isn't it... free speech and all.

Threads like this are funny as people get all tribal over their opinions. I've seen references to "the left" many times and it makes me laugh... as if there is a some homogeneous group of voters who all think alike. What that kind of statement tells me is that anyone who feels differently from the poster gets lumped into one group, "the left" in this case, and denigrated for their difference of opinion. It's like having a difference of opinion isn't any fun unless you can call others out for their differences. For those that are in "the right", I'd like to know how much their support the failed experiment known as Donald Trump... an amazing specimen of right wing thinking.

In the end, nothing is gained from threads like this, no opinions are changed, previous friendships can be affected and nothing positive comes from it. The only benefit is that those that like to argue have a chance to exercise that right.

  

Edited by DaveWC
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • About
    Coffee Forums UK is the UK's premier coffee forum Started in June 2008 by Glenn Watson, we now have more than 24000 mainly UK based members, and welcome more than 3000 members and visitors from around the world each day! With strategic investment and digital expertise from the Jackson Lockhart team (Tait Pollack and Adam Bateman), we are taking Coffee Forums UK to the next level, and are delighted to share the journey with you.

    New Members:
    We are often referred to as the friendliest forum on the web and we look forward to welcoming you onboard. Please read our Terms of Use. We stick by them, existing members please familiarise yourselves with them.


    Advertising

    Coffee Forums Media Kit

    Click Here To Buy Advertising Space 
    £100 p/m when paid yearly, up-to: 690000 banner impressions per month!


    Donate / Sponsor

    Get Your Supporter Badge Today (per year)

    image.png



    Coffee Forums Logo
     




×
×
  • Create New...