I'm offended! The end of free speech.

definitly not the welfare folks that go to all the Trump rallies... get a job

 

can you....

 

But they usually carry no intellectual or political value.
It's the same with graphic depictions of sex or nudity.

It is a rarity that a swear word or a sexualized depiction of nudity is ever needed to convey a social, intellectual, or political thought or idea, or even a news story.

Will I agree with you that there is a slippery slope here and maybe ideally we should be a little bit concerned? Yes. but they are still not in the same league.

 

Oh I understand it and have discussed it often.
Freedom of speech is freedom for the speaker. Obviously.
It says nothing about protecting the person who is spoken about.
The redress, if you are offended, is in law. That is why there are laws concerning libel, slander, human rights (just today some guards at a migrant detention centre in GH have been fired for referring to the migrants in an offensive way.)
If one is offended, use the law which defines "rights".

 

Yes. I sure can.

 

No. You don’t understand the topic. This thread is about the principle of free speech.

 

It is about causing offense or not.
To do that you have to exercise freedom of speech. Or not.
Unless you talk to yourself all the time, in which case you don't have to worry about causing offence or even the principle of free speech.

 

In fact this is popular gibberish.
You have a right to say what you want and that creates a response. You can't have one without the other.
You also dont have the right to be offended or not be offended because whether you are offended or not is not a right anymore than agreeing oe disagreeing with something. You can't have a RIGHT to agree or not. You RIGHTS start with what you do about your reaction.
And none of that interferes with freedom of speech,
IOW if you want to insult someone, go ahead.
It just doesn't do your look much good.

 

Why do you feel you have to insult someone?
Cant you just walk on by carrying your opinion with you?

 

ok

 

I sure would take some mean tweets and blovating.

That sure seems to affect me much less than the alternative. Then again, I could care much less about what somebody says and "feeling" than what actual affects my quality if life.

 

The respons is the sole responsibility of the recipient. The FA that kicked the passenger off the plane could have ignored the message as easily as it decided it was offended and had to take some punitive action for the offense.

The Allegiant FA violated the principle of free speech by kicking the passenger off the plane because his mask was bearing a message it didn't like. Textbook definition.

There are always consequences. But, consider...

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it"​

-- Voltaire.​

A bit hyperbole, perhaps, but a sentiment that goes to the heart of what free speech really means.

 

You are not differentiating between the deeply complex feelings of offence, created by faith, family, experience, gender and genetic tendancies, with the existential action which someone takes because of how they feel. And how they feel is as I say, both personal and psychological.
Your example also ignores the corporate responsibilities such as preventing aggro in a plane.
Come on. We are supposed to be adults here. Surely the passenger doesn't have to deliberately push his face (metaphorically) up against others in public just to test a right he may have.
It is this kind if pushy swagger that may well upset others for no important reason other than to be obnoxious and utterly blind to social sensibilities that causes so much unnecessary aggression.
And that goes both ways.

 

Baseless assumption, and also off topic.

Wrong. It is a prima facie example of the death of the principle of free speech. The FAA sets the rules. and the airline has a contract with the passenger. I can guarantee you the passensger violated neither. The airline -- vís-á-vís the bully of a flight attendant -- violated both.

Straw man. And you just made my argument. The principle of free speech states that a person is allowed to express himself. And if people are offended, well that is going to happen from time-to-time. So what? Move along. Be an adult.

Your suggestion that the passenger did it to "test the limits" is not only a ridiculous fallacy with zero evidence, but that your argument implies people do have a right to not be offended.

NB: Adults don't throw a tantrum and mess their diapers when someone comes along with a differing viewpoint.

I want you to apply that same argument to a "Black Lives Matter" mask, please. You'd of course have to agree there is no problem kicking a passenger off the plane for that message, and you'd have to agree that it is nothing but "pushy swagger" and "unnecessary aggression." However, we know better. NO WAY anyone is getting kicked off the plane for displaying a BLM mesaage.

Does it? What will be the public response when that BLM-masked flyer is kicked off the plane? Well, we won't know because it will never happen. NOR SHOULD IT, I hasten to add.

 

You are one who pleads freedom of speech and shout fire in a crowded theatre.
I just told you IMO offence is not a right. There is no such thing as a right of offence.it is an emotional reaction.
The rest is another repetitive justification for insulting others.

 

Peasants are disgusting aren't they. Them and their workish smells.

 

I love when they say "hate speech" as though it means something to people outside the cult. They're like Baptists talking in tongues about serpents.

 

What's your position on the BLM mask, please?

 

Not the topic of the thread.

 

Fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

Your argument suggests the exact opposite, oddly enough.

I noticed you forgot to apply your "pushy swagger" and "needless aggression" argument to Black Lives Matter masks to prevent "aggro" on the airplane.

 

With an ad hominem to boot!

 

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply. Our colleague knows s/he backed heirs argument into a logical corner and is now stuck there.

 

Brilliantly circling back to the OP -- as you do! They make up the rules as they go along and hold others accountable for transgressions they never even knew existed. Like the bimbo flight attendant deciding it didn't like the man's mask and abusing the power of its station, sent the poor bastard packing. Rinse, repeat thousands of times per day.

 

It's a feature of our friend's approach to debate.

Some similarities to Kranes', in that it's like debating two or three people who aren't keeping in touch with each other.

 

If that same zhr (the attendant with religious mania) was found to fail to apply the same policing of all masks with messages, them should have they's @ss fired.