Politics

[Dude]

Yes. I've seen this first hand.
You forgot this sooty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Christians are being killed in China for what they believe.

did you even read that link

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Yes, I did, and if you read the section of the US, there is one attack. A guy who committed arson on churches and vandalized them.
An american atheist campaign was tagged on but that didn't do any harm, and was an expression of atheism.

[blueflower999]

Waddle, sweetie, I've seen you make some good posts arguing your points before but this one just doesn't do it for me.

Actually considering how the definition of offensive is subjective, so there is no universal definition for what can be defined as offensive. So it's technically perfectly okay for someone to label just things that happens to be incorrect as offensive, meaning it'd be justified for the person to view everything that's offensive as incorrect.

I'm trying really hard to understand this but I can't. I realize that the definition of offensive is subjective, but what's factual is, obviously, not subjective. Whether something is offensive or not has no bearing on whether something is factual or not. That's why Slow's post that essentially said "everything that's offensive is wrong" set me off. 

You worded it poorly, but the leftist view sees that everyone has the right to be upset about anything at any time. You shouldn't ever question the person who is offended by anything but rather the thing the person is offended about, when trying to define "should that person be offended by that?".
With all due respect, it's arrogant try to raise your argument's point with "it makes no sense" or "it defies all common sense", especially when your point is questionable. Humble alternatives for it are fe. "it makes no sense to me" or "i just don't get it", instead of speaking as if you'd represent the entire universe.

What are you talking about? I never word things poorly. 

Nah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.

But should you be offended in the first place if someone is correct?

Oh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.

also you are close-mindedly implying that the left becomes a lynch mob only because some one sees things differently, which is against the left message. Just because someone sees things differently, doesn't make the other viewpoint wrong, or justified just because people have a right to have different viewpoints.

As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda. 

which gets me to my next point
The reason the "freedom" of speech is and should be restricted, is because it can be abused to undermine an individual's other rights, like equality. Like people use it to justify racism, which would allow people to be seen unequally. It should be restricted like any other "freedoms" that contradict other rights. like they restricted the "freedom of stabbing people to death".
Though it's still notable how these "human rights" are just there to keep up the society and actually are still questionable. for example, the freedom of taking someone else's life can still be ethically arguable.

Freedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level. I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?

ninja'dexcept it's the definition of a homophobe, because it discrimination if you see heterosexuality as right and homosexuality as wrong.do you see gay people discriminating straights, because i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.

Not even going to respond to this because I don't think I have to.

[Dude]

Yes, I did, and if you read the section of the US, there is one attack. A guy who committed arson on churches and vandalized them.
An american atheist campaign was tagged on but that didn't do any harm, and was an expression of atheism.

noooot you

[mikey]

yo before this gets any more out of hand, I'm gonna say this- I was referring to people who DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, but homosexuality is not in line with their personal morals or beliefs.  You can go ahead and call people who make fun of homosexuals homophobes if you want (although anti-gay would probably be more accurate), just don't mindlessly include those people who treat people with different sexualities no differently than they would treat ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING.  You're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing.
Quit arguing about it, because you all have no clue what I mean apparently.  This has nothing to do with homosexuality, really.  I don't care what's going on with whoever kim what's her face is.  If someone's sexuality is different than mine, cool, if I don't believe homosexuality is a "good thing", THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HATE THAT PERSON.  I WOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SEXUALITY, ok?
Please, just stop.  Dishing dirt on "homophobes" is not ok, and is just as bad as dishing dirt on homosexuals or any PERSON IN THE WORLD.

[blueflower999]

merrrrr political incorrectness

[Sebastian]

merrrrr political incorrectness

of course

[MaestroUGC]

You're all missing the point.

You should be theorizing how I'm going to campaign for presidency in 2028.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Nah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.

Because the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots.

Oh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.
As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda. 

It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that.

Freedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level.

Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it.

I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start attacking people for speaking out against the government?

It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.

yo before this gets any more out of hand, I'm gonna say this- I was referring to people who DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, but homosexuality is not in line with their personal morals or beliefs.  You can go ahead and call people who make fun of homosexuals homophobes if you want (although anti-gay would probably be more accurate), just don't mindlessly include those people who treat people with different sexualities no differently than they would treat ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING.  You're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing.
Quit arguing about it, because you all have no clue what I mean apparently.  This has nothing to do with homosexuality, really.  I don't care what's going on with whoever kim what's her face is.  If someone's sexuality is different than mine, cool, if I don't believe homosexuality is a "good thing", THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HATE THAT PERSON.  I WOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SEXUALITY, ok?
Please, just stop.  Dishing dirt on "homophobes" is not ok, and is just as bad as dishing dirt on homosexuals or any PERSON IN THE WORLD.

So, don't make fun of bigots?

noooot you

What do you take issue with? The content in the US section was waaaay less extreme. And the atheist campaigns were literally just billboards. Hell, there were more arsons in Norway than America, not to mention the other crimes.

[mikey]

Because the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots. It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that. Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it. It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.

So, don't make fun of bigots?
What do you take issue with? The content in the US section was waaaay less extreme. And the atheist campaigns were literally just billboards. Hell, there were more arsons in Norway than America, not to mention the other crimes.

As an addendum to my post:
DON'T THROW THE WORD BIGOT AROUND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, CAUSE CLEARLY YOU DON'T

[Dude]

No, I'm saying I wasn't talking to you.

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
synonyms:   chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist
"he comes off as a naïve, close-minded bigot"

WELL THEN

[Sebastian]

Can't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

No, I'm saying I wasn't talking to you.

Oh, I see now. Sorry.

As an addendum to my post:
DON'T THROW THE WORD BIGOT AROUND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, CAUSE CLEARLY YOU DON'T

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
You can replace "opinions" with just about whatever.
EDIT: Ninja'd with the exact same definition as Dude

[MaestroUGC]

Alright friends, you all had your fun, take this somewhere private.

This is a warning.

[Dude]

Can't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.

I understand that you're tired of it but you have the option of ignoring it so I don't think we have to stop unless shit gets out of control