The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, I think your strawman needs more straw.

Oh yes, when HoreTore makes the point it's "perhaps", when I make the point it's a strawman.

Continue defending an absurd statement. I feel very bad for all the Europeans who have to live under such tyranny which you have very clearly exposed.

[rvg]

Oh yes, when HoreTore makes the point it's "perhaps", when I make the point it's a strawman.

Continue defending an absurd statement. I feel very bad for all the Europeans who have to live under such tyranny which you have very clearly exposed.

Horetore actually puts together a coherent counterargument. Yours is akin to doubting God's omnipotence because he cannot create an immovable object.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But the hate speech laws are horrible. I don't get it acin. Where are the convincing rationales you refer to?

All this felons movie theaters ancient history bad words bleeped out stuff is irrelevant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But the hate speech laws are horrible. I don't get it acin. Where are the convincing rationales you refer to?

All this felons movie theaters ancient history bad words bleeped out stuff is irrelevant.

I don't live in Europe and I don't have the judicial rulings from European countries on me. Besides, whats convincing for one person is not convincing for another. I have heard people complain about the fire in the movie theater rationale saying that simply shouting there is a fire doesn't put people in danger, individuals panicking and trampling others does.

When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't live in Europe and I don't have the judicial rulings from European countries on me. Besides, whats convincing for one person is not convincing for another. I have heard people complain about the fire in the movie theater rationale saying that simply shouting there is a fire doesn't put people in danger, individuals panicking and trampling others does.

You're killing me. So the law doesn't effect you. So some people don't find it convincingly bad. So some people complain about the fire deal. SO WHAT?

When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.

Are you really just objecting to bragging, and not arguing about whether imposing heavy fines on people for "denigrating religion" is terrible?

I wish our culture would accept bragging and start hating on people who self-deprecate instead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're killing me. So the law doesn't effect you. So some people don't find it convincingly bad. So some people complain about the fire deal. SO WHAT?

What is your argument here?

Are you really just objecting to bragging, and not arguing about whether imposing heavy fines on people for "denigrating religion" is terrible?

I am saying attempts to quantify freedom is a load of garbage. RVG made a dumb blanket statement of "hurr durr, we americans are freer than you euros". And all you are doing is defending it by saying "look at what a terrible law they have!". Because the US doesn't have it's fair share of dumb laws.

Bragging and other obnoxiousness breeds stagnation, humility breeds constructive discourse.

I wish our culture would accept bragging and start hating on people who self-deprecate instead.

Our American culture seems to be perfectly fine with bragging about itself. It's obnoxious enough. Maybe you are sick of your negative nancy professors, but they are not the culture at large.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What is your argument here?

You don't find it convincing? Well some people might.

I am saying attempts to quantify freedom is a load of garbage. RVG made a dumb blanket statement of "hurr durr, we americans are freer than you euros". And all you are doing is defending it by saying "look at what a terrible law they have!". Because the US doesn't have it's fair share of dumb laws.

Imagine being fined thousands of dollars for what you just said.

Bragging and other obnoxiousness breeds stagnation, humility breeds constructive discourse.

Our American culture seems to be perfectly fine with bragging about itself. It's obnoxious enough. Maybe you are sick of your negative nancy professors, but they are not the culture at large.

Yeah this is really what it's all about.

If someone brags just leave it. They exaggerate? So what. I'm glad many Americans brag, I wish the rest of them would not make a fuss about it. I don't get the mentality at all. If it's something you'd object to regardless of their tone then object to it. I mean, I can imagine objecting to rvg by saying "don't kid yourself, our laws are unquestionably better, but our social environment is far too toxic towards serious debate about this stuff, you won't get fined for saying it but you will get fired". But it's not inherently offensive to brag.

We shouldn't reflexively reward people who say that they suck and criticize people who claim quality. It's a form of radical leveling, egalitarianism gone wild.

We would be scratching away at dirt farms to this day if we were humble rather than agonistic. Bragging does the opposite of breed stagnation, it incites other people to make a counter argument. Humility and "well we each have our own fair share etc" is the true conversation killer.

[rvg]

I don't know about yelling fire in a movie theatre, but I assure you guys that you'll find out just how "free" your speach really is(n't) if you go make a bad joke in airport. You know which one I'm talking about.

Bomb Voyage... Seriously though, how is this a problem? If you go and pretend to rob a bank, you'll get cops called on you. If you flat out tell a TSA worker that you have a bomb, why shouldn't they take you seriously? They're doing their job (and probably hating it), and here you come along and make their job more difficult. TSA has many problems, but holding people to their word isn't one of them. You wouldn't get smart with a cop, why be any different at the airport? A bad joke may delay a flight, and at that point if the authorities do nothing, the irate passengers just might take the matter into their own hands.

Heck, if you're really unlucky you'll get sent to Gitmo. I hear they have so much freedom there that they're practically dying from it.

Oh please, just give me evidence of one person being sent to Gitmo for an airport joke. Just one.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Bomb Voyage... Seriously though, how is this a problem? If you go and pretend to rob a bank, you'll get cops called on you. If you flat out tell a TSA worker that you have a bomb, why shouldn't they take you seriously? They're doing their job (and probably hating it), and here you come along and make their job more difficult. TSA has many problems, but holding people to their word isn't one of them. You wouldn't get smart with a cop, why be any different at the airport? A bad joke may delay a flight, and at that point if the authorities do nothing, the irate passengers just might take the matter into their own hands.

Not if you're intending to visit LA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01...t_deportation/

[rvg]

Not if you're intending to visit LA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01...t_deportation/

So, what's the problem?

[rvg]

Funny thing about Gitmo is that you don't really know who's there, or why, or for how long. That's kind of the point.

But you're right, you'd have to be a total idiot to yell bomb in an airport and you probably wouldn't go to Gitmo--but you would land on a no-fly list and your entire life would be turned upside down. Is that fair? Maybe. Either way, it goes to show that your speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would require a nation full of people who were capable of not taking things personally, and that's something we don't have anyway.

It's not about taking things personally. People may act on emotions, governments do not (with the exception of despotic regimes like North Korea). As for your life being ruined if you put a show at an airport: nobody is required to deal with you. The society at large owes you nothing. That does not jeopardize your freedom in any way. Suppose you end up on a no-fly list, there are other ways of getting to your destination. If you want to fly, don't do stupid things at the airport. If you insist on that course of action, that's okay, but nobody is obligated to accommodate you.

[rvg]

Are you familiar with all the ways you can land on a no-fly list? I was on one during active military service because of something my step-father did in the '70s. It was very hard to get off it.

The difficulty associated with getting off the list is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. As for you ending up on it, I presume it was a mistake and has since been rectified. Sadly, mistakes occur under any system. As long as there are humans making decisions, mistakes will be made. It is inevitable.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Either way, it goes to show that your speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would require a nation full of people who were capable of not taking things personally, and that's something we don't have anyway.

In that case ruly free speech would require people incapable of being offended or reacting negatively to anything that anyone said, then. And to have true free will would require omnipotence. And I suppose we couldn't have free speech without free will.

That's just not what free means. Although I agree that we should often be more worried about social restrictions than about legal ones, you can't really argue that social restrictions are inherently bad. You're placing too much value on "true freedom". Saying we don't have "truly free" something is not by itself a cause for concern.

I think this conversation is far too abstract and all we have to do is look at the specifics of what we're talking about here.

Avoiding the sentiments that come into play when we have the words "free" "truly free" "free speech" etc floating around in our heads, we are comparing someone getting fined thousands of dollars for "denigrating a religion" to someone causing a panic for no reason.

[HoreTore]

This thread has derailed hard.

[Viking]

In that case ruly free speech would require people incapable of being offended or reacting negatively to anything that anyone said, then. And to have true free will would require omnipotence. And I suppose we couldn't have free speech without free will.

That's just not what free means. Although I agree that we should often be more worried about social restrictions than about legal ones, you can't really argue that social restrictions are inherently bad. You're placing too much value on "true freedom". Saying we don't have "truly free" something is not by itself a cause for concern.

I think this conversation is far too abstract and all we have to do is look at the specifics of what we're talking about here.

Avoiding the sentiments that come into play when we have the words "free" "truly free" "free speech" etc floating around in our heads, we are comparing someone getting fined thousands of dollars for "denigrating a religion" to someone causing a panic for no reason.

It was rvg who first talked about freedom [of speech] as an absolute; a formulation which you defended agains ACIN, and now you are slamming GC for exactly the same thing.

---

I was reading a Norwegian commentary published two days ago titled The price of racism. Essentially, it is a story about a Filipino that was adopted to Norway and experienced a lot of racism, and, related or not, ended up killing himself.

This bit is fine, grave injustice was made. But the big problem is that the author naively keeps connecting the racism to fascism, and to the likes of ABB. With the demographic development that is going on in the capital, it seems inevitable that white people will experience trouble/get unwanted attention because of their ethnicity. This is precisely why ABB went on his rampage, the alienation of ethnical Norwegians in parts on the capital. The author is completely out of touch with the new reality - and not surprisingly, the author comes from nowhere near Oslo, but from a different part of the country.

This is the new reality for Oslo (from 2010):

In some Oslo schools there will this autumn be very few pupils with an ethnically Norwegian backgorund, if any at all.


- We are likely to get 75 pupils for first grade, all of them multicultural, says principal of Mortensrud School, Leif Arne Eggen.

Far between Norwegian pupils

Similar conditions hold true for Tøyen School, says principal Tor Helgesen:

- Today, we only have one [ethnic Norwegian pupil for first grade] that we are certain of.

Rommen School in Groruddalen are also among the schools that expect only one Norwegian pupil for the first grade this autumn.

So, I am really provocated by the commentary, but not for the reasons that the author intended. The ignorance is staggering.