Unwarranted Concern with the Boys BlacKkKlansman review goes here...

A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
edited August 2018 in Movies
This discussion was created from comments split from: BlacKkKlansman - This is why I'm happy to be in Club Baldmove. That thread is a joyous occasion, and people doing THE VERY THINGS I SAID WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE COOL WITH IN THE REVIEW are harshing it's buzz. If you're concerned with your free speech on this forum, or how BOTH SIDES!!! are bad. Post here. Only unique, reasonably framed arguments allowed. This thread is going to be tightly moderated. If you're concern adds nothing new, or is phrased like a total asshole, it will be deleted and you'll probably get banned.

I provocatively titled this thread to make a point. It's hilarious how people apparently are able to parse Trump's ugly and hateful words in a way that is inoffensive and yet are making the leap that Bald Move is going to become some distopian gulag where no one can disagree with the mighty Jim and A.Ron. Dudes, I think I've made it abundantly clear I don't give a fuck about people disagreeing with me. I'd debate you all if I had the time. It's just that debating you makes the minorities who's lives are threatened by the rise of racism emboldened and enabled by the Trump administration feel unsafe. That is my very warranted concern.


FreibergElisaFlukesTaraC73GeorgeAussieGregNozarrrFernNYC17lemoncakes
«13456

Comments

  • wait wait wait...

    so if I am hearing Aron correctly from the podcast of the movie, your not allowed to have an free opinion that isnt exactly the same as Aron? 

    Am I confused on this or did I understand this wrong?

    Just seems a wee bit fascist to me. But that's just one freedom fighters' opinion ;-)
  • @DancesWithWookies you are not hearing Aron correctly. Yes, you are confused and wrong.
    DawnOwarphoenyx1023rkcrawfRenaisWomn
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    wait wait wait...

    so if I am hearing Aron correctly from the podcast of the movie, your not allowed to have an free opinion that isnt exactly the same as Aron? 

    Am I confused on this or did I understand this wrong?

    Just seems a wee bit fascist to me. But that's just one freedom fighters' opinion ;-)
    You’re allowed to have a free opinion on whatever you want. But there are certain viewpoints that will no longer be tolerated on this forum, like arguing devil’s advocate for racism, for example. The winky face doesn’t make it cute, you know. 
    Freibergphoenyx1023amyja89xulsolar22groovydooleyGeorgedaniellemathiesonUnderwoodNozarrrRenaisWomn
  • MichelleMichelle California
    wait wait wait...

    so if I am hearing Aron correctly from the podcast of the movie, your not allowed to have an free opinion that isnt exactly the same as Aron? 

    Am I confused on this or did I understand this wrong?

    Just seems a wee bit fascist to me. But that's just one freedom fighters' opinion ;-)

    You definitely misunderstood.  That's not where he was taking it.  Basically, Bald Move has a no-racism policy and they're enforcing it more strongly now.  In other words, if you're a racist/white supremacist/white nationalist/neo-nazi, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  At least that's how *i* understood it.
    hisdudeness915mjmullady
  • Well yes racism is bad I would have to agree.

    And while Bald Move is a completely private enterprise and Aron and Jim are the law, in general I would have to say that the First Amendment is generally probably a good thing (?). Aron talked about his love for the second amendment and going to the gun range with his son. Whats wrong with the first one (even when it makes you uncomfortable?)

    But what do I know I am Canadian lol.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    edited August 2018
    Well yes racism is bad I would have to agree.

    And while Bald Move is a completely private enterprise and Aron and Jim are the law, in general I would have to say that the First Amendment is generally probably a good thing (?). Aron talked about his love for the second amendment and going to the gun range with his son. Whats wrong with the first one (even when it makes you uncomfortable?)

    But what do I know I am Canadian lol.
    Really, man? I find it difficult to believe you listened to this podcast and are entering this thread in good faith. This might help you out.



    If not, and this new policy makes Bald Move a totalitarian hellscape for you, then I guess you got some tough decisions ahead of you.  I hope not, because I like you and I'd like to think this is pretty basic shit for people to grasp.
    TootsmagootsFreibergrusskellyFlukesphoenyx1023sarahtatugaAussieGregEine Fraumjmulladyrkcrawfand 5 others.
  • Nothing in so much as it applies to free speech in a public place, which this isn’t, so no the first amendment does not apply to the forum when it comes to hate speech.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Michelle said:
    wait wait wait...

    so if I am hearing Aron correctly from the podcast of the movie, your not allowed to have an free opinion that isnt exactly the same as Aron? 

    Am I confused on this or did I understand this wrong?

    Just seems a wee bit fascist to me. But that's just one freedom fighters' opinion ;-)

    You definitely misunderstood.  That's not where he was taking it.  Basically, Bald Move has a no-racism policy and they're enforcing it more strongly now.  In other words, if you're a racist/white supremacist/white nationalist/neo-nazi, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  At least that's how *i* understood it.
    Also, Trump is a defacto racist/white supremist. So if you're supporting him...
    MichelleFreibergrusskellyElisaken haleGeorgeUnderwood
  • edited August 2018
    This is your world Aron and you can ban me if you want but freedom, real freedom, comes at a cost, and part of that cost extending those same freedoms you enjoy to people you may very well hate and for good reason. 

    I mean, if their breaking the law then that's obviously a different story don't get me wrong and they should be dealt with accordingly. 

    Its just a slippery slope when you start telling people who can do what when in what circumstances.
  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    edited August 2018
    It’s his forum, so yes he can do that. I don’t think you understand what’s happening here. If you don’t like the rules then don't participate. 
    FreibergJaimieT
  • @DancesWithWookies its not a slippery slope to take a stand against racism and utter bullshit lies and deceit (sandy hook denialism, climate change denialism) 

    We all understand slippery slopes. We have the proper footgear.
    DeeTootsmagootsFreibergsamollymtron32
  • I support Justin Trudeau 
  • edited August 2018

    And while Bald Move is a completely private enterprise and Aron and Jim are the law, in general I would have to say that the First Amendment is generally probably a good thing (?).

    Your premise is incorrect. Despite you mentioning the bit about "private enterprise" you go on to mention that the "First Amendment is generally a good thing(?)" Where's the disconnect? Do you not understand, or are you simply trolling? I have my suspicions, but in case actually don't understand...

    The first amendment guarantees the government cannot infringe upon your free speech. As is obvious to most, Bald Move, Aron, Jim, etc. are not the government, nor are Facebook or Youtube, for that matter.
    Freiberg
  • edited August 2018
    I support Justin Trudeau 

    I'm getting the feeling that you are just trolling, so if you want to troll, come to #politics here : https://discord.gg/drZ2pH and try us :)
    Tootsmagootsgroovydooley
  • @Tootsmagoots that's what I said though. Also I am not trolling. This is Jim and Aron's and they can do as they wish at any time.

    I guess I just like the idea of free speech in an open society with laws that govern all equally. If that makes me a bad guy well.... such is life. 

    I will shut up now. Have a good weekend yall.
  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    edited August 2018
    As it happens the most effective way to stop racism is to shame the racists into believing that being racist is unacceptable no matter the situation, not to give them a platform from which to preach their racism. So that’s what this is. 
    CretanBullDeeMichelleFrakkin TFreibergphoenyx1023FlukesElisahisdudeness915Freddyand 2 others.
  • With due respect, the free speech debate is a dumb one. Online communities are well within the rights to establish community standards, people are free to abide by those standards and participate or decide that isn't the spot for them. I'm a vegetarian, I don't go on hunting message boards and call them all murders - and if I did I'd expect to get banned. I wouldn't be moaning about my free speech rights to ruin what they've set up for themselves.
    MichelleFrakkin TFreibergFreddyken haleTaraC73
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    This is your world Aron and you can ban me if you want but freedom, real freedom, comes at a cost, and part of that cost extending those same freedoms you enjoy to people you may very well hate and for good reason. 
    So you fundamentally disagree with the paradox of intolerence. Why? 

    I would vigorously oppose the government ruling on what can and cannot be discussed in public or private. This is community action. Please, please appreciate the difference.
  • kuman07kuman07 Kansas City
    I have a real pet peeve about people bringing up the 1st amendment when talking about freedom of speech. Unless you are being jailed because of it, it doesn’t apply. You might disagree with certain forum guidelines but just don’t bring up the 1st amendment. Drives me nuts lol. 
    CretanBullFreibergMichelleFlukesvoodooratphoenyx1023gguenothisdudeness915FreddyMurderbearand 3 others.
  • @DancesWithWookies

    My understanding:

    You won't be banned for having an unpopular opinion such as "XBox is superior to Playstation."  You can have any opinion you like on that, and argue the merits until your face turns blue.  You can even probably start your own forum topic.  Want to talk about the qualifications of sandwiches?  Whether or not Cersei is a tragic figure?  Do it!

     If you opinion is "black people are lazy and Mexicans are drug lords," or "the Nazis had some good ideas" - even as a devil's advocate- that won't be tolerated.
    FreddyTaraC73
  • edited August 2018
    Well yes racism is bad I would have to agree.

    And while Bald Move is a completely private enterprise and Aron and Jim are the law, in general I would have to say that the First Amendment is generally probably a good thing (?). Aron talked about his love for the second amendment and going to the gun range with his son. Whats wrong with the first one (even when it makes you uncomfortable?)

    But what do I know I am Canadian lol.
    Really, man? I find it difficult to believe you listened to this podcast and are entering this thread in good faith. This might help you out.



    If not, and this new policy makes Bald Move a totalitarian hellscape for you, then I guess you got some tough decisions ahead of you.  I hope not, because I like you and I'd like to think this is pretty basic shit for people to grasp.
    Here's the problem I have with the Paradox of Tolerance: who decides what is considered tolerant and intolerant?  Who decides where to draw that line.  Sure, the easy shit is pretty obvious - don't be racist, don't be a dick, don't be misogynistic, don't be homophobic, etc.  But what about when that line starts to grey?  What about people who believe strongly in American capitalism as opposed to European style socialism?  What about people who are fervently religious and believe everyone else is going to hell?  What about people who completely disagree with your viewpoint on raising children and won't be swayed no matter how convincing your argument - are they intolerant?

    Jim and A.Ron have every right to establish the level of tolerance and set the line of acceptability on Bald Move.  I just think we need to be wary of straying from doing the right thing and standing up for the downtrodden to essentially becoming the arbiter of truth.  When you control a powerful platform (Facebook, Google, Twitter, . . . Bald Move) it's easy to slide into a very autocratic position and dismiss other viewpoints.  A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.  And in my experience, the radical left is just as intolerant as the alt right.

    Anyway, I'm interested to hear if you think I'm way off base here or if this is a legit slippery slope concern.

    (edit: by the way, this post was not meant to relate to the podcast content directly, more of a general take on the concept of The Paradox of Tolerance)
  • There's a massive fucking difference between 'unpopular opinions' and behavior/speech that enables the cycle of racism. Right fucking on though guys - complacency is what got us here, tolerance for extremism is what got us here.
    phoenyx1023FreibergAvienndha
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    edited August 2018
    Well yes racism is bad I would have to agree.

    And while Bald Move is a completely private enterprise and Aron and Jim are the law, in general I would have to say that the First Amendment is generally probably a good thing (?). Aron talked about his love for the second amendment and going to the gun range with his son. Whats wrong with the first one (even when it makes you uncomfortable?)

    But what do I know I am Canadian lol.
    Really, man? I find it difficult to believe you listened to this podcast and are entering this thread in good faith. This might help you out.



    If not, and this new policy makes Bald Move a totalitarian hellscape for you, then I guess you got some tough decisions ahead of you.  I hope not, because I like you and I'd like to think this is pretty basic shit for people to grasp.
    Here's the problem I have with the Paradox of Tolerance: who decides what is considered tolerant and intolerant?  Who decides where to draw that line.  Sure, the easy shit is pretty obvious - don't be racist, don't be a dick, don't be misogynistic, don't be homophobic, etc.  But what about when that line starts to grey?  What about people who believe strongly in American capitalism as opposed to European style socialism?  What about people who are fervently religious and believe everyone else is going to hell?  What about people who completely disagree with your viewpoint on raising children and won't be swayed no matter how convincing your argument - are they intolerant?

    Jim and A.Ron have every right to establish the level of tolerance and set the line of acceptability on Bald Move.  I just think we need to be wary of straying from doing the right thing and standing up for the downtrodden to essentially becoming the arbiter of truth.  When you control a powerful platform (Facebook, Google, Twitter, . . . Bald Move) it's easy to slide into a very autocratic position and dismiss other viewpoints.  A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.  And in my experience, the radical left is just as intolerant as the alt right.

    Anyway, I'm interested to hear if you think I'm way off base here or if this is a legit slippery slope concern.

    The “slippery slope” argument is not a relevant argument. A private social media company is not a democracy. These are not difficult concepts to understand.  

    If a fervently religious person came here and started telling atheists they were going to hell, they would be asked to stop. If they did not, they would be banned.

    if a fervent breastfeeding advocate came here and told formula feeders they were abusing their children, they would be asked to stop. If they did not, they would be banned. 

    And for the millionth damn time, the “radical left” is nowhere near the level of hateful, violent, destructive and dangerous as the alt right. One side has fucking nazis. THEY. ARE. THE. WORST. SIDE. 
    GredalBeejohnnytruantgguenotCretanBullphoenyx1023FreibergJaimieTFreddyZsa004Avienndha
  • Slippery slope arguements are the worst kind of weak arguements reserved for when you can’t actually prevail on the subject at hand. Debate the issue, and if you’re worried about the potential third-level consequences then debate that issue on its own merits.

    Remember when gay marriage was said to be tacit endorsement of pedophilia and beastiality, and would lead to the death of traditional marriage? That was not very long ago and yet it was utterly false.

    The paradox of tolerance is that when one side uses a virtue cynically against the side who is objectively right, then tolerance becomes self defeating. Climate deniers, creationists, flat earthers, anti-vaxers, cultists, white supremacists, etc., don’t warrant equal time or consideration.

    If you want to debate capitalism vs socialism, wealth inequality, military spending, healthcare, etc. in good faith then that’s interesting and productive. Racism vs ?, creationism vs ?, climate change vs ?; these are cynical abuses of open values to push a false agenda. You have to draw a line somewhere. Everyone draws their own line and collectively we draw a societal line. I refuse to accept that we should allow racist and anti-science/fact arguements to move the debate as if they were legitimate positions. They aren’t. Fringe BS should make you feel like you’re on the fringe and that you should probably STFU about it if you won’t reconsider your position(s).
    FlukesjohnnytruantDeeMichelleCretanBullphoenyx1023FreibergElisaAvienndha
  • Sure, the easy shit is pretty obvious - don't be racist, don't be a dick, don't be misogynistic, don't be homophobic, etc.  But what about when that line starts to grey?  
    Isn't the "easy shit" what we're talking about here? If something is really that grey than there should be evidence-based arguments to drive a real discussion, which I think would be welcome here. It's not like anyone here is getting fed up with people championing the merits of economic policy proposals.
    LordByMichelleCretanBullFreibergvoodooratphoenyx1023adobo1148
  • The pro Trump reddit page r/The_Donald has banned posts about Qanon.  Anyone who wants to argue about free speech, slippery slopes and "both sides" are invited to take their arguments there.  Bald Move is no longer the place for that.


    gguenotFreibergJaimieTMichelle
  • MattyWeavesMattyWeaves Mid-State New York
    I was thinking of this last night while reading through and forgot to post this.

    Relevant :



    OliviaDA_Ron_HubbardDeeFreibergphoenyx1023MichelleFlukesweeniegirlhisdudeness915Eine Frauand 3 others.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Well yes racism is bad I would have to agree.

    And while Bald Move is a completely private enterprise and Aron and Jim are the law, in general I would have to say that the First Amendment is generally probably a good thing (?). Aron talked about his love for the second amendment and going to the gun range with his son. Whats wrong with the first one (even when it makes you uncomfortable?)

    But what do I know I am Canadian lol.
    Really, man? I find it difficult to believe you listened to this podcast and are entering this thread in good faith. This might help you out.



    If not, and this new policy makes Bald Move a totalitarian hellscape for you, then I guess you got some tough decisions ahead of you.  I hope not, because I like you and I'd like to think this is pretty basic shit for people to grasp.
    Here's the problem I have with the Paradox of Tolerance: who decides what is considered tolerant and intolerant?  Who decides where to draw that line.  Sure, the easy shit is pretty obvious - don't be racist, don't be a dick, don't be misogynistic, don't be homophobic, etc.  But what about when that line starts to grey?  What about people who believe strongly in American capitalism as opposed to European style socialism?  What about people who are fervently religious and believe everyone else is going to hell?  What about people who completely disagree with your viewpoint on raising children and won't be swayed no matter how convincing your argument - are they intolerant?

    Jim and A.Ron have every right to establish the level of tolerance and set the line of acceptability on Bald Move.  I just think we need to be wary of straying from doing the right thing and standing up for the downtrodden to essentially becoming the arbiter of truth.  When you control a powerful platform (Facebook, Google, Twitter, . . . Bald Move) it's easy to slide into a very autocratic position and dismiss other viewpoints.  A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.  And in my experience, the radical left is just as intolerant as the alt right.

    Anyway, I'm interested to hear if you think I'm way off base here or if this is a legit slippery slope concern.

    (edit: by the way, this post was not meant to relate to the podcast content directly, more of a general take on the concept of The Paradox of Tolerance)
    You only don't tolerate views that advocate intolerence for *people*. We can tolerate almost any idea, religion, concept, or lifestyle. Attempts to dehumanize, deligitimize and destroy people cannot be tolerated. 

    Note I am not calling for the rounding up and jailing of KKK members, unless they commit actual crimes. I'm not calling for lynching of alt right fuckers. I'm saying communities shouldn't give them a platform. And for this, several fuckers on Facebook called us, "the real Nazis". 

    I acknowledge the radical left has people just as dangerous as the radical right. They just have no power or platform at the moment, and none of they're ideas are gaining currency in the public eye, and crucially, no one at any level if government is espousing or endorsing or even dogwhistling their views,  so they're of least concern to me. Let me know when tankie style Soviet apologists start marching the streets with torches screaming "death to the bourgeois" while the president refuses to condemn them, though. We'll ride hard against that, too. 

    I'm going to help you out with something else. The opposite of American capitalism isn't European style democratic socialism. The fact that people in this country see it that way is just another problem with the ascendancy of the radical right.
    FreibergFlukesrkcrawfTaraC73AvienndhaMarciNatter Cast
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    The pro Trump reddit page r/The_Donald has banned posts about Qanon.  Anyone who wants to argue about free speech, slippery slopes and "both sides" are invited to take their arguments there.  Bald Move is no longer the place for that.


    This is what's hilarious to me. Conservative spaces are invariably the most ban happy, conformists places on the internet. Merely mentioning the southern strategy on /r/conservative is an auto-ban. 
    JaimieTCretanBullTaraC73
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    The pro Trump reddit page r/The_Donald has banned posts about Qanon.  Anyone who wants to argue about free speech, slippery slopes and "both sides" are invited to take their arguments there.  Bald Move is no longer the place for that.


    This is what's hilarious to me. Conservative spaces are invariably the most ban happy, conformists places on the internet. Merely mentioning the southern strategy on /r/conservative is an auto-ban. 

    Yep. Either they know they're weaponizing our values or they're not as educated as they claim to be, or they're not as concerned as they claim to be. Deception in all of that.
This discussion has been closed.