This debate is began as a debate thread that can be seen here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101754

[Also: Proposal thread]

Only myself, Psycho Bound, and phlogistician are welcome to post there. (Myself and Psycho Bound in support, and phlogistician against). However anyone who wishes to give input or discuss the topic further may discuss it here. This thread is free to all.


It seems the original hate speech thread drew interest but not debate. Maybe the reason is because it wasn't clearly defined.

So if we want to debate the position, let us use this definition for Hate Speech:

1)- No threats of violence are made
2)- No "stalking" activity is committed.
3)- The individual making the speech has never been known to act out violently at any point in their entire life, and appears unlikely to do so in the immediate future. (At the very least, they have no prior assault convictions.)

It's really disingenuous to try and convolute a debate by adding conditions that would be illegal for other reasons, even without hate speech laws. So, let us assume that nothing is happening that would be illegal if two people of the same ethnicity, religion, and biological make up were doing them to each other.

Examples of what would remain might be:

- The KKK calling for a boycott of Jewish/Black/Hispanic businesses.
- A Neo-Nazi pseudo-scientist writing books attempting to establish the genetic superiority of the German people.
- A genuine scholar writing a book that seriously criticizes and/or points out the shortcomings of African culture.
- A comedy sketch artist who makes a sketch that seriously mocks the idiosyncrasies, quirks, and customs of another ethnic group.
- Genetic biologists who attempt to publish IQ scores by ethnicity, or other statistical observations.


Is there a danger in all this? Sure. Guess what? Freedom is dangerous. If you're afraid of the consequences, then move to a dictatorship where you'll feel safe. Let all the brave people stay and enjoy their freedom.

Part of this must surely be intent: can one make level the intents of the KKK versus this hypothetical genuine scholar?

Part of this must surely be intent: can one make level the intents of the KKK versus this hypothetical genuine scholar?

Intentions alone can be harmful and even violent.

Intentions alone can be harmful and even violent.

Intentions lead to action . They also motivate response, or even non response when there should be response.

Intentions alone can be harmful and even violent.

Actually what I'm asking is if there is a difference in the kind of protection that should be afforded via reasonable appreciation of intent: the KKK in the examples above clearly mean evil. The scholar is, as defined, not. Should this guide our protection of such speech?

Intentions alone can be harmful and even violent.

Not buying that. What you appear to be saying here is that thoughts alone can harm...
And if my mere thoughts could harm people, on my worst days there'd be a trail of spontaneous combustions and exploded heads in my wake.
Especially during PMS days...oh yeahhh...
You have to take an action to harm another.

Anyway, staying on target.

Prejudice can be conscious, or subconscious. The hypothetical scholar may be looking for data that supports his bigotry...selection bias exists in the educated too.

I was trying to find a good link to show this but am having trouble...at any rate, I'll give you an example:

GLBT people are, in fact, more likely to have substance abuse, depression, and low-self-esteem issues.
The anti-gay "scientists"(there's several who work for the Family Research Council ) say that's because being gay is unhealthy.

Now, in social science you don't often get to figure out causes, just correlations... but it seems pretty logical to say GLBT people have problems due to lack of acceptance making life harder.

So a scientist may subconsciously cherrypick his/her/their data to fit their prejudice.

Not buying that. What you appear to be saying here is that thoughts alone can harm...
And if my mere thoughts could harm people, on my worst days there'd be a trail of spontaneous combustions and exploded heads in my wake.
Especially during PMS days...oh yeahhh...
You have to take an action to harm another.

Anyway, staying on target.

Prejudice can be conscious, or subconscious. The hypothetical scholar may be looking for data that supports his bigotry...selection bias exists in the educated too.

I was trying to find a good link to show this but am having trouble...at any rate, I'll give you an example:

GLBT people are, in fact, more likely to have substance abuse, depression, and low-self-esteem issues.
The anti-gay "scientists"(there's several who work for the Family Research Council ) say that's because being gay is unhealthy.

Now, in social science you don't often get to figure out causes, just correlations... but it seems pretty logical to say GLBT people have problems due to lack of acceptance making life harder.

So a scientist may subconsciously cherrypick his/her/their data to fit their prejudice.

Not necessarily. Bebelina contributed to my step mothers death . It was the strangest thing . I don't in anyway hold her responsible, but her thought at the time had some kind of weird link to the event . Ask her about it , she was there mentally when it happened

Mikey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
Like that?
I get synchronicities all the time.

Men are visual animals and women are verbal animals. This entire word fear and obsession is feminine in nature. Words were not a big deal when culture was more masculine. The liberals appear the most vulnerable to words, since they lack the visual sense of a male. PC is liberal, catering to both of its feminine sexes.

When I was a child one was taught, sticks and stones can break by bones but names can neverhurt you. But that was when culture was masculine and the nanny state was not yet in effect. The average child then, had more maturity and common sense than the PC adult of today.

Men are visual animals and women are verbal animals. This entire word fear and obsession is feminine in nature. Words were not a big deal when culture was more masculine. The liberals appear the most vulnerable to words, since they lack the visual sense of a male. PC is liberal, catering to both of its feminine sexes.

When I was a child one was taught, sticks and stones can break by bones but names can neverhurt you. But that was when culture was masculine and the nanny state was not yet in effect. The average child then, had more maturity and common sense than the PC adult of today.

That is a very interesting observation here, I have not thought of it like this as of yet.

Watch as human-kind diggs it's own grave by letting each sex do what it was not meant to do, females wanting to take on the role of males, and males becomming total weaklings.

peace.

We are simply reverting to a more ancient form of egalitarian society. Primates can be, like chimps, patriarchal and dominating where strength and insensitivity are respected, or like bonobos, where peace reigns and sex is the major activity. That's why the Abrahamic religions are sexually repressive. That's why their foundation myth removed the role of the goddess and replaced it with a wicked act by what amounts to a secondary being. She is listed under livestock and property as something one shouldn't covet. The greatest force against poverty in the world is the empowerment of women, particularly in reproduction. Women know that words lead to deeds. They know that a conflict can be resolved by talking. In age where male ego could easily lead to the sterilization of the surface of the planet, it would be wise to accept the apparent weakness of conciliation and diplomacy.

We are simply reverting to a more ancient form of egalitarian society. Primates can be, like chimps, patriarchal and dominating where strength and insensitivity are respected, or like bonobos, where peace reigns and sex is the major activity. That's why the Abrahamic religions are sexually repressive. That's why their foundation myth removed the role of the goddess and replaced it with a wicked act by what amounts to a secondary being. She is listed under livestock and property as something one shouldn't covet. The greatest force against poverty in the world is the empowerment of women, particularly in reproduction. Women know that words lead to deeds. They know that a conflict can be resolved by talking. In age where male ego could easily lead to the sterilization of the surface of the planet, it would be wise to accept the apparent weakness of conciliation and diplomacy.

Very well put! I could not agree more, but you already know that!;)

Hate-speech should be protected. Banning anything, simply because it's offensive, is a dangerous road to go down.

Gotta disagree on this one. Did we learn nothing from WWII? This is how it starts; extremity begins in a liberal, permissive society and exploits those permissions to increase and promote itself.

We are simply reverting to a more ancient form of egalitarian society. Primates can be, like chimps, patriarchal and dominating where strength and insensitivity are respected, or like bonobos, where peace reigns and sex is the major activity. That's why the Abrahamic religions are sexually repressive. That's why their foundation myth removed the role of the goddess and replaced it with a wicked act by what amounts to a secondary being. She is listed under livestock and property as something one shouldn't covet. The greatest force against poverty in the world is the empowerment of women, particularly in reproduction. Women know that words lead to deeds. They know that a conflict can be resolved by talking. In age where male ego could easily lead to the sterilization of the surface of the planet, it would be wise to accept the apparent weakness of conciliation and diplomacy.Great Post :)

Some religious ideology would be classified as protected hate speech.

Hate-speech should be protected. Banning anything, simply because it's offensive, is a dangerous road to go down.

Quite so. If free speech means anything, it's the freedom to say things that people find offensive. I would rather know what people are thinking and fight them outright than oppress that speech and be surprised when they suddenly attack.

Back in the 1960-1970's, so-called hate speech was dealt with in a different way. Since the entire mental exercise is subjective and not objective, the idea was to change the subjective association. This was done by talking openly about it and turning it into comedy so we can laugh at ourselves.

The entire game is subjective and therefore not even rational. That being said, why define a negative and hurtful irrationality, which only serves to divide people? Why not make it funny so people can laugh together. It worked way back when, with the game put to rest.


Liberals and then PC re-introduced the hateful associations perhaps to help consolidate their voting base. The current irrationality is defined in ways that almost anything will create a Pavlov reaction, when word pellet fall down the chute.

I consider myself objective, so the irrationality should be optional to me. If I wish to play the irrational game I can. If I don't wish to play it, but rather prefer to laugh I should have that option too.

Gotta disagree on this one. Did we learn nothing from WWII? This is how it starts; extremity begins in a liberal, permissive society and exploits those permissions to increase and promote itself.

A sane and civilized people can allow public expressions of "hate" while not tolerating activities that actually violate peoples' rights (murder, vandalism, government-enforced discrimination, etc.).

Hate-speech should be protected. Banning anything, simply because it's offensive, is a dangerous road to go down.

Simply wrong. You think a civilised society should allow groups of individuals to make others feel threatened?

Simply wrong. You think a civilised society should allow groups of individuals to make others feel threatened?

Define "feel threatened".

Should one person or group of people be able to literally threaten another? No.

Should people be able to express their views on social issues and policies? Yep. If that makes others feel uncomfortable, that's their problem.

Define "feel threatened".

Should one person or group of people be able to literally threaten another? No.

Should people be able to express their views on social issues and policies? Yep. If that makes others feel uncomfortable, that's their problem.

That sounds fine in principle, but reality is different: there is only so much ill will that humans are able to accomodate for before they break down and resort to some form of aggression or dysfunctional behavior (physical violence, drugs, ...).
The whole society then suffers from that.

That sounds fine in principle, but reality is different: there is only so much ill will that humans are able to accomodate for before they break down and resort to some form of aggression or dysfunctional behavior (physical violence, drugs, ...).
The whole society then suffers from that.

The reality is that these butt-hurt masses need to put on their big-boy pants and suck it up. One person's freedom shouldn't be violated because someone else can't handle a contradictory opinion.

The reality is that these butt-hurt masses need to put on their big-boy pants and suck it up. One person's freedom shouldn't be violated because someone else can't handle a contradictory opinion.

Those butt-hurt masses don't care what some people think they need.

Define "feel threatened".

Should one person or group of people be able to literally threaten another? No.

Then you don't agree that hate speech should be protected.


Should people be able to express their views on social issues and policies? Yep. If that makes others feel uncomfortable, that's their problem.

Shouting racial epithets is not social comment.

Let's get this straight. It's 'HATE' speech. It is born of emotion, not science, or statistics. It conveys a negative emotion. It makes the targets of it experience negativity, and feel threatened. If you protect hate speech, you protect people that threaten others.

Then you don't agree that hate speech should be protected.

Hate-speech and threats are not the same thing. You can hate people without threatening them and threaten people without hating them because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.


Shouting racial epithets is not social comment.

Neither is Pokemon, but they both should be protected as free speech.


Let's get this straight. It's 'HATE' speech. It is born of emotion, not science, or statistics. It conveys a negative emotion. It makes the targets of it experience negativity, and feel threatened. If you protect hate speech, you protect people that threaten others.

So only speech that is based on science and statistics should be protected? Go to that white supremacist site that has a name based on weather formations. I'm sure they have plenty of statistics about crime, etc.

And, once again, there's a difference between an actual threat and speech that simply makes people nervous or uncomfortable.

Those butt-hurt masses don't care what some people think they need.

And the non-butt-hurt aren't necessarily willing to flush freedom down the toilet for the sake of people who lack self-control.

The reality is that these butt-hurt masses need to put on their big-boy pants and suck it up.

Astounding lack of empathy there mate. Imagine being surrounded by an angry mob shouting racial abuse at you. How long before you'd feel threatened? Pull a weapon?


One person's freedom shouldn't be violated because someone else can't handle a contradictory opinion.

Shouting 'All [Insert racial epithet] must die' is more than expressing an opinion.

Astounding lack of empathy there mate. Imagine being surrounded by an angry mob shouting racial abuse at you. How long before you'd feel threatened? Pull a weapon?

In that situation, it would be normal for someone to feel threatened or at least harassed. But that's not exactly the extent to what qualifies as hate-speech.


Shouting 'All [Insert racial epithet] must die' is more than expressing an opinion.

Not really. Shouting "All [insert racial epithet] must die!" while in a mob surrounding members of that racial group would be an obvious threat. Shouting that at a rally or posting it on an internet forum would not be.

In that situation, it would be normal for someone to feel threatened or at least harassed. But that's not exactly the extent to what qualifies as hate-speech.

Ever seen a bunch of Neo-Nazis at a rally? Placards depicting Hitler, and advocating violence towards, and the death of various groups? It's not pretty. Nobody should have to put up with threats like that.



Not really. Shouting "All [insert racial epithet] must die!" while in a mob surrounding members of that racial group would be an obvious threat.

So you agree there should be limits on what people can say and do in groups, in public? Me too.


Shouting that at a rally or posting it on an internet forum would not be.

It could be, if it names someone, or if it incites someone to go perpetrate an act of violence.

See, this isn't a clear cut freedom of speech issue. Speech isn't free, you cannot tell lies about or defame people. Hate speech is defamation. You cannot shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre and use freedom on speech as an excuse when people get panicked and upset. Hate speech is not qualified criticism, it's HATE. Negative emotion spoken to impart more negativity. Nobody should be making others fearful.

The additional problem of protected hate speech is that it generates long-term biases in the population or proportion receiving it.

And the non-butt-hurt aren't necessarily willing to flush freedom down the toilet for the sake of people who lack self-control.

Oh, they will be forced to, when the streets are overwhelmed with angry protesters, or homeless junkies.

The additional problem of protected hate speech is that it generates long-term biases in the population or proportion receiving it.

And that it is leaving people to protect themselves from hate speech with nothing but hate speech.

You can tell lies about public people in the USA.

Hate-speech and threats are not the same thing.

That's true, as such, but I do not know of any legal definition of hate speech that does not include some qualifier about "incitement to violence" or "intimidation." I.e., in those places that do prosecute hate speech, such is defined as including some kind of threat or incitement to violence. Mere expressions of animus do not count.

Of course, that's a slippery slope and naturally politicized, but the point is that whatever distinction exists between "hate speech" in the colloquial sense and "threats," does not exist in the legal definitions of such. The basis for laws on such is the protection of people and groups from violence and intimidation, so the question of protections for hate speech doesn't apply to these cases of non-violent speech.

Does hate speech require that the speaker have hate in their heart when they speak? Or is it just the noises/words exhalted, regardless of intent? Say I have hate in my heart and use only nice PC terms, is this hate speech. Or does it come down to subjectivity of words and not the objectivity of intent?

If I am happy and feeling love in my heart and I start to rattle off all the PC hate speech words, is this hate speech, since I have no hate? Or is the term hate speech sort of a deception with the objectivity of intent not important to the illusion?

Ever seen a bunch of Neo-Nazis at a rally? Placards depicting Hitler, and advocating violence towards, and the death of various groups? It's not pretty. Nobody should have to put up with threats like that.

They have every right to believe that violence is appropriate and to express those beliefs. But there's a difference between spouting that crap at a rally or on an internet forum and assembling a mob, surrounding your target, and threatening them with death.


So you agree there should be limits on what people can say and do in groups, in public? Me too.

I've never said otherwise. But if a bunch of people confront whatever group they dislike in a threatening way, the crime is not hate-speech but the obvious intent to threaten.


It could be, if it names someone, or if it incites someone to go perpetrate an act of violence.

So Ice Cube should be prosecuted for his rap song where he talks about killing Daryl Gates?


See, this isn't a clear cut freedom of speech issue. Speech isn't free, you cannot tell lies about or defame people. Hate speech is defamation. You cannot shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre and use freedom on speech as an excuse when people get panicked and upset. Hate speech is not qualified criticism, it's HATE. Negative emotion spoken to impart more negativity. Nobody should be making others fearful.

Hate-speech is not inherently defamatory. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not the same thing as saying, "I think that [insert group here] sucks because [insert reason here]." And, despite what you'd like to believe, we don't have some God-given right to be adored and appreciated by the rest of society.

Hate-speech is a clear cut issue of freedom of speech. Obvious threats with the ability to make good on those threats at that time are a different matter.

Oh, they will be forced to, when the streets are overwhelmed with angry protesters, or homeless junkies.

So, essentially, your argument is that we need to ban freedom to keep people from taking to the streets and demanding that freedom be banned?

The additional problem of protected hate speech is that it generates long-term biases in the population or proportion receiving it.

That might be a problem if 90% of the population was directing their hatred towards the other 10%. But when it's small, statistically insignificant groups, people need to get over it.

I know how Nation Of Islam-types feel about people like me, for example, but I don't "return the favor" by feeling that way about black people.

So, essentially, your argument is that we need to ban freedom to keep people from taking to the streets and demanding that freedom be banned?

I think your view is too extreme or too extremely formulated to come across as actionable.

I agree that people are often too weak and often demand too much of a nanny state; acting on this leads to absurd consequences (such as PC) which are, in the long run, negative.
On the other hand, telling people to "toughen up" or rejecting and neglecting them doesn't solve anything either, as the weak people don't just disappear, but become a problem burdening the whole society.

Without a moral code that everyone agrees upon, and a viable economy, there can be no harmonious co-existence.

That might be a problem if 90% of the population was directing their hatred towards the other 10%. But when it's small, statistically insignificant groups, people need to get over it.

"Shoulding" - saying that such and such should do this or that - is generally an extremely ineffective way to produce lasting change, both on the individual as well as on the social level.

I think your view is too extreme or too extremely formulated to come across as actionable.

I agree that people are often too weak and often demand too much of a nanny state; acting on this leads to absurd consequences (such as PC) which are, in the long run, negative.
On the other hand, telling people to "toughen up" or rejecting and neglecting them doesn't solve anything either, as the weak people don't just disappear, but become a problem burdening the whole society.

Without a moral code that everyone agrees upon, and a viable economy, there can be no harmonious co-existence.

Telling people to toughen up when they butt-hurt about views expressed by a fringe element of society is perfectly appropriate. Telling Jews in Nazi Germany to toughen up, for example, would not be.

And we'll never have a moral code that everyone agrees with.

"Shoulding" - saying that such and such should do this or that - is generally an extremely ineffective way to produce lasting change, both on the individual as well as on the social level.

Things will change one way or the other. People will either deal with not winning life's popularity contest or they will start lobbying to ban freedom. The former is the preferable form of change, in my opinion.

Things will change one way or the other. People will either deal with not winning life's popularity contest or they will start lobbying to ban freedom. The former is the preferable form of change, in my opinion.

Some lobby to ban freedom in order to win the popularity contest.
With some success, too.

Some lobby to ban freedom in order to win the popularity contest.
With some success, too.

True. And some lobby to ban freedom because they actually think it's a good idea, regardless of how it affects their popularity.

Telling people to toughen up when they butt-hurt about views expressed by a fringe element of society is perfectly appropriate. Telling Jews in Nazi Germany to toughen up, for example, would not be.

Why not?



And we'll never have a moral code that everyone agrees with.

Then there will always be strife, and we might as well give up discussing about morality.

:shrug:

Why not?

Because there's a huge difference between dealing with hostility from a few random weirdos and dealing with widespread, murderous, government-enforced mistreatment.


Then there will always be strife, and we might as well give up discussing about morality.

Realistically, you might be right. I enjoy debating politics, but I do it for the entertainment and mental stimulation, not because I think that people with opposing views will start to see things my way.

Hate-speech is not inherently defamatory. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not the same thing as saying, "I think that [insert group here] sucks because [insert reason here]."

Sorry, again you deflate what hate speech is. There is no 'reason' behind real hate speech! You are confusing valid criticism or discussion, with the act of shouting racial abuse. Saying 'Black men are more likely to go to prison than college' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21001543/ns/us_news-life/) is nowhere near the same as saying 'All n*ggers must die' is it?



Hate-speech is a clear cut issue of freedom of speech.

No it isn't. Because your speech isn't free, and never has been, that's a misnomer. You cannot shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, and hide behind this myth, nor can you tell lies about people, and not expect to be sued.

Let's get this straight. It is NEVER right to express feelings of violence against a group for purely racial grounds. This MUST be eradicated from society.

As evident in the Cesspool confined thread entitled 'Imitation-Compliment, Plagiarisation Something Else' - of this Message sequel, 'rat-pack' players have trespassed on my posts and threads before. Characteristically underestimating the intelligence of readership and obviously placing quantitative values above quality; boasting of designing and maintaining felonious collaboration while referring to such activities, which 'Me-Ki-Gel' boldly flaunts as 'rumors', which do indeed emerge as 'mass hypnosis' among criminally bonded groups who don't - or can't afford to - know the difference between rumor and connived collusion (refer, Webster's definition of 'conspiracy'):

persuading obscure and paramount authority figures to do their bidding, by way of covert, extrajudicial communications falsely stating that I have threatened or otherwise wronged them, rather than the other way around - as is clearly evidenced to any discerning reader who scrutinizes the self explanatory thread at issue - this time on Sciforums -

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5

. It is also indeed true that the subjected criminal element has succeeded in - the describe manner - persuading a number of internet forums to ban me from participation.

Bob's Big Boy (BBB) cast his infant child into the RobertsonFamilyConspiracy (ROFACO) pits way back in '64, at the behest of the late ROFACO founder ('Call me') 'Big Brother Dick' Robertson: with the objective of blaming his responsibilities on me (without reporting his 'complaint' to the police - a felony of itself: the beginning of a chain of subsequently ensuing felonies - 'accesories to & after the fact') - the former personage (BBB) being the (Army diagnosed, section 8 discharged 'paranoid schizophrenic') 'yes man' to the latter (Dick Robertson), who was in fact a rogue CIA operative: deeply entrenched in the world renowned (Google) 'Presidio Army Fort officer's child day care center pedophile cult', in the late '60's and early 70's (When Dick Robertson resided in Concord, CA. and was the manager of a computer repair establishment on Bryant Street in San Francisco):

Having driven his youngest son to suicide - as described in a preceding portion of this sequel (presently immersed in the 'Cesspool'), Dick Robertson was about to be indicted for multiple pedophilia, and massive conspiratorially coordinated embezzlement, when he shot himself.

After decades of being deceived and betrayed, his bewildered wife therafter perished of a heart attack.

I own a cache of typographic transcriptions and audio-tape documentary tape recordings (wire-to-wire copies of which are distributed to key government officials) of Dick Robertson proving in his own words that he is patently culpable of what is spoken of here, including an audiotaped recording of my late uncle, J.P. Savolainen - a retired Commodore Navy SEAL aviator - confirming that Dick Robertson was in fact a rogue CIA operative.

An extensive documentary of their remarkably pernicious history was posted on - and then hacked off - the net, years ago, but not before it was downloaded all over the world by countless numbers of net denizens, many of whom are familiar with my (cost-free, internet) published works on a variety of subjects.

It (the ROFACO) is also on record in numerous municipal, county, state and federal jurisdictions - including that of (then 17th Federal District Congressman) Leon E. Panetta, as well as Police Chief Belcher and Lieutenant Sepulveda, of the Santa Cruz, CA. P.D.

As is evidenced in their varously signatured redundant and evasive styles, quantitative (ratpack numbered) values precede qualitative contributions to self explanatory threads. It seems to be their objective to hi-jack and besmirch whatever net activities I may appear in. As documented in preceding entries of this forum Message list, a senior moderator - one 'Tiassa' - of Sciforums (Science and Society http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5 ) disregards the numerous threats imposed on Truly Yours, while elaborately chastizing, denigrating and dismissing me on the false premise that I am threatening 'members of the (Sciforums) community (by merely alluding to the potential for accountability, via the recently installed, Constitution sacking 'Home Security' and 'Patriot' acts - which allow for tapping anyone's telephone, and/or placing anyone on satellite-facilitated reconnaisance TV 24/7/365, without a judge's order or 'due cause'): while the opposite is manifestly confirmed by the cited antagonists; that is, threats are directed at me repeatedly in the issued thread.

Neverwill refuses to be satisfied with my explanation that motivation for the Original Post of the issued - presently Cesspool located - thread is simply to establish public accountability regarding persons responsible for (actively participating in) an eight month extended hatesite ('Why KBR sucks') between late '03 and mid '04, which included allegations that I am a physical threat to women and children, which is the stature of the cited provocateurs.

In the event(s) of moderator allowance of further information accumulating on this issue, this addendum will be correspondlngly continued.

I am, respectfully,

Kent Benjamin Robertson (aka, etceteras)

kraziequus@yahoo.com

Dude, I never saw you before this forum.

And I really don't care about you now.

I don't give a rat's ass about you or your problems at this point.
I do not want to hear about you or your problems anymore, I do not want to see hide nor hair of you, I don't want to share geography with you.

If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me
I told you what I thought of you pretty bluntly, but I never threatened you.

Go fuck yourself with a sledgehammer, and be sure not to use lube..

Oh, that's just Kaiduorkhon. One of the "science" cranks.
He's largely incoherent and eminently ignorable.

He's largely incoherent and eminently ignorable.
Incoherent I agree with.

I perceive him as somewhat of a threat now...not sure how much, very much not wanting to find out how much of a threat.

I don't like threats.

Hate speech is based on subjective irrationality. People need to be conditioned, to behave a certain way, when the word pellet falls down the chute. The sound for the word is just a noise, without any cause and effect to behavior, until we are conditioned to behave, like a trained seal.

For example, if I was to use a racial slur, when this word pellet falls down the chute, conditioning will induce a reaction. If I was to say the same thing to another person who does not know my language, since he has not been conditioned to react a certain way to that particular sound/noise, as it falls down the chute, he won't react like expected. You need to tell him how is suppose to react if he wishes to play the game.

Personally I don't like that game and have reconditioned myself not to be trained seal when word pellets falls. But I do like to pull the lever and watch train seals perform. This is funny but sad.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me. Relative to sticks and stones, these are physical objects with mass and momentum, which if struck against flesh will active sensory nerves. There is a cause and effect between the stone hitting me and real pain.

Words are noises, which do not have any cause and effect, like the stick or stone, unless we allow ourselves to be conditioned. Science should step in, and teach objectivity.

What is a good exercise, is to translate hate speech from other languages and cultures, and then see how other people react to it, who are unconditioned. For example, a cuss might be, may your goats not give milk. The natural reaction to this translation might be humor. This is natural since it lacks constant conditioning. But to those trained seals, who are taught to react in an unnatural way, this food pellet might create hate among seals.

The following 'dialogue' consists of responses to the original starting post on the issued thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5
----------------------------


Dude, I never saw you before this forum.

And I really don't care about you now.

I don't give a rat's ass about you or your problems at this point.
I do not want to hear about you or your problems anymore, I do not want to see hide nor hair of you, I don't want to share geography with you.

If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me
I told you what I thought of you pretty bluntly, but I never threatened you.

Go fuck yourself with a sledgehammer, and be sure not to use lube..
-----------------------------------
Firstly, chimpkin, you were not threatened at all (you do specify: If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me), whereas, posters on the subjected thread were reminded of the recently activated (U.S. Constitution sacking) 'Home Security' and 'Patriot' acts, which empower 'government' to tap anyone's phone and/or place anyone on satellite TV facilitated reconnaisance,24/7/365, without a judge's order or 'due cause'.

No. You didn't threaten me, neither did I say that you had (invaded my privacy, or, threatened to do so). Whereas, your elaborately inflammatory and provocative language and epithets are disregarded, as reflections on your character.
_________________

“ He's largely incoherent and eminently ignorable. ” - Dyw

chimpkin's response to Dyw:

"Incoherent I agree with.

I perceive him as somewhat of a threat now...not sure how much, very much not wanting to find out how much of a threat.

I don't like threats."
----------------------

Your above statement, chmpkin, clarifies a perception that you have, or had, going on to say furthermore that you are not sure how much, and that you don't want to find out how much...

------------------------------------

The following quote is excerpted from Me-Ki-Gal's post #59 of the issued thread:

"I am going to change human perception based on this very idea . The V formation is being built as we speak in more ways than one for Golly gee mister wizard I learned the law of rumors and how through underground networking not based in media blitzing information can be transmitted by hypnotic suggesting."
Me-Ki-Gal closes this post with:
"What you gonna do , What you gonna do when they come for you?"

Is that not a threat?

"Especially in the wake of Randwolf's closure of post #46 in the same thread: "O'course, paranoid does not preclude real enemies pursuing you..."

Is that not a threat?
------------------

In post # 60 of the issued thread, is my qualified statement:

"Any further epithets, cryptically veiled threats or other (continued) denigrating gesticulations directed this way - by whomever - will only add more diabolically motivated dishonor (and a lot more intel than your mere isp coordinates, addresses and phone numbers) to the unfolding history..."

The 'intel' alluded to very specifically does not state that thread participants will fall under the (Orwellian) auspices or contingencies of the so-called 'Homeland Security' or 'Patriot' acts. Ostensibly, I certainly don't have the wherewithal or influence to carry out what is - however tentatively - alluded to as 'threat'. What I did say and intend is that everyone on this - or any other - portion of the internet, is subject to the anti-Constitutionally installed Homeland Security and Patriot acts. Particularly when it involves the emergence of elements of the self-declared (fugitive) ROFACO. That is my (documented/manifest) story, and I am sticking to it.



chimpkin's response to the above quoted excerpt is post #61 from the issued thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5


"So you are internet stalking sciforums members now?

While I understand that this info can be had if you really want it?
I find it very creepy and threatening that you actually would do so.

As well as an extremely dishonorable act.

You could insult me all day and I would not invade your privacy, or even threaten to do so."
-----------------------------------------------------
Post #62: followed chimpkin's above post:

Bob's Big Boy
The Best Burger in Town (0 posts)
04-29-11, 08:44 AM #62

"This is some thread here, boy. Some of these posts make me totally ROFACO."
---------------------------------
As expressed in post #48 of this thread, what Me-Ki-Gal describes as 'rumor'... "through underground networking not based in media blitzing information can be transmitted by hypnotic suggesting..."

Corresponds with 'Bob's Big Boy' declaration that:
"Some of these posts make me totally ROFACO."

Firstly, that statement is tantamount to a public confession, since no one can 'make' the author of that post anything he hasn't or doesn't make himself.

Whereas, the emergence & motive of 'Bob's Big Boy' (BBB, post #62) in the issued thread is also revealed (above) in post #48 of this thread.

What BBB establishes in his 'Best Burger in Town' post is A) the acronymic ROFACO (Robertson Family Conspiracy) is still active; and, which B) places the author of that ('Bob's Big Boy' <Robert's son> ) post in the legal jurisdiction of Title 18 of the Federal code ('conspiracy') - the qualification that no matter how extended a felony vehicularized by so called 'rumor' is, all statutes of limitation are nullified: as long as the originator and/or accessories to that felony are still active.

Moreover, the author of the post subjected in this paragraph, along with no less than scores of accessories, did specifically state on the internet, many times in many ways (between December 03 & September 04), that I am a physical threat to women and children. That hatesite was ordered down in a court of law, while its (feloniously 'rumored') connotations ('Terrorism': "the use of force or threats to intimidate, etc., especially as a political policy. Intense fear; that which causes intense fear". Webster's. All and much more of these definitions were repeatedly and diversely projected on myself and my wife by the self-maintaining 'ROFACO') continue - internationally and indefinitely - as 'inspiration' to untold numbers of criminal individuals and groups, thereby generating and maintaining a physical threat against myself and my qualified family and friends.

The described condition was in fact applied to and vehicularized upon the internet, and, consequently, is being counter-stated and identified by way of the same communications medium, in this notable case, enabled by the grace of Sciforum adminstrators.


That is what is qualified in my post that:

"Any further epithets, cryptically veiled threats or other (continued) denigrating gesticulations directed this way - by whomever - will only add more diabolically motivated dishonor (and a lot more intel than your mere isp coordinates, addresses and phone numbers) to the unfolding history..."

It allows for the possibility that the entire thread, or any part of it, may in fact be overseen, evaluated and/or traced; it does not say that is occurring.
I have no power whatsoever to control what 'the powers that be' may or not be doing with this or that post, thread or forum, on this - or any other part - of the net; while most people are in fact aware that such powers exist and comparatively diminish the powers of the public internet to a relatively archaic status (the Reader is invited to refer to the example of technological resources at point in:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1 )

On the other hand, in light of the Homeland Security and Patriot acts, such reconnaissance is in fact a real and incumbent technology, and, since the poster of the 'Bob's Big Boy' missive, that individual has in fact boldly 'made himself' a high priority candidate for being targeted - as a fugitive, active element of his acronymic usage: 'ROFACO', while further identifying his (supposedly unaccountable and 'anonymous') self.
(Segue to 'You Light Up My Life'?)

Post Script:
Certainly I have taken note of the remarkable fact that the moderators and admistration personnel of Sciforums have reinstated my privilege of posting new threads, etceteras...

This unexpected allowance truly humbles me, and surely speaks volumes of cerebral and moral liberation not often seen in any number of other internet forums (all and any of which reserve the unrestricted right to disregard the 1st Amendment, when and if applicable).

The theme of this thread:
"Protecting Non-violent Hate Speech' evokes a very thought provoking series of responses, not unrelated to the incumbent issue at hand. Localized, national and international social dynamics are in accented transition, often regarding dysfunctional government and individuals (refer the book titles, 'Future Shock', and 'The Third Wave', by Alvin Tofler) - an authoritative source alerted me to becoming aware that there are two ways to go bonkers: #1. Acknowledge factually confirmed reality, or, #2. Deny it. Either way challenges the test individual in the laboratory of reality at large. I choose the former - #1. - school of thought.


Sincere gratitude to kororoti for initiating this important thread, and to the administrators of Sciforums, certainly including senior moderator, Tiassa.

I am respectfully,
K. B. Robertson (etceteras)

Quite so. If free speech means anything, it's the freedom to say things that people find offensive. I would rather know what people are thinking and fight them outright than oppress that speech and be surprised when they suddenly attack.

And as much as I HATE to say it, I agree with Spidy. Plus info in this day and age gets around fast, as do adverse judgments. They are complaining now that a Broadway show can't make it because there are so many negative tweets during the first performance, no one wants to go see it for themselves. When someone clearly pulls some bonehead statement/accusation out of their rectum, there is a lot of opposition, and fast. It's really hard to get that Nazi style momentum going these days.

So let the dumbass say it, and let everyone judge immediately. He's fizzle.

You've all heard about the difference between "You suck, you moron and I hate you for being so ugly" and "Let's all get a rope and grab that guy and string him up."

This has been a distinction in the law for a really long time, and one which we have to apply on a case by case basis, with a jury. Free speech vs. inciting violence.

Hate crimes seems to me to try to start that slippery slope of splitting the difference, and it certainly doesn't lead to clarity. I think we are fine the way we are. Hate speech of a particular type, on a particular day, in particular circumstances with a particular intent fits into one category or the other, and must be judged individually.

Setting up a chart of accepted and forbidden types of speech is the type of central planning/one size fits all situations that can never work.

Look at my example above. One clearly expresses hate, but is an opinion about the character/characteristics of another and is just some crass blowhard's opinion. The latter, is a crime. It intends to do more than insult or describe or offer an opinion. It is calculated and intended to lead to physical harm.

And as much as I HATE to say it, I agree with Spidy. ..

I knew you'd come around amigo.