free speech Dissenter - The comment section of the internet - And a severe game-changer for free speech

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Calling a man by what he is, and can be proven to be: a man, is considered hate speech in some countries.

I would like you to specify what countries you are talking about there.

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

And that is only your opinion.

 

It is only your opinion that lets you say you have no valid limitations on your speech, opinions are not facts. It is my opinion not being able to say what is limited in your country is still a limit on speech, something that happens to be an acceptable limit but still one none the less.

 

There is never such a simple objective measure of speech. Intent of speech is always interpretation and therefore subjective. A person can yell fire, tell a crowd to go assault a group of people, directly threaten an individual and that person can raise a defense of "I did not mean it" or "It was not my intent". How do you evaluate that on anything but a subjective analysis.

 

You can never know what someone else is thinking, you can only make a judgement on what you think was meant, what was the intention.

Well, he's not wrong and tyranny begins with speech limitation. When you have that established, you can punish and jail up anyone who "offends" you. And I'm seeing a lot of offended idiots all over the world in recent years. And the "uh oh prepare for consequences for your speech" where cretins fucking always go after other people's jobs. Freaking always. You can't have any kind of opinion without some dickhead trying to get you fired because of it. It's absurd. Or maybe it's because idiots who want others to get fired are the sad jobless sacks of shit and that's how they compensate their miserable pathetic lives, by getting others jobless as well because they disagreed with them.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Well, he's not wrong and tyranny begins with speech limitation. When you have that established, you can punish and jail up anyone who "offends" you. And I'm seeing a lot of offended idiots all over the world in recent years. And the "uh oh prepare for consequences for your speech" where cretins fucking always go after other people's jobs. Freaking always. You can't have any kind of opinion without some dickhead trying to get you fired because of it. It's absurd. Or maybe it's because idiots who want others to get fired are the sad jobless sacks of shit and that's how they compensate their miserable pathetic lives, by getting others jobless as well because they disagreed with them.

Yes it can start there, as well as other avenues however that does not mean always. Our laws have been the way they are for a long time, they are not new. There has been a few instances where there was opportunity for charges to be laid under those laws and yet in those past instances they were not, meaning never even getting as far as in to the courts.

 

People act like all laws in this area are always wishy washy, poorly defined, no protection from other laws or fundamental rights of the nation. That's generalizing based on fear and suspicion not on informed assessment. Can, could, might and is or are are not the same thing. You can have poor hate laws, Canada, but that doesn't mean all are.

 

I have direct counter evidence from my country of actual events where the fears brought by people in this thread have not lead to charges. I can supply more because Brian Tamaki, and his Destiny Church, have done multiple marches down the streets of Auckland and Wellington saying the very things that have been feared in this thread would be suppressed and they were not. Marches In 2004 and 2005, speeches in 2010 and 2011, his 2016 sermon. He has never been silenced or charged for his views he's expressed and that of his church. He even tried to start a political party but they failed to get any support and therefore no seats in parliament. In 2017 Destiny Church's tax-free Chruch status was revoked after ongoing cult, sexual assault and tax investigations spanning many years. If there were anyone fitting to be charged under our laws in the ways feared in this thread it would be Brian Tamaki, it didn't happen.

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, Mihle said:

I would like you to specify what countries you are talking about there.

Canada.

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Canada.

If you are talking about that some said you could go in jail to just use the wrong pronoun, no you can't. That was called out as false long time ago.

 

If you are thinking about something else, enlighten me.

[Drak3]

13 minutes ago, Mihle said:

If you are talking about that some said you could go in jail to just use the wrong pronoun, no you can't.

You can be charged for harassment over it. Which is fucking rediculous that there is any recourse for using the correct terms to address people.

[Commodus]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You can be charged for harassment over it. Which is fucking rediculous that there is any recourse for using the correct terms to address people.

It's the wrong pronoun.  Just because you believe very strongly in your hate speech doesn't make you right.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

It's the wrong pronoun. 

No, it isn’t. We have pronouns for men, and pronouns for women. To use them interchangibly is using them wrong. To use one set for the other gender is using them wrong.

 

It isn’t this fictitious “hate” speech nor is it harassment.

 

2 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Just because you believe very strongly in your hate speech doesn't make you right.

Biological fact makes me right. Scientific understanding makes me right.

[Commodus]

Just now, Drak3 said:

No, it isn’t. We have pronouns for men, and pronouns for women. To use them interchangibly is using them wrong. To use one set for the other gender is using them wrong.

 

It isn’t this fictitious “hate” speech nor is it harassment.

 

Biological fact makes me right. Scientific understanding makes me right.

Gender dysphoria is a scientific reality, so yeah, you're using the wrong pronoun.  Besides, what happened to just... y'know, not being an asshole and showing transgender people respect?

 

At any rate, we're veering off-topic.  Maybe you could save your hateful views for Dissenter.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

Gender dysphoria is a scientific reality

Yes, it’s a mental illness; a form of dilusion. Their perception does not match with verifiable reality.

 

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

y'know, not being an asshole and showing transgender people respect?

It’s far more respectful to not enforce a dilusion. It’s detrimental to those suffering the delusions to pander to said dilusion.

[Master Delta Chief]

16 hours ago, yian88 said:

This is not free speech if i have to make an account to be tracked and indetified by those who disagree with the platform.

I am 100% sick of all websites everywhere requiring you to make an account for doing anything on their platform, im just done with this, i want anonymous blockchain comment app like dessenter where i dont have to indentify myself and cant be tracked but my content can be removed from the blockchain if its illegal.

Yeah no, 'real' anonymity doesn't exist on the internet. You'll be tracked no matter what, even if you are using a VPN (though most of the data is being encrypted, it's still sent across the web and there are probably people out there that have the ability to decrypt such data). I for one am a person that doesn't care on whether you need an account to comment on something. I think it's for the best that such thing gets implemented as it helps to potentially identify the person if he or she does something malicious or does hate speech. 

[Mihle]

37 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You can be charged for harassment over it. Which is fucking rediculous that there is any recourse for using the correct terms to address people.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/m/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

Spoiler

Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?

In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

 

Or if you prefer fox news:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun

Spoiler

But experts say just using an incorrect pronoun isn't enough to qualify as criminal hate speech. "Absolutely not a chance," says University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman. "There is no criminalization of the misuse of pronouns."

Richard Moon, a University of Windsor professor who studies freedom of speech issues, says only speech that is "extreme in character" would qualify as criminal. He says the person uttering the words must be found to have "willfully promoted hatred."

 

[yian88]

3 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

....I think it's for the best that such thing gets implemented as it helps to potentially identify the person if he or she does something malicious or does hate speech. 

 

That's the problem, who defines hate speech? its just an abstract term without a definition, anything can be hate speech, especially as we have seen with social media and the west media and authorities, if you disagree with left political opinions its possible hate speech, something like that must not exist, its too much dangerous tyrannical  power that can be used in evil ways to remove any political opposition.

Political talk is not allowed here but a good example of the above would be if i say illegal immigrants are not good for us or for them, thats subject to hate speech even though its not, and something like that must be protected under free speech otherwise you can start copying China, freedom starts with freedom of speech and thought and political freedom without it there is no freedom of any kind left.

[Master Delta Chief]

8 minutes ago, yian88 said:

That's the problem, who defines hate speech? its just an abstract term without a definition, anything can be hate speech, especially as we have seen with social media and the west media and authorities, if you disagree with left political opinions its possible hate speech, something like that must not exist, its too much dangerous tyrannical  power that can be used in evil ways to remove any political opposition.

Political talk is not allowed here but a good example of the above would be if i say illegal immigrants are not good for us or for them, thats subject to hate speech even though its not, and something like that must be protected under free speech otherwise you can start copying China, freedom starts with freedom of speech and thought and political freedom without it there is no freedom of any kind left.

Hate speech is something that could be regulated by the UN, especially since the majority of platforms on the web are available worldwide. About the political opinions, I notice that some people seem to see certain opinions as something that only applies to the left-political spectrum while it also applies to the right-political spectrum. It's a shame that everyone seems to see everything as something political. 

[Mihle]

16 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, it’s a mental illness; a form of dilusion. Their perception does not match with verifiable reality.

 

It’s far more respectful to not enforce a dilusion. It’s detrimental to those suffering the delusions to pander to said dilusion.

You are wrong.

Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness.

 

[leadeater]

40 minutes ago, yian88 said:

That's the problem, who defines hate speech? its just an abstract term without a definition, anything can be hate speech, especially as we have seen with social media and the west media and authorities, if you disagree with left political opinions its possible hate speech, something like that must not exist, its too much dangerous tyrannical  power that can be used in evil ways to remove any political opposition.

Unlike the court of opinion the legal system and actual courts actually have standards of assessment and laws have summary of intent as well as the more detailed specifics. People going stupid on the internet, people losing their jobs, reciprocated hate is neither the courts nor the government. That is a social problem not a legal problem, now one that should be sorted out in the legal system, because assholes are not limited to one side of public opinion.

 

There is no denying that there is a very real issue of harassment towards people of more conservative views, biased censorship on social media platforms, but it does a disservice to the issue by incorrectly stating that these issues are caused by hate laws or results in loss of jobs and social status because almost never are these victims ever charged with hate laws. Yes I consider them victims of unjust social judgment.

 

40 minutes ago, yian88 said:

Political talk is not allowed here but a good example of the above would be if i say illegal immigrants are not good for us or for them, thats subject to hate speech even though its not, and something like that must be protected under free speech otherwise you can start copying China, freedom starts with freedom of speech and thought and political freedom without it there is no freedom of any kind left.

Under our laws no that would not result in you being charged with hate laws, it does not meet the criteria and convictions under those laws is very hard, so hard it's rarely tried. 

 

Even this person ended up not being formally charged with hate crimes, however he was originally arrested under them.

Quote

One charge is dated March 15, the day of the shooting. It alleges an offence under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act by distributing an objectionable publication –  a live stream of the murder of multiple victims at the Deans Avenue Mosque.

 

The other charge alleges an offence between March 8 and March 15, under the same Act, by making an objectionable publication showing a photograph of the mosque in Deans Avenue with the message "Target Acquired" and further chat messaging around inciting extreme violence.

 

The teenager originally faced a charge of publishing insulting material with intent to excite hostility or ill will against a group of persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origins, but the police withdrew that charge today and replaced it with the other charges.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111372996/christchurch-teen-appears-in-court-charged-with-making-objectionable-publication

 

There is a reason the police withdrew the original charge, getting a conviction under that law is extremely hard due to our Bill of Rights therefore it is better to seek a conviction under a different law more likely to succeed.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

You are wrong.

Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness.

 

Perception does not match up with a verfifiable reality. That is called delusion. Delusion is a family of mental illnesses.

[Mihle]

16 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Perception does not match up with a verfifiable reality. That is called delusion. Delusion is a family of mental illnesses.

No, you draw the wrong line. It's not a delusion. It's just that the brain does not match up to the physical sex. It's not something you can get midway in your life because something spesific happens for example. So it's not a mental illness. 

It's sort of like being gay, that's how you are, that's how you where created, you can't cure it.

(If you don't count changing your stuff with operations in the case of gender dysphoria)

[RollTime]

I'm a tad late to the party here, but this is a comment on their front page:

 

Ah yes, the insightful and valuable discussion I've come to expect from these kinds of things. I agree that we shouldn't just use "far-right" to describe everything we don't like, but this is just dumb. 

 

I expect this platform to go the way of Voat, and Gab, and 4Chan, and 8Chan, and every other anonymous and unmoderated discussion forum- it'll get overrun with people who really are "far-right" and just fester until no one remotely centrist wants to touch it.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Mihle said:

It's just that the brain does not match up to the physical sex.

False. The perception does not match up.

 

4 minutes ago, Mihle said:

It's not something you can get midway in your life and then get rid of later, so it's not a mental illness. 

Yes it is. Jamie Shupe did exactly that. He's the first legally recognized "non binary" person and now he advocatea against "transitioning."

 

22 minutes ago, Mihle said:

It's sort of like being gay, that's how you are, that's how you where created, you can't cure it. 

No, gender dysphoria and homosexuality are nothing alike.

[Master Delta Chief]

28 minutes ago, RollTime said:

I'm a tad late to the party here, but this is a comment on their front page:

 

Ah yes, the insightful and valuable discussion I've come to expect from these kinds of things. I agree that we shouldn't just use "far-right" to describe everything we don't like, but this is just dumb. 

 

I expect this platform to go the way of Voat, and Gab, and 4Chan, and 8Chan, and every other anonymous and unmoderated discussion forum- it'll get overrun with people who really are "far-right" and just fester until no one remotely centrist wants to touch it.

There's a reason that moderation exist (like on this forum) and this is an example of why. It's to ensure that a civilized discussion can be held instead of just letting pure hatred or just childish behavior take over the conversation. I despise these types of forums like 4chan or 8chan as they're just the type of platform where these behaviors happen. 

 

Does it mean however that it should be banned? No. Will people discourage you of visiting and using the site? Yes. Do they have the right to say that? Yes, they do. The more people discourage the site, the less popular it will be. The more criticism, the better.

[Mihle]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

False. The perception does not match up.

 

Yes it is. Jamie Shupe did exactly that. He's the first legally recognized "non binary" person and now he advocatea against "transitioning."

 

No, gender dysphoria and homosexuality are nothing alike.

The thing is, from reading his own article, I can say you he didn't have "real gender dysphoria" (the people I am talking about).

He just felt he was feminine. So feminine that he didn't think he fit in to societies detention of male.

That's not "real gender dysphoria". That's just being a feminine male.

If you have "real gender dysphoria", that's not how you have it. What it's like to have it, is that you feel like the body don't fit you (you know, private parts and other things), that your body feel off. It's hard to describe, but it don't really have anything to do with how feminine you feel.

If it was just about how feminine you felt, there is quite a bit of people that just calls themselves male, that would actually have gender dysphoria because they are really feminine. (Or very little feminine females. But they have not.

 

You don't understand what I ment. The only common factor is that the "real" ones, it's not something that just changes when you are 35 years old or whatever. It's not just your thoughts you can control if you will.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Mihle said:

The thing is, from reading his own article, I can say you he didn't have "real gender dysphoria" (the people I am talking about).

He just felt he was feminine. So feminine that he didn't think he fit in to societies detention of male.

That's not "real gender dysphoria". That's just being a feminine male.

If you have "real gender dysphoria", that's not how you have it. What it's like to have it, is that you feel like the body don't fit you (you know, private parts and other things), that your body feel off. It's hard to describe, but it don't really have anything to do with how feminine you feel.

If it was just about how feminine you felt, there is quite a bit of people that just calls themselves male, that would actually have gender dysphoria because they are really feminine. (Or very little feminine females. But they have not.

 

You don't understand what I ment. The only common factor is that the "real" ones, it's not something that just changes when you are 35 years old or whatever. It's not just your thoughts you can control if you will.

Nice cop out. "It doesn't count because he wasn't a real sufferer."

 

He was a sufferer. He's an example of how it affects one's life when the delusion is encouraged. And as he could no longer maintain the delusion, the damage was done.

[Jito463]

12 hours ago, Mihle said:

I would like you to specify what countries you are talking about there.

6 hours ago, Mihle said:

If you are talking about that some said you could go in jail to just use the wrong pronoun, no you can't. That was called out as false long time ago.

 

If you are thinking about something else, enlighten me.

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

You can be charged for harassment over it. Which is ******* rediculous (sic) that there is any recourse for using the correct terms to address people.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

From the second link (the source):

Quote

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Key words highlighted.  Note that it involves the criminal code and that it involves imposing a sentence.  Now, admittedly that doesn't automatically mean going to jail.  Having said that, if people can be thrown in jail for simply saying homosexuality is a sin (which I've already linked to previously), it's not much of a stretch to assume these laws could be similarly stretched into jail time.  Heck NYC has already passed a law saying you could be fined up to $250,000 for "mis-gendering" someone.

 

Is it any wonder then, that people are drawn to these fringe services like Dissenter?  When the government/courts/authority (whatever) start deciding what you can and cannot say, down that road lies fascism.

[Mihle]

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Nice cop out. "It doesn't count because he wasn't a real sufferer."

 

He was a sufferer. He's an example of how it affects one's life when the delusion is encouraged. And as he could no longer maintain the delusion, the damage was done.

You just don't want to understand. You are wrong. Real gender dysphoria is not a delusion. You can't just get or lose real gender dysphoria. Just feeling feminine is not a gender dysphoria.

If he truly thought he had gender dysphoria because he helt really feminine, he was wrong. I am not saying he is the only one.

 

You are trying so hard to use one single person situation and put it one a large group of people in a way that is just wrong.

 

A thing being the case (or not the case) with one person does not make it true (or false) with all other in whatever "group" you are talking about.

 

I am done talking to you as you simply can't seem to understand facts. I recommend you to actually check out real science about gender dysphoria before you ever talk about it again, and make sure you don't fall for confirmation bias.

It's not really hard to find that it has nothing to do with how feminine you feel, it's about if you body feels like it's right.

You have some very wrong thoughts on it.