1 edit
@shavixmir saidI offer an unbiased description of what this is.
What is this compelled speech malarkey?
I googled it, I can't make heads nor tails of it.
What does it mean? Can someone explain that to me?
Beware the claptrap about it on other sites, conservative and conspiracy flavors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech
Warning: Some of the people mentioned in this article are crackpots, others are heroes. Good luck finding widespread agreement on which is which.
@suzianne saidI read the article. The description is nothing like how the right-wingers on RHP are using the term. Not that I'm surprised.
I offer an unbiased description of what this is.
Beware the claptrap about it on other sites, conservative and conspiracy flavors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech
Warning: Some of the people mentioned in this article are crackpots, others are heroes. Good luck finding widespread agreement on which is which.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidJordon Petersons rise to fame was on the back of refusing to go along with compelled speech. He was called to give his views at a senate hearing where they debated whether or not and how it would be enforced. He did not persuade them, it got through. Compelled speech that they claim would be a law not used. Why have a law that one does not use. except some claim it is fake news, whatever.
What is this compelled speech malarkey?
I googled it, I can't make heads nor tails of it.
What does it mean? Can someone explain that to me?
Google " Jordon Peterson " Senate hearing bill c16 tons out there.
I still have no idea. I must have lost braincells somewhere.
Is this what it means: the government forcing you to use various terms or ideas put into words or writing.
So, like holocaust denial in Germany would be a form of compelled speech?
Or if the government made it illegal to say banana, but made you call it a bent yellow?
Things like these? One of the two?
1 edit
@shavixmir saidThe definition from Suzi's link defines it as "transmission of expression required by law". One example would be schools requiring children to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance (which was at one time legal to do in the U.S.).
I still have no idea. I must have lost braincells somewhere.
Is this what it means: the government forcing you to use various terms or ideas put into words or writing.
So, like holocaust denial in Germany would be a form of compelled speech?
Or if the government made it illegal to say banana, but made you call it a bent yellow?
Things like these? One of the two?
@vivify saidYeah, I read that. But I still don’t get what it means.
The definition from Suzi's link defines it as "transmission of expression required by law". One example would be schools requiring children to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance (which was at one time legal to do in the U.S.).
It sounds like: “by law you have to use a certain term or certain form of communication.”
Like the the army making a law that you have to salute when a higher ranking officer walks by. Or that you have to say bent yellow, instead of banana.
Is this a correct interpretation?
@shavixmir saidYes, that is a correct interpretation.
Yeah, I read that. But I still don’t get what it means.
It sounds like: “by law you have to use a certain term or certain form of communication.”
Like the the army making a law that you have to salute when a higher ranking officer walks by. Or that you have to say bent yellow, instead of banana.
Is this a correct interpretation?
It would also include Christians having to bake a wedding cake for gays even if they disagree with gay marriage. That would fall under the "transmission of expression required by law" aspect of compelled speech.
1 edit
@jimmac saidIt is amazing to me that you demand your right to express your opinion but then curl into the foetal position if someone expresses theirs. Jordon is a flouncy attention seeker sniffing out arguments and controversy’s that do not really exist, he’s one of the bi faux “it’s political correctness gone mad” brigade who has fully monetised telling halfwits what they are so desperate to hear. Enjoy Jordan he is literally talking to you.
I Do not care so much, though it is a little self righteous, it being used as it being legislated that we must use it, watch the damn clip, no-one on the beloved ( by the left ) bbc tells Jordon he is wrong, and the trans, that I enjoyed most of what he said, did not correct him and even seemed to affirm what he said.
It is amazing to me that even faced with the facts you remain delusional.
The full clip is also a good watch.
@kevcvs57 saidMeanwhile the most kev can earn is the occasional fake anonymous thumbs up.
It is amazing to me that you demand your right to express your opinion but then curl into the foetal position if someone expresses theirs. Jordon is a flouncy attention seeker sniffing out arguments and controversy’s that do not really exist, he’s one of the bi faux “it’s political correctness gone mad” brigade who has fully monetised telling halfwits what they are so desperate to hear. Enjoy Jordan he is literally talking to you.
You're welcome BTW.
@vivify saidI see.
Yes, that is a correct interpretation.
It would also include Christians having to bake a wedding cake for gays even if they disagree with gay marriage. That would fall under the "transmission of expression required by law" aspect of compelled speech.
So, basically, compelled speech is the opposite of freedom of expression.
Not the opposite of free speech (which means you can say political things without having to fear governental reprisal).
All expression jas boundaries. You’re not allowed to incite violence or hate (in most countries). So, that would be compelled speech as well. So, not all compelled speech is bad.
I guess in the case of cake baking (is this really a fukking issue anywhere on the planet) the problem isn’t compelled expression, but whether the expression is hatred or not.
And that’s for a judge to decide. I mean, one person might do it because of religion, another person might have other motives to do it.
@wildgrass saidWow, waste of time. Jordon Peterson was in trouble for refusing to follow the law that was designed to "COMPEL" you to use words, weird pronouns and that c#$p, or risk repercussions. That is not fake. Yep, Nothing to see here folks.
So I was right. What you describe is fake news.
@jimmac saidAgain, referring to my post:
Wow, waste of time. Jordon Peterson was in trouble for refusing to follow the law that was designed to "COMPEL" you to use words, weird pronouns and that c#$p, or risk repercussions. That is not fake. Yep, Nothing to see here folks.
Where people obliged to use certain pronouns? Or were they forced not to deliberately insult people?
@jimmac saidOne has limited free time on the internet. I for one will not waste mine listening to Jordan fukin Peterson on the off chance he will say something worthwhile for a change.
Really, facts do not count if you do not like who is saying them?? It might be that Jordon presents the facts but it is more that your leftist broadcaster does not refute it and in fact it is rather confirmed by not being refuted. You gotta be bat s$%t crazy to dismiss it simply because you do not like a person, but then, well seems so.
Make his point yourself instead. Argue here and people will respond. Or post a however long Peterson video and hope someone will take the time to sift through his babble (he tends to use 30 words to make a point that could be made in 5)
@shavixmir saidObliged, but if people are so scared of Peterson, its like, what's the point.
Again, referring to my post:
Where people obliged to use certain pronouns? Or were they forced not to deliberately insult people?
Its strange, I say I do not care what others think and that is interpreted as , " I curled up into a fetal position. It gets tiresome. I have little concern as to wheather or not you believe me but this is seen, by myself at least, as just another step down. Peoples opinion here concern me little.
I have seen here, if you do not like someones views, they must be liars, it is sad.