[dev-3892]

that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing.

instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences'

so i don't agree that 'the way it works is ... saying it should be against the law'

I disagree, and in no way am i trotting out Popper quotes. I am questioning your willingness to actually listen to people.

[renlo]

Yea! Why should phone companies be forced to carry conversations they don’t want you to have over their networks? Why should ISPs be forced to serve content they don’t want you to see? If you want to call the competitor of ATT to switch your service, well you need to do it using a competitor’s line, and, if you want to view competing plans over Comcast’s internet, well you need to do that at the library or on someone else’s network! Obvious \s, the issue is that these “broadcast companies” are used by everyone, and should be treated as a utility.

[MiguelX413]

This but unironically and unsarcastically, the problem is the centralization of infrastructure itself.

[LudwigNagasena]

Centralization of infrastructure that benefits from the economies of scale shouldn’t be a problem.

[MiguelX413]

Centralization is THE problem.

[MichaelCollins]

> that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing.

You've never heard anybody in the US advocating for laws against hate speech? I mean 'hate speech' which isn't inciting imminent lawless action, the present standard set by Bradenburg v. Ohio. Something like "ethnic group X are bringing crime to our community"; this sort of statement is called hate speech, but is legal in America.

I have met a fair few people in America who believe that all hate speech such as that is intrinsically an incitement of violence, rejecting the imminent lawless action standard. They reason that any statement which could inspire negative feelings towards another, particularly a marginalized group, might also indirectly inspire people to commit acts of violence and should therefore be illegal.

[As_You_Wish]

I always notice that "hate speech" is how people want it defined.

For example, I personally think "toxic masculinity," "mansplaining," "patriarchy," showing men as stupid foolish and incapable in movies and tv shows, and all the rest of the anti-male bashing is hate speech. However, I'm shouted down every time I say one word about this on any online forums. That's because the matriarchy that we live in does not allow me to define those terms as hate speech. There's no corresponding "toxic femininity," "woman-nagging," "matriarchy," or showing women as stupid and inept. Well, there might be a few on either side, but the vast majority of hate speech is piled upon men.

[pstuart]

Making up your own definitions isn't how it works.

And mockery is not hate speech. And I'm not shouting either.

[As_You_Wish]

I'm not trying to be contradictory but my point is something different.

[pstuart]

You want to frame mockery of and complaints about men as hate speech. It may be many things, but it's not hate speech.

The whole point about caring about hate speech is that it effectively fosters violence against a class of people. Hurting people because they belong to a certain class is generally agreed upon as being wrong.

Pointing out the foibles, follies, and fuckups of men is not fostering violence. Either those points are true and should be "manned up" or they're not and should be laughed off as a good ribbing. This is has been a man's world, after all.

Dressing up hostility itself as "just a joke" doesn't count, but I'm not seeing that in the modern culture you deplore.

[As_You_Wish]

So my last response here, with all due respect, is:

>You want to frame mockery of and complaints about men as hate speech. It may be many things, but it's not hate speech.

The United Nations defines it as: "In common language, “hate speech” loosely refer to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics - such as race, religion or gender - and that may threaten social peace."

So...hate speech is offensive discourse targeting based on inherent characteristics, such as gender/sex.

Speech is violence, and this type of speech is violence against men, who are a class of people. And for sure the speech against men is offensive at the least.

If I were to say similar things to any group, except for men, I would be universally condemned.

Donald Trump was all about mockery and complaints and he has whipped up a whirlwind of scary stuff. It was all based on mockery and complaints. From that, he did bring it to the next level, but it started at the beginning as mockery - like when he mocked the man in a wheelchair, or mocked John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, and a hundred other examples.

>Pointing out the foibles, follies, and fuckups of men is not fostering violence.

That is your opinion. And furthermore, I compare that against why the same thing does not happen against women. Why not "woman-nagging" and "toxic femininity" and "women's-purse-and-other-junk-they-carry-spreading"? If the media and men started labeling women like this with diparaging terms, the world would screech to a halt and there would be weeks of articles and the entire media would have to go into a self-flagellating penance for years.

>This is has been a man's world, after all.

This has nothing to do with anything. You are changing the subject. If you want to argue that point, I will do that, but let's finish up with the point at hand first.

>Dressing up hostility itself as "just a joke" doesn't count, but I'm not seeing that in the modern culture you deplore.

Yes, the people who are the perpetrators often don't see things that the victims see.

Men are dropping out of society because of social disparagement of men. Men are dropping out. 60% of university graduates are women and I've read that is supposed to to to 70-75% in 15 years or so. Women have earned 10,000,000 more degrees than men.

Anyways, I just wanted to point out all these things. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. No disrespect or being argumentative intended, it is just my viewpoint, and I'm going to stop here. If you don't agree, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And maybe some time in the future what I say might "click in" and you will gain some understanding for the other side.

Good luck you you and best wishes.

[bandyaboot]

Oops, it appears your comment has been marked as wrong speech by the hn free speech society.

[dev-3892]

oh no...

anyway