1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gina Carano discussing Nazis, what am I missing here?

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by icehorse, Feb 11, 2021.

  1. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    That would essentially reject the liberal capitalist premise of the concept of free speech, in favor of an entitlement to speech.
     
  2. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    185,171
    Ratings:
    +63,028
    Religion:
    Atheist
    This is a good argument for preventing monopolies.
    Diversity of platforms is the best protection for freedom of speech.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,735
    Ratings:
    +6,142
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I think the big SM sites have become "the commons", and in the physical world, anyone is free to go to the nearest street corner and voice their opinions. These SM sites have become virtual street corners.
     
  4. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    Factually, Social Media sites are the private property of their respective owner. To take your street corner example, you would be insisting on shouting from a street that was the private property of Mark Zuckerberg, and he would be within his rights as a capitalist to violently remove you from his property unless you were willing to comply to certain restrictions of usage.
     
  5. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    In the current environment, people are already free to create their own personal platforms from which they are free to shout their personal ideas as long as they care. It's even arguably less involved and expensive than owning one's own newspaper, or one's own television channel.
     
  6. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    185,171
    Ratings:
    +63,028
    Religion:
    Atheist
    All hail the printing press, street corner, & the internet.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  7. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,735
    Ratings:
    +6,142
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    You keep falling back to what's legal, which I think most of us already know. I'm talking about solutions.

    IMO, when these SM sites get to a certain size they should be transmorgafied to be street corners, and no longer private property, at least from the free speech perspective. I really don't want the Zuckerbergs of the world making crucial free speech decisions for society.
     
  8. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    You want to talk about solutions, but you still haven't identified what your actual problem is.

    What exactly is it that bothers you about the liberal-capitalist conception of freedom of speech?
     
  9. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,735
    Ratings:
    +6,142
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    The problem is any incursion into free speech. These incursions can come from many different sources, the left, the right, wherever. They must all be resisted.

    This feels like a strawman, but perhaps not. Please define the "liberal-capitalist conception of free speech". thx
     
  10. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    What is this "free speech" you see attacked, though? As I have elaborated, in the context of its traditional liberal-capitalist conception, speech is free so long as there is no state censorship of capitalist media.

    So far, you haven't offered an alternate concept that would explain your outrage.


    I have already briefly outlined the concept in Post #58
     
  11. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,735
    Ratings:
    +6,142
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    Got it. So we seem to have a disagreement as to the nature of free speech we enjoy in the US. If I understand you correctly, you're saying it's limited to the free speech that capitalists enjoy? While I agree that capitalists enjoy free speech, I think individuals also enjoy a great deal of free speech in the US.
     
  12. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,609
    Ratings:
    +7,478
    Religion:
    Atheist
    As far as it concerns potential consequences, yes.
    Much followers = much exposure.

    Such exposure can result in good publicity or it can result in bad publicity.
    I think that's kind of obvious.


    Only if there are actual complaints about it and / or if it goes "public" / "viral".

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's "less bad" if a no-name says such things. I'm just saying that statements by someone with 20 million followers are much more "public" and go around a lot faster and a lot more.

    So if she makes a dubious statement, she'll get burned in world media. It'll go viral in no time.
    If the "no-name" with 5 followers says something 100x worse, likely it won't leave that inner circle of 5 friends.

    That's the difference.


    Sure. But the millions of people who have seen The Mandalorian are aware of her.


    Off course it does. Just about every hype of the last 10 years was started on twitter / instagram / failbook.

    It nevertheless is a public platform with a reach of millions of people. A reach which is, furthermore, unprecedented in world history. You press "send" and within 5 seconds, millions of phones around the world buzz to notify you of the post that was just made.

    There's a reason why companies pay billions to failbook and scroogle for "advertisement" through social media and whatnot.... Or why they pay millions to a Neymar or Ronaldo or Kardashian for a SINGLE tweet post in which they express their supposed love for some product or another.

    This is another day and age.
    I have genuinely wondered how Elvis, The Beatles or any of those other "old legends" would fair in today's landscape.



    It's simply the times. It is what it is.
    Honestly if I were famous and didn't have that "legendary" status where you excel so much in your field that people tend to turn a blind eye to your missteps from time to time.... I'ld probably try and stay far away from expressing opinions about anything on "social media".

    I'm absolutely certain that she merely sent a casual thought and didn't think about it too much and didn't see any harm in it either. Perhaps she's dumb and ignorant, perhaps she's just naive, I don't know...
    I don't think she meant harm anyway.

    But the times are as they are. People are obsessed with PC and social media is taken FAR too seriously overall anyway.

    I think social media is a societal cancer and the sooner it disappears, the better.
     
  13. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    Try exercising your free speech at your job.

    In addition, you, Ms. Carano, and everybody else are all free to say whatever you want in your own homes, and free to run your own media operation to spread your beliefs. However, not only is nobody obliged to provide any of you with a platform, they are also not obliged to give you a job.

    What you are demanding is the right to a platform, and the right to be free from any private consequences due to the media you produce and distritube on that platform. That's a rather wide gap to how freedom of speech is commonly understood in liberal-capitalist society.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,735
    Ratings:
    +6,142
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I get this a lot. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find the post where I'm calling for a right to a platform. ;)

    The problem here is that our society has become overly centralized, and so what's seen as "acceptable speech" has ended up being under the control of a very few people. In other words, there really ARE media biases. I don't for a minute think that the media's biases are as cut and dried / partisan as we're often told, but I do think the biases exist.

    The bottom line is that through various evolutions and mechanisms, those in power are slowly squeezing the free speech out of us. So, maybe we won't go to jail for uttering unpopular speech, but we might lose our job? That's already moved a long way towards curtailing speech, and we should all fight back.
     
  15. Lyndon

    Lyndon "Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    8,070
    Ratings:
    +4,213
    Religion:
    Theism+Jesus(pbuh) influenced by....... Taoism and Buddhism
    this is ridiculous, there never was any such thing as free speech to say anything you wanted at your job without being fired!! Give me a break!!
     
  16. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    18,579
    Ratings:
    +11,017
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I haven't seen The Mandalorian, so I had not heard of her.

    I wouldn't consider that to be "power." That's just manipulation and hype. Those with power are those who have the power to fire people and/or prevent them from appearing on TV or on an internet platform. That's where the "power" truly is, not with the performers or end users. Especially with TV or movie actors who can be fired on a whim, where is their "power"?

    Well, sure, they're paying for advertising. But we're talking about the power to persuade, and that's kind of iffy even in ideal circumstances.

    Let me ask you this: Do you think anyone was persuaded by Carano's tweet? If she really had that much power, then how likely is it that her millions of followers opened her tweet and said "Yes, she's absolutely right"? Or, on the other side, how likely is it that her millions of followers were outraged and disgusted by what she said and demanded that she be fired? Or is it more likely that the vast majority of her followers didn't care either way?

    How much actual "power" are we talking about here?

    They got their share of bad press and detractors. But they were big moneymakers, so from a business point of view, they have to compare how much money they lose from bad press or a percentage of the public angry at them, as opposed to how much they would lose if they fired them.

    It's a purely business decision which would consider the same factors, as any business would in this day and age.

    The kind of power I'm talking about is where someone is so famous that their popularity is so great and their fanbase is so rabid as to make them virtually untouchable. It's when the backlash for firing them would be greater than the backlash for not firing them if they say or do something offensive.

    I'm the same way. I don't mind expressing my opinions in a forum like this, because there's a certain give and take and exchange of ideas which I enjoy. But social media is basically just soundbites and throwaway one-liners.

    That's what it seems like. People say dumb things all the time, at all levels of society.

    Well, PC has been around for a long time. I still remember back when Jimmy the Greek got fired by CBS more than 30 years ago. (Jimmy Snyder (sports commentator) - Wikipedia) It's kind of ironic, in a way, considering that a decade earlier, the same network made Archie Bunker into a household name. Somewhere along the mid to late 1980s, things shifted into what many call "PC," although I don't know if it's really changed much since then.
     
  17. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    What is stopping you from acquiring your own content platform, or creating your own blog, or starting your own media operation? Is it the fact that your speech is being controlled by "a very few people", or is it the simple fact that you are not, in fact, so flush in capital as to start up your own media operation from scratch?

    If it is the latter, then freedom of speech has always been like this at any point the concept has been meaningfully attempted in a capitalist society. In this, liberal-capitalist freedom of speech is working as intended - capitalists who run their own independent media are free to say whatever they want, and are free to make their employees say whatever they want, without interference from a government or other public institution. I cannot think of any point in the history of modern capitalist society when your situation would have been meaningfully different in this regard, can you?
     
  18. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,735
    Ratings:
    +6,142
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I would say that modern free speech in "the West" is probably as good as it's ever been +/- a small variance. Hooray!

    OTOH, the freedoms we in the West enjoy today are exceedingly rare across the span of human civilization. We enjoy freedoms that very few humans have ever enjoyed. These freedoms are precious, and we should defend them vigorously against all incursions - large or small.

    Society has always had its periods of massive wealth and income inequality, and those periods never end well. In the past, those periods have usually ended with violent revolution. These days, the size of our population and the power of our weapons make the prospect of violent revolution more of an existential crisis than ever before.

    So we need to act now, to stop erosions of our liberties, and to undo the growing wealth and income inequalities in our society. Oligarchs really ARE poisoning everything.
     
  19. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    1,178
    Ratings:
    +587
    The media has been an oligopoly for centuries. This is not a recent development by any means.
    In earlier times, Ms. Carano would not have had more platforms available to spread her anti-mainstream ideas, quite the contrary. Arguably, where our current media landscape differs is that overt bigotry is no longer seen as tolerable for a lot of public figures, at least not to the same extent as it used to be.
     
Loading...