MBW 749: Animals Folding Pizza

Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…

What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!

1 Like

So - how does one get an invitation to Clubhouse? Asking for a friend. :slight_smile:

Just exactly as they discussed at 1:45:16-1:46:00 ? You need to know an existing user.

1 Like

Yes, thank you. That was a hint that I would like an invite. Must remember to be less subtle in my requests.

2 Likes

PHolder seems a little grumpy lately.

Clubhouse sounds neat, but also very much like an app that will be dead or at least passé in less than a year. These things just don’t scale up well. Like a real clubhouse or social club (or new bar, restaurant, or night club), there’s a certain excitement and energy that naturally dissipates as more people from the periphery come in. Some average user, five random degrees removed from Leo isn’t going to be interested in talking to a bunch of other people who are five random degrees away; and people who are interested in talking with each other (and interesting themselves) will be increasingly disinclined to have intimate conversations in front of larger and larger groups of random people. Not to mention just the challenges of dealing with larger groups in an audio format.

1 Like

Is it Monday yet… it will be forgotten by the weekend. Why are “interesting people” going to hang there if they’re not being paid? Aren’t they going to prefer to do things that make them [YouTube style] money?

A mini Mac Pro would be so incredibly awesome.

1 Like

I like the idea, have signed up on the app and waiting for an invite.

However I suspect the charm right now is the exclusive nature of it. Would be interesting to see how it goes once (or if) it goes fully public.

Not to be picky but since I have heard this on three podcasts this week I feel compelled to make a correction.

There is not a first amendment exception for hate speech in the U.S. There have been laws passed against hate speech but they are regularly overturned for being unconstitutional.

Inciting imminent violence: “Let’s go grab the Coneheads down the street right now and throw them in the disintegration chamber!” is not protected.

“Coneheads are inferior to real americans and they should all be sent back to Remulak or forced to be our servants.” is protected under the first amendment.

I am a little surprised that the hosts of this show would believe hate speech is not protected under the first amendment. Whatever one thinks of this as policy this is the situation in the U.S.

3 Likes

I stand corrected:

But I’m not sure it’s as black and white as that. (Note the “definition needed” above). I guess the difficulty is in where the line is drawn. What is hate speech? For example:

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes “fighting words”.[35] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that “tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace” by provoking a fight, so long as it is a “personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction”.[36] Additionally, such speech must be “directed to the person of the hearer” and is “thus likely to be seen as a ‘direct personal insult’”.[37][38]

So you could say “All Coneheads are horrible people”, but not “you, Mr. Conehead, deserve a punch in the nose.” It’s complicated. But I’ll be more careful in future. Thanks for the correction.

3 Likes

The phrase “hate speech” is much too general. If you protest something that’s hateful, is your own speech hateful and thus considered hate speech?

I do think that any attack, whether physical or verbal, against a group that’s based on race, religion, sexual identity, etc., should be outlawed. Just my opinion. (The “etc.” is there, of course, because I’m sure there’s something I’m forgetting.)

2 Likes

Well, the physical attack is covered under current law regarding assault, battery, murder etc

The verbal, well, there’s that first amendment again

Let’s take the group JERKS for instance:

Because you don’t care for jerks, you can’t just walk up to one and say “I hate jerks and punch him in the mouth”

However, you could run into one on Twitter
and say “I hate jerks” and move on

My issue is that the First Amendment shouldn’t protect those who seek to harm or who advocate harm against others.

2 Likes

If they do so in speech it’s generally protected by the 1A

1 Like

You run into some dicey judgment calls there. Not long ago, it was popular among leftists to advocate to “punch a Nazi.” It was trending all along social media and was considered an acceptable thing to post. We all hate Nazis but you are advocating harm against others. So, are those leftists not entitled to First Amendment protections?

Or is advocating violence okay against awful people? What level of awfulness is acceptable for this violence? Is the guy who cut in front of me in the grocery store sufficiently awful? The non-mask wearer? Who?

The non-mask wearer is pretty awful.

Anyway, you’re making my point.

The best solution would be for people to just be human beings. I know we can’t have that in our current society, but it’s something to strive for.

1 Like