https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Defending the right to unpopular and offensive speech is not the same as compromising with the speech. You can truly abhor what someone’s saying and not try to some them.
Okay, so then do you really want the Trump administration deciding on what speech to ban? Freedom of speech isn’t just about defending monsters. It also can save us from them.
This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?
This past election was very eye-opening in that everyone on the left was so absolutely confident that Trump wouldn’t win. So much so they had already started laying things out for their own fascist takeover.
And yes, the left can act in a fascist manner.
I am genuinely curious about your perspective—when you say the left can act in a fascist manner, could you provide some specific examples of what you mean? Also, how do you personally define fascism in this context?
Remember that bill that would strip non-profit status from any group, based on the whim of the president? With no hope of appeal? That was very popular with Democrats, until Trump won.
Even if you assholes don’t abuse something like that, you know that you aren’t going to be in office forever? There’s an election every 4 years, remember?
Don’t go conflating Democrats with the left, though. There’s some overlap, but they aren’t the same.
It’s hard because there’s so much reshuffling going on. I personally have to clarify now that I’m a constitutionalist liberal, because liberal means too many different things to different people.
This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?
People who support censorship always believe the censors will always side with their preferences. They never consider what happens when people they oppose control the censors, and for them merely not having allied censors in place feels like they are being silenced (see conservative Christian types who inevitably get angry any time Christian-focused language isn’t enforced [aka War on Christmas or anyone else requesting a display when there’s a public religious display on government property]).
Yes, very true. Always.
Tell me you don’t know what fascism is without actually saying it.
CNN has been like this ever since Zaslav took over and it’s EXHAUSTING to hear my parents constantly having it on in the background
The comic is actually self contradictory, because the top-left panel satirizes being tolerant with Hitler, while the bottom left satirizes accepting some wars. No wars would mean letting Hitler just go around annexing countries and creating concentration camps wherever he wants.
There’s a big difference between defending your country within your borders and crossing a border to fight in another country.
Hitler will be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
Surely, as he was in reality. I’ll be paraphrasing this, thanks.
“The Marketplace of Ideas” is such a scam, all that phrase accomplished was getting Bill Nye to debate creationists, who then gained followings because “The TV Box said that the Creationism and Evolution are equal ideas worth debating and considering the merits of!”
Don’t let them make you think that Piss belongs on the shelf with Pepsi.
Chicken and the egg, he would have been defeated in the marketplace of ideas, if he didn’t seize power and destroy the marketplace of ideas. If the German population held freedom of expression, equality for all under the law, etc., as sacrosanct, and Hitler wasn’t able to manufacture a legal mechanism to seize power, nothing would have happened. But, they were missing that kind of unity, the idea of what a better society should look like and why it’s worth defending, so that enough psychopaths organized around Hitler that he was able to enforce his mandates.
Ultimately the question is about whether or not a political paradigm can gain enough traction to have its followers come out on top of everyone else. The prevailing wind of society has to be justice instead of injustice. And not always “domestically”, either, war and colonialism take a very similar shape. just as a projection from one region into another. This gets to Chomsky’s description of “power structures”. A fascist power structure could defeat, or be defeated by, the organization of the people, but it all depends on their collective cultural mindset - strength in numbers, arms, organization, etc. That is why ultimately the fight against fascism is about the necessity of education, and why fascists attack all forms of education.
Seize power?
He was given power by Hidenburg to get a working Reichstag coalition to stop the Communists and other far Left groups from gaining ground.The existing power structures were then very happy to work with him and saw him as a tool until it was clear he was unassailably in power. Then his annexations of Austria and The Sudentenland were massively popular domestically, even with people who didn’t like him.
People were too happy to overlook the antisemitism, homo/transphobia, and racism in general (especially against Roma, Sindi, and other travellers as well as Slavs) in return for feeling their nation was strong again.
That said, I think I agree with your overall idea. Just being a “terminally online nitpicker”.
Insistence on classic freedom of speech doesn’t mean centrist, moderate, or apolitical. It means supporting civil liberties without being an ignorant hypocrite that takes those hard-fought liberties for granted. There was a whole movement that was pivotal to the civil liberties movement.
New York Times - Feb. 1, 1933 (Archive.org copy so you can zoom in and read it more clearly)
not taking a side, is taking the side of inaction, which will inevitably result in oligarchy. You can say you don’t care, withdraw, and refuse to participate, but don’t pretend like it’s not an active participation. You’re actively in this life, you’re just choosing to let the wrong team win.
Most people will choose the side of inaction as long as they’re comfortable enough. That’s something I don’t get with today’s oligarchs. They are just as stupid as they are greedy. If they hoarded just a bit less – if they were willing to live a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a SMALL country rather than living a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a midsize country – they could live the exact same day to day existence without the working class being up in arms and in love with CEO assassins.
In the movie of their life, the only difference would be the “high score” text at the top of the screen.
But I guess if you value a practical good life over unchecked avarice and ego, you probably aren’t cut out for the oligarch lifestyle.
If you took away the internet and TV, People would riot like they never have before. You hit the nail on the head, enough of us who would do something are just comfortable enough not to. We have comfort food, alcohol, weed, TV, video games, and movies. All distractions. Take away the comfort, take away peoples last remaining reason not to revolt.
This is one of the best summaries of it that I’ve seen.
People are being stupid when they call oligarchs selfish. They aren’t selfish. They’re idiots.
Not trying to sound obnoxious, but from my experience the average people and voters don’t know much on just about any given topic. The masses are inundated and distracted by consumerism, vapid entertainment and other white noise to pay attention to what is beyond their immediate concerns, which makes them miss the bigger picture. Even if you make a person aware the gravity of the issue, some simply would not care because it is just more convenient not to think about it or gives them self-gratification. Case in point, data privacy protection outside of EU and California is non-existent because people do not even know companies sell personal information nor even care if pointed out. That’s why social media thrive because most humans love the feeling of that dopamine hit when they receive likes; and companies and politicians are all to happy to exploit that and won’t tell their users what they do in the name of harvesting their personal data.
I once saw a guy on Twitter who edited the second panels compromise sign to say “You’re both fucking stupid”. He used it as his profile banner.
People like this actually exist in real life.
The moral purists are lashing out with hyperbole since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire has castrated their big issue. They have to pretend letting Trump win by refusing to vote for Harris cuz she “supported genocide” was still the right thing to do, and they weren’t just being impatient toddlers demanding a cookie RIGHT NOW. Apparently they don’t understand that diplomacy isn’t something you can just click on.
Let me guess- they are claiming that this ceasefire is because Harris lost.
Well hey then that makes it their achievement! No idea but it wouldn’t be surprising.
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful… As soon as you start allowing the gov’t to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it’s the actions that can arise from the words.
I’ll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I’ll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh when their mind is filled with hate and bile.
just because you can speak your mind doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of doing so.
I’ll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I’ll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh
This is a contradiction. Something isn’t a right if you allow open season for others to actively target and suppress.
Otherwise, Stalinism is also technically “free speech”: you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences.
Be clear about what you mean.
It’s actually perfectly simple and not contradictory as long as you don’t conflate basic rights and absolute impunity.
Having the right to say something abhorrent without the government punishing you for it ≠ having the privilege to say whatever you want and face no consequences.
Conflating the two to the point of censoring dissent is how fascism, anarcho-capitalism, Stalinism, and other inherently abusive ideologies that look attractive to some when not closely examined take root and thrive.
You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.
This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.
There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.
It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.
The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls’:
Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”
Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.
“While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”
This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.
You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.
I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.
Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they’re fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.
From context
Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties
and key words
only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe
and my direct statement
speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty
I’m stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one’s mind doesn’t cause harm. Harm requires an act.
Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl’s conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.
Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?
Complaining about semantics isn’t the argument you think it is. Meanings & distinctions matter.
The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice. If you’re willing to undermine rights for expressions that won’t actually harm/threaten, then I don’t care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes?
No & already answered.
I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government. Make sure you lock the door in your ivory tower behind you.
This isn’t about the paradox of tolerance; the paradox of tolerance refers to a social contract, not a legal framework.
You have the legal right to spew hate and vicious trash. You do NOT have the right to be free of social opprobrium should you do so. As soon as you start legally limiting speech based on what you think is acceptable, you create a legal framework for other people to do the same.
Nobody said it was a legal framework. I am applying the paradox to how we should frame it legally.
The rest of your argument was already covered in my post.
It’s your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that’s the problem
In modern societies, we’re happy with the government banning the latter and not the former
In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one’s which
There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the 1st amendment of the US constitution. That’s a well-established legal precedent that no succeeding court has been willing to overturn.
If you decided to make hateful speech illegal, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians to claim that my advocacy for my religion–Satanism–was hate speech.
Government censorship isn’t just a ban on speech currently deemed to be hateful. It is also an endorsement of speech they currently believe to be political.
The problem should be wildly apparent when we realize that governments around the world have a long and colorful history of making “political speech” that is only later determined to be hateful.
Even “Good” presidents in our recent past have held positions that, in hindsight, are dehumanizing, abhorrent and vile. Our entire “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for example.
Our incoming president has indicated his intention to treat immigrants as enemy combatants. He plans to deport adults who were born and have lived their entire lives in the US if he determines their parents did not adequately prove their legal presence. He has determined that this racist position is “political speech”.
Government has no fucking business deciding what is and is not protected speech.
One important caveat: there is a difference between “speech” and “violence”. Threats may be spoken, but threats are not speech. Threats should be criminally prosecuted, not arbitrarily censored by the government.
deleted by creator
IMO, if our government was legitimate and uncorrupt,
History has demonstrated that such a government can never be guaranteed. Germany had it right when they banned Nazi speech? They banned other types of “hate” speech not all that much earlier. Nobody knows what kind of “hate” speech they will be trying to ban tomorrow, or a decade from now. All we do know is that the people will broadly support it, just as they do now, just as they did a hundred years ago.
I’m going to repeat this again: Even though they are spoken, threats are not a form of speech. Threats are “violence” and “censorship” is not the appropriate remedy for violence. People who issue threats should be prosecuted, not silenced.
The government should not be allowed to shortcut the criminal process and merely prevent such violent people from being able to discuss their violent intentions in public. They should either be prosecuted for the violence they are committing, or their speech ignored. There is no scenario where they should be silenced without being prosecuted.
There’s also the fact that Germany’s Nazi Speech ban is heavily criticized for not taking context into considerations, with various media getting on a blacklist solely for having a swastika, even if it was meant to be educational or shown as a demonstrably bad thing.
This is why so many WW2 games avoid showing the Nazi Flag, even if re-releases of games that previously did, because Germany won’t hear of it.
As a US citizen, I wish I could upvote you more.
Political speech can involve hate.
Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.
You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump. You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.
Hate speech is not “saying that you hate something”…
That’s not what I said.
Political speech can involve hate.
Not in a modern society
Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.
It never has been
You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump.
I make a point of not hating anyone too old to control their bladder
You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.
Yes, that’s the idea
I’ve not got a clue what point you’re making
Political speech can involve hate.
Not in a modern society
You cited an example from a society that thinks handguns are a right yet doesn’t fight for basic human rights like healthcare
That’s absolutely not a modern society
Ok. What society do you consider modern? France? Germany? Sweden? Finland? I can show a politician saying something just as horrible. Maybe not the one in high office, but elected politicians. I sure can’t think of a nation that doesn’t have at least a handful of racist assholes that get elected by being racist assholes.
Suggesting there is no hate in politics is just naïve. There is no place on this planet free of bigotry and free of people willing to have bigots make decisions for them.
Seems like you got the idea.
This is like saying guns don’t kill people
The tool you use to kill is irrelevant, because the tool has no intent. Mens rea is, with the exception of a very, very few strict liability crimes, a requirement for an action to be criminal. A tool can not have intent.
Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);
The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won’t get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.
Thanks for the strawman, I see now you’re arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)
Automatic sentient guns, that’s what kills people.
Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others
Pull a trigger in the air without a gun, and see how many you kill.
The gun is an extension of the user - without the gun, you cannot shoot, just as without a person the gun won’t shoot.
Same is the case for words. They didn’t come out of the aether into existence, and when spoken carry the will of the speaker inherently.
It’s not “just words”, it can be malice or hate given form - that is, after all, the point of communication; to give form of what you desire or think to others.
I also would like a reasonable amount of wars.
The reasonable amount of wars just happens to be 0.
Understand that this also means no wars of liberation and no wars of mutual defense
With no wars, there’s no “wars of mutual defense,” wars and without oppression, there’s no need for wars of liberation either.
So yeah, in the absence of the unreasonable, only reasonable number of wars IS 0.
War on terror ?
Within reason.
The line is very clear: You have those rights … so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.
If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc… Sure: they’re free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.
Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it’s important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It’s important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.
Moderates fuck this up frequently… and I’m saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.
Edit:
It’s been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result… genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed… but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff 🍻
Nice comment that ignores the fact that hate speech actively harms people.
It also ignores that there are recognized limits to free speech everywhere - try to discuss the best way to murder someone in public and see what happens.
Human rights are supposed to protect human dignity, so free speech, like any other right, needs to be interpreted in that light.
Strawman. You’re implying that OP believes hate speech can’t encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.
Strawman. You’re implying that OP believes hate speech can’t encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.
From their post:
If someone wants to say there is a master race … Sure: they’re free to say it.
Tell me where discussions of a master race will lead, if not putting down the lesser races. Tell me how that doesn’t affect their freedom. Tell me how that’s not hate.
Many seem to agree on “Freedom of speech, as long it doesn’t harm others’ freedom,” but too many don’t understand what harm is.
@Ajen@sh.itjust.works correctly identifies this. Any ideals can be interpreted in bad faith to infer something that was not intended. If I said I prefer tea - someone would be more than happy to infer that I hate coffee.
My statement was a profession of what I believe to be correct. It is a brief summary of what I was taught and what I determined to be correct based on my experiences… and I stand by them. Admittedly I did bait a hook for a particular kind of person and am not displeased with the result. It appears to have yielded several great examples of what I was talking about.
Addressing your post despite the rather “loaded” opening which I imagine you know shouldn’t warrant a response:
Hate speech doesn’t exist until it is uttered. The damage is immediately done. It isn’t - then it is. How do you propose stopping that? I’m genuinely curious. You appear to be holding my beliefs accountable for not employing precrime or espers… which admittedly, I don’t factor in. They do, however, propose the solution: support the victim and admonish the person who was out of line. There are demonstrations of this, in action, in this thread.
People are social creatures: standing with someone is more powerful than simply removing an undesirable statement after the fact. It removes the isolation from the victim and provides support. It says: we, this group, will not stand for your actions. It isolates the perpetrator and makes them, consciously or not, aware that something is wrong. As I stated before: this may not change everyone but the net result is positive.
I’m happy to continue this discussion but it only seems fair that you expand on how you / your views would solve hate speech as it seems to be something you are passionate about… right?
their speech organizes and hate and destruction though
Hateful people will find each other regardless of my or anyone else’s views on free speech. Very ominous statement though.
With that said:
Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be. It forces them to find proof and facts where there are none. It makes them look bad.
nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.
the free speech thing is beautiful in theory but in practice its just being used as an excuse to enable fascists. let me see socialists have the same openness in the media and we can start to talk about the minutiae of it properly.
Alright so expand on this:
nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.
We’re half way there. Why couldn’t they do what they were doing before?
Edit: If you’re going to drop an ambiguous nuh uh, because “reasons” …and then be unable to expand on that after 5/6 hours - perhaps be clearer in your argument. At present it looks a lot like you’re attempting to muddy a discussion with unverifiable nonsense.
A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”
You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.
You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.
You reference people being killed for scientific beliefs. But you’re comparing the persecution of evidence-based scientific inquiry to the restriction of propaganda designed to harm others. These aren’t remotely equivalent - you’re actually trivializing historical persecution.
You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”
Also your whole “But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong” - completely disregards the physical reality of the burden of proof - it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything” - and now it’s on you to prove me wrong - but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.
I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.
So, I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I have similar views. I’m going to skip some statements, as I can’t speak for yggstyle, only my own stance.
You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.
Yes? Harmful statements should be removed, but if there’s no explanation given, people are probably just going to roll their eyes about it.
You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.
Content moderation is simply the removal of rule-breaking content. Xitter removing Musk hate is content moderation, but not an opposition to harmful views. In order to actually oppose said views, a site needs to be more transparent about what a harmful view is and be able to say how removed comments are harmful.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.
There’s a difference between platforming hate speech and letting people fuck up without immediately banning them. I was raised christofascist, and the only reason I was able to change my mind is because people engaged with me about why it was harmful to trust my family. If I’d just had content removed for opaque reasons, with zero explanation as to what I’d done wrong and didn’t respond to questions about why it was wrong, I wouldn’t’ve had a reason to distrust my family. Your approach also actually reduces genuine dialogue.
You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”
Again, education isn’t the same as platforming something. If somebody genuinely doesn’t understand why arson is bad, I absolutely want to teach them why and not just tell them to get lost.
but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.
The limit of “so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others” means it’s not absolute freedom of speech though?
Very well put.
Hate speech is a favorite topic of people looking to derail a topic or trip someone up. It is a complex issue that is difficult if not impossible to prevent. Someone who wants to express hate will undoubtedly find a way to do so. That is why, in my opinion, the reaction to it matters so much. Discussion allows for a community to rally and support when needed - and teach or correct if the opportunity is presented.
To me, this demonstrates importance of good faith arguments. It indicates that yes, some people should be effectively silenced for their beliefs.
I say “effectively” because he’s right that it IS a good safety net when things you say cannot hurt you. People correct toxic viewpoints like “Why are immigrants the cause of so much crime?” only by being allowed to ask the question and getting corrected.
The ideal case of fixing bad faith arguments would be: Someone engages in repeated zero-effort fake claims as you described at the end, and after the first round is corrected, everyone involved in that conversation declares “All right, this is a bad-faith argument; you’re not genuinely curious about the response, you’re just trying to force a reaction.” And then, ideally, finding ways to de-platform the individual. Again, “effectively” denying them speech by simply not assisting them with theirs. To me, that’s the role of what many call “Cancel Culture”, and I’d want it to be a stronger thing.
I will also say: You made a LOT of claims in your post that the above poster did not make. I was very much considering a downvote, although I agree with the dangers you’re talking about. Ironically you’re exemplifying some of the problems with cancel culture taking effect without conversation and understanding.
First and foremost - Yes: Thank you. I noticed your comment initially when skimming before my big response… and thought “this person gets it.”
I have nothing meaningful to add to what you said: you understood the importance of discussion - you had opinions and expressed them. You spoke up against something you perceived as incorrect.
Cheers. While it’s self serving for me to say it: responses like yours give me hope.
It would appear we have a lot to unpack in the replies - but your post checks most of the boxes so here we go:
A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”
First and foremost the stammer was a nice touch. It really gives that extra oomph to the feigned offense. I chuckled.
When I composed that list I was very specific about which items were being added to it. Are you familiar with a dog whistle? It does have several “topical” meanings but in this case lets use the one talking about “frequency of sound.” Now most people cannot hear a dog whistle - but are able to discern that dogs do hear it when they start flicking their ears about and behaving oddly in the presence of it. A post is text so I cannot use sound… however (and I love this example for… reasons):
If I showed 3 dots that were green, red, red to a group who were colorblind - all they would see three similar dots. However someone who saw color would be confused as to why a dot was standing out and might react to it. This is, in effect, the dog whistle behavior I spoke about.
On to my point: for most people I listed three obviously ridiculous concepts that are meritless / easily disproven. For these people they might acknowledge my jab as amusing - but overall would not see anything but 3 of the same example. It wouldn’t warrant a specific response… However - to someone who was looking to troll, disrupt, or perhaps even finds one of those topics to “not belong” in the silly notion category… they would jump all over it. Fight me Elvis fans. I’m ready.
Side note: What is so fantastic about this - is it got multiple hits and other people immediately identified the response to those hits. Its a demonstration of both the whistle and people seeing the result of the “unheard” whistle.
I have read your post completely and its pretty textbook; which I am certain you are aware of. I will do my best to cover your best shots though.
You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views… (moderation.)
It is important that people see both the views and the response to those views. If they are allowed to speak and are admonished, publicly - they are defeated and have no recourse. If they are silenced - they are allowed a “martyrs death” through repression. This is a tool used by many groups (not just hate groups) to deepen the rift between “us and them.” It reinforces loyalty - because out there “they” don’t understand you. This is the additional benefit of airing the dirty laundry - so to speak: when people talk things out they may find something they both agree on… and learning can happen. In the case of say our much reviled “Elvis fans” they may realize that even if the king faked his death … he probably did die of old age… So seeing him now is obviously silly. Yes that goes both ways - but the result is far more favorable to the party with their head screwed on right.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers.
It does. I spoke to this above - but to expand using another example: using capital punishment during the witch trials made a very binary situation. You are or aren’t a witch or witch supporter. And while there were no definite ways to test for a witch… …people were incentivized to report friends and family out of fear that they might be associated with them. This is why absolute moderation is a bad thing. Many mods will simply delete a post leaving some to wonder wtf even happened. Banning someone while posting a response is better - but the best way yet for reasons I outlined above - is to give them an opportunity to respond to the charges before a decision is made. This shows that discussion can occur and allows outsiders to grasp both sides and form their opinions on the matter.
How does that pertain to echo chambers? Simple. We are social creatures - we learn largely through negative reinforcement (that awkward moment in highschool with free rent in your mind was actually a survival mechanism at one point.) This is apparent in nearly every online community in some form or another but anywhere there are “point based systems” the results are self evident. Downvotes both discourage posts against the grain and because they are visible to all - are a stark reminder to not fall out of line. If you cannot beat them - join them. Its simple human behavior. Now what is the end result of beating down other schools of thought and the championing of bandwagoning? Self evident.
…you’re actually trivializing historical persecution
You’ve already played the righteous indignation / offense card already. I’ll answer you earnestly though: My statements, as a whole, were put together in a way that clearly says - “these are my viewpoints, and I welcome discussion on it.” I believe the statement you cherry picked for outrage here was followed by “It is important to debate and not silence people.” People can be surprisingly rational when presented with facts and left to form their own opinions? How do you think history would have been different had it been acceptable to have a difference of opinion and matters of science were discussed openly rather than obliterated by those in power at the time? I imagine we’d be better off than we are now, personally. That is my perspective and you are absolutely welcome to disagree with me on it.
we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down
I will quote @radix@lemmy.world because it is simple and to the point: You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.
It sums it up nicely. If bob feels comfortable platforming his desire to burn down alice’s home … I imagine that would provide multiple people an opportunity to … stop him. Wild concept - I’m aware.
it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything”
And yet I didn’t get to lemmy today until not to long ago because of life stuff and wouldn’t you know it: “But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong.” I think those users covered it better than I could: simply by acting like rational people - and the result, in my opinion, is better than if I snubbed you myself.
I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.
And I hope that our exchange has taught you something.
My views are largely shaped by a psych professor whom I respect quite a bit: in his spare time he would find public rallies by hate groups and go to debate them. I was fortunate enough to be brought along a couple times… and I have to say some of the most satisfying things I have ever witnessed is watching hate groups get the platform they wanted and hang themselves with the rope he provided during the exchanges. He instilled in me the value of both hearing what your opponent says and presenting your views. In the end - you may agree to disagree… but frequently saner heads prevail.
Answering your post has been a blast - I welcome continuing it, should you be inclined… but hopefully I have cleared up any misconceptions you had.
edit: fixed a formatting faux pas
But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety.
Does it? I’ve never seen that proven convincingly. It goes against my experience lived embracing the tired old saying sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me around detestable assholes spouting particularly offensive ideas at me. Realizing that expression gave me power: their words matter not a damn to me as long as they don’t turn into action. Once they turn into action, however, a warning to call the authorities usually settles the matter uneventfully.
Words are bullshit. Anyone can put words together: they’re just noise. People can spout nonsense forever & form their nonsense echo chambers as long as nothing comes of it. Their words are not the problem, they’re an indication. Actions are the real problem.
If you don’t want people putting their offensive ideas into action, then stop them, not their words. Block that legislation from getting through. Argue their ideas are garbage. Change the minds of those in power. Educate more people to your side.
I’m disappointed so many people detract a key civil liberty so easily & need the obvious explained.
Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It spreads ideas and therefore effects attitudes and behaviors. Suggesting the usage of racist languages doesn’t have an effect on the minds of those who hear it - especially those who are malleable or otherwise primed to hear it - is an asinine argument to make. You think people randomly started accusing Haitians refugees of eating pets in the Midwest?
Where’s the part where they act on these detestable ideas & we’re powerless to stop these acts & hold people accountable for their actions? Behaviors are acts (distinct from speech) and I see only claims to defend speech.
Unless you exterminate everyone you disagree with, people with ideas you disapprove of will always exist. Better to know who they are by letting them tell us. Civil liberties & a right to exist apply as much to them as to you.
As you wrote, people are malleable. They don’t need the input of others to develop incorrect ideas & common biases on their own especially from an early age. As that article on early childhood development of racial prejudices points out, avoiding talking about discriminatory biases or delaying the topic is not the answer. Early intervention with active, explicit conversation is important to correct biases & misconceptions acquired from implicit social factors, which suppression of speech will not prevent. With appropriate work, people can & often need to be corrected.
Agreement through suppressing opposing ideas is unreliable & inadequate. It doesn’t correct self-learned biases. It assumes people will only hold unopposed ideas, which indicates they never reliably held them. If an idea has any merit, people should hold them despite flawed challenges, because we did the work of educating them properly & they know better. Choosing to compromise freedoms instead is flat out lazy & an insult to everyone’s dignity.
Finally, it’s pretty asinine to assume we need to sacrifice civil liberties to gain civil liberties. In the United States, the free speech & civil liberties movements gained together. That happened despite worse racism then with Jim Crow laws & white supremacists speaking freely. If we were able to gain civil liberties then under harsher conditions, then we shouldn’t have to sacrifice them now.
“It is a less significant thing I do, than I have ever done.”
I agree that pureexpression is a horrible idea in combination with the internet. You can’t allow people to just rile up eachother with misinformation and become terrorists over issues that don’t exist. Be it Jewish space lasers, Mexican rapist immigrants or dumb conspiracy theories like vaccines causing autism.
Especially if you have a following, or echo chambers, content just has to be stopped.
Humanity is not ready for full free flow of information, not as long as dumb idiots believe anything they reas
What even is people’s problem with autism? It can - even and does - make people super smart, after all.
