Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
#51

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Interesting topic, and one I have been struggling with as mod for years. 

I make a difference between saying unpopular things and hate speech. I will ban holocaust deniers, as well as people posting pics of gruesome killings. I will also ban people calling for violence. 

I don't ban people for having opposing opinions, no matter how stupid I think they may be. If you don't have opposing opinions, your own thoughts don't evolve. We would stagnate without opposing opinions.

Now, I trust myself to make rational decisions. I don't trust governments to do it, because, as history shows, even in countries with a majority of people with their heads screwed on right you can end up with malevolent governments.


The best we can do is to write laws that are very explicit and not at all vague. 


So, while I appreciate all the benefits of free speech, I do think hate speech should be properly defined and then forbidden.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#52

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 01:38 PM)Dom Wrote: So, while I appreciate all the benefits of free speech, I do think hate speech should be properly defined and then forbidden.

Wouldn't you consider deliberately lying about specific groups of people to be hate speech?  I see a lot of hate speech about politicians for instance, whether about certain groups of them or in general.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#53

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 01:38 PM)Dom Wrote: Interesting topic, and one I have been struggling with as mod for years. 

I make a difference between saying unpopular things and hate speech. I will ban holocaust deniers, as well as people posting pics of gruesome killings. I will also ban people calling for violence. 

I don't ban people for having opposing opinions, no matter how stupid I think they may be. If you don't have opposing opinions, your own thoughts don't evolve. We would stagnate without opposing opinions.

Now, I trust myself to make rational decisions. I don't trust governments to do it, because, as history shows, even in countries with a majority of people with their heads screwed on right you can end up with malevolent governments.


The best we can do is to write laws that are very explicit and not at all vague. 


So, while I appreciate all the benefits of free speech, I do think hate speech should be properly defined and then forbidden.

For me being a mod have nothing or almost nothing to do with free speech, it's more like an owner of the house throwing out guests speaking crap that he does not approve. 

On the wider issue it's not only about law - I for example see no reasons for state funded universities inviting fascists or (neo)nazis to some kinds of disputes as it only gives fascist legitimacy. Nothing they speak about wasn't already discredited and screams about how totalitarianism is the best are merely dumb not controversial or worthy of serious debate. 

Best we can do is to stop pretending that free speech is without limits (as Deesse23 already wrote) and acknowledge that if people can't scream fire in crowded theater they also can't espouse ideas that brought only suffering in the past without consequences. It's not only law that is the issue - idiocy may be allowed to thrive under mistaken belief that all speech is allowed.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 3 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Alan V, skyking, Deesse23
Reply
#54

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 01:52 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 01:38 PM)Dom Wrote: So, while I appreciate all the benefits of free speech, I do think hate speech should be properly defined and then forbidden.

Wouldn't you consider deliberately lying about specific groups of people to be hate speech?  I see a lot of hate speech about politicians for instance, whether about certain groups of them or in general.

Lies are not necessarily hate. You walk a slippery slope there. I could say that your nose is 10 inches long. That's a lie. If I say that we have to hunt you down and kill you because your nose is 10 inches long, that's hate speech.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#55

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:56 AM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 01:04 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-26-2019, 07:02 AM)Szuchow Wrote: Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions. 

I think this is an unfair representation of the reasoning of those who disagree with you. You're attributing motivations when you can't really know them.


Perhaps, but this is how I see it.

At question is whether how you see our motivation towards this tolerance is actually why we are the way we are. I can assure you I don't support freedom of speech out of fear of blackmail, nor naivete. You can think what you wish about the motivations of others, but that doesn't mean your thinking reflects theirs accurately.

You'd probably do well to actually listen to us, rather than impute uncharitable views like these. It smacks of a baseless personal attack and little more.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply
#56

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 01:56 PM)Szuchow Wrote: For me being a mod have nothing or almost nothing to do with free speech, it's more like an owner of the house throwing out guests speaking crap that he does not approve. 

Many people here have at times spoken crap that I don't approve of. And I am not the owner of this house. Mathilda owns the server and the domain. Nobody owns the forum, because without all of us there is no forum. The people here own the house. My job is to make it a good home for everyone. 

I am here to protect the "tempo" of the forum, to make sure that all of us find things that interest them and to make sure they can express themselves freely. There is and always will be controversy in forums, without controversy it becomes an echo chamber and everyone will get bored and pick up their ball and go home. Forums die because of too much controversy as well as not enough controversy. My job is to keep the balance.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 2 users Like Dom's post:
  • Alan V, adey67
Reply
#57

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 04:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote: Comrade Cat is probably very frustrated and feeling powerless in the face of current events in and around Poland. He (we, EUs) are also living in an environment that has already experienced the horrors of what happens when you uphold the principle of free speech giving not-so-noble groups the playing field to install their dystopian rulerships.

I think the issue with Poland -- and I could be wrong -- is that the government supports the fascists and their views. That hasn't been the case so much here in America, although that may be changing. Freedom of speech is predicated on a government as free of bias as possible.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply
#58

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 02:26 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:56 AM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 01:04 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think this is an unfair representation of the reasoning of those who disagree with you. You're attributing motivations when you can't really know them.


Perhaps, but this is how I see it.

At question is whether how you see our motivation towards this tolerance is actually why we are the way we are. I can assure you I don't support freedom of speech out of fear of blackmail, nor naivete. You can think what you wish about the motivations of others, but that doesn't mean your thinking reflects theirs accurately.

You'd probably do well to actually listen to us, rather than impute uncharitable views like these. It smacks of a baseless personal attack and little more.

It smacks of mine experience with hows thing are (which whether I want it or not colors my views) and not being convinced that people are best judges of their own characters. You sure may claim that you support freedom of speech for reasons other than naivety but beyond your certainty I have no proof. I'm not saying that this is not the case but if I don't exactly trust myself to describe I accurately why should I put such trust in the others?

Also take note of what I actually said: 
Quote:Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions. 
Seems clear enough to me that I was not speaking about anyone specific.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#59

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 02:31 PM)Dom Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 01:56 PM)Szuchow Wrote: For me being a mod have nothing or almost nothing to do with free speech, it's more like an owner of the house throwing out guests speaking crap that he does not approve. 

Many people here have at times spoken crap that I don't approve of. And I am not the owner of this house. Mathilda owns the server and the domain. Nobody owns the forum, because without all of us there is no forum. The people here own the house. My job is to make it a good home for everyone.

Still forum is not the same thing as society - here is no implied consent but clear agreement to follow rules.

Quote:I am here to protect the "tempo" of the forum, to make sure that all of us find things that interest them and to make sure they can express themselves freely. There is and always will be controversy in forums, without controversy it becomes an echo chamber and everyone will get bored and pick up their ball and go home. Forums die because of too much controversy as well as not enough controversy. My job is to keep the balance.

[bold mine]

In the society though there should not be a balance between fascist and reasonable people. Fascists should be marginalized and prosecuted ever time they break the law.

(10-27-2019, 02:34 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 04:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote: Comrade Cat is probably very frustrated and feeling powerless in the face of current events in and around Poland. He (we, EUs) are also living in an environment that has already experienced the horrors of what happens when you uphold the principle of free speech giving not-so-noble groups the playing field to install their dystopian rulerships.

I think the issue with Poland -- and I could be wrong -- is that the government supports the fascists and their views. That hasn't been the case so much here in America, although that may be changing. Freedom of speech is predicated on a government as free of bias as possible.

Depending on definition Poland gov itself may be fascist but the problem is far older than merely reign of PiS. Also with US having concentration camps I think it might be safe to say that gov or agencies it have under do support fascist views.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#60

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 02:45 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Also with US having concentration camps I think it might be safe to say that gov or agencies it have under do support fascist views.

It's a growth industry, no doubt.

(10-27-2019, 02:37 PM)Szuchow Wrote: It smacks of mine experience with hows thing are (which whether I want it or not colors my views) and not being convinced that people are best judges of their own characters. You sure may claim that you support freedom of speech for reasons other than naivety but beyond your certainty I have no proof. I'm not saying that this is not the case but if I don't exactly trust myself to describe I accurately why should I put such trust in the others?

Has it occurred to you that others might understand why they feel a certain way as a result of examination and their own personal experience? The fact that you don't trust your motivations doesn't say jack about anyone else but you.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#61

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 03:52 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Has it occurred to you that others might understand why they feel a certain way as a result of examination and their own personal experience? The fact that you don't trust your motivations doesn't say jack about anyone else but you.

It did. It also occurred to me that whatever others think or state in regards to their motivations may not necessarily be correct. Not being able to see one own biases, not being capable to admitting to one faults and seeing oneself in better light are things that happen.

Fact that you trust your motivations means nothing beyond that you trust them.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#62

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 04:03 PM)Szuchow Wrote: It did. It also occurred to me that whatever others think or state in regards to their motivations may not necessarily be correct. Not being able to see one own biases, not being capable to admitting to one faults and seeing oneself in better light are things that happen.

Making the leap from "may not" to saying as much to me directly is something I find pretty insulting, so I'm going to leave this thread. It's a personal attack, when you think about it. You should be better than that.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply
#63

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 04:06 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 04:03 PM)Szuchow Wrote: It did. It also occurred to me that whatever others think or state in regards to their motivations may not necessarily be correct. Not being able to see one own biases, not being capable to admitting to one faults and seeing oneself in better light are things that happen.

Making the leap from "may not" to saying as much to me directly is something I find pretty insulting, so I'm going to leave this thread. It's a personal attack, when you think about it. You should be better than that.

I should be better than what? Not being convinced that others necessarily are as good judges of their characters and motivations as they think they are may be stance that does not signify holding others in particularly high regard, but is hardly insulting. Especially when one does include oneself in this assessment.

You do you, though.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#64

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 02:13 PM)Dom Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 01:52 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 01:38 PM)Dom Wrote: So, while I appreciate all the benefits of free speech, I do think hate speech should be properly defined and then forbidden.

Wouldn't you consider deliberately lying about specific groups of people to be hate speech?  I see a lot of hate speech about politicians for instance, whether about certain groups of them or in general.

Lies are not necessarily hate. You walk a slippery slope there. I could say that your nose is 10 inches long. That's a lie. If I say that we have to hunt you down and kill you because your nose is 10 inches long, that's hate speech.

It's a far more subtle a distinction, most times.
Reply
#65

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 04:42 PM)skyking Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 02:13 PM)Dom Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 01:52 PM)Alan V Wrote: Wouldn't you consider deliberately lying about specific groups of people to be hate speech?  I see a lot of hate speech about politicians for instance, whether about certain groups of them or in general.

Lies are not necessarily hate. You walk a slippery slope there. I could say that your nose is 10 inches long. That's a lie. If I say that we have to hunt you down and kill you because your nose is 10 inches long, that's hate speech.

It's a far more subtle a distinction, most times.

Unfortunately, yes. Hence the need for very specific laws, with no possibility of alternate interpretation. Difficult at best.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#66

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 04:27 PM)Minimalist Wrote: It's really very simple.  You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.  As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?

If he did, I would likely have to jettison 90% or more of my vocabulary.  He doesn't understand those words. Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it.
Reply
#67

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 04:34 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 04:27 PM)Minimalist Wrote: It's really very simple.

It sure is. Nazis, fascists and communists have right to shut up and people defending their "rights" need a history lesson.

Quote:You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.

Or perhaps real world is kinda more complicated. Like, you know, being aware that letting nazis spread hate isn't brightest idea, or realizing that people calling for genocide aren't worthy of supporting in the name of some lofty principles.

Quote:As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

As I note - some speech does not warrant protecting.

Quote:Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?

Would you really allow yourself to be put into position of believing that if you're not supporting fascist "right" to spread hatred then you're enemy of the free speech?

You miss the point. Dodgy 

Fascists have the right to speak hate.
I have the right to tell them to shove it up their asses. Deadpan Coffee Drinker 

We have the right to speak truth to power, reason to hate, knowledge to ignorance.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it.
Reply
#68

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 01:38 PM)Dom Wrote: Interesting topic, and one I have been struggling with as mod for years. 

I make a difference between saying unpopular things and hate speech. I will ban holocaust deniers, as well as people posting pics of gruesome killings. I will also ban people calling for violence. 

I don't ban people for having opposing opinions, no matter how stupid I think they may be. If you don't have opposing opinions, your own thoughts don't evolve. We would stagnate without opposing opinions.

Now, I trust myself to make rational decisions. I don't trust governments to do it, because, as history shows, even in countries with a majority of people with their heads screwed on right you can end up with malevolent governments.


The best we can do is to write laws that are very explicit and not at all vague. 


So, while I appreciate all the benefits of free speech, I do think hate speech should be properly defined and then forbidden.

Free speech in the public arena should not be equated with limited speech in the private one. 
Former admins have often made that error much to the detriment of the forum.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it.
Reply
#69

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 06:35 PM)Chas Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 04:34 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 04:27 PM)Minimalist Wrote: It's really very simple.

It sure is. Nazis, fascists and communists have right to shut up and people defending their "rights" need a history lesson.

Quote:You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.

Or perhaps real world is kinda more complicated. Like, you know, being aware that letting nazis spread hate isn't brightest idea, or realizing that people calling for genocide aren't worthy of supporting in the name of some lofty principles.

Quote:As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

As I note - some speech does not warrant protecting.

Quote:Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?

Would you really allow yourself to be put into position of believing that if you're not supporting fascist "right" to spread hatred then you're enemy of the free speech?

You miss the point. Dodgy 

Fascists have the right to speak hate.
I have the right to tell them to shove it up their asses. Deadpan Coffee Drinker 

We have the right to speak truth to power, reason to hate, knowledge to ignorance.

I do not share the notion that fascists have right to speak hate.

I (obviously) see no problem with people speaking against fascism but considering the damage that fascist ideas brought in the past I see no reason at all for state to allow them being spread. It might be a limitation upon a free speech but unrestrained free speech exists nowhere as far as I can tell.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#70

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 04:51 PM)Dom Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 04:42 PM)skyking Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 02:13 PM)Dom Wrote: Lies are not necessarily hate. You walk a slippery slope there. I could say that your nose is 10 inches long. That's a lie. If I say that we have to hunt you down and kill you because your nose is 10 inches long, that's hate speech.

It's a far more subtle a distinction, most times.

Unfortunately, yes. Hence the need for very specific laws, with no possibility of alternate interpretation. Difficult at best.

I'd say more like impossible.  This is how lawyers make their living. Dodgy

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Dom
Reply
#71

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I refuse to believe any one among us, particularly the federal government which has almost absolute power over me even in the most democratic of countries, is capable of wielding the power to censor citizens by any criteria. It's just a dangerous fucking thing for the government to do. I absolutely agree with the right to free speech, including what whatever the society at the time dictates to be "hate speech," as long as it doesn't contain a direct call to violence; there are laws for threats like that already, though. And laws against causing a panic, like the Supreme Court decided a long while ago.

So, now, fuck you, I say what I want because I am in charge of my own goddamn voice box. Thank you for your time.
"If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet, you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled — have you no shame in that?" 

Reply
#72

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I think the examples of Hitler and the fascists are disingenuous, as you're objecting to the actions of these people, not their speech. If you have examples of speech which on its own should be disallowed, bring them. But citing actions which you believe are a consequence of free speech which you think could be prevented by censoring speech is not really a sound argument. If that type of argument is allowed, then we can cite all the good things that freedom of expression leads to, such as art and science, as things that you apparently are opposed to allowing. It's a nonsense argument. One can oppose evil acts and forbid them without forbidding the speech. So yes, I can support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely, without being accused of supporting the killing of six million Jews. That's just a stupid argument against free speech, the "chewing bubble gum will lead to heroin addiction" argument for outlawing bubble gum.

I believe it was in an interview of the four horsemen of the new atheism that Dennett, Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens were asked if there were any knowledge that it would be better that men not be allowed to know. The obvious example being nuclear technology. Are the consequences of having nuclear technology worse than the benefits? Free speech, like nuclear energy, is a technology, a human one, which has both good and bad sides. Perhaps we take the good side of free speech for granted, and perhaps we don't emphasize the dangers from limiting this freedom, though dystopic novels like 1984 certainly suggest it, and plenty of real-world examples exist. Ultimately one has to avoid the extremes of no free speech and of unfettered free speech including slander, incitements to violence and so forth. I think what this ultimately comes down to is, when practiced under reasonable limits, which approach bears the greatest fruits, a sort of utilitarianism of free speech. If you're not willing to give up the profits and good that allowing freedom of speech permits, then don't talk to me about the value of preventing fascism, as you're simply trying to have your cake and eat it, too. If you're not willing to privilege censorship and suppression of speech over its obverse, regardless of who is in power and whose speech it is, then you're only acknowledging half of the truth. Only when you're willing to give up your own freedoms in exchange for being able to deny others theirs, would the opposition to free speech seem to be consistent and a reasonable argument. I suspect that, much like the fascists, you simply want to deny to others what you would object to if it were denied to you.

As an addendum, it sounds like what you really object to is fascism, and permitting fascists to have rights. That's not an argument against free speech. If I were to argue that Republicans shouldn't be allowed to speak freely because it leads to Republican abuses, it would be Republicans and Republican abuses that I was really targeting, not speech. If you're willing to give up your own freedom of speech, that might be different, but given your vocality here, I doubt you're willing to let your own speech be censored because we don't like whatever it is that you advocate, whether it be fascism, socialism, communism, liberal democracy, or whatever. There is no opinion such that someone doesn't hate it and view it as a danger. If you only want to be permitted to selectively censor specific opinions and political movements, then you aren't against free speech, you're against those opinions and movements, and using a free speech argument as a vehicle for your hate. I think such views as yours should be censored because they lead to fascism. How does that sound? Still against free speech?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#73

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:01 PM)Aegon Wrote: I refuse to believe any one among us, particularly the federal government which has almost absolute power over me even in the most democratic of countries, is capable of wielding the power to censor citizens by any criteria. It's just a dangerous fucking thing for the government to do. I absolutely agree with the right to free speech, including what whatever the society at the time dictates to be "hate speech," as long as it doesn't contain a direct call to violence; there are laws for threats like that already, though. And laws against causing a panic, like the Supreme Court decided a long while ago.

So, now, fuck you, I say what I want because I am in charge of my own goddamn voice box. Thank you for your time.

Fuck me? Better go fuck yourself, fascist enabler.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#74

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:04 PM)Dānu Wrote: I think the examples of Hitler and the fascists are disingenuous, as you're objecting to the actions of these people, not their speech.  If you have examples of speech which on its own should be disallowed, bring it.  But citing actions which you believe are a consequence of free speech which you think could be prevented by censoring speech is not really a sound argument.  If that type of argument is allowed, then we can cite all the good things that freedom of expression leads to, such as art and science, as things that you apparently are opposed to allowing.  It's a nonsense argument.  One can oppose evil acts and forbid them without forbidding the speech.  So yes, I can support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely, without being accused of supporting the killing of six million Jews.  That's just a stupid argument against free speech, the "chewing bubble gum will lead to heroin addiction" argument for outlawing bubble gum.

I just fucking wonder how anyone can be so morally bankrupt as to support people like Hitler (genocidal tyrants to make things abundantly clear) being allowed to speak freely. New low has been achieved. Congratulations.

Quote:I believe it was in an interview of the four horsemen of the new atheism that Dennett, Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens were asked if there were any knowledge that it would be better that men not be allowed to know.  The obvious example being nuclear technology.  Are the consequences of having nuclear technology worse than the benefits?  Free speech, like nuclear energy, is a technology, a human one, which has both good and bad sides.  Perhaps we take the good side of free speech for granted, and perhaps we don't emphasize the dangers from limiting this freedom, though dystopic novels like 1984 certainly suggest it, and plenty of real-world examples exist.  Ultimately one has to avoid the extremes of no free speech and of unfettered free speech including slander, incitements to violence and so forth.  I think what this ultimately comes down to is when practiced under reasonable limits, which approach bears the greatest fruits, a sort of utilitarianism of free speech.  If you're not willing to give up the profits and good that allowing freedom of speech permits, then don't talk to me about the value of preventing fascism, as you're simply trying to have your cake and eat it, too.  If you're not willing to privilege censorship and suppression of speech over its obverse, regardless of who is in power and whose speech it is, then you're only acknowledging half of the truth.  Only when you're willing to give up your own freedoms in exchange for being able to deny others theirs, would the opposition to free speech seem to be consistent and a reasonable argument.  I suspect that, much like the fascists, you simply want to deny to others what you would object to if it were denied to you.


[bold mine]

So many words when in the end you just resort to the tired "both sides are bad" shit for argument. I guess that idea that fascists shouldn't be allowed to spread their poison is too hard to grasp for some people.

ETA: Learning that as atheist I'm already muzzled by Poland blasphemy laws was too apparently too hard for you. But likening myself to fascist (for opposing fascist which is height of idiocy) allows for throwing more pretty sounding words around I guess.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#75

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Do you have an argument against what I said, Szuchow, or are you content to throw around hate and bullshit ad hominems?

(10-27-2019, 07:04 PM)Dānu Wrote: As an addendum, it sounds like what you really object to is fascism, and permitting fascists to have rights. That's not an argument against free speech. If I were to argue that Republicans shouldn't be allowed to speak freely because it leads to Republican abuses, it would be Republicans and Republican abuses that I was really targeting, not speech. If you're willing to give up your own freedom of speech, that might be different, but given your vocality here, I doubt you're willing to let your own speech be censored because we don't like whatever it is that you advocate, whether it be fascism, socialism, communism, liberal democracy, or whatever. There is no opinion such that someone doesn't hate it and view it as a danger. If you only want to be permitted to selectively censor specific opinions and political movements, then you aren't against free speech, you're against those opinions and movements, and using a free speech argument as a vehicle for your hate. I think such views as yours should be censored because they lead to fascism. How does that sound? Still against free speech?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)