4 ms·

To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything posit

To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice. Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.

Scarblac 11y ago
Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.
- darkmarmot 11y ago
  Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
  - Scarblac 11y ago
    I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
    - zo1 11y ago
      "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        It is an arbitrary line and drawing such line would probably be a risky proposition in US, but it works in Europe because it's a Schelling point. Openly endorsing Nazi Party ideology through symbolism was forbidden immediately after the war for obvious reasons (and I seriously doubt that anyone in the still burning Europe really protested), and those symbols still bring bad memories to people - so the law kind of stuck. So yes, this sounds like a slippery slope, but in that case Europeans have a Schelling fence on it. See [0] for a more detailed take on the whole topic. For our purposes though, the money quote: "In the original example with the alien, I cheated by using the phrase "right-thinking people". In reality, figuring out who qualifies to join the Right-Thinking People Club is half the battle, and everyone's likely to have a different opinion on it. So far, the practical solution to the coordination problem, the "only defensible Schelling point", has been to just have everyone agree to defend everyone else without worrying whether they're right-thinking or not, and this is easier than trying to coordinate room for exceptions like Holocaust deniers. Give up on the Holocaust deniers, and no one else can be sure what other Schelling point you've committed to, if any... ...unless they can. In parts of Europe, they've banned Holocaust denial for years and everyone's been totally okay with it. There are also a host of other well-respected exceptions to free speech, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Presumably, these exemptions are protected by tradition, so that they have become new Schelling points there, or are else so obvious that everyone except Holocaust deniers is willing to allow a special Holocaust denial exception without worrying it will impact their own case." [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slo...
- icanhackit 11y ago
  It's disrespectful in a way that I can't ever fully fathom, but why are they doing it? You need to have a dialogue with them to understand why they're doing the stupid shit they're doing. You need a dialogue to guide them towards becoming more considerate people, otherwise you're just hiding an element of society that will eventually come back to bite you. Think of them like children - do you talk to them about something they've done, like take a socially taboo substance, or do you make it clear to them that they can't use it in your presence, opening the door to them seeking a place that they can take it without consequence or discussion?
  - Scarblac 11y ago
    > It's disrespectful in a way that I can't ever fully fathom, but why are they doing it? You need to have a dialogue with them to understand why they're doing the stupid shit they're doing. You need a dialogue to guide them towards becoming more considerate people, otherwise you're just hiding an element of society that will eventually come back to bite you. You could write the same sentence about, say, physical abuse.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - icanhackit 11y ago
      > You could write the same sentence about, say, physical abuse. I'm not sure if we're in agreement here but yes, you could say the same about physical abuse. Perpetrators of violent acts are often found to have been recipients of violence or abuse themselves. We know this through counseling which is a form of dialogue. The more we can understand something, the better we'll become at preventing it from being exacted in the first place. Understand and treat the cause, rather than ignore the cause and treat the symptoms.
caskance 11y ago
If you are not willing to admit that they might be right and you might be the one to change your views, it's hardly a real dialogue. It's preaching or brainwashing, depending on how charitable you feel like being.
- icanhackit 11y ago
  That's an oversimplification: your aim is to understand why they hold the views they have - often they face very real problems themselves which are externalized as hatred and violence. Solving the root causes, whether it's a lack of social mobility as a result of poor education, a lack of agency or control in a fast-changing world, you can begin to understand their plight and look for ways to treat the underlying illness. Usually the correct answer is: good cheap education (but that's also an oversimplification). Brainwashing or banning forms of expression would be treating the symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause. Brainwashing/censorship might be quicker and, in the short-term, cheaper than changing the culture and living conditions of a group of people, but you'll forever be addressing symptoms at great cost long-term.
  - caskance 11y ago
    You're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong and that they only believe those things because of something else that went wrong in their lives. That's not going to lead to a sincere conversation. That's what I mean by preaching.
    - icanhackit 11y ago
      > You're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong If you posit a preexisting bias as condescension then you can throw nearly all forms of dialogue between two disparate groups in there. > That's what I mean by preaching Allowing someone to have a voice, even if you quite vocally disagree with them and have preconceived ideas that there's something wrong with them, is more material and consequential than suppression. Call it what you will. Channeling your earlier post... > If you are not willing to admit that they might be right This starts with dialogue, no matter what your feelings towards them are. The opposite is the death of debate.

Scarblac 11y ago

Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.

darkmarmot 11y ago
Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
- Scarblac 11y ago
  I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
  - zo1 11y ago
    "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      It is an arbitrary line and drawing such line would probably be a risky proposition in US, but it works in Europe because it's a Schelling point. Openly endorsing Nazi Party ideology through symbolism was forbidden immediately after the war for obvious reasons (and I seriously doubt that anyone in the still burning Europe really protested), and those symbols still bring bad memories to people - so the law kind of stuck. So yes, this sounds like a slippery slope, but in that case Europeans have a Schelling fence on it. See [0] for a more detailed take on the whole topic. For our purposes though, the money quote: "In the original example with the alien, I cheated by using the phrase "right-thinking people". In reality, figuring out who qualifies to join the Right-Thinking People Club is half the battle, and everyone's likely to have a different opinion on it. So far, the practical solution to the coordination problem, the "only defensible Schelling point", has been to just have everyone agree to defend everyone else without worrying whether they're right-thinking or not, and this is easier than trying to coordinate room for exceptions like Holocaust deniers. Give up on the Holocaust deniers, and no one else can be sure what other Schelling point you've committed to, if any... ...unless they can. In parts of Europe, they've banned Holocaust denial for years and everyone's been totally okay with it. There are also a host of other well-respected exceptions to free speech, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Presumably, these exemptions are protected by tradition, so that they have become new Schelling points there, or are else so obvious that everyone except Holocaust deniers is willing to allow a special Holocaust denial exception without worrying it will impact their own case." [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slo...
icanhackit 11y ago
It's disrespectful in a way that I can't ever fully fathom, but why are they doing it? You need to have a dialogue with them to understand why they're doing the stupid shit they're doing. You need a dialogue to guide them towards becoming more considerate people, otherwise you're just hiding an element of society that will eventually come back to bite you. Think of them like children - do you talk to them about something they've done, like take a socially taboo substance, or do you make it clear to them that they can't use it in your presence, opening the door to them seeking a place that they can take it without consequence or discussion?
- Scarblac 11y ago
  > It's disrespectful in a way that I can't ever fully fathom, but why are they doing it? You need to have a dialogue with them to understand why they're doing the stupid shit they're doing. You need a dialogue to guide them towards becoming more considerate people, otherwise you're just hiding an element of society that will eventually come back to bite you. You could write the same sentence about, say, physical abuse.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - icanhackit 11y ago
    > You could write the same sentence about, say, physical abuse. I'm not sure if we're in agreement here but yes, you could say the same about physical abuse. Perpetrators of violent acts are often found to have been recipients of violence or abuse themselves. We know this through counseling which is a form of dialogue. The more we can understand something, the better we'll become at preventing it from being exacted in the first place. Understand and treat the cause, rather than ignore the cause and treat the symptoms.

caskance 11y ago

If you are not willing to admit that they might be right and you might be the one to change your views, it's hardly a real dialogue. It's preaching or brainwashing, depending on how charitable you feel like being.

icanhackit 11y ago
That's an oversimplification: your aim is to understand why they hold the views they have - often they face very real problems themselves which are externalized as hatred and violence. Solving the root causes, whether it's a lack of social mobility as a result of poor education, a lack of agency or control in a fast-changing world, you can begin to understand their plight and look for ways to treat the underlying illness. Usually the correct answer is: good cheap education (but that's also an oversimplification). Brainwashing or banning forms of expression would be treating the symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause. Brainwashing/censorship might be quicker and, in the short-term, cheaper than changing the culture and living conditions of a group of people, but you'll forever be addressing symptoms at great cost long-term.
- caskance 11y ago
  You're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong and that they only believe those things because of something else that went wrong in their lives. That's not going to lead to a sincere conversation. That's what I mean by preaching.
  - icanhackit 11y ago
    > You're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong If you posit a preexisting bias as condescension then you can throw nearly all forms of dialogue between two disparate groups in there. > That's what I mean by preaching Allowing someone to have a voice, even if you quite vocally disagree with them and have preconceived ideas that there's something wrong with them, is more material and consequential than suppression. Call it what you will. Channeling your earlier post... > If you are not willing to admit that they might be right This starts with dialogue, no matter what your feelings towards them are. The opposite is the death of debate.