4 ms·

I think the cult of "free speech" is a big part of the problem. Free speech, as spelled out in the 1st amendment is the ability of anyone to speak freely witho

by bambax 10y ago

I think the cult of "free speech" is a big part of the problem. Free speech, as spelled out in the 1st amendment is the ability of anyone to speak freely without fear of repercussions by the State. "Congress shall make no law.." But it has progressively help foster the idea that all speech should be respected or listened to, that all speakers are equally respectable, and as a consequence that every utterance of words is equivalent and should be given the same screen time. This is madness. People have an absolute right to be religious if they want to, and to worship any entity, without interference from the State. But they shouldn't expect to be respected for it, and certainly not by the common man. Indeed, they should expect the opposite: to be mocked and laughed at. Same for "anti vaxxers" who are in fact utterly stupid, selfish freeriders and should be addressed as such (and shunned from civilized society). Etc. Anyway, my point isn't against free speech per se; it's the observation that a certain idea of "free speech" has been intrumentalized by a lot of people to shield themselves and the absurd views they hold, from criticism, and that the non-crazies constantly fall prey to this obvious tactic.

Clubber 10y ago
>People have an absolute right to be religious if they want to ... But they shouldn't expect to be respected for it ... Indeed, they should expect the opposite: to be mocked and laughed at. Many people find religion for many different reasons. To categorize them all as people to be mocked is equally doltish but the opposite to religious people telling everyone they are going to hell (for whatever thing they don't like). Your statement is an equal but opposite reaction to that which you loath. No one likes a rabid conservative, no one likes a rabid liberal. Rabid is rabid regardless of what comes out of their mouth. >idea of "free speech" has been intrumentalized by a lot of people to shield themselves and the absurd views they hold I think you are practicing what you are preaching.
- BlackFly 10y ago
  Your contention is simply false as you misunderstand the point. Atheists expect to be mocked and laughed at by the religious. The point is that religious people should expect to be mocked and accept that fact. They should not argue that it is improper and that religion somehow implicitly deserves reverence.
  - bambax 10y ago
    Exactly.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Perhaps I did. When someone mentions religious people and anti-vaxxers in the same thought as people who expect to be mocked, it's difficult to not see some underlying scorn for religious people in there. Also, religious people have been mocked, enslaved, imprisoned, tortured and killed en masse for what? 6000 years now?
    - drewbug01 10y ago
      > Also, religious people have been mocked, enslaved, imprisoned, tortured and killed en masse for what? 6000 years now? Frequently (though of course, not always) by other religious people. I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight.
      - fdsak 10y ago
        Don't you think those "other religious people" may have used religion as pretext to achieve whatever they desired. E.g currently "democratic" societies act the same way to spread "democracy" through all means and at all costs.
      - Clubber 10y ago
        The two recent genicides that I can think of: Germany and Serbia weren't done by religious people. Do you have any examples of genocide in the name of religion? Crusades maybe.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
keiferski 10y ago
Free speech is a classic example of rights with responsibilities. There are a certain class of rights in which you should be able to exercise but should generally have the good sense of knowing the appropriate time to exercise them. But, as you've said, this has been warped into "I have the right to say whatever nonsense I want and I am completely justified in doing so."
agumonkey 10y ago
Free speech should be contextualized. Nowadays it became a napkin to allow stupidity. Not to shield humans against state violence. 'freedom of speech and duty of reflection' PS: ignorance vs intelligence tbc
will_brown 10y ago
>People have an absolute right to be religious if they want to, and to worship any entity, without interference from the State. Not legally, Freedom of Religion has legal restrictions just as the legal restrictions on speech you acknowledged. SCOTUS has Entire body of case law brought by "churches" religious worship centers around cannabis and/or hallucinogens - in other words not absolute. Regarding the absolute free speech folks you identified, I typically find they are they are unlikely to have ever read a single 1st Amendment SCOTUS opinion, generally rejecting the idea they could ever learn anything from robe wearing traditionalist. The real irony is I also find these absolutists also generally start backing down from their opinions once they understand the kind of speech cases SCOTUS hears such as child pornography.
stillsut 10y ago
I believe it's "protected classes" under 14th amendment that people sometimes conflate with 1A. As an example, there's a gay teacher who was fired from a Catholic school near where I live after he was outed. It was completely un-related to anything having to do with the school or his teaching responsibilities. Despite the church's insistence that it would be absurd, as you put it for "all speech [lifestyles] should be respected or listened to, that all speakers are equally respectable" there is string public sentiment that his job (economic security within a vocation he has a passion for) outweighs the moralizing from even a very powerful institution. And there are attempts to correct his dismissal through the law. If we're trying to build a just society, there needs to be strong protection in favor of inclusion for those who think, act, and are born differently. The best way to protect your own peculiarities from the state, or a"tyranny of the majority" mob, is by actively protecting your out-group. A mutual live-live sentiment should be what we aspire to.
- bambax 10y ago
  > If we're trying to build a just society, there needs to be strong protection in favor of inclusion Yes, you're right -- however, what if the person in question was an anti-vaxxer? Shouldn't an organization have the right to fire anti-vaxxers? How do we protect LGBT people without offering the same protections to anti-vaxxers is a difficult question. (Or, to put it another way, how do we prevent anti-vaxxers from using the just protections offered to LGBT people, to further their agenda?) I don't know. An even more difficult question is, if we can't resolve the previous question, should we err on the side of protecting everyone ("legitimate" minorities AND dangerous crazies) or noone? I'm not sure of the answer to that one either.

by bambax 10y ago

Clubber 10y ago

>People have an absolute right to be religious if they want to ... But they shouldn't expect to be respected for it ... Indeed, they should expect the opposite: to be mocked and laughed at. Many people find religion for many different reasons. To categorize them all as people to be mocked is equally doltish but the opposite to religious people telling everyone they are going to hell (for whatever thing they don't like). Your statement is an equal but opposite reaction to that which you loath. No one likes a rabid conservative, no one likes a rabid liberal. Rabid is rabid regardless of what comes out of their mouth. >idea of "free speech" has been intrumentalized by a lot of people to shield themselves and the absurd views they hold I think you are practicing what you are preaching.

BlackFly 10y ago
Your contention is simply false as you misunderstand the point. Atheists expect to be mocked and laughed at by the religious. The point is that religious people should expect to be mocked and accept that fact. They should not argue that it is improper and that religion somehow implicitly deserves reverence.
- bambax 10y ago
  Exactly.
- Clubber 10y ago
  Perhaps I did. When someone mentions religious people and anti-vaxxers in the same thought as people who expect to be mocked, it's difficult to not see some underlying scorn for religious people in there. Also, religious people have been mocked, enslaved, imprisoned, tortured and killed en masse for what? 6000 years now?
  - drewbug01 10y ago
    > Also, religious people have been mocked, enslaved, imprisoned, tortured and killed en masse for what? 6000 years now? Frequently (though of course, not always) by other religious people. I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight.
    - fdsak 10y ago
      Don't you think those "other religious people" may have used religion as pretext to achieve whatever they desired. E.g currently "democratic" societies act the same way to spread "democracy" through all means and at all costs.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      The two recent genicides that I can think of: Germany and Serbia weren't done by religious people. Do you have any examples of genocide in the name of religion? Crusades maybe.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

keiferski 10y ago

Free speech is a classic example of rights with responsibilities. There are a certain class of rights in which you should be able to exercise but should generally have the good sense of knowing the appropriate time to exercise them. But, as you've said, this has been warped into "I have the right to say whatever nonsense I want and I am completely justified in doing so."

agumonkey 10y ago

Free speech should be contextualized. Nowadays it became a napkin to allow stupidity. Not to shield humans against state violence. 'freedom of speech and duty of reflection' PS: ignorance vs intelligence tbc

will_brown 10y ago

>People have an absolute right to be religious if they want to, and to worship any entity, without interference from the State. Not legally, Freedom of Religion has legal restrictions just as the legal restrictions on speech you acknowledged. SCOTUS has Entire body of case law brought by "churches" religious worship centers around cannabis and/or hallucinogens - in other words not absolute. Regarding the absolute free speech folks you identified, I typically find they are they are unlikely to have ever read a single 1st Amendment SCOTUS opinion, generally rejecting the idea they could ever learn anything from robe wearing traditionalist. The real irony is I also find these absolutists also generally start backing down from their opinions once they understand the kind of speech cases SCOTUS hears such as child pornography.

stillsut 10y ago

I believe it's "protected classes" under 14th amendment that people sometimes conflate with 1A. As an example, there's a gay teacher who was fired from a Catholic school near where I live after he was outed. It was completely un-related to anything having to do with the school or his teaching responsibilities. Despite the church's insistence that it would be absurd, as you put it for "all speech [lifestyles] should be respected or listened to, that all speakers are equally respectable" there is string public sentiment that his job (economic security within a vocation he has a passion for) outweighs the moralizing from even a very powerful institution. And there are attempts to correct his dismissal through the law. If we're trying to build a just society, there needs to be strong protection in favor of inclusion for those who think, act, and are born differently. The best way to protect your own peculiarities from the state, or a"tyranny of the majority" mob, is by actively protecting your out-group. A mutual live-live sentiment should be what we aspire to.

bambax 10y ago
> If we're trying to build a just society, there needs to be strong protection in favor of inclusion Yes, you're right -- however, what if the person in question was an anti-vaxxer? Shouldn't an organization have the right to fire anti-vaxxers? How do we protect LGBT people without offering the same protections to anti-vaxxers is a difficult question. (Or, to put it another way, how do we prevent anti-vaxxers from using the just protections offered to LGBT people, to further their agenda?) I don't know. An even more difficult question is, if we can't resolve the previous question, should we err on the side of protecting everyone ("legitimate" minorities AND dangerous crazies) or noone? I'm not sure of the answer to that one either.