5 ms·
Why should a society tolerate seditious speech, that seeks to topple the very society that allows it to flourish? Free speech should be used responsibly, to pro
by DarkKomunalec 9y ago
Why should a society tolerate seditious speech, that seeks to topple the very society that allows it to flourish? Free speech should be used responsibly, to promote the values of a society, not destroy them. Few countries share the extremist US point of view of allowing all speech (with few exceptions, e.g. libel and true threats). Instead, they approach it more maturely, to safeguard their values and not allow extremism to take hold.
It saddens me I have to explicitly tag this as sarcasm.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- learc83 9y ago>It saddens me I have to explicitly tag this as sarcasm. I just thought you were just a pro China poster until I read that. It's a viewpoint I've commonly heard in Chinese propoganda, and even among ordinary Chinese people.
- DarkKomunalec 9y agoI'm afraid that sentiment is growing outside of China as well, and the disclaimer would remain necessary even in the absence of Chinese posters.
- viridian 9y agoI think it's common in communist leaning circles in general. I've talked with a few of the fine folks of anti-fa on twitter, who express similar views. I think it makes sense in the context of the worldview. After all, why let one man's words lead to the mental detriment of thousands?
- opportune 9y agoDoes it really make sense in context of the worldview, or is it an ex-post facto rationalization they're making solely because of all the communist/socialist dictatorships in the past (tankies would be the ones doing this)? I have socialist beliefs but I hate the blatant authoritarianism that a lot of people on the left espouse. I hate to make a slippery slope argument, but limitations on free speech scare me simply because what is "unacceptable" will (in my mind) assuredly grow larger and larger until perfectly reasonable beliefs are persecuted. If your society can't exist with free speech, it probably shouldn't exist at all. Because at that point, you've become the oppressor. I know a lot of the hate towards "liberals" among those on the left is due to their opinions on capitalism and such, but given the original meaning of the term liberal (one who believes in liberalism, generally personal liberty) I fail to see why anyone would actually oppose that.
- abiox 9y ago> Does it really make sense in context of the worldview it seems there is a strong postmodernist bent in the "anti-fa" crowd. words are now violence, and sometimes the use of "violence" is justified to defend against "violence" (ie self-defense and defense of others). nevermind that this equivocation of "violence" means that anti-fa is assaulting, hospitalizing, intimidating and harassing people, and destroying property and businesses. it's all a righteous and necessary defense against "violence". even though the "violence" they "defend" against is... words.
- darpa_escapee 9y agoWho is anti-fa?
- reader5000 9y agoThis viewpoint is effectively British and Canadian law.
- empath75 9y agoI'm being 100% honest here. It's not a totally unreasonable position to take, and there are lots of countries that aren't dystopian nightmares who have limits on free speech. I think free speech is important, but I also think that you need an established civil society first that supports human rights and liberty, or else immediately after allowing unfettered free speech, you could end up with pogroms or theocracy.
- abiox 9y ago> there are lots of countries that aren't dystopian nightmares it perhaps depends on your perspective on dystopia; as well as whether these countries are approaching a dystopic descent as people aren't permitted to articulate the problems out loud.
- GhotiFish 9y agoyou are just 100% on the wrong side of poe's law here.