4 ms·

Over my decades, I have seen numerous ideas go from socially intolerable & indefensible, to practically obligatory & untouchable (or vice versa). Seriously, the

Over my decades, I have seen numerous ideas go from socially intolerable & indefensible, to practically obligatory & untouchable (or vice versa). Seriously, there are things today that can't be opposed in the slightest without threatening one's standing or career, which not long ago were universally anathema that couldn't be defended. Incredibly, a primary such idea was censorship itself: those groups who partially defined themselves as absolutely opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas, are now the very same groups calling for vindictive suppression of socially intolerable ideas. Those who celebrated "banned books" are now demanding shutdown of websites (and sometimes even holding book burnings). I absolutely hold that the Internet should be treated as "common carrier": IP registrars & networking should not address content, leaving those ideas & expressions to survive or dissolve on their own merit. Anything downright criminal should be addressed as criminal, with police handling the matter. Anglin is despicable; let us exercise our right to not associate with him, rather than deny him his right to freedom of the press (so long as he uses his own press). I'm not debating the merit of any content, only that there is a right to express it (via your own "press") and to associate (or not) with those expressing it. "First they came for the _____, but I was not a _____ ..." "I do not support your opinion, but will defend to the death the right to express it."

dfps 9y ago
"Over my decades, I have seen numerous ideas go from socially intolerable & indefensible, to practically obligatory & untouchable (or vice versa). Seriously, there are things today that can't be opposed in the slightest without threatening one's standing or career, which not long ago were universally anathema that couldn't be defended." Which things, out of curiosity?
pjc50 9y ago
First they came for the Nazis, but I was actually OK with that, because otherwise the Nazis would have come for me. At the far end of free speech really is the potential for incitement of mass murder. Westerners are perhaps not familiar with the modern, post-Nazi example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... Several leaders of the pro-genocide radio station were eventually convicted of crimes against humanity.
throwanem 9y ago
> Incredibly, a primary such idea was censorship itself: those groups who partially defined themselves as absolutely opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas, are now the very same groups calling for vindictive suppression of socially intolerable ideas. What's incredible about that? One tends to find that people advance the arguments which serve their turn, and arguments of value in obtaining power tend rarely to be also of value in retaining it. Complaining that there's something hypocritical in this may satisfy in some fashion I don't really understand, but it doesn't strike me as being an especially effective or worthwhile fashion in which to spend one's time. (And is there really any hypocrisy here? I don't see it - as far as I can tell, the groups of which you speak defined themselves not as opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas period, but rather as opposed to banning those socially intolerable ideas to which they happened to adhere. Anglin's ideas, if we dignify them by that name, don't seem to fall within that range, and so I have a difficult time understanding how I'm meant to take this issue as one of failure to live up to one's claimed principles.)
- ctdonath 9y ago
  No, those groups of which I speak did define themselves as opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas period. They were quite clear about all having the right of expression.
justin66 9y ago
Incredibly, a primary such idea was censorship itself: those groups who partially defined themselves as absolutely opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas, are now the very same groups calling for vindictive suppression of socially intolerable ideas. I wonder which groups you're talking about. I remember the ACLU and its civil libertarian supporters being pretty lonely forty years ago when they fought for the right of neo Nazis to march and it seems to work the same way today. Maybe I'm missing something but, apart from the technical aspects, this feels like a pretty old debate.

dfps 9y ago

"Over my decades, I have seen numerous ideas go from socially intolerable & indefensible, to practically obligatory & untouchable (or vice versa). Seriously, there are things today that can't be opposed in the slightest without threatening one's standing or career, which not long ago were universally anathema that couldn't be defended." Which things, out of curiosity?

pjc50 9y ago

First they came for the Nazis, but I was actually OK with that, because otherwise the Nazis would have come for me. At the far end of free speech really is the potential for incitement of mass murder. Westerners are perhaps not familiar with the modern, post-Nazi example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... Several leaders of the pro-genocide radio station were eventually convicted of crimes against humanity.

throwanem 9y ago

> Incredibly, a primary such idea was censorship itself: those groups who partially defined themselves as absolutely opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas, are now the very same groups calling for vindictive suppression of socially intolerable ideas. What's incredible about that? One tends to find that people advance the arguments which serve their turn, and arguments of value in obtaining power tend rarely to be also of value in retaining it. Complaining that there's something hypocritical in this may satisfy in some fashion I don't really understand, but it doesn't strike me as being an especially effective or worthwhile fashion in which to spend one's time. (And is there really any hypocrisy here? I don't see it - as far as I can tell, the groups of which you speak defined themselves not as opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas period, but rather as opposed to banning those socially intolerable ideas to which they happened to adhere. Anglin's ideas, if we dignify them by that name, don't seem to fall within that range, and so I have a difficult time understanding how I'm meant to take this issue as one of failure to live up to one's claimed principles.)

ctdonath 9y ago
No, those groups of which I speak did define themselves as opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas period. They were quite clear about all having the right of expression.

justin66 9y ago

Incredibly, a primary such idea was censorship itself: those groups who partially defined themselves as absolutely opposed to banning socially intolerable ideas, are now the very same groups calling for vindictive suppression of socially intolerable ideas. I wonder which groups you're talking about. I remember the ACLU and its civil libertarian supporters being pretty lonely forty years ago when they fought for the right of neo Nazis to march and it seems to work the same way today. Maybe I'm missing something but, apart from the technical aspects, this feels like a pretty old debate.