3 ms·

By the way, thank you for actually engaging in a civil discussion that has meats on its bones. Really, if anything, I'm trying to be convinced. Trust me, none o

By the way, thank you for actually engaging in a civil discussion that has meats on its bones. Really, if anything, I'm trying to be convinced. Trust me, none of it is trolling, I'm surprised you'd think that actually. I'm just a hard sell on ideas. If I understand, your hesitation to have any constraint on acceptable speech in certain situation is that you suspect it would cause more unfair harm due to it being used to falsely condemn people, where they did not intend to cause social harm? And you believe that injustice be a greater bad to society then the instances where speech was used with the intent to harm. And I 100% follow that logic. In fact, if true, then yes, I'd be fully onboard. Now, I think a lot of people, young ones more so even, including me, have noticed a trend of a kind of speech which seems to only harm society or individuals. Providing no positive social value, other then power to those who speak it. And the issue is not with the ideas being controversial, or unpopular, but really with how it is spoken in demagoguery terms. If I acknowledge this problem, I conclude that fully unconstrained speech has its own set of downsides and issues to a healthy society. I also acknowledge that fully restricted speech has issues, in fact, I agree, much worse issues, and we have other countries and history as examples. I also feel we have other countries and history as examples of the harm demagoguery speech can have when it overtakes rational speech. I think denying either of these problems is just ignoring reality. So what do we do? Do we continue down the path of accelerating demagoguery speech until it overtakes most outlets, and accentuate the problem? Do we ignore the people who do suffer harm from such speech? Maybe, but if so, ya, you're going to have to hard sell me. Like I'd need to really be convinced there's no better solution. That this is the ideal trade off and I have to just accept the problems it comes with, knowing that's the best we can do, that alternatives are just worse. So my first instinct is to explore hybrid solutions. Can we be smarter about speech. Can you restrict the worse of it, while not damaging the best of it? So you gave great pointers in that, such as: Is legislation really the right approach? Or should, say, education be used instead? How would speech be categorized? And how would we distinguish accidental misuse of it, with no real intent, versus premeditated? You also strongly hinted that in doubt, the default should be to allow it. You brought up if it should be about the harm to the listener, or the intent of the speaker? Those are great considerations, and clearly this is a complex problem. Now, I just think if we don't acknowledge the problem though, and either convince people the status quo is the ideal solution to it, or come up with something better, then we might end up with a new generation who will come to simply resent free speech, having only seen its downsides, and might choose to outright repel it much more strongly then I'm suggesting.

white-flame 9y ago
> If I understand, your hesitation to have any constraint on acceptable speech in certain situation is that you suspect it would cause more unfair harm due to it being used to falsely condemn people, where they did not intend to cause social harm? And you believe that injustice be a greater bad to society then the instances where speech was used with the intent to harm. No to the latter; the problem is that it would literally be bad law. It does not target that which you wish to target, and would prosecute those who have done no wrong, because the wrong is defined by what's in the prosecution's head instead of something the defendant actually did. You're saying that laws should be passed and then we can see as a society how those laws work out, which is absolutely backwards. Bills should be constructed and debated until they're acceptable for broad application in all situations & directions, and only then be signed into law. (unfortunately, it's all lobby and panic driven nowadays) Again, if you want to fine others for speaking indecently in your eyes, then others can fine you for speaking indecently in their eyes. That's nonsensical for a legal structure. I am under the impression that you've never been involved in any legal proceedings. None of it is ever about what is right or reasonable; it's ALL about finding out if the letter of the law (or contract, or whatever) has been breached. If a law goes on the books, people will be prosecuted for it by its letter, regardless of the law's intent. That's literally the job of the legal industry. And this isn't because the government magically decides to clamp down on things, it's because individuals with disagreements start bringing lawsuits, empowered by new laws. > Now, I think a lot of people, young ones more so even, including me, have noticed a trend of a kind of speech which seems to only harm society or individuals. The traditional media and social media websites make money off that polarization and viral outrage. It attracts monetizable eyeballs and clicks. This isn't a representative state of the day to day behavior of people, it's an artificially concentrated charged environment that certain charged people engage with, while everybody else steps back and calls them weirdo zealots. Those who get sucked into the ridiculousness do so by yelling at constructed stereotype targets, never by actually having conversations with actual people in real life, and are often quite different IRL than online. This simply isn't "real" enough to legislate. It's a bunch of hotheads yelling at each other. Why should this be a legal matter? > Providing no positive social value, other then power to those who speak it. And the issue is not with the ideas being controversial, or unpopular, but really with how it is spoken in demagoguery terms. Having no social value, and trying to muster social momentum to somebody's claims has no basis to be illegal. That's my fundamental question of you. The US government is constrained in its powers; what significant impetus is there to expand this to something with such massive collateral damage and slippery slopes? You're the one calling for change, so it's your views that need the burden of proof. > If I acknowledge this problem, I conclude that fully unconstrained speech has its own set of downsides and issues to a healthy society. I think you're barking up a red herring, to mix metaphors. The fact that people are screaming over each others' caricatured ideas is not caused by the lack of laws punishing it. > I think denying either of these problems is just ignoring reality. So what do we do? Do we continue down the path of accelerating demagoguery speech until it overtakes most outlets, and accentuate the problem? Do we ignore the people who do suffer harm from such speech? I said this in the very beginning: "Any argument for free speech necessarily empowers unacceptable speech, and any argument against free speech necessarily criminalizes acceptable speech." I think it's better to have people disagreeing with each other, than the government criminalizing the populace for acting like humans with beliefs & opinions. > Do we continue down the path of accelerating demagoguery speech until it overtakes most outlets, and accentuate the problem? Do we ignore the people who do suffer harm from such speech? But those things aren't real. Demagoguery doesn't work unless people buy into it. If people buy into it, that indicates it's where people were heading anyway; it's just rallying. Suffering "harm" from speech is in very few cases an actual thing, and where it is it's already illegal. There are fundamental disagreements about where the country should go, what's "right" for the country, how children should be raised/corrected/taught, how drugs should be handled, what should be paid for by taxes, etc etc. These disagreements must be able to be out there in the court of public opinion for a free society to develop answers to them. Some will be reasoned, some will be emotional, and some will scream on social media. Again, why is that a problem? Why must it be a legal issue? WHY????!?!?!?!? :) > So my first instinct is to explore hybrid solutions. Can we be smarter about speech. Can you restrict the worse of it, while not damaging the best of it? You don't get to decide for everybody else what's the "worst" and "best" parts of their free speech! It would be a social and cultural movement which accomplishes change of speech. The law won't change how people think & believe, and the law has no mandate to be involved here. Plus, it would cause martyr complexes and streisand effects which would have the exact opposite outcome to your intent. I think you're literally talking about using the law to allow you to promote your ideas, by criminalizing promotion of ideas that you're against. Now imagine for a moment that somebody of the ideas you're against is taking the same approach. You'd be quite militant against that situation, wouldn't you? If they can't do it, then why should you have the right to? I don't care which side is which, that's a legal usurpation of freedom. Keep this stuff in non-governmental speech among the population. > Now, I just think if we don't acknowledge the problem though You're being incredibly nebulous about "the problem". What specific problem is there with all the online argumentative babbling out there that you think requires legal action, and is not already illegal? People yelling at each other? People calling each other names? People posting propaganda to try to increase the purchase of the ideas they want to peddle? It's up to listeners to freely determine what they agree with or not, who's worth listening to, and where they will give their social weight. If listeners are empowering those peddling speech you dislike, well then I guess you're democratically outnumbered and the people have spoken to what they actually want. Or, it could simply be that you're listening to overblown media caricature-laden hype and the "problems" that you see are smaller or more nuanced in reality than what you might believe. But really, look at what you're saying. Legislation, re-education, categorizing other people's speech for legal consequences...

white-flame 9y ago

> If I understand, your hesitation to have any constraint on acceptable speech in certain situation is that you suspect it would cause more unfair harm due to it being used to falsely condemn people, where they did not intend to cause social harm? And you believe that injustice be a greater bad to society then the instances where speech was used with the intent to harm. No to the latter; the problem is that it would literally be bad law. It does not target that which you wish to target, and would prosecute those who have done no wrong, because the wrong is defined by what's in the prosecution's head instead of something the defendant actually did. You're saying that laws should be passed and then we can see as a society how those laws work out, which is absolutely backwards. Bills should be constructed and debated until they're acceptable for broad application in all situations & directions, and only then be signed into law. (unfortunately, it's all lobby and panic driven nowadays) Again, if you want to fine others for speaking indecently in your eyes, then others can fine you for speaking indecently in their eyes. That's nonsensical for a legal structure. I am under the impression that you've never been involved in any legal proceedings. None of it is ever about what is right or reasonable; it's ALL about finding out if the letter of the law (or contract, or whatever) has been breached. If a law goes on the books, people will be prosecuted for it by its letter, regardless of the law's intent. That's literally the job of the legal industry. And this isn't because the government magically decides to clamp down on things, it's because individuals with disagreements start bringing lawsuits, empowered by new laws. > Now, I think a lot of people, young ones more so even, including me, have noticed a trend of a kind of speech which seems to only harm society or individuals. The traditional media and social media websites make money off that polarization and viral outrage. It attracts monetizable eyeballs and clicks. This isn't a representative state of the day to day behavior of people, it's an artificially concentrated charged environment that certain charged people engage with, while everybody else steps back and calls them weirdo zealots. Those who get sucked into the ridiculousness do so by yelling at constructed stereotype targets, never by actually having conversations with actual people in real life, and are often quite different IRL than online. This simply isn't "real" enough to legislate. It's a bunch of hotheads yelling at each other. Why should this be a legal matter? > Providing no positive social value, other then power to those who speak it. And the issue is not with the ideas being controversial, or unpopular, but really with how it is spoken in demagoguery terms. Having no social value, and trying to muster social momentum to somebody's claims has no basis to be illegal. That's my fundamental question of you. The US government is constrained in its powers; what significant impetus is there to expand this to something with such massive collateral damage and slippery slopes? You're the one calling for change, so it's your views that need the burden of proof. > If I acknowledge this problem, I conclude that fully unconstrained speech has its own set of downsides and issues to a healthy society. I think you're barking up a red herring, to mix metaphors. The fact that people are screaming over each others' caricatured ideas is not caused by the lack of laws punishing it. > I think denying either of these problems is just ignoring reality. So what do we do? Do we continue down the path of accelerating demagoguery speech until it overtakes most outlets, and accentuate the problem? Do we ignore the people who do suffer harm from such speech? I said this in the very beginning: "Any argument for free speech necessarily empowers unacceptable speech, and any argument against free speech necessarily criminalizes acceptable speech." I think it's better to have people disagreeing with each other, than the government criminalizing the populace for acting like humans with beliefs & opinions. > Do we continue down the path of accelerating demagoguery speech until it overtakes most outlets, and accentuate the problem? Do we ignore the people who do suffer harm from such speech? But those things aren't real. Demagoguery doesn't work unless people buy into it. If people buy into it, that indicates it's where people were heading anyway; it's just rallying. Suffering "harm" from speech is in very few cases an actual thing, and where it is it's already illegal. There are fundamental disagreements about where the country should go, what's "right" for the country, how children should be raised/corrected/taught, how drugs should be handled, what should be paid for by taxes, etc etc. These disagreements must be able to be out there in the court of public opinion for a free society to develop answers to them. Some will be reasoned, some will be emotional, and some will scream on social media. Again, why is that a problem? Why must it be a legal issue? WHY????!?!?!?!? :) > So my first instinct is to explore hybrid solutions. Can we be smarter about speech. Can you restrict the worse of it, while not damaging the best of it? You don't get to decide for everybody else what's the "worst" and "best" parts of their free speech! It would be a social and cultural movement which accomplishes change of speech. The law won't change how people think & believe, and the law has no mandate to be involved here. Plus, it would cause martyr complexes and streisand effects which would have the exact opposite outcome to your intent. I think you're literally talking about using the law to allow you to promote your ideas, by criminalizing promotion of ideas that you're against. Now imagine for a moment that somebody of the ideas you're against is taking the same approach. You'd be quite militant against that situation, wouldn't you? If they can't do it, then why should you have the right to? I don't care which side is which, that's a legal usurpation of freedom. Keep this stuff in non-governmental speech among the population. > Now, I just think if we don't acknowledge the problem though You're being incredibly nebulous about "the problem". What specific problem is there with all the online argumentative babbling out there that you think requires legal action, and is not already illegal? People yelling at each other? People calling each other names? People posting propaganda to try to increase the purchase of the ideas they want to peddle? It's up to listeners to freely determine what they agree with or not, who's worth listening to, and where they will give their social weight. If listeners are empowering those peddling speech you dislike, well then I guess you're democratically outnumbered and the people have spoken to what they actually want. Or, it could simply be that you're listening to overblown media caricature-laden hype and the "problems" that you see are smaller or more nuanced in reality than what you might believe. But really, look at what you're saying. Legislation, re-education, categorizing other people's speech for legal consequences...