3 ms·
Yes, sigh, there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. That is not the only meaning of freedom of speech. "Try to make sure that they never say someth
by sowbug 9y ago
Yes, sigh, there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. That is not the only meaning of freedom of speech. "Try to make sure that they never say something like that again." Do you agree that this would restrict that person's freedom of speech? Again, we're not talking about whether First Amendment rights are being violated. We're talking about whether you are restricting that person's freedom of speech.
If you're OK with your self-appointed right to restrict others' freedom of speech, then you also have to be OK with me suppressing your speech. And you'd better believe that this will be speech you care about. You have to be OK with the 1950s version of me ostracizing you for saying the positive things you believe about the protected groups you enumerate in your post.
It does you no good to claim that you're one of the good guys. Freedom of speech means everyone is a good guy when it comes to expression of ideas. You don't get to pick which speech is free.
Do you honestly want to live in a society where ideas you disagree with are withheld from expression because those who hold them are "so socially embarrassed and isolated"? Is that really your idea of a free society? Again, assume that the person being ostracized is you because of what you believe today.
If you do want a genuinely free society, don't ostracize the bigots. Instead, respect them. Debate them. Change their minds if you're right. Nobody is saying you have to have them over for dinner or be friends; ignoring them is perfectly fine, as well. The price -- and in the long term the benefit -- of a free society is that people get to live normal, ordinary lives even if they have despicable, reprehensible, even dangerous beliefs.
- mandevil 9y agoThe way that society is set up, of course most of the pressure is on minorities to be silent and just take abuse. That's why all of the "MeToo" movement was pent-up and then just now exploded, because so many women were afraid of saying something for fear of the response for so long. That is what is happening every single day, and has for millennia. What is happening now, for the first time in US History, is that the dominant group (meaning, in this particular case, white men who are good with computers and very well off) have to worry about what members of the non-dominant group thinks of them. As for your ideas on how to win over bigots, I've lived my entire life surrounded by them, and I have to say that respecting them does not work. Debating them and treating them as equals just encourages others that it's all okay. Forcing them to hide in the darkness does work, because it makes them less likely to express their ideas at other times, when you aren't around, and other people will then hear it and be more likely to say it themselves. Bigotry is a communicable disease.
- sowbug 9y agoDo you see the nearly perfect asymmetry between the first two paragraphs in your reply? Why is it that Paragraph 1's suppression leads to an explosion of progress, but Paragraph 2's suppression is the only way to exterminate ideas you don't like?
- mandevil 9y agoP1 is about suppression that has worked, very well, for pretty much all of human history. It is only losing a little bit of its effectiveness now. Which is why I'm so sure that P2 is an effective strategy- because I've observed how well it works.
- sowbug 9y agoI think you overestimate your understanding of human history. I am especially sure of this because you think something just changed. I don't think you want a fairer game. You just want to win the current one. Best of luck.