5 ms·

When someone has time to consider their actions the blame has to be put on the person carrying out the action - not the one who gave them the idea. This is for

When someone has time to consider their actions the blame has to be put on the person carrying out the action - not the one who gave them the idea. This is for a multitude of reasons: 1) People are not automatons and they don't carry out orders exactly as given. At best you can say speech confirms their pre-existing convictions. 2) Not all forms of violence are considered morally reprehensible and this definition changes over time. For example most Americans don't consider the revolutionary war to be unjust - despite its proponents calling for the death of British soldiers. The decision of what is just violence needs to be subject to the market place of ideas. If it were not we'd still be in a feudal system - most regime changes come about with violence. This is also why speech advocating the abolition of free speech must also be tolerated. 3) Speech about taboo subjects is necessary to explore the hypothetical. Current ideas of human rights were in the past taboo.

anigbrowl 8y ago
1) People aren't automatons but there's abundant empirical evidence of their suggestibility, which is why we have the concept of incitement to begin with. I'd argue that we have yet to fully understand the dynamics of this in dynamic communications media. 2) Comparing violence instigated against an oppressive government (perceived or actual) with that instigated against generic vulnerable individuals seems sort of specious. Arguing for a marketplace of ideas while opposing GoDaddy's decision to cease carrying on business with a particular purveyor of ideas seems contradictory. 3) I really can't get with your idea of comparing past struggles for human rights (which expand liberty in the aggregate) with exhortations to rape and murder, which severely abridge it. That's not merely absurd, but obnoxious.
- slededit 8y ago
  Its not contradictory. If Go-Daddy is correct and I'm wrong then I'd like that to become evident. Stifling ideas does not lead us to the most optimal solution. Much of human history can be described as a breadth first search and a series of local optima - to get to a higher level we've had to undergo some regression. Perhaps its possible to have our cake and eat it too but I fear we won't get there by shutting down discussion regardless of its content.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Idea purchased in blood and pain are not worth the asking price. This conceit of an optimal ordering is nothing more than utilitarian teleology. I fail to see what good your propose to discover by being an accessory in the subjugation of more than half of humanity and wish no further part of this conversation.
    - slededit 8y ago
      > Idea purchased in blood and pain are not worth the asking price By this logic democracy isn't worth it. Should we succumb instead to the wishes of strongmen willing to use violence in the name of pacifism? It is not by accident that one of the first things to go when a totalitarian regime takes power is freedom of speech.
      - anigbrowl 8y ago
        You persist in equating violence against oppression with oppressive violence and making excuses for incitements to rape, enslavement and murder. No liberty or social good has ever been raped into existence.

anigbrowl 8y ago

1) People aren't automatons but there's abundant empirical evidence of their suggestibility, which is why we have the concept of incitement to begin with. I'd argue that we have yet to fully understand the dynamics of this in dynamic communications media. 2) Comparing violence instigated against an oppressive government (perceived or actual) with that instigated against generic vulnerable individuals seems sort of specious. Arguing for a marketplace of ideas while opposing GoDaddy's decision to cease carrying on business with a particular purveyor of ideas seems contradictory. 3) I really can't get with your idea of comparing past struggles for human rights (which expand liberty in the aggregate) with exhortations to rape and murder, which severely abridge it. That's not merely absurd, but obnoxious.

slededit 8y ago
Its not contradictory. If Go-Daddy is correct and I'm wrong then I'd like that to become evident. Stifling ideas does not lead us to the most optimal solution. Much of human history can be described as a breadth first search and a series of local optima - to get to a higher level we've had to undergo some regression. Perhaps its possible to have our cake and eat it too but I fear we won't get there by shutting down discussion regardless of its content.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Idea purchased in blood and pain are not worth the asking price. This conceit of an optimal ordering is nothing more than utilitarian teleology. I fail to see what good your propose to discover by being an accessory in the subjugation of more than half of humanity and wish no further part of this conversation.
  - slededit 8y ago
    > Idea purchased in blood and pain are not worth the asking price By this logic democracy isn't worth it. Should we succumb instead to the wishes of strongmen willing to use violence in the name of pacifism? It is not by accident that one of the first things to go when a totalitarian regime takes power is freedom of speech.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      You persist in equating violence against oppression with oppressive violence and making excuses for incitements to rape, enslavement and murder. No liberty or social good has ever been raped into existence.