5 ms·

This reeks of both-sides-ism and enablement. The whole point of Free Speech is to enable all sides of any issue to have their say. That is a fundamental mechan

This reeks of both-sides-ism and enablement. The whole point of Free Speech is to enable all sides of any issue to have their say. That is a fundamental mechanism against totalitarianism. In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. Sorry, but Karl Popper's idea is just Orwellian nightmare fuel. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Tolerance is to live and let live. Oppressing those you disagree with is the very opposite of tolerance. (Even if they are truly horrible people.) If Silicon Valley were tolerant, they'd let Gab live and possibly be a cesspit of horribleness. A society that de-platforms and un-persons everyone and every idea it doesn't like isn't a free society. That's not a free market of ideas. That's totalitarianism through economic hegemony.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>Tolerance is to live and let live. This is one reading of tolerance, but there are multiple (as expounded by Popper and Marcuse too, for instance). I don't think considering an idea badly because it's used as fuel is a good thing. A quick counterexample to the idea that tolerance means to allow anything and everything is that if I were to tell you I tolerate your presence, but you begin to make annoying sounds continuously, my tolerance would quickly change to intolerance. Tolerance is a democratic principle, since it relies on the idea that nobody has an absolute claim on the truth, but as critical theorists as early as the 60s pointed out, this democratic idea depends on an informed populace to distinguish ideas as they are - to that end, in society we don't tolerate some views, such as the teaching of creationism in schools. A good essay on this is Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance". Regarding your mention of Orwell, Marcuse made another interesting point; nowadays, the contradiction is hidden within the noun itself, rather than "war is peace", the word "freedom" itself, understood in the context of its ideological use by various proponents (particularly on the libertarian right, I've noticed) already contains the contradiction; the idea it represents is contradictory. Similarly with misleading names and terms. I do not want to live in a society in which tolerance is absolute, and I doubt many people would.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I don't think considering an idea badly because it's used as fuel is a good thing. An idea that demolishes a foundation idea by melding it with its opposite is a very insidiously bad thing. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Nobody is claiming that tolerance is equal to intolerance, that would be silly; the claim is that intolerance [of an instance] may be required for tolerance [in society at large], to prosper. What is being tolerated and what is not being tolerated are difference, hence the "contradiction" isn't a contradiction at all. Nothing is melded. The core idea of indiscriminate tolerance (the issues with which I mentioned you haven't seemed to address) is not altered by this new principle; it's entirely possible to be tolerant of everything. What do you say to the claim that laws (restrictions on absolute freedom) may be required to guarantee freedom? Does this claim demolish the foundation of freedom by melding it with its direct opposite? From this example, your abstract point is pretty poor; this issue with freedom has been picked up since the time of the earliest philosophers, and they really do seem paradoxical. That's not to say your concrete (specific) point on intolerance is wrong, but your abstract point about melding an idea with its opposite is poorly founded, and doesn't hold up to a dialectical analysis in place of considering the ideas as binary opposites.
Natsu 8y ago
The irony here is that the 'intolerance' Popper was worried about was people using 'fists or pistols' and the whole thing was premised on the right of self-defense. Times have changed and that Overton window has shifted quite a bit, to the point where people use Popper to prop up the idea that they have a right to use their fists to silence people they hate based on a theory of future harm if those people were permitted to speak. Having completely lost the idea that the right of self-defense is the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself from immanent violence and it doesn't apply when you start the fight. [1] [1] https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=864 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=864 gives a nice, simple overview of how it works.
archagon 8y ago
Totalitarianism is gaining power right now through bad actors operating under the cloak of free speech. The bigger their communities get, the more they infect the communities around them with their hatred and lies. This should be blindingly obvious if you’ve been online for more than a couple of years. Your mechanism against totalitarianism will lead you straight into a dictatorship.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > Totalitarianism is gaining power right now through bad actors operating under the cloak of free speech. The bigger their communities get, the more they infect the communities around them.... Your mechanism against totalitarianism will lead you straight into a dictatorship. Those might have been the exact words of a 1950's McCarthyite. How can you be so sure that you're just just as wrong as they were?
  - archagon 8y ago
    Trump proudly came out as a nationalist a few weeks ago and is visibly salivating at the prospect of pitting thousands of troops against a migrant caravan. Unlike the Communists, these people are already in positions of power and are fighting to gain legitimacy by any means necessary.
- jesssse 8y ago
  > Totalitarianism is gaining power right now through bad actors operating under the cloak of free speech. I do not understand this assertion. The way I see it, Free Speech is an antidote against totalitarianism, in contrast to Censorship, which is a tool of totalitarianism.
  - 8note 8y ago
    ah, so that's how Hitler was beaten? everyone just started talking and the NAZIs just dissapeared?
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  This is the "fascism is infectious" theory, under which we are all potential fascists if we just get exposed to the "infection". By this theory fascism is somehow so inherently attractive that is has to be regulated similar to an addictive drug.
ubernostrum 8y ago
The whole point of Free Speech is to enable all sides of any issue to have their say And that freedom includes the freedom to say "I don't want to be associated with you". Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for. If someone doesn't want to lend you their soapbox, the solution is not to put a gun to their head and order them to hand it over; it's to go build your own soapbox. And if enough people are unwilling to associate with you that it's becoming burdensome to maintain your soapbox (difficulty getting materials, etc.), perhaps that's a sign from the marketplace of ideas that your ideas aren't very good.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for. No, the "relaying" or "transmission" argument is just a dishonest gambit in 2018. Only idiots believe YouTube thinks everything some YouTuber might say on their own channel. Should AT&T have had the right to cut off phone calls containing speech they didn't like? There were party lines where entire groups of people could hear the same person speak, so it wasn't just one on one communication. Should AT&T have had the right to cut those off because of AT&T's "free speech" rights? Sorry, but the effect of such a position is to allow large companies to regulate the speech of the general public. Their inability to censor the general public doesn't somehow mean that they lose any ability to express their views to the public. It only curtails their ability to squelch the expression of others.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    If a baker has deeply-held religious beliefs, can they refuse to bake cakes for people with different religious beliefs? If not, why can't online platforms decide not to do business with people whose beliefs or actions they find distasteful? If so, can you articulate a meaningful difference between the two cases? And that's without getting into the issue where you've just effectively rolled back CDA 230. Why shouldn't sites be able to make and enforce rules for the use of their platforms? And how small can a platform be and still have you put the government's gun to its head and force them to act the way you want? If I run a web site where people can discuss things, are you going to send a SWAT team to my house and have them shoot me unless I stop kicking out Nazis? For all the hand-wringing you want to do over what is, in the end, an exercise of the right of free association (which includes the right not to associate), you seem completely unconcerned with the kinds of horrific consequences that would come from forcing everyone to provide a platform to the whole world. So maybe first you should practice what you preach -- start tithing in support of causes you hate, listening to lectures in support of those causes, and going out in public carrying signs and banners for those causes. After all, by not doing that, you're already censoring them, and that's horrible!

claudiawerner 8y ago

>Tolerance is to live and let live. This is one reading of tolerance, but there are multiple (as expounded by Popper and Marcuse too, for instance). I don't think considering an idea badly because it's used as fuel is a good thing. A quick counterexample to the idea that tolerance means to allow anything and everything is that if I were to tell you I tolerate your presence, but you begin to make annoying sounds continuously, my tolerance would quickly change to intolerance. Tolerance is a democratic principle, since it relies on the idea that nobody has an absolute claim on the truth, but as critical theorists as early as the 60s pointed out, this democratic idea depends on an informed populace to distinguish ideas as they are - to that end, in society we don't tolerate some views, such as the teaching of creationism in schools. A good essay on this is Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance". Regarding your mention of Orwell, Marcuse made another interesting point; nowadays, the contradiction is hidden within the noun itself, rather than "war is peace", the word "freedom" itself, understood in the context of its ideological use by various proponents (particularly on the libertarian right, I've noticed) already contains the contradiction; the idea it represents is contradictory. Similarly with misleading names and terms. I do not want to live in a society in which tolerance is absolute, and I doubt many people would.

stcredzero 8y ago
I don't think considering an idea badly because it's used as fuel is a good thing. An idea that demolishes a foundation idea by melding it with its opposite is a very insidiously bad thing. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Nobody is claiming that tolerance is equal to intolerance, that would be silly; the claim is that intolerance [of an instance] may be required for tolerance [in society at large], to prosper. What is being tolerated and what is not being tolerated are difference, hence the "contradiction" isn't a contradiction at all. Nothing is melded. The core idea of indiscriminate tolerance (the issues with which I mentioned you haven't seemed to address) is not altered by this new principle; it's entirely possible to be tolerant of everything. What do you say to the claim that laws (restrictions on absolute freedom) may be required to guarantee freedom? Does this claim demolish the foundation of freedom by melding it with its direct opposite? From this example, your abstract point is pretty poor; this issue with freedom has been picked up since the time of the earliest philosophers, and they really do seem paradoxical. That's not to say your concrete (specific) point on intolerance is wrong, but your abstract point about melding an idea with its opposite is poorly founded, and doesn't hold up to a dialectical analysis in place of considering the ideas as binary opposites.

Natsu 8y ago

The irony here is that the 'intolerance' Popper was worried about was people using 'fists or pistols' and the whole thing was premised on the right of self-defense. Times have changed and that Overton window has shifted quite a bit, to the point where people use Popper to prop up the idea that they have a right to use their fists to silence people they hate based on a theory of future harm if those people were permitted to speak. Having completely lost the idea that the right of self-defense is the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself from immanent violence and it doesn't apply when you start the fight. [1] [1] https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=864 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=864 gives a nice, simple overview of how it works.

archagon 8y ago

Totalitarianism is gaining power right now through bad actors operating under the cloak of free speech. The bigger their communities get, the more they infect the communities around them with their hatred and lies. This should be blindingly obvious if you’ve been online for more than a couple of years. Your mechanism against totalitarianism will lead you straight into a dictatorship.

philwelch 8y ago
> Totalitarianism is gaining power right now through bad actors operating under the cloak of free speech. The bigger their communities get, the more they infect the communities around them.... Your mechanism against totalitarianism will lead you straight into a dictatorship. Those might have been the exact words of a 1950's McCarthyite. How can you be so sure that you're just just as wrong as they were?
- archagon 8y ago
  Trump proudly came out as a nationalist a few weeks ago and is visibly salivating at the prospect of pitting thousands of troops against a migrant caravan. Unlike the Communists, these people are already in positions of power and are fighting to gain legitimacy by any means necessary.
jesssse 8y ago
> Totalitarianism is gaining power right now through bad actors operating under the cloak of free speech. I do not understand this assertion. The way I see it, Free Speech is an antidote against totalitarianism, in contrast to Censorship, which is a tool of totalitarianism.
- 8note 8y ago
  ah, so that's how Hitler was beaten? everyone just started talking and the NAZIs just dissapeared?
BurningFrog 8y ago
This is the "fascism is infectious" theory, under which we are all potential fascists if we just get exposed to the "infection". By this theory fascism is somehow so inherently attractive that is has to be regulated similar to an addictive drug.

ubernostrum 8y ago

The whole point of Free Speech is to enable all sides of any issue to have their say And that freedom includes the freedom to say "I don't want to be associated with you". Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for. If someone doesn't want to lend you their soapbox, the solution is not to put a gun to their head and order them to hand it over; it's to go build your own soapbox. And if enough people are unwilling to associate with you that it's becoming burdensome to maintain your soapbox (difficulty getting materials, etc.), perhaps that's a sign from the marketplace of ideas that your ideas aren't very good.

stcredzero 8y ago
Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for. No, the "relaying" or "transmission" argument is just a dishonest gambit in 2018. Only idiots believe YouTube thinks everything some YouTuber might say on their own channel. Should AT&T have had the right to cut off phone calls containing speech they didn't like? There were party lines where entire groups of people could hear the same person speak, so it wasn't just one on one communication. Should AT&T have had the right to cut those off because of AT&T's "free speech" rights? Sorry, but the effect of such a position is to allow large companies to regulate the speech of the general public. Their inability to censor the general public doesn't somehow mean that they lose any ability to express their views to the public. It only curtails their ability to squelch the expression of others.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  If a baker has deeply-held religious beliefs, can they refuse to bake cakes for people with different religious beliefs? If not, why can't online platforms decide not to do business with people whose beliefs or actions they find distasteful? If so, can you articulate a meaningful difference between the two cases? And that's without getting into the issue where you've just effectively rolled back CDA 230. Why shouldn't sites be able to make and enforce rules for the use of their platforms? And how small can a platform be and still have you put the government's gun to its head and force them to act the way you want? If I run a web site where people can discuss things, are you going to send a SWAT team to my house and have them shoot me unless I stop kicking out Nazis? For all the hand-wringing you want to do over what is, in the end, an exercise of the right of free association (which includes the right not to associate), you seem completely unconcerned with the kinds of horrific consequences that would come from forcing everyone to provide a platform to the whole world. So maybe first you should practice what you preach -- start tithing in support of causes you hate, listening to lectures in support of those causes, and going out in public carrying signs and banners for those causes. After all, by not doing that, you're already censoring them, and that's horrible!