5 ms·

First, I agree that the US has an incarceration problem. We're certainly not perfect, and I think much of the problem is due to the US's drug problem. Regardles

by huntie 8y ago

First, I agree that the US has an incarceration problem. We're certainly not perfect, and I think much of the problem is due to the US's drug problem. Regardless, comparing incarceration to slavery is disingenuous as slavery requires no wrongdoing whereas incarceration should require wrongdoing. As for my comparison of disallowing hate speech to slavery, it is a very valid comparison. The two are morally reprehensible for similar reasons; one is slavery of the body, the other is slavery of the mind. History has shown time and again that what is en vogue today may be hate speech tomorrow.

rbg246 8y ago
I don't see any problem with a government who is freely elected enacting laws that disallow hate speech. To assist with balancing these rights and restrictions there is an independent judiciary and court system that moderates these laws and works out whether they have gone too far.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- huntie 8y ago
  "I don't see any problem with a government who is freely elected enacting laws that allow slavery." I cannot help but read your comment like this. Just because a government is freely elected, it does not make their actions just. To use a very tired example, Hitler rose to power through the actions of a freely elected government. In an ideal world the judiciary would moderate improper laws, but we live in an imperfect world and the US has many examples where our judiciary has failed in this regard.
- int_19h 8y ago
  So long as you can ensure that discussing what is and isn't hate speech is never classified as hate speech itself.
marcus_holmes 8y ago
what about "collective" cultures that don't prize individualism? If you are discouraged from saying something because it will cause social disharmony within your community, is that as morally wrong as slavery? I think not. I think capturing someone from their home, their country, their loved ones, transporting them across an ocean, beating them, making them work for the rest of their lives without pay, while starving them, raping them, and imprisoning them, is a long, long, long way more morally wrong than not letting idiots spout whatever crappy opinion happens to wander across what passes for their mind, regardless of what damage it causes.
- huntie 8y ago
  "I think capturing..." This is a very American-centric view of slavery. Most cultures have participated in slavery at some point in history without the extraneous parts. Even if you treat your slave as family, the slavery is still immoral. Similarly, your views on free speech are very narrow-minded. Many people have been murdered by oppressive governments for speaking out against injustice. Were they "idiots spout[ing] whatever crappy opinion happens to wander across what passes for their mind"? If you are discouraged from saying something for _any_ reason, this is slavery of the mind. As for collective cultures, I don't think I know enough to effectively comment. I will note that many cultures that were okay at one time are now viewed with disgust as primitive, including your depiction of slavery in the Americas.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  To be frank 'collective' cultures seems to be a cop-out trope to excuse authoritarianism as 'just part of their culture' mixed with exoticism. It would be like excusing warlords as 'just a part of the culture' when everyone who isn't a part of his army wants him dead but is too afraid to take action and is essentially complicity in manufactured consent. A true collective culture would have no need for laws as cudgels for such matters because doing something 'selfish' would already make them an outcast surely as becoming an outspoken NAMBLA supporter.
  - seventhtiger 8y ago
    Isn't the logical conclusion to your argument anarchy? Isn't democracy just a populist brand of authoritarianism? The utility of all laws and enforcement in general can't be used to argue against a specific law.

by huntie 8y ago

rbg246 8y ago

I don't see any problem with a government who is freely elected enacting laws that disallow hate speech. To assist with balancing these rights and restrictions there is an independent judiciary and court system that moderates these laws and works out whether they have gone too far.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
huntie 8y ago
"I don't see any problem with a government who is freely elected enacting laws that allow slavery." I cannot help but read your comment like this. Just because a government is freely elected, it does not make their actions just. To use a very tired example, Hitler rose to power through the actions of a freely elected government. In an ideal world the judiciary would moderate improper laws, but we live in an imperfect world and the US has many examples where our judiciary has failed in this regard.
int_19h 8y ago
So long as you can ensure that discussing what is and isn't hate speech is never classified as hate speech itself.

marcus_holmes 8y ago

what about "collective" cultures that don't prize individualism? If you are discouraged from saying something because it will cause social disharmony within your community, is that as morally wrong as slavery? I think not. I think capturing someone from their home, their country, their loved ones, transporting them across an ocean, beating them, making them work for the rest of their lives without pay, while starving them, raping them, and imprisoning them, is a long, long, long way more morally wrong than not letting idiots spout whatever crappy opinion happens to wander across what passes for their mind, regardless of what damage it causes.

huntie 8y ago
"I think capturing..." This is a very American-centric view of slavery. Most cultures have participated in slavery at some point in history without the extraneous parts. Even if you treat your slave as family, the slavery is still immoral. Similarly, your views on free speech are very narrow-minded. Many people have been murdered by oppressive governments for speaking out against injustice. Were they "idiots spout[ing] whatever crappy opinion happens to wander across what passes for their mind"? If you are discouraged from saying something for _any_ reason, this is slavery of the mind. As for collective cultures, I don't think I know enough to effectively comment. I will note that many cultures that were okay at one time are now viewed with disgust as primitive, including your depiction of slavery in the Americas.
Nasrudith 8y ago
To be frank 'collective' cultures seems to be a cop-out trope to excuse authoritarianism as 'just part of their culture' mixed with exoticism. It would be like excusing warlords as 'just a part of the culture' when everyone who isn't a part of his army wants him dead but is too afraid to take action and is essentially complicity in manufactured consent. A true collective culture would have no need for laws as cudgels for such matters because doing something 'selfish' would already make them an outcast surely as becoming an outspoken NAMBLA supporter.
- seventhtiger 8y ago
  Isn't the logical conclusion to your argument anarchy? Isn't democracy just a populist brand of authoritarianism? The utility of all laws and enforcement in general can't be used to argue against a specific law.