4 ms·

I am no longer a free speech absolutist. And the reason I am not is the sort of abstract, angels-on-a-pinhead bullshit arguments that fill the responses to the

by beat 8y ago

I am no longer a free speech absolutist. And the reason I am not is the sort of abstract, angels-on-a-pinhead bullshit arguments that fill the responses to the parent post. The more it can be abstracted to "free speech", the less oxygen there is for discussion of the real harm caused by white supremacist thought and white supremacist actions. I put the safety of society at large first. And if you think that's oppressing you, maybe you should ask yourself why.

dqpb 8y ago
Who do you propose gets to decide what speech is dangerous?
- beat 8y ago
  That's a disingenuous question. Let me come back with some questions about your question. Are you proposing that nobody can decide what speech is dangerous? Are you suggesting there is no such thing as dangerous speech? Are you suggesting that having someone decide what speech is dangerous is actually worse than the dangerous speech itself? If you're not suggesting any of these things, then how do you get out of the proposition that someone has decide?
  - gjs278 8y ago
    there is no such thing as dangerous speech
  - dqpb 8y ago
    It's not disingenuous - it's the most fundamental question that needs to be answered if you propose speech be controlled. > how do you get out of the proposition that someone has to decide I agree ultimately some subset of people would need to decide. My question is who?
    - XorNot 8y ago
      You clearly have done answer in mind since you've already conceded the core argument. Who do you think? I'm good with the discourse between the public and Facebook leadership in so far as it targets widespread social norms and ignores the few loudmouths.
  - sisfs 8y ago
    I guess I am remembering it wrong but I thought sticks and stones were dangerous but words could never hurt me. (Calls to action dont hurt me either, but I can see how one could categorize them as dangerousness due to the resultant action)
    - beat 8y ago
      Words inspire action. That's why it matters. To paraphrase the Supreme Court, the problem with shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't the shout, it's the dangerous stampede that follows. And those who deliberately inspire violent behavior with their speech are very, very careful to make sure it's not an explicit call to action. This is not new. "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" has been around for a long time.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > Are you suggesting there is no such thing as dangerous speech? Are you suggesting that having someone decide what speech is dangerous is actually worse than the dangerous speech itself? How is that working out in the People's Republic of China? They have a very concrete definition of what dangerous speech and have legions of people to decide whether individual instances are dangerous and to remove them. Clearly, their system illustrates the hazard of your viewpoint.
    - beat 8y ago
      Ah, but does it? China is currently going through a period of peace and incredible growth (per capita income has grown about 130x since 1960, in constant dollars). The people are safe, secure, and enjoying opportunities their grandparents couldn't even imagine. And I suspect that if you polled in China, you'd find a majority agree with the regulations on speech, and sincerely so (not saying yes out of fear). Meanwhile, things are much freer than they were. I'm currently reading a Chinese novel, The Three Body Problem, set partly in the Cultural Revolution, and it pulls no punches about how awful it was.
      - dqpb 8y ago
        > And I suspect that if you polled in China, you'd find a majority agree with the regulations on speech Of course you would, polls like all speech are tightly controlled.
        beat 8y ago
        Even here, on an American-centric discussion full of grossly privileged white American men, you'll find most agree on some regulation of speech. It's just a question of degree.
- sagichmal 8y ago
  We do, collectively, as a society. Sometimes we'll get it wrong, and need to correct it. That's fine. We're capable of that. What's not fine is throwing up our hands at even the concept of performing that judgment, because it's subjective or whatever. That cedes the public square to extremists, which results in a shittier society.
  - beat 8y ago
    And observational data suggests that American society (and global society) has gotten better, not worse, at this judgment. When we started this game, we had slaves, who were defined as three fifths of a human being for purposes of political representation of slave owners. Voting was restricted to white land-owning men. It's getting better.
  - dqpb 8y ago
    So, popular vote? Let our representatives decide? Something else?
    - sagichmal 8y ago
      All of the above, and more. Organizations like Facebook can decide to deplatform white nationalists, and we can vote with our clicks or whatever in response to that. You and I can get on message boards and advocate for what we think is just. Over time we all shape our society in our image.
    - beat 8y ago
      Our representatives. Our judicial system. Our public institutions. Our private businesses. You're WAY too hung up on this "who decides?" question, ignoring the reality that either someone has to decide, or that no one should decide and society should simply not regulate speech in any way, ever. Good luck with the latter if you ever have kids.
      - dqpb 8y ago
        Ah, but the devil is in the details.
int_19h 8y ago
Because the safety of society at large, especially if we look at the perception of it rather than the real goals, can translate directly into oppression of those who are perceived to be a threat. The whole "build the wall" thing is pitched as being about safety of society, for example. There are people in this country - including prominent elected politicians representing party that dominates state legislatures, and that has broad popular support in most those states - who sincerely believe that BLM and CAIR are terrorist organizations. There's that whole "BDS is anti-Semitism" thing, and some countries already have laws on the books that make it a felony to participate. Would you say that the political and judicial system of our societies is fair, or is it biased against minorities? If it's biased, why do you expect it to enforce any such "safety of society" laws in a way that is not similarly biased towards the groups that already are the beneficiaries of that society?

by beat 8y ago

dqpb 8y ago

Who do you propose gets to decide what speech is dangerous?

beat 8y ago
That's a disingenuous question. Let me come back with some questions about your question. Are you proposing that nobody can decide what speech is dangerous? Are you suggesting there is no such thing as dangerous speech? Are you suggesting that having someone decide what speech is dangerous is actually worse than the dangerous speech itself? If you're not suggesting any of these things, then how do you get out of the proposition that someone has decide?
- gjs278 8y ago
  there is no such thing as dangerous speech
- dqpb 8y ago
  It's not disingenuous - it's the most fundamental question that needs to be answered if you propose speech be controlled. > how do you get out of the proposition that someone has to decide I agree ultimately some subset of people would need to decide. My question is who?
  - XorNot 8y ago
    You clearly have done answer in mind since you've already conceded the core argument. Who do you think? I'm good with the discourse between the public and Facebook leadership in so far as it targets widespread social norms and ignores the few loudmouths.
- sisfs 8y ago
  I guess I am remembering it wrong but I thought sticks and stones were dangerous but words could never hurt me. (Calls to action dont hurt me either, but I can see how one could categorize them as dangerousness due to the resultant action)
  - beat 8y ago
    Words inspire action. That's why it matters. To paraphrase the Supreme Court, the problem with shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't the shout, it's the dangerous stampede that follows. And those who deliberately inspire violent behavior with their speech are very, very careful to make sure it's not an explicit call to action. This is not new. "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" has been around for a long time.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > Are you suggesting there is no such thing as dangerous speech? Are you suggesting that having someone decide what speech is dangerous is actually worse than the dangerous speech itself? How is that working out in the People's Republic of China? They have a very concrete definition of what dangerous speech and have legions of people to decide whether individual instances are dangerous and to remove them. Clearly, their system illustrates the hazard of your viewpoint.
  - beat 8y ago
    Ah, but does it? China is currently going through a period of peace and incredible growth (per capita income has grown about 130x since 1960, in constant dollars). The people are safe, secure, and enjoying opportunities their grandparents couldn't even imagine. And I suspect that if you polled in China, you'd find a majority agree with the regulations on speech, and sincerely so (not saying yes out of fear). Meanwhile, things are much freer than they were. I'm currently reading a Chinese novel, The Three Body Problem, set partly in the Cultural Revolution, and it pulls no punches about how awful it was.
    - dqpb 8y ago
      > And I suspect that if you polled in China, you'd find a majority agree with the regulations on speech Of course you would, polls like all speech are tightly controlled.
      - beat 8y ago
        Even here, on an American-centric discussion full of grossly privileged white American men, you'll find most agree on some regulation of speech. It's just a question of degree.
sagichmal 8y ago
We do, collectively, as a society. Sometimes we'll get it wrong, and need to correct it. That's fine. We're capable of that. What's not fine is throwing up our hands at even the concept of performing that judgment, because it's subjective or whatever. That cedes the public square to extremists, which results in a shittier society.
- beat 8y ago
  And observational data suggests that American society (and global society) has gotten better, not worse, at this judgment. When we started this game, we had slaves, who were defined as three fifths of a human being for purposes of political representation of slave owners. Voting was restricted to white land-owning men. It's getting better.
- dqpb 8y ago
  So, popular vote? Let our representatives decide? Something else?
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    All of the above, and more. Organizations like Facebook can decide to deplatform white nationalists, and we can vote with our clicks or whatever in response to that. You and I can get on message boards and advocate for what we think is just. Over time we all shape our society in our image.
  - beat 8y ago
    Our representatives. Our judicial system. Our public institutions. Our private businesses. You're WAY too hung up on this "who decides?" question, ignoring the reality that either someone has to decide, or that no one should decide and society should simply not regulate speech in any way, ever. Good luck with the latter if you ever have kids.
    - dqpb 8y ago
      Ah, but the devil is in the details.

int_19h 8y ago

Because the safety of society at large, especially if we look at the perception of it rather than the real goals, can translate directly into oppression of those who are perceived to be a threat. The whole "build the wall" thing is pitched as being about safety of society, for example. There are people in this country - including prominent elected politicians representing party that dominates state legislatures, and that has broad popular support in most those states - who sincerely believe that BLM and CAIR are terrorist organizations. There's that whole "BDS is anti-Semitism" thing, and some countries already have laws on the books that make it a felony to participate. Would you say that the political and judicial system of our societies is fair, or is it biased against minorities? If it's biased, why do you expect it to enforce any such "safety of society" laws in a way that is not similarly biased towards the groups that already are the beneficiaries of that society?