6 ms·

If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted.

If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted. If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will. Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. Don't be offended. That's your choice. P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. Edit: downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness.

stronglikedan 7y ago
> Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. I would argue that it's more important. > Phillip DeFranco Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.
- waynecochran 7y ago
  I don't care about downvotes -- it was the immediacy of it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikestew 7y ago
    That just means that a person inclined to downvote your comment saw it within seconds after posting. It’s not like there’s a shot clock for posts.
    - waynecochran 7y ago
      "saw it" bit did not "read it"
      - UncleMeat 7y ago
        It takes far less than 15 seconds to read your post.
varjag 7y ago
> downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness that's the public market of ideas at work for you
jakelazaroff 7y ago
> P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted! This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line between acceptable and unacceptable speech as some sort of natural law, when really it's just as arbitrary as any other line.
- waynecochran 7y ago
  I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Sure, but recognize that the line is entirely arbitrary. The only difference between child pornography, libel, white supremacist content and being mean is that people got together and said "you know what, this seems like just a bit too far". This doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw lines between speech we're okay with and speech we're not. Literally every human being on the planet does it! This is why I don't like "marketplace of ideas" arguments: the person making them always always always still thinks some speech should be somehow punished in the market.
    - whiddershins 7y ago
      I am not sure you are correct. Libel has a pretty narrow definition and clearly leaves the realm of opinions and ideas to a different realm of willfully lying about someone with the intent to harm them personally. The fact that we remove libel protections from public figures including politicians already makes this an extremely narrow subset of speech. Arguing that this is just another example of an arbitrary line within a grey area seems like a rhetorical device to overemphasize the subjectivity of speech protections in pursuit of making them no longer able to be consistently protected.
xgulfie 7y ago
This attitude that "to be offended you have to allow it" is ridiculous. You can't simply turn your emotions on and off unless you are a sociopath.
- HeroOfAges 7y ago
  How old are you? I'm curious because I thought along those lines when I was a younger man. You are right that we have almost no control over our immediate emotional reactions to something we have just observed. You do control your train of thought about that observation going forward.
  - xgulfie 7y ago
    I'm 29. Yes I agree that you can consciously control what you do long-term in response to something, but you can't just whiff things off entirely. If someone calls me a "fag", it will bother me whether I pretend it does or not. I'll be offended and it will probably play back in my head for a bit. I can try to let it not bother me, but it probably will at least a little. "Words can't hurt me" is a fine personal mantra/goal/ideal but you can't apply it to everybody in every case.
- gnaritas 7y ago
  Or an adult. Offense is always a choice, adults learn to laugh off this shit rather than be offended by it. You are responsible for your own emotions and how you react to them; it's no one's fault you're offended but your own. Offense is taken, not given.
- xfitm3 7y ago
  Learning how to deal with emotions is literally what my teenage years were about.
komali2 7y ago
Why should some content be illegal?
- waynecochran 7y ago
  This requires nuance and discussion, but things like the following are generally not productive and not protected by free speech. Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander) Child pornography Blackmail Incitement to imminent violence Solicitations to commit crimes I think any discussion concerning "ideas" is fair game. It gets murky when dealing with individuals. None of the things on the list above are an "idea."
  - komali2 7y ago
    I admit I was playing devil's advocate, but I appreciate the good faith response. I genuinely do have trouble unifying my instinct that nazi propaganda, for example, should be censored, against my understanding that what constitutes "solicitation to commit crimes" is relative to what a society considers "good" or "bad," which is (somewhat) arbitrary. Take your list as an example. Any action that is damaging to the State could be considered Criminal - perhaps something as simple as developing good cryptography, for example. Some things are crimes that shouldn't be - smoking marijuana, an example. Simply saying "solicitations to commit crimes should be censored" thus doesn't jive with me.
    - waynecochran 7y ago
      Yes I think it is impossible to completely codify a list. I can always think of exceptions, grey areas, ways to exploit individuals, and ways individuals can create "loop holes." I think the main problem is the human heart ... but that is a different discussion.
  - Kye 7y ago
    >> "Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)" What if it's against a group of individuals?
UncleMeat 7y ago
We've known how to refute genocidal racism for ages. The ideas aren't new and the reasons why they are garbage aren't new. Yet these ideas still exist and still spread. Why has the market of ideas not destroyed these ideas? If the market cannot destroy even the most terrible ideas that humans have ever devised, what does that really say about the market?
- gnaritas 7y ago
  It says it works. The notion that bad ideas should be destroyed is a false premise.
- dlivingston 7y ago
  And who is to be the censor? Would you be so complacent if I were the censor, dictating what you can and cannot read, see, and hear?
  - root_axis 7y ago
    The censor is the owner of the platform broadcasting the content. If I didn't like your censorship practices then I wouldn't use your platform.
    - dlivingston 7y ago
      Just to be clear, are you advocating for censorship on a platform (i.e. Facebook) level, or a governmental level as well?
      - root_axis 7y ago
        I am not "advocating for censorship", I am "advocating" for the freedom to determine what content is hosted on a computer you own. A computer owned by the government is a different story since government property is paid for by the tax-payer, so it should not be able to act unilaterally in matters of removing content.
ataturk 7y ago
The "offended" are playing that card to limit speech because they want to control you. That wars have been fought over issues like this in the not too distant past goes right over their heads. It is playing with fire.
stcredzero 7y ago
Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. It's a good idea to be wary of the sneaking-in of bad ideas by packaging them with good ideas. In 2019, this applies to even some of the most reprehensible ones. (For example: Politics through intimidation and violent assault.) Ideologies and movements aren't monoliths. The bad parts of them can be teased apart and criticized, without making you an opponent of all of the overarching ideas and principles. Anyone who tries to sell you on the "all or nothing" idea is (perhaps unwittingly) engaging in this packaging of bad ideas. downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness. Here is the pattern that I often see around that: 2 or 3 rapid, thoughtless downvotes, followed by more upvotes. Be courageous, and take the long view. (Also, we're not supposed to talk about this meta stuff around here, according to the guidelines, but I'm giving you a heads up.)
- waynecochran 7y ago
  Agreed. Of course no one mentioned perhaps the most important reason for non censorship of ideas. The censors and public at large can be wrong. Imagine living in a society where racism was the norm and the censors did not allow speech that argued for the equality of races. Instead of "hate speech" they called it "unnatural speech" or some such twisted label. In fact, our society could be very wrong about some popular ideas. In fact, I don't think we are new or different than many societies that proceeded us -- we have been here before. We can't be so myopic that we are the generation that has discovered all the ideal points of view. Let views stand up to the test. Also censorship is fear based. Buck up. Take on the challenge. Make sure the positive voices are heard. Don't protect adults with "safe spaces" where they will never be challenged. You are just setting them up for a fall later.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zaarn 7y ago
The public market of ideas means that the idea of a public market of ideas can be downvoted. Don't talk about ideas being public market and then in the edit complain about someone not liking your idea.

stronglikedan 7y ago

> Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. I would argue that it's more important. > Phillip DeFranco Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.

waynecochran 7y ago
I don't care about downvotes -- it was the immediacy of it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mikestew 7y ago
  That just means that a person inclined to downvote your comment saw it within seconds after posting. It’s not like there’s a shot clock for posts.
  - waynecochran 7y ago
    "saw it" bit did not "read it"
    - UncleMeat 7y ago
      It takes far less than 15 seconds to read your post.

varjag 7y ago

> downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness that's the public market of ideas at work for you

jakelazaroff 7y ago

> P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted! This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line between acceptable and unacceptable speech as some sort of natural law, when really it's just as arbitrary as any other line.

waynecochran 7y ago
I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Sure, but recognize that the line is entirely arbitrary. The only difference between child pornography, libel, white supremacist content and being mean is that people got together and said "you know what, this seems like just a bit too far". This doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw lines between speech we're okay with and speech we're not. Literally every human being on the planet does it! This is why I don't like "marketplace of ideas" arguments: the person making them always always always still thinks some speech should be somehow punished in the market.
  - whiddershins 7y ago
    I am not sure you are correct. Libel has a pretty narrow definition and clearly leaves the realm of opinions and ideas to a different realm of willfully lying about someone with the intent to harm them personally. The fact that we remove libel protections from public figures including politicians already makes this an extremely narrow subset of speech. Arguing that this is just another example of an arbitrary line within a grey area seems like a rhetorical device to overemphasize the subjectivity of speech protections in pursuit of making them no longer able to be consistently protected.

xgulfie 7y ago

This attitude that "to be offended you have to allow it" is ridiculous. You can't simply turn your emotions on and off unless you are a sociopath.

HeroOfAges 7y ago
How old are you? I'm curious because I thought along those lines when I was a younger man. You are right that we have almost no control over our immediate emotional reactions to something we have just observed. You do control your train of thought about that observation going forward.
- xgulfie 7y ago
  I'm 29. Yes I agree that you can consciously control what you do long-term in response to something, but you can't just whiff things off entirely. If someone calls me a "fag", it will bother me whether I pretend it does or not. I'll be offended and it will probably play back in my head for a bit. I can try to let it not bother me, but it probably will at least a little. "Words can't hurt me" is a fine personal mantra/goal/ideal but you can't apply it to everybody in every case.
gnaritas 7y ago
Or an adult. Offense is always a choice, adults learn to laugh off this shit rather than be offended by it. You are responsible for your own emotions and how you react to them; it's no one's fault you're offended but your own. Offense is taken, not given.
xfitm3 7y ago
Learning how to deal with emotions is literally what my teenage years were about.

komali2 7y ago

Why should some content be illegal?

waynecochran 7y ago
This requires nuance and discussion, but things like the following are generally not productive and not protected by free speech. Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander) Child pornography Blackmail Incitement to imminent violence Solicitations to commit crimes I think any discussion concerning "ideas" is fair game. It gets murky when dealing with individuals. None of the things on the list above are an "idea."
- komali2 7y ago
  I admit I was playing devil's advocate, but I appreciate the good faith response. I genuinely do have trouble unifying my instinct that nazi propaganda, for example, should be censored, against my understanding that what constitutes "solicitation to commit crimes" is relative to what a society considers "good" or "bad," which is (somewhat) arbitrary. Take your list as an example. Any action that is damaging to the State could be considered Criminal - perhaps something as simple as developing good cryptography, for example. Some things are crimes that shouldn't be - smoking marijuana, an example. Simply saying "solicitations to commit crimes should be censored" thus doesn't jive with me.
  - waynecochran 7y ago
    Yes I think it is impossible to completely codify a list. I can always think of exceptions, grey areas, ways to exploit individuals, and ways individuals can create "loop holes." I think the main problem is the human heart ... but that is a different discussion.
- Kye 7y ago
  >> "Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)" What if it's against a group of individuals?

UncleMeat 7y ago

We've known how to refute genocidal racism for ages. The ideas aren't new and the reasons why they are garbage aren't new. Yet these ideas still exist and still spread. Why has the market of ideas not destroyed these ideas? If the market cannot destroy even the most terrible ideas that humans have ever devised, what does that really say about the market?

gnaritas 7y ago
It says it works. The notion that bad ideas should be destroyed is a false premise.
dlivingston 7y ago
And who is to be the censor? Would you be so complacent if I were the censor, dictating what you can and cannot read, see, and hear?
- root_axis 7y ago
  The censor is the owner of the platform broadcasting the content. If I didn't like your censorship practices then I wouldn't use your platform.
  - dlivingston 7y ago
    Just to be clear, are you advocating for censorship on a platform (i.e. Facebook) level, or a governmental level as well?
    - root_axis 7y ago
      I am not "advocating for censorship", I am "advocating" for the freedom to determine what content is hosted on a computer you own. A computer owned by the government is a different story since government property is paid for by the tax-payer, so it should not be able to act unilaterally in matters of removing content.

ataturk 7y ago

The "offended" are playing that card to limit speech because they want to control you. That wars have been fought over issues like this in the not too distant past goes right over their heads. It is playing with fire.

stcredzero 7y ago

Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. It's a good idea to be wary of the sneaking-in of bad ideas by packaging them with good ideas. In 2019, this applies to even some of the most reprehensible ones. (For example: Politics through intimidation and violent assault.) Ideologies and movements aren't monoliths. The bad parts of them can be teased apart and criticized, without making you an opponent of all of the overarching ideas and principles. Anyone who tries to sell you on the "all or nothing" idea is (perhaps unwittingly) engaging in this packaging of bad ideas. downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness. Here is the pattern that I often see around that: 2 or 3 rapid, thoughtless downvotes, followed by more upvotes. Be courageous, and take the long view. (Also, we're not supposed to talk about this meta stuff around here, according to the guidelines, but I'm giving you a heads up.)

waynecochran 7y ago
Agreed. Of course no one mentioned perhaps the most important reason for non censorship of ideas. The censors and public at large can be wrong. Imagine living in a society where racism was the norm and the censors did not allow speech that argued for the equality of races. Instead of "hate speech" they called it "unnatural speech" or some such twisted label. In fact, our society could be very wrong about some popular ideas. In fact, I don't think we are new or different than many societies that proceeded us -- we have been here before. We can't be so myopic that we are the generation that has discovered all the ideal points of view. Let views stand up to the test. Also censorship is fear based. Buck up. Take on the challenge. Make sure the positive voices are heard. Don't protect adults with "safe spaces" where they will never be challenged. You are just setting them up for a fall later.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zaarn 7y ago

The public market of ideas means that the idea of a public market of ideas can be downvoted. Don't talk about ideas being public market and then in the edit complain about someone not liking your idea.