3 ms·

> In fact the reason why the language on the right is so unhinged is because they belive it gives them a tactical advantage and not because any of them believes

> In fact the reason why the language on the right is so unhinged is because they belive it gives them a tactical advantage and not because any of them believes in free speech per se. Mindreading. > They literally don’t care about the fallout their language has on society as long as it brings them political power. Mindreading. Possible projection too, but I don't want to engage in mindreading. > become aware of the many realities encoded in speech and avoid saying things that negatively impact others Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill. There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons". s/like/in lieu/, and we should be damn grateful for it.

pietroglyph 7y ago
> Mindreading. Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one, but the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way that detracts from your argument (significantly). > Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill. This second argument seems like a straw man to me. The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers. GP is instead simply stating that the left happens to have these ideas about speech and that this is the intention of them. > There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course Once again, I think that your argument here that free speech is the only way to raise consciousness is an interesting one with significant merit, but the subsequent straw man really derails it. You imply that the GP is "blaspheme[ing]" free speech, but GP does no such thing. > I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons". This bit doesn't really add much. "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons" is not a simile, and sneering at GP's use of the word dialectic + the scare quotes doesn't really add anything substantive to your previous assertions. NB: I suspect that this comment will come off as overly patronizing, and I apologize in advance. I hope that this will at least add to a constructive discussion of this topic, and help other readers focus on some important points in the parent's post.
- atoav 7y ago
  > Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one Indeed he had a point there. In my defense, talking about something as vaguely as “the right” or “the left” is always slippery terrain, especially without lenghty definition. When I write “the right” one person might think about the extreme right fringes while others think I speak about everything right from the center. Additionally right movements from different areas differ, so as someone who grew up in Austria and lives in Germany our right are clearly nazis, while the right in the US might have more diverse movements on top of the classical fascist right that I meant (e.g. libertarians).
- arduanika 7y ago
  Thanks for taking the time. > the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive, or the subsequent phrasing and is unproductive? > The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers Oops, that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point was, JM and JSM would roll over to hear what I saw as GP's (recently revised) weasel words, e.g. "negatively impact" for "harm", employed towards what I saw as GP's desire to delegitimize large swaths of the political spectrum. But maybe that's some mindreading of my own. I had a visceral reaction to what I read as GP's roundabout argument against free speech. It seems to me like GP is imputing and denouncing the motives of people they dislike, and questioning the legitimacy of people's free speech rights given that GP know's what's in their soul. Do you see where I'm coming from here? < is not a simile How not?
atoav 7y ago
Is it mindreading if the right does use manufactured truths? And because they do it is not mindreading. There was literally a case where Donald Trump told people the sun shined while it was in fact raining. Bexit with the easiest deal in history, didn’t look as easy in hindsight now that there are 10 says left and they still didn’t even propose one. As I said: the right tries to speak reality into beeing. You might disagree and and tell me that “everybody” knows these where just figures of speech and not meant to be taken literally, like the thing with the mexicans that will pay for the wall. But wouldn’t that proof my point that the right tries to talk things into existence? On the other point: The right does suddenly care less about free speech when it is in power (historically) or when the speech doesn’t fit their ideas. Also for that there are countless cases, while I know of no case with a right wing government or dictator where they suddenly valued dissenting voices and free speech. As you might have guessed I am not an American and while I know free speech is valued immensly in the US, I am afraid that a democracy abolishing fascist movement would find their way to re-interpret it in a way they can jail their enemies (as communist spies or something). So I am sorry to say this, but desperate tries to bend reality with words will not undo stated fact. Not even with the toxic smile you paint on my face.

pietroglyph 7y ago

> Mindreading. Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one, but the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way that detracts from your argument (significantly). > Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill. This second argument seems like a straw man to me. The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers. GP is instead simply stating that the left happens to have these ideas about speech and that this is the intention of them. > There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course Once again, I think that your argument here that free speech is the only way to raise consciousness is an interesting one with significant merit, but the subsequent straw man really derails it. You imply that the GP is "blaspheme[ing]" free speech, but GP does no such thing. > I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons". This bit doesn't really add much. "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons" is not a simile, and sneering at GP's use of the word dialectic + the scare quotes doesn't really add anything substantive to your previous assertions. NB: I suspect that this comment will come off as overly patronizing, and I apologize in advance. I hope that this will at least add to a constructive discussion of this topic, and help other readers focus on some important points in the parent's post.

atoav 7y ago
> Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one Indeed he had a point there. In my defense, talking about something as vaguely as “the right” or “the left” is always slippery terrain, especially without lenghty definition. When I write “the right” one person might think about the extreme right fringes while others think I speak about everything right from the center. Additionally right movements from different areas differ, so as someone who grew up in Austria and lives in Germany our right are clearly nazis, while the right in the US might have more diverse movements on top of the classical fascist right that I meant (e.g. libertarians).
arduanika 7y ago
Thanks for taking the time. > the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive, or the subsequent phrasing and is unproductive? > The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers Oops, that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point was, JM and JSM would roll over to hear what I saw as GP's (recently revised) weasel words, e.g. "negatively impact" for "harm", employed towards what I saw as GP's desire to delegitimize large swaths of the political spectrum. But maybe that's some mindreading of my own. I had a visceral reaction to what I read as GP's roundabout argument against free speech. It seems to me like GP is imputing and denouncing the motives of people they dislike, and questioning the legitimacy of people's free speech rights given that GP know's what's in their soul. Do you see where I'm coming from here? < is not a simile How not?

atoav 7y ago

Is it mindreading if the right does use manufactured truths? And because they do it is not mindreading. There was literally a case where Donald Trump told people the sun shined while it was in fact raining. Bexit with the easiest deal in history, didn’t look as easy in hindsight now that there are 10 says left and they still didn’t even propose one. As I said: the right tries to speak reality into beeing. You might disagree and and tell me that “everybody” knows these where just figures of speech and not meant to be taken literally, like the thing with the mexicans that will pay for the wall. But wouldn’t that proof my point that the right tries to talk things into existence? On the other point: The right does suddenly care less about free speech when it is in power (historically) or when the speech doesn’t fit their ideas. Also for that there are countless cases, while I know of no case with a right wing government or dictator where they suddenly valued dissenting voices and free speech. As you might have guessed I am not an American and while I know free speech is valued immensly in the US, I am afraid that a democracy abolishing fascist movement would find their way to re-interpret it in a way they can jail their enemies (as communist spies or something). So I am sorry to say this, but desperate tries to bend reality with words will not undo stated fact. Not even with the toxic smile you paint on my face.