11 ms·

The difference between neo-nazis and democratic protest? The difference is content. I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that i

by Latty 7y ago

The difference between neo-nazis and democratic protest? The difference is content. I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point. Yes, of course everyone should be able to express views individually, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the content of what is being said. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to the ability to ram that message down everyone's throat through every possible route. Yeah, companies have a right to self-censor, and consumers have a right to punish them for that. Hell yes I support CloudFlare kicking off neo-nazis, hell no I don't support Blizzard silencing HK protestors. No hypocrisy because what is being said matters.

mrShekelstein 7y ago
>what is being said matters how absolutely braindead
saagarjha 7y ago
> I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point. What you're saying isn't free speech at all; it's supporting the right to express speech you agree with and being ok with views you don't being taken down. In particular, free speech isn't "the point" to you.
- Latty 7y ago
  Free speech is about not being arrested for expression. You are talking about companies being compelled to repeat speech, and that begs a lot of questions: what speech, by whom, how much relative time and visibility are different bits of speech given?
  - flukus 7y ago
    Free speech is an ideal, the constitutional protection is only an implementation and in the modern world arguably not the most important one. As for compelling companies to do business with people they don't want to, we crossed that line long ago, they can't refuse service to people on the ground of race, sex, etc. Are you in favor of getting rid of anti-discrimination laws?
    - triceratops 7y ago
      Protected characteristics i.e. things you can't use as a basis for discrimination are things that people can't change about themselves. Refusing to do business because you don't like what someone is saying is different from refusing to do business on the basis of a protected characteristic.
      - flukus 7y ago
        > Protected characteristics i.e. things you can't use as a basis for discrimination are things that people can't change about themselves. That's not true, the list of protected classes includes religion, gender, familial status and veteran status. All things which people have control over. But the point is we've already stomped all over any "right" a business has to deny service to someone. Instead of defending this right and the new age of corporate fascism that comes with it, why not go for something fully universal and remove a tool for CCP manipulation at the same time?
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        People have control over their gender? You should let everyone suffering from dysphoria know that!
        flukus 7y ago
        Take that up with the people claiming gender is a social construct, that identify as gender fluid or making up the alphabet soup of modern genders. I had no part in that.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        > Take that up with the people claiming gender is a social construct There's gender expression, and there's gender identity. The people that use that phrase to 100% include gender identity are pretty much all anti-trans bigots. I do take it up with them when the opportunity arises, but if you're going to say the same things then you're part of the problem. You can't say something and be blameless because you heard it from someone else. > that identify as gender fluid or making up the alphabet soup of modern genders Maybe some of them are going too hard on the need to categorize everything, but they're still not choosing that underlying nature.
ditonal 7y ago
I understand how people arrive at this position, but it's not a free speech position. You can't be pro free speech as long as you agree with it, that undermines the entire concept. You can't be pro free speech, as long as there are horrible consequences for free speech you don't agree with. If right-wing extremism and other factors are making people re-think the value of free speech, fine, there are plenty of compelling points to make about the dangers and downsides of free speech, but enough of the mental gymnastics where people convince themselves they're still pro free-speech when they are very clearly against the concept.
- Latty 7y ago
  Free speech is about the government not punishing you for your expression, not that all speech should be without limit or repercussion in general. How would it possibly work if I couldn't be fired for insulting a customer at work, or telling them to shop at a rival instead. How would it work if news networks were required to broadcast my rant about whatever I want? Do I have to associate with the neo-nazi who wants me dead because I can't apply consequences for their speech? I agree that this case is an example of unjust consequences of speech, and I think Blizzard did the wrong thing. It is not the same as being arrested and convicted for it, and it's not that simple.
legostormtroopr 7y ago
> No hypocrisy because what is being said matters. Free speech - for people you agree with. Well, I'm glad we sorted out that mess.
- Latty 7y ago
  The government shouldn't be able to lock you up for your expression, but we are talking about if Blizzard can stop an employee from expressing a view on their product. How can you possibly enforce that anyone should be allowed to express anything in that context? How must time be allocated? Who must be allowed to speak? Can they promote rival products or badmouth Blizzard?
dextralt 7y ago
Hell yes I support waterboarding terrorists. There's no way the definition of 'terrorist' will ever change. There's no way it will be ever done to me. Hell yes I support civil forfeiture with no due process. There's no way it will be ever done to innocent people. Hell yes I support the executive branch getting more and more power. There's no way someone terrible would ever be the President and use that power. and now: Hell yes I support corporations policing free speech. They are on our side! There's no way it will ever be done to me or people I like. do you get the idea? Am I a fucking terrorist sympathizer if I speak out against torture and extrajudicial indefinite detention? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me. Am I a fucking Nazi sympathizer if I speak out against abuse of power by unaccountable private entities? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me.
- Latty 7y ago
  Your first examples are all completely different. The government should not be able to punish the expression of ideas (usual caveats, calls to harm, etc...), no. Beyond the government? It's just not that simple. The solution is compelled speech? If I run a company, I have to broadcast people calling for my death, for example? Should Blizzard be forced to allow anyone to say anything on their show? What if someone starts promoting a competing product? How do you deal with who is allowed to demand airtime on their particular thing? What proportion of exposure are given bits of speech given? I'm not saying there aren't issues with companies having control over speech—this case is absolutely an example of that—but you are pretending that compelling companies to allow any speech is simple.

by Latty 7y ago

mrShekelstein 7y ago

>what is being said matters how absolutely braindead

saagarjha 7y ago

> I hate the tendency to fall back to arguments about free speech when that is not the point. What you're saying isn't free speech at all; it's supporting the right to express speech you agree with and being ok with views you don't being taken down. In particular, free speech isn't "the point" to you.

Latty 7y ago
Free speech is about not being arrested for expression. You are talking about companies being compelled to repeat speech, and that begs a lot of questions: what speech, by whom, how much relative time and visibility are different bits of speech given?
- flukus 7y ago
  Free speech is an ideal, the constitutional protection is only an implementation and in the modern world arguably not the most important one. As for compelling companies to do business with people they don't want to, we crossed that line long ago, they can't refuse service to people on the ground of race, sex, etc. Are you in favor of getting rid of anti-discrimination laws?
  - triceratops 7y ago
    Protected characteristics i.e. things you can't use as a basis for discrimination are things that people can't change about themselves. Refusing to do business because you don't like what someone is saying is different from refusing to do business on the basis of a protected characteristic.
    - flukus 7y ago
      > Protected characteristics i.e. things you can't use as a basis for discrimination are things that people can't change about themselves. That's not true, the list of protected classes includes religion, gender, familial status and veteran status. All things which people have control over. But the point is we've already stomped all over any "right" a business has to deny service to someone. Instead of defending this right and the new age of corporate fascism that comes with it, why not go for something fully universal and remove a tool for CCP manipulation at the same time?
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        People have control over their gender? You should let everyone suffering from dysphoria know that!
        flukus 7y ago
        Take that up with the people claiming gender is a social construct, that identify as gender fluid or making up the alphabet soup of modern genders. I had no part in that.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        > Take that up with the people claiming gender is a social construct There's gender expression, and there's gender identity. The people that use that phrase to 100% include gender identity are pretty much all anti-trans bigots. I do take it up with them when the opportunity arises, but if you're going to say the same things then you're part of the problem. You can't say something and be blameless because you heard it from someone else. > that identify as gender fluid or making up the alphabet soup of modern genders Maybe some of them are going too hard on the need to categorize everything, but they're still not choosing that underlying nature.

ditonal 7y ago

I understand how people arrive at this position, but it's not a free speech position. You can't be pro free speech as long as you agree with it, that undermines the entire concept. You can't be pro free speech, as long as there are horrible consequences for free speech you don't agree with. If right-wing extremism and other factors are making people re-think the value of free speech, fine, there are plenty of compelling points to make about the dangers and downsides of free speech, but enough of the mental gymnastics where people convince themselves they're still pro free-speech when they are very clearly against the concept.

Latty 7y ago
Free speech is about the government not punishing you for your expression, not that all speech should be without limit or repercussion in general. How would it possibly work if I couldn't be fired for insulting a customer at work, or telling them to shop at a rival instead. How would it work if news networks were required to broadcast my rant about whatever I want? Do I have to associate with the neo-nazi who wants me dead because I can't apply consequences for their speech? I agree that this case is an example of unjust consequences of speech, and I think Blizzard did the wrong thing. It is not the same as being arrested and convicted for it, and it's not that simple.

legostormtroopr 7y ago

> No hypocrisy because what is being said matters. Free speech - for people you agree with. Well, I'm glad we sorted out that mess.

Latty 7y ago
The government shouldn't be able to lock you up for your expression, but we are talking about if Blizzard can stop an employee from expressing a view on their product. How can you possibly enforce that anyone should be allowed to express anything in that context? How must time be allocated? Who must be allowed to speak? Can they promote rival products or badmouth Blizzard?

dextralt 7y ago

Hell yes I support waterboarding terrorists. There's no way the definition of 'terrorist' will ever change. There's no way it will be ever done to me. Hell yes I support civil forfeiture with no due process. There's no way it will be ever done to innocent people. Hell yes I support the executive branch getting more and more power. There's no way someone terrible would ever be the President and use that power. and now: Hell yes I support corporations policing free speech. They are on our side! There's no way it will ever be done to me or people I like. do you get the idea? Am I a fucking terrorist sympathizer if I speak out against torture and extrajudicial indefinite detention? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me. Am I a fucking Nazi sympathizer if I speak out against abuse of power by unaccountable private entities? No. I don't give a shit about them, but whatever I support done to them might be done to me.

Latty 7y ago
Your first examples are all completely different. The government should not be able to punish the expression of ideas (usual caveats, calls to harm, etc...), no. Beyond the government? It's just not that simple. The solution is compelled speech? If I run a company, I have to broadcast people calling for my death, for example? Should Blizzard be forced to allow anyone to say anything on their show? What if someone starts promoting a competing product? How do you deal with who is allowed to demand airtime on their particular thing? What proportion of exposure are given bits of speech given? I'm not saying there aren't issues with companies having control over speech—this case is absolutely an example of that—but you are pretending that compelling companies to allow any speech is simple.