5 ms·

> There are no sounds that I can make with my mouth that are dangerous. If people are easily convinced to hate other people, the problem is not dangerous speech

> There are no sounds that I can make with my mouth that are dangerous. If people are easily convinced to hate other people, the problem is not dangerous speech or ideas. The problem is a breakdown in fundamental education, i.e., those people are dangerously ignorant. Now open your mouth and make the sounds "education is bad, our young people are being corrupted by an educational elite that is destroying America". Thank god those sounds aren't dangerous.

dmos62 7y ago
It's about differentiating (i.e. creating a distance) between speech and our reaction to it, or, in other words, it's about taking responsibility for our reactions. In my opinion, prohibition of symbols, under the premise that they're subversive, like the Nazi ones, is one of the biggest cultural blunders of our time. It castrates entire generations of the possibility to experience the difference between ideas and their effect on us. It is ceding to the symbols, saying "you have power over us, with which we cannot come to terms with, the only thing we can do is prohibit your use". The seeming culture-wide inability to discuss politics, religion or other dividing topics in a constructive way is part of the same phenomenon, in my view.
- Angostura 7y ago
  Just to be clear - are you asserting that any abuse and threats to anyone should be tolerated? Or are you drawing the line somewhere?
roenxi 7y ago
In that sense everything is dangerous and the word 'dangerous' is nearly meaningless. Just because the idea is stupid and it would be dangerous if people take it seriously doesn't mean saying it should be treated as dangerous. We can cope with people saying stupid things. It happens regularly.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > In that sense everything is dangerous No. Open your mouth and utter the sounds ‘water is wet’ demonstrate how these words are dangerous. It is ludicrous to assert that all sentences are equally liable to be dangerous
marcusverus 7y ago
The issue is that 'danger' is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of people who would love to ban advocacy of Socialism or Communism. There are people who want to ban 'hurtful' speech. And people who want to ban 'blasphemous' speech. In the end, they are all self-interested parties who want to ban speech that they disagree with. There is no magic wand that can ban harmful speech without creating a framework for authoritarian meddling, with very few exceptions, which are already on the books.

dmos62 7y ago

It's about differentiating (i.e. creating a distance) between speech and our reaction to it, or, in other words, it's about taking responsibility for our reactions. In my opinion, prohibition of symbols, under the premise that they're subversive, like the Nazi ones, is one of the biggest cultural blunders of our time. It castrates entire generations of the possibility to experience the difference between ideas and their effect on us. It is ceding to the symbols, saying "you have power over us, with which we cannot come to terms with, the only thing we can do is prohibit your use". The seeming culture-wide inability to discuss politics, religion or other dividing topics in a constructive way is part of the same phenomenon, in my view.

Angostura 7y ago
Just to be clear - are you asserting that any abuse and threats to anyone should be tolerated? Or are you drawing the line somewhere?

roenxi 7y ago

In that sense everything is dangerous and the word 'dangerous' is nearly meaningless. Just because the idea is stupid and it would be dangerous if people take it seriously doesn't mean saying it should be treated as dangerous. We can cope with people saying stupid things. It happens regularly.

Angostura 7y ago
> In that sense everything is dangerous No. Open your mouth and utter the sounds ‘water is wet’ demonstrate how these words are dangerous. It is ludicrous to assert that all sentences are equally liable to be dangerous

marcusverus 7y ago

The issue is that 'danger' is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of people who would love to ban advocacy of Socialism or Communism. There are people who want to ban 'hurtful' speech. And people who want to ban 'blasphemous' speech. In the end, they are all self-interested parties who want to ban speech that they disagree with. There is no magic wand that can ban harmful speech without creating a framework for authoritarian meddling, with very few exceptions, which are already on the books.