11 ms·

> Free speech absolutism is obviously on its face a dogshit principle because it is unlimited and thought-ending. Not as thought-ending as silencing a voice wi

> Free speech absolutism is obviously on its face a dogshit principle because it is unlimited and thought-ending. Not as thought-ending as silencing a voice with the threat of legal action. > Yes, the suppression of speech can cause harm, but this harm is not infinite and permanent. What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent? > If speech is powerful, then its power can cause damage and harm. Deal with it. Who said otherwise?

danharaj 6y ago
> Not as thought-ending as silencing a voice with the threat of legal action. I obviously was talking about "thought-ending" in context of the conversation on what boundaries should be set on speech in which situation. What point are you trying to make? That telling people to shut up means that you want them to shut up? Yes, I think people who want to argue that the holocaust didn't happen or that white people should establish an ethnostate should shut the fuck up. But I wouldn't threaten legal action, no need to bring in a middleman. > What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent? Inciting a pogrom. > Who said otherwise? If speech can cause harm then it is justifiable to redress that harm. If someone wants to argue for free speech absolutism while acknowledging that they are justifying without limit harm and damage to others, by all means they can do so. I think most reasonable people would see how stupid that position is.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  > I obviously was talking about "thought-ending" in context of the conversation on what boundaries should be set on speech in which situation. What point are you trying to make? You were saying how free speech absolutism is a "dogshit principle" because it is thought-ending. My point is that we could use the same argument against speech suppression, which is even more thought-ending. It's almost literally thought-ending, since people also think with their speech. >> What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent? >Inciting a pogrom. Talking about a murder can result in a murder. They're two different things. Both ought to be taken seriously, but one results in the permanent end of life. The other in and of itself does not. > If speech can cause harm then it is justifiable to redress that harm. If someone wants to argue for free speech absolutism while acknowledging that they are justifying without limit harm and damage to others, by all means they can do so. I think most reasonable people would see how stupid that position is. Doesn't insulting someone who is sensitive cause harm to them? There're countless ways to cause psychological harm through language, and most don't have anything to do with "hate speech." For example, you said any reasonable person would see how "stupid" it is to believe free speech absolutism outweighs harm given through speaking. I'm taking that position. Should you be arrested for making that remark if it results in my feeling hurt?

danharaj 6y ago

> Not as thought-ending as silencing a voice with the threat of legal action. I obviously was talking about "thought-ending" in context of the conversation on what boundaries should be set on speech in which situation. What point are you trying to make? That telling people to shut up means that you want them to shut up? Yes, I think people who want to argue that the holocaust didn't happen or that white people should establish an ethnostate should shut the fuck up. But I wouldn't threaten legal action, no need to bring in a middleman. > What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent? Inciting a pogrom. > Who said otherwise? If speech can cause harm then it is justifiable to redress that harm. If someone wants to argue for free speech absolutism while acknowledging that they are justifying without limit harm and damage to others, by all means they can do so. I think most reasonable people would see how stupid that position is.

defertoreptar 6y ago
> I obviously was talking about "thought-ending" in context of the conversation on what boundaries should be set on speech in which situation. What point are you trying to make? You were saying how free speech absolutism is a "dogshit principle" because it is thought-ending. My point is that we could use the same argument against speech suppression, which is even more thought-ending. It's almost literally thought-ending, since people also think with their speech. >> What's an example of hate speech that's infinite and permanent? >Inciting a pogrom. Talking about a murder can result in a murder. They're two different things. Both ought to be taken seriously, but one results in the permanent end of life. The other in and of itself does not. > If speech can cause harm then it is justifiable to redress that harm. If someone wants to argue for free speech absolutism while acknowledging that they are justifying without limit harm and damage to others, by all means they can do so. I think most reasonable people would see how stupid that position is. Doesn't insulting someone who is sensitive cause harm to them? There're countless ways to cause psychological harm through language, and most don't have anything to do with "hate speech." For example, you said any reasonable person would see how "stupid" it is to believe free speech absolutism outweighs harm given through speaking. I'm taking that position. Should you be arrested for making that remark if it results in my feeling hurt?