5 ms·

You can say whatever you want: you should also expect to take heat from non-like minded people. At some point the free speech concept transitioned to "I should

You can say whatever you want: you should also expect to take heat from non-like minded people. At some point the free speech concept transitioned to "I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences". The First Amendment is very specific: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Says nothing about any one else's responses to your words.

kerkeslager 6y ago
Free speech is important even in contexts where the First Amendment doesn't apply. The First Amendment is important because free speech is important, not the other way around. I agree with this: You can say whatever you want: you should also expect to take heat from non-like minded people. But I think this misrepresents the view of free speech advocates (it certainly misrepresents my viewpoint): At some point the free speech concept transitioned to "I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences". On the contrary, I think a lot of left-authoritarians who want to censor right-leaning speech are the ones touting this viewpoint. It's not the pro-free-speech crowd that wants no consequences for what they say, it's the anti-free-speech crowd. One of the consequences of stating your opinion publicly is that people will disagree with you.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  The left fascists believe "if you disagree anything I say, then you are the enemy". The recent Tabbiti article <https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself> https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i... talks about how a journalist who didn't even espouse an opinion, but merely quotes a black activist about black-on-black crime, was subject to a massive attack as if the journalist himself was a racist. The left truly believe if you don't tow the line 100%, then you are an enemy. It's a fascist hivemind mentality. I can't find the article now, but there was someone who went through what statements hockey teams made about George Floyd and Black Lives Matters, and had a checklist making sure that all of the boxes were checked in terms of what was "acceptable". If they didn't fulfill every single checkbox they were maligned. If this isn't fascism by definition, I don't know what is. It's shocking how extreme things are getting. Those of us such as myself who are progressives have no moral high ground over the white supremacists if the fascist left use the exact same tactics that they do. The problem is more and more progressives are using the same tactics. I've been in the Bay Area for over 20 years and have never heard of Juneteenth ever. I have a friends from Louisiana who have never heard of Juneteenth either. The only friend that had heard of it grew up in Texas, where the holiday originated. When I responded in a reddit post that I never heard it before, I was referred to as a racist. It's getting crazy out there now.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    Just to be clear, "fascism" is a term with a much more specific meaning than you're using it for. Fascism is a totalitarian/authoritarian ideology, but it's also a far-right one. "Left fascists" is an oxymoron. I think what you mean to say is "left totalitarians" or "left authoritarians". > Those of us such as myself who are progressives have no moral high ground over the white supremacists if the fascist left use the exact same tactics that they do. I don't think that's true either. I don't agree with censorship, but intentions do matter. Censorship as a misguided attempt to protect marginalized groups is bad, but it's certainly not equivalent to censorship in the service of white supremacy.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Left and right on what axis? I remember hearing that this was regarding economic policy.
      - kerkeslager 6y ago
        Well, if we want to get more specific I don't think the terms left and right make any sense: they're just approximations I'm using to speak to an audience which identifies as "left and not right". In general, most attempts at censorship which I'm seeing are in the name of socially-left issues, such as gay rights, trans rights, antiracism, and women's rights. The idea being to silence homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism. While I am against homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism, I think it's important to address the root causes of these issues rather than using totalitarian tactics to simply silence people with these bigoted beliefs.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Was Stalin better than Hitler because he had the interests of the downtrodden proletariat at heart? Or at some level of totalitarianism, did intent not really matter any more? (Or was he really much more a totalitarian than he was a friend of the downtrodden masses, and all that "helping the proletariat" stuff was just camouflage?)
dependenttypes 6y ago
What does the US constitution has to do with this and why should I care? > I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences This is kind of the point of free speech. You are not free to do something if you are threatened with jail-time or murder or getting beaten or ... .
- fomojola 6y ago
  The article talks about "constitutional rights": hence the US constitution link. You may not be in the US: in which case, you're right, you shouldn't care. The usual counter example to statements of the form "You are not free to do something if you are threatened with jail-time or murder or getting beaten or ... ." is "if you yell fire in a crowded theater, expect to get in trouble". You're free to yell, but there WILL be consequences.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > The article talks about "constitutional rights" No, it does not. > You're free to yell In the same sense that I am free to murder someone or free to modify and distribute proprietary software - free in the sense that nature won't stop me, unlike flying for example, but not free in any useful sense of the word, otherwise everyone would have free speech at all times and no matter where they are and at what era they lived in as long as they are not mute.

kerkeslager 6y ago

Free speech is important even in contexts where the First Amendment doesn't apply. The First Amendment is important because free speech is important, not the other way around. I agree with this: You can say whatever you want: you should also expect to take heat from non-like minded people. But I think this misrepresents the view of free speech advocates (it certainly misrepresents my viewpoint): At some point the free speech concept transitioned to "I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences". On the contrary, I think a lot of left-authoritarians who want to censor right-leaning speech are the ones touting this viewpoint. It's not the pro-free-speech crowd that wants no consequences for what they say, it's the anti-free-speech crowd. One of the consequences of stating your opinion publicly is that people will disagree with you.

ping_pong 6y ago
The left fascists believe "if you disagree anything I say, then you are the enemy". The recent Tabbiti article <https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself> https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i... talks about how a journalist who didn't even espouse an opinion, but merely quotes a black activist about black-on-black crime, was subject to a massive attack as if the journalist himself was a racist. The left truly believe if you don't tow the line 100%, then you are an enemy. It's a fascist hivemind mentality. I can't find the article now, but there was someone who went through what statements hockey teams made about George Floyd and Black Lives Matters, and had a checklist making sure that all of the boxes were checked in terms of what was "acceptable". If they didn't fulfill every single checkbox they were maligned. If this isn't fascism by definition, I don't know what is. It's shocking how extreme things are getting. Those of us such as myself who are progressives have no moral high ground over the white supremacists if the fascist left use the exact same tactics that they do. The problem is more and more progressives are using the same tactics. I've been in the Bay Area for over 20 years and have never heard of Juneteenth ever. I have a friends from Louisiana who have never heard of Juneteenth either. The only friend that had heard of it grew up in Texas, where the holiday originated. When I responded in a reddit post that I never heard it before, I was referred to as a racist. It's getting crazy out there now.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Just to be clear, "fascism" is a term with a much more specific meaning than you're using it for. Fascism is a totalitarian/authoritarian ideology, but it's also a far-right one. "Left fascists" is an oxymoron. I think what you mean to say is "left totalitarians" or "left authoritarians". > Those of us such as myself who are progressives have no moral high ground over the white supremacists if the fascist left use the exact same tactics that they do. I don't think that's true either. I don't agree with censorship, but intentions do matter. Censorship as a misguided attempt to protect marginalized groups is bad, but it's certainly not equivalent to censorship in the service of white supremacy.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Left and right on what axis? I remember hearing that this was regarding economic policy.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      Well, if we want to get more specific I don't think the terms left and right make any sense: they're just approximations I'm using to speak to an audience which identifies as "left and not right". In general, most attempts at censorship which I'm seeing are in the name of socially-left issues, such as gay rights, trans rights, antiracism, and women's rights. The idea being to silence homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism. While I am against homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism, I think it's important to address the root causes of these issues rather than using totalitarian tactics to simply silence people with these bigoted beliefs.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Was Stalin better than Hitler because he had the interests of the downtrodden proletariat at heart? Or at some level of totalitarianism, did intent not really matter any more? (Or was he really much more a totalitarian than he was a friend of the downtrodden masses, and all that "helping the proletariat" stuff was just camouflage?)

dependenttypes 6y ago

What does the US constitution has to do with this and why should I care? > I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences This is kind of the point of free speech. You are not free to do something if you are threatened with jail-time or murder or getting beaten or ... .

fomojola 6y ago
The article talks about "constitutional rights": hence the US constitution link. You may not be in the US: in which case, you're right, you shouldn't care. The usual counter example to statements of the form "You are not free to do something if you are threatened with jail-time or murder or getting beaten or ... ." is "if you yell fire in a crowded theater, expect to get in trouble". You're free to yell, but there WILL be consequences.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > The article talks about "constitutional rights" No, it does not. > You're free to yell In the same sense that I am free to murder someone or free to modify and distribute proprietary software - free in the sense that nature won't stop me, unlike flying for example, but not free in any useful sense of the word, otherwise everyone would have free speech at all times and no matter where they are and at what era they lived in as long as they are not mute.