4 ms·
> The reason is that if you try to stop people from speaking freely, eventually over time the tables will turn against you, meaning you won't be able to speak f
by baddox 6y ago
> The reason is that if you try to stop people from speaking freely, eventually over time the tables will turn against you, meaning you won't be able to speak freely.
I think there are ways to "try to stop people from speaking freely" that are acceptable and indeed vital. We as a society generally have conventions around what speech is appropriate, and we generally teach people (both explicitly and implicitly) to, for example, ask for things nicely, compliment people, express gratitude, etc. And we as a society generally "punish" people who violate these conventions by being reluctant to interact with those people. I don't see this as a violation of freedom of speech in any sense.
And also, I don't really agree with the mode of argument of "eventually the tables will turn against you." I don't oppose strict legal consequences for murder, for instance, because one day someone might frame me for murder. I support the legal consequences for murder and I support various mechanisms to increase the likelihood that only actual murderers receive those consequences.
- ping_pong 6y agoNo, your analogy is wrong. It's not increasing the legal consequences for murder. What you are advocating for is loosening the description of what murder is. That's the point. When you loosen what constitutes a "crime", then yes eventually the tables will turn on you, because those with the power will use it to the fullest they can. That's the nature of fascism. When people can no longer even ask a question or engage in a discussion and instead are outright cancelled without actually engaging in the act, then that is what "loosening a definition" is.
- baddox 6y agoWho is loosening any definition of anything? I’m certainly not doing that.
- dependenttypes 6y ago> We as a society generally have conventions around what speech is appropriate 80 years back you would not be able to express freely your defence of homosexuality. Before that you would not be able to "talk back" to the pope. Said conventions are rarely sane or fair. > And we as a society generally "punish" people who violate these conventions by being reluctant to interact with those people. Or mob on them by calling them to be banned from a conference or to get fired. > I don't oppose strict legal consequences for murder There are victims in murder. There are no victims when you express your opinion about something. In my experience most people who get censored are not bigots, in fact they even follow the wider social conventions, the issue is that they do not follow the specific social conventions that the extremist groups that are anti-free speech want to enforce.