6 ms·

> Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe two contradictory concepts held simultaneously. Something like this: > >Consequences may include social sanct

by ebg13 6y ago

> Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe two contradictory concepts held simultaneously. Something like this: > >Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. > >exercise your right to free speech (which is your right) This is a false assessment. The fundamental government-blind right to speech does not include a right to group inclusion. There's nothing contradictory about you having the right to speak while other people also have the right to sanction you for spreading hateful (or in this case sophistrous) bullshit. After all, social sanctions are also a form of speech. This comes up in all kinds of ways. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against violence while also allowing self defense or group defense. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against stealing while also allowing recovery of stolen property or government redistribution of wealth as a requirement for participation in the benefits of society. And it's not contradictory to have moral rules in favor of speech and against hate while also allowing the community to punch a nazi in the face for being a nazi.

newacct583 6y ago
To wit: the Freedom of Association enshrined in the first amendment includes the right to tell someone else to fuck right off.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  Telling someone to fuck off is fine. If we're talking about Reddit and some group that goes around spamming other subreddits, that's a different topic than the "punch a Nazi in the face" meme that repeats itself among the Orwellian types who see no problem. Threatening someone by punching them in the face or social ostracism (which can range from discomfort to job loss) is a restriction of freedom of expression. That today people can talk about that casually while in the same breath saying that they support freedom of expression is deeply disturbing. "You don't HAVE to hand over your money to me right now. But, hey, there might be consequences..." - no one would argue that this coercion and a robbery. But "If you say the wrong thing there might be consequences in your job or life" is somehow getting a free pass.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > that's a different topic than the "punch a Nazi in the face" meme that repeats itself among the Orwellian types who see no problem Yes it is, indeed. I'd be quite OK with banning subreddits because of repeated use of memes about punching nazis with reference to Trump supporters. Which subreddits, specifically, did you have in mind? Can you provide links?
    - postphoned 6y ago
      I guess you have never been to /r/news then?
      - newacct583 6y ago
        I read it daily. Mods are quite effective at removing content like that. Do you have counterexamples?
mancerayder 6y ago
>And it's not contradictory to have moral rules in favor of speech and against hate while also allowing the community to punch a nazi in the face for being a nazi. There it is again. Yes, it absolutely is contradictory to proclaim that you support freedom of expression while threatening to punch someone in the face when you disagree with their ideas!
- caconym_ 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Emphasis mine, obviously. For the most part, political extremists in America don't seem to be at the "fists and pistols" point—at least, they generally are not actively committing violence—but they have certainly denounced rational argument by their conduct and the rhetorical strategies they employ. A liberal society needs an active and healthy immune system to prevent pockets of radical illiberalism from growing unchecked. I'm not necessarily in favor of punching "Nazis" in the face yet, if they haven't started the violence first, but Nazism is toxic and so is the inclination to treat all opinions as equally valid. Such opinions should certainly not be allowed by e.g. any responsible operator of a social media platform.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    It's tricky. I'm not a fan of Nazism myself, not least because I wouldn't survive very long if they succeeded. Punching them in the face is the least of what I would need to do to survive. .. but what stops me from calling you a Nazi if I personally don't like you? You can take a few steps away. Someone can say something, and a response can be, "the logic of this argument is Nazism." I've seen this argued (badly). Now are we in scope yet? And if someone wears a red tie (or a MAGA hat), does that then bring them in that sphere? And if so, if that represents the views of, I don't know, 40% of the population, is it wise to censor that? I mean, is it even practical, morality aside? Let's add them to the list. OK, we get the red hats. Now, someone says something that support police? OK, good, we found more Nazis. OK, now, someone criticizes feminism ... etc. etc. The circle of verbal hygiene slowly expands, and it comes for you eventually.

by ebg13 6y ago

newacct583 6y ago

To wit: the Freedom of Association enshrined in the first amendment includes the right to tell someone else to fuck right off.

mancerayder 6y ago
Telling someone to fuck off is fine. If we're talking about Reddit and some group that goes around spamming other subreddits, that's a different topic than the "punch a Nazi in the face" meme that repeats itself among the Orwellian types who see no problem. Threatening someone by punching them in the face or social ostracism (which can range from discomfort to job loss) is a restriction of freedom of expression. That today people can talk about that casually while in the same breath saying that they support freedom of expression is deeply disturbing. "You don't HAVE to hand over your money to me right now. But, hey, there might be consequences..." - no one would argue that this coercion and a robbery. But "If you say the wrong thing there might be consequences in your job or life" is somehow getting a free pass.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > that's a different topic than the "punch a Nazi in the face" meme that repeats itself among the Orwellian types who see no problem Yes it is, indeed. I'd be quite OK with banning subreddits because of repeated use of memes about punching nazis with reference to Trump supporters. Which subreddits, specifically, did you have in mind? Can you provide links?
  - postphoned 6y ago
    I guess you have never been to /r/news then?
    - newacct583 6y ago
      I read it daily. Mods are quite effective at removing content like that. Do you have counterexamples?

mancerayder 6y ago

>And it's not contradictory to have moral rules in favor of speech and against hate while also allowing the community to punch a nazi in the face for being a nazi. There it is again. Yes, it absolutely is contradictory to proclaim that you support freedom of expression while threatening to punch someone in the face when you disagree with their ideas!

caconym_ 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Emphasis mine, obviously. For the most part, political extremists in America don't seem to be at the "fists and pistols" point—at least, they generally are not actively committing violence—but they have certainly denounced rational argument by their conduct and the rhetorical strategies they employ. A liberal society needs an active and healthy immune system to prevent pockets of radical illiberalism from growing unchecked. I'm not necessarily in favor of punching "Nazis" in the face yet, if they haven't started the violence first, but Nazism is toxic and so is the inclination to treat all opinions as equally valid. Such opinions should certainly not be allowed by e.g. any responsible operator of a social media platform.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  It's tricky. I'm not a fan of Nazism myself, not least because I wouldn't survive very long if they succeeded. Punching them in the face is the least of what I would need to do to survive. .. but what stops me from calling you a Nazi if I personally don't like you? You can take a few steps away. Someone can say something, and a response can be, "the logic of this argument is Nazism." I've seen this argued (badly). Now are we in scope yet? And if someone wears a red tie (or a MAGA hat), does that then bring them in that sphere? And if so, if that represents the views of, I don't know, 40% of the population, is it wise to censor that? I mean, is it even practical, morality aside? Let's add them to the list. OK, we get the red hats. Now, someone says something that support police? OK, good, we found more Nazis. OK, now, someone criticizes feminism ... etc. etc. The circle of verbal hygiene slowly expands, and it comes for you eventually.