3 ms·

I don't think you understand what the Cultural Revolution was: "His students beat him to death during the Cultural Revolution. The school called it a suicide:

I don't think you understand what the Cultural Revolution was: "His students beat him to death during the Cultural Revolution. The school called it a suicide: https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-cultural-revolution-suicides-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-cultural-revo... See any similarities?

d_e_solomon 6y ago
Can you see how firing somebody because they use hate speech isn't the same thing as killing someone because they are a Russian language professor?
- banads 6y ago
  Can you see how the former is a link in the same "chain of destruction"[1] as the latter? [1]https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE You may be disinclined to watch this short video, but perhaps you would be surprised to see that it actually gives strong credence to the problems which you are seemingly arguing against, and which I too care deeply about.
  - cpursley 6y ago
    > "take their jobs away and make it harder for them to survive" This bit from that clip was especially poignant, thanks for sharing.
  - d_e_solomon 6y ago
    I'm fighting against speech that dehumanizes Jews, LGBT, Blacks, and so on; and ensuring that people who engage in it face consequences for that speech. This gets back to Hannah Arendt's paradox of tolerance.
    - cpursley 6y ago
      So in order to fight intolerance you're being intolerant. Got it. Fight fire with fire.
      - d_e_solomon 6y ago
        At what point am I allowed to fight back? If someone advocates exterminating me, do I have your permission to suggest that their speech should have consequences? Or do I have to wait until I'm dead?
        cpursley 6y ago
        Do you believe that most people getting "mob cancelled" right now are overtly advocating extermination? If so, can you provide a few examples so I can better understand your position?
    - slowmovintarget 6y ago
      First, it is Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance". The conclusion his argument leads to is: In a tolerant society, attacking people because of their beliefs is not permitted (requisite intolerance). You don't fight against speech, you speak against its ideas.
    - banads 6y ago
      Why do you focus so narrowly on "fighting" speech, rather than the ongoing actions that are dehumanizing humans of all types?
- neonate 6y ago
  Getting someone fired causes them real harm. It's not at all out of the question that this harm could escalate to the point of imprisoning people or even killing them. The motive seems pretty similar to me. Don't forget that the ideologically motivated killings and imprisonments of the past were all justified using the same sort of arguments that you're making here, and the pattern of public denunciation is unmistakably similar. The arguments you've been making in this thread ("Speech that oppresses minorities deny their fundamental right to exist. Wouldn't you fight back if someone wanted to take away your life?") could justify action way beyond firing. If these arguments are valid, what wouldn't you have the right to do? If the harms being caused to date are "only" limited to firing, that's not because the denouncers are restraining themselves. It's because the protections of liberal society prevent them from doing worse. It's easy to imagine those protections getting diluted further, and easy to imagine worse harms than firing getting inflicted on people as a result. So I don't think this "what do they have to complain about" response is really valid.

d_e_solomon 6y ago

Can you see how firing somebody because they use hate speech isn't the same thing as killing someone because they are a Russian language professor?

banads 6y ago
Can you see how the former is a link in the same "chain of destruction"[1] as the latter? [1]https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE You may be disinclined to watch this short video, but perhaps you would be surprised to see that it actually gives strong credence to the problems which you are seemingly arguing against, and which I too care deeply about.
- cpursley 6y ago
  > "take their jobs away and make it harder for them to survive" This bit from that clip was especially poignant, thanks for sharing.
- d_e_solomon 6y ago
  I'm fighting against speech that dehumanizes Jews, LGBT, Blacks, and so on; and ensuring that people who engage in it face consequences for that speech. This gets back to Hannah Arendt's paradox of tolerance.
  - cpursley 6y ago
    So in order to fight intolerance you're being intolerant. Got it. Fight fire with fire.
    - d_e_solomon 6y ago
      At what point am I allowed to fight back? If someone advocates exterminating me, do I have your permission to suggest that their speech should have consequences? Or do I have to wait until I'm dead?
      - cpursley 6y ago
        Do you believe that most people getting "mob cancelled" right now are overtly advocating extermination? If so, can you provide a few examples so I can better understand your position?
  - slowmovintarget 6y ago
    First, it is Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance". The conclusion his argument leads to is: In a tolerant society, attacking people because of their beliefs is not permitted (requisite intolerance). You don't fight against speech, you speak against its ideas.
  - banads 6y ago
    Why do you focus so narrowly on "fighting" speech, rather than the ongoing actions that are dehumanizing humans of all types?
neonate 6y ago
Getting someone fired causes them real harm. It's not at all out of the question that this harm could escalate to the point of imprisoning people or even killing them. The motive seems pretty similar to me. Don't forget that the ideologically motivated killings and imprisonments of the past were all justified using the same sort of arguments that you're making here, and the pattern of public denunciation is unmistakably similar. The arguments you've been making in this thread ("Speech that oppresses minorities deny their fundamental right to exist. Wouldn't you fight back if someone wanted to take away your life?") could justify action way beyond firing. If these arguments are valid, what wouldn't you have the right to do? If the harms being caused to date are "only" limited to firing, that's not because the denouncers are restraining themselves. It's because the protections of liberal society prevent them from doing worse. It's easy to imagine those protections getting diluted further, and easy to imagine worse harms than firing getting inflicted on people as a result. So I don't think this "what do they have to complain about" response is really valid.