3 ms·

The words aren't the problem (unless it's a rally to violence), the action is. Any culture that can pivot to genocide from being exposed to the written word has

The words aren't the problem (unless it's a rally to violence), the action is. Any culture that can pivot to genocide from being exposed to the written word has bigger issues.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Issues that may be intimately and inextricably bound up with the "free" speech occuring within it, perhaps. You're also dramatically simplifying the processes that lead to things like Holocaust. The usual pathway involves several years (or more) of general speech-based demonization to soften up a population to the idea that the "other" is ... well, somewhat sub-human. The call to action comes much later, after you've sown the seeds necessary to have a significant population that says "yeah, well, i always did think there was something about those people ..."
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Considering that the Holocaust was committed by a fascist regime where dissent and resistance was punished as treason, where an average citizen would be deathly afraid to question the regime even to their neighbors and children, it's quite a stretch for you to frame the Holocaust as a consequence of free speech. Eugenics support and anti-semitism had been present in public discussions across the world for decades and decades, but it didn't lead to the Holocaust until a charismatic politician swept into office by convincing the German people that his noble goals - the restoration of Germany - justified any means; absolute power, suppression of dissent, the permanent silence of many people, it's all worth it, all for the sake of a greater German society. That's how it starts. That's when the stupid and cruel thoughts in German citizens manifest into something destructive. Because these thoughts are no longer opinions, judgements are no longer subjective, disagreements no longer tolerable. Anyone who disagrees with the Nazi party is a traitor to his brethren. Anyone who supports the Jews is destroying the country. We're obviously right, they're obviously wrong, and we need an authority to stop them! They shouldn't be allowed to talk about P̶i̶z̶z̶a̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶Q̶A̶n̶o̶n̶ the Jewish agenda! The i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶n̶e̶t̶ printing press has made it possible for every individual to communicate with every other individual! The boring truth hasn’t even put on its shoes before sexy Jewish lies have made it halfway around the world and back. This is real, it is happening now and we are simply unprepared to deal with it! And boy, do we have a solution for you.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    If you're incapable of differentiating between speech that disparages individuals or groups, and speech that advocates batshit crazy ideas that don't require the disparagement of groups or individuals, I can't help you. I think there are risks to Pizzagate or QAnon speech too, and they are underestimated and likely not well understood. But they are completely different than the risks linked to "jewish/black/other people are devils" speech (of course, this elides the extent to which PG/QAnon speech is actually just this, in contrast, say, to flat earth speech) I agree with you, however, that it's not appropriate to frame the Holocaust as a consequence of free speech, and was not attempting to do that.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      It's so easy to think it's easy to figure out the "right" speech, just the "good" speech. I can't express it any better than the "What you can't say" essay: > It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise. > Is our time any different? To anyone who has read any amount of history, the answer is almost certainly no. It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get everything just right. There are always risks to free speech, and there are always those who want you to believe that it's worth the cost of free speech. It'll improve society, they say. What constitutes "bad" speech is as obvious to you as it was to Nazi supporters: it's speech that they deem to be b̶a̶t̶s̶h̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶r̶a̶z̶y̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶s̶ bad at the time. Step 1: immediately dismiss certain speech with cocksure confidence that you'll always be right. Check Step 2: mock others as "incapable" of differentiating good speech from bad speech like you can. Check Step 3: demand the silence of obviously bad speech. Pending...
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        The problem with your entire approach to this is that is effectively in denial of what the proponents of the most controversial speech actually say. They do not subscribe to the scientific method. They do not believe in the use of historical analysis. They do not, in fact, believe in free speech at all. I'm happy for there to be speech from people who believe in controversial ideas that I do not agree with, on the condition that they agree to a methodology by which we can establish truthiness But the nature of today's most controversial speech is that is utterly denies any attempt to establish a methodology. I don't want to "dismiss certain speech". I want to avoid speech that is predicated on denying its own fallibility, on denying that there can be any independent investigation of its own truthiness, on asserting that it is based on secret knowledge that if the listener could only share would immediately establish the utter truth of it all. The conspiracies that have become popular on the right generally fall into this category. You cannot question QAnon, you can only believe. You cannot question "there is no anthropogenic warming", you can only hand-wave. Useful speech is always subject to interrogation. Is always subject to self-doubt. Is always subject to invalidation. Is always contingent. So ... I don't care what the content of speech is. I care about what the conditions for speech are. Speech that does not admit to interrogation, self-doubt, invalidation and contingency is bad, regardless of its content. I am not advocating for the silencing of speech that counts as "bad" by this metric, I am asserting that its presence in our culture causes problems.

The words aren't the problem (unless it's a rally to violence), the action is. Any culture that can pivot to genocide from being exposed to the written word has bigger issues.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Issues that may be intimately and inextricably bound up with the "free" speech occuring within it, perhaps. You're also dramatically simplifying the processes that lead to things like Holocaust. The usual pathway involves several years (or more) of general speech-based demonization to soften up a population to the idea that the "other" is ... well, somewhat sub-human. The call to action comes much later, after you've sown the seeds necessary to have a significant population that says "yeah, well, i always did think there was something about those people ..."

themacguffinman 6y ago
Considering that the Holocaust was committed by a fascist regime where dissent and resistance was punished as treason, where an average citizen would be deathly afraid to question the regime even to their neighbors and children, it's quite a stretch for you to frame the Holocaust as a consequence of free speech. Eugenics support and anti-semitism had been present in public discussions across the world for decades and decades, but it didn't lead to the Holocaust until a charismatic politician swept into office by convincing the German people that his noble goals - the restoration of Germany - justified any means; absolute power, suppression of dissent, the permanent silence of many people, it's all worth it, all for the sake of a greater German society. That's how it starts. That's when the stupid and cruel thoughts in German citizens manifest into something destructive. Because these thoughts are no longer opinions, judgements are no longer subjective, disagreements no longer tolerable. Anyone who disagrees with the Nazi party is a traitor to his brethren. Anyone who supports the Jews is destroying the country. We're obviously right, they're obviously wrong, and we need an authority to stop them! They shouldn't be allowed to talk about P̶i̶z̶z̶a̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶Q̶A̶n̶o̶n̶ the Jewish agenda! The i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶n̶e̶t̶ printing press has made it possible for every individual to communicate with every other individual! The boring truth hasn’t even put on its shoes before sexy Jewish lies have made it halfway around the world and back. This is real, it is happening now and we are simply unprepared to deal with it! And boy, do we have a solution for you.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  If you're incapable of differentiating between speech that disparages individuals or groups, and speech that advocates batshit crazy ideas that don't require the disparagement of groups or individuals, I can't help you. I think there are risks to Pizzagate or QAnon speech too, and they are underestimated and likely not well understood. But they are completely different than the risks linked to "jewish/black/other people are devils" speech (of course, this elides the extent to which PG/QAnon speech is actually just this, in contrast, say, to flat earth speech) I agree with you, however, that it's not appropriate to frame the Holocaust as a consequence of free speech, and was not attempting to do that.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    It's so easy to think it's easy to figure out the "right" speech, just the "good" speech. I can't express it any better than the "What you can't say" essay: > It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise. > Is our time any different? To anyone who has read any amount of history, the answer is almost certainly no. It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get everything just right. There are always risks to free speech, and there are always those who want you to believe that it's worth the cost of free speech. It'll improve society, they say. What constitutes "bad" speech is as obvious to you as it was to Nazi supporters: it's speech that they deem to be b̶a̶t̶s̶h̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶r̶a̶z̶y̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶s̶ bad at the time. Step 1: immediately dismiss certain speech with cocksure confidence that you'll always be right. Check Step 2: mock others as "incapable" of differentiating good speech from bad speech like you can. Check Step 3: demand the silence of obviously bad speech. Pending...
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      The problem with your entire approach to this is that is effectively in denial of what the proponents of the most controversial speech actually say. They do not subscribe to the scientific method. They do not believe in the use of historical analysis. They do not, in fact, believe in free speech at all. I'm happy for there to be speech from people who believe in controversial ideas that I do not agree with, on the condition that they agree to a methodology by which we can establish truthiness But the nature of today's most controversial speech is that is utterly denies any attempt to establish a methodology. I don't want to "dismiss certain speech". I want to avoid speech that is predicated on denying its own fallibility, on denying that there can be any independent investigation of its own truthiness, on asserting that it is based on secret knowledge that if the listener could only share would immediately establish the utter truth of it all. The conspiracies that have become popular on the right generally fall into this category. You cannot question QAnon, you can only believe. You cannot question "there is no anthropogenic warming", you can only hand-wave. Useful speech is always subject to interrogation. Is always subject to self-doubt. Is always subject to invalidation. Is always contingent. So ... I don't care what the content of speech is. I care about what the conditions for speech are. Speech that does not admit to interrogation, self-doubt, invalidation and contingency is bad, regardless of its content. I am not advocating for the silencing of speech that counts as "bad" by this metric, I am asserting that its presence in our culture causes problems.