5 ms·

A very strong argument for free speech is that it's the only schelling point that allows for stable peace. When one side in power starts censoring its oppositio

A very strong argument for free speech is that it's the only schelling point that allows for stable peace. When one side in power starts censoring its opposition, the other side rightly sees that as an attack and is likely to react with violence. Eventually the group in power loses it, and the cycle is likely to repeat, only with sides switched. Identical mechanic occurs with religious tolerance. It appears western societies are going to be forced to learn old lessons all over again, paying with blood, again.

ouid 6y ago
Religion is just any arbitrary set of beliefs. You cannot be tolerant of all arbitrary sets of belief and expect to get any sort of stability out of it.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  You can be tolerant of sets of beliefs that don't restrict the rights of non-believers (and that allow believers to change their minds).
  - ouid 6y ago
    Sure, but that is very different from "religious tolerance"
- nootropicat 6y ago
  That's taking the concept to an absurd extreme. Totalitarian belief systems that can't coexist with others can't be tolerated, yes, but it's nothing inherent in christianity - yet different Christian denominations spent decades killing each other in the Thirty Years' War. It's more of a character trait. Same personality type that was happy to kill all 'papists' would be a fanatic nazi in 30s' Germany and an eager killer for Pol Pot. People like that are always going to exist, what happens depends on the reactions of the other members of the same 'tribe'. If they oppose it nothing happens, if they ignore it or, worse, weakly support it, the situation deteriorates in a feedback loop until both sides convince themselves that everyone from the 'enemy' camp wants to kill them, so the only option is to kill them first.
  - ouid 6y ago
    You're the one who made the claim. If your idea can't handle the "absurd extremes" then your idea is wrong. Frankly, religious beliefs that include intolerance of other religious beliefs are empirically the rule, rather than the exception, and you don't need to be a mathematician to figure out how that throws a wrench in your characterization.
- coding123 6y ago
  Well they are not arbitrary, and they are deeply historical and have tons of context. Even if you cite the church of the flying spaghetti monster, well it has exactly 0 followers. Also in the countries where there is still violence due to religion (ie. ISIS conditions) but made speech 100% free (or free as in US style rule) it is very likely the violent elements will mostly go away. That's assuming you "could" - in most of these countries it's a long way off.
  - samizdis 6y ago
    Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your statement - "Even if you cite the church of the flying spaghetti monster, well it has exactly 0 followers." Our faith has many followers. Also, among religious communities, we are shown to put our money where our mouth is. We back our beliefs, as do other faiths, with charity/cash. https://www.kiva.org/team/fsm https://www.kiva.org/team/fsm I am happy to be part of a religious congregation that, in the context of microfinance/lending to strangers (not for profit, by the way), performs admirably when compared with more popular, mainstream religions: https://www.kiva.org/teams?category=Religious+Congregations https://www.kiva.org/teams?category=Religious+Congregations Pesto be upon him. Ramen Edit to add: our demonstrated/measurable impact in the world refutes the notion that we have 0 followers.
    - coding123 6y ago
      But can I ask you, do you actually believe the FSM exists or is it more of a statement about how nutty religion can be? Because that's what Wikipedia says, not a religion, a social movement. "is a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools" So, yes, followers maybe, religion no.
tao_oat 6y ago
This sounds like a nice idea, but I wonder if it's backed up by historical fact? There are plenty counter-examples of countries with stable peace as well as some restrictions on freedom of speech. The discussion in the linked article seems to be about absolute vs. semi-restricted freedom of speech, as opposed to absolute vs. none.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  you either have freedom of speech or you don't. it's not a policy of degrees.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vicek22 6y ago
    That will depend on your definition. As mentioned in other threads, European countries are putting a certain speech outside of the law. The most essential outlawed speech is speech that directly urges others to violence. I think that free speech that doesn't allow for organizing physical violence is still a free speech. That being said, I would love to know if there are examples of instigating violence that were productive and useful for society (because there might be some)
    - odessacubbage 6y ago
      the uk and germany have banned musicians and artists, notably tyler the creator and death in june. media is heavily censored to even be allowed to be sold in these markets. people are arrested for speech within the uk & eurozone on a regular basis for crimes like making a shitpost video with a pug. this is not free speech under any definition, it is controlled speech with latitude. >The most essential outlawed speech is speech that directly urges others to violence. how do you differentiate between urging others to violence and calls for 'direct action', 'bash the fash' etc? the black panthers and the nation of islam were widely criticized by the establishment for instigating violence and the armament of black people. the fbi thought mlk was a communist instigator. neither the american civil rights movement nor it's predecessors in the abolitionist movement would largely pass the smell test for permissible speech under european restrictions. likewise, hate speech laws do not have a good track record for preventing the rise of fascism. both weimar germany and tsarist russia had speech restrictions and aggressive censorship regimes. it didn't work.

ouid 6y ago

Religion is just any arbitrary set of beliefs. You cannot be tolerant of all arbitrary sets of belief and expect to get any sort of stability out of it.

dane-pgp 6y ago
You can be tolerant of sets of beliefs that don't restrict the rights of non-believers (and that allow believers to change their minds).
- ouid 6y ago
  Sure, but that is very different from "religious tolerance"
nootropicat 6y ago
That's taking the concept to an absurd extreme. Totalitarian belief systems that can't coexist with others can't be tolerated, yes, but it's nothing inherent in christianity - yet different Christian denominations spent decades killing each other in the Thirty Years' War. It's more of a character trait. Same personality type that was happy to kill all 'papists' would be a fanatic nazi in 30s' Germany and an eager killer for Pol Pot. People like that are always going to exist, what happens depends on the reactions of the other members of the same 'tribe'. If they oppose it nothing happens, if they ignore it or, worse, weakly support it, the situation deteriorates in a feedback loop until both sides convince themselves that everyone from the 'enemy' camp wants to kill them, so the only option is to kill them first.
- ouid 6y ago
  You're the one who made the claim. If your idea can't handle the "absurd extremes" then your idea is wrong. Frankly, religious beliefs that include intolerance of other religious beliefs are empirically the rule, rather than the exception, and you don't need to be a mathematician to figure out how that throws a wrench in your characterization.
coding123 6y ago
Well they are not arbitrary, and they are deeply historical and have tons of context. Even if you cite the church of the flying spaghetti monster, well it has exactly 0 followers. Also in the countries where there is still violence due to religion (ie. ISIS conditions) but made speech 100% free (or free as in US style rule) it is very likely the violent elements will mostly go away. That's assuming you "could" - in most of these countries it's a long way off.
- samizdis 6y ago
  Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your statement - "Even if you cite the church of the flying spaghetti monster, well it has exactly 0 followers." Our faith has many followers. Also, among religious communities, we are shown to put our money where our mouth is. We back our beliefs, as do other faiths, with charity/cash. https://www.kiva.org/team/fsm https://www.kiva.org/team/fsm I am happy to be part of a religious congregation that, in the context of microfinance/lending to strangers (not for profit, by the way), performs admirably when compared with more popular, mainstream religions: https://www.kiva.org/teams?category=Religious+Congregations https://www.kiva.org/teams?category=Religious+Congregations Pesto be upon him. Ramen Edit to add: our demonstrated/measurable impact in the world refutes the notion that we have 0 followers.
  - coding123 6y ago
    But can I ask you, do you actually believe the FSM exists or is it more of a statement about how nutty religion can be? Because that's what Wikipedia says, not a religion, a social movement. "is a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools" So, yes, followers maybe, religion no.

tao_oat 6y ago

This sounds like a nice idea, but I wonder if it's backed up by historical fact? There are plenty counter-examples of countries with stable peace as well as some restrictions on freedom of speech. The discussion in the linked article seems to be about absolute vs. semi-restricted freedom of speech, as opposed to absolute vs. none.

odessacubbage 6y ago
you either have freedom of speech or you don't. it's not a policy of degrees.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vicek22 6y ago
  That will depend on your definition. As mentioned in other threads, European countries are putting a certain speech outside of the law. The most essential outlawed speech is speech that directly urges others to violence. I think that free speech that doesn't allow for organizing physical violence is still a free speech. That being said, I would love to know if there are examples of instigating violence that were productive and useful for society (because there might be some)
  - odessacubbage 6y ago
    the uk and germany have banned musicians and artists, notably tyler the creator and death in june. media is heavily censored to even be allowed to be sold in these markets. people are arrested for speech within the uk & eurozone on a regular basis for crimes like making a shitpost video with a pug. this is not free speech under any definition, it is controlled speech with latitude. >The most essential outlawed speech is speech that directly urges others to violence. how do you differentiate between urging others to violence and calls for 'direct action', 'bash the fash' etc? the black panthers and the nation of islam were widely criticized by the establishment for instigating violence and the armament of black people. the fbi thought mlk was a communist instigator. neither the american civil rights movement nor it's predecessors in the abolitionist movement would largely pass the smell test for permissible speech under european restrictions. likewise, hate speech laws do not have a good track record for preventing the rise of fascism. both weimar germany and tsarist russia had speech restrictions and aggressive censorship regimes. it didn't work.