3 ms·

>'free speech' supersedes other rights and should go unchecked at the expense of others Curious about this, what right does anti-Semite/racism rhetoric removes

by totony 6y ago

>'free speech' supersedes other rights and should go unchecked at the expense of others Curious about this, what right does anti-Semite/racism rhetoric removes from others? How can words affect your rights as a person?

glouwbug 6y ago
> How can words affect your rights as a person? Remember the holocaust
- totony 6y ago
  >Remember the holocaust I'd posit the words weren't the things affecting people, but whatever actions they took
  - watwut 6y ago
    By the time holocaust was going on, it was too late.
    - totony 6y ago
      Are you saying without free speech it wouldn't have happened?
      - dlisboa 6y ago
        Nazism doesn't exist without propaganda, and the Nazi propaganda is something people defend to this day as free speech. The dissemination of genocidal ideas and the inhumanity of the Jews to the masses laid the groundwork. A lot of people on the "free speech at all costs" side defend that there is no problem with that, we have to accept them as equals and fight them in the battleground of ideas, as if they played by the same rules and we just have to make good arguments against genocide in order to convince them. So, that kind of free speech definitely drove a movement of people towards radicalism. The alternative is believing that millions of regular Germans had a little homicidal maniac inside of them just waiting to get out, and that Goebbles really had no part in getting them to hate so viciously. You can either: believe people are inherently evil and will support genocide at the first opportunity; or people can be influenced by pointed words from a group intent on manipulating them.
        totony 6y ago
        >You can either: believe people are inherently evil and will support genocide at the first opportunity; or people can be influenced by pointed words from a group intent on manipulating them. It is also possible this was a prevailing thought, or that the environment was encouraging of such thoughts, in that nation at that time; that something caused division, and that the nazi used this as a way to assert power and spearhead their ideology. To think people can just tell you to participate in a genocide and everyone will follow is not recognizing the agency of human beings. The WW2 was a dramatic period that had a lot of factors, but having restrictions on free speech is unlikely to be one that would or even did matter much. Edit: plus, the restrictions on free speech are executed and decided by the oligarchy, and when the nazism was its most vicious it had little reason to restrict that kind of speech. The idea that free speech restriction help in preventing propaganda is wrong; it prevents only some subset of propaganda which does not further the elite, which imo is worse than not restricting it at all. And even then, free speech restrictions cannot stop the spread of ideas and prejudice, whatever they are.
        joepie91_ 6y ago
        > It is also possible this was a prevailing thought, or that the environment was encouraging of such thoughts, in that nation at that time; that something caused division, and that the nazi used this as a way to assert power and spearhead their ideology. Doesn't this exactly confirm the original claim that words do lead to actions and therefore affect people's rights?
        totony 6y ago
        Words have the potential to affect action, that is their main purpose. But actions are not caused by words but influenced by them, which imo is a big difference
      - brazzy 6y ago
        "We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem... We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we." -- Joseph Goebbels, 1928
      - watwut 6y ago
        There is no honest way to get from the exchange above to your comment. In any case, it would not happened without people would defend them each time they could, who would made up what may opponents said just to make opponents sound bad, who pretended that nazi are not danger, that nazi are just little misguided young men meaning well or just trolls.
HorkHunter 6y ago
Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? someone somewhere must believe that they should do something about these bad people. your argument at best is in bad faith
- totony 6y ago
  >your argument at best is in bad faith I disagree (although this was a question more than an argument) >Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? What it might lead to is irrelevant, the act of speech does not impede anything and a lot of things have the potential to lead to violence, yet legalizing it is arbitrary at best
  - mariusor 6y ago
    I would say that the right to human dignity is being impinged upon by most of the *phobic types of discourse. [edit] A citation: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.asp...
    - totony 6y ago
      This is a good point, but in my understanding of dignity was more of a physical "no slave" than a mental "respect." I'm having trouble finding a good definition of that. Edit: i also understood the basic rights to be a property of the system rather than the actions of people; e.g. you should be free whatever people think of you; right to happiness whatever enemies you have, etc. If words can deprive you of dignity, then it seems as though the system is not giving you the feeling of safety in your rights that you should be expecting. This seems like a more logical application of the rights; since you cannot force respect out of others but can force the system to honor its promises.
      - mariusor 6y ago
        It is a property of the system in as much as the system supports the individual in keeping its right. Think in terms of property and theft, and what system does to people stealing. I agree it's not a foolproof comparison, but I think the same principles apply. On the other hand the problem is not about "thinking" hateful things (and there is a distinction about hateful and respectful that you seem to gloss over) but saying those things with the specific intention of lowering a person's (or group of persons) sense of self and dignity.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I think your parent stated it pretty well. You can say whatever you want, if you are willing to pay the bills. In this case, nobody wanted to pay to listen.

by totony 6y ago

glouwbug 6y ago

> How can words affect your rights as a person? Remember the holocaust

totony 6y ago
>Remember the holocaust I'd posit the words weren't the things affecting people, but whatever actions they took
- watwut 6y ago
  By the time holocaust was going on, it was too late.
  - totony 6y ago
    Are you saying without free speech it wouldn't have happened?
    - dlisboa 6y ago
      Nazism doesn't exist without propaganda, and the Nazi propaganda is something people defend to this day as free speech. The dissemination of genocidal ideas and the inhumanity of the Jews to the masses laid the groundwork. A lot of people on the "free speech at all costs" side defend that there is no problem with that, we have to accept them as equals and fight them in the battleground of ideas, as if they played by the same rules and we just have to make good arguments against genocide in order to convince them. So, that kind of free speech definitely drove a movement of people towards radicalism. The alternative is believing that millions of regular Germans had a little homicidal maniac inside of them just waiting to get out, and that Goebbles really had no part in getting them to hate so viciously. You can either: believe people are inherently evil and will support genocide at the first opportunity; or people can be influenced by pointed words from a group intent on manipulating them.
      - totony 6y ago
        >You can either: believe people are inherently evil and will support genocide at the first opportunity; or people can be influenced by pointed words from a group intent on manipulating them. It is also possible this was a prevailing thought, or that the environment was encouraging of such thoughts, in that nation at that time; that something caused division, and that the nazi used this as a way to assert power and spearhead their ideology. To think people can just tell you to participate in a genocide and everyone will follow is not recognizing the agency of human beings. The WW2 was a dramatic period that had a lot of factors, but having restrictions on free speech is unlikely to be one that would or even did matter much. Edit: plus, the restrictions on free speech are executed and decided by the oligarchy, and when the nazism was its most vicious it had little reason to restrict that kind of speech. The idea that free speech restriction help in preventing propaganda is wrong; it prevents only some subset of propaganda which does not further the elite, which imo is worse than not restricting it at all. And even then, free speech restrictions cannot stop the spread of ideas and prejudice, whatever they are.
        joepie91_ 6y ago
        > It is also possible this was a prevailing thought, or that the environment was encouraging of such thoughts, in that nation at that time; that something caused division, and that the nazi used this as a way to assert power and spearhead their ideology. Doesn't this exactly confirm the original claim that words do lead to actions and therefore affect people's rights?
        totony 6y ago
        Words have the potential to affect action, that is their main purpose. But actions are not caused by words but influenced by them, which imo is a big difference
    - brazzy 6y ago
      "We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem... We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we." -- Joseph Goebbels, 1928
    - watwut 6y ago
      There is no honest way to get from the exchange above to your comment. In any case, it would not happened without people would defend them each time they could, who would made up what may opponents said just to make opponents sound bad, who pretended that nazi are not danger, that nazi are just little misguided young men meaning well or just trolls.

HorkHunter 6y ago

Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? someone somewhere must believe that they should do something about these bad people. your argument at best is in bad faith

totony 6y ago
>your argument at best is in bad faith I disagree (although this was a question more than an argument) >Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? What it might lead to is irrelevant, the act of speech does not impede anything and a lot of things have the potential to lead to violence, yet legalizing it is arbitrary at best
- mariusor 6y ago
  I would say that the right to human dignity is being impinged upon by most of the *phobic types of discourse. [edit] A citation: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.asp...
  - totony 6y ago
    This is a good point, but in my understanding of dignity was more of a physical "no slave" than a mental "respect." I'm having trouble finding a good definition of that. Edit: i also understood the basic rights to be a property of the system rather than the actions of people; e.g. you should be free whatever people think of you; right to happiness whatever enemies you have, etc. If words can deprive you of dignity, then it seems as though the system is not giving you the feeling of safety in your rights that you should be expecting. This seems like a more logical application of the rights; since you cannot force respect out of others but can force the system to honor its promises.
    - mariusor 6y ago
      It is a property of the system in as much as the system supports the individual in keeping its right. Think in terms of property and theft, and what system does to people stealing. I agree it's not a foolproof comparison, but I think the same principles apply. On the other hand the problem is not about "thinking" hateful things (and there is a distinction about hateful and respectful that you seem to gloss over) but saying those things with the specific intention of lowering a person's (or group of persons) sense of self and dignity.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

I think your parent stated it pretty well. You can say whatever you want, if you are willing to pay the bills. In this case, nobody wanted to pay to listen.