3 ms·

The argument isn't for freedom of speech per se, it's that if you remove the ability for people to persuade others through discourse, you remove the ability for

by gfodor 6y ago

The argument isn't for freedom of speech per se, it's that if you remove the ability for people to persuade others through discourse, you remove the ability for progress to occur (other than through violence or death) on the same issues the former group is concerned about. And it is eminently falsifiable and has been proven to be the case - one does not have to look very far back in recent history to see free speech (and other liberal approaches to resolving differences) overturning prejudices and ending injustices that have lasted for centuries.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
citrin_ru 6y ago
The group which doesn't mind to loose free speech probably think that it doesn't work. They see that western society had freedom of speech for a relatively long time and still far from perfect. But they tend to ignore that countries without free speech are generally worse off.
- lagearrock 6y ago
  western society is bifurcated. we were never "well off" as a whole. black people suffered, and also conveniently never had freedom of speech by virtue of MSM non-coverage. yeah, i dont mind losing freedom of speech, i never had any. why should everyone else have freedom?
  - loopz 6y ago
    Because of higher principles and purpose.
lagearrock 6y ago
>> one does not have to look very far back in recent history to see free speech (and other liberal approaches to resolving differences) overturning prejudices and ending injustices that have lasted for centuries. except it didnt work. "freedom of speech" was narrowly defined and limited to only some groups which had real freedom. meanwhile, other topics were taboo either explicitly with laws, through threads, or by blacklisting in newsmedia. consider black rights. the BLM movement didnt start now because it just happened now, it started now because we finally got to a point where more people stood up to demand rights. in the 1980s and 1990s, if you had a black criminal on a tv show or movie, it was "artistic freedom" but if you had a jewish villain, it was "anti-semitism" for decades, those with power decided what freedom was allowed (criticizing arabs) and which would be legally disallowed (boycotting israel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws except now people got smart, basically now no one has freedom of speech because everyone can cancel everyone. is it productive? no, but it is more fair than only some groups getting freedom of speech and pretending the country was fair
- gfodor 6y ago
  so what changed these situations? it wasn't violent revolution.

by gfodor 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

citrin_ru 6y ago

The group which doesn't mind to loose free speech probably think that it doesn't work. They see that western society had freedom of speech for a relatively long time and still far from perfect. But they tend to ignore that countries without free speech are generally worse off.

lagearrock 6y ago
western society is bifurcated. we were never "well off" as a whole. black people suffered, and also conveniently never had freedom of speech by virtue of MSM non-coverage. yeah, i dont mind losing freedom of speech, i never had any. why should everyone else have freedom?
- loopz 6y ago
  Because of higher principles and purpose.

lagearrock 6y ago

>> one does not have to look very far back in recent history to see free speech (and other liberal approaches to resolving differences) overturning prejudices and ending injustices that have lasted for centuries. except it didnt work. "freedom of speech" was narrowly defined and limited to only some groups which had real freedom. meanwhile, other topics were taboo either explicitly with laws, through threads, or by blacklisting in newsmedia. consider black rights. the BLM movement didnt start now because it just happened now, it started now because we finally got to a point where more people stood up to demand rights. in the 1980s and 1990s, if you had a black criminal on a tv show or movie, it was "artistic freedom" but if you had a jewish villain, it was "anti-semitism" for decades, those with power decided what freedom was allowed (criticizing arabs) and which would be legally disallowed (boycotting israel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws except now people got smart, basically now no one has freedom of speech because everyone can cancel everyone. is it productive? no, but it is more fair than only some groups getting freedom of speech and pretending the country was fair

gfodor 6y ago
so what changed these situations? it wasn't violent revolution.