5 ms·

Because if you block 'bad' opinions, you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible and eventually you'll find that

Because if you block 'bad' opinions, you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible and eventually you'll find that opposing a current government is 'bad' (this happened in my country in a short span of 15 years). So it turns out that allowing all speech, even 'bad' is less harmful for society in the long run than trying to suppress some speech.

jsmeaton 6y ago
No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  This is a third time today I see this hypocritical nonsense. The definition of tolerance is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Being tolerant of those who believe differently absolutely does not preclude pushing back against those who are not tolerant of those who believe differently from them. There's no hypocrisy there. Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.
AYBABTME 6y ago
Canada has restrictions on free speech that prevent things like saying hateful stuff. And so far Canada looks pretty democratic and fair to me. Have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...
- refurb 6y ago
  Actually it's fraught with issues. "Hate speech" was used to stop the republishing of the cartoons that got the Danish guy murdered. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdrawing-my-human-rights-complaint-against-ezra-levant/article18444701/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...
  - AYBABTME 6y ago
    Nothing's perfect, my point us that it didn't lead to a totalitarian state.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      Some provinces there literally have curfews and police patrolling the street to arrest anyone breaching curfew. Just because it's justified as an attempt to slow the spread ot covid, doesn't make it any less totalitarian.
      - AYBABTME 6y ago
        Temporary emergency measures don't make a totalitarian government. For that matter, similar measures were temporarily taken and then rescinded in the past; proof of non-totalitarianism. Further proof is minority governments and recent changes in governing parties. Totalitarian governments don't have these. I think further burden of proof on wether Canada is a totalitarian state reasonably falls on those who believe it is. It seems reasonable to accept that Canada isn't totalitarian as a premise, when I say that some restrictions on freedom of speech don't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    So what?
cinquemb 6y ago
The thing is, even if someone recognizes: >… you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible… By the time this may matter the most, it is already too late… rubicon has already been crossed. Thus, the one who recognizes this must position themselves to expect any of the downsides that will most assuredly come and to expect society to be of no help at all to achieve such ends.

jsmeaton 6y ago

No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
This is a third time today I see this hypocritical nonsense. The definition of tolerance is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  Being tolerant of those who believe differently absolutely does not preclude pushing back against those who are not tolerant of those who believe differently from them. There's no hypocrisy there. Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.

AYBABTME 6y ago

Canada has restrictions on free speech that prevent things like saying hateful stuff. And so far Canada looks pretty democratic and fair to me. Have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...

refurb 6y ago
Actually it's fraught with issues. "Hate speech" was used to stop the republishing of the cartoons that got the Danish guy murdered. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdrawing-my-human-rights-complaint-against-ezra-levant/article18444701/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...
- AYBABTME 6y ago
  Nothing's perfect, my point us that it didn't lead to a totalitarian state.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    Some provinces there literally have curfews and police patrolling the street to arrest anyone breaching curfew. Just because it's justified as an attempt to slow the spread ot covid, doesn't make it any less totalitarian.
    - AYBABTME 6y ago
      Temporary emergency measures don't make a totalitarian government. For that matter, similar measures were temporarily taken and then rescinded in the past; proof of non-totalitarianism. Further proof is minority governments and recent changes in governing parties. Totalitarian governments don't have these. I think further burden of proof on wether Canada is a totalitarian state reasonably falls on those who believe it is. It seems reasonable to accept that Canada isn't totalitarian as a premise, when I say that some restrictions on freedom of speech don't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  So what?

cinquemb 6y ago

The thing is, even if someone recognizes: >… you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible… By the time this may matter the most, it is already too late… rubicon has already been crossed. Thus, the one who recognizes this must position themselves to expect any of the downsides that will most assuredly come and to expect society to be of no help at all to achieve such ends.