3 ms·

History teaches us that moral authoritarianism, properly executed, is the stuff of nightmares. Society should progress, but not "at any cost" or "by any means.

History teaches us that moral authoritarianism, properly executed, is the stuff of nightmares. Society should progress, but not "at any cost" or "by any means."

howinteresting 6y ago
Not at any cost, but this cost is plainly acceptable.
- i_haz_rabies 6y ago
  "plainly" is an extremely loaded word in this context.
  - howinteresting 6y ago
    No, plainly. It's not even close.
    - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
      I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you won't always be right.
      - howinteresting 6y ago
        I'm fine with some epistemic humility but not so much as to cause severe inaction. In this case it is completely justified.
morelisp 6y ago
Truly, when Fanon said "by any means", his ultimate move would have been tearing some messages down from a semi-public bulletin board.
ivan_gammel 6y ago
There are different reference points in history which teach us different things. Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. We all know that Americans are obsessed with the ultimate freedom of speech, but, just like some other provisions in American constitution, it’s a not well-thought idea. At the same time Western Europe, which constrains it more, has more democratic and more fair society (see for example Sweden).
- i_haz_rabies 6y ago
  I don't trust anyone in the American context to determine the line between controversial speech and hate speech.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. Those are the exact same things. One is just the perspective of the oppressor and one is the perspective of the oppressed. > it’s a not well-thought idea Why? You give no evidence to support your argument as to how restricted speech makes makes things “more fair and democratic”.
  - ivan_gammel 6y ago
    >Those are the exact same things No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive. >Why? There's plenty of historical evidence on how hate speech supports transition of society to a tyranny. Germany 1930s is the most obvious one (and the reason, why freedom of speech is restricted in modern Germany), but there are many many others. On the other side, there is not much evidence that ultimate freedom of speech results in more prosperous and democratic society.
    - DreamScatter 6y ago

History teaches us that moral authoritarianism, properly executed, is the stuff of nightmares. Society should progress, but not "at any cost" or "by any means."

howinteresting 6y ago

Not at any cost, but this cost is plainly acceptable.

i_haz_rabies 6y ago
"plainly" is an extremely loaded word in this context.
- howinteresting 6y ago
  No, plainly. It's not even close.
  - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you won't always be right.
    - howinteresting 6y ago
      I'm fine with some epistemic humility but not so much as to cause severe inaction. In this case it is completely justified.

morelisp 6y ago

Truly, when Fanon said "by any means", his ultimate move would have been tearing some messages down from a semi-public bulletin board.

ivan_gammel 6y ago

There are different reference points in history which teach us different things. Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. We all know that Americans are obsessed with the ultimate freedom of speech, but, just like some other provisions in American constitution, it’s a not well-thought idea. At the same time Western Europe, which constrains it more, has more democratic and more fair society (see for example Sweden).

i_haz_rabies 6y ago
I don't trust anyone in the American context to determine the line between controversial speech and hate speech.
kortilla 6y ago
> Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. Those are the exact same things. One is just the perspective of the oppressor and one is the perspective of the oppressed. > it’s a not well-thought idea Why? You give no evidence to support your argument as to how restricted speech makes makes things “more fair and democratic”.
- ivan_gammel 6y ago
  >Those are the exact same things No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive. >Why? There's plenty of historical evidence on how hate speech supports transition of society to a tyranny. Germany 1930s is the most obvious one (and the reason, why freedom of speech is restricted in modern Germany), but there are many many others. On the other side, there is not much evidence that ultimate freedom of speech results in more prosperous and democratic society.
  - DreamScatter 6y ago