3 ms·

I like Christopher Hitchen's take on matters like these: "And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In

I like Christopher Hitchen's take on matters like these: "And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.”—That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. How do I know I know this except I’ve always been taught this and never heard any thing else? It’s always worth establishing first principle….don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that, whatever you think, you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely, moral majority" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

Applejinx 5y ago
On the other hand if you're executing and motivating a Holocaust, this is one of your tactics. I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so. It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.
- Shosty123 5y ago
  That works the other way too, no? If you're trying to build the next regime, censorship is one of your tactics. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance comes to mind, but my issue with that is who gets to decide what is intolerant? I don't like the idea of some unelected board or career politician deciding what is suitable for me to read or view.
  - danaris 5y ago
    But you can decide it based upon certain principles. I strongly believe that one of those principles should be that hate speech is intolerable and unacceptable. And yes, there are grey areas in determining what is hate speech (this isn't a silver bullet that removes all need for human judgement and discussion), but there are also very large areas that are not grey in any way, shape, or form.
    - Shosty123 5y ago
      For sure, I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says: ... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. I can't bring myself to tell someone else they can't consider the idea, but I can also understand why someone might want to censor that. So what does one do? I don't know, but my intuition points me to the former and hope that we've educated society enough to handle that. Perhaps we'll be able to set up elaborate simulations one day to see how things play out.
jfengel 5y ago
So Hitchens doesn't, even for a moment, consider that there might be harm from that? It just doesn't enter his mind as a thought; he doesn't even dismiss it. For a person who prides himself on considering all the options, "What's the worst that can happen?" isn't an option he considers. If Hitchens had said, "I've weighed the two potential worst cases against each other, and I believe that the harms of protecting Holocaust denial are something that we can all live with", then I'd consider it a valid opinion. As it is, this quote strikes me as shallow and poorly thought out. He's reduced a complex balance to a simplistic decision by excluding any input from the people at the most risk of harm. If he were Jewish, I doubt he'd have written that paragraph. The strongest advocates of unrestricted speech always seem to be those who have the least at risk, and the risk to others seems completely invisible despite their supposed attachment to hearing from everybody. He's taken refuge in exactly the opposite "false security of consensus".
- Tehchops 5y ago
  Hitchens has fallen into the category of "verysmart" persons, who are cited by "verysmart" persons when they want to sound "verysmart". The argument comes from a place of privilege, is egregiously reductionist, and completely ignores simple precepts like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
  - Shosty123 5y ago
    Ironically, you come off as one of those "verysmart" persons you mock since Hitchens addresses the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy in the same video I linked. At the beginning I might add.
    - Tehchops 5y ago
      That's my point about ignoring it. He immediately moves to justifying the yelling part, while ignoring the underlying logic of harm-causing.
- Shosty123 5y ago
  I'm fairly certain he has considered it. I don't think it's possible to have a debate on free speech where that's not addressed. I touched on it in one of my other replies below: "I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says: ... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. I can't bring myself to tell someone else they can't consider the idea, but I can also understand why someone might want to censor that. So what does one do? I don't know, but my intuition points me to the former and hope that we've educated society enough to handle that."

Applejinx 5y ago

On the other hand if you're executing and motivating a Holocaust, this is one of your tactics. I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so. It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.

Shosty123 5y ago
That works the other way too, no? If you're trying to build the next regime, censorship is one of your tactics. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance comes to mind, but my issue with that is who gets to decide what is intolerant? I don't like the idea of some unelected board or career politician deciding what is suitable for me to read or view.
- danaris 5y ago
  But you can decide it based upon certain principles. I strongly believe that one of those principles should be that hate speech is intolerable and unacceptable. And yes, there are grey areas in determining what is hate speech (this isn't a silver bullet that removes all need for human judgement and discussion), but there are also very large areas that are not grey in any way, shape, or form.
  - Shosty123 5y ago
    For sure, I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says: ... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. I can't bring myself to tell someone else they can't consider the idea, but I can also understand why someone might want to censor that. So what does one do? I don't know, but my intuition points me to the former and hope that we've educated society enough to handle that. Perhaps we'll be able to set up elaborate simulations one day to see how things play out.

jfengel 5y ago

So Hitchens doesn't, even for a moment, consider that there might be harm from that? It just doesn't enter his mind as a thought; he doesn't even dismiss it. For a person who prides himself on considering all the options, "What's the worst that can happen?" isn't an option he considers. If Hitchens had said, "I've weighed the two potential worst cases against each other, and I believe that the harms of protecting Holocaust denial are something that we can all live with", then I'd consider it a valid opinion. As it is, this quote strikes me as shallow and poorly thought out. He's reduced a complex balance to a simplistic decision by excluding any input from the people at the most risk of harm. If he were Jewish, I doubt he'd have written that paragraph. The strongest advocates of unrestricted speech always seem to be those who have the least at risk, and the risk to others seems completely invisible despite their supposed attachment to hearing from everybody. He's taken refuge in exactly the opposite "false security of consensus".

Tehchops 5y ago
Hitchens has fallen into the category of "verysmart" persons, who are cited by "verysmart" persons when they want to sound "verysmart". The argument comes from a place of privilege, is egregiously reductionist, and completely ignores simple precepts like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
- Shosty123 5y ago
  Ironically, you come off as one of those "verysmart" persons you mock since Hitchens addresses the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy in the same video I linked. At the beginning I might add.
  - Tehchops 5y ago
    That's my point about ignoring it. He immediately moves to justifying the yelling part, while ignoring the underlying logic of harm-causing.
Shosty123 5y ago
I'm fairly certain he has considered it. I don't think it's possible to have a debate on free speech where that's not addressed. I touched on it in one of my other replies below: "I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says: ... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. I can't bring myself to tell someone else they can't consider the idea, but I can also understand why someone might want to censor that. So what does one do? I don't know, but my intuition points me to the former and hope that we've educated society enough to handle that."