4 ms·

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 min

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.

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.