3 ms·

I think of the two sides as "pro-speech" and "anti-speech" dissent. I can disagree and oppose your opinions by exercising my own right to free speech. I can af

by ethbr0 5y ago

I think of the two sides as "pro-speech" and "anti-speech" dissent. I can disagree and oppose your opinions by exercising my own right to free speech. I can afford you your own pulpit, air time, and freedom to make your point, and then I can take mine and make my point as loudly as I can. I can schedule a march or rally the same day, across the street. This is what "pro-speech" dissent looks like. I can also disagree and oppose your opinion by removing your right to free speech. I can contact people who might give you a platform, and convince them not to do so. I can attempt to impose consequences for you legally, socially, or physically that discourage you from speaking. I can shout over you from across the street, to ensure people can't hear your speech. This is what "anti-speech" dissent looks like. And, IMHO, "pro-speech" is more important than almost* any consequence of speech. * The sole exceptions probably being speech that inspires imminent action to violate any person's individual rights (e.g. violence) or that has an imminent or fundamental threat to bring about a change in government to one which does not allow, support, and respect free speech.

philosopher1234 5y ago
People do not evaluate speech based on its truth, they evaluate it based on its authority, which is a function of many things (including, in eg twitters case, popularity). Fighting battles over whos speech should be afforded the biggest stage makes a huge difference in debate.
- popcube 5y ago
  yes, if you put a flat-earther and a scientist in one debate, people just thinking that 'oh, maybe earth is flat!'
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    You’re joking, but if the flat earther was a New York Times journalist they would.
    - popcube 5y ago
      the problem is, if they hold an 'debate', this will make people trust there are some enough to debate
      - leaflets2 5y ago
        Yes, or if they write what a dictator says (eg Putin) then people read it and think "hmm the newspapers report that he said this, so it must be important, maybe it's true" And in that way the dictators can fool the citizens in democratic countries via their own newspapers
  - leaflets2 5y ago
ruszki 5y ago
> The sole exceptions probably being speech that inspires imminent action to violate any person's individual rights (e.g. violence) or that has an imminent or fundamental threat to bring about a change in government to one which does not allow, support, and respect free speech. Why do you cut the line there? What evidence do you have to include or not include these or other things? How do you define violence? Is causing brain damage violence? AFAIK it's possible to do that only by speech. I've never seen an argument which wouldn't be possible to be phrased a way by which it wouldn't be "heresy", and include everything which isn't about changing others' feelings. For example, immigration. Almost 100% of useful arguments about immigration are not "heresies". The problem is when somebody is against immigration, and "forget" to mention that they opinion can cause death. Useful arguments don't "forget" this.
- blub 5y ago
  Yes, causing brain damage is violence. No, speech can not cause brain damage. Unless inaction or speech is directly and unmistakeable the cause of someone’s death, then they cannot be held responsible for that death and trying to do so is just an attempt at manipulation.
  - ruszki 5y ago
    > speech can not cause brain damage https://www.verywellmind.com/childhood-abuse-changes-the-brain-2330401 https://www.verywellmind.com/childhood-abuse-changes-the-bra... This states clearly otherwise.
    - blub 5y ago
      Child abuse is not speech… I don’t understand how it is even necessary to explicitly say this. :-/
      - ruszki 5y ago
        So it's not possible to insult or threaten somebody - or in this case a child - during a speech according to you. You need to say this explicitly, because people usually think otherwise. Do I need to send you a random Trump speech to prove it to you, that you just moved the goalpost?

by ethbr0 5y ago

philosopher1234 5y ago

People do not evaluate speech based on its truth, they evaluate it based on its authority, which is a function of many things (including, in eg twitters case, popularity). Fighting battles over whos speech should be afforded the biggest stage makes a huge difference in debate.

popcube 5y ago
yes, if you put a flat-earther and a scientist in one debate, people just thinking that 'oh, maybe earth is flat!'
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  You’re joking, but if the flat earther was a New York Times journalist they would.
  - popcube 5y ago
    the problem is, if they hold an 'debate', this will make people trust there are some enough to debate
    - leaflets2 5y ago
      Yes, or if they write what a dictator says (eg Putin) then people read it and think "hmm the newspapers report that he said this, so it must be important, maybe it's true" And in that way the dictators can fool the citizens in democratic countries via their own newspapers
- leaflets2 5y ago

ruszki 5y ago

> The sole exceptions probably being speech that inspires imminent action to violate any person's individual rights (e.g. violence) or that has an imminent or fundamental threat to bring about a change in government to one which does not allow, support, and respect free speech. Why do you cut the line there? What evidence do you have to include or not include these or other things? How do you define violence? Is causing brain damage violence? AFAIK it's possible to do that only by speech. I've never seen an argument which wouldn't be possible to be phrased a way by which it wouldn't be "heresy", and include everything which isn't about changing others' feelings. For example, immigration. Almost 100% of useful arguments about immigration are not "heresies". The problem is when somebody is against immigration, and "forget" to mention that they opinion can cause death. Useful arguments don't "forget" this.

blub 5y ago
Yes, causing brain damage is violence. No, speech can not cause brain damage. Unless inaction or speech is directly and unmistakeable the cause of someone’s death, then they cannot be held responsible for that death and trying to do so is just an attempt at manipulation.
- ruszki 5y ago
  > speech can not cause brain damage https://www.verywellmind.com/childhood-abuse-changes-the-brain-2330401 https://www.verywellmind.com/childhood-abuse-changes-the-bra... This states clearly otherwise.
  - blub 5y ago
    Child abuse is not speech… I don’t understand how it is even necessary to explicitly say this. :-/
    - ruszki 5y ago
      So it's not possible to insult or threaten somebody - or in this case a child - during a speech according to you. You need to say this explicitly, because people usually think otherwise. Do I need to send you a random Trump speech to prove it to you, that you just moved the goalpost?