5 ms·

You've set up your own false dichotomy, and have done it in literally the next sentence after accusing someone else of doing the same. Amazing. The situation i

You've set up your own false dichotomy, and have done it in literally the next sentence after accusing someone else of doing the same. Amazing. The situation is nuanced. It's not black and white–it's not easy. There is some balance to be struck on free speech. Some speech should be protected (dissent against the government), some should be forbidden (inciting a riot), and it's a thorny ever evolving problem to figure out what exactly defines those terms.

robertlagrant 5y ago
You have not demonstrated a false dichotomy. Even inciting a riot doesn't have to be forbidden. Rioting itself is the problem, not talking about rioting. We may decide it's better to not allow rioting speech, but that doesn't make it a false dichotomy.
- DaltonCoffee 5y ago
  I think he means this bit: >you can either have ... In the real world those are your only two options
spiderice 5y ago
I'm not sure it is a _false_ dichotomy though. GP is basically saying there are two options. 1. Absolute free speech 2. People who have the power to censor, and abuse it You're basically just adding a third option 3. People who have the power to censor, and don't abuse it. I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation. edit: formatting
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  >I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation. I think many people would argue that #3 is not impossible, or an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree power is always being abused in #2. In which case, GP's original 2 options are indeed a false dichotomy, rather than the reality of the situation.
- ss108 5y ago
  Wouldn't the very situation of a platform like Twitter censoring or moderating the speech on the platform represent a kind of middle-ground? It's a private company, and one can start another one that caters to a different crowd (see Parler or w/e). The government is in no position to stop that, and nobody in this thread is arguing they be given such power. As far as truly public spaces go, the law still allows all speech. Government can't stop someone from voicing their opinion at a public meeting based on content, etc. Even if it's Covid misinformation or something.
cwkoss 5y ago
That wont work. Any time there is a riot, the government can claim it was incited by the dissenters they wished they could prosecute directly.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  they already can, and don't, so that settles that

robertlagrant 5y ago

You have not demonstrated a false dichotomy. Even inciting a riot doesn't have to be forbidden. Rioting itself is the problem, not talking about rioting. We may decide it's better to not allow rioting speech, but that doesn't make it a false dichotomy.

DaltonCoffee 5y ago
I think he means this bit: >you can either have ... In the real world those are your only two options

spiderice 5y ago

I'm not sure it is a _false_ dichotomy though. GP is basically saying there are two options. 1. Absolute free speech 2. People who have the power to censor, and abuse it You're basically just adding a third option 3. People who have the power to censor, and don't abuse it. I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation. edit: formatting

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
>I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation. I think many people would argue that #3 is not impossible, or an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree power is always being abused in #2. In which case, GP's original 2 options are indeed a false dichotomy, rather than the reality of the situation.
ss108 5y ago
Wouldn't the very situation of a platform like Twitter censoring or moderating the speech on the platform represent a kind of middle-ground? It's a private company, and one can start another one that caters to a different crowd (see Parler or w/e). The government is in no position to stop that, and nobody in this thread is arguing they be given such power. As far as truly public spaces go, the law still allows all speech. Government can't stop someone from voicing their opinion at a public meeting based on content, etc. Even if it's Covid misinformation or something.

cwkoss 5y ago

That wont work. Any time there is a riot, the government can claim it was incited by the dissenters they wished they could prosecute directly.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
they already can, and don't, so that settles that