4 ms·

Isn't the government through law and police the entity that encodes and enforces the current set of moral values of a society? When same-sex relations were deem

Isn't the government through law and police the entity that encodes and enforces the current set of moral values of a society? When same-sex relations were deemed imoral in less refined times the police would arrest people for that. Now we understand as a society that we can't tolerate repressive ideologies like fascism and so it falls upon the government the burden of repressing and regulating the use of symbols in the context of promoting such ideologies. What other institution would do this instead of the government? Because having no form of regulation is in my opinion not viable. Just think of it for a second. No regulation is a double edge knife. Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. So lacking a better option, the government fills this gap. If that is not acceptable to you, you should come up with alternatives other than unlimited freedom.

vorpalhex 4y ago
> Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. Yep, I get all kinds of really mean things said to me. Sometimes I even get upset by them. I don't feel a need to arrest and jail the people saying those mean things.
- gchamonlive 4y ago
  You get just "upset" with fascism?
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    By fascism do you mean some guy on the internet posting things? What, precisely, do you mean here?
  - bakugo 4y ago
    Someone posting a meme on the internet is not fascism. Please go outside.
    - gchamonlive 4y ago
      You should start reading parent threads before writing nonsense. If you read my original comment you would see I was talking about general ideas, not this specific case.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Argumentum ad absurdum.
pdonis 4y ago
> we can't tolerate repressive ideologies like fascism and so it falls upon the government the burden of repressing and regulating the use of symbols in the context of promoting such ideologies. So we don't like repression, so we use repression? That doesn't make sense. The way to counter speech that promotes ideologies you think are bad is with more speech that explains why those ideologies are bad ones. Or even just reminds people that those ideologies are bad ones. It isn't to adopt the same techniques that those bad ideologies use. > What other institution would do this instead of the government? The obvious other way of regulating speech that some people find offensive or indecent is people's freedom of choice in social interaction. Don't interact with people who say things you find offensive or indecent. If the offensive or indecent things are in tweets, don't follow them on Twitter. > having no form of regulation is in my opinion not viable. There is no such thing as "no form of regulation". People already regulate their social interactions with other people. Adding government micromanagement on top of that does not really add any value. It just adds more ways for the government to mess with people. The idea underlying government regulation of speech seems to be that people should be protected from things that they might find offensive or indecent, because people are delicate snowflakes that can be damaged by such things and they aren't capable of just dealing with them using the normal tools of social interaction. For mature adults that idea is laughable. Part of being a mature adult is understanding that there are lots of things in the world that are not the way you would like them to be and dealing with it, and not invoking Higher Authority every time you don't like something.
- gchamonlive 4y ago
  > So we don't like repression, so we use repression? That doesn't make sense. Why doesn't it? I can see the irony of course but that doesn't automatically explain it. If the boundaries of a tolerant society are clearly defined, any form of repression towards emergent intolerant ideologies outside the scope of such society are valid and won't jeopardize it because of such scope. > The way to counter speech that promotes ideologies you think are bad is with more speech that explains why those ideologies are bad ones. That process is viable long term but not enough to protect people that might be in iminent danger, today, from groups like neo-nazis, racists or anti-lgbtq+. Society must account for that and protect those in iminent danger. > Don't interact with people who say things you find offensive or indecent. What about persecution? People that you try to get away from but will go out of their way to hurt you? That is again not enough, and if government resorts only to that it will expose vulnerable groups to hazard. > There is no such thing as "no form of regulation". People already regulate their social interactions with other people. Adding government micromanagement on top of that does not really add any value. It just adds more ways for the government to mess with people. That works on a micro-social scale, but not on a global scale, which is the kind of isonomy that is required for a functioning society. Government individuals can and have abused power, but I think those are two different issues, one being the scope of government action and the second power misuse and mismanagement. The later can happen even without a wider form of the former through corrupt operations. That is, even if we limit the scope of operation, if we don't elect good officials, they can still abuse power beyond this limited scope of action. > damaged by such things and they aren't capable of just dealing with them using the normal tools of social interaction. For mature adults that idea is laughable. That is a superiority fallacy that only distracts from the issue. Is *everyone* complaining about this a snowflake? Isn't there a slight possibility they might have some form os substance to their claims? If there is a small chance somebody is in distress we have to make sure we take this seriously. Sure you understand as a mature adult like yourself we are not talking about isolated incidents but actions that can be taken by society as a whole.

vorpalhex 4y ago

> Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. Yep, I get all kinds of really mean things said to me. Sometimes I even get upset by them. I don't feel a need to arrest and jail the people saying those mean things.

gchamonlive 4y ago
You get just "upset" with fascism?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  By fascism do you mean some guy on the internet posting things? What, precisely, do you mean here?
- bakugo 4y ago
  Someone posting a meme on the internet is not fascism. Please go outside.
  - gchamonlive 4y ago
    You should start reading parent threads before writing nonsense. If you read my original comment you would see I was talking about general ideas, not this specific case.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Argumentum ad absurdum.

pdonis 4y ago

> we can't tolerate repressive ideologies like fascism and so it falls upon the government the burden of repressing and regulating the use of symbols in the context of promoting such ideologies. So we don't like repression, so we use repression? That doesn't make sense. The way to counter speech that promotes ideologies you think are bad is with more speech that explains why those ideologies are bad ones. Or even just reminds people that those ideologies are bad ones. It isn't to adopt the same techniques that those bad ideologies use. > What other institution would do this instead of the government? The obvious other way of regulating speech that some people find offensive or indecent is people's freedom of choice in social interaction. Don't interact with people who say things you find offensive or indecent. If the offensive or indecent things are in tweets, don't follow them on Twitter. > having no form of regulation is in my opinion not viable. There is no such thing as "no form of regulation". People already regulate their social interactions with other people. Adding government micromanagement on top of that does not really add any value. It just adds more ways for the government to mess with people. The idea underlying government regulation of speech seems to be that people should be protected from things that they might find offensive or indecent, because people are delicate snowflakes that can be damaged by such things and they aren't capable of just dealing with them using the normal tools of social interaction. For mature adults that idea is laughable. Part of being a mature adult is understanding that there are lots of things in the world that are not the way you would like them to be and dealing with it, and not invoking Higher Authority every time you don't like something.

gchamonlive 4y ago
> So we don't like repression, so we use repression? That doesn't make sense. Why doesn't it? I can see the irony of course but that doesn't automatically explain it. If the boundaries of a tolerant society are clearly defined, any form of repression towards emergent intolerant ideologies outside the scope of such society are valid and won't jeopardize it because of such scope. > The way to counter speech that promotes ideologies you think are bad is with more speech that explains why those ideologies are bad ones. That process is viable long term but not enough to protect people that might be in iminent danger, today, from groups like neo-nazis, racists or anti-lgbtq+. Society must account for that and protect those in iminent danger. > Don't interact with people who say things you find offensive or indecent. What about persecution? People that you try to get away from but will go out of their way to hurt you? That is again not enough, and if government resorts only to that it will expose vulnerable groups to hazard. > There is no such thing as "no form of regulation". People already regulate their social interactions with other people. Adding government micromanagement on top of that does not really add any value. It just adds more ways for the government to mess with people. That works on a micro-social scale, but not on a global scale, which is the kind of isonomy that is required for a functioning society. Government individuals can and have abused power, but I think those are two different issues, one being the scope of government action and the second power misuse and mismanagement. The later can happen even without a wider form of the former through corrupt operations. That is, even if we limit the scope of operation, if we don't elect good officials, they can still abuse power beyond this limited scope of action. > damaged by such things and they aren't capable of just dealing with them using the normal tools of social interaction. For mature adults that idea is laughable. That is a superiority fallacy that only distracts from the issue. Is *everyone* complaining about this a snowflake? Isn't there a slight possibility they might have some form os substance to their claims? If there is a small chance somebody is in distress we have to make sure we take this seriously. Sure you understand as a mature adult like yourself we are not talking about isolated incidents but actions that can be taken by society as a whole.