3 ms·

I think about it in terms of pro- and anti-social speech. Free speech is about pro-social speech, not anti-social. The way I see it, people conflate the two typ

I think about it in terms of pro- and anti-social speech. Free speech is about pro-social speech, not anti-social. The way I see it, people conflate the two types of speech. Citizens arguing about ugly topics like identity politics, conspiracies, coverups, etc. are de-facto pro-social - they are trying to sway public opinion on political issues, ostensibly to make their society better. It becomes anti-social when those arguments are being pushed by outside parties (Russian/Chinese/corpo propaganda) or grifters. Pro-social speech can also become anti-social when people get too heated and start attacking others based on their beliefs. It's difficult to deal with speech that is both pro- and anti-social, in terms of trying to convey a sincere argument while also being toxic to those who don't agree. In cases like that, "rules of engagement" or a code of conduct should be implemented. Anti-social speech is to say things without the goal of construction/progress, but instead with the goal of destruction or abuse. Spam and porn are anti-social in certain contexts and are treated as such, the same way drug use and swearing is (or maybe used to be). Assuming you believe in the thesis that free speech prevents social collapse and totalitarianism, then it doesn't matter whether you disagree with or even hate certain arguments/views, if they are sincere then they are pro-social and should be given some platform to be heard and interacted with in the mainstream.

UncleMeat 4y ago
And yet, organizations like FIRE will happily defend the "speech rights" of TPUSA students who take a class taught by one of my trans friends over and over just so they can write hate speech in legally protected coursework with the full intention of failing the course.
- prohobo 4y ago
  In what manner were they doing this? ie. were the students making counter-arguments during the course in a civil manner, or were they attacking the professor in an abusive manner? I'm assuming what they did was something like write "There are only two genders" in an exam paper as a form of protest. If that's the case then I'd say what they're expressing is pro-social, but they're doing it in an anti-social manner, and should have been reprimanded on that basis. And, assuming again that that's what happened, then it's definitely not "hate speech" - which is exactly what I just tried to differentiate in my previous comment. But reading about this case, it seems that FIRE was trying to get TPUSA to be allowed as a student group on campus: https://apnews.com/article/scranton-28d927628ee14bf5aefbaaa72d9d9fa6 https://apnews.com/article/scranton-28d927628ee14bf5aefbaaa7... There's nothing there about them trying to defend students joining courses and being toxic in them.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    No. They would write considerably more extreme things than that. This isn't taking place in course discussion. The course has nothing to do with trans people. They take a course in a topic they do not care about that is taught by a trans person (or a gay person or a woman). They deliberately write statements specifically targeting the status of the professor in an extreme way but in legally protected places. They do this in an attempt to get the professor to react in some manner so they can sue to school for discrimination against conservative students. They are clearly coached by a legal team because 18 year olds do not actually understand the precise legal boundaries they can walk up to.
    - prohobo 4y ago
      Then yeah, that seems totally anti-social and should be shut down.
efitz 4y ago
I think this is the dangerous opinion that led us down the censorship path that the article is decrying. “Pro-social” and “anti-social” are subjective, not objective. To a religious conservative, it would be pro-social to say “marriage should only be between one man and one woman”. To many progressives, this would be “anti-social”. Here’s a conundrum. Is “we should kill all nazis” pro-social or anti-social? On its face it seems to promote violence, so maybe anti-social, but the people it’s targeted at themselves support horrific views. As a Gen X libertarian, I am pretty much a free speech absolutist (I support minimal legal limits such as CSAM because there must have been victimization involved). It boggles my mind that so many young people today don’t support free speech; tides of culture and government change and if you allow free speech to slip away when trends support suppressing ideas you oppose, it won’t be there for you when ideas that you support are in the crosshairs.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  AFAIK Musk has also characterized himself as a free speech absolutist but has now re-suspended Ye. I’d be curious to hear whether you think that this suspension is compatible with free speech absolutism? Put differently, was Musk simply marketing himself as an absolutist (to win over following) but is in reality a pragmatist, willing to bend his stance when he views it in his own or society’s best interest?
  - seanw444 4y ago
    Yes. That much was obvious when he kept Alex Jones banned over an anecdote. It's more of a marketing tactic, not an exercise of morals. If liberals already hate Elon, then the best course of action is for him to pander predominantly to people on the right. Right now, the best way to do that is by advertising free speech.
  - efitz 4y ago
    For now, Twitter can ban whoever it wants, but I don't think that banning Ye really aligns with free speech absolutism. Mandatory disclaimer: I found Ye's comments highly offensive (and stupid), but that is not my standard for censorship.

UncleMeat 4y ago

And yet, organizations like FIRE will happily defend the "speech rights" of TPUSA students who take a class taught by one of my trans friends over and over just so they can write hate speech in legally protected coursework with the full intention of failing the course.

prohobo 4y ago
In what manner were they doing this? ie. were the students making counter-arguments during the course in a civil manner, or were they attacking the professor in an abusive manner? I'm assuming what they did was something like write "There are only two genders" in an exam paper as a form of protest. If that's the case then I'd say what they're expressing is pro-social, but they're doing it in an anti-social manner, and should have been reprimanded on that basis. And, assuming again that that's what happened, then it's definitely not "hate speech" - which is exactly what I just tried to differentiate in my previous comment. But reading about this case, it seems that FIRE was trying to get TPUSA to be allowed as a student group on campus: https://apnews.com/article/scranton-28d927628ee14bf5aefbaaa72d9d9fa6 https://apnews.com/article/scranton-28d927628ee14bf5aefbaaa7... There's nothing there about them trying to defend students joining courses and being toxic in them.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  No. They would write considerably more extreme things than that. This isn't taking place in course discussion. The course has nothing to do with trans people. They take a course in a topic they do not care about that is taught by a trans person (or a gay person or a woman). They deliberately write statements specifically targeting the status of the professor in an extreme way but in legally protected places. They do this in an attempt to get the professor to react in some manner so they can sue to school for discrimination against conservative students. They are clearly coached by a legal team because 18 year olds do not actually understand the precise legal boundaries they can walk up to.
  - prohobo 4y ago
    Then yeah, that seems totally anti-social and should be shut down.

efitz 4y ago

I think this is the dangerous opinion that led us down the censorship path that the article is decrying. “Pro-social” and “anti-social” are subjective, not objective. To a religious conservative, it would be pro-social to say “marriage should only be between one man and one woman”. To many progressives, this would be “anti-social”. Here’s a conundrum. Is “we should kill all nazis” pro-social or anti-social? On its face it seems to promote violence, so maybe anti-social, but the people it’s targeted at themselves support horrific views. As a Gen X libertarian, I am pretty much a free speech absolutist (I support minimal legal limits such as CSAM because there must have been victimization involved). It boggles my mind that so many young people today don’t support free speech; tides of culture and government change and if you allow free speech to slip away when trends support suppressing ideas you oppose, it won’t be there for you when ideas that you support are in the crosshairs.

andsoitis 4y ago
AFAIK Musk has also characterized himself as a free speech absolutist but has now re-suspended Ye. I’d be curious to hear whether you think that this suspension is compatible with free speech absolutism? Put differently, was Musk simply marketing himself as an absolutist (to win over following) but is in reality a pragmatist, willing to bend his stance when he views it in his own or society’s best interest?
- seanw444 4y ago
  Yes. That much was obvious when he kept Alex Jones banned over an anecdote. It's more of a marketing tactic, not an exercise of morals. If liberals already hate Elon, then the best course of action is for him to pander predominantly to people on the right. Right now, the best way to do that is by advertising free speech.
- efitz 4y ago
  For now, Twitter can ban whoever it wants, but I don't think that banning Ye really aligns with free speech absolutism. Mandatory disclaimer: I found Ye's comments highly offensive (and stupid), but that is not my standard for censorship.