3 ms·

This underscores is the hilariously hypocritical nature of these arguments: "my property rights give me the right to deny others their property rights" It's ve

This underscores is the hilariously hypocritical nature of these arguments: "my property rights give me the right to deny others their property rights" It's very much like the "first speaker" issue with free speech "advocates"; somehow the first homeowner/speaker has greater rights than the newer homeowner/speaker. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking sometimes.

salawat 4y ago
>It's very much like the "first speaker" issue with free speech "advocates"; somehow the first homeowner/speaker has greater rights than the newer homeowner/speaker. Got an example there? Not sure I'm following.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  The "first speaker" has free speech, but if you use your free speech to criticize my speech, you're censoring me ("cancel culture") and depriving me of my free speech, so the "second speaker" does not have a right to free speech. Example: Dave Chappelle makes a joke about trans people, other people criticize Chappelle and vow to boycott Netflix. Those are BOTH free speech but a lot of people think Chappelle's free speech rights should take priority over his critics. To be clear, I believe Chappelle has the right to make trans jokes and I also believe he has brain worms about the issue and has become distinctly unfunny because of it.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Mmmmkay. I see where you're going. But I don't think > but if you use your free speech to criticize my speech, you're censoring me ("cancel culture") and depriving me of my free speech, so the "second speaker" does not have a right to free speech. entirely follows; in particular since the hallmark of "cancel culture tends to be communicating with other people to orchestrate action or dissociation of the one of the speakers from society. It seems much closer to something akin to the practice of industrial blacklisting/secondary striking in employment/labor reltions law. In that you're using speech to command/coordinate a group to force an action or change in circumstance on someone else. I'm not saying mind, that even those and similar activities don't have a place, but they are examples of "patterns of speech elevated to action", and thereby removed from the arena of "free speech", and firmly plopped in the "freedom of association"/situationally labelled and verboten bucket. The spirit of free speech is you are free to voice things without the threat of government force gagging you, or compelling you to say otherwise. Now... Where is the dividing line between the "Government" and "a sufficiently large group of people that there is warranted a stepping in and reminder that "if a government employee eould be specifically restricted from keeping you from saying this then mayhaps as a very large group of citizens it warrants the same consideration of restraint; as we've all got a vested interest in not windi g up on the wrong side of a snowball network effect"... That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
- medler 4y ago
  A lot of self-proclaimed free-speech advocates believe it is illiberal to criticize them. For example, say I give a speech and people criticize me for it. If I then say “I’m practicing free speech. My critics are against free speech” then it’s like I’m saying that only the first person to speak is allowed free speech; everyone else needs to shut up. It sounds silly in this example but this is an extremely common rhetorical technique.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Indeed. The rhetorical technique is frustrating, but there is a clear dividing line between exercising free speech, and coordinating with enough people to facilitate a societal ostracization. In one, a party is availing themselves of making a point; adding something to the intellectual crock pot, if you will. The other is essentially working the room to prevent a party in particular from doing so at all. I do not think anyone can reasonably argue that someone 'gathering up the boys to defenestrate someone with an odious opinion' is merely a good faith "exercising of free speech". But again, at that point we're starting to argue about something other than free speech, and more representing enforcement of the Overton window, and what everyone is comfortable with counting as reasonable to be an outcome of being found to be outside it.

salawat 4y ago

>It's very much like the "first speaker" issue with free speech "advocates"; somehow the first homeowner/speaker has greater rights than the newer homeowner/speaker. Got an example there? Not sure I'm following.

Ensorceled 4y ago
The "first speaker" has free speech, but if you use your free speech to criticize my speech, you're censoring me ("cancel culture") and depriving me of my free speech, so the "second speaker" does not have a right to free speech. Example: Dave Chappelle makes a joke about trans people, other people criticize Chappelle and vow to boycott Netflix. Those are BOTH free speech but a lot of people think Chappelle's free speech rights should take priority over his critics. To be clear, I believe Chappelle has the right to make trans jokes and I also believe he has brain worms about the issue and has become distinctly unfunny because of it.
- salawat 4y ago
  Mmmmkay. I see where you're going. But I don't think > but if you use your free speech to criticize my speech, you're censoring me ("cancel culture") and depriving me of my free speech, so the "second speaker" does not have a right to free speech. entirely follows; in particular since the hallmark of "cancel culture tends to be communicating with other people to orchestrate action or dissociation of the one of the speakers from society. It seems much closer to something akin to the practice of industrial blacklisting/secondary striking in employment/labor reltions law. In that you're using speech to command/coordinate a group to force an action or change in circumstance on someone else. I'm not saying mind, that even those and similar activities don't have a place, but they are examples of "patterns of speech elevated to action", and thereby removed from the arena of "free speech", and firmly plopped in the "freedom of association"/situationally labelled and verboten bucket. The spirit of free speech is you are free to voice things without the threat of government force gagging you, or compelling you to say otherwise. Now... Where is the dividing line between the "Government" and "a sufficiently large group of people that there is warranted a stepping in and reminder that "if a government employee eould be specifically restricted from keeping you from saying this then mayhaps as a very large group of citizens it warrants the same consideration of restraint; as we've all got a vested interest in not windi g up on the wrong side of a snowball network effect"... That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
medler 4y ago
A lot of self-proclaimed free-speech advocates believe it is illiberal to criticize them. For example, say I give a speech and people criticize me for it. If I then say “I’m practicing free speech. My critics are against free speech” then it’s like I’m saying that only the first person to speak is allowed free speech; everyone else needs to shut up. It sounds silly in this example but this is an extremely common rhetorical technique.
- salawat 4y ago
  Indeed. The rhetorical technique is frustrating, but there is a clear dividing line between exercising free speech, and coordinating with enough people to facilitate a societal ostracization. In one, a party is availing themselves of making a point; adding something to the intellectual crock pot, if you will. The other is essentially working the room to prevent a party in particular from doing so at all. I do not think anyone can reasonably argue that someone 'gathering up the boys to defenestrate someone with an odious opinion' is merely a good faith "exercising of free speech". But again, at that point we're starting to argue about something other than free speech, and more representing enforcement of the Overton window, and what everyone is comfortable with counting as reasonable to be an outcome of being found to be outside it.