5 ms·

It depends on the things you want to say and where you say them. In most countries, even the US, free speech has limitations. If you stay within the law you ar

It depends on the things you want to say and where you say them. In most countries, even the US, free speech has limitations. If you stay within the law you are totally fine to say whatever you want, but it's a fuck around and find out situation, there might be consequences. If you say wild shit at work your employer might rethink your position, if you say wild shit to your friends they might not appreciate your company anymore, if you say wild shit online the platform might remove it. This is imo fair, you get to make your decisions, others can make theirs. "Questioning a narrative" sounds innocent, but can certainly be used in hateful and malicious ways. The same rules apply; you can likely say it, but people might not appreciate it, and that's ok. Often "I want to say controversial things" is a way to say "I want to say hateful things". The tolerance for hate speech is decreasing and hopefully will decrease further, which is great. If that applies to your situation (and I'm not saying it does), I suggest you question your narrative a bit more. If it's not about hate speech you can absolutely discuss controversial takes, given that the other people are willing to hear about them and you have some decent arguments to back them up. I have plenty of controversial coding and design takes, nobody ever even tried to censor me, and some even agree!

dustedcodes 4y ago
People like you are literally the enemy of free speech. Controversial things are not hateful things, that’s why it’s called controversial in the first place and not hateful. Labelling things which go against the mainstream narrative as possibly hateful is a huge jump to make out of nowhere and really does nothing good other than trying to suppress any critical thinking.
- DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
  I think you just mistook the quote for the opinion. Parent wanted to express that "some people say that their words are 'controversial' and therefore OK when in truth their words qualify as hate speech". It is the trolls and so on who mislabel things, a practice the parent disapproves of, and rightly so.
- codeptualize 4y ago
  I did not make that jump, I said "often" controversial is used for hateful speech which is true, and I specifically clarified that I was not assuming this was the case here. The reason I had to include it is that the original comment refers to "censorship", doesn't mean it is, but it's not that far fetched to think it could be. That distinction is relevant to the question as the reaction to a controversial take, something that's likely to cause disagreement, is very different from the reaction to hateful speech. If it's not the case here; great! If you read the rest of my comment I mostly say it's totally fine to have controversial opinions. At the end, albeit in jest, I even refer to my own controversies. It is true though, I often disagree with people on many topics, but I have not been censored. My main point through all of it is that free speech is not free from consequences, everything one does has consequences, positive or negative. Expecting everyone to just embrace and except everything is just not realistic also not fair. Say what you need to say, but also expect people to react.
spoiler 4y ago
> Often "I want to say controversial things" is a way to say "I want to say hateful things". The tolerance for hate speech is decreasing and hopefully will decrease further, which is great. If that applies to your situation (and I'm not saying it does), I suggest you question your narrative a bit more I agree with this sentiment. I also think that it's good that tolerance for hate speech is on a rapid decline. However, there's this recent trend that anytime someone doesn't like a topic, they claim it's hate speech and equally hypersensitive people[1] flock to crate a hate mob. I've seen a children's book author trying to start a conversation about incredibly nuanced topics be accused of hate speech, and called a "vile hateful person", sent death threats (which is somehow acceptable and encouraged??), and attempts to cancel them. Everything they said was perversely twisted to the point it was outright lies, etc. Which is just trading one form of hate and intolerance for another, IMO. (Aside: I'm very close to the topic in question and was appalled and ashamed of my community's reaction) Seems like we keep yo-yoing from one hate trend to the other. It's ironic how much self awareness we lack collectively as a species, considering we prides ourselves on our heightened self awareness amongst other creatures we share the planet with. People suck. [1]: I'm not trying to offend. Some people just haven't learned adequate coping skills in childhood. That's a bit endemic lately due to rapid lifestyle changes that are happening for the past few generations... and parenting quality took a major hit in that process. However, people need to learn coping skills; we can't expect everyone else to cope for us instead.
- codeptualize 4y ago
  I think on the surface I agree. Hate mobs doesn't sound great and death threats are simply illegal and should be prosecuted. If it is in fact all lies etc, then sure. But, I do think this is often exaggerated, and a lot of times "start a conversation about incredibly nuanced topics" might not be so nuanced and in fact hateful, look at dog whistles for example. That there is no tolerance for intolerance is kinda necessary (paradox of tolerance). Idk the case you are referring to so can't say if that's relevant to this situation or not. I do strongly disagree that people suck. My experience with people is that generally they mean well, try to live their best live, and wish well on others, even if they might disagree on some things. A good test is to just think about the people you interact with day to day in real life, not tv, not twitter, not whatever. That's reality.
conradfr 4y ago
I really wonder how the battle against the nebulous "hate speech" became so widespread almost instantly in the Western world. It's nice on the surface (who likes "hate"?) but I think it causes too much self-censorship and a weakened society in the long term.
- Silverback_VII 4y ago
  hate speech is simply a magic wand that is used to silence inconvenient voices. The same people who wield the wand are also pushing the world to the edge of destruction.
- codeptualize 4y ago
  It's because generally people want everyone to just be able to live their lives and not get discriminated, bullied, or even physically harmed for who they are, what they believe in, where they come from, or who they love. Things you can not influence, things you can not change, things that do not harm others. The intolerance towards intolerant is necessary for that to happen, which explains the battle. People censoring themselves to not be hateful might honestly be a good thing, maybe they should figure out where those thoughts come from and if they should reconsider them. I would advocate for them to get help, therapy, social support, whatever they struggle with. I think being caring and empathetic strengthens society in the short and long term.
- krapp 4y ago
  > I really wonder how the battle against the nebulous "hate speech" became so widespread almost instantly in the Western world. Because some asshole Austrian speechified a country into burning down half of Europe and killing millions of Jews, and after a whole ass world war the Western world - the parts that actually had to rebuild their societies from the ashes, not the US, for whom the war and Nazism in particular were more business opportunities than anything - decided that even free speech needed to have limits. edit: of course the US has limits on free speech as well, just not for "hate speech" per se.
  - conradfr 4y ago

dustedcodes 4y ago

People like you are literally the enemy of free speech. Controversial things are not hateful things, that’s why it’s called controversial in the first place and not hateful. Labelling things which go against the mainstream narrative as possibly hateful is a huge jump to make out of nowhere and really does nothing good other than trying to suppress any critical thinking.

DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
I think you just mistook the quote for the opinion. Parent wanted to express that "some people say that their words are 'controversial' and therefore OK when in truth their words qualify as hate speech". It is the trolls and so on who mislabel things, a practice the parent disapproves of, and rightly so.
codeptualize 4y ago
I did not make that jump, I said "often" controversial is used for hateful speech which is true, and I specifically clarified that I was not assuming this was the case here. The reason I had to include it is that the original comment refers to "censorship", doesn't mean it is, but it's not that far fetched to think it could be. That distinction is relevant to the question as the reaction to a controversial take, something that's likely to cause disagreement, is very different from the reaction to hateful speech. If it's not the case here; great! If you read the rest of my comment I mostly say it's totally fine to have controversial opinions. At the end, albeit in jest, I even refer to my own controversies. It is true though, I often disagree with people on many topics, but I have not been censored. My main point through all of it is that free speech is not free from consequences, everything one does has consequences, positive or negative. Expecting everyone to just embrace and except everything is just not realistic also not fair. Say what you need to say, but also expect people to react.

spoiler 4y ago

> Often "I want to say controversial things" is a way to say "I want to say hateful things". The tolerance for hate speech is decreasing and hopefully will decrease further, which is great. If that applies to your situation (and I'm not saying it does), I suggest you question your narrative a bit more I agree with this sentiment. I also think that it's good that tolerance for hate speech is on a rapid decline. However, there's this recent trend that anytime someone doesn't like a topic, they claim it's hate speech and equally hypersensitive people[1] flock to crate a hate mob. I've seen a children's book author trying to start a conversation about incredibly nuanced topics be accused of hate speech, and called a "vile hateful person", sent death threats (which is somehow acceptable and encouraged??), and attempts to cancel them. Everything they said was perversely twisted to the point it was outright lies, etc. Which is just trading one form of hate and intolerance for another, IMO. (Aside: I'm very close to the topic in question and was appalled and ashamed of my community's reaction) Seems like we keep yo-yoing from one hate trend to the other. It's ironic how much self awareness we lack collectively as a species, considering we prides ourselves on our heightened self awareness amongst other creatures we share the planet with. People suck. [1]: I'm not trying to offend. Some people just haven't learned adequate coping skills in childhood. That's a bit endemic lately due to rapid lifestyle changes that are happening for the past few generations... and parenting quality took a major hit in that process. However, people need to learn coping skills; we can't expect everyone else to cope for us instead.

codeptualize 4y ago
I think on the surface I agree. Hate mobs doesn't sound great and death threats are simply illegal and should be prosecuted. If it is in fact all lies etc, then sure. But, I do think this is often exaggerated, and a lot of times "start a conversation about incredibly nuanced topics" might not be so nuanced and in fact hateful, look at dog whistles for example. That there is no tolerance for intolerance is kinda necessary (paradox of tolerance). Idk the case you are referring to so can't say if that's relevant to this situation or not. I do strongly disagree that people suck. My experience with people is that generally they mean well, try to live their best live, and wish well on others, even if they might disagree on some things. A good test is to just think about the people you interact with day to day in real life, not tv, not twitter, not whatever. That's reality.

conradfr 4y ago

I really wonder how the battle against the nebulous "hate speech" became so widespread almost instantly in the Western world. It's nice on the surface (who likes "hate"?) but I think it causes too much self-censorship and a weakened society in the long term.

Silverback_VII 4y ago
hate speech is simply a magic wand that is used to silence inconvenient voices. The same people who wield the wand are also pushing the world to the edge of destruction.
codeptualize 4y ago
It's because generally people want everyone to just be able to live their lives and not get discriminated, bullied, or even physically harmed for who they are, what they believe in, where they come from, or who they love. Things you can not influence, things you can not change, things that do not harm others. The intolerance towards intolerant is necessary for that to happen, which explains the battle. People censoring themselves to not be hateful might honestly be a good thing, maybe they should figure out where those thoughts come from and if they should reconsider them. I would advocate for them to get help, therapy, social support, whatever they struggle with. I think being caring and empathetic strengthens society in the short and long term.
krapp 4y ago
> I really wonder how the battle against the nebulous "hate speech" became so widespread almost instantly in the Western world. Because some asshole Austrian speechified a country into burning down half of Europe and killing millions of Jews, and after a whole ass world war the Western world - the parts that actually had to rebuild their societies from the ashes, not the US, for whom the war and Nazism in particular were more business opportunities than anything - decided that even free speech needed to have limits. edit: of course the US has limits on free speech as well, just not for "hate speech" per se.
- conradfr 4y ago