3 ms·

Although I agree with much of what he says, it seems like Rowan Atkinson is unfamiliar with Popper's Paradox of Intolerance. He easily brushes it away as if it

by mcv 3y ago

Although I agree with much of what he says, it seems like Rowan Atkinson is unfamiliar with Popper's Paradox of Intolerance. He easily brushes it away as if it can't stand up to 5 seconds of thought, but I'm pretty sure Karl Popper (undeniably a smart guy) put more than 5 minutes of thought into it.

mock-possum 3y ago
yeah I thought the subject deserved more consideration on his part - I mean Popper's got a point. For him to just be like "oh that's obviously wrong moving right along" really doesn't deal with it seriously. Because the real underlying question here, at least as far as I'm concerned, is - is Free Speech good to a fault? Like you can easily think of ways to use free speech to harass, and to hurt, and to threaten, to manipulate - the more clever you are about it, the less straightforward it is for others to identify it when you're doing it. Is free speech really so important that abusers and trolls are given a free pass to continue their work, so long as they constrain it to the realm of speech?
- kaba0 3y ago
  > Is free speech really so important that abusers and trolls are given a free pass to continue their work, so long as they constrain it to the realm of speech? Especially when said speech is often followed up by action by someone else.
  - mcv 3y ago
    Exactly. Free speech has always had limits. Threats are speech, yet illegal, for good reason. Same goes for blackmail, slander, and probably more. I think it makes a lot of sense to treat speech that riles people up against a specific, vulnerable demographic, in a similar way. Because we've seen what it can lead to, and we still occasionally see people act on it today. To claim that they were acting on their own and not at all influenced by the environment of hate speech around them, would be dishonest and blind. Unfortunately the edges between such hate speech and legitimate insult can be blurry, and maybe we should make that distinction more clear.

by mcv 3y ago

mock-possum 3y ago

yeah I thought the subject deserved more consideration on his part - I mean Popper's got a point. For him to just be like "oh that's obviously wrong moving right along" really doesn't deal with it seriously. Because the real underlying question here, at least as far as I'm concerned, is - is Free Speech good to a fault? Like you can easily think of ways to use free speech to harass, and to hurt, and to threaten, to manipulate - the more clever you are about it, the less straightforward it is for others to identify it when you're doing it. Is free speech really so important that abusers and trolls are given a free pass to continue their work, so long as they constrain it to the realm of speech?

kaba0 3y ago
> Is free speech really so important that abusers and trolls are given a free pass to continue their work, so long as they constrain it to the realm of speech? Especially when said speech is often followed up by action by someone else.
- mcv 3y ago
  Exactly. Free speech has always had limits. Threats are speech, yet illegal, for good reason. Same goes for blackmail, slander, and probably more. I think it makes a lot of sense to treat speech that riles people up against a specific, vulnerable demographic, in a similar way. Because we've seen what it can lead to, and we still occasionally see people act on it today. To claim that they were acting on their own and not at all influenced by the environment of hate speech around them, would be dishonest and blind. Unfortunately the edges between such hate speech and legitimate insult can be blurry, and maybe we should make that distinction more clear.