4 ms·

So, should we introduce freedom from consequences then?

lelanthran 3y ago
> So, should we introduce freedom from consequences then? I upvoted you because you make a good point with that question. However, my point is that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is a meaningful expression used primarily by people who want to police the thoughts of everyone. My point is not that everyone should be forced to associate with everyone else. IOW, that expression is useful as an indicator that an individual is in a mob.
gadders 3y ago
The only consequence to speech you don't like should be more speech opposing it. (Unless the speech is completely illegal such as a credible threat or encouragement of violence).
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  How direct of an encouragement? If it has to be all the way to illegal then I can't refuse business to KKK members? Or even KKK leadership?
  - johngladtj 3y ago
    Why don't we flip it around? Whenever you think of something, ask yourself this "Would I be in favor of the KKK being able to do this to black people?" If the answer is no, then you shouldn't be in favor of doing it to the KKK. Replace either of those groups with whichever groups are relevant and emotionally impactful to you.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Lol no. People aren't born KKK. This is tolerance 101.
      - Levitz 3y ago
        The idea that tolerance 101 is about who you are able to discriminate is quite amusing. Especially in a thread about Orwell, doublethink and all that. Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent. You are supposed to trust that worthwhile ideas prevail while the rest don't. That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > The idea that tolerance 101 is about who you are able to discriminate is quite amusing. Especially in a thread about Orwell, doublethink and all that. "discrimination" in the literal sense isn't bad, it's just making choices. The amusement stems from the very different things people mean when they say "discrimination". And being clear about what people mean with these terms is part of the 101. But more relevantly, I didn't use that word, which is a very easy way to avoid any possible doublethink related to it! > That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over. I didn't say I want them to hide their ideas. I don't. > Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent. Respect what, specifically? I respect their ability to speak. Do I need to go beyond that?
        momirlan 3y ago
        their ability to speak doesn't depend no your acceptance. their right to speak is what we're talking about
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        With a quippy line like that, without defining terms, we've gone in a circle back to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37131479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37131479 Anyway in this scenario do I have to allow customers to personally insult me too if I want to maintain free speech, or is that different from saying that groups deserve nothing and stole everything they have?
Levitz 3y ago
If freedom of speech is anything, that's freedom from consequences, it doesn't have any other meaning. Even in the most repressive state you can definitely say anything, it's the consequences for saying it that make the difference. The first amendment of the US protects citizens from consequences from the state. There is a related discussion to be had about social media and reach, but it pales in comparison to how easily people tend to dismiss freedom of speech. It's rather fitting that the expression "Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences" is so Orwellian.
arrowsmith 3y ago
Yes, freedom of speech is freedom from certain kinds of consequences. What else could it possibly be? As the old Soviet joke goes: people in the USSR had freedom of speech too, but they could only use it once.
1MachineElf 3y ago
No. Simply change the consequences.

> So, should we introduce freedom from consequences then? I upvoted you because you make a good point with that question. However, my point is that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is a meaningful expression used primarily by people who want to police the thoughts of everyone. My point is not that everyone should be forced to associate with everyone else. IOW, that expression is useful as an indicator that an individual is in a mob.

gadders 3y ago

The only consequence to speech you don't like should be more speech opposing it. (Unless the speech is completely illegal such as a credible threat or encouragement of violence).

Dylan16807 3y ago
How direct of an encouragement? If it has to be all the way to illegal then I can't refuse business to KKK members? Or even KKK leadership?
- johngladtj 3y ago
  Why don't we flip it around? Whenever you think of something, ask yourself this "Would I be in favor of the KKK being able to do this to black people?" If the answer is no, then you shouldn't be in favor of doing it to the KKK. Replace either of those groups with whichever groups are relevant and emotionally impactful to you.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Lol no. People aren't born KKK. This is tolerance 101.
    - Levitz 3y ago
      The idea that tolerance 101 is about who you are able to discriminate is quite amusing. Especially in a thread about Orwell, doublethink and all that. Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent. You are supposed to trust that worthwhile ideas prevail while the rest don't. That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > The idea that tolerance 101 is about who you are able to discriminate is quite amusing. Especially in a thread about Orwell, doublethink and all that. "discrimination" in the literal sense isn't bad, it's just making choices. The amusement stems from the very different things people mean when they say "discrimination". And being clear about what people mean with these terms is part of the 101. But more relevantly, I didn't use that word, which is a very easy way to avoid any possible doublethink related to it! > That in this scenario, since the KKK has terrible ideas and yours are better, you benefit from both being out in the open, since yours should surely win over. I didn't say I want them to hide their ideas. I don't. > Either way, yes, if you actually care for freedom of speech you ought to respect that which you find abhorrent. Respect what, specifically? I respect their ability to speak. Do I need to go beyond that?
        momirlan 3y ago
        their ability to speak doesn't depend no your acceptance. their right to speak is what we're talking about
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        With a quippy line like that, without defining terms, we've gone in a circle back to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37131479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37131479 Anyway in this scenario do I have to allow customers to personally insult me too if I want to maintain free speech, or is that different from saying that groups deserve nothing and stole everything they have?

Levitz 3y ago

If freedom of speech is anything, that's freedom from consequences, it doesn't have any other meaning. Even in the most repressive state you can definitely say anything, it's the consequences for saying it that make the difference. The first amendment of the US protects citizens from consequences from the state. There is a related discussion to be had about social media and reach, but it pales in comparison to how easily people tend to dismiss freedom of speech. It's rather fitting that the expression "Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences" is so Orwellian.

arrowsmith 3y ago

Yes, freedom of speech is freedom from certain kinds of consequences. What else could it possibly be? As the old Soviet joke goes: people in the USSR had freedom of speech too, but they could only use it once.

1MachineElf 3y ago

No. Simply change the consequences.