4 ms·

No, censorship can totally be the answer to getting people to stop saying things you don’t want them to say if you don’t have any commitment to free speech. See

No, censorship can totally be the answer to getting people to stop saying things you don’t want them to say if you don’t have any commitment to free speech. See how Tucker Max or Milo Yiannopolous are no longer culturally relevant. Censorship works.

throwaway29812 3y ago
I would argue it's more about eliminating bad faith actors from an otherwise healthy discussion. If you aren't arguing to make a point, just to get a reaction, you have no right to a platform.
flangola7 3y ago
If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. Because bad actors use speech and claims om they are "defending free speech!" in bad faith as a weapon to further their ends, and once they're in a position of power will shameless drop the pretenses and restrict any speech that doesn't entrench their position.
- beefpies 3y ago
  Here's a video on the subject: Debate and Deplatforming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo And it's sequel: Why Deplatforming Works (And Why it Doesn't) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Known as the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - dsr_ 3y ago
    If you stop treating it as a moral commandment and instead consider it a treaty which allows civilization to exist, it becomes obvious that it doesn't apply to those who won't remain bound by it. It's not a paradox. Tolerance is for all points of view that will allow the discussion to continue.
    - strken 3y ago
      I trace tolerance in general back to the religious tolerance introduced by the Peace of Westphalia, and the centuries of religious war that preceded it. It obviously goes much further back, but that's the archetypical example for me. Seen in this light, tolerance is somewhere between symbiosis and mutually assured destruction, and much less wishy-washy than everyone thinks it is.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true. The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth seems self-evident. You'll have to explain to me how greater tolerance of the Nazis would have resulted in a better outcome for anyone (besides the Nazis) than intolerance of them in order to disprove the premise.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them. The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would silence you is the only way to prevent yourself from being silenced, but this is demonstrably not true.
      - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
        We can see this so clearly on reddit. They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
I don't know about Milo, but after looking at Wikipedia, it looks like Tucker grew up and so did his former audience.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Jury’s still out for a while, but Carlson’s being kicked out of Fox recently has been a big hit so far. Latest book sold 3k copies: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson-biography-chadwick-moore https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson...
  - astrange 3y ago
    Tucker Max, not Carlson. He was a pick up artist/bro influencer.
gmerc 3y ago
You are comparing getting fired for costing your network billions by lying about elections and smearing, without substance, a company with getting silenced for your sexuality Nice.

throwaway29812 3y ago

I would argue it's more about eliminating bad faith actors from an otherwise healthy discussion. If you aren't arguing to make a point, just to get a reaction, you have no right to a platform.

flangola7 3y ago

If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. Because bad actors use speech and claims om they are "defending free speech!" in bad faith as a weapon to further their ends, and once they're in a position of power will shameless drop the pretenses and restrict any speech that doesn't entrench their position.

beefpies 3y ago
Here's a video on the subject: Debate and Deplatforming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo And it's sequel: Why Deplatforming Works (And Why it Doesn't) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI
ceejayoz 3y ago
Known as the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- dsr_ 3y ago
  If you stop treating it as a moral commandment and instead consider it a treaty which allows civilization to exist, it becomes obvious that it doesn't apply to those who won't remain bound by it. It's not a paradox. Tolerance is for all points of view that will allow the discussion to continue.
  - strken 3y ago
    I trace tolerance in general back to the religious tolerance introduced by the Peace of Westphalia, and the centuries of religious war that preceded it. It obviously goes much further back, but that's the archetypical example for me. Seen in this light, tolerance is somewhere between symbiosis and mutually assured destruction, and much less wishy-washy than everyone thinks it is.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true.
- krapp 3y ago
  >The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true. The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth seems self-evident. You'll have to explain to me how greater tolerance of the Nazis would have resulted in a better outcome for anyone (besides the Nazis) than intolerance of them in order to disprove the premise.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them. The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would silence you is the only way to prevent yourself from being silenced, but this is demonstrably not true.
    - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
      We can see this so clearly on reddit. They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.

zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago

I don't know about Milo, but after looking at Wikipedia, it looks like Tucker grew up and so did his former audience.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Jury’s still out for a while, but Carlson’s being kicked out of Fox recently has been a big hit so far. Latest book sold 3k copies: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson-biography-chadwick-moore https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson...
- astrange 3y ago
  Tucker Max, not Carlson. He was a pick up artist/bro influencer.

gmerc 3y ago

You are comparing getting fired for costing your network billions by lying about elections and smearing, without substance, a company with getting silenced for your sexuality Nice.