5 ms·

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

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.

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.