4 ms·
Its difficult to meaningfully compare small mostly homogenous nations with larger, more diverse ones. It not hard to imagine that when you have an overwhelmingl
by thereddaikon 3y ago
Its difficult to meaningfully compare small mostly homogenous nations with larger, more diverse ones. It not hard to imagine that when you have an overwhelmingly homogenous society, the need for free speech is greatly lessened because there are far fewer dissenting voices. Free speech is there to protect those minority dissenting voices, not the majority ones who will are going to hold popular and socially acceptable opinions.
- RandomLensman 3y agoHow diverse was the nation that could enjoy the 1st amendment when it was passed compared to now? It is perhaps more a retrospective justification that would need data to support it.
- thereddaikon 3y agoAmerica was if anything less diverse then than now. We've had many large periods of emigration since then. And that combined with the challenges with new technology tells me the first amendment is more important than ever.
- RandomLensman 3y agoDo you have any supporting data for that view or, rather, what might convince of the opposite of your view?
- thereddaikon 3y agoGive me some authoritative statistics that show otherwise.
- comte7092 3y agoThe fact that you describe Switzerland as “mostly homogeneous” really undermines the credibility of your argument.
- thereddaikon 3y agoSwitzerland oddly does not collect ethnicity information in its census but it does collect nationality and language information and its pretty easy to conclude that Switzerland is overwhelming white Europeans over 85% of which are German or French speakers.
- comte7092 3y agoAh see now I have clarity. You are indeed making the “things that work in other places won’t work in America because of differences in race and ethnicity” argument. This is a fairly lazy analysis that plays on America’s often unspoken cultural beliefs around race. While it is true that race is a major cultural marker in America, this fact is not innate and the oft repeated argument that “homogenous” societies can do things that we can’t amounts to little more than “we can’t do it because we are different”. The determinants of diversity in the sense that it might be relevant to a discussion on free speech depend on a multitude of cultural factors. You can’t just say “well they aren’t diverse because they don’t match the criteria set out and defined by _America_”. 95% of Americans speak English. If half the country didn’t speak English well that would make for a very different society and culture than the one we have now.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoNot quite true, epigenes have conclusively been shown, at least for a few generations, to be innate, inheritable, heavily modifiable by extreme enough environmental factors (such as starvation, violent crime, war, etc.), and even capable of skipping a generation and re-expressing later on like normal genes Whether or not such changes lasts through several dozen generations is still undecided though.
- comte7092 3y agoWhat does that have to do with this discussion on free speech?
- 3y ago