3 ms·

It took me a minute to parse this comment! I wonder how many names you recognized; it's a big list. Are you suggesting that all these folks are giving free spee

by sctb 3y ago

It took me a minute to parse this comment! I wonder how many names you recognized; it's a big list. Are you suggesting that all these folks are giving free speech a bad name by uttering the wrong kind of speech?

digging 3y ago
> Are you suggesting that all these folks are giving free speech a bad name by uttering the wrong kind of speech? I'm not the GP commenter, but I am. There is actually a so-called "wrong speech" or whatever you want to call it. Repressive speech such as open racism - we don't need that shit. Ever. And without it, we may cultivate actual free speech.
- argiopetech 3y ago
  So, what do you do with the open racists?
  - digging 3y ago
    Censor their racism. Nothing more needs to be done unless that's not enough to prevent them from poisoning the discourse (ie they start attacking people).
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      Censorship is sign of lack of arguments and typical tool for totalitarian regimes. Also, you make conclusions based on bias. You can be racist and also violence free and vice versa.
      - digging 3y ago
        > Also, you make conclusions based on bias. You can be racist and also violence free and vice versa. Actually, I didn't assume they would be violent.
    - argiopetech 3y ago
      So they're free to discuss their beliefs in their home, car, church, coffee shop, and grocery store; but not in the public square or on the radio or via Twitter? How do you prevent the former from overriding your efforts to restrict the latter (word of mouth is the best advertising, after all)? If this censorship is to be absolute, how do you restrict the former? I'm not trying to be facetious or obtuse, I actually don't see how this could work. Speech is a natural right, i.e., I can speak (or not) *any* thoughts irrespective of the presence or permission of government (albeit not without consequences post-hoc). Any attempt to restrict that right proactively must (at least) border on tyrannical, and that's before we even get into how it would be decided which speech is acceptable and which must be censored. After all, even the example subject we're building this conversation around has at least two extant, incompatible definitions.
      - digging 3y ago
        > If this censorship is to be absolute, how do you restrict the former? Yeah there's actually a super simple answer: it's not, and you don't. Why are you assuming I want to go into their homes to police what they say in private?
        argiopetech 3y ago
        I didn't, actually, which is why that's the follow-on question (which, if not relevant to you, was meant for others reading to ponder). The first question (slightly paraphrased) was: How do you prevent [the natural right of free speech] from overriding your efforts to restrict [speech in public fora] (word of mouth being the best advertising)? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Is your intent not to limit the dissemination of "bad" (to be as broad as possible) ideas?

by sctb 3y ago

digging 3y ago

> Are you suggesting that all these folks are giving free speech a bad name by uttering the wrong kind of speech? I'm not the GP commenter, but I am. There is actually a so-called "wrong speech" or whatever you want to call it. Repressive speech such as open racism - we don't need that shit. Ever. And without it, we may cultivate actual free speech.

argiopetech 3y ago
So, what do you do with the open racists?
- digging 3y ago
  Censor their racism. Nothing more needs to be done unless that's not enough to prevent them from poisoning the discourse (ie they start attacking people).
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    Censorship is sign of lack of arguments and typical tool for totalitarian regimes. Also, you make conclusions based on bias. You can be racist and also violence free and vice versa.
    - digging 3y ago
      > Also, you make conclusions based on bias. You can be racist and also violence free and vice versa. Actually, I didn't assume they would be violent.
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    So they're free to discuss their beliefs in their home, car, church, coffee shop, and grocery store; but not in the public square or on the radio or via Twitter? How do you prevent the former from overriding your efforts to restrict the latter (word of mouth is the best advertising, after all)? If this censorship is to be absolute, how do you restrict the former? I'm not trying to be facetious or obtuse, I actually don't see how this could work. Speech is a natural right, i.e., I can speak (or not) *any* thoughts irrespective of the presence or permission of government (albeit not without consequences post-hoc). Any attempt to restrict that right proactively must (at least) border on tyrannical, and that's before we even get into how it would be decided which speech is acceptable and which must be censored. After all, even the example subject we're building this conversation around has at least two extant, incompatible definitions.
    - digging 3y ago
      > If this censorship is to be absolute, how do you restrict the former? Yeah there's actually a super simple answer: it's not, and you don't. Why are you assuming I want to go into their homes to police what they say in private?
      - argiopetech 3y ago
        I didn't, actually, which is why that's the follow-on question (which, if not relevant to you, was meant for others reading to ponder). The first question (slightly paraphrased) was: How do you prevent [the natural right of free speech] from overriding your efforts to restrict [speech in public fora] (word of mouth being the best advertising)? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Is your intent not to limit the dissemination of "bad" (to be as broad as possible) ideas?