2 ms·

The author ends with: > I don't consider it productive and beneficial in any way. And it's definitely not about real freedom of expression. And just like that

The author ends with: > I don't consider it productive and beneficial in any way. And it's definitely not about real freedom of expression. And just like that, he's making moral judgement over speech because of extremes. Even though, as he would be forced to admit, extremes have changed their views into the majority opinion countless times for the good as well (i.e. civil rights movement, having some kind of government social safety net, 40 hour workweeks). As such, the very idea of criticizing free speech because "extremes are bad," on either side, is problematic in and of itself. I also find this annoying, because our Founding Fathers were certainly considered extreme in their day, and America would not exist under such a proposed moral guideline (and we might still have slavery to this day - abolitionism was extreme for a while). His argument, quite literally, is that things are ideal in the center as they are right now and nothing should be allowed to rock the boat.

yawpitch 2y ago
I think you may have misread that part. It’s not a call to hew to the middle or silence the extremes, at least as I read it, rather it’s a call to stop soaking up an extreme amount of human time and attention on unproductive flame wars launched from the various tribal positions regarding which side has/has not or should/should not have unfettered access to free speech. I think the author would be happy to see someone advancing an extreme opinion that pushed the needle on productive advancement of free speech that promoted actual facts and demoted actual falsehoods.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > the various tribal positions regarding which side has/has not or should/should not have unfettered access to free speech. What are these? I hear some people arguing for free speech (aside from libel and immediate incitement to violence), some people arguing that speech should be abridged whenever they or somebody they support are offended, and the remainder paying people to argue that people shouldn't be able to say some particular arbitrary thing that will affect their personal financial interests negatively. There is a problem with "free speech" people moving into the second category as soon as they get offended, but that's just hypocrisy. George Takei is right-wing on virtually every issue other than being Japanese-American and being gay. That's just how people are. The things that affect them are the real problem.

yawpitch 2y ago

I think you may have misread that part. It’s not a call to hew to the middle or silence the extremes, at least as I read it, rather it’s a call to stop soaking up an extreme amount of human time and attention on unproductive flame wars launched from the various tribal positions regarding which side has/has not or should/should not have unfettered access to free speech. I think the author would be happy to see someone advancing an extreme opinion that pushed the needle on productive advancement of free speech that promoted actual facts and demoted actual falsehoods.

pessimizer 2y ago
> the various tribal positions regarding which side has/has not or should/should not have unfettered access to free speech. What are these? I hear some people arguing for free speech (aside from libel and immediate incitement to violence), some people arguing that speech should be abridged whenever they or somebody they support are offended, and the remainder paying people to argue that people shouldn't be able to say some particular arbitrary thing that will affect their personal financial interests negatively. There is a problem with "free speech" people moving into the second category as soon as they get offended, but that's just hypocrisy. George Takei is right-wing on virtually every issue other than being Japanese-American and being gay. That's just how people are. The things that affect them are the real problem.