5 ms·

Unless you’re taking the stance that free speech as a concept applies only to the government, then it’s definitely not orthogonal. Almost all moderation concer

Unless you’re taking the stance that free speech as a concept applies only to the government, then it’s definitely not orthogonal. Almost all moderation concerns are obviously restrictions on free speech, it’s just that for several reasons people have started to shrink “speech” into “political speech within some Overton window” For some obvious examples of typical moderation that conflicts with pure free speech , consider amoral speech like abuse material, violent speech like threats, and economically harmful speech like fraudulent advertising or copyright violations. Extending these to things like hate speech, bigotry, pornography, etc are all moderation choices that are not orthogonal to free speech.

thaw24612107 2y ago
[flagged]
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  Yes there is, and it's not on the tolerant to tolerate the intolerant.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. In practice, "the intolerant" lines up exactly with "my outgroup that I dislike", and that is exactly who you get points for tolerating. Now if tolerance isn't supposed to be a virtue and you aren't supposed to get brownie points for being tolerant, then fine whatever. But that isn't how people act when they misuse the paradox of tolerance, they are still looking to get brownie points while just hating on their enemies just as humans have for millennia.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. You're arguing with a strawman. I just want to have a civil discussion without it degrading into racial slurs as the bare minimum. Personal attacks in general should be discoraged, but I've been around a while and my standards are low. The psychological question of morals and tolerance doesn't seem to amount to much. I don't think anyone would ever claim the internet is full of moral actors. but sure. The ability to accept and consider multiple viewpoints is a good moral to strive to. Hence, the paradox of tolerance: in that you must reject concepts that overall limit your ability to empathize and expand your viewpoints. dismissing information because of superficial physical features of the speaker is simply ignorant.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      Actually no, to quote a modern poet under no circumstances do you "gotta hand it to them" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Go back to debate class My tolerance is not performative and fuck you for strawmanning it
      - 9x39 2y ago
        His point is that you're not tolerating anything in the sense of the verb. What have you tolerated?
        whaaaaat 2y ago
        You recognize there's a wide gulf between "things I disagree with and tolerate" and "things like hate speech that should not be tolerated under any circumstances" right? Like, I strongly disagree with the Biden-style Democrat. I think they are nonsense garbage centrists with nothing worthwhile to say and weak spines. But I tolerate them coming in and saying things like, "We should means test food stamps!" I also tolerate the absurd notion that somehow, Biden-style Dems are "the far left". I think it's hilariously uneducated, but I tolerate it. I do not tolerate people coming in with sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic rhetoric. It's unacceptable. I will shut down, block, kick, ban or otherwise remove it without any questions.
        policky 2y ago
        [flagged]
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        This is kind of difficult to do in a vacuum; let's assume those are the only comments that these accounts have posted. "sorry, but no to all of this: males cannot be lesbians" banned for transphobia for misgendering the second poster. Clear cut, get the fuck out if here. No action for first and second poster.
  - thaw24612107 2y ago
    I completely agree, but you are the intolerant one for trying to censor people for speaking their minds.

thaw24612107 2y ago

[flagged]

DrillShopper 2y ago
Yes there is, and it's not on the tolerant to tolerate the intolerant.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. In practice, "the intolerant" lines up exactly with "my outgroup that I dislike", and that is exactly who you get points for tolerating. Now if tolerance isn't supposed to be a virtue and you aren't supposed to get brownie points for being tolerant, then fine whatever. But that isn't how people act when they misuse the paradox of tolerance, they are still looking to get brownie points while just hating on their enemies just as humans have for millennia.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. You're arguing with a strawman. I just want to have a civil discussion without it degrading into racial slurs as the bare minimum. Personal attacks in general should be discoraged, but I've been around a while and my standards are low. The psychological question of morals and tolerance doesn't seem to amount to much. I don't think anyone would ever claim the internet is full of moral actors. but sure. The ability to accept and consider multiple viewpoints is a good moral to strive to. Hence, the paradox of tolerance: in that you must reject concepts that overall limit your ability to empathize and expand your viewpoints. dismissing information because of superficial physical features of the speaker is simply ignorant.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    Actually no, to quote a modern poet under no circumstances do you "gotta hand it to them" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Go back to debate class My tolerance is not performative and fuck you for strawmanning it
    - 9x39 2y ago
      His point is that you're not tolerating anything in the sense of the verb. What have you tolerated?
      - whaaaaat 2y ago
        You recognize there's a wide gulf between "things I disagree with and tolerate" and "things like hate speech that should not be tolerated under any circumstances" right? Like, I strongly disagree with the Biden-style Democrat. I think they are nonsense garbage centrists with nothing worthwhile to say and weak spines. But I tolerate them coming in and saying things like, "We should means test food stamps!" I also tolerate the absurd notion that somehow, Biden-style Dems are "the far left". I think it's hilariously uneducated, but I tolerate it. I do not tolerate people coming in with sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic rhetoric. It's unacceptable. I will shut down, block, kick, ban or otherwise remove it without any questions.
        policky 2y ago
        [flagged]
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        This is kind of difficult to do in a vacuum; let's assume those are the only comments that these accounts have posted. "sorry, but no to all of this: males cannot be lesbians" banned for transphobia for misgendering the second poster. Clear cut, get the fuck out if here. No action for first and second poster.
- thaw24612107 2y ago
  I completely agree, but you are the intolerant one for trying to censor people for speaking their minds.