5 ms·

> Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of sp

by Gormo 2y ago

> Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of speech" as a general concept with the first amendment as a legal principle. The first amendment is specifically the mechanism of law we use to ensure that freedom of speech is respected in our interactions with the political state. The first amendment doesn't apply to our interactions with each other outside of the political sphere, but that doesn't mean that we don't also have expectations of conduct and cultural norms that uphold freedom of speech via other means in non-government contexts.

scarab92 2y ago
You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.
- foldr 2y ago
  Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    Shifting the goal posts. The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification. If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
    - foldr 2y ago
      I don't think so. Twitter before Musk had all kinds of TOS that obviously blocked speech that would be protected by the First Amendment. No-one is saying that Twitter used to be a free speech absolutist free-for-all before Musk took over. They're saying two things. First, that his actions don't match his stated intentions. Second, that he is heavily biased towards unblocking far right accounts.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- engeljohnb 2y ago
  Here is my lane: Elon is a hypocrite. He bought twitter in the name of "free speech," then removes any speech he doesn't like. His actions are inconsistent, and this one of many demonstrations that he doesn't care at all about liberty. That matters because he's now apparently in charge of every federal government agency.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    Musk is a hypocrite, but so too are progressives on the topic of freedom of speech. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
    - advael 2y ago
      Wait so you're saying that anyone who criticizes Musk is in this bucket of "progressive" and therefore is accountable for the supposed hypocrisy of all "progressives"? Actually this argument makes no sense. I know that it's commonly repeated in propaganda, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid on its face. You can't just throw people into a collective arbitrarily and then hold them responsible for everyone else you'd call that's actions
      - scarab92 2y ago
        Hypocrites deflect when their hypocrisy is called out.
        advael 2y ago
        Sure, but also hypocrisy only makes sense when applied to a single person or an actual organization that actually collectively takes positions. "Progressives" is an amorphous category that can seemingly include anyone we want to declare "woke" at any given time, and seems to span the political spectrum from even the most right-leaning democrat politicians to random tankie teenagers on social media. Such an incoherent group doesn't have collective positions or collective responsibility for each other's positions, and I think it's important to point this out because it's a very common rhetorical gambit
muddi900 2y ago
Your definitions of social norms ass backwards. Cultural norms dictate some modicum of restraint on everyone. You have no obligation to tolerate me if I call your wife a whore. Any given community has its social norms that dictate what you can and can't say. To force them to accept "unacceptable" speech would violate freedom of speech itself.
- Gormo 2y ago
  No, that's not quite correct. A lot of subcultures and echo-chamber type social contexts certainly do have extreme policing of extremely particular taboo subject matters, but in more general contexts, especially in American society, there's a strong expectation that people ought to be able to speak their mind without excessive interference, and there's usually a high bar to what constitutes subject matters taboo enough to restrict or exclude people for engaging with, along with social norms that often regard excessive policing of other people's expression as itself taboo.
  - muddi900 2y ago
    No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization. I wouldn't want to be associated with such a person. And that is in public. In private you have severe restrictions on speech and expressions. Workplaces, stores, and schools have codes of conduct, dress codes, etc. to restrict expression. What you call "extremely taboo subjects" is relative, based on your own biases and beliefs. "Woman should be more active in public life" is not an "extreme" view, even in more conservative sections of society. But in Ultra-orthodox jewish communities, or isolationist muslim communities, or even many christian sects, this would be controversial statement. If a member faces social consequences for these statements, it is not a violation of their right to free speech. Nobody is obligated to tolerate you, no matter how in the right you may be. You can't force society to be on your side. You might say, "But these social norms are repressive and harmful." Well then change them through activism. Stop whining about "free speech violations". That is, again, ass backwards.
    - 2y ago

by Gormo 2y ago

scarab92 2y ago

You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.

foldr 2y ago
Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.
- scarab92 2y ago
  Shifting the goal posts. The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification. If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
  - foldr 2y ago
    I don't think so. Twitter before Musk had all kinds of TOS that obviously blocked speech that would be protected by the First Amendment. No-one is saying that Twitter used to be a free speech absolutist free-for-all before Musk took over. They're saying two things. First, that his actions don't match his stated intentions. Second, that he is heavily biased towards unblocking far right accounts.
zimpenfish 2y ago
> Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
engeljohnb 2y ago
Here is my lane: Elon is a hypocrite. He bought twitter in the name of "free speech," then removes any speech he doesn't like. His actions are inconsistent, and this one of many demonstrations that he doesn't care at all about liberty. That matters because he's now apparently in charge of every federal government agency.
- scarab92 2y ago
  Musk is a hypocrite, but so too are progressives on the topic of freedom of speech. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
  - advael 2y ago
    Wait so you're saying that anyone who criticizes Musk is in this bucket of "progressive" and therefore is accountable for the supposed hypocrisy of all "progressives"? Actually this argument makes no sense. I know that it's commonly repeated in propaganda, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid on its face. You can't just throw people into a collective arbitrarily and then hold them responsible for everyone else you'd call that's actions
    - scarab92 2y ago
      Hypocrites deflect when their hypocrisy is called out.
      - advael 2y ago
        Sure, but also hypocrisy only makes sense when applied to a single person or an actual organization that actually collectively takes positions. "Progressives" is an amorphous category that can seemingly include anyone we want to declare "woke" at any given time, and seems to span the political spectrum from even the most right-leaning democrat politicians to random tankie teenagers on social media. Such an incoherent group doesn't have collective positions or collective responsibility for each other's positions, and I think it's important to point this out because it's a very common rhetorical gambit

muddi900 2y ago

Your definitions of social norms ass backwards. Cultural norms dictate some modicum of restraint on everyone. You have no obligation to tolerate me if I call your wife a whore. Any given community has its social norms that dictate what you can and can't say. To force them to accept "unacceptable" speech would violate freedom of speech itself.

Gormo 2y ago
No, that's not quite correct. A lot of subcultures and echo-chamber type social contexts certainly do have extreme policing of extremely particular taboo subject matters, but in more general contexts, especially in American society, there's a strong expectation that people ought to be able to speak their mind without excessive interference, and there's usually a high bar to what constitutes subject matters taboo enough to restrict or exclude people for engaging with, along with social norms that often regard excessive policing of other people's expression as itself taboo.
- muddi900 2y ago
  No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization. I wouldn't want to be associated with such a person. And that is in public. In private you have severe restrictions on speech and expressions. Workplaces, stores, and schools have codes of conduct, dress codes, etc. to restrict expression. What you call "extremely taboo subjects" is relative, based on your own biases and beliefs. "Woman should be more active in public life" is not an "extreme" view, even in more conservative sections of society. But in Ultra-orthodox jewish communities, or isolationist muslim communities, or even many christian sects, this would be controversial statement. If a member faces social consequences for these statements, it is not a violation of their right to free speech. Nobody is obligated to tolerate you, no matter how in the right you may be. You can't force society to be on your side. You might say, "But these social norms are repressive and harmful." Well then change them through activism. Stop whining about "free speech violations". That is, again, ass backwards.
  - 2y ago