ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags censorship , free speech

Reply
Old 29th March 2019, 11:34 AM   #241
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post


Again, not the problem. The problem is the neo-nazi speakers bringing their own violent followers to the audience. Who, you know, shoot at the others and kill them with cars and stuff. This is worlds away from thoughtcrime. They bring conventional violent crime.
I will admit there is a real problem with some of these types that maintain the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability and pretend to be respectable. I think it is unlikely that Spencer actually arranged in advance for some neo-nazis to show up and fire into the audience, but I doubt it really shocked him.

Straddling the line of illegality is something that these right line trolls have really mastered, or at least the public leaders have. People like Spencer or Milo can factually claim that they are peaceful even as their entourage engages in tremendous violence and mayhem. It proposes an interesting problem that I see no clear solution to. Jettisoning 1A protections on campus doesn't strike me as a good solution though.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 11:39 AM   #242
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
Here's the problem, from my point of view.

The meta-debate about to what degree society should tolerate/encourage "bad" speech (shelving how we define it for the moment) gives a proxy bit of legitimacy to the bad speech.

We don't have to bend over backwards to have the "Where is the line, slippery slope, who watches the watchmen" hand wringing everytime Johnny Nazi stands up and does the whole "Hey I'm just exercising my right to talk about annihilating Jews like animals" routine.

Putting me effort into keeping the "What do we do with bad speech?" debate away from the actual bad speech so it doesn't turn into a bunch of try-hard edge-lords defending the worst of the worst would help.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 29th March 2019 at 11:41 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 11:55 AM   #243
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming.
Yes it is. A microphone a platform does not make if the microphone is unplugged. A stage does not a platform make if students opposed to your speech make so much noise that nobody, not even your supporters, is able to hear it...or if you become so frustrated that you eventually stop trying to give it. (Both of which happened in Florida)

But this is silly, quite frankly. If you want to personally insist that kind of behavior can't be called "deplatforming", then don't - call it whatever you want, and my position will easily conform to "approve of various methods, including deplatforming and (whatever name you decide is the only name that action can be called)". The end result is the same - and it certainly isn't "sunlight". Spencer's message was completely buried by the masses who refused to let it be heard.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 29th March 2019 at 12:00 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 11:59 AM   #244
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Double post
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 12:12 PM   #245
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I'm seeing this differently. Deplatforming based on content is worlds away from denying a venue to do the speaker bringing along violent elements. One is ideological censorship, the other a demonstrable public safety concern.
Richard Spencer was banned from Europe in 2014 for trying to host a white nationalism conference in Hungary. There was no violence, or threat of violence, involved - only the fact of the subject of his event. His banning there is functionally identical to David Icke's banning from Australia earlier this year. It was deplatforming, even by your exclusive definition.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 12:40 PM   #246
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Richard Spencer was banned from Europe in 2014 for trying to host a white nationalism conference in Hungary. There was no violence, or threat of violence, involved - only the fact of the subject of his event. His banning there is functionally identical to David Icke's banning from Australia earlier this year. It was deplatforming, even by your exclusive definition.
Is this a joke? I'm sure he wouldn't be welcomed in Germany either. But this is the US, not the EU or AU. Our interpretation of freedom of speech is a tad different. And I think you know that. Didn't your Spencer Fan Club (that most of us hadn't heard of) go over that?

Deplatforming is plus or minus denying someone a soapbox, and in context here, based on the ideological content of their speech. Heckling is not deplatforming. Public safety concerns are not deplatforming. Refusing to let unpopular ideas be heard at all in public is.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 12:46 PM   #247
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Yes it is. A microphone a platform does not make if the microphone is unplugged. A stage does not a platform make if students opposed to your speech make so much noise that nobody, not even your supporters, is able to hear it...or if you become so frustrated that you eventually stop trying to give it. (Both of which happened in Florida)

But this is silly, quite frankly. If you want to personally insist that kind of behavior can't be called "deplatforming", then don't - call it whatever you want, and my position will easily conform to "approve of various methods, including deplatforming and (whatever name you decide is the only name that action can be called)". The end result is the same - and it certainly isn't "sunlight". Spencer's message was completely buried by the masses who refused to let it be heard.
The sunlight was the protesters themselves, showing what they thought of Spencer and his ideas. And good for them. He was allowed to appear and speak his drivel.. And hecklers are allowed to heckle. I call that a satisfactory solution.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 01:02 PM   #248
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I will admit there is a real problem with some of these types that maintain the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability and pretend to be respectable. I think it is unlikely that Spencer actually arranged in advance for some neo-nazis to show up and fire into the audience, but I doubt it really shocked him.

Straddling the line of illegality is something that these right line trolls have really mastered, or at least the public leaders have. People like Spencer or Milo can factually claim that they are peaceful even as their entourage engages in tremendous violence and mayhem. It proposes an interesting problem that I see no clear solution to. Jettisoning 1A protections on campus doesn't strike me as a good solution though.
Agreed, their facade makes it difficult. It comes down to sticking to our values or practicality, much like the ACLU with the Spokie nazis, which a certain large canine is wont to frequently remind us of, and with which I reluctantly agree. I search for workarounds like hecklers vetoes and the like, or the less legal approaches and trying not to get caught. Just not comfortable with abandoning 1A principles when we don't like their outcome.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 01:27 PM   #249
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
People like Spencer or Milo can factually claim that they are peaceful even as their entourage engages in tremendous violence and mayhem.
Milo's entourage engages in tremendous violence and mayhem?
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 02:04 PM   #250
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Didn't your Spencer Fan Club (that most of us hadn't heard of)
Isn't this a little presumptuous of a statement? You and one other person in this thread hadn't heard of him prior, so "most of us".

Spencer catapulted to national attention during the Trump campaign when it became apparent that white supremacists and nationalist were, increasingly openly, stumping for Trump within their sphere of influence and even dictating the direction of his campaign to an extent when Trump began taking their allies on-board. The largest spotlight was shone on this connection by Hillary Clinton in August of 2016 with her "basket of deplorables" speech, which I suppose you also haven't heard about.

Spencer in particular first appears in mainstream media in the months leading up to the 2016 election and has a prominent place immediately after the election proper, as Nazis and allies began making a public show of celebrating Trump's election. Spencer claims to have invented the term "alt-right"; whether he did or not, he did create one of the earliest and largest alt-right websites. I realize that news sources like USA Today, The Huffington Post, Salon, and The New York Times are rather rather obscure outlets with relatively small readerships; but I hope you will at the very least concede that they have some nation-wide exposure.

The New York Times article, which is dated September 2016 - two full months prior to the election, and no less than four months prior to the inauguration at which Spencer was so lovingly caressed in a manner most befitting, seems to be where he truly reached national attention for the first time.

Quote:
The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” Through his online writings and YouTube channel, Mr. Spencer is a key player in the social-media universe where this core group of Trump supporters get their “news,” from sources with which most people aren’t familiar. A quick scan shows that immigration is not only their most important issue, it’s pretty much their only issue.
Now, all joking aside, it's certainly possible that if you were utterly oblivious or apathetic to the rising threat of the alt-right and its connection with Donald Trump, and simply didn't read anything in the media related to them, you may indeed never have heard of Richard Spencer until he was punched. But the way you insist on ridiculing the idea that anybody would've heard of him before you did except his "fans", is really making you look ignorant.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Heckling is not deplatforming. Public safety concerns are not deplatforming. Refusing to let unpopular ideas be heard at all in public is.
...the bolded being precisely what was accomplished by the crowd in Florida. If you don't believe this, try seeing how many mainstream media articles covering the night you can find that contain quotes from Spencer's actual speech - you know, that contained his unpopular ideas - compared to the articles that only quote his complaints about the crowd, if they quote him at all.

Look, I already said you don't have to agree about the definition of "deplatforming". Call it whatever you want. The fact is, shutting down Spencer's message - preventing it from being heard at all whatsoever - is what happened. Figuratively, the hecklers unplugged his microphone. And the effect it created helped lead to Spencer's fall back into obscurity. Not "sunshine", not debate, not free and unrestricted access to the "marketplace of ideas". Just an absolute shutdown.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The sunlight was the protesters themselves, showing what they thought of Spencer and his ideas.
The protesters didn't say anything about his ideas. That was the beauty of it - if they had allowed him to articulate his ideas and then argued with those, that would've been allowing him access to the marketplace. But they didn't. He was drowned in a tsunami of "Go Gators". Not one of Spencer's ideas saw the light that night; the stage he was standing on meant nothing.

Nobody is saying that ANTI-nazis should be denied platforms. I'm happy with only the white-whatevers being denied. Let the antis get all the platforms they want. If you want to define "sunshine" to mean "so thoroughly and utterly drowned out by opposition protesters that the racists literally can't get a word in edgewise", well in that case

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


[TRIGGER WARNING: black people singing]
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 02:44 PM   #251
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 7,443
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You seem to have forgotten that you've already lost the war, regardless of what battle you engaged in the past. All the countries in the "developed world" at least have decided that some speech is prohibited. All we can discuss is exactly what speech can be prohibited.

For myself I am happy with speech that attempts to have me killed I.e.Nazism being prohibited. We know what happens when Nazism is allowed to flourish , literally people like me are among the millions of people that are killed.
We know what happens when communism is allowed to flourish (Cambodian genocide, holomodor, etc.)

Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 11

Last edited by kmortis; 1st April 2019 at 08:35 AM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 02:48 PM   #252
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 7,443
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
How about all that MRA stuff, or is this thread still supposed to be about nazis ?

Look what happened with Elliot Rodger
Elliot Roger never mentioned anything about "MRA." That was yet another media lie.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 04:13 PM   #253
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Elliot Roger never mentioned anything about "MRA." That was yet another media lie.
That very well may be true however the association is out there in medialand and MRA speech is classified by some as objectionable speech and I'm just trying to get a bit of a handle of what people would like to see removed from "the marketplace of ideas". Other than nazis, that is.

As an aside, I wonder what ever happened to Big Red.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 04:23 PM   #254
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Elliot Roger never mentioned anything about "MRA." That was yet another media lie.
The media never said Roger mentioned anything about "MRA". That is another Baylor lie.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 04:27 PM   #255
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 7,443
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
The media never said Roger mentioned anything about "MRA". That is another Baylor lie.
"We don't know whether Elliot Rodger was mentally ill. What we do know is that he was a Men's Rights Activist, or MRA."

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-t...b_5386818.html
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 05:24 PM   #256
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,078
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
We KNOW that marketplaces don't work without a regulatory framework and ways to enforce them.
And we know they still go off the rails from time to time. And we know that some things have to stay off the market for the sake of society as a whole.
So I see zero problem with making it really hard for some opinions to enter the marketplace, if they are dangerous for the day-to-day operation of the place.
Do you think there is a potential for the abuse of this power? Whoever goes about regulating the marketplace of ideas will be in a position to empower some ideas at the expense of others. That seems very easily subject to abuse to me.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 05:51 PM   #257
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
"We don't know whether Elliot Rodger was mentally ill. What we do know is that he was a Men's Rights Activist, or MRA."

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-t...b_5386818.html
The article identifies Elliot as an MRA because of his web history. But where does it allege that Elliot mentioned anything about "MRA"?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:02 PM   #258
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,472
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Do you think there is a potential for the abuse of this power? Whoever goes about regulating the marketplace of ideas will be in a position to empower some ideas at the expense of others. That seems very easily subject to abuse to me.
If you have the power.... and regulators usually don't.
As in any market place, power rests with those who know more than others about how the market works.
Free Speech has the drawback that it wants to be free instead of asking for a price upfront. This is why it needs protecting, because if you don't pay to hear someone speak, someone else is, which means someone has a financial or political interest in you hearing something.

I believe the Marketplace of Ideas could work much better on a Subscription basis.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:54 PM   #259
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Isn't this a little presumptuous of a statement? You and one other person in this thread hadn't heard of him prior, so "most of us".
Had you bothered to read, rather than composing page long diatribes, I said that I had heard of him, but that he wasn't the celebrity you make him out to be. It was your fan club I hadn't heard of. Just read it again, you'll get it. At the time of ye olde punch, his name had trended once- for the 'Hail Trump' speech he gave in DC. Looky, I even have a google trendy thing:

https://trends.google.com/trends/exp...%2Fm%2F0cmd7rf

Quote:
Spencer catapulted to national attention during the Trump campaign...
Yeah, no, he didn't. Kind of no one had any interest at all in him, according to google, till that DC speech. Then, his popularity actually peaked at the Punch. A spike again at Charlottesville, and the final hurrah at UFla.

However, I'm not doing this with you again. It's ridiculous to keep correcting your gotchas when you don't read the posts. See ya on the next one.

Quote:
[TRIGGER WARNING: black people singing]
Black people aren't scary, brah. You don't even have to convince them nonstop that you are 'one of the good ones' by pointing fingers. 'S true.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:39 PM   #260
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 7,443
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
The article identifies Elliot as an MRA because of his web history. But where does it allege that Elliot mentioned anything about "MRA"?
The "gotchas" on this board just keep getting more and more pathetic.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:49 PM   #261
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Had you bothered to read, rather than composing page long diatribes, I said that I had heard of him, but that he wasn't the celebrity you make him out to be. It was your fan club I hadn't heard of.
As I already conceded, if you hadn't already been following news about white-supremacy-extremism in the days prior to Trump's election it would make sense you personally hadn't heard of him. You seem to consider a lot of anti-racist activism to be unnecessary rabble-rousing, so obviously you wouldn't follow the same sources and stories as those who don't.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2019, 05:59 AM   #262
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,383
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
The "gotchas" on this board just keep getting more and more pathetic.
Because someone looks into a subject online, doesn't mean they are that subject.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 12:58 PM   #263
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Agreed. But, conservative republicans shouldn't be passive or accommodative toward those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle their world, either.

This planet is home to all of us. We should ALL have an equal right to discuss what we want, state our positions, defend the freedoms we hold dear, and enjoy well-being and prosperity.

Liberals and democrats do not hold a monopoly, nor should they ever.

This is so fundamentally wrong it beggars the imagination.

"Free speech is not a suicide pact" has been mentioned, and that's the key point here; because only one side of this debate actually values free speech, while the other side merely uses it as a tool to silence their opponents.

People are constantly throwing around terms like "freedom" and a "liberty", without really understanding what they mean in the context in which they are used. What the free speech extremists are missing is the most important, core value under attack here: Reciprocity.

Reciprocity is the foundational principle of any laudable system of morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." "Have compassion for all beings, because all beings are one being." The principle that all beings have a fundamentally equal status, and no person has the right to arbitrarily deprive others of their rights.

That is the key difference between the socially conservative and liberal mindsets. Conservativism denies reciprocity, while liberalism supports it. Conservativism created hierarchies of people, and assigns greater or lesser rights and privileges to individuals and groups depending on where they stand in their particular hierarchy. Liberalism assigns the same rights to all who respect the principle of reciprocity.

And again, this principle is not an absolute moral precept, it's a peace treaty. As long as you respect my rights, I will respect yours. The moment you no longer respect and uphold reciprocity, that principle ceases to protect you. If you do not respect other peoples' rights, you can no longer expect yours to be respected. It's the only truly objective basis for morality that exists. The only way that one cannot believe in the principle of reciprocity is if one does not believe that all people are fully and equally human, and thereby do not deserve the same rights as those who are fully and equally human.

And that's why free speech extremists are wrong, they've abandoned reciprocity and replaced it with a sort of crude and shallow egalitarianism. This also points out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of relativism.

And the thing is, the conservatives understand this very well, and exploit it. The free speech/liberty extremists are to them what the old Communist revolutionaries termed "useful idiots" -- those who do not share their views, but hold views that can be easily manipulated into making them unwitting allies. Indeed, the Daily Stormer, one of the largest Neo-Nazi propaganda organizations, has a PR guide that details just how to utilize this sort of extremism to further their own goals, and recruit new supporters. How to co-opt the principle of freedom of speech without having to abide by reciprocity, and hold it as a stick over the heads of the ostensibly freedom-loving populations while they advocate for the destruction of those same principles of speech and freedom.

The degree to which anyone's speech deserves to be respected is the degree to which that speech upholds reciprocity, and the degree to which it should be de-platformed and regulated is directly proportionate to the degree in which it violates reciprocity.

Yes, freedom of speech should be respected, even if it's speech we disagree with. But extremists don't seem to understand that there is a difference between disagreement, and repression. "I think Jews are subhuman" is a matter of free speech, since it's simply a statement of opinion and can be easily disagreed with. "Jews should be rounded up and killed" is not a matter of disagreement, because it's not a valid opinion, it's advocating for the violation of reciprocity, and the repression of a group based solely on an accident of nature. And the more violent the violation of reciprocity, the more violent the response to it should be to ensure that reciprocity is maintained.

The degree to which free speech extremists fail to understand this is sadly ironic, since the very principle they claim to upload is being perverted to ultimately silence critics, undesirables, and anyone who disagrees with the conservative viewpoint.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 01:15 PM   #264
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
But above all even to the extent that mockery might disempower an individual, I don't feel convinced that it disempowers closely held ideas very effectively. Antivaxxers are being mocked incessantly, but a town near me just had a major measles outbreak. Their movement is spreading in the face of mockery. That's not to say that censorship is the right tool in that case, just to show the limits of ridicule.

Indeed, for many worldviews, including anti-vaxxers, that mockery is to them proof that they are the true victims, that they are being marginalized because they're right. They build up a martyr's complex and cling ever harder to their beliefs. Worse, others who feel like they are put-upon and mocked by the mainstream are more likely to give other mocked worldviews more credence. That's why religious extremists and anti-vaxxers are so closely tied.

Treating all viewpoints as equally valid in the "marketplace of ideas" legitimizes antisocial worldviews, enables them to recruit and spread more easily. That's why we can see the white supremacism on the rise and being embraced by mainstream conservatives, while NAMBLA and other paedophile organizations are still fringe.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 2nd April 2019 at 01:17 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 01:30 PM   #265
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Because they have nothing to do with each other.

Kiddie porn is a crime, in every way shape and form.

Not everywhere. And an argument can be (and has been) made that by criminalizing virtual child porn (porn that does not involve real children), you're criminalizing speech, aka "thoughcrime". Do you support legalizing virtual child porn? It's just speech, after all, and doesn't hurt anyone.

Quote:
Terrorism, too.

Again, not everywhere or for everyone. Police routinely terrorize black communities with little or no consequence in this country. And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Quote:
White supremacists, not so much.

Actually, in places it is illegal.

This is, with all due respect, a cowardly evasion. Legality is not nearly the same thing as morality. What you are essentially saying in this post is that legality trumps morality, and if white supremacist speech was already illegal, the way that virtual child porn is illegal, then you'd be perfectly fine with the one state of affairs the way that you are with the other.

Quote:
They certainly are at the extremes, but the rank and file racists are not lynching on their lunch hour.

Not so long ago in history, they were. In my lifetime, in fact, in some parts of the US. Certainly within my parents' lifetimes. Also with their lifetimes, white supremacists murdered millions and millions of people, and the "rank and file racists" were quite happy to support them in doing so.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 01:49 PM   #266
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,310
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
This is so fundamentally wrong it beggars the imagination.

"Free speech is not a suicide pact" has been mentioned, and that's the key point here; because only one side of this debate actually values free speech, while the other side merely uses it as a tool to silence their opponents.

.
Says the guy who wants to silence his opponents.

Project much?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 02:03 PM   #267
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,659
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
This is so fundamentally wrong it beggars the imagination.

(...)

Conservativism denies reciprocity, while liberalism supports it.
Well, that's a whopper. I'm not sure 'conservatism' has anything to do with reciprocity, in fact.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 11:16 PM   #268
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Not everywhere. And an argument can be (and has been) made that by criminalizing virtual child porn (porn that does not involve real children), you're criminalizing speech, aka "thoughcrime". Do you support legalizing virtual child porn? It's just speech, after all, and doesn't hurt anyone.
This whole post is so off-the-wall, it's hard to respond to, but here goes:

No, for the purposes of this discussion, kiddie porn is absolutely illegal. Virtual kiddie porn s a weird niche dilemma unrelated to the subject at hand. While a valid argument, it's not this one.

Quote:
Again, not everywhere or for everyone. Police routinely terrorize black communities with little or no consequence in this country. And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Whether or not police are prosecuted for crimes has no relevance on whether or not they were crimes. Do you also suppose that a guy who knocks off a liquor store is not a criminal because he was not caught and convicted?


Quote:
Actually, in places it is illegal.

This is, with all due respect, a cowardly evasion. Legality is not nearly the same thing as morality. What you are essentially saying in this post is that legality trumps morality, and if white supremacist speech was already illegal, the way that virtual child porn is illegal, then you'd be perfectly fine with the one state of affairs the way that you are with the other.
Societally, yes, legality trumps. Personally, morality trumps. Legality is set up to protect the rights of all. It is not set up to enforce your moral code. I don't want you or anyone else to to dictate my sense of right. Live and let live, as long as you don't infringe on other's rights, which is what law should ultimately protect.

What the hell is with analogizing virtual kiddie porn with white supremacy? Virtual porn is in a hazy area between real and not real, victimization of children and imagination. White supremacy is a belief that crackers are inherently superior to others. While I get what you are trying to twist the argument to, it is acrobatic level contorting.

I don't like Spencer and his flaccid army of losers. But what I'd like even less is Generalissimo luchog telling me what I can and cannot think, based on luchog's personal morality.

Quote:
Not so long ago in history, they were. In my lifetime, in fact, in some parts of the US. Certainly within my parents' lifetimes. Also with their lifetimes, white supremacists murdered millions and millions of people, and the "rank and file racists" were quite happy to support them in doing so.
No, the everyday racists were not lynching on their lunch breaks. They were making hateful little comments here, showing cowardice and insecurity there. Today's alt-right is not the nazi party. Posters here are endlessly conflating the modern white power weasel with the Reich. They are nowhere near the same critters. Prewar Germany had it's own unique circumstances that people are dying to analogize to today; they are not comparable at the engine room level.

Richard Spencer or any of the others will not be the new Hitler. Neither will President Trump. The National Socialist White People's Party will not take power. These guys are a social force now, not a political one. Fight them socially, not politically.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 11:50 PM   #269
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,174
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
We know what happens when communism is allowed to flourish (Cambodian genocide, holomodor, etc.)

Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 11
You wanna start comparing deaths caused by capitalism to deaths caused by communism?

It will not look good for you. But by all means, go ahead.
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.

Last edited by Lambchops; 2nd April 2019 at 11:56 PM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 11:54 PM   #270
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,174
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
The "gotchas" on this board just keep getting more and more pathetic.
This is the hill you choose to die on? Defending Elliot Rodger?

Lol, who hurt you, Baylor? Was she a cheerleader?
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.

Last edited by Lambchops; 3rd April 2019 at 12:00 AM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 11:58 PM   #271
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,174
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
This is so fundamentally wrong it beggars the imagination.

"Free speech is not a suicide pact" has been mentioned, and that's the key point here; because only one side of this debate actually values free speech, while the other side merely uses it as a tool to silence their opponents.

People are constantly throwing around terms like "freedom" and a "liberty", without really understanding what they mean in the context in which they are used. What the free speech extremists are missing is the most important, core value under attack here: Reciprocity.

Reciprocity is the foundational principle of any laudable system of morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." "Have compassion for all beings, because all beings are one being." The principle that all beings have a fundamentally equal status, and no person has the right to arbitrarily deprive others of their rights.

That is the key difference between the socially conservative and liberal mindsets. Conservativism denies reciprocity, while liberalism supports it. Conservativism created hierarchies of people, and assigns greater or lesser rights and privileges to individuals and groups depending on where they stand in their particular hierarchy. Liberalism assigns the same rights to all who respect the principle of reciprocity.

And again, this principle is not an absolute moral precept, it's a peace treaty. As long as you respect my rights, I will respect yours. The moment you no longer respect and uphold reciprocity, that principle ceases to protect you. If you do not respect other peoples' rights, you can no longer expect yours to be respected. It's the only truly objective basis for morality that exists. The only way that one cannot believe in the principle of reciprocity is if one does not believe that all people are fully and equally human, and thereby do not deserve the same rights as those who are fully and equally human.

And that's why free speech extremists are wrong, they've abandoned reciprocity and replaced it with a sort of crude and shallow egalitarianism. This also points out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of relativism.

And the thing is, the conservatives understand this very well, and exploit it. The free speech/liberty extremists are to them what the old Communist revolutionaries termed "useful idiots" -- those who do not share their views, but hold views that can be easily manipulated into making them unwitting allies. Indeed, the Daily Stormer, one of the largest Neo-Nazi propaganda organizations, has a PR guide that details just how to utilize this sort of extremism to further their own goals, and recruit new supporters. How to co-opt the principle of freedom of speech without having to abide by reciprocity, and hold it as a stick over the heads of the ostensibly freedom-loving populations while they advocate for the destruction of those same principles of speech and freedom.

The degree to which anyone's speech deserves to be respected is the degree to which that speech upholds reciprocity, and the degree to which it should be de-platformed and regulated is directly proportionate to the degree in which it violates reciprocity.

Yes, freedom of speech should be respected, even if it's speech we disagree with. But extremists don't seem to understand that there is a difference between disagreement, and repression. "I think Jews are subhuman" is a matter of free speech, since it's simply a statement of opinion and can be easily disagreed with. "Jews should be rounded up and killed" is not a matter of disagreement, because it's not a valid opinion, it's advocating for the violation of reciprocity, and the repression of a group based solely on an accident of nature. And the more violent the violation of reciprocity, the more violent the response to it should be to ensure that reciprocity is maintained.

The degree to which free speech extremists fail to understand this is sadly ironic, since the very principle they claim to upload is being perverted to ultimately silence critics, undesirables, and anyone who disagrees with the conservative viewpoint.
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 01:23 AM   #272
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
This is so fundamentally wrong it beggars the imagination.

"Free speech is not a suicide pact" has been mentioned, and that's the key point here; because only one side of this debate actually values free speech, while the other side merely uses it as a tool to silence their opponents.

People are constantly throwing around terms like "freedom" and a "liberty", without really understanding what they mean in the context in which they are used. What the free speech extremists are missing is the most important, core value under attack here: Reciprocity.

Reciprocity is the foundational principle of any laudable system of morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." "Have compassion for all beings, because all beings are one being." The principle that all beings have a fundamentally equal status, and no person has the right to arbitrarily deprive others of their rights.

That is the key difference between the socially conservative and liberal mindsets. Conservativism denies reciprocity, while liberalism supports it. Conservativism created hierarchies of people, and assigns greater or lesser rights and privileges to individuals and groups depending on where they stand in their particular hierarchy. Liberalism assigns the same rights to all who respect the principle of reciprocity.

And again, this principle is not an absolute moral precept, it's a peace treaty. As long as you respect my rights, I will respect yours. The moment you no longer respect and uphold reciprocity, that principle ceases to protect you. If you do not respect other peoples' rights, you can no longer expect yours to be respected. It's the only truly objective basis for morality that exists. The only way that one cannot believe in the principle of reciprocity is if one does not believe that all people are fully and equally human, and thereby do not deserve the same rights as those who are fully and equally human.

And that's why free speech extremists are wrong, they've abandoned reciprocity and replaced it with a sort of crude and shallow egalitarianism. This also points out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of relativism.

And the thing is, the conservatives understand this very well, and exploit it. The free speech/liberty extremists are to them what the old Communist revolutionaries termed "useful idiots" -- those who do not share their views, but hold views that can be easily manipulated into making them unwitting allies. Indeed, the Daily Stormer, one of the largest Neo-Nazi propaganda organizations, has a PR guide that details just how to utilize this sort of extremism to further their own goals, and recruit new supporters. How to co-opt the principle of freedom of speech without having to abide by reciprocity, and hold it as a stick over the heads of the ostensibly freedom-loving populations while they advocate for the destruction of those same principles of speech and freedom.

The degree to which anyone's speech deserves to be respected is the degree to which that speech upholds reciprocity, and the degree to which it should be de-platformed and regulated is directly proportionate to the degree in which it violates reciprocity.

Yes, freedom of speech should be respected, even if it's speech we disagree with. But extremists don't seem to understand that there is a difference between disagreement, and repression. "I think Jews are subhuman" is a matter of free speech, since it's simply a statement of opinion and can be easily disagreed with. "Jews should be rounded up and killed" is not a matter of disagreement, because it's not a valid opinion, it's advocating for the violation of reciprocity, and the repression of a group based solely on an accident of nature. And the more violent the violation of reciprocity, the more violent the response to it should be to ensure that reciprocity is maintained.

The degree to which free speech extremists fail to understand this is sadly ironic, since the very principle they claim to upload is being perverted to ultimately silence critics, undesirables, and anyone who disagrees with the conservative viewpoint.
Very good explanation.

This is something that most Western societies actually understand, which is why there are laws againt hate speech. It's also why centrists and "classical liberals" historically ally with the fascists.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 3rd April 2019 at 01:25 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 07:52 AM   #273
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
This is so fundamentally wrong it beggars the imagination.
Wow.

Quote:
"Free speech is not a suicide pact" has been mentioned, and that's the key point here; because only one side of this debate actually values free speech, while the other side merely uses it as a tool to silence their opponents.
I see...which side of the debate actually values free speech? It doesn't sound like your side (whatever that is) does.

Quote:
People are constantly throwing around terms like "freedom" and a "liberty", without really understanding what they mean in the context in which they are used. What the free speech extremists are missing is the most important, core value under attack here: Reciprocity.
The concept of reciprocity only applies when every individual of every party involved agrees to it. Otherwise, while most are busy reciprocating, one individual with a different opinion and a gun is wiping the others off the map.

Quote:
Reciprocity is the foundational principle of any laudable system of morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "An it harm none, do what thou wilt." "Have compassion for all beings, because all beings are one being." The principle that all beings have a fundamentally equal status, and no person has the right to arbitrarily deprive others of their rights.
Again, that only applies if everyone agrees. I only believe in the golden rule when I agree the other party is my equal, and trust that party to also adhere to the golden rule. Otherwise, while I'm turning the other cheek, I'm likely to lose my head.

Quote:
That is the key difference between the socially conservative and liberal mindsets. Conservativism denies reciprocity, while liberalism supports it.
Again, reciprocity is a suicidal path if one party is lying. "Oh, sure, of course I'll be happy to discuss your 'live and let live' attitude. Amongst my brethren. Over your corpse."

Social conservatives, I think, are starting to see a very deadly sinkhole in the reciprocity plot, and are unwilling to plunge to their deaths.

Quote:
Conservativism created hierarchies of people, and assigns greater or lesser rights and privileges to individuals and groups depending on where they stand in their particular hierarchy. Liberalism assigns the same rights to all who respect the principle of reciprocity.
I fail to see the free speech aspect...?

Rational people, conservatives or otherwise, should recognize different people have earned different places in society. Those who work within our social framework are granted greater rights and privileges, while those who don't see them taken away.

Personally, I pretty much agree every person is created equal, but their choices and their circumstances lead to greater or lesser places within society. If they've forfeited rights through their own behavior, that is on them.

Quote:
And again, this principle is not an absolute moral precept, it's a peace treaty. As long as you respect my rights, I will respect yours. The moment you no longer respect and uphold reciprocity, that principle ceases to protect you. If you do not respect other peoples' rights, you can no longer expect yours to be respected. It's the only truly objective basis for morality that exists. The only way that one cannot believe in the principle of reciprocity is if one does not believe that all people are fully and equally human, and thereby do not deserve the same rights as those who are fully and equally human.
I'm not sure what, exactly, this has to do with free speech. A treaty only works as long as both parties agree to it, and both parties uphold it. Either party may lie about it, and either party may cease to uphold it.

Quote:
And that's why free speech extremists are wrong, they've abandoned reciprocity and replaced it with a sort of crude and shallow egalitarianism. This also points out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of relativism.
I don't think there's anything crude or shallow about egalitarianism.

Relativism is the only kind of morality we have. God is imaginary, and Mother Nature has only given some of us empathy and sympathy to work with. We use those delicate tools to craft our own ideas of right and wrong, and we have to hope everyone else around us does, too. But we know that some do not -either they see the world very differently than we do, or they just don't care.

Ideally we're able to entertain their points of view, possibly make small adjustments to our own, and learn to compromise enough to work and live in relative peace.

But even when we can't find any grounds for compromise, one should never silence the other. Rather, we draw hard lines between behavior and speech; curtailing one and allowing the other near total freedom -in this circumstance, both parties freely share their convictions without fear, and thus increase the likelihood that some kind of accord will eventually be found. Or, they will tire of repeated refusal of acceptance, and leave to form a society of their own elsewhere.

Quote:
And the thing is, the conservatives understand this very well, and exploit it. The free speech/liberty extremists are to them what the old Communist revolutionaries termed "useful idiots" -- those who do not share their views, but hold views that can be easily manipulated into making them unwitting allies.Indeed, the Daily Stormer, one of the largest Neo-Nazi propaganda organizations, has a PR guide that details just how to utilize this sort of extremism to further their own goals, and recruit new supporters. How to co-opt the principle of freedom of speech without having to abide by reciprocity, and hold it as a stick over the heads of the ostensibly freedom-loving populations while they advocate for the destruction of those same principles of speech and freedom.
I can't comment about any of that.

Quote:
The degree to which anyone's speech deserves to be respected is the degree to which that speech upholds reciprocity, and the degree to which it should be de-platformed and regulated is directly proportionate to the degree in which it violates reciprocity.
No.

As Dr. House says "Everybody lies".

The word "reciprocity" implies mutual benefit, however it doesn't necessarily mean "equal benefit". So the claim "we spoke, but he came out better for it, so he violated reciprocity and should be forever silenced" would have to be evaluated for merit for thousands of circumstances, with different peoples ending up silenced in different ways...right back to what you were claiming free speech causes in the first paragraph.

Quote:
Yes, freedom of speech should be respected, even if it's speech we disagree with. But extremists don't seem to understand that there is a difference between disagreement, and repression. "I think Jews are subhuman" is a matter of free speech, since it's simply a statement of opinion and can be easily disagreed with. "Jews should be rounded up and killed" is not a matter of disagreement, because it's not a valid opinion, it's advocating for the violation of reciprocity, and the repression of a group based solely on an accident of nature. And the more violent the violation of reciprocity, the more violent the response to it should be to ensure that reciprocity is maintained.
I agree with the highlighted part. But I disagree there are any invalid opinions. If someone thinks all the Jews should be killed, he should be free to say so. Others should be free to disagree. Both sides should be able to freely and fearlessly exchange their thoughts on the matter, so that everyone can know where they stand (the Jews certainly need to know!), and discussion can -hopefully- find a common ground. Or, if words lead to acts, law enforcement will know where to start looking.

Quote:
The degree to which free speech extremists fail to understand this is sadly ironic, since the very principle they claim to upload is being perverted to ultimately silence critics, undesirables, and anyone who disagrees with the conservative viewpoint.
Sorry; but I think anyone arguing in favor of limiting free speech is trying to silence ME, and I won't stand for it.

IMO, the first amendment of the US constitution should stand for all people for all eternity, and NEVER be abridged.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:14 AM   #274
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,093
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
You can't. Period.
"When it erupts we ask the question; Why?!"
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:24 AM   #275
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
"When it erupts we ask the question; Why?!"
Ideas are not harmful. A good person has never been ruined by a bad book, or a bad thought.

Silencing someone with harmful ideas just leads to that person keeping them a secret -which can lead to living a double life or living a lie- and eventually the truth will leak out. It may leak out in a safe, sane way "I've always secretly believed the Gorgons should rule the world" or a more extreme way "I believe all the Gorgons should be murdered in their sleep" or in a violent way (person tries to kill Gorgons).

I think most of us can agree that none of these outcomes are the stuff of sunshiney days, but the silence didn't solve the problems. It just hid them; and while they're hidden out of sight and out of mind, no other solutions are being proposed or considered.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:33 AM   #276
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,093
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
When electricity was rising in popularity, opponents of the new technology came forward with some serious risks. It could burn down a house! People could be electrocuted! etc etc. All of their risks were real, but we find that we prefer living with electricity and all that it makes possible and living with some level of those risks.
Actually no, or at least not entirely,
Some of the risks were real, some were utter nonsense, some were deliberately exaggerated for personal/corporate gain, some were mitigated by mandating certain measures. Some were lived with.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
So let's look realistically at the risks of abuse of limits on speech.

For one thing, I don't think speech is really that different from other actions.

We limit people's motion in a million ways from jaywalking laws to private property protections. We limit the things you can own- you can't have a nuclear bomb or a million species of wild animals. We limit what you can build- you can't build a house that doesn't meet regulations etc etc etc.
Correct. Right back to Ye Olden Days, when agriculture was a new concept.
Complex organisation of humans requires constraints on behaviour; initially the idea that assault/robbery/rape/murder were unacceptable, within the group/tribe.
As things got more complicated, the rules changed and expanded. Thr risk of fire within a town or city led (at least a millennium ago) to the 'couvre-feu' law, for example.


Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
And really we're not entirely virginal on limiting speech. We've had obscenity laws forever. We have laws about truth in advertising (and that often difficult concept of "truth" can be it's own slippery slope). We have defamation law. We consider some utterances harrassment or threats.
Exactly. This seems, to me anyway, to be something that those opposing laws on the effects of speech ignore; we've always had such restrictions. The oft espoused idea (especially among certain USAians) that they are inherently a Bad Idea is nonsense.

Better to have open control of such restrictions than leave it to unaccountable, unknown groups.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
And we don't have to look to dystopian counterfactuals to imagine what might happen with stricter speech controls than we have in the US. Germany makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust or praise Hitler. The UK has has stricter regulation of speech on a number of grounds. Both have had such policies for a while and haven't become apocalyptic hellholes. They may have some government action that some people here don't like, but they haven't slid down those slopes yet. They may not really be so slippery.

To some people, free speech is an end in itself. I don't hold that value, I don't think free speech is much different than freedom of movement. If we can handle crosswalks and traffic laws, we can probably survive making it uncool to be a Nazi.
The slippery slope is often not as slippery as claimed.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:36 AM   #277
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,705
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Ideas are not harmful. A good person has never been ruined by a bad book, or a bad thought.
That is a really good no true scottsman. Anyone who becomes violent through exposure to ideas of course was never a good person to begin with.

For example the person in this article clearly was never and will never be a good person because mere exposure to racist ideology all his life growing up made him violent. If he was really a good person that wouldn't happen.

https://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...i-militia.html
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:53 AM   #278
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
That is a really good no true scottsman. Anyone who becomes violent through exposure to ideas of course was never a good person to begin with.

For example the person in this article clearly was never and will never be a good person because mere exposure to racist ideology all his life growing up made him violent. If he was really a good person that wouldn't happen.

https://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...i-militia.html
I wouldn't call being raised in a bubble "mere exposure". I do realize people the world over are only exposed to a small set of ideas, because for them free speech is limited. Thusly, they choose their relative morals from a smaller relative set, and have very different ideas of right and wrong than those with a larger world view.

Their parents filter "harmful ideas" and silence the greater world. It's exactly the same concept I'm arguing against.

Freedom of speech did not cause the problem. The lack of it did.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 12:04 PM   #279
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
No, for the purposes of this discussion, kiddie porn is absolutely illegal. Virtual kiddie porn s a weird niche dilemma unrelated to the subject at hand. While a valid argument, it's not this one.

Nice evasion. It's artwork, which has been ruled to qualify as speech, since it doesn't involve real people in any way. Why is it valid to censor one type of speech, but not another? If we can censor one type of speech -- virtual child porn -- for the protection of society, why is it not valid to censor another type of speech -- white supremacist propaganda -- to protect society?

Quote:
Whether or not police are prosecuted for crimes has no relevance on whether or not they were crimes.

Another evasion. These are not situations where the police are getting away with crimes, these are situations where citizens have tried to report these activities as crimes, where they have even gone so far as to file civil rights lawsuits, and prosecutors have declined to prosecute because the actions were not considered crimes (at least not when police commit them), or they went to trial, and the police were exonerated of any crimes or violations simply for the fact that they are police, and a different law applies to them. There have been plenty examples posted to this very forum.

Quote:
Legality is set up to protect the rights of all. It is not set up to enforce your moral code.

All legality is based on someone's or some groups moral code. That is why so much of American law has a religious basis (puritan and catholic). Things like "blue laws" are very much religious in origin, and Prohibition was all about a small group of teetotalers attempting to enforced their morality nationwide -- and did so partially through the use of what we would now consider domestic terrorism.

Quote:
What the hell is with analogizing virtual kiddie porn with white supremacy? Virtual porn is in a hazy area between real and not real, victimization of children and imagination. White supremacy is a belief that crackers are inherently superior to others. While I get what you are trying to twist the argument to, it is acrobatic level contorting.

Nope, it's all still speech, despite your refusal to recognize it as such. One is censored with the justification that doing so protects society, but the other is not, despite the fact that white supremacist rhetoric has repeatedly proven to be an imminent risk of violence.

I'm using the example, because the exact same arguments against censorship can be and have been used. It's no more a gray area than white supremacists/nationalists advocating for a white-only country, and promoting racist conspiracy theories that inspire people to shoot up churches and pizza restaurants.

[quote]I don't like Spencer and his flaccid army of losers. But what I'd like even less is Generalissimo luchog telling me what I can and cannot think, based on luchog's personal morality.[/


If you can't debate honestly, without imputing motives and creating straw men, then there's no point to continuing this. This is not about regulating what you can and cannot "think" as well you know, this is about regulating publicly advocating anti-social actions, promoting violent racist ideologies, and organizing and recruiting for domestic terrorist organizations.

Quote:
No, the everyday racists were not lynching on their lunch breaks. They were making hateful little comments here, showing cowardice and insecurity there.

http://]https://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-...#United_States

And here's the rhetoric that supports and encourages those actions:

This Is The Daily Stormer’s Playbook
A leaked style guide reveals they’re Nazis about grammar (and about Jews).


Quote:
Today's alt-right is not the nazi party.

And this is just semantic niggling that bears no relation to the actual qualities of both. Trying to distance the two because they are not physically the exact same people is intellectually bankrupt. Modern neo-Nazis espouse nearly all the same principles, particularly the principles of racial superiority and genocide, as do many others on the "alt.right".

Incidentally, since you seem to be ignorant of the history, the overwhelming majority of Nazi party members were not involved in the military, or in the rounding up and murder of undesirables. They were the same "sniveling coward" who simply sat back and approved of and promoted the rhetoric of those who were rounding up and murdering


Quote:
Prewar Germany had it's own unique circumstances that people are dying to analogize to today; they are not comparable at the engine room level.

Numerous historians and other academics have remarked on the parallels between modern fascism and white nationalism, it's increasing influence in both social and political society, and the rise of white nationalism and fascism prior to WWII. Claiming that white nationalists aren't a credible threat because the circumstances are not completely identical is dangerous ostrichism at best; and ignores the historical circumstances of the rise of fascism in many other places in the world. Quibbling over what they want to call themselves is disingenuous obfuscatory rhetoric, they're still white nationalists/supremacists, and still violent.

Quote:
Richard Spencer or any of the others will not be the new Hitler. Neither will President Trump. The National Socialist White People's Party will not take power. These guys are a social force now, not a political one. Fight them socially, not politically.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the political links between the current GOP and various white nationalist groups, such as the Proud Boys.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republ...the-proud-boys

In any case, these movements do not start out as fully-fledged political parties vying for power. They start as social movements long before they become political, and will do their best to become political forces before they're stopped.

The Brownshirts were originally a collection of loosely organized paramilitary/terrorist organizations such as the Freikorps, as well as "lone wolf" individuals, very much like the modern Aryan Nations, Atomwaffen, Proud Boys, KKK, Timothy McVeigh, and so on. Those groups were formed from various sources, including veterans, local street toughs, disaffected youth, etc. for the purpose of protesting communism, immigration, reparations, etc, and disrupt their rallies; while promoting nationalism and "German identity". Hitler, in order to create a powerbase, gathered these disparate groups together to create a more effective larger organization. The parallels are striking for anyone who is a student of history.

In case you haven't noticed, Trump has already made threats about the 2020 elections, vaguely hinting at violence against Democrats and others if they continue stonewalling him, or if he fails to get re-elected: Trump suggests that it could get 'very bad' if military, police, biker supporters play 'tough' Meanwhile, Trump has repeated denied the problem of white nationalist terrorism, despite the fact that white nationalist organization membership has risen precipitously, as has white nationalist terrorism:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.265a879c3c4e
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/th...e-nationalism/
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-seri...list-terrorism
http://time.com/5555396/white-suprem...e-new-zealand/

These are not "sniveling cowards", these are people who are holding rallies, much like the proto-Nazis did, who are engaging in violence, and who are working to push for more and more political power. And they are using social media to spread their gospel of hate and recruit new members, and are doing so very effectively.

But I'm sure that Trump's "very fine people" like the marchers at Charlotte who came fully armed and attacked non-violent protesters, are completely and totally different. Yep.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 3rd April 2019 at 12:10 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 12:17 PM   #280
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Again, that only applies if everyone agrees. I only believe in the golden rule when I agree the other party is my equal, and trust that party to also adhere to the golden rule. Otherwise, while I'm turning the other cheek, I'm likely to lose my head.

Thank you for so effectively demonstrating my point. Oh, by the way, which side is that is trying to silence their opponents with guns again? Not the "liberals", that's for sure.

Quote:
Again, reciprocity is a suicidal path if one party is lying. "Oh, sure, of course I'll be happy to discuss your 'live and let live' attitude. Amongst my brethren. Over your corpse."

WTF, what does "lying" have to do with anything? You are making absolutely no sense here.

Either you have no idea what the reciprocity principle is, or you deliberately ignored where I addressed this point specifically. Since you didn't see the first time, I'll restate it: Reciprocity only applies to those who are willing to accept it, and when it is violated, then the treaty is broken, and the violators can be resisted with the force necessary to reimpose it.

You really seem to be unclear on the concept.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.