Edit 8 days later: Wow, a lot of people really like using their free speech rights to advocate against free speech…Weird.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you don’t support free speech at all.
All censorship is bad. One day it’s naughty racial words and then the next day religious zealots can lock people up for saying “god” in the wrong context.
Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field.
Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field.
Again, nazis don’t have the power to do those things here in this century in the US.
If you say you are right to censor your worst enemys then the Nazis were logically also right to censor the opinions of the people THEY hated the most…
Supporting only certain peoples freedom of speech is the definition of censorship…
Everyone’s OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem “the intolerant” then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as “the intolerant” that doesnt tolerate them).
As long as they dont take away from anybody else’s freedom (and by just stating one’s opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.
Not tolerating someone (“the intolerant”) makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn’t “tolerate the intolerant”).
Essentially, who is “intolerant” depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.
It’s similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant
I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want
yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi
Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let’s see if it’s something we haven’t already heard a million times and rejected.
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored?
Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.
No it isn’t. One is a violent group who want to kill and enslave. The other respects life. They are not the same. They do not have the same rights. You are dead wrong, period. No amount of rationalization will make you not dead wrong.
Killing and enslaving are both means to do something, not the actual reason itself. If any person with a different political view wanted to do the same, it would be just as bad. Everyones opinion should be allowed.
Killing and enslaving should not be allowed and should be avoided at all cost.
The point is, however, if (lets say) a communist killed and enslaved people, should that mean that communist views should be censored in the future? (No! IMO)
Killing and enslaving people are terrible and unacceptable ways of pushing one’s own ideals. It does not make the actual opinion itself invalid though.
But communist views ARE censored, and it is specifically because it is claimed that they killed and enslaved. Meanwhile, Nazi views are celebrated as they announce to all that killing and enslavement is their goal.
This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples’ freedoms, it harms peoples’ freedom to tolerate that behaviour.
Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that’s currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it’s moronic.
Doesn’t mean you don’t support free speech. When I join a chatroom and someone is just typing shit over and over trying to get a rise and I ignore/block them, I don’t agree that I’m against free speech, I’m against harassment.
False equivalence. Online you can choose not to see things you don’t like. Online, no one can force you to look at things that offend you…at least not yet.
Which is why all the censorship on social media is so ridiculous. And if someone is DM’ing you to harass you…That’s not free speech anymore that’s harassment and there’s already laws about that.
As all real free speech advocates will tell you in opposition to „free speech absolutist“ elon musk is that you are free from government intervention for being of different opinion but not free to harass others with -isms.
You’re not free to dump on women, poc, neurodivergents, disabled people and any other minority.
Words aren’t violence. and naughty-racial words, are words.
I actually want people to be allowed to say those things, why? Because if someone says it out loud, unapologetically when they say they hate those n-words in their schools. Well now I know who to stay away from.
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.
It’s the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don’t fuck with the freedoms of others.
“Freedom of expression of opinion” would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions…
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!
Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between “should be allowed” and “should be cencored”. It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.
It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it
Ummm… my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything… I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
You’re confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action.
Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech.
As much as I think it’s a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime.
You’re oversimplifying. What we’re talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts.
Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.
distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.
Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.
Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.
Edit 8 days later: Wow, a lot of people really like using their free speech rights to advocate against free speech…Weird.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you don’t support free speech at all.
All censorship is bad. One day it’s naughty racial words and then the next day religious zealots can lock people up for saying “god” in the wrong context.
Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field.
Being locked up is a pretty charitable assumption about what will happen given the Nazis’ history and current rhetoric.
Again, nazis don’t have the power to do those things here in this century in the US.
Yet.
If you say you are right to censor your worst enemys then the Nazis were logically also right to censor the opinions of the people THEY hated the most…
Supporting only certain peoples freedom of speech is the definition of censorship…
no. you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Everyone’s OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem “the intolerant” then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as “the intolerant” that doesnt tolerate them).
As long as they dont take away from anybody else’s freedom (and by just stating one’s opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.
So if you don’t tolerate the intolerant, then they will be intolerant? I don’t follow this logic.
Not tolerating someone (“the intolerant”) makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn’t “tolerate the intolerant”).
Essentially, who is “intolerant” depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.
It’s similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.
deleted by creator
(Wrong). Its interesting that you think that just because I argued everyones opinion should be allowed.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.
I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want
Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.
deleted by creator
Why must person A tolerate person B’s belief that person A should not have the right to life and liberty?
You can call it an opinion all you like, but the truth is that opinions inevitably become actions.
what’s the value of me tolerating someone who’s stated aims are to do me, my family and friends harm?
What’s the value of tolerating any other opinion than yours?
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let’s see if it’s something we haven’t already heard a million times and rejected.
Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.
No it isn’t. One is a violent group who want to kill and enslave. The other respects life. They are not the same. They do not have the same rights. You are dead wrong, period. No amount of rationalization will make you not dead wrong.
Killing and enslaving are both means to do something, not the actual reason itself. If any person with a different political view wanted to do the same, it would be just as bad. Everyones opinion should be allowed.
What would you consider to be a good reason for killing and enslaving that everyone needs to hear about regularly?
Killing and enslaving should not be allowed and should be avoided at all cost.
The point is, however, if (lets say) a communist killed and enslaved people, should that mean that communist views should be censored in the future? (No! IMO)
Killing and enslaving people are terrible and unacceptable ways of pushing one’s own ideals. It does not make the actual opinion itself invalid though.
But communist views ARE censored, and it is specifically because it is claimed that they killed and enslaved. Meanwhile, Nazi views are celebrated as they announce to all that killing and enslavement is their goal.
And I dont think they should be censored (even though I disagree with their views). See what I mean?
This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples’ freedoms, it harms peoples’ freedom to tolerate that behaviour.
Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that’s currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it’s moronic.
Doesn’t mean you don’t support free speech. When I join a chatroom and someone is just typing shit over and over trying to get a rise and I ignore/block them, I don’t agree that I’m against free speech, I’m against harassment.
False equivalence. Online you can choose not to see things you don’t like. Online, no one can force you to look at things that offend you…at least not yet.
Which is why all the censorship on social media is so ridiculous. And if someone is DM’ing you to harass you…That’s not free speech anymore that’s harassment and there’s already laws about that.
Yep, this is where people frequently mistake censorship for outlawing certain behaviours.
Someone can stand on a street corner and shout all day about how they hate specific races, how they feel they’re a blight on society, etc.
Distasteful shit, for sure, but people can walk away, ignore them.
That’s what freedom of speech is, and it should absolutely be protected.
When those people cross the line into acting on those things - harassment, intimidation, assault, worse - that’s a crime that should be prosecuted.
That… is so not true in many states of the world.
Yeah but the point is that it’s your choice to block out the harassment - nobody is doing that on your behalf without asking you.
How to tell me you‘re a cis white male without telling me you‘re a cis white male.
Identity politics, nice. Free speech benefits everyone.
As all real free speech advocates will tell you in opposition to „free speech absolutist“ elon musk is that you are free from government intervention for being of different opinion but not free to harass others with -isms.
You’re not free to dump on women, poc, neurodivergents, disabled people and any other minority.
I’m autistic
Same here. You‘re still not free to dump on minorities.
Words aren’t violence. and naughty-racial words, are words.
I actually want people to be allowed to say those things, why? Because if someone says it out loud, unapologetically when they say they hate those n-words in their schools. Well now I know who to stay away from.
Oh. So you‘re fine if others hang themselves because they get constantly harassed because it doesn’t affect you, got it.
Words are words. Words aren’t violence.
All censorship is bad?
Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?
Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.
It’s the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don’t fuck with the freedoms of others.
“Freedom of expression of opinion” would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions…
Censorship of any opinion is bad.
Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?
Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.
I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!
Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between “should be allowed” and “should be cencored”. It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).
Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.
Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven’t bitten that bullet.
It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.
If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?
Ummm… my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything… I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)
You’re confusing freedom of ideas and speech with freedom of action.
Censorship is about limiting freedom of thought and speech.
As much as I think it’s a waste of mental energy, you have the absolute right to wish someone dead. Acting on that thought is where the line is drawn, and crossing that line is where it becomes a crime.
There’s a very distinct difference.
I think you’re confused about thought - it’s got nothing to do with anything I said.
Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.
What’s the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what’s more serious than genocide?
You’re making my point. Banning these things is not the same thing as censorship.
Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn’t censorship - got it.
You’re oversimplifying. What we’re talking about is censorship that attempts to control what people think and the freedom to express their thoughts.
Neither of the things you just mentioned could be considered the free expression of thought or speech - they are acts that result in the harm of others, and should be prosecuted as such.
Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.
Likewise, as disgusting as it is, having paedophilic thoughts is not a crime in and of itself, but searching for, distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.
I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.
You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.
Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.
Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.
Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.
deleted by creator
There’s already laws about that. Another false equivalence
So you were wrong when you said that not all censorship is bad.
If paedophilia were legalised, you’d defend it? If not, why would you raise legality in a conversation about morality?
Friendship is two best friends executing pedophiles together.
That’s been my motto for awhile. And I’m very much in favor of doing the Chris Hansen routine to catch pedos…Nice strawman by the way.