https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
CNN has been like this ever since Zaslav took over and it’s EXHAUSTING to hear my parents constantly having it on in the background
Defending the right to unpopular and offensive speech is not the same as compromising with the speech. You can truly abhor what someone’s saying and not try to some them.
Okay, so then do you really want the Trump administration deciding on what speech to ban? Freedom of speech isn’t just about defending monsters. It also can save us from them.
This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?
This past election was very eye-opening in that everyone on the left was so absolutely confident that Trump wouldn’t win. So much so they had already started laying things out for their own fascist takeover.
And yes, the left can act in a fascist manner.
I am genuinely curious about your perspective—when you say the left can act in a fascist manner, could you provide some specific examples of what you mean? Also, how do you personally define fascism in this context?
Tell me you don’t know what fascism is without actually saying it.
This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?
People who support censorship always believe the censors will always side with their preferences. They never consider what happens when people they oppose control the censors, and for them merely not having allied censors in place feels like they are being silenced (see conservative Christian types who inevitably get angry any time Christian-focused language isn’t enforced [aka War on Christmas or anyone else requesting a display when there’s a public religious display on government property]).
Remember that bill that would strip non-profit status from any group, based on the whim of the president? With no hope of appeal? That was very popular with Democrats, until Trump won.
Even if you assholes don’t abuse something like that, you know that you aren’t going to be in office forever? There’s an election every 4 years, remember?
Don’t go conflating Democrats with the left, though. There’s some overlap, but they aren’t the same.
The comic is actually self contradictory, because the top-left panel satirizes being tolerant with Hitler, while the bottom left satirizes accepting some wars. No wars would mean letting Hitler just go around annexing countries and creating concentration camps wherever he wants.
There’s a big difference between defending your country within your borders and crossing a border to fight in another country.
Hitler will be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
Surely, as he was in reality. I’ll be paraphrasing this, thanks.
“The Marketplace of Ideas” is such a scam, all that phrase accomplished was getting Bill Nye to debate creationists, who then gained followings because “The TV Box said that the Creationism and Evolution are equal ideas worth debating and considering the merits of!”
Don’t let them make you think that Piss belongs on the shelf with Pepsi.
Chicken and the egg, he would have been defeated in the marketplace of ideas, if he didn’t seize power and destroy the marketplace of ideas. If the German population held freedom of expression, equality for all under the law, etc., as sacrosanct, and Hitler wasn’t able to manufacture a legal mechanism to seize power, nothing would have happened. But, they were missing that kind of unity, the idea of what a better society should look like and why it’s worth defending, so that enough psychopaths organized around Hitler that he was able to enforce his mandates.
Ultimately the question is about whether or not a political paradigm can gain enough traction to have its followers come out on top of everyone else. The prevailing wind of society has to be justice instead of injustice. And not always “domestically”, either, war and colonialism take a very similar shape. just as a projection from one region into another. This gets to Chomsky’s description of “power structures”. A fascist power structure could defeat, or be defeated by, the organization of the people, but it all depends on their collective cultural mindset - strength in numbers, arms, organization, etc. That is why ultimately the fight against fascism is about the necessity of education, and why fascists attack all forms of education.
Seize power?
He was given power by Hidenburg to get a working Reichstag coalition to stop the Communists and other far Left groups from gaining ground.The existing power structures were then very happy to work with him and saw him as a tool until it was clear he was unassailably in power. Then his annexations of Austria and The Sudentenland were massively popular domestically, even with people who didn’t like him.
People were too happy to overlook the antisemitism, homo/transphobia, and racism in general (especially against Roma, Sindi, and other travellers as well as Slavs) in return for feeling their nation was strong again.
That said, I think I agree with your overall idea. Just being a “terminally online nitpicker”.
until it was clear he was unassailably in power
Yes, that part where power was seized.
“It is a less significant thing I do, than I have ever done.”
New York Times - Feb. 1, 1933 (Archive.org copy so you can zoom in and read it more clearly)
Insistence on classic freedom of speech doesn’t mean centrist, moderate, or apolitical. It means supporting civil liberties without being an ignorant hypocrite that takes those hard-fought liberties for granted. There was a whole movement that was pivotal to the civil liberties movement.
I once saw a guy on Twitter who edited the second panels compromise sign to say “You’re both fucking stupid”. He used it as his profile banner.
People like this actually exist in real life.
I agree that pureexpression is a horrible idea in combination with the internet. You can’t allow people to just rile up eachother with misinformation and become terrorists over issues that don’t exist. Be it Jewish space lasers, Mexican rapist immigrants or dumb conspiracy theories like vaccines causing autism.
Especially if you have a following, or echo chambers, content just has to be stopped.
Humanity is not ready for full free flow of information, not as long as dumb idiots believe anything they reas
What even is people’s problem with autism? It can - even and does - make people super smart, after all.
The moral purists are lashing out with hyperbole since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire has castrated their big issue. They have to pretend letting Trump win by refusing to vote for Harris cuz she “supported genocide” was still the right thing to do, and they weren’t just being impatient toddlers demanding a cookie RIGHT NOW. Apparently they don’t understand that diplomacy isn’t something you can just click on.
Let me guess- they are claiming that this ceasefire is because Harris lost.
Well hey then that makes it their achievement! No idea but it wouldn’t be surprising.
not taking a side, is taking the side of inaction, which will inevitably result in oligarchy. You can say you don’t care, withdraw, and refuse to participate, but don’t pretend like it’s not an active participation. You’re actively in this life, you’re just choosing to let the wrong team win.
Not trying to sound obnoxious, but from my experience the average people and voters don’t know much on just about any given topic. The masses are inundated and distracted by consumerism, vapid entertainment and other white noise to pay attention to what is beyond their immediate concerns, which makes them miss the bigger picture. Even if you make a person aware the gravity of the issue, some simply would not care because it is just more convenient not to think about it or gives them self-gratification. Case in point, data privacy protection outside of EU and California is non-existent because people do not even know companies sell personal information nor even care if pointed out. That’s why social media thrive because most humans love the feeling of that dopamine hit when they receive likes; and companies and politicians are all to happy to exploit that and won’t tell their users what they do in the name of harvesting their personal data.
Most people will choose the side of inaction as long as they’re comfortable enough. That’s something I don’t get with today’s oligarchs. They are just as stupid as they are greedy. If they hoarded just a bit less – if they were willing to live a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a SMALL country rather than living a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a midsize country – they could live the exact same day to day existence without the working class being up in arms and in love with CEO assassins.
In the movie of their life, the only difference would be the “high score” text at the top of the screen.
But I guess if you value a practical good life over unchecked avarice and ego, you probably aren’t cut out for the oligarch lifestyle.
This is one of the best summaries of it that I’ve seen.
People are being stupid when they call oligarchs selfish. They aren’t selfish. They’re idiots.
If you took away the internet and TV, People would riot like they never have before. You hit the nail on the head, enough of us who would do something are just comfortable enough not to. We have comfort food, alcohol, weed, TV, video games, and movies. All distractions. Take away the comfort, take away peoples last remaining reason not to revolt.
I actually don’t care about politics. “BuT It aFfEcTs yOu tOo, YoU HaVe tO FoLlOw tHe lAwS ThAt gEt mAdE”
Bitch do you think i follow the laws that already exist? Mind your own business i’ll mind mine.
Not caring about politics is a privilege of the powerful. All this shows is that you are lucky enough to be in control of your own life. Congratulations! Me too! No one is actively working to hurt me either.
I care about politics because not everyone is able to have that privilege, and they should.
And you are fully free to exercise that privilege, just don’t shove it in my face and make it your life’s mission to make this guy care about it as much as you do.
I had friends who told me they didn’t vote, and you know what I said? " Ah okay whatever"
And this concept fucking baffles people
“Don’t come whining to me when they’re putting your neighbors in boxcars and sending them off to the camps because it’s not like there’s a reason for me to give a shit.”
Well you better get off your ass and vote then huh?
Sorry, is there an election going on right now and no one told me?
No lmao I’m just saying there’s the whole paradox that I have issue with, everyone who gets uppity about people not voting always spend more time arguing that they should vote than voting themselves.
I’ve made my stance clear, I just don’t want to, so no use arguing with me about It, but time and time again that’s how it goes
Well yeah. Exactly how long do you think it takes someone to vote?
So I shouldn’t tell other people what to do, but it’s ok for you to tell me what to do?
Sometimes it’s ok to read your post before hitting send.
Yeah! When I’m driving I make sure to constantly change lanes WITH NO BLINKERS cause fuck the establishment! Just swerving back and forth cause your fucking paint lines can’t control me.
Don’t even fucking get me started on school speed zones.
Right on man! First they’re telling you where to drive and how fast, then they’re takin’ away ur gunz!
Yes please get pissy about it! That’s the spirit!
God you political types are so predictable, bet you wouldn’t last more than an hour where I grew up
SaYs tHe OnE wHo TyPeD lIkE ThIs
Hey boomer, it means I’m mocking whoever says that, if. You ascribed what was said in that text to your own beliefs that’s on you bud
Lol k
hey, that’s against the rules. you can’t mock people like that.
I also would like a reasonable amount of wars.
The reasonable amount of wars just happens to be 0.
Understand that this also means no wars of liberation and no wars of mutual defense
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful… As soon as you start allowing the gov’t to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it’s the actions that can arise from the words.
I’ll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I’ll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh when their mind is filled with hate and bile.
just because you can speak your mind doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of doing so.
I’ll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I’ll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh
This is a contradiction. Something isn’t a right if you allow open season for others to actively target and suppress.
Otherwise, Stalinism is also technically “free speech”: you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences.
Be clear about what you mean.
It’s actually perfectly simple and not contradictory as long as you don’t conflate basic rights and absolute impunity.
Having the right to say something abhorrent without the government punishing you for it ≠ having the privilege to say whatever you want and face no consequences.
Conflating the two to the point of censoring dissent is how fascism, anarcho-capitalism, Stalinism, and other inherently abusive ideologies that look attractive to some when not closely examined take root and thrive.
You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.
This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.
There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.
It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.
The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls’:
Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”
Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.
“While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”
This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.
You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.
I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.
Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they’re fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.
From context
Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties
and key words
only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe
and my direct statement
speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty
I’m stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one’s mind doesn’t cause harm. Harm requires an act.
Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl’s conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.
Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?
Complaining about semantics isn’t the argument you think it is. Meanings & distinctions matter.
The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice. If you’re willing to undermine rights for expressions that won’t actually harm/threaten, then I don’t care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes?
No & already answered.
I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government. Make sure you lock the door in your ivory tower behind you.
This isn’t about the paradox of tolerance; the paradox of tolerance refers to a social contract, not a legal framework.
You have the legal right to spew hate and vicious trash. You do NOT have the right to be free of social opprobrium should you do so. As soon as you start legally limiting speech based on what you think is acceptable, you create a legal framework for other people to do the same.
Nobody said it was a legal framework. I am applying the paradox to how we should frame it legally.
The rest of your argument was already covered in my post.
It’s your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that’s the problem
In modern societies, we’re happy with the government banning the latter and not the former
In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one’s which
There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the 1st amendment of the US constitution. That’s a well-established legal precedent that no succeeding court has been willing to overturn.
If you decided to make hateful speech illegal, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians to claim that my advocacy for my religion–Satanism–was hate speech.
Government censorship isn’t just a ban on speech currently deemed to be hateful. It is also an endorsement of speech they currently believe to be political.
The problem should be wildly apparent when we realize that governments around the world have a long and colorful history of making “political speech” that is only later determined to be hateful.
Even “Good” presidents in our recent past have held positions that, in hindsight, are dehumanizing, abhorrent and vile. Our entire “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for example.
Our incoming president has indicated his intention to treat immigrants as enemy combatants. He plans to deport adults who were born and have lived their entire lives in the US if he determines their parents did not adequately prove their legal presence. He has determined that this racist position is “political speech”.
Government has no fucking business deciding what is and is not protected speech.
One important caveat: there is a difference between “speech” and “violence”. Threats may be spoken, but threats are not speech. Threats should be criminally prosecuted, not arbitrarily censored by the government.
Political speech can involve hate.
Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.
You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump. You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.
Political speech can involve hate.
Not in a modern society
Political disagreement, or any other disagreement that does not involve hate and harm should not be in question.
It never has been
You’re welcome to hate Biden or Trump.
I make a point of not hating anyone too old to control their bladder
You’re not welcome to threaten to kill your political opponent’s supporters.
Yes, that’s the idea
I’ve not got a clue what point you’re making
Political speech can involve hate.
Not in a modern society
You cited an example from a society that thinks handguns are a right yet doesn’t fight for basic human rights like healthcare
That’s absolutely not a modern society
Ok. What society do you consider modern? France? Germany? Sweden? Finland? I can show a politician saying something just as horrible. Maybe not the one in high office, but elected politicians. I sure can’t think of a nation that doesn’t have at least a handful of racist assholes that get elected by being racist assholes.
Suggesting there is no hate in politics is just naïve. There is no place on this planet free of bigotry and free of people willing to have bigots make decisions for them.
Hate speech is not “saying that you hate something”…
That’s not what I said.
As a US citizen, I wish I could upvote you more.
This is like saying guns don’t kill people
The tool you use to kill is irrelevant, because the tool has no intent. Mens rea is, with the exception of a very, very few strict liability crimes, a requirement for an action to be criminal. A tool can not have intent.
Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);
The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won’t get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.
Thanks for the strawman, I see now you’re arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)
Oh, look, an ad hominem. Cool.
Firearms are not, themselves, the problem, despite however much people want to treat them as though they are. Likewise, in the UK, kitchen knives and scissors are not the problem, although the gov’t treats them as though they are.
Guns, knives, sticks, cars, and yes, even explosives, are tools. If you eliminate the causes that turn people to violence, you eliminate the use of the tools to commit violent acts. But no one is willing to discuss violence as a result of things like economic warfare or systemic racism; they insist that violence exists because the tools used in violent acts exist.
The discussion was never about the guns, dumdum (this, btw, is an ad hominem)
Automatic sentient guns, that’s what kills people.
Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others
Pull a trigger in the air without a gun, and see how many you kill.
The gun is an extension of the user - without the gun, you cannot shoot, just as without a person the gun won’t shoot.
Same is the case for words. They didn’t come out of the aether into existence, and when spoken carry the will of the speaker inherently.
It’s not “just words”, it can be malice or hate given form - that is, after all, the point of communication; to give form of what you desire or think to others.
