Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are incapable of intelligently reasoning about something and that another superior individual should be able to police what they hear.
If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.
The market place of idea struggles in my close friend group where we have sort of a tradition to do these kind of debates, despite us being very close since almost a decade, and educated above our national average.
It's a nice enough idea, but i dont see how to make it work in a space where money amplifies speech, and some types of speeches have been a negative to specific groups of people throughout history.
The obvious long term solution is more education but that requires money, so the obvious short term solution is censorship
Some people cannot be trusted with certain ideas so a more superior individual must control what they can hear.
Do you realize how patronizing and condescending you sound about your friends by the way when you clearly imply your ideas are well reasoned and factual and theirs are the result of psychology manipulation?
Some people cannot be trusted with certains ideas so a more superior indivdual or organisation must control what they can do
Or must we abandon policing since we can all exchange on the marketplace of ideas ?
My idea is since i control 40 gunmans and you control 0, you owe me money despite nothing having ever happened between us. No violence was ever implied.
Not saying that speech = action, but i cannot see how you can argue for police to exist but speech to be free as speech in itself must lead to actions, or why else would we speak in public ?
How do I defeat someone "in the marketplace of ideas" when the person inciting violence is backed by a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate, an undemocratic government, or a police union/sheriff gang?
> If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.
It's not about being "wise", it's about incentives. Plenty of people directly and benefit from violence against marginalized groups, and it's in their interest to accept and encourage the normalization of violence against those groups. Media provocateurs have an impeccable sense of what they need to say and what ideas they're communicating when they speak. Plausibly deniable provocation works so well precisely because the target audience understand the real message perfectly.
Violence. I would not bet against escalating physical violence in the coming decade or two in the US along political lines.
I guess you can argue that. But most people I see bringing up "stochastic terrorism" suddenly say that those types of violence don't count. It's not just that this outlook is controversial - I've yet to meet anyone who has applied it consistently.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...
That is not violence, not sure why you put some weasel statements in.
It's very, very easy to communicate in ways that encourage and incite violence(be it direct physical violence or denial of the means to live a dignified life), especially against groups against whom such violence is already normalized. Not all speech that does incite violence is intended to, but this fact also lends plausible deniability to people who do explicitly want violence but know that it's socially unacceptable to call for it directly. There is the danger of being overzealous with what speech to limit, but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Taking such people at their word on their intentions is dangerous, and those who do so have no right to act surprised and claim innocence when actions and rhetoric escalate past the point they're comfortable with.