Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here?
> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment
> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing are definitely well known for promoting this /s
It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.
Where are you getting this morality business from?
Free speech is how it's defined in law, in the USA that's the 1st
Talking about "morality of speech" is just noise and deserves the quotation marks
Why the fuck do I care what the laws in Australia are when I don't live in Australia. you should see how govts interpret the "morality" or "offending" clauses in nation-states like India and Egypt to give themselves more power and arrest dissidents.
Lol, USAian moment, how about the other 7.7 billion of us?
Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”.
This is no way to solve problems in a free society. Let’s trans people be trans. And let people who think there are only two genders think that. Forcing a set of beliefs or values on people is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.
is my drag not free speech too? If one insults me (or says something to me I consider insulting), I should be allowed to insult them right back, right?
Nobody's rights extend to government banning speech that isn't supportive. No speech suppresses anybody else's.
Free speech isn't about "free speech for people who say things I support".
I'm tired of authoritarians pretending to be liberal.
Well, yeah, if that’s what you choose to do.
That’s the whole point: you can choose to absorb the information, or not. You can choose to take offense, or not.
Not in the United States.
Matal v Tam
>>Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."
----
remember, at one point it was considered 'harmful' be a majority whites for us browns/blacks to express our civil rights. Just because a majority goes "this is bad" doesn't mean it necessarily is.
No, it doesn't.
> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
No, it's about making sure people can spew a continuous stream of whatever hateful crap they feel like day in and day out every day for their whole life. One of the big reasons I'm a fan of things like universal income/healthcare is because currently employment is too critical to surviving which forces people to censor their speech. Hopefully the social safety net can improve to the point where someone can be almost comically offensive every day without fear of starving.
> If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices
That's an acceptable tradeoff for a free society.
Everyday on the internet I see White people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of White people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these neo-Nazi cons trying to cancel us are the real gulag runners". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize majority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.
This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
WHOOSH! No you don't.
>You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless?
They're not arbitrary, nor were they inserted.
>Shocking that you are being smarmy about it,
IMAX-level projection.
>I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
/r/selfawarewolves gold.
It is an argument, and it's not a rhetorical fallacy.
>There really is no good reason for you to conduct yourself this way.
Maybe I was being a bit much.
I'd recommend that you use your own words to communicate your point, not others'. It's not doing you the favors you seem to think it is, especially if you are taking the position that you have contributed an argument to the discussion.
nuance is dead and internet comment sections killed it
nuance is dead and internet comment sections killed it
This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.
Promoters of sex-deception and concomitant fertility destruction, typically seem to communicate in a way that is (1) a refusal to address substantial points, (2) adversarial hyperbole, and (3) refusal to engage in any kind rational argument that could lead to mutually beneficial truth-seeking and learning.
I'm sure that you agree that the quoted sentence above confirms those patterns? Can I invite you to reflect on why we see this pattern?
People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind. I don't see many jews running around screaming that speech is violence, we just get on with it. Same for black people dealing with those same white supremacists.
"don't let words affect you". Exactly! I am all for us as adults just not letting the words of people we will never meet affect us. I've sat down and had beers with open anti Semites and people with swastika tattoos while being very open about being a jew. Its fine, I had a good talk with them, nobody changed anyone's mind but we parted on good terms. I hope they find happiness. I in no way want them prosecuted for their beliefs or speech.
Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. And its primarily M2F trans people (in my experience), I don't really see F2M people doing it. I wonder if there is something related to the giving up of male physical strength that leads to demanding that society now protect you in all ways including your feelings. You're trans, cool, get on with it. Stop asking for special treatment.
The only Nazis are actual Nazis.
Let the downvotes commence.
Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]?
[ * ] (assuming, quite unreasonably, that that's actually something that could happen at a societal level)
Yes because the Nazis were butthurt bitches and used their perceived victimisation as an excuse to met out horrible torture, violence and dehumanisation.
Hitler tried to have a guy in Italy bought to heel for making his dog do a Nazi salute FFS.
No, let’s just ignore all the times this has happened in history and all the times other groups had raised similar points (their possible merits aside), pretend this is a new problem, and blame MTF folks for it.
Beware isolated standards of rigor, folks.
You're acting as though the likely outcome of neo-nazi groups is some skinhead trying to fight you. What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue.
>Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal.
This is simply nonsense. Pretty much every group in the country has a contingent that wants speech against them regulated
"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue." Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? The only way to eliminate violence based on ideals is to eliminate free will. 1984 here we come.
That's not true. Nazi ideology is banned in Germany, and they are a far healthier democracy than the United States.
> I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse.
So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?
> Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban?
You're making up things that I 'believe'. I don't personally think that nazi ideology should be banned.
I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense. The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism, not street fights you can be prepared for or defend yourself against.
"I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense". Cool, I still support near absolute free speech.
Nazis are banned in Germany as a result of WW2 and was part of their rehabilitation. Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? Biden? Trump? Desantis? Elizabeth Warren? The supreme court? I agree Nazis are bad, I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case.
>I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder.
Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction.
>Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America?
That power already resides with Congress and then hypothetically the Supreme Court. Functioning democracies can have conversations and then decide when, where, and how to restrict speech. We've been doing that for 250 years.
>I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
We've already established that you think the government can and should restrict ideas. 'Free speech absolutist' are rarely actually absolutist.
"I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction." I do think its an appropriate reaction. Again large difference between saying something mean about a group of people and calling for their murder. I think anti-trans people are bad, just like I think the same of anti anything people. I just think banning speech is worse.
I support government restricted speech in the context of preventing physical harm, that's pretty much it. You are right that congress creates the laws but in most cases the supreme court is going to prevent things that are overruled by the 1st. As it should be.
My main point is that saying speech is violence makes no sense. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. We spend 99% of our time worrying about things that in reality have no effect on our lives. If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Stop worrying about pointless nonsense.
You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship"
>In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence."
That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaningless term in regards to actual regulation and laws.
>e. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives.
The focus is on people who have their loved ones massacred because of people who were riled up online.
>If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares?
Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might.
That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.
"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue."
"The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism"
"Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might"
this in an incredibly disingenuous take. Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal? last i checked trans people were still trying to access affirming medical care and not be attacked in the streets. If you are referring to like pronouns/names, I still think you are being disingenuous. I think right to self determination is a meaningful thing to fight for, you can argue that one persons request to be called by their chosen name impedes on your speech but i think you're wrong.
> I don't really see F2M people doing it
This is actually a really interesting phenomena! It does have to do with existing double standards in how society treats men and women. The fact is a lot of trans men either have an easier time passing bc masculine aesthetics are easier to adopt or they are dismissed because they aren't seen as a threat by people who think a penis is the thing that makes you dangerous. Of course trans men have their own battles but they largely aren't being branded as a sex offender for existing in the way that trans women are. Also they absolutely are fighting for the same rights, it may seem quieter because the popular culture war talking point is specifically about drag queens. I don't think the media has figured out how to villainize trans men.
> Stop asking for special treatment.
Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this
Come on, did you read the post I was responding to? My post was a response to another post. Op appeared to want it to be made illegal. Calling speech violence implies that certain speech should be illegal as inflicting violence on others is illegal.
"Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this" The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it. Keep it out of schools and respect parental rights and I guarantee the focus on this goes away.
The only reason the focus is on drag queens is because kids are being taken to highly sexualized shows. Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
NSFW
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1603512564628987922?...
> The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it
Frankly this is a lie. The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross. It's circular logic to say that trans adults shouldn't exist because it will encourage my kid to grow up to be a trans adult. It's like saying that you don't want to live around Atheists because you want your kid to be Christian, fine enough but you can't stop people from being a thing you don't like, and your ability to stop your child from being it probably wanes earlier than you'd like.
> Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
no yall will find another reason to demonize trans people because you actually don't care about safety you care about your delicate sensibilities. It's a witch hunt and drag shows are the current "spell"
Where is the line with where one persons existence affects children? Sure your libsoftiktok "citation" is an example of an entertainer being too lewd for the audience but in no way does an entire demographic need to take the fall for a cherry-picked example of lewdness. Also who gets to decide what is too lewd? Do you want to give the government that power? Should it be illegal to show your kid an R rated movie? Is it the parents responsibility or the production team of the movie? Or are movies and movie likers at large to blame? Is a trans person going to the grocery store a danger to your kids? Is telling kids that trans people exist a danger? Where is the line between telling kids that its ok that some people in the world are trans and turning kids trans?
IDK Maybe we should also not tell our kids anything about "traditional" gender norms lest we anger any indignant parents who might agree/disagree that girls should have aspirations beyond motherhood.
> as long as they just live their lives like everyone else
The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice. You make the active decision every day to teach kids that boys cant wear dresses, or that girls and boys need to be separated in sports. You can justify those beliefs all you want but at the end of the day, you are saying that your perspective is right and that trans people are wrong. So no you are not asking them to "live their life like I do" because you don't want them to advertise a lifestyle different from yours
As far as "The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice." Yup, and as a parent I make choices for my kids every day based on what I think is right for their success and happiness. I don't wish trans people ill at all indeed I wish them good lives but I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life. For a variety of reasons. Plus I want my boys to be boys. That's my preference. But I'm not looking to make that choice for any adult. Adult being the key word.
As soon as the trans community says yes sexual drag shows for kids is wrong and schools lying to parents is wrong and discussing sexuality in school is wrong then I'm all good.
> I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life.
How cowardly. Why do you think its a harder life? Might it be because trans people are hated by society? Might that be because people continue to perpetuate myths that they are corrupting education?
> That's my preference
then dont teach my kids that there is only one way to live your life. Do you also want your kids to reach 18 and be surprised by the existence of trans people when they finally leave your shelter? How do you think they'll react after being taught that "boys should be boys"?
Because equal rights are the goal, not special treatment.
It is the means by which a man can forcibly impregnate a woman. This is a very real risk to women, and is one reason why so many women are deeply uncomfortable with males imposing themselves in spaces where women are vulnerable, like bathrooms and locker rooms.
Any enforcement of bathroom norms sounds more dystopian than this fiction of rampant trans sexual assault. Do you want genital checks at the bathroom door? Maybe you want to have a security detail watching people piss. Do you want trans people to be reported to the authorities for using an enclosed stall alone?
At the same time, I think most speech that comes across this way is the product of ignorance or unmet emotional needs, and if you listen to people that say hateful things they will often weaken their view as soon as they realize you plan to actually listen to them and understand how they feel. Because of this, I recognize my instinct to start a fight as a result of how I feel, and not necessarily a productive course of action, and often results in worse outcomes (people doubling down, taking an angry response as justification of their action, etc). I also find that this builds trust, which is necessary for good faith conversation.
My real problem with 'speech as violence' comes down to the difference between moralizing and compassion; I believe that compassion will produce better outcomes. Further if it is about morality you have to decide the correct morality, and it is impossible to get actual agreement on that. If you did you would have someone disagreeing to test if you would allow them to think differently than you without attacking them.
There are indeed people that say vile shit to hurt others intentionally, for various reasons from demotivating someone competing with them, to sadism, to bullying (which I find is often someone who believes 'bad people should be punished' and that someone has done something 'socially bad' so that it is 'up to them to correct it'). For example, When a sibling of mine wore something that might be associated with being gay, he received harsh criticism from another sibling I knew cared about him. The criticizing sibling had been bullied, and believed his statements would dissuade what he saw as a social misstep. It was a failure of compassion. The form of the criticism was also exactly what the criticized sibling had thought about himself.
I've also found that sometimes when my first thought was 'wow this person is a terrible person', it turned out that they thought that other people thought there were a terrible person, and so they stopped trying to do things that might prevent that effect, causing more people to think it, causing them to care less, or possibly even say provocative things with resent. If you listen to such a person and sympathize with them - however hard it may be, even if you don't agree with them, it can completely break the script they are expecting to hear, and lacking a prepared response, you may get an actually vulnerable one.
Really, I think as soon as morals come up, and rightness or wrongness, empathy has failed. And it is hard because empathizing with people that have different backgrounds and views is really hard. People will talk about empathy all day long, but I rarely see anyone really willing to empathize with someone who is narcissistic or abusive, someone who lacks all social skills as an adult and is smug that they are well paid in spite of it, or someone who believes radially different on any topic to really care about. Can any of us sympathize really with someone who thinks learning programming is a waste of time and we should all learn 'real skills' like how to read a balance sheet or run a meeting? Or someone that believes SOAP is the greatest thing that has even happened and people complaining about it just don't get it? That JavaScript is the most consistently designed language that has even existed and should have monuments built in its honor? That open-source software is a communist fad that harms markets and shouldn't be legal?
For me, when someone plays music from their phone speakers on public transport it is very difficult for me to sympathize. When someone cuts my spouse off in traffic, they immediate cuss up a storm. When a relative makes a political statement that is a bit tasteless and you know they just skimmed a news article and have no idea what they are talking about, it can be difficult.
But I think people get it backwards when they think it is difficult and it is all these peoples fault. Fault is a moral determination. Really, it is imaginary. It is a fiction that helps society run smoothly.
I will share, to aid my point, an error I have made. The first is that when I was in HS, I littered soda cans, mostly to emphasize that I didn't care about rules or anything (what a silly time that was). Then one day I saw someone picking up trash, including something I had dropped that had blown aside. When I saw that, I felt really hurt, guilty and sad. To know that I had done that. To this day, I pick up every piece of trash I come across and carry it until I see a trash can. It was a bad thing to do, but if the person picking up the trash had come up to me and yelled at me, telling me I was a lazy piece of shit, that I didn't care about anyone else, etc. I think I would have had a very different experience, and a very different response.
I sincerely believe, and hope, that many of these individuals who make these comments have the potential to be the ones that later go to the greatest efforts to repair damage they see themselves as causing. But for this to happen, I think they need to feel it as guilt (internally and based on empathy), instead of as shame (externally, and based on moral error). And for that to happen they need to feel heard, and they need to be engaged with emotionally.
> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Would you agree to having blatantly, but shall we say genteel Nazi or white supremacist academics on campus? You would likely answer in the negative based on what you've written because you would, I infer, see their works as violent and threatening speech, speech that might also reduce the number of voices at the table. But that would make what is acceptable speech depend on what people find violent and threatening. But which people? Which table? In the case of gender theory, you acknowledge this concerns a minority. Are you suggesting that a minority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? If not, are you suggesting that a majority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? Is either of those acceptable? What exactly are you proposing here because it certainly seems like you are manipulatively trying to force your own speech norms on everyone else through the use of grievance. Should your sense of grievance become the basis of law or social norms? Imagine what would happen if we treated that kind of norm consistently. We couldn't, could we, and not just for practical reasons, but in principle.
I would go further. Liberalism as the philosophical and even theological position that informs the constitution and the very founding of the United States is truly very fatally flawed. The very notion of liberal neutrality is extremely problematic. There is no such thing as a neutral position. And so what liberalism effectively does, in an intellectually dishonest way, is it presents its own position as neutral and therefore beyond criticism. "Oh, yes, well, liberalism can accommodate everything, it can tolerate all positions, and allows the brotherhood of man to live together in harmony". Yes, all positions...that subordinate themselves to liberal norms and conform to its rather fleshy expectations. Liberalism is a definite position and its tyranny rests to a great degree on the pretense of this public neutrality, that all else is a private footnote added to the purity of this accommodating 'neutrality'. At least the mullahs are more honest.
(Btw, D. C. Schindler talks more about this in his book "The Politics of the Real" [0]. The arguments require some philosophical sophistication, but that's the point. Liberalism isn't the obvious truth. It's just the water we western fish have been swimming in and have formed habituated biases toward and favorable but vague associations with. There is much that is untenable with the liberal project, and as with many intellectual errors, it can take time for the abstract consequences to manifest in all their concrete and ugly glory.)
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/173650...
Also your tangent on liberalism is gibberish
Why?
>Some speech suppresses the speech of others.
No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone.
>it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? How do you feel about those who post on Reddit or Facebook that they are playing it? How do you feel about game reviewers publishing evaluations?
>and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit
I think I got the answers to my questions.
why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all?
> No speech can ever suppress that of others
Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but don't feel oppressed in that way, I'm sure you have a peer who does.
> how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy?
Truly a nonsequitor but since you asked nicely: the developers were paid to do a job, no shame in that. JKR is a bigot who filled that world with inescapable racism and the design lead ran a youtube channel that pushed some bigotted views about feminism and "sjws". Im too exhausted to care who plays it although personally think its easier on the conscience to not. Reviews are fine, but if you wanna talk about separating art and artist and media crit's place in that, its a long nuanced discussion
I think that's my main frustration. No discussion of free speech is ever allowed to be nuanced. Disagreeing with Free Speech absolutism is impossible to argue with because to say that "sometimes bigotry should be discouraged" is seen as an affront to the idea of speech itself.
That is weakness and the 2nd amendment is a tool to fight back and secure ones self against death threats.
Get strapped, stand up and say "try it mother fucker".
Defy your oppressor, or be crushed under their tyranny.
Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of trans people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these woke libs trying to cancel us are the real n@zis". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.