Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

BlackFlagged wrote

The very idea of free speech is misleading. A state that grants you a right to say certain things (as long as it doesn't endanger the state's existence) is not at all related to freedom. They should just call it approved speech.

0

Somebody_somewhere wrote

Except, no. The state doesn't grant you that right. It only restricts certain kinds of speech that might cause violence. "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins."

3

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Name the states where the government does not restrict far more than "only restricts certain kinds of speech that might cause violence"

-1

Somebody_somewhere wrote

What, just because it doesn't exist, that means it shouldn't?

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

It only restricts certain kinds of speech that might cause violence

that implies there is such a state that "only restricts... bla bla bla" could you name it?

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So my statement implying that "states do restrict more than violent speech" becomes a "a state that only restricts violent speech should not exist". Wow!

0

Somebody_somewhere wrote (edited )

Well, sorry. I thought you were someone else replying to my first post, because I saw it in the inbox. My original point still stands.

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So the idea of free speech is wrong, because the modern state goes for authorized speech? Or if not, say in the US, for a restricted version which nullifies the free part.

1

ziq wrote

Why not just call it 'speech' since that's all it actually is? When a government is involved, speech is no longer free, so them calling it free speech is ridiculous doublespeak.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So there is such a thing as proper or good doublespeak?

-1

ziq wrote

no

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Than you are not reasoning, you are rambling. Sorry. My bad.

-1

ziq wrote (edited )

I never implied there was good doublespeak, wtf are you on about?

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

so them calling it free speech is ridiculous doublespeak

which implies there is such a thing as un-ridiculous doublespeak

7

tnstaec wrote

This goes back to the previous discussion of rights. For anarchists this issue is moot since we're not looking for the state's permission.

6

Marl_Karx wrote

I think if people can back up their opinions with facts then its totally fine.

3

Enkara wrote

I mean "free speech" is kinda inalienable right? Anyone can say whatever they like. If they decide to say some fuck shit we can punch them.

2

Mance wrote

Absolutely. The speech you shut down might just be the advancement society is looking for. Once upon a time Gallileo's ideas about the universe were considered offensive, were against people religious beliefs.....what if the powers succeeded in stopping them? Darwin's ideas offended people religious sensibilities. In the 1800s in the US it would have been offensive in many areas to talk about equal rights for non-whites or women.

4

sudo wrote

Racist speech isn't progressive, though.

"It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park

-3

Mance wrote

True, racist speech is not progressive. The question is who gets to decide if speech is racist or not? It might not be obvious. If I said that I was going to ignore aboriginal treaty rights, someone might call me racist. But I might say that having different laws for aboriginal vs european peoples, based on who their parents were, is racist. Some people tie religion and race together......if I criticize some Islamic practices (say female genital mutilation),,,,some people might call that racist. Some might not. The problem with limiting speech is that we don't have some all wise all knowing being that can decide what is racist and what is not. Some people use "that's racist" as a generic shut down move when they feel that they are losing an argument. Unless someone is inciting violence against people, i.e. "kill all XXX", my preference is allow everyone to speak and let individuals make up their own mind on whether or not to believe or not believe.

-1

sudo wrote

I think it's usually pretty clear-cut what is and isn't racist. But, I'd rather have something not racist banned, than having something racist not banned (not that the first one would be very likely to happen).

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

I doubt I have met more than three people who were aware they were racist and were still racist.

More so, all people raised in the Western/White/Christian world is mildly racist. The kind that will revolt at discrimination, but still keep check the pocket for the iphone after passing a group of foreigners.

3

sudo wrote

I didn't mean the racist person, I mean among leftists.

-1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Since most people are mildly racist, I assume there are a lot of leftists among them, if not all.

1

sudo wrote

It is true that most people (in the US, at least) are mildly racist, if not more so. But, that doesn't mean that every person is mildly racist. What is true for a group of people is not necessarily true for every individual person. Assuming it is is committing the fallacy of division. For example, if someone said, "Most astronauts are men. Valentina is an astronaut, so Valentina is a man," they would be committing the fallacy of division.

Besides, one thing leftists are known for is their rejection of prejudice, and self-criticism. There are a few racist leftists, but most are not (remember, liberals are not leftists).

-1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

In the 19th century, being a racist was a virtuous way of thinking. So a white man might have erotic fantasies with black men or women, but that was not his discourse. That was something to be discreet about.

In the 21st century, being a racist is unacceptable in most circles. So everything is cool. Whites even invented the term "color blind" to show off their coolness. They still have a very unnatural act in the presence of people of different skin colors, but nothing racist will part their lips - at least this is how they imagine things. Wait till "your daughter marries one of them".

You need the narrative of "a few". All this trendy racists are in their minds one of the few. This way you, and your dear ones, your mentors, are all exempt.

Also you are building a straw man. I write ALL in the sense that the two saints that aren't have two simultaneous qualities: 1. they are irrelevant compared with a few hundred millions only in the States and 2. they are not you.

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

You are right. It has never clicked on me that apart from being christians without god or the Vatican, anarchists are also deeply conservatives. In a disgusting way. I mean the conservatives I know are old men usually, losers dreaming of the days they were happy, unaware they just ignore the bad parts of those memories. The anarchists and communists I see are pining for some fairy tale they have never experienced and badly need to impose that on the others.

1

ziq wrote

how do anarchists impose anything on anyone? we oppose being ruled.

1

5yws4575thyw45y wrote (edited )

Yes, and by support I mean UNLIMITED free speech. That doesn't mean every fool is guaranteed a place to speak - just that he won't be punished by law, whatever he says. Corporations are free to block him, as it's a freedom and not a right, as should be. So is anyone else's freedom to tell to the fool that he's a fool, without any regard to his feelings.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

In an online context, 'free speech' looks a lot like voat. Everyone other than trolly nazis gets pushed out because of the toxicity of such an environment.

1

Leninwasmydaddy wrote

Damn I hate that cretin pit.

-1

_ziq_ wrote

Sure you do.

0

Leninwasmydaddy wrote (edited )

What does that mean? I tried to troll that place, but I felt so depressed every time I tried... :(

0

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

"Free speech?" Yea, like /u/BlackFlagged said, it's kind of a misleading term, but I think I'll keep using it (it's what everyone recognizes, after all).
I support free speech for the most part-- but when it comes to people in power spouting out objective and clear falsehoods (with likelyhood that they intended to decieve), I think they should be jailed or very heavily fined.
For hate-speech, let the people take care of that (so as to avoid a state censoring speech that isn't quite so hateful), like Antifa. Although, perhaps with the right restrictions, law against hate-speech could be good.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Who gets to define hate speech?

1

ziq wrote

I'll volunteer.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

What qualifies you as an authority?

1

ziq wrote

I don't believe in authority so that's a silly question. Direct action or nothing.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So you define hate simply because you can. There are no rules, because there should be no authority. By this a fascist can and should maim or rape you as he pleases as long as he is mightier than you.

-1

boringskip wrote

Generally, yes. I don't count recruiting for terrorist movements or incitement to violence (aka nazis and their ilk)

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

what makes a movement terrorist?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Example: the USA

biggest terror org in the world.

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So if a charity is based in the US is a terrorist organization. Including many anarchist organizations. In contrast, the nazi are fine, because they come from Germany

1

ziq wrote

I said the USA was a terrorist organization. If American charities receive funding from the US gov, then they're funded by a terrorist organization.

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So if an anarchist, member in good faith of an anarchist collective, receives food stamps, or the mother who is hosting him receives child support than the collective is a terrorist organization.

0

ziq wrote

If that helps.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So your answers are only the beginnings or the ends of reason because:

  1. you are trolling me
  2. you are trying real hard to look smarter than you are
  3. you are so lonely you need to keep the conversation alive

Just put a number.

-1

ziq wrote

you're not engaging in good faith and you're strawmanning, so stfu.

-3

0cto5quid wrote

Absolutely.

Get a godamn permit for a rally / posters / flyers / speech.