Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

LostYonder wrote

"Tolerance" is a socially constructed concept used as a mode of power to define the limits of what is acceptable, how pliable normative ideas and values are, or aren't. Wendy Brown has a significant critique of the concept - "Regulating Aversion".

"Free speech" is similarly a power ploy that assumes opinion and knowledge are interchangeable, and that socially constructed bigotry is the same thing as critiques of structural inequalities (e.g., that racist or anti-Semitic sentiments can be shared equally with critiques of white privilege)...

6

NAB OP wrote

I mean my idea of “free speech” or freedom to speak freely without any government intefrence I suppose more of, would be that while the nazi could say “fuck the jews” and the Anarchist could say “bring about total equality and end anti sematism”, while the nazi would be looked down upon, they could still both state these ideas without having to worry about violence or penal punishment against them.

1

LostYonder wrote

Speech is power! How can speech that oppresses others be classified as "free"? If you want to express an opinion, it's all yours. But it is not the same thing as articulating facts.

Opinions that are oppressive need to be addressed, confronted, and transformed and not just given a "free" platform to be expressed and circulated, given them a semblance of being fact.

The issue is not whether people have the right, freedom to express their oppressive opinions, but how does one challenge them so that they can be transformed in a creative manner? Our current response seems to be shaped by the idea of free speech. We punch them in the face, yell the truth in their face, try to reason with them - all of which will not transform anything (though the punching certainly is the most powerful!). That is we employ our free speech right to counter their hate filled free speech...

3

MHC wrote

Indeed Hitller and Goebbels did a great deal of harm by unleashing the media for their cause!

0

ziq wrote

https://raddle.me/wiki/free_speech

Do participate in any "free speech" platforms?

Oh, you mean white nationalist echo chambers like gab and voat? No.

4

NAB OP wrote (edited )

firstly, no I do not really mean like voat, because voat is not a free speech platform, it is a platform that pretends to be free speech while similtaniouly using rate limiting to get rid of opposition. As for gab, they have censored stuff from time to time due to other powers breathing down their back, but I still dont think they are a good free speech platform due to the fact they give a rats ass about privacy and cave to government quickly.

Admittidly no platform where you are truly free to speak exists other than the dark web simply because of the fact copyrights exist and child porn is illegal ( I personaly think it should be illegal, but admittidly this is in contridiction to any total freedom to speak).

I suppose the real question should be then, do you believe in total freedom to speak? Should an individual be allowed to say whatever they want? Should I be allowed to express myself in any artistic way I want? Should I be free to take and distribute any idea? And should I be able to do all this without punishment than would infringe on my human rights, which are not granted by the government but are a give in?

I mean I suppose the closest I realisticly mean to a free speech platform would be somthing like notabug.io, Dtube, Steem, or the likes. Stuff made to be hard if not impossible to censor totaly, and made from an unbiased standpoint for the most part.

0

ziq wrote

People can say whatever they want and they can face the consequences of that. Giving them a circle of cops to prevent a natural response to their hate-filled rhetoric is the problem. If people want to stand in a public space and yell 'gas all jews' then they should deal with the consequences of that instead of crying victim and hiding behind the white supremacist state as they say it.

4

MHC wrote

{People can say whatever they want and they can face the consequences of that. Giving them a circle of cops to prevent a natural response to their hate-filled rhetoric is the problem.}

Indeed the Cambodian Maoists invited the teachers to get on stage and express what was wrong with the state. Then the former trucked the latter into forest, and machine-gunned them!

0

NAB OP wrote

Can that not work against you too though? Because what if you were to say “down with whiteness” in a public space, and you faced a violent responce? Should you not be protected from such violence for voiceing that opinion?

−1

ziq wrote

No. I don't need the state to fight my battles for me. That's the difference between anarchists and fascists.

4

NAB OP wrote

so you are saying that even if a fashist mowed down your entire family, you would not go to the cops even if they could surly take care of the problem for you?

−2

RosaReborn wrote

How did free speech conversation turn into a family homicide?

If fascists try to stop my speech by whatever means, they will be confronted. Their 'free speech' is already an attack on me and people close to me so why should they not be confronted then?

3

ziq wrote

I'd buy a gun.

1

NAB OP wrote

but then you create the issue of just tradeing an enmie for another. Now the state is after you, when you could of just turned the state lose on the criminal like a rabid dog.

−1

ziq wrote (edited )

The state doesn't work for me. I have no interest in adding workers to their prisons.

2

NAB OP wrote

neither does a stray rabid dog, but if you throw a piece of meat at your target it will for a moment.

−1

ziq wrote

The state doesn't work for me, it works for the rich. Anything they do will be in the interests of the rich, not me or my family.

4

elegantti wrote

Or, given its rabid, it just bites you instead anyway, just like the state would.

3

MHC wrote

{I mean I suppose the closest I realisticly mean to a free speech platform would be somthing like notabug.io, Dtube, Steem, or the likes.}

I'd appreciate URLs for those.

0

ziq wrote

Something wrong with your search engine?

1

MHC wrote

There's no need to be rude. I often have limited time when posting here. And others seem familiar with jargon that I'm not across!

0

MHC wrote

{Oh, you mean white nationalist echo chambers like gab and voat?}

What's "gab"?

0

eefwu99eefwu99 wrote

There is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere on earth. In America it's CP, libel, slander, and a host of other things. In Europe there are even more restrictions that range from bans on Nazi propaganda to I don't know.

3

AgitatedStatesOfAmazement wrote

Do participate in any "free speech" platforms?

I find places online that brag about offering "free speech" tend to be comprised mostly of some unknown proportion of nazis and useless liberals jerking themselves off for being Rational and Sophisticated enough to defend said nazis. "Free speech" has become a dogwhistle for "bigots (and sometimes pedos) welcome", and places like Raddle which actually care about protecting genuine, non-genocidal free expression generally choose not to advertise themselves that way.

3

NAB OP wrote

Which is fine because places like raddle were never made for this.

My real issue is places like reddit that start out with free expression for the most part then do a total 180 once they have a captive audience.

1

elegantti wrote

Anyone who's a fascist should always be censored.

The paradox of tolerance is itself wrong because liberals don't tolerate all ideas, including intolerant ones; they tolerate intolerant ones and their own, whilst acting against more radical ideas.

I'd consider this one, given I've been banned for things I've said here (new account, forgot old password) on Reddit.

2

gweur wrote

Should speech be censored, no that's never a good thing.

In order to be able to think you must be free to speak, you must be free to hear things you may not like.

The only limitation should be on speech that's a direct call for voilent actiin, if you say you hope I get run over by a car then that's probably ok. If you say "if someone runs this person over I'll pay them $50", that's a direct call to violence and isn't okay . You can't yell fire in a movie theatre, unless there is an actual fire

Should anyone be censored? If they are making a direct call for action then yes, otherwise no. Who gets to determine who undergoes censure? You? Me? That's a pretty dangerous game were playing at that point.

I want to hear opinions and positions I don't agree with, because I can then choose to debate or ignore those individuals as appropriate.

It's a paradox, the problem is that everyoe chooses which side of the line they thing hey are on

2

NAB OP wrote

this is the real issue with any “hate speach” laws too.

Who gets to determine ehat “hate speech” is?

trump? Well that sounds like shit.

1

gweur wrote

One of the larger problems is that a lot of people in this thread believe that they can determine what is and is not censurable.

For example facists should be censored (I disagree), who determines what facist is?. Is it a neo-,nazi? Yes.

Is it a conservative, sometimes yes and sometimes no?

Is it someone right of centre? Well maybe.

Is it soemone who's left of centre but not far left? Could be.

However they are unable to appreciate that censure is a double edged sword, that could be used against them one day.

Is it the act of a coward to censure and deplatform? Arguably it is, why do they feel incapable of winning the discussion?. In some cases that can give an unwanted air of legitimacy to the other side.

I think censure harms the censor more than the censored.

2

NAB OP wrote

this is the main issue I see with reddit right now actually.

Most of their bans started with the right wing, and for the most part the left liked it, although they did and still do demand more. But here is the thing, as they have begun to move from extremists to the far right to possibly soon just the right, they have done the same one step back with the left.

They have now begun to ban what they deem to be “extremist” left wing subs such as some of the communist ones and any that advocates violence. I predict they will continue to do this, always one step behind on the left, untill reddit is just a centirst mess of puppy pictures and marvel comic charcters and dumb memes.

2

gweur wrote

That is always going to be the problem, its that there isn't a general realization that once you open up Pandora's box, then its beyond your control and can be turned against you.

For me the scary part is that the people who started perpetrating the censure, they didn't do it from malice or hate, they genuinely believed, and probably still do believe, that they are right and just, that what they put forth is good!

The psychology behind it is fascinating, self serving bias,the Galatea effect, social bond theory, the power of names (euphemisms), tunnel vision, reactance theory, blinding effect of power, cognitive dissonance and rationalization, pressure to conform and the list goes on.

2

NAB OP wrote

what I wonder now is if leftists will actually backtrack as the censure pendulm comes back to hit them, or will they just accept being forced to be moderates?

0

gweur wrote

I think that depends on who is wielding the censure against the left.

If its someone more towards centre or to the right, then they probably wont like it. But in lots of places in Europe the agencies of state are being used to enforce right think and speak, if that’s turned on them theres probably not a lot they can do.

The other way it can be used is by someone who is even further left than themselves, there is a real trend towards 1-upism in the movement, being more inclusive than thou. You can already see cases of fragmentation in some groups on the far left, you can really see its impact in parts of the feminism movement in regard to the transgender movement.

So who knows how they will react.

1

NAB OP wrote

“places in Europe the agencies of state are being used to enforce right think“

Stares at you in middle eastern country

1

gweur wrote

Stares back in Chinese social score

1

closed wrote

I think Raddle has the least freedom of speech of any platform I know - I think that reflects the site's overall intellectual fragility and the credibility of the average opinion on here.

Online spaces seem to have devolved into unthinking circlejerks - if you want to have any impact on the world, I suggest you venture out beyond your safespace, present your ideas to people who disagree with you and listen to their opinions in turn. I'm doing that.

1

NAB OP wrote

this is very brave (well by internet terms) and very true.

3

gweur wrote

This is something I have to say in my breif time here I can agree with.

I would say this place is a giant echo chamber, which makes the vast majority of its discussions irrelevant.

Essentially people here seem to be following idiologies in an unquestioning and unconscious manner.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

closed wrote

Expressing or promoting ideas face-to-face in real life obviously needs to be done with some tact and judgement. However, being scared of 'verbal assault' makes you sound like a coward.

Online places exterior to this fragile safespace do exist where you can interact with people who do not share your opinions. You can remain safe while doing so, unless of course the words typed by anonymous strangers are capable of hurting you.

1

MHC wrote

The local Greens party had a policy wanting press-freedom. Then I asked it to donate to Wikileaks. No-way! So there is lots of feel-good--but no action.

1

NAB OP wrote

imo anyone who is against wikileaks is usually in the wrong or up to somthing sketchy.

1

MHC wrote

Popular opinion is easily bought!

0

londoncalling wrote

freeze peach is self contradictory as it allows self-destructive material to exist.

  • some people don't want freeze peach
  • freeze peach lets them say they want that and promote that value
  • therefore freeze peach eats itself
0

NAB OP wrote

freeze peach eats itself

why do you think peaches are eaten fresh?!

1

londoncalling wrote

on /r/ShitRedditSays they call it freeze peach to make fun of the idea

−2