Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Freedom Of Speech]: More Than The First Amendment

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
Since we've had a number of conversations on here that have wound up dealing, at least tangentially, with the concept of free speech (both online and off), it's worth exploring the elephant that always winds up in these threads. Over the past few years, we've seen the position of "free speech" raised in a number of arenas, being used to argue for why social media needs to be regulated with a light hand, or that bigotry should be allowed to be expressed publicly. The concept of "free speech absolutism" seems to be something bordering on sacrosanct in the tech community, which has had a number of repercussions for our society as a whole. And we seem to be ignoring an important question -

Is freedom of speech a means, or an end?

For myself, I'd argue that in the long run, freedom of speech is the former - we push for it in order to further the ends that we want to see for society, like equality and justice. And as such, being a means, that means that it has to bee tempered in balance to those ends that we're looking to achieve - for example, if allowing bigots to openly espouse their hatred causes those they target to retreat from open participation in society, then we have a case where freedom of speech is undermining the ends that we are looking to achieve. The problem that I see in the conversation about free speech is that more and more, it's treated as the latter - that free speech is the end, and thus should be defended even if it may be undermining other ends we look to achieve. The core conflict stems from the fact that "free speech absolutism" is ultimately an impossible position to hold, because of the chilling effect of hate speech - those targeted by hate speech will be forced out by it, conversely keeping them in the public conversation means not allowing hate speech to push them out. Ultimately, a decision has to be made as to who will be kept in the discussion.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
Romantic UndeadKristmas KthulhuCaptain Ironsides
«13456748

Posts

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Its worth noting right at the start that no one really has an accepted definition of freedom of speech outside of the government one.

    AridholMegaMekDoodmannzepherin
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Its worth noting right at the start that no one really has an accepted definition of freedom of speech outside of the government one.

    Well, that's part of the problem. Another is that Americans tend to be really myopic on it, due to the cultural baggage around the First Amendment as well. We tend to dismiss the idea that words have power culturally - I remember being taught "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" as a child, and I doubt I'm the only one.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Martini_PhilosopherCaptain Ironsides
  • Mathew BurrackMathew Burrack CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    So here's my 2 cents unformatted and unfiltered thoughts just off the top of my head:

    If we go even deeper, not just to freedom of speech but just freedom in general, then the basic tenant must first be accepted that infinite freedom can never be achieved on this planet. To grant infinite freedom to everyone would require infinite resources, and it's a finite planet with finite resources, so it's just not possible.

    Once you accept the basic tenant that available freedom must be less than the ideal infinite, then the question becomes: *what* limits can we place on freedom so that we balance them equally among everyone?

    All these various problems, to me, can be boiled down to that question it seems. As one extreme example, we accept generally in society that people should not have the freedom to murder other people, because that in turn restricts the freedom of those targets to keep on living (thus, the freedom is unbalanced). Contrived, a bit silly in the extreme perhaps, but that concept of balancing the freedom level equally I think can be applied to other aspects also.

    As a more narrow example, freedom of speech in the US does not cover yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? Because the negative effect on reducing the freedom of others in that theater (indirectly through harm, i.e. impacting their freedom to be happy and unharmed) outweighs the positive freedom of one person getting to yell "fire" in that situation.

    So yeah, to me, freedom of *anything* (speech or otherwise) can't be absolute. It'd be nice if it *could* be, but it can't be, because in a finite system eventually that infinite freedom for one person will curtail the freedom of another. (Hate speech fits into this model as well, since the freedom to say hateful things directly impacts the freedom of your targets to leave unharrassed lives, avoid persecution, or any of the other billions of repercussions).

    "Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
    Kristmas KthulhuCaptain Ironsides
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    The fire in a theater bit was overturned actually. The guy who wrote it even publicly rejected it later in life.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Mathew BurrackMathew Burrack CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    The fire in a theater bit was overturned actually. The guy who wrote it even publicly rejected it later in life.

    ?

    Seriously?

    Like.....why!?

    goes off to contemplate how the world keeps getting crazier every time he looks out the window

    "Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
    Captain Ironsides
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    edited March 21
    For one, it was dicta and never part of the reasoning for the opinion. And thus actually never precedent. Two, the opinion was some awful thing iirc.

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Mathew BurrackMathew Burrack CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    For one, it was dicta and never part of the reasoning for the opinion. And thus actually never precedent. Two, the opinion was some awful thing iirc.

    So I went looking, because I found this yet another crazy thing I learned today:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

    Turns out it was just a metaphor anyway, although there are real-world examples cited at the end.

    Also, it should be noted that the overturn still acknowledges that unprotected speech should include:
    that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

    So my direct analogy turns out to be wayyyyyy out of date, but I think the point stands (and the eventual overturn of the actual issue actually can be framed as part of my earlier point: it's about figuring out where to draw the lines limiting freedom to make sure the total available freedom is equally balanced for all, and the overturn was attempting to refine the balance in this use case). Still, good to correct my lack of info on the phrase, so thanks for the heads up!

    "Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
    Gnome-InterruptusKristmas Kthulhu
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    So to the “larger” definition of free speech I think it is best to look at it from an ecology perspective.

    What we want is a flourishing ecosystem of ideas (rather than a market place). Any one idea taking over and not letting the others survive would be bad so sometimes that means intervention.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So to the “larger” definition of free speech I think it is best to look at it from an ecology perspective.

    What we want is a flourishing ecosystem of ideas (rather than a market place). Any one idea taking over and not letting the others survive would be bad so sometimes that means intervention.

    This is such a radical revision of the idea of a freedom, to the point of undercutting the entire idea of it.

    Traditionally what most people think of as freedom is called by philosophy negative liberty. Which is that there is not an external restraint on your actions. A law that says "you cant post on social media"

    As contrasted with positive liberty, which is the access to the means. Not having a cellphone restricts your positive liberty to post on social media.

    We recognize rights of both types, guns and healthcare as examples.

    What you are arguing for is in essence:

    Restraints on the negative rights of free speech, not because of the traditional harm arguements(incitement etc), but in order to better curate the pool of ideas.

    That isn't a right then. Construct any other common right this way. "You have the right to vote, unless your party is too popular, then you dont", "the right to worship as you see fit, unless one denomination is too dominant."
    Doesn't work
    Freedoms are about the individual, not the "ecology". They have to be, otherwise you just fall down the utilitarian abyss.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    rahkeesh2000AridholFrankiedarlingelectricitylikesmeMrVyngaardMartini_PhilosopherLanlaorn
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    I would have called myself a free-speech absolutist in my 20s.

    These days, I lean more toward the idea that most of the "freedoms" our civilization are built around are the freedom of the powerful to prey on the weak without the weak being allowed to collective for defense. Absolute freedom of speech is usually applied in that manner.

    AngelHedgieMegaMektinwhiskersAstaerethMatevStabbity StyleMrVyngaardAistanmcdermottDescendant XGnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherNyysjanMan in the Mists
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So to the “larger” definition of free speech I think it is best to look at it from an ecology perspective.

    What we want is a flourishing ecosystem of ideas (rather than a market place). Any one idea taking over and not letting the others survive would be bad so sometimes that means intervention.

    This is such a radical revision of the idea of a freedom, to the point of undercutting the entire idea of it.

    Traditionally what most people think of as freedom is called by philosophy negative liberty. Which is that there is not an external restraint on your actions. A law that says "you cant post on social media"

    As contrasted with positive liberty, which is the access to the means. Not having a cellphone restricts your positive liberty to post on social media.

    We recognize rights of both types, guns and healthcare as examples.

    What you are arguing for is in essence:

    Restraints on the negative rights of free speech, not because of the traditional harm arguements(incitement etc), but in order to better curate the pool of ideas.

    That isn't a right then. Construct any other common right this way. "You have the right to vote, unless your party is too popular, then you dont", "the right to worship as you see fit, unless one denomination is too dominant."
    Doesn't work
    Freedoms are about the individual, not the "ecology". They have to be, otherwise you just fall down the utilitarian abyss.

    That’s why I didn’t call it a right.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So to the “larger” definition of free speech I think it is best to look at it from an ecology perspective.

    What we want is a flourishing ecosystem of ideas (rather than a market place). Any one idea taking over and not letting the others survive would be bad so sometimes that means intervention.

    We're literally talking about killing an idea by limiting speech so as to disappear that idea from all mention.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    This seems relevant:

    Trump Order to Withhold Money from Colleges that Don't Promise to Protect Free Speech
    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would withhold federal research and education funds from colleges if they don't certify that they will protect free-speech rights on campus.

    "We’re here to take historic actions to defend American students and American values," Trump said at the White House. "They’ve been under siege."

    "Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions, and that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment," he said. "Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech."

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    qXRNvH7.jpg


    Obligatory Citation of the Paradox of Tolerance as a general good guideline to operate under when attempting to balance individual rights with maintaining a society that doesn't go off the rails and tries to get its Ethnonationalism on.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Inkstain82SleepDarkPrimusshrykeMegaMekShadowfireMayabirdFeralForarelectricitylikesmeJaysonFourMatevSkeithHappy Little MachineStabbity StyleHonkMrVyngaardDescendant XGnome-InterruptusHenroidMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889NyysjanLord_AsmodeuskimeFencingsaxNeveronMan in the MistsElldrenKristmas KthulhuFry
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    I should be clear and say I’m talking about everyone and not the government.

    The narrow definition for government action is fine.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Also the Open Society and It's Enemies is, as a whole, probably a good reference material for this topic.


    Also you get to listen to Karl Popper drag Plato, if I remember it right.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    This seems relevant:

    Trump Order to Withhold Money from Colleges that Don't Promise to Protect Free Speech
    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would withhold federal research and education funds from colleges if they don't certify that they will protect free-speech rights on campus.

    "We’re here to take historic actions to defend American students and American values," Trump said at the White House. "They’ve been under siege."

    "Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions, and that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment," he said. "Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech."

    Trump and this order of his isn't actually about upholding free speech.

    It's about punishing universities for not agreeing to host neocon/alt-right speakers who have odious platforms.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    mrondeauPolaritieshrykeMegaMekMr FuzzbuttMayabirdoverride367Emerlmaster999JoolanderForarJaysonFourMatevSkeithStabbity Stylesilence1186MrVyngaardQuidIlpalaGnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889iTunesIsEvilElvenshaeDee KaeLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxMan in the MistsCommander ZoomElldren
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Furthering on the paradox, speech aimed at accumulating political power in order to enact violence must be treated equal to violence.

    JepherySleepMartini_PhilosopherMan in the MistsBandable
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    This seems relevant:

    Trump Order to Withhold Money from Colleges that Don't Promise to Protect Free Speech
    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would withhold federal research and education funds from colleges if they don't certify that they will protect free-speech rights on campus.

    "We’re here to take historic actions to defend American students and American values," Trump said at the White House. "They’ve been under siege."

    "Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions, and that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment," he said. "Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech."

    Trump and this order of his isn't actually about upholding free speech.

    It's about punishing universities for not agreeing to host neocon/alt-right speakers who have odious platforms.

    Reading the actual text, it's about giving colleges some homework regarding student loans, and there's a little bit in there reminding them to obey the law regarding free speech on campus

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So to the “larger” definition of free speech I think it is best to look at it from an ecology perspective.

    What we want is a flourishing ecosystem of ideas (rather than a market place). Any one idea taking over and not letting the others survive would be bad so sometimes that means intervention.

    This is such a radical revision of the idea of a freedom, to the point of undercutting the entire idea of it.

    Traditionally what most people think of as freedom is called by philosophy negative liberty. Which is that there is not an external restraint on your actions. A law that says "you cant post on social media"

    As contrasted with positive liberty, which is the access to the means. Not having a cellphone restricts your positive liberty to post on social media.

    We recognize rights of both types, guns and healthcare as examples.

    What you are arguing for is in essence:

    Restraints on the negative rights of free speech, not because of the traditional harm arguements(incitement etc), but in order to better curate the pool of ideas.

    That isn't a right then. Construct any other common right this way. "You have the right to vote, unless your party is too popular, then you dont", "the right to worship as you see fit, unless one denomination is too dominant."
    Doesn't work
    Freedoms are about the individual, not the "ecology". They have to be, otherwise you just fall down the utilitarian abyss.

    "curating the pool of ideas" as you call it is about stopping harm. That's the entire point. It's the paradox of tolerance.

    Moridin889
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    This seems relevant:

    Trump Order to Withhold Money from Colleges that Don't Promise to Protect Free Speech
    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would withhold federal research and education funds from colleges if they don't certify that they will protect free-speech rights on campus.

    "We’re here to take historic actions to defend American students and American values," Trump said at the White House. "They’ve been under siege."

    "Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions, and that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment," he said. "Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech."

    Trump and this order of his isn't actually about upholding free speech.

    It's about punishing universities for not agreeing to host neocon/alt-right speakers who have odious platforms.

    Reading the actual text, it's about giving colleges some homework regarding student loans, and there's a little bit in there reminding them to obey the law regarding free speech on campus

    That's not the point of it though, which is super obvious if you actually listen to conservatives talk, like, ever.

    The point was to try and craft some sort of EO that they could vaguely construe or at least advertise as them attacking those damn liberal colleges for trying to keep perfectly normal right-wing speakers away because college liberals are silly children who hate freedom.

    mrondeauDarkPrimusPhoenix-DSleepJoolanderJaysonFourMrVyngaardKaputaMoridin889iTunesIsEvilElvenshaeFencingsaxMan in the Mists
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    This seems relevant:

    Trump Order to Withhold Money from Colleges that Don't Promise to Protect Free Speech
    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would withhold federal research and education funds from colleges if they don't certify that they will protect free-speech rights on campus.

    "We’re here to take historic actions to defend American students and American values," Trump said at the White House. "They’ve been under siege."

    "Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions, and that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment," he said. "Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech."

    Trump and this order of his isn't actually about upholding free speech.

    It's about punishing universities for not agreeing to host neocon/alt-right speakers who have odious platforms.

    Reading the actual text, it's about giving colleges some homework regarding student loans, and there's a little bit in there reminding them to obey the law regarding free speech on campus

    That's not the point of it though, which is super obvious if you actually listen to conservatives talk, like, ever.

    The point was to try and craft some sort of EO that they could vaguely construe or at least advertise as them attacking those damn liberal colleges for trying to keep perfectly normal right-wing speakers away because college liberals are silly children who hate freedom.

    Yeah, it's a publicity stunt, I get it.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • SunrizeSunrize Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »

    Obligatory Citation of the Paradox of Tolerance as a general good guideline to operate under when attempting to balance individual rights with maintaining a society that doesn't go off the rails and tries to get its Ethnonationalism on.

    In a different thread at a different time, AngelHedgie once wrote that Tolerance is not a moral philosophy, it is a peace treaty.

    The idea being, don't let abusers of tolerance make you question your morality when they are the ones violating the peace treaty and they deserve sanctions. It's stuck with me as a really easy way to both remember this idea and to hold my ground when dealing with unpleasant people.

    SleepMayabirdFeralJaysonFourMatevsilence1186Gnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889FencingsaxMan in the MistsElldrenColanutKristmas KthulhuFry
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Furthering on the paradox, speech aimed at accumulating political power in order to enact violence must be treated equal to violence.

    In some cases that would be escalation. You don't want that

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Furthering on the paradox, speech aimed at accumulating political power in order to enact violence must be treated equal to violence.

    In some cases that would be escalation. You don't want that

    Yes I do.

    BigJoeM
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Furthering on the paradox, speech aimed at accumulating political power in order to enact violence must be treated equal to violence.

    In some cases that would be escalation. You don't want that

    Yes I do.

    Be safe then

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    "The Paradox of Tolerance" gets thrown around so much you'd think it was some sort of law.

    People also conveniently forget to quote the more inconvenient add on:
     In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise

    The follow up to that is:
    But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

    Which to me really doesn’t describe our current situation. Unless we’re ready to start arming up and suppressing by force. I dunno, I’m not.

    At any rate, the man is not gospel. And even he clarifies that suppression of intolerance is unwise except in extreme circumstances. It’s not a cudgel to suppress speech you don’t like.

    Jebus314AridholMrMisterElvenshae
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    When people are radicalizing themselves to the point where they are committing terrorist attacks, I think the line has been crossed.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    discriderdispatch.oMrVyngaardDescendant XRedTideGnome-InterruptusMoridin889iTunesIsEvilMegaMekBigJoeMMaclayFencingsaxNeveronMan in the MistsElldrenKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Frankiedarling, you're quoting that section while ignoring the fact that the alt-right don't care about about rational argument or debating in good faith.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    JepheryJaysonFourMatevIncenjucarStabbity StyleMrVyngaardEtiowsaQuidshrykeIlpalaMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889iTunesIsEvilMegaMekMaclaymysticjuicerFencingsaxMan in the MistsCommander ZoomElldrenColanutKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Spoiler: hate speech laws.


    He’s essentially describing what we have come to term hate speech laws.

    Even your own efforts to complete the full text from his notes fails to account for the full breadth, seemingly to make Popper out to be more sinister than the comic makes him out to be:
    Popper wrote:
    The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


    But sure if you want to argue that Karl Popper is, perhaps, a secret fascist whom we should regard with a weary eye, you can do that I suppose.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    FeralshrykeGnome-InterruptusMegaMekNyysjanElldrenKristmas Kthulhu
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Frankiedarling, you're quoting that section while ignoring the fact that the alt-right don't care about about rational argument or debating in good faith.

    I don’t see how that’s relevant to the quote. It’s not my bible anyways, I just get annoyed how everyone uses the “don’t tolerate intolerance” part as a club while ignoring the “but really guys, unless it’s a super emergency suppressing speech is probably unwise” part.

    Overall, it’s strange to see him used essentially as gospel on the subject.

    MrMisterElvenshae
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
     In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise

    Did you actually read that quote?

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    MegaMekElldrenKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Please read the section of the passage you left out while getting frustrated with us for leaving out sections of the passage.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    JepheryFeralDarkPrimusJaysonFourStabbity StyleMrVyngaardshrykeRedTideMoridin889Havelock2.0iTunesIsEvilMegaMekFencingsaxMan in the MistsCommander ZoomElldrenKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

    We have the president of the United States, head alt-rightist, telling people not to listen to the "fake news media" constantly, and constantly calls for violence against his enemies. We've met the criteria for this.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    MrVyngaardshrykeIlpalaMoridin889Havelock2.0Gnome-InterruptusMegaMekBigJoeMNyysjanFencingsaxMan in the MistsElldrenKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    like, I worry I'm being a jerk here but come on, we literally have a resurgent and international white nationalist movement. We have three goddamn threads active at the moment, including this one, that were spawned from the white supremacy driven mass murder of two congregations of Muslims in New Zealand. This is following multiple white supremacy motivated incidences in the US over the past few years, from the Charlston Shooting, to Neo Nazis marching, torches in hand, on the campus of a Charlottesville University while chanting "Jews Will Not Replace Us!" and "Blood and Soil!" to a white supremacist in the coast guard who was planning a massacre of his own.

    At what point can we stop pretending we haven't reached the point that Popper has described where we have a movement that is preaching intolerance, and that movement is inciting its membership to violence against non-whites globally?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    SleepFeralForarInkstain82JaysonFourAngelHedgieStabbity StyleMrVyngaardshrykeArchMoridin889iTunesIsEvilGnome-InterruptusMaclaymysticjuicerFencingsaxMan in the MistsCommander ZoomElldrenKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    L
    Lanz wrote: »
    Spoiler: hate speech laws.


    He’s essentially describing what we have come to term hate speech laws.

    Even your own efforts to complete the full text from his notes fails to account for the full breadth, seemingly to make Popper out to be more sinister than the comic makes him out to be:
    Popper wrote:
    The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


    But sure if you want to argue that Karl Popper is, perhaps, a secret fascist whom we should regard with a weary eye, you can do that I suppose.

    Totally not! I don’t know the guy from Jesus and don’t really agree with the fullness of his thoughts. I appreciate you adding even more, the website I was on didn’t have that bit! Taken together he both seems to go further than the oft-quoted paradox but also preaches... caution? I don’t see it as quite the cure all people make it out to be.
    Jephery wrote: »
     In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise

    Did you actually read that quote?

    Yes?

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    The argument kind of jumps from hate speech to the general removal of civil rights from the intolerant. The focus is on making them criminals so they can be completely removed from society. Hate speech laws deter behavior. This kind of goes further, putting these offenders in a different class from the rest of society.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Frankiedarling, you're quoting that section while ignoring the fact that the alt-right don't care about about rational argument or debating in good faith.

    I don’t see how that’s relevant to the quote. It’s not my bible anyways, I just get annoyed how everyone uses the “don’t tolerate intolerance” part as a club while ignoring the “but really guys, unless it’s a super emergency suppressing speech is probably unwise” part.

    Overall, it’s strange to see him used essentially as gospel on the subject.

    We need anti-hate-speech laws, and its not going to be a slipperly slope into fascism because we're already on a slope towards fascism and anti-hate-speech laws are on the books in numerous other countries that haven't turned into fascist hellholes yet.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    SleepJepheryGnome-InterruptusMegaMekMan in the MistsKristmas Kthulhu
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Frankiedarling, you're quoting that section while ignoring the fact that the alt-right don't care about about rational argument or debating in good faith.

    I don’t see how that’s relevant to the quote. It’s not my bible anyways, I just get annoyed how everyone uses the “don’t tolerate intolerance” part as a club while ignoring the “but really guys, unless it’s a super emergency suppressing speech is probably unwise” part.

    Overall, it’s strange to see him used essentially as gospel on the subject.

    We need anti-hate-speech laws, and its not going to be a slipperly slope into fascism because we're already on a slope towards fascism and anti-hate-speech laws are on the books in numerous other countries that haven't turned into fascist hellholes yet.

    Yeah, there is no slippery slope as long as normal constitutional order is in place. The Supreme Court exists precisely to stop any such slippery slope.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Sign In or Register to comment.