Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Sanghyeok]

I harbor great dislike for the concept of 'free speech'. Speech is not, and should never be, free of consequence. The thing is, I prefer "free speech" to someone other than myself -and those politically aligned with me- defining those consequences.

An interesting point. So you mean that in your opinion, the consequences of free speech- terrible as they may be - are better than having free speech restricted by an "other", and having consequences for it.

[Sanghyeok]

I mean, I support the use of political violence in this particular situation.

While I can empathize with those wanting to use political violence for anti-fascist, one wonders if it hurts the movement overall and only leads more people into fascist extremism.

[The Restored Danelaw]

I harbor great dislike for the concept of 'free speech'. Speech is not, and should never be, free of consequence. The thing is, I prefer "free speech" to someone other than myself -and those politically aligned with me- defining those consequences.

An interesting point. So you mean that in your opinion, the consequences of free speech- terrible as they may be - are better than having free speech restricted by an "other", and having consequences for it.

I mean, you could take it to mean that. I just prefer that others don't do to me what I would to them if they said the stuff I believe to be over the line.

[Sanghyeok]

An interesting point. So you mean that in your opinion, the consequences of free speech- terrible as they may be - are better than having free speech restricted by an "other", and having consequences for it.

I mean, you could take it to mean that. I just prefer that others don't do to me what I would to them if they said the stuff I believe to be over the line.

I see. That's a very interesting point.

[Atheris]

An interesting point. So you mean that in your opinion, the consequences of free speech- terrible as they may be - are better than having free speech restricted by an "other", and having consequences for it.

I mean, you could take it to mean that. I just prefer that others don't do to me what I would to them if they said the stuff I believe to be over the line.

Oh, so the opposite of the Golden Rule. "Do unto others what you do not want them to do to you". Got it.

[Afghanystan]

Mostly yes, but people must be made to respect their leader, and the faith!

[Sanghyeok]

I mean, you could take it to mean that. I just prefer that others don't do to me what I would to them if they said the stuff I believe to be over the line.

Oh, so the opposite of the Golden Rule. "Do unto others what you do not want them to do to you". Got it.

We can call it the "Silver Rule", I suppose. Or how about the "Nedlog Rule"?

[Atheris]

Oh, so the opposite of the Golden Rule. "Do unto others what you do not want them to do to you". Got it.

We can call it the "Silver Rule", I suppose. Or how about the "Nedlog Rule"?

The Silver Rule's already taken, sadly. It's another phrase for the Golden Rule.

[Sanghyeok]

We can call it the "Silver Rule", I suppose. Or how about the "Nedlog Rule"?

The Silver Rule's already taken, sadly. It's another phrase for the Golden Rule.

Bronze rule?

[Atheris]

The Silver Rule's already taken, sadly. It's another phrase for the Golden Rule.

Bronze rule?

There's a book about a rule called the "Bronze Rule", but I think that could work.

[CoraSpia]

I'd only say that it should be restricted in the most obvious cases, like defamation. The sort of restrictions that we're seing now (protecting fragile feelings) should not exist.

[CoraSpia]

An interesting point. So you mean that in your opinion, the consequences of free speech- terrible as they may be - are better than having free speech restricted by an "other", and having consequences for it.

I mean, you could take it to mean that. I just prefer that others don't do to me what I would to them if they said the stuff I believe to be over the line.

Offended by someones opinion and you attack them over it?

That's you with the problem, not them.

[Sanghyeok]

That's you with the problem, not them.

What if there are consequences beyond "being offended?"

[CoraSpia]

That's you with the problem, not them.

What if there are consequences beyond "being offended?"

Like?

[Kowani]

What if there are consequences beyond "being offended?"

Like?

You ever heard of stochastic terrorism?

[CoraSpia]

Like?

You ever heard of stochastic terrorism?

Yep, if you respond to a group you identify with being shit-talked with violence then you're the one with the problem.

[Ors Might]

Like?

You ever heard of stochastic terrorism?

I’ve looked it up and frankly, I have the same problem with it as I do “dogwhistles”, or rather, how I see them used. Often, those who use these terms assume intent and conspiracy where it just might general assholishness or coincidence. Do people try to subtly rile up the public to commit hate crimes or use terms to identify themselves to their compatriots? I’m sure they do but it’s all inherently subjective and relies upon assuming the absolute worst possibility.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

You are so much mistaken, which is exactly what we were talking about. Trump is more moderate than literal genocide, but only because he needs to be to win voters. The Republican party, under his leadership, has changed into a party of extremists, enablers and collaborators, desperately trying to defend abuses of power and unlawful acts. They are only as moderate as the vote requires them to be, and they shift more to the right each time they succesfully disenfranchise another group.

Fascism is no longer an ideology of skinheads in basements, and it never really was. The US has been on the brink of fascism many times since the second world war. It’s not Trump’s moderation keeping the country from being fascist, it’s constant opposition by liberal and leftist groups, which are bit by bit being worn down by a party which controls federal law enforcement.

US fascism will look very differently from German or Italian fascism, and people won’t recognise it as fascism because it is not porpagated as fascism, but as Americanism.

I think that's also because you leftists define "fascism" very broadly.

Not really, since fascism at its core is defined by authoritarian ultranationalism, desire for dictatorial power, suppression of opposition, opposition to liberal democracy, strong regimentation of society, etc. it already has itself a fairly broad definition, and with neo-fascism incorporating racism, xenophobia, nativism, populism and ethnocentrism, even broader.

[Atheris]

I think that's also because you leftists define "fascism" very broadly.

Not really, since fascism at its core is defined by authoritarian ultranationalism, desire for dictatorial power, suppression of opposition, opposition to liberal democracy, strong regimentation of society, etc. it already has itself a fairly broad definition, and with neo-fascism incorporating racism, xenophobia, nativism, populism and ethnocentrism, even broader.

Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys. This discussion was over 4 pages ago. Don't dig it back up, please.

[Sanghyeok]

Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys. This discussion was over 4 pages ago. Don't dig it back up, please.

It's relevant to the discussion, since they are debating free speech in various political systems.

[Cekoviu]

there should not be freedom of speech or freedom of the press

[CoraSpia]

there should not be freedom of speech or freedom of the press

Why is that?

[Cekoviu]

there should not be freedom of speech or freedom of the press

Why is that?

allowing freedom of speech and the press means people and journalists can spread counterrevolutionary falsehoods and radicalize youth into right-wingers (which will damage the socialist revolution). america is a perfect case study of that, in fact.

[CoraSpia]

Why is that?

allowing freedom of speech and the press means people and journalists can spread counterrevolutionary falsehoods and radicalize youth into right-wingers (which will damage the socialist revolution). america is a perfect case study of that, in fact.

Yeah, that's a good thing. Obviously I'd prefer no government to a right-wing government but I'd prefer a right-wing government to a socialist dictatorship.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Why is that?

allowing freedom of speech and the press means people and journalists can spread counterrevolutionary falsehoods and radicalize youth into right-wingers (which will damage the socialist revolution). america is a perfect case study of that, in fact.

Sounds more like you want to clamp down on the speech of anyone who doesn’t fit into your own particular version of the socialist revolution, since there are plenty of socialists, including revolutionaries, who do value and want to protect freedom of speech. What you want is more restricting freedom just because.