Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Korhe]

Everything short of direct incitement should be allowed.

My thoughts on the matter as well.

[Kowani]

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.

In the position the left is in right now, much like the fascists, we cannot afford to lose freedom of speech.

[Cekoviu]

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.

god you are just the worst

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.

that's right, yeah! this guy gets it!

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.

In the position the left is in right now, much like the fascists, we cannot afford to lose freedom of speech.

well obv i mean after we have the dictatorship of the proletariat in place

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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.

that's right, yeah! this guy gets it!

Sounds like you don’t have the best interests of who you’re fighting for at heart then, you’re liberating people from oppressive capitalists only to assume the role of the oppressor yourself. Restricting freedom just for the sake of doing it is absolute garbage.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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.

god you are just the worst

I don’t blame him for not wanting to live under a totalitarian police state that’ll have him locked up for wrongthink that you seem to be advocating for.

[Cekoviu]

that's right, yeah! this guy gets it!

Sounds like you don’t have the best interests of who you’re fighting for at heart then, you’re liberating people from oppressive capitalists only to assume the role of the oppressor yourself. Restricting freedom just for the sake of doing it is absolute garbage.

why? what's inherently good about freedom?

god you are just the worst

I don’t blame him for not wanting to live under a totalitarian police state that’ll have him locked up for wrongthink that you seem to be advocating for.

i'm more irked about the fact that he's an ancap than that

[Sanghyeok]

why? what's inherently good about freedom?

Because to be leftist is to fight for oppressed peoples and free them, not become the oppressor yourself.

[Cekoviu]

why? what's inherently good about freedom?

Because to be leftist is to fight for oppressed peoples and free them, not become the oppressor yourself.

that does not answer the question and is not even based on an accurate premise

[Sanghyeok]

Because to be leftist is to fight for oppressed peoples and free them, not become the oppressor yourself.

that does not answer the question and is not even based on an accurate premise

Because you said you identify as a leftist, and yet call for oppression. That is not a leftist value, and I wanted to point this out.

[Sanghyeok]

Because to be leftist is to fight for oppressed peoples and free them, not become the oppressor yourself.

that does not answer the question and is not even based on an accurate premise

Certainly, sometimes more authoritarian means are required in reaching it, depending on the context - but the end goal of leftism is an equal, just, stable, and peaceful world with civil freedoms and no oppression.

[Cekoviu]

that does not answer the question and is not even based on an accurate premise

Because you said you identify as a leftist, and yet call for oppression. That is not a leftist value, and I wanted to point this out.

the integrity of the revolution ultimately has a net negative effect on the amount of oppression. adding a bit to the gross by preventing free speech in order to prevent the revolution from collapsing and resulting in a ridiculously large amount of oppression isn't not leftist, it's in fact the only proper solution to reduce oppression as much as possible

[Cekoviu]

that does not answer the question and is not even based on an accurate premise

Certainly, sometimes more authoritarian means are required in reaching it, depending on the context - but the end goal of leftism is an equal, just, stable, and peaceful world with civil freedoms and no oppression.

who says it needs to have "civil freedoms"?

[The Emerald Legion]

Right and the Bolsheviks were a complete improvement for all involved in Russia, the maoists and China and those fucktards in Eastern Europe after the 2nd world war. But seeing as how none of that pertains to free speech, you’re just blowing hot air.

I disagree with Bolsheviks of Maoists, and have no patience for tanky scum. As you can read, I have no love for anti-democratic ideologies of any kind, so Bolsheviks, Stalinists and Maoists can fuck right off for all I care. If their speech is anti-democratic, I don’t want to hear it.

But fo the average person, economic life did improve under these systems. But of course, I was talking about social democrats and other left-wing groups, as well as unions. But it seems to be either libertarian or stalinist in your book.

... You mean like you're doing right now? "Authoritarians will use their free speech to restrict speech using foul sorcery. Therefore we must preemptively restrict speech so they can't do it first."

Or maybe we could just make free speech a cornerstone and not fucking attack it constantly.

Fascist speech is both an attack on free speech and an attack on democratic values. Banning fascist speech is neither. It’s not dark magic, it’s probable historical fact that fascists do not engage in debate, only in propaganda.

“It’s only free speech if we allow ourselves to be destroyed by it!” Is a shit argument.

... We've had Freedom of speech in America since before Hitler's grandfather was a glimmer in his great grandfather's eye. We haven't been destroyed by fascism yet. Erego, your argument is stupid.

[Sanghyeok]

Certainly, sometimes more authoritarian means are required in reaching it, depending on the context - but the end goal of leftism is an equal, just, stable, and peaceful world with civil freedoms and no oppression.

who says it needs to have "civil freedoms"?

If you are arguing against "civil freedoms", then I would make the claim that you have a misunderstanding of the leftist literature.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

why? what's inherently good about freedom?

I imagine people, and in turn society, is generally happier without the threat of being gulag’d, killed or tortured for daring to speak their mind on things they want to speak their minds on, enjoy the things they like enjoying (provided they aren’t raping, murdering or maiming other people) or just going about their day. You seem to be enjoying those freedoms right now.

[Cekoviu]

why? what's inherently good about freedom?

I imagine people, and in turn society, is generally happier without the threat of being gulag’d, killed or tortured for daring to speak their mind on things they want to speak their minds on, enjoy the things they like enjoying (provided they aren’t raping, murdering or maiming other people) or just going about their day. You seem to be enjoying those freedoms right now.

believe me, if i knew i could just easily get killed for writing politics online, i'd be thrilled, but that's beside the point
why are rape, murder, and maiming somehow a distinct class, the only prohibited things to you? what's special about them?

[Vetalia]

why? what's inherently good about freedom?

It's the natural, best state of human existence and deeply ingrained in us via millions of years of evolution.

[Gutaiai]

Free speech is inherently important for the exchange of ideas.

Why censor "hate speech" or extremists when you can use your rights to speak freely as an invitation to mock and ridicule their ideas?

Anyone who argues otherwise is just asking for a slippery slope where the government silences all opposition under the pretext of "hate speech" and "radicals" and becomes extremely totalitarian.

[The Emerald Legion]

I imagine people, and in turn society, is generally happier without the threat of being gulag’d, killed or tortured for daring to speak their mind on things they want to speak their minds on, enjoy the things they like enjoying (provided they aren’t raping, murdering or maiming other people) or just going about their day. You seem to be enjoying those freedoms right now.

believe me, if i knew i could just easily get killed for writing politics online, i'd be thrilled, but that's beside the point
why are rape, murder, and maiming somehow a distinct class, the only prohibited things to you? what's special about them?

By and large, Rape, Murder, and Maiming people requires violating their freedom of choice.

[Cordel One]

Free speech is inherently important for the exchange of ideas.

Why censor "hate speech" or extremists when you can use your rights to speak freely as an invitation to mock and ridicule their ideas?

Anyone who argues otherwise is just asking for a slippery slope where the government silences all opposition under the pretext of "hate speech" and "radicals" and becomes extremely totalitarian.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

[Vetalia]

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

Only in circumstances where the slope is not real, there is no evidence to support that conclusion or is stated without justification as to how and why the slope can occur. It has been proven numerous times throughout history that small actions can lead to a cascade of subsequent events with various and much more drastic consequences.

[The Emerald Legion]

Free speech is inherently important for the exchange of ideas.

Why censor "hate speech" or extremists when you can use your rights to speak freely as an invitation to mock and ridicule their ideas?

Anyone who argues otherwise is just asking for a slippery slope where the government silences all opposition under the pretext of "hate speech" and "radicals" and becomes extremely totalitarian.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

So is appeal to authority.

[Tekania]

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech, and a right to free association. As such if I manage a forum I have a right to determine which speech I will or will not host. And if you manage a forum you can to.

In short, everyone has a right to free-speech, but a right to free-speech does not give you rights over someone elses platform.

[Vetalia]

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech, and a right to free association. As such if I manage a forum I have a right to determine which speech I will or will not host. And if you manage a forum you can to.

In short, everyone has a right to free-speech, but a right to free-speech does not give you rights over someone elses platform.

This is my position as well. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're allowed to force everyone to listen to you and individuals freely associating have the right to determine what they are willing and not willing to allow in their private forum.

Similarly, I also support the absolute right for people to create their own forums where they can discuss these topics freely.

[Cekoviu]

why? what's inherently good about freedom?

It's the natural, best state of human existence and deeply ingrained in us via millions of years of evolution.

a) why's natural good
b) don't pull that evopsych bs on me

believe me, if i knew i could just easily get killed for writing politics online, i'd be thrilled, but that's beside the point
why are rape, murder, and maiming somehow a distinct class, the only prohibited things to you? what's special about them?

By and large, Rape, Murder, and Maiming people requires violating their freedom of choice.

what about, say, taxation? that violates freedom of choice, more or less. or how about abortion? hunting? if those don't count, why not? do only adult humans have the right to bodily integrity and their life? why?