Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Kiu Ghesik]

Actually based. Public transport would be far easier to regulate in regards to environmental and quality standards, we could reduce urban sprawl, and thus reliance on that public transport, we'd deal with the problem of jobs being displaced from workers, at least to a degree, and best of all no more car ads on TV.

Has "enlightened" "centrism" finally looped back around into socialism?

In Japan I can travel from Tokyo to Shin-Aomori (750 km) in under 3 hours. If I want to travel from Boston to Washington DC in the US (similar distance), it will take 7 hours. And even longer by car or bus.

That's because y'all have very, very fast trains. We don't.

[WI SD EA D]

While I do think that free speech is important, I do understand the need for certain regulations and restrictions.

[Sanghyeok]

While I do think that free speech is important, I do understand the need for certain regulations and restrictions.

Which one did you vote for?

[Free Las Pinas]

I don't believe I said anything about legal consequences, and if I did, I take it back.

You used a phrase which extreme-leftists use to justify their 'hate speech' laws: in essence, the 'it is ok to punch a nazi' standard.

If you were unaware that lunatics go around college campuses setting off fire alarms to prevent conservative speakers from speaking, then you haven't been following this issue very closely.

Yes, but that's not what I intended when I said it. All I meant is that people can't expect that everyone will like their opinion. I'm aware that some others who use that line do their utmost to prevent conservative speakers, and I don't condone their actions. I'm saying this in a far smaller degree. I explained this within the post that you quoted, though you removed it.

[The Realist Polities]

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/11/the ... olleagues/

"the union of employees of the paper of record, tweeted a condemnation on Sunday of one of their own colleagues, op-ed columnist Bret Stephens. Their denunciation was marred by humiliating typos and even more so by creepy and authoritarian censorship demands and petulant appeals to management for enforcement of company “rules” against other journalists. To say that this is bizarre behavior from a union of journalists, of all people, is to woefully understate the case."

mainstream marxism

I can't stand Stephens by the way - he is an unrepentant neocon. But I guess nevertrumpers will reap what they sow when they decide to lock arms with extremists...

[Elwher]

There are many questions surrounding how much free speech a society should have.

You can't have 'more' or 'less' free speech. It's either free or it isn't.

As for where I stand, I think all forms of speech need to tolerated in a democracy. The only potential exception I can think of would be perhaps speech that openly advocates for violence.

So, FDR's day of infamy speech should have been censored, as it openly advocated for violence against the Japanese?

[Shazbotdom]

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/11/the-new-york-times-guild-once-again-demands-censorship-for-colleagues/

"the union of employees of the paper of record, tweeted a condemnation on Sunday of one of their own colleagues, op-ed columnist Bret Stephens. Their denunciation was marred by humiliating typos and even more so by creepy and authoritarian censorship demands and petulant appeals to management for enforcement of company “rules” against other journalists. To say that this is bizarre behavior from a union of journalists, of all people, is to woefully understate the case."

mainstream marxism

I can't stand Stephens by the way - he is an unrepentant neocon. But I guess nevertrumpers will reap what they sow when they decide to lock arms with extremists...

It seems you don't understand how "Freedom of Speach" in the constitution works.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Is foreign/domestic disinformation campaign protected under the auspices of Freedom of Speech? Because that's the biggest reason I'm opposed to it right now. At least according to this, countries most resistant to information warfare are those whose public trust in traditional media is strong and its exploitable minority diasporas/population small. Factors which isn't really related to freedom of speech at all, but it does portray freedom of speech as a targetable weakness rather than strength.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Pretty much, free speech for everyone. Everybody should be able to believe in something. Except, freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence, so if somebody has a nasty or hateful belief, they shouldn't expect everyone to just go with it because "freedom of speech".

This kind of thinking quickly become problematic when for example you have Islamist paramilitary thugs roaming around, breaking up campus meetings or harassing the life and reputation of activists that challenges their world view. If we don't have laws protecting freedom of speech, this kind of thing will be very easy.

I guess that makes me a hypocrite for wanting to both oppose and defend freedom of speech at the same time, though it's more likely that I'm just an opportunist pragmatic who wants unfair treatment for my side at the expense of the other.

[Albrenia]

Pretty much, free speech for everyone. Everybody should be able to believe in something. Except, freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence, so if somebody has a nasty or hateful belief, they shouldn't expect everyone to just go with it because "freedom of speech".

This kind of thinking quickly become problematic when for example you have Islamist paramilitary thugs roaming around, breaking up campus meetings or harassing the life and reputation of activists that challenges their world view. If we don't have laws protecting freedom of speech, this kind of thing will be very easy.

I guess that makes me a hypocrite for wanting to both oppose and defend freedom of speech at the same time, though it's more likely that I'm just an opportunist pragmatic who wants unfair treatment for my side at the expense of the other.

Vandalism, assault and harassment are crimes. So a meeting in a private place should be safe from that sort of thing.

[CoraSpia]

Is foreign/domestic disinformation campaign protected under the auspices of Freedom of Speech? Because that's the biggest reason I'm opposed to it right now. At least according to this, countries most resistant to information warfare are those whose public trust in traditional media is strong and its exploitable minority diasporas/population small. Factors which isn't really related to freedom of speech at all, but it does portray freedom of speech as a targetable weakness rather than strength.

Countries that give citizens more rights in the political sphere generally are easier to target. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't give those rights though, as the national interest shouldn't be assumed to have subsumed all other interests.

[Sanghyeok]

mainstream marxism

You seem to be arguing that any politician against hate speech is somehow a "radical mainstream Marxist". While I certainly wish there were more Marxist politicians, that simply is not true.

[The Realist Polities]

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/11/the-new-york-times-guild-once-again-demands-censorship-for-colleagues/

"the union of employees of the paper of record, tweeted a condemnation on Sunday of one of their own colleagues, op-ed columnist Bret Stephens. Their denunciation was marred by humiliating typos and even more so by creepy and authoritarian censorship demands and petulant appeals to management for enforcement of company “rules” against other journalists. To say that this is bizarre behavior from a union of journalists, of all people, is to woefully understate the case."

mainstream marxism

I can't stand Stephens by the way - he is an unrepentant neocon. But I guess nevertrumpers will reap what they sow when they decide to lock arms with extremists...

It seems you don't understand how "Freedom of Speach" in the constitution works.

Well, the NYT is privately owned, they decide what they publish or not. Not saying they don't have the right to fire people if they so choose.

My only point is that the current attack on freedom of speech is coming from marxist indoctrinated people ...such as those in the NYT.

[Sanghyeok]

Marxist indoctrinated people ...such as those in the NYT.

New York Times- although they certainly have excellent and talented writers that sometimes cover important issues- is unfortunately neoliberal, and nothing close to "Marxist".

[Atheris]

Actually based. Public transport would be far easier to regulate in regards to environmental and quality standards, we could reduce urban sprawl, and thus reliance on that public transport, we'd deal with the problem of jobs being displaced from workers, at least to a degree, and best of all no more car ads on TV.

Has "enlightened" "centrism" finally looped back around into socialism?

In Japan I can travel from Tokyo to Shin-Aomori (750 km) in under 3 hours. If I want to travel from Boston to Washington DC in the US (similar distance), it will take 7 hours. And even longer by car or bus.

That's because you have a smaller country and the (first or second) most populated city in the world, which leads to more usage of public transportation, which leads to a better public transportation system, which leads to having better trains than the US.

[The Realist Polities]

You seem to be arguing that any politician against hate speech is somehow a "radical mainstream Marxist". While I certainly wish there were more Marxist politicians, that simply is not true.

No, that is a strawman.

I am arguing that the current attack on freespeech is ideological, not legalistic/impartial, and that it is coming from the Left, specifically from cultural marxists.

Of course the Right can be censorious as well but that is not the tendency because the Right is particularist and the Left is universalist. The Left wants absolutist solutions and one-size-fits-all models whereas the Right, especially conservatives, do not expect general solutions to particular problems. The Right fights for sovereignty and cultural preservation, the Left fights for world government and revisionist History.

The Left at this point in time is totalitarian since it tries to contaminate every aspect of society with politics.

When Sarkeesian says that "everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and we have to call it all out", that is precisely what she conveys: totalitarianism.

When ANTIFA/BLM say that "words are violence" or "silence is violence" and anonymous citizens in the streets have to kiss the feet of black people, that is totalitarianism in action.

Same with rainbows and BLM in sports, private corporations, etc.

If they do not tolerate opposing views in any aspect of private or public life, then they are totalitarian by definition.

As for your there not being more mainstream marxists, the Biden campaign pays to bail out violent antifa arsonists and CNN defends antifa as anti-fascists - as if there was fascism in XXI century America.
The BBC offers non-white only jobs, its shows joke about white genocide and its anchors call for the salaries of male employees to be cut in favour of female employees, irrespective of merit.
The NYT's 1619 project is completely revisionistic and informed by marxist theory, and the paper regularly runs articles defending free everything from healthcare to education as well as racial reparations.
And of course, needless to even start on Hollywood and its anti-Trump hysteria and extremism...

As a marxist you should be thrilled...

[Sanghyeok]

You are still using the phrase "cultural Marxism." Please explain the definition in your own words.

[Contrila]

Freedom of speech is the most important thing in the world.

That said, for a private entity such as an internet corporation to expel users is acceptable, as that is them exercising their own freedom of speech. Whats the alternative? the government forcing them not to deplatform people?

although i would say that the government holding private entities responsible for what is said on their platform is very very bad

[The Realist Polities]

You are still using the phrase "cultural Marxism." Please explain the definition in your own words.

Certainly:

Marxism was defined as a political theory based on an ahistorical perspective of History, as a succession of conflicts between oppressors and oppressed.

That is false and bigoted of course. History had many conflicts and they were overwhelmingly NOT about class warfare. For every servile or social war in Rome there were 10 or 20 conflicts simply about competition for territory, resources, religion or political hegemony. Ditto for every other civilisation.

According to marxism then, when one cancels inequality, conflicts will end too. This theory informed the eradication of privileged classes in Russia, Cambodia, China, etc

The collapse of the USSR meant the intellectual collapse of marxism and marxist parties.

So marxists adapted and moved from the economic realm - where they had no arguments, something that continues today with their unwillingness to discuss North Korea, Venezuela, etc - to the cultural realm.

Cultural arguments are easier to make since they are less based on quantitative measurements and are far more subjective.

Yet, the marxist intellectual prejudice remains: any difference or inequality MUST convey oppression. That is the marxist dogma.
Thus if sexes or ethnicities exist in different circumstances, then there is oppression and the natural solution is to eradicate the sexes and the ethnicities until society is a uniform indistinguishable misciginated throng of asexual racially ambiguous NPCs...

Marxism is reductionist of course: not every social difference is oppressive and not every conflict between unequal foes is the fault of the stronger/wealthier/privileged party. But simplistic totalitarians are not big on nuance...

[West Leas Oros 2]

You are still using the phrase "cultural Marxism." Please explain the definition in your own words.

Certainly:

Marxism was defined as a political theory based on an ahistorical perspective of History, as a succession of conflicts between oppressors and oppressed.

That is false and bigoted of course. History had many conflicts and they were overwhelmingly NOT about class warfare. For every servile or social war in Rome there were 10 or 20 conflicts simply about competition for territory, resources, religion or political hegemony. Ditto for every other civilisation.

According to marxism then, when one cancels inequality, conflicts will end too. This theory informed the eradication of privileged classes in Russia, Cambodia, China, etc

The collapse of the USSR meant the intellectual collapse of marxism and marxist parties.

So marxists adapted and moved from the economic realm - where they had no arguments, something that continues today with their unwillingness to discuss North Korea, Venezuela, etc - to the cultural realm.

Cultural arguments are easier to make since they are less based on quantitative measurements and are far more subjective.

Yet, the marxist intellectual prejudice remains: any difference or inequality MUST convey oppression. That is the marxist dogma.
Thus if sexes or ethnicities exist in different circumstances, then there is oppression and the natural solution is to eradicate the sexes and the ethnicities until society is a uniform indistinguishable misciginated throng of asexual racially ambiguous NPCs...

Marxism is reductionist of course: not every social difference is oppressive and not every conflict between unequal foes is the fault of the stronger/wealthier/privileged party. But simplistic totalitarians are not big on nuance...

That's some total bullshit. Have you ever read Marx? I don't know where you're getting this "everything is oppression" shit from.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Still a no from me. Plenty of speech should be censored and repressed.

[New Carthagea]

In Japan I can travel from Tokyo to Shin-Aomori (750 km) in under 3 hours. If I want to travel from Boston to Washington DC in the US (similar distance), it will take 7 hours. And even longer by car or bus.

That's because y'all have very, very fast trains. We don't.

Meanwhile, I (used to before lockdown) travel in trams in Melbourne at around 11-16 kmph. S P E E D

[Sanghyeok]

Meanwhile, I (used to before lockdown) travel in trams in Melbourne at around 11-16 kmph. S P E E D

Trams are really good for scenery though. I like the feeling of sitting next to an open window and feeling the warm sun while letting the wind blow on my face and hair.

[Sanghyeok]

Your use of the phrase miscegenated in a way I think is unironic is rather scary...

Thus if sexes or ethnicities exist in different circumstances, then there is oppression and the natural solution is to eradicate the sexes and the ethnicities until society is a uniform indistinguishable misciginated throng of asexual racially ambiguous NPCs...

[Resilient Acceleration]

That's because y'all have very, very fast trains. We don't.

Meanwhile, I (used to before lockdown) travel in trams in Melbourne at around 11-16 kmph. S P E E D

Meanwhile, windows of bus transit stations in Jakarta is being destroyed by angry protesters opposed to the jobs law, but I guess it's not related, so oh well.

Or maybe it's related. Can vandalism, property destruction, etc. ever be considered freedom of speech? Or is it just a justifiable law-breaking? The sweeping jobs law (which curtailed labor rights into serfdom levels) was rushed by the government with little to no transparency, obvious oligarch interests plagued the laws, and the process was so chaotic that the law magically increased by 100 pages and then decreased by 200 pages after it was voted and ratified by the parliament. With how things are going, I'd say there's 0-3% chance of peaceful protests succeeding in forcing a change.