>Being anti-censorship makes you a Nazi apologist
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
27
@scathach not directly related but the term "free speech" is going to forever bother me because it does not exist. No i dont mean "everything is so censored" now i mean it literally does not exist as a concept. Ive never once heard anyone define it in a way that didn't sound like handwavy schizophrenia.
@RustyCrab @scathach lol how do you mean?
@RustyCrab @scathach It's not an apriori thing as such, it's a doctrine with a specific goal: to prevent power from leveraging an ability to control communication (and therefore thought) into a destructive tyranny.
in edge cases there's room for interpretation but the overall intent of it is pretty clear and useful.
@bajax @scathach its "useful" but its not at all clear. When people say that they normally mean "freedom from consequences" which does not make sense in any world. The law is full of exceptions on this and discussions always fall into "well THATS not free speech thats..."
my point is its a nonsensical concept to try and work around the reality that two groups with irreconcilable differences should probably not be living together
my point is its a nonsensical concept to try and work around the reality that two groups with irreconcilable differences should probably not be living together
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach communists don't believe in it in the first place but they'll happily use it while you're in power to undermine you, until they are in power.
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach no it isn't. they admit they don't believe in it. the reason my comment is relevant is because when you see someone bitching about it on fedi there is a high probability they believe in no version of it so a debate over its exact definition with the person is pointless
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach no one agrees on what anything means even if they say they agree, but lots of people get along for long periods of time on approximations of agreement
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I know what you're talking about because for example someone in america might say that child porn is illegal so it isn't free speech and someone in germany says well then holocaust denial isn't free speech because it's illegal, and then you have to figure out how to explain how it's actually different without appealing to some cultureally specific value that undermines a universal principle. or something. I'm not saying you don't have a point just that I don't think it's so strong to say no one believes in it in reality.
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I have read several supreme court rulings and transcripts. I am not a lawyer but you can work through the rational process, or obvious lack of it, in them. a lot of them are surprisingly badly reasoned. but a lot of the speech ones are really good and have accumulated over time into a fairly-coherent idea. I like it and mostly agree with it. there are places it has unprincipled exceptions but a lot fo the exceptions are for practical governance reasons. not all of them.
tons of people don't boil free speech down to just my speech. they make exceptions for a lot of things for a lot of reasons but a lot of people very clearly believe you have a right to voice an opinion even if they think it's wrong. a lot of people don't have a coherent idea of it but a lot of people do even if it varies. there are people that say they support free speech then just punish their enemies. they are just hypocrites, that doesn't undermine the concept. you can always argue over the line. but I found most of the time it's a trick. "oh this person got punished for criticising" and you look closer and they just pissed off someone with their speech and dug up a skeleton in their closet and legally fried them. not a free speech issue in reality.
the reason I say its this way for everything is I have argued with somebody about almost everything over my entire life and if you go long enough every argument ends with "I can't get any further without just appealing to my prerational value system, I want my values not your values this argument is over". but some peoples values include your freedom to hold/express opposing ones.
tons of people don't boil free speech down to just my speech. they make exceptions for a lot of things for a lot of reasons but a lot of people very clearly believe you have a right to voice an opinion even if they think it's wrong. a lot of people don't have a coherent idea of it but a lot of people do even if it varies. there are people that say they support free speech then just punish their enemies. they are just hypocrites, that doesn't undermine the concept. you can always argue over the line. but I found most of the time it's a trick. "oh this person got punished for criticising" and you look closer and they just pissed off someone with their speech and dug up a skeleton in their closet and legally fried them. not a free speech issue in reality.
the reason I say its this way for everything is I have argued with somebody about almost everything over my entire life and if you go long enough every argument ends with "I can't get any further without just appealing to my prerational value system, I want my values not your values this argument is over". but some peoples values include your freedom to hold/express opposing ones.
@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I guess I am just saying I have met many many many people I greatly disagreed with that expressed in good faith why they disagreed about something including exactly what free speech covers, people like hillary clinton or trump are obviously acting in bad faith of course they don't believe in anything.
@mirq @bajax @RustyCrab @scathach sure it’s just fadcist philosophy definitely doesn’t permit it either so you know 100% they’re bad faith too
@sun @bajax @RustyCrab @scathach
Absolutely, I was just adding to your point
I feel like radicals by definition cannot and do not support free speech, even if they've managed to fool themselves into thinking that they do
Not super interested in engaging in what the rest of the thread is about but this one tidbit is interesting I think
Absolutely, I was just adding to your point
I feel like radicals by definition cannot and do not support free speech, even if they've managed to fool themselves into thinking that they do
Not super interested in engaging in what the rest of the thread is about but this one tidbit is interesting I think
@lolitechengineer @RustyCrab @scathach @bajax there are Supreme Court rulings since the civil war that lay out a legal framework for which of the bill of rights states can and cannot violate. Some are collective rights and some are individual
@sun @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach
>Some are collective rights and some are individual
Not properly understood. The Bill of Rights was declarative and restrictive on the government; the 14th, just applied that on the states.
The worst SCOTUS rulings involved government power, and not strictly speaking, the Bill of Rights.
The three worst, IMHO:
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
Reverse those decisions, and the centralized rot is limited.
>Some are collective rights and some are individual
Not properly understood. The Bill of Rights was declarative and restrictive on the government; the 14th, just applied that on the states.
The worst SCOTUS rulings involved government power, and not strictly speaking, the Bill of Rights.
The three worst, IMHO:
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
Reverse those decisions, and the centralized rot is limited.
@LoliHat @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach you’re right they’re bad and unprincipled rulings when you read them but just saying that for a long time now you do have an individual right to free speech even at state level
@LoliHat @RustyCrab @bajax @lolitechengineer @scathach the entire civil war is an unprincipled because we killed until you capitulated argument
@sun @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach
The original principles of the Civil War were that those in the North opposed the African ideology of slavery while the Southern elites were addicted to the means by which they oppressed poor Whites.
It was only when the North had the moral upper hand, when it came to foreign relations of the Europeans, that they openly denounce the Confederacy’s addiction to African norms and crushed the rich elite’s, due in no small part to the poor White Southerner’s help.
The reality is that chattel slavery was alien to our culture and those elite who benefited by it were an alien-influenced cancer that had to be culled.
And it was culled.
@LoliHat @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach exit is a right. Fought to drag them back in and comply. Slavery is completely wrong and immoral and an alien value to the principles of freedom yes
@mirq @bajax @RustyCrab @sun @scathach
Fascists aren't radicals, but how can radicals "by definition" be opposed to free speech? I haven't read anything in Marx or other major left wing thinkers to support suppression of speech. Free speech is thought of more as a liberal virtue but I don't see it as being at odds with leftism. Historically it's very much the right wing that has a problem with free speech
Fascists aren't radicals, but how can radicals "by definition" be opposed to free speech? I haven't read anything in Marx or other major left wing thinkers to support suppression of speech. Free speech is thought of more as a liberal virtue but I don't see it as being at odds with leftism. Historically it's very much the right wing that has a problem with free speech
@sampler @bajax @RustyCrab @sun @scathach
How are fascists not radicals?
To your other point, the ussr was very big on limiting speech (including but not limited to music and movies) by inflicting punishment (including but not limited to gulag time) for it.
Either you don't believe the ussr to be leftist/striving for leftist ideals or you don't believe that they limited speech, otherwise your dismissal doesn't make much sense
My belief is that people with extreme and strong beliefs all unanimously prioritize the enstatement of whatever their belief system is over free speech, because the latter can and will very often present obstacles to the former
How are fascists not radicals?
To your other point, the ussr was very big on limiting speech (including but not limited to music and movies) by inflicting punishment (including but not limited to gulag time) for it.
Either you don't believe the ussr to be leftist/striving for leftist ideals or you don't believe that they limited speech, otherwise your dismissal doesn't make much sense
My belief is that people with extreme and strong beliefs all unanimously prioritize the enstatement of whatever their belief system is over free speech, because the latter can and will very often present obstacles to the former
@mirq @bajax @RustyCrab @sampler @scathach if you disagree with marxism you are counterrevolutionary and can be punished. no right to be "wrong"