Far too often people forget that Right to Free Speech is not your first right, and it is superseded by other human rights above it.
Your right to Free Speech only applies as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s rights to safety and freedom from prejudice, hate, harm, etc…
It’s not that complicated and yet countless people always fuck something so straightforward up.
It begins with free speech, then you skip a few years and suddenly trans kids are scared for their lives. Speech affects people and has consequence, it is not something to take lightly.
No one ever gets the point until people start getting beaten, threatened, wounded, maimed or killed. They’ll keep arguing the details until there is an authoritarian government telling you what you can or can’t do or say.
Then everyone stands around wondering how it all happened.
Most regular people I know just want to live life and not really bother with anyone else in a negative way … in fact most people I’ve ever known would do something good for the other person if it meant it would help. Most people are just good and have a very good nature.
It’s the psychotic few billionaires and millionaires out there that want a world with authoritarian fascist government in power because it means those wealthy few get to keep all their money and if they do get their way, they can exponentially grow the wealth they already have. It’s all about money and power.
It’s all about a handful of morons who aren’t aware of their finite life that believe they can become temporary rulers of the world.
Some number of people are getting maimed, wounded, or killed. Do people have a threshold number at which point they decide it’s too much?
Usually hunger … if you look through history, change doesn’t happen in societies because people are poor, abused, imprisoned, impoverished or have a lack of luxuries … change often happens when people go hungry because at that point they all realize that if they have no food, they will die … and when they can see death, especially their own death, they no longer have anything to lose and will fight for some kind of change …
And even that want for change is dangerous because it can come in many forms … good change, bad change, fascist change, socialist change, democratic change, authoritarian change.
in your post the thing I liked the most, the most significant in my opinion, it’s
They’ll keep arguing the details
this is the sum of all the thread. there’s so much on this few words. in my understanding,vsums up perfectly what I’d describe as the paranoia feeding the knitpicking and the extenuating effort to manage the malice. thank you
This comic is a good example of the Paradox of Tolerance. You can’t tolerate intolerance… it does not end well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerancethe tolerance paradox
If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people.
The poor mod definitely needs an AI to help with moderation.
Tolerance is a social contract.
Those who dont abide by it, try to use it as a weapon against those who do, to enable their intolerance to grow and spread.
Those who don’t abide by the social contract are a threat to society as a whole, and should not receive its protection.
Because you end up empowering them, and weakening society against them.
Intolerance must be put down, with force. It is not hypocritical. It is not paradoxical. For the garden of tolerance to thrive, the intolerant weeds must be ripped out of the soil and disposed of in such a way that they can not spread their seeds further, because if you don’t… nothing will thrive but the weeds.
So what exactly is the alternative? Pass hate speech laws? Because that is ripe for abuse.
Some countries already have hate speech laws that are limited to inciting violence and they aren’t being abused.
That is an inciting violence law.
Where should the line be drawn?
Where between “I wouldn’t date a trans person because it is against my ideals” (personal preference in partners) and “I wouldn’t socialise with a trans person because it is against my ideals” (personal preference in friends) would we draw our boundary? Would it be between these two forms of discomfort, or would both these ideals be unacceptable, or would both be acceptable?
The issue isn’t that such speech should be removed, there is broad agreement there, but where do we start trimming?
Next comes the question, in policing such discourse, what would the cost to privacy be? “Protect the children from the predators” (something everyone can agree with) is already a rallying cry leafing to the erosion of encryption and privacy, shall “stamp out the TERFs” become the next one? Who here remembers what “stopping terrorists” did to privacy?
Overall, I doubt there are many who don’t feel open distaste at certain forms of speech, and would rather it not be tolerated. However, the difficulty in where to draw the line, and the fear of the cost such a line would have, is why there is likely more opposition.
You’re starting out with intolerance as the baseline. It’s one thing to not want to date a trans person because you’re not sexually ATTRACTED to trans people. That’s perfectly fine. To not want to because it’s “against your ideals” implies that you disapprove of ANYONE dating a trans person, which can only be a result of bigotry.
Nobody’s talking about legislating against TERFS existing or that anyone who has bigoted views on trans people being predatory, so that’s not a valid comparison either.
You can ABSOLUTELY be intolerant towards intolerance without trying to legislate it away or otherwise unfairly persecuting the bigots like they persecute others. In fact, that’s the default and correct reaction of tolerant people encountering bigotry.
It’s one thing to not want to date a trans person because you’re not sexually ATTRACTED to trans people. That’s perfectly fine. To not want to because it’s “against your ideals” implies that you disapprove of ANYONE dating a trans person
No, that’s what it implies to you. Not to everyone else. And idk why.
It’s simple. “I wouldn’t date a trans person because it’s against my ideals” implies nothing about the rest of the world. It just exposes that the speaker’s ideal sexual preference does not include trans people. Now, if you’re choosing to take “ideals” as “ideals about how society should work”, that’s on you. If you’re choosing to take “I wouldn’t date” as “nobody should date”, that’s also on you.
The phrase is simple and already explains sexual preference, not view on society. It’s actually really goddamn interesting, because OP was illustrating how hard it is to draw a line in the sand, because someone will cross it and say you’re not allowed to draw the line there, and you did that exact fucking thing. You likened drawing that line in the sand with drawing EVERYONE’s line for them, and swiftly crossed it, expressing how wrong it is to draw the line there, and where everyone else’s line should be, because you know better and are reading into the implications.
You’re either wrong about their intention or about their (lack of) clarity.
“Ideals” and “preferences” are NOT synonyms and since I can’t read their mind, I’m gonna assume that what they say is what they mean. Silly in these post-truth times, I know, but I’m old-fashioned like that.
You literally misinterpreted what they said to suit your own agenda. Silly in any times, but yes - also old-fashioned.
Nope, I literally took them at their word and then you came riding to the rescue with a hypothetical interpretation.
I had almost forgotten how much I hate political “comics”.
Free speech is the only tool available to the most disenfranchised and must not be infringed.
Free speech is a tool for Journalists to not get arrested for bringing light to subjects.
The people usually screaming about free speech are just afraid of the consequences of society for being an ass, not jail time.
Being an ass is not against the law. Not every social interaction needs to have a law associated with it. “Free speech is for journalists” is a useless statement. Who defines when you become a journalist? The government?
So, let me get this straight. You think hate speech is okay, because the disenfranchised need to express themselves? Why would the disenfranchised need to utilize hate speech to address systemic problems in their society? Surely the recipient of the hate speech is more disenfranchised.
I think hate speech is an unfortunate, but acceptable side effect of free speech. It’s a net positive.
Being allowed to exist is a much bigger law that overrules freedom of speech.
Plenty of things do, if you commit a crime, you can also still be jailed and that doesn’t infringe on freedom of speech.
Being allowed to exists IS free speech. The whole LGBT movement exists and spreads via free speech rules.
Plenty of people still think that being gay is immoral. In many places they’re still being jailed for “corrupting youth”. The only places that see social change are those with strong free speech protections. It’s so obvious, it hurts.
No it doesn’t. The LGBTQ+ community exists because society at large accepts them. If what you say is true, then Nazis speaking out against them and inciting violence and advocating discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is violating their right to free speech, so who exactly is the hypocrite here? Seems clear to me the Nazis are.
The society at large needs free speech protections to show their acceptance of any group. If Nazis are not to be accepted, which I agree with, then the pressure from society will drive that ideology down in popularity. However, the government of any nation will actively resist change to preserve the system of society that is already in place. So, they will actively want to control speech to resist change. Do you want an authoritarian regime? You won’t be able to control it.
