this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
530 points (87.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43924 readers
1312 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Edit 8 days later: Wow, a lot of people really like using their free speech rights to advocate against free speech...Weird.
If you don't support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you don't support free speech at all.
All censorship is bad. One day it's naughty racial words and then the next day religious zealots can lock people up for saying "god" in the wrong context.
Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field.
If you say you are right to censor your worst enemys then the Nazis were logically also right to censor the opinions of the people THEY hated the most...
Supporting only certain peoples freedom of speech is the definition of censorship...
no. you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Everyone's OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem "the intolerant" then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as "the intolerant" that doesnt tolerate them).
As long as they dont take away from anybody else's freedom (and by just stating one's opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.
(Wrong). Its interesting that you think that just because I argued everyones opinion should be allowed.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.
I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want
Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.
The problem with your "private company" defense is that they used government power to ensure their voice was heard loudest above all others. They literally censored in the most literal sense of the word.
So if you don't tolerate the intolerant, then they will be intolerant? I don't follow this logic.
Not tolerating someone ("the intolerant") makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn't "tolerate the intolerant").
Essentially, who is "intolerant" depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.
It's similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.
what's the value of me tolerating someone who's stated aims are to do me, my family and friends harm?
What's the value of tolerating any other opinion than yours?
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let's see if it's something we haven't already heard a million times and rejected.
Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.
Why must person A tolerate person B's belief that person A should not have the right to life and liberty?
You can call it an opinion all you like, but the truth is that opinions inevitably become actions.
No it isn't. One is a violent group who want to kill and enslave. The other respects life. They are not the same. They do not have the same rights. You are dead wrong, period. No amount of rationalization will make you not dead wrong.
Killing and enslaving are both means to do something, not the actual reason itself. If any person with a different political view wanted to do the same, it would be just as bad. Everyones opinion should be allowed.
What would you consider to be a good reason for killing and enslaving that everyone needs to hear about regularly?
Killing and enslaving should not be allowed and should be avoided at all cost.
The point is, however, if (lets say) a communist killed and enslaved people, should that mean that communist views should be censored in the future? (No! IMO)
Killing and enslaving people are terrible and unacceptable ways of pushing one's own ideals. It does not make the actual opinion itself invalid though.
But communist views ARE censored, and it is specifically because it is claimed that they killed and enslaved. Meanwhile, Nazi views are celebrated as they announce to all that killing and enslavement is their goal.
And I dont think they should be censored (even though I disagree with their views). See what I mean?
This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples' freedoms, it harms peoples' freedom to tolerate that behaviour.
Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that's currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it's moronic.