Most Controversial thinker(s) you know?

[Jnowhere]

For years I've been seeing these subtle "shifts of nuance" where perception is gradually manipulated piecemeal here and there. They always seem to go in one direction, attacking Western tradition and minimizing its achievements.

Plato is absolutely an ideological battlefield, as the pre-eminent Western philosopher. I've even alluded before to Open Society and its Enemies, which specifically attacks Plato, and to the machinations of the Open Society Foundation, which has funded leftist activism and "donated" serious coin to Wikipedia.

So, no, it's not hyperbole to think there might be some ideologically motivated editors at Wikipedia, unless you really think it's appropriate to believe that "philanthropic" organizations throw around millions of dollars without expecting it to have an impact in line with their stated fucking ideals.

I don't agree with all you stated but, there is a hypocritical double standard in so much that the leftist do and say.
Why do only leftist get a pass on their manipulations of the truth and trying to hide and deny any truths that do not fit their narrow, ridiculous, foolish bullshit?.
They are not questioned about their actions, sinister motives or anything they say.
I just cringe when these rich left wing scumbags give so much money to non profit organizations so they can have the power to manipulate the western world into believing absolute bullshit.
So many of the billionaires, are spending a fortune by trying to ruin the western world so that they can have a one-world government, a global currency, a one world religion and ultimately a global dictatorship which will like any big government, will trample the rights of individuals.

Tolerance they scream. That only applies to the cowardly morons who walk in lock step, and agree with them.
Freedom of speech is about protecting the rights of those who disagree or have a different view.
I admit that they don't care, unless it goes against the bullshit that they are trying to force on people.
Canada is a prime example. The government actually goes after and freezes the assets of those who protest or will fire government employees who dare to disagree or try to point out reality.
Truth is not valid if it in anyway goes against their narrative.
Also croney capitalism and corporate monopolies which get rich fleecing the people. No competition means they can charge what they want and don't have to worry about other companies offering better products at a better price.
They let sex offenders and violent criminals off the hook but went after Christian minister's who stood up against the government's Covid regulations by keeping their churches open.
They were basically political prisoners, while real criminals are part of the catch and release policy.
From what I have read, the cops in Canada are not around to protect the people, but at the same time you can get into big trouble for defending yourself and your property.
We can't protect you and you are not allowed to protect yourself, your family, friends and property. What kind of bullshit is that?

Now the left is pro nuclear power, because people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have decided to build nuclear power plants.
For so many decades the leftists went ape shit and protested nuclear power and made it impossible to build new ones. Now so many are pro nuclear power; the same group that protested, chained themselves to security gates and kept predicting that the next Chernobyl was going to happen if we don't get rid of nuclear power.
They were told what to think, and like good little automatons, now they call it green energy. Some will even deny/ lie that the left ever went against nuclear power.
Then there is the police. The left calls them brutal racist thugs. Then when asked about people having guns for protection; they say that only the police should have them. Only the brutal racist thugs, really?
Defund the police and crime goes up. Their solution, take away guns from private citizens and not allow them to defend themselves, family or property.

Writer Williams S Burrows had a great quote " After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military"

I forget which historical figure said this but it so true. " The best defense against tyranny is an armed population."

I could keep going on but, I am not here to force my beliefs on anyone, and besides, I am not George Soros, who as a rich leftist is doing everything he can to force the whole world to walk in lock step with his bullshit globalist ideas.

 

[thujone]

For sure - I think there are likely SOME. I just don't find arguments that it's a significant issue very persuasive. Especially since most of the people who say that it is have their own far more obvious and overtly sinister agendas. ie, whatever it was Elon Musk said, Wokepedia or Dickipeda or something. Your mention of "funding of leftist activism" I admit is another example of this to me since I don't think "leftist activism" is an issue we should be that concerned about either.

As for Plato though, I admit I'm not well versed on the fine details, so can't comment further on that and will concede perhaps you're right. Although just about that point specifically - not the broader point about leftist activism on Wikipedia. Perhaps I should read a few books and then make an assessment.

.

I don't really pay attention to what Elon Musk (or anyone) says on Twitter, I just see the intrusion into Wikipedia of activist editors to be an extension of the "large march on the [educational] institutions" that the New Left movement has done to eliminate diversity of thought in higher education. Much has been written about that and about the conflicts between tenured professors and leftist administration clamping down on expression.

The climate at higher education in the liberal West is such now that 60% of students fear openly expressing controversial opinions

Self-censorship is pervasive across top-ranked and bottom-ranked schools alike; 63% of respondents worried about damaging their reputation because someone misunderstood something they said or did. An equal percentage said that students shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus was acceptable to some degree.

Recently NPR was also accused of such bias and creating a hostile work environment for those of different opinions, which is more or less in line with falling faith in newsmedia -

70% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans, 27% of independents trust media

Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low

Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly remains near the historical low, with sharply differing views among partisans.

news.gallup.com

Notice how strong the ideological pull is there. Anyone who doesn't call themselves a liberal pretty much feels alienated from what the schools, newsmedia and governments preach in the West today.

It constitutes a bit of a crisis to think that trusted institutions are being hijacked by zealots. When most white collar jobs now require university education, how is an ideological outsider even supposed to reach positions of influence within these orgs? If reform is made impossible then revolt is the only option left.

I don't agree with all you stated but, there is a hypocritical double standard in so much that the leftist do and say.
Why do only leftist get a pass on their manipulations of the truth and trying to hide and deny any truths that do not fit their narrow, ridiculous, foolish bullshit?

How does a man go from doctor to murderous jungle warlord? That's what happened to Che Guevara. Academics, mainly, have always had a soft spot for famous communists even though they've proven just as dangerous as the fascists that leftist claim to hate.

Most not-liberals seem to pretty evenly be as opposed to communism as to fascism, I'm not really sure what's so appealing about exchanging corporate democracy for corporate communism but I'm fairly confident it's going to just be even worse and even more unjust than the system it would replace.

 

[Jnowhere]

Sorry, but even Hitler can't even come close to the death toll Mao left. He killed over 60 million people. Mostly from his own stupidity and total lack of concern for his own people.
The other fascit dictators really don't compare with the socialist or communist dictators. Their deathtolls are much smaller compared to their even more evil, leftists.
Hell, Mao left more dead than Hitler, Imperial Japan and all of WW2.
Also, there is a disagreement, even among sources that are liberal friendly: Who killed more Hitler or Stalin? There are too many factors and things to consider to really know.
Pol Pot, wiped out about 25% of the population of Cambodia in less than 3 years.
When looking back at history; I would have rather been shot or gassed by Hitler, than starved to death by Mao or Stalin.
But then again, Hitler was the leader of The National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hmm, Socialist; that's right socialists and communists hate each other. But in the end, both political parties only lead to the most brutal dictatorships in history.
You wanna know what communism really looks like, North Korea and Kim Jong-Fat.

 

[Vastness]

I don't really pay attention to what Elon Musk (or anyone) says on Twitter, I just see the intrusion into Wikipedia of activist editors to be an extension of the "large march on the [educational] institutions" that the New Left movement has done to eliminate diversity of thought in higher education. Much has been written about that and about the conflicts between tenured professors and leftist administration clamping down on expression.

The climate at higher education in the liberal West is such now that 60% of students fear openly expressing controversial opinions

Recently NPR was also accused of such bias and creating a hostile work environment for those of different opinions, which is more or less in line with falling faith in newsmedia -

Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low

Americans' trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly remains near the historical low, with sharply differing views among partisans.

news.gallup.com

Notice how strong the ideological pull is there. Anyone who doesn't call themselves a liberal pretty much feels alienated from what the schools, newsmedia and governments preach in the West today.

It constitutes a bit of a crisis to think that trusted institutions are being hijacked by zealots. When most white collar jobs now require university education, how is an ideological outsider even supposed to reach positions of influence within these orgs? If reform is made impossible then revolt is the only option left.

I appreciate the considered response and can agree fairly easily that the current situation is not perfect. I look at it very much as an imperfect, ideally temporary but right now possibly somewhat necessary to counter the rise of ideas which I consider to be fundamentally dangerous to the future of humanity.

Those ideas are almost entirely found on the political right, and frankly - I think in a healthy society there should be some kind of soft social pressure which means most people will look down on you if you say certain things - because the alternative to this is overt criminalisation of certain ideas, which is, I hope, intuitively just horrific to most people.

There is nuance here of course because while I am generally in favour of free speech conceptually, I do think that hate speech laws (which do not exist everywhere) are reasonable efforts to moderate the flagrant abuse of this freedom - fought for desperately by our ancestors - to say things that are harmful to individuals and to society. Words matter, and exercising one's free speech is not a sufficient excuse to viciously insult someone, or encourage others to do so, based on their race, sexuality, or, of course, their political leanings and opinions. These things need to have consequences or civil society itself is a pointless concept that we should all forget about.

For that reason, essentially, I would be curious to know what the ideas are that some people are afraid of expressing, because while they should not be made to feel afraid for their lives for expressing them, if they're afraid to say they think that perhaps a little domestic violence or a little racial segregation or just a little police brutality now and then is not something to be overtly condemned - or, on the other hand, that perhaps we should consider that women should be forced to give birth no matter what, and maybe a Handmaid's Tale dystopia styled after the fictional Gilead would be preferable to the world as it exists today - well, I don't find it worrying that such people would fear expressing themselves, and think there are many solid arguments that they should. Perhaps there's an approach that doesn't include such heavy-handed suppression of such bad ideas, but historically it would appear that "soft tactics" have largely failed, because we live in a world where Donald Trump is running for president AGAIN, Marjorie Taylor Greene exists, conspiracies are rampant and critical thought and expertise are not considered things that matter by a large proportion of the first world.

 

[thujone]

There is nuance here of course because while I am generally in favour of free speech conceptually, I do think that hate speech laws (which do not exist everywhere) are reasonable efforts to moderate the flagrant abuse of this freedom - fought for desperately by our ancestors - to say things that are harmful to individuals and to society. Words matter, and exercising one's free speech is not a sufficient excuse to viciously insult someone, or encourage others to do so, based on their race, sexuality, or, of course, their political leanings and opinions. These things need to have consequences or civil society itself is a pointless concept that we should all forget about.

we have hate speech laws in canada and when people were upset enough to go to parliament to protest coercive vaccinations, the prime minister immediately tried to smear them as racist bigoted white nationalists. i can recall the same happening to the farmers protesting agricultural laws in western europe.

western governments are just using "hate speech" laws as a political weapon, using "hate" to justify criminalizing some speech so they can later go and expand the scope of hate speech to cover political commentary as well.

that's the thing about free speech - it's absolute. either everyone has it or nobody does.

China is a shining example of a place where freedom of expression is literally in their constitution but has become functionally meaningless because the exceptions to that freedom mean people get thrown in jail for criticising the gov't.

that's where the west is headed.

 

[Jnowhere]

These so called tolerant people are the most narrow minded, hate filled, and disgusting examples of blatant hypocrisy in mainstream society. You disagree with or question anything they say, than your a racist or a bigot or whatever.
They have decided how people should think and there is no room for any other opinion or how dare you question their bullshit.
It may be worse in Canada, but things are getting like that in the US also. A minority of people on the left, who scream and cry loudly are allowed to bully the rest of society.
The more their polices and stupid ideas fail, the more they scream and blame everyone else.

 

[Vastness]

we have hate speech laws in canada and when people were upset enough to go to parliament to protest coercive vaccinations, the prime minister immediately tried to smear them as racist bigoted white nationalists. i can recall the same happening to the farmers protesting agricultural laws in western europe.

western governments are just using "hate speech" laws as a political weapon, using "hate" to justify criminalizing some speech so they can later go and expand the scope of hate speech to cover political commentary as well.

that's the thing about free speech - it's absolute. either everyone has it or nobody does.

China is a shining example of a place where freedom of expression is literally in their constitution but has become functionally meaningless because the exceptions to that freedom mean people get thrown in jail for criticising the gov't.

that's where the west is headed.

Yeah... nah, I'm just not seeing it. Sure, politics is a little, fucked, however you look at it. "Coercive vaccination" protests seem like they would hardly need to be covered under "hate speech", but not vaccinating one's children or contributing to the spread of delusion that might cause other people to do so is something that would fall under the banner of being "probably a net bad for humanity", therefore I find your examples strange.

Where are the actual real examples of abuse of hate speech laws that seem to make reasonable sense, like not keeping slaves or harassing people online or whatever, being used to take away other freedoms that actually matter, rather than the freedom to expose other people's children to measles?

The problem with engaging with these lines of thinking is that it's always sorely lacking in specifics and founded on these vague hypotheticals and attempts to draw analogies that just don't make sense. Like why are you even bringing up China here, there's so little correlation. Yeah that's a country where free speech effectively doesn't exist but that means we need to push so far in the other direction that anyone can say whatever they want all the time? What is it - specifically - that you want to say that you can't say anymore? Who, specifically, said something sane and reasonable, someone overreacted, and society is now worse off?

I really think free speech is overblown these days as an argument even, because it never really existed. You can't just speak for multiple days with a group of other people planning to commit a large and organised crime, but it's fine until you actually do it because you're just "speaking freely". Free speech has always referred to free thought much more so than it has free speech. Nowadays anyone can just say whatever dumb, reckless, threatening or overtly harmful thing that comes into their heads and when they're challenged on it, "I'm just exercising my FREE SPEECH bro!" ...it's just become a way to avoid actually having to justify whatever mostly incoherent and unjustifiable idea is being challenged by twisting the conversation to being about the injustice of even being asked to defend whatever dumb position in the first place. Just IMO.

 

[Electrum1]

Free speech has always referred to free thought much more so than it has free speech

Not in the U.S. The 1st amendment doesn't exist to protect the "normal" speech you just did or what I've just said here, it exists to protect what Europe and certain countries call "hate speech". In America the 1st amendment protects the exact speech that you don't want to hear, and the exact speech that I don't want to hear. Free speech doesn't exist to protect normal average speech, it exists to specifically protect controversial speech.

Uncensored controversial speech, if bad or incorrect, generally ends up being defeated by more free speech, not less free speech

 

[Jnowhere]

Not in the U.S. The 1st amendment doesn't exist to protect the "normal" speech you just did or what I've just said here, it exists to protect what Europe and certain countries call "hate speech". In America the 1st amendment protects the exact speech that you don't want to hear, and the exact speech that I don't want to hear. Free speech doesn't exist to protect normal average speech, it exists to specifically protect controversial speech.

Uncensored controversial speech, if bad or incorrect, generally ends up being defeated by more free speech, not less free speech

You are absolutely right, but tell that to the PC social justice warriors and the left wing nuts who control so much. I would say more but they will ban me again. lol

 

[Vastness]

Not in the U.S. The 1st amendment doesn't exist to protect the "normal" speech you just did or what I've just said here, it exists to protect what Europe and certain countries call "hate speech". In America the 1st amendment protects the exact speech that you don't want to hear, and the exact speech that I don't want to hear. Free speech doesn't exist to protect normal average speech, it exists to specifically protect controversial speech.

Uncensored controversial speech, if bad or incorrect, generally ends up being defeated by more free speech, not less free speech

On your second point - does it, "generally" end up being defeated? Do we know that for a fact? Because it seems to me we've come this far as a species via a route that has not always been smooth, and was likely more luck thst judgement. At what point - when the saturation of truly, bad, dumbfuckery on an epic scale bad, bad BAD ideas burning through human culture becomes concerning enough - does someone say, "ok, I know free speech n all but... we have to do something about THIS speech specifically....?"

To your first point - perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say that I think the fundamental value of free speech is that it facilitates freedom of thought, by allowing the free exchange of ideas. Therefore, I think the function of free speech being enshrined as a fundamental right by law, is to increase the likelihood of more people having more good ideas.

It cannot just be about being able to say "controversial" things. That's so often seemingly the crux of the unspoken problem, but if this is the essence of the value of free speech then the whole idea is asinine.

I just cannot accept that the architects of the idealised vision of a truly free society just wanted to be able to make edgy jokes... or casually insult people now and then coz, uhhhh it's funny. Are we really so pathetic as a species that behind one of out most prized, self-assumed inherent freedoms that comes with being alive is nothing more than... being allowed to say whatever dumb shit comes into your brain? As if words can be uttered onto a parallel plane of existence and no matter the consequence, it doesn't fall on the speaker, because... free speech. Christ, that's such a depressing vision of humanity.

Free speech needs to be able to protect itself from speech that would end up limiting free speech - obviously. No matter how you look at ut this amounts to a form of suppression, even if ideally only ever done viable "soft" methods, education and the like.

Certain forms of speech need to be controlled. Speech can inspire action that silences other large groups of individuals who are involuntarily disadvantaged in some way, by virtue of not being Christian or absurdly rich or straight or hot or whatever. The likelihood of an idea of belief system to lead to a bright future for all humanity is uncorrelated with it's fundamental value. If it was we surely wouldn't even need to be talking about this.

God, the whole free speech spectacle in the current mass psychological disturbance afflicting humanity in the form of all the destructive culture war bullshit exhausts me. Ultimately speech is a battleground for ideas, but not just for it's own sake, because obviously we want MORE GOOD IDEAS. Obviously there's always the problem that people do not agree on what ideas count as "good", and either one of us can use vague words like "reasonableness" and "common sense" to sneak in exceptions to free speech "absolutism" , accuse the other of doing the same, but... some ideas ARE just better than others. Some speech is just not worth the trouble of protecting - at least not right now.

The people yelling the loudest about free speech right now mostly aren't yelling about good ideas, just about vague hypotheticals that might happen or did happen but don't really seem to matter to anything without actually ever being able to explain why free speech is so important in the first place. I actually don't even believe most of them ever really understood.

 

[Madness]

On your second point - does it, "generally" end up being defeated? Do we know that for a fact? Because it seems to me we've come this far as a species via a route that has not always been smooth, and was likely more luck thst judgement. At what point - when the saturation of truly, bad, dumbfuckery on an epic scale bad, bad BAD ideas burning through human culture becomes concerning enough - does someone say, "ok, I know free speech n all but... we have to do something about THIS speech specifically....?"

To your first point - perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say that I think the fundamental value of free speech is that it facilitates freedom of thought, by allowing the free exchange of ideas. Therefore, I think the function of free speech being enshrined as a fundamental right by law, is to increase the likelihood of more people having more good ideas.

It cannot just be about being able to say "controversial" things. That's so often seemingly the crux of the unspoken problem, but if this is the essence of the value of free speech then the whole idea is asinine.

I just cannot accept that the architects of the idealised vision of a truly free society just wanted to be able to make edgy jokes... or casually insult people now and then coz, uhhhh it's funny. Are we really so pathetic as a species that behind one of out most prized, self-assumed inherent freedoms that comes with being alive is nothing more than... being allowed to say whatever dumb shit comes into your brain? As if words can be uttered onto a parallel plane of existence and no matter the consequence, it doesn't fall on the speaker, because... free speech. Christ, that's such a depressing vision of humanity.

Free speech needs to be able to protect itself from speech that would end up limiting free speech - obviously. No matter how you look at ut this amounts to a form of suppression, even if ideally only ever done viable "soft" methods, education and the like.

Certain forms of speech need to be controlled. Speech can inspire action that silences other large groups of individuals who are involuntarily disadvantaged in some way, by virtue of not being Christian or absurdly rich or straight or hot or whatever. The likelihood of an idea of belief system to lead to a bright future for all humanity is uncorrelated with it's fundamental value. If it was we surely wouldn't even need to be talking about this.

God, the whole free speech spectacle in the current mass psychological disturbance afflicting humanity in the form of all the destructive culture war bullshit exhausts me. Ultimately speech is a battleground for ideas, but not just for it's own sake, because obviously we want MORE GOOD IDEAS. Obviously there's always the problem that people do not agree on what ideas count as "good", and either one of us can use vague words like "reasonableness" and "common sense" to sneak in exceptions to free speech "absolutism" , accuse the other of doing the same, but... some ideas ARE just better than others. Some speech is just not worth the trouble of protecting - at least not right now.

The people yelling the loudest about free speech right now mostly aren't yelling about good ideas, just about vague hypotheticals that might happen or did happen but don't really seem to matter to anything without actually ever being able to explain why free speech is so important in the first place. I actually don't even believe most of them ever really understood.

That's valid thoughts and feelings.

Re: edgy jokes and insults, you make a good point that free speech should be used to allow free speech, not to suppress it.

I am trying to figure out what purpose using those two things have for me personally. I am blanking on it and don't want to reach for an answer. So, just thinking at the moment.

 

[Jnowhere]

That's valid thoughts and feelings.

Re: edgy jokes and insults, you make a good point that free speech should be used to allow free speech, not to suppress it.

I am trying to figure out what purpose using those two things have for me personally. I am blanking on it and don't want to reach for an answer. So, just thinking at the moment.

Take all the time you need

 

[Madness]

That's valid thoughts and feelings.

Re: edgy jokes and insults, you make a good point that free speech should be used to allow free speech, not to suppress it.

I am trying to figure out what purpose using those two things have for me personally. I am blanking on it and don't want to reach for an answer. So, just thinking at the moment.

@Vastness - edgy jokes and insults are very often more unhelpful than not.

On the defense of the insensitive: It is hard to know ones intentions - some people merely lack foresight or the understanding of the impact of words.

That doesn't make it right, but I don't think trying to shame or otherwise put down those individuals is the way to handle it. Usually when we fight fire with fire, both parties simply get more defensive as they both think they're right.

 

[Vastness]

edgy jokes and insults are very often more unhelpful than not.

On the defense of the insensitive: It is hard to know ones intentions - some people merely lack foresight or the understanding of the impact of words.

That doesn't make it right, but I don't think trying to shame or otherwise put down those individuals is the way to handle it. Usually when we fight fire with fire, both parties simply get more defensive as they both think they're right.

Oh yeah dude I agree I with you. I mean that's kinda my whole point. Edgy jokes and insults aren't cool. They're damaging, toxic, hangovers from the brutal trauma of evolution. If, crazy thought, we had a route to a future where our compassion and ethical integrity were the defining light of all our triumphs was the value we placed on the quality of sentient life - do we think that's less important, or a less inspiring vision for our cosmic fate than... being able to make fun of people with blue hair. Or, for that matter, the right to gaslight a bunch of psychopaths into handing you billions of dollars to indulge your monomaniacal ego-delusions and sometimes luck out - even publicly lose your mind - and the rigidity and punitive insanity of our social structures paralyses it to properly deal with unbelievably obvious threats to an integrated, global civilization, because of the deification of capital itself, and the power it bestows on certain people to casually commit unspeakable moral crimes.

God I'm sorry, I tried not to get overtly political and probably failed a little. But yeah, I don't claim to have the solutions as such, either, it IS a very complex problem. But let's not pretend it isn't a psychological disease not to recognize the horrifying lunacy currently smuggled under the banner of "Free Speech", aforementioned ambiguously mentioned billionaire who is clearly fundamentally unwell, and one of the most incoherent about it.

But yeah... like Martin Luther King said, darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can, and hate cannot drive out hate, only love can... but as pure a sentiment to the value of agreeing on a somewhat objective and universally applied morality, love can take many forms, and it can be an act of love to compassionately institutionalize someone to prevent far wider social harm - love not only for the individual who will be stopped from publicly embarrassing themselves any further and love for humanity by placing limits on the absurdly unchecked power that routinely rocks our current world.

 

[thujone]

The problem with engaging with these lines of thinking is that it's always sorely lacking in specifics and founded on these vague hypotheticals and attempts to draw analogies that just don't make sense. Like why are you even bringing up China here, there's so little correlation. Yeah that's a country where free speech effectively doesn't exist but that means we need to push so far in the other direction that anyone can say whatever they want all the time?

Bringing up China because it's an example of government stretching free speech but with limits to criminalize political criticism.

What is it - specifically - that you want to say that you can't say anymore? Who, specifically, said something sane and reasonable, someone overreacted, and society is now worse off?

Do you really believe that the only reason someone can be against criminalizing speech is because they want to say nasty, impolite things?

I recommend watching the film The Lives of Others, which is about life in Stasi-controlled East Germany. That's actually how people lived behind the Iron Curtain - in a culture of fear where any casual remark might lead to a surprise interrogation in the middle of the inght.

You may think that's an extreme we'll never reach, but, we seem to be steadily heading that way -

Stasi in the West | naked capitalism

Western governments are enacting more draconian measures to silence all criticism and increasingly asking citizens to inform on one another.

www.nakedcapitalism.com

 

[Vastness]

Bringing up China because it's an example of government stretching free speech but with limits to criminalize political criticism.

Hm, I have a strong inclination to think this is just nonsense doublespeak, excuse my cynicism. China is an unabashed opponent of free speech in almost every way. Are you arguing for the rationale of a Chinese model? It's notable that in most self-proclaimed "democracies" that aren't so far into absurdity that the self-proclamation has no meaning ("D"PRK, lol) - hate speech laws have little to nothing to do with politics. Because that would obviously be absurd.

Do you really believe that the only reason someone can be against criminalizing speech is because they want to say nasty, impolite things?

No, I just think it's more common than anyone would like to admit, and my view on this is continuously reinforced when people dodge my fairly blunt questions about giving specific examples.

• What did you once say freely, without fear of social embarassment or derision, that you can't now?
• How did this affect your overall quality of life? Please, give examples.
• What other speech - specifically - are you concerned is on the radar for overt criminalization?
• What specific evidence have you observed? You mentioned wikipedia earlier, please go into detail.
• What changes have you noticed, what effect will they have on future human society, and why?

Also, and most importantly, really, referring to my earlier post:

• WHY is free speech worthy of the value we assign to it, and HOW are these values being threatened? Again, examples, please of free speech being restricted. Vaccine mandates and mandatory mask wearing in a pandemic isn't good enough (I'm sorry, I know, I'm being a little sarcastic here but dude... give me something!

This is admittedly another cause of my Free-Speech-Fatigue, no one who seems to think it's most important and most under threat can ever say shit about it. Yeah, the Nazis happened, Stalin, China, free speech is sometimes restricted and it seems inherently morally wrong that this happens, but somehow this chunk of moral outrage is rarely synced up with the fact that America very recently elected a person who is a clear enemy of free speech to be the actual fucking president, and might do so again.

There is a democratic nation in the heart of Europe currently engaged in a hot war with a nation where Free Speech is not so valued, and yet, it seems like just pure bullshit is just more important than categorically dealing with that threat.

Roe vs Wade was recently undone as a precedent in the USA which is obviously a fundamental limiter on human freedom, not much to say about that.

Oh, a few years back the Brits exercised their sacred free speech rights to allow Brexit to happen, blasting a few toes off the UK economy overnight and again - restricting freedoms. Actually the floundering right wing government of the UK, or moreso, just a small, incomprehensible faction of them are attempting currently to overrule a couple of EU human rights laws, and criminalise certain critcisms of a certain African country lead by a guy who has a few accusations of war crimes under his belt. Of course, what to say about Brexit...

Now it might seem like these are all examples which kind of back up your point - but you didn't use any of them, and neither do I ever hear them being used by those who are critical of a perceived erosion of Free Speech in "the West". In actual fact the arguments used are more often incoherent gibberish like the stuff @Jnowhere comes out with constantly. Allegations, vagueness, a general air of moral certainty that, I mean... "how could you just not see this?!" ...I know that's kinda the attitude I'm taking right now but, christ, let's cut out the vagueness and pick some examples. I'll copy paste my bullet points for your convenience:

• What did you once say freely, without fear of social embarassment or derision, that you can't now?
• How did this affect your overall quality of life? Please, give examples.
• What other speech - specifically - are you concerned is on the radar for overt criminalization?
• What specific evidence have you observed? You mentioned wikipedia earlier, please go into detail.
• What changes have you noticed, what effect will they have on future human society, and why?

Also, most importantly:

• WHY is free speech worthy of the value we assign to it? Why do you value it, and how should it be defended. Again - please be specific, mention specific social policies which limit free speech, and how these could be reversed.