Paradox of tolerance. if some use their free speech to actively/directly hurt or incite harm to others, consider that they may have broken the social contract, and thus might no longer expect their harmful speech to be tolerated by others.
I’m not into anti-intellectualism, hence why the Aaron Swartz quote I posted is the opposite of the “paradox of tolerance” gaslighting shit you people post & I called you out for it in the post title
beause that’s the crux of things. not everyone agrees on what is harmful, and many what some find harmful, others may find beneficial.
i mean, i am not one for violence and hate, but plenty of people find violence fantasizing and hateful speech to be empowering. and on the flipside, many think anything they disagree with as hateful and violence towards themselves, even if it not, and feel justified in perpetuating violence against anyone who question the orthodoxies they hold dear.
i used to teach philosophy. lots of people think philosophy is harmful and respond with violence when asked to engaged in it.
“a cop shoots a murderer to prevent them from killing any more victims, ergo, he’s the same as the murderer”
No tolerance for intolerance. If speech is a call to action that would move the discourse towards less tolerance, it should be the exception that should not be tolerated.
I used to be free speech absolutist until we get to the conundrum as you presented. For me, free speech will never be settled and is a perpetual debate. I think what is considered hate speech is on a case by case basis. Like an individual human who is being tried on a court and his/her case is examined, what is considered harmful or free speech is kinda like that. We examine the minutae of the speech based on the context, semantics, syntax logic, reasoning etc. if the speech can be considered harmful or not. It’s a perpetual debate.
One issue is that speech and action are blurred online.
In real life, my friends would disinvite me from things if I started using the n-word. Action (consequence) would follow speech.
Online, you permit the n-word and you end up with Nazis and no black people. Speech and action are indistinguishable in this regard and self-compound. The only “disinvitation” is moderation, which is often, debateably, equated with censorship.
Therefore, there is a case to be made that free speech absolutism is the act of empowering the loudest and most offensive minority at the cost of any and all diverse voices.
Perhaps not in a dry-run, on-paper scenario, but I’d be interested to a see a website with no moderation where there is no white supremacy or CSAM.
I’m not sure I agree with any of that necessarily There are black people who are Nazi dude, tons of counter examples to play with.
I would say online anonymous speech, is very different from public speech and private speech. If you only make racists comments in your home, and body hears them, is that action? Or is that more akin to personal thoughts? Also, lots of people misread the intent of such things. If there was an online community of black users using the n word in a comical or therapeutic text… is that permissible? Certainly many people looking at that from the outside may think differently and fail to grasp the specific context.
Public speech is very different. It would be like public speaking, protest, or other such public acts. I’m not sure private discourse is an action. But it’s probably true if you made racist remarks your friends would not want to hang out with you… but then again maybe some of your friends would agree with you and you’d form a new closer friend group based on that. I’ve personally met many closeted racists (who identify as anti-racist publicly), a lot more than I’ve met openly public racists. Though I admit there is tonal shift has happened where public racism is more tolerated than it was a decade or two ago.
I’m also disagree though about offensive minorities though. in my experience of reddit, a lot of subs became dominated by loud offensive types as long as there was popular agreement and they used the ‘tolerance’ approach to push their toxic agendas. a lot of people love the ‘drama’ of loud offensive people pushing hateful agendas, as long as they do so ‘politely’ using euhapnisms and dog whistles. Challenging this type often resulted in mods banning you. Hell, I was banned from my local city subreddit last year for pointing out racism and sexism against my cities mayor being perpetuated by sock puppet accounts. But because I pointed these this out directly, I was told I was the racist one. Often ‘tolerance’ creates spaces where even the mention of the existence or pointing out of racist events or words is considered hate speech itself. It’s racist to acknowledge racism exists, in many big subreddits now. We’re supposed to pretend it doesn’t. And a lot of ‘polite’ racism is 100% tolerated as long as keywords aren’t used.
the main is issue is not that occasionally there are black nazis, really. Let’s table that for another discussion.
if you only make racist comments at home… is that an action?
In a loose definition, yes. However, again, to keep us on track here, I don’t think we need to focus on the exact definition of an extended qualia phenomenon in epistemology/alethiology.
I think its reasonable to assume we are talking about observed, lived and experienced phenomena by at least two conscious humans.
lots of people misread
that’s why I went with the n-word, hard R. There’s little to be misread.
I do find that kind of discussion tedious so if we’re going to get into “but what do we mean by a word? a thought? a person?” - I’m out, that’s sophistry that i find frustrating.
If there was an online community of black users using the n word in a comical or therapeutic text… is that permissible?
uno reversi: how does one ensure an online community of black users without moderation? doesn’t it presuppose a selection process to suggest that closed communities can exist? And if there is no moderation (/“censorship”) there is no “from outside” because no one can possibly be excluded.
maybe some of your friends would agree with you and you’d form a new closer friend group based on that.
kinda my point: racists find each other and piss in the pool until there’s only racists left. That’s only not a bad thing if you think racist communities should exist, or all communities should be racist - something i don’t think is worth debating.
, a lot of subs became dominated by loud offensive types as long as there was popular agreement and they used the ‘tolerance’ approach to push their toxic agendas
how is that disagreeing with me? that’s what I’m saying is the problem: if you don’t remove an issue, it compounds. Reddit has a level of moderation, and this statement seems to be saying that you should censor it more
You are conflating things that are not the same in a fence-straddling argument. There are things that objectively cause harm. Using X’s Grok to make CSAM. Using AI to deepfake people telling outright lies or giving damaging instructions to the public. Inciting people to engage in illegal behavior. We already have definitions of harmful speech, what we also have is people arguing that it isn’t harmful because it serves their agenda.
Disagreeing with someone is not even close and shouldn’t even be part of the discussion when considering actual censorship. Philosophy is a lovely fun exercise in arguing every point on the curve of a circle, but it doesn’t keep the Nazis from taking power.
Right, so if you disagree with someone punch them in the face, until the agree with you. Or at least verbally harass them into submission.
Because you are somehow the sole arbiter of what objectively causes harm? And you will enforce that objectivity with your fists.
good luck with that. Sound to me like you are the one who wants to be a Nazi, I mean, what’s the difference between exterminating ideas you don’t like, and the people who have those ideas, really?
Dude, you did that. You set up a binary and called me a fence sitter. and now you are personally attacking me. Bravo. Be more of a bad faith actor.
You’re being deliberately malacious. And you won’t own up to it, you will just sit there and blame me and everyone else for not adhere to your personal standards you think are superior, such that you get the authority to harass, name call, and blame everyone else. And also justify your violent attitude.
You see nothing wrong with violence, as long as it’s down to those you dislike and disagree with. Just like the Nazis you think you are fighting, because in your binary world everyone is for you, or against you.
It’s ok. I had plenty of students who wrote me papers telling me how stupid I was and how smart they were. They got failed. Which is actually better than the cheaters.
Lol I clearly stated there is a demarcation between objectively damaging speech and disagreement. Try again dude. What are you, a closeted republican? As soon as someone challenges you devolve into “no, u!”, make accusations of being attacked, and make shit up about your opponent while engaging in projection?
You didn’t define any of those terms. You are not engaging, you are harassing and accusing and personalizing everything I said, and going to the ‘but the nazis’ nonsense.
You’re an absolutist. By definition that’s a binary way of thinking. And your doubling down, ‘oh you must b ea republican if you don’t agree with my world view’. As if your worldview is definitivity anti-republican or something?
Your fault is in thinking you are the center of the universe and the arbiter of others beliefs. You aren’t. You might stop being so hostile towards others if you stopped believing that you were.
Paradox of tolerance. if some use their free speech to actively/directly hurt or incite harm to others, consider that they may have broken the social contract, and thus might no longer expect their harmful speech to be tolerated by others.
I’m not into anti-intellectualism, hence why the Aaron Swartz quote I posted is the opposite of the “paradox of tolerance” gaslighting shit you people post & I called you out for it in the post title
define harmful speech.
beause that’s the crux of things. not everyone agrees on what is harmful, and many what some find harmful, others may find beneficial.
i mean, i am not one for violence and hate, but plenty of people find violence fantasizing and hateful speech to be empowering. and on the flipside, many think anything they disagree with as hateful and violence towards themselves, even if it not, and feel justified in perpetuating violence against anyone who question the orthodoxies they hold dear.
i used to teach philosophy. lots of people think philosophy is harmful and respond with violence when asked to engaged in it.
“a cop shoots a murderer to prevent them from killing any more victims, ergo, he’s the same as the murderer”
No tolerance for intolerance. If speech is a call to action that would move the discourse towards less tolerance, it should be the exception that should not be tolerated.
So you’re saying that quote is intolerant of cops? And should not be allowed to be said?
From the post you are replying to:
Do you feel that definition is lacking? If so, what should be clarified?
I used to be free speech absolutist until we get to the conundrum as you presented. For me, free speech will never be settled and is a perpetual debate. I think what is considered hate speech is on a case by case basis. Like an individual human who is being tried on a court and his/her case is examined, what is considered harmful or free speech is kinda like that. We examine the minutae of the speech based on the context, semantics, syntax logic, reasoning etc. if the speech can be considered harmful or not. It’s a perpetual debate.
One issue is that speech and action are blurred online.
In real life, my friends would disinvite me from things if I started using the n-word. Action (consequence) would follow speech.
Online, you permit the n-word and you end up with Nazis and no black people. Speech and action are indistinguishable in this regard and self-compound. The only “disinvitation” is moderation, which is often, debateably, equated with censorship.
Therefore, there is a case to be made that free speech absolutism is the act of empowering the loudest and most offensive minority at the cost of any and all diverse voices.
Perhaps not in a dry-run, on-paper scenario, but I’d be interested to a see a website with no moderation where there is no white supremacy or CSAM.
I’m not sure I agree with any of that necessarily There are black people who are Nazi dude, tons of counter examples to play with.
I would say online anonymous speech, is very different from public speech and private speech. If you only make racists comments in your home, and body hears them, is that action? Or is that more akin to personal thoughts? Also, lots of people misread the intent of such things. If there was an online community of black users using the n word in a comical or therapeutic text… is that permissible? Certainly many people looking at that from the outside may think differently and fail to grasp the specific context.
Public speech is very different. It would be like public speaking, protest, or other such public acts. I’m not sure private discourse is an action. But it’s probably true if you made racist remarks your friends would not want to hang out with you… but then again maybe some of your friends would agree with you and you’d form a new closer friend group based on that. I’ve personally met many closeted racists (who identify as anti-racist publicly), a lot more than I’ve met openly public racists. Though I admit there is tonal shift has happened where public racism is more tolerated than it was a decade or two ago.
I’m also disagree though about offensive minorities though. in my experience of reddit, a lot of subs became dominated by loud offensive types as long as there was popular agreement and they used the ‘tolerance’ approach to push their toxic agendas. a lot of people love the ‘drama’ of loud offensive people pushing hateful agendas, as long as they do so ‘politely’ using euhapnisms and dog whistles. Challenging this type often resulted in mods banning you. Hell, I was banned from my local city subreddit last year for pointing out racism and sexism against my cities mayor being perpetuated by sock puppet accounts. But because I pointed these this out directly, I was told I was the racist one. Often ‘tolerance’ creates spaces where even the mention of the existence or pointing out of racist events or words is considered hate speech itself. It’s racist to acknowledge racism exists, in many big subreddits now. We’re supposed to pretend it doesn’t. And a lot of ‘polite’ racism is 100% tolerated as long as keywords aren’t used.
the main is issue is not that occasionally there are black nazis, really. Let’s table that for another discussion.
In a loose definition, yes. However, again, to keep us on track here, I don’t think we need to focus on the exact definition of an extended qualia phenomenon in epistemology/alethiology.
I think its reasonable to assume we are talking about observed, lived and experienced phenomena by at least two conscious humans.
that’s why I went with the n-word, hard R. There’s little to be misread.
I do find that kind of discussion tedious so if we’re going to get into “but what do we mean by a word? a thought? a person?” - I’m out, that’s sophistry that i find frustrating.
uno reversi: how does one ensure an online community of black users without moderation? doesn’t it presuppose a selection process to suggest that closed communities can exist? And if there is no moderation (/“censorship”) there is no “from outside” because no one can possibly be excluded.
kinda my point: racists find each other and piss in the pool until there’s only racists left. That’s only not a bad thing if you think racist communities should exist, or all communities should be racist - something i don’t think is worth debating.
how is that disagreeing with me? that’s what I’m saying is the problem: if you don’t remove an issue, it compounds. Reddit has a level of moderation, and this statement seems to be saying that you should censor it more
You are conflating things that are not the same in a fence-straddling argument. There are things that objectively cause harm. Using X’s Grok to make CSAM. Using AI to deepfake people telling outright lies or giving damaging instructions to the public. Inciting people to engage in illegal behavior. We already have definitions of harmful speech, what we also have is people arguing that it isn’t harmful because it serves their agenda.
Disagreeing with someone is not even close and shouldn’t even be part of the discussion when considering actual censorship. Philosophy is a lovely fun exercise in arguing every point on the curve of a circle, but it doesn’t keep the Nazis from taking power.
Right, so if you disagree with someone punch them in the face, until the agree with you. Or at least verbally harass them into submission.
Because you are somehow the sole arbiter of what objectively causes harm? And you will enforce that objectivity with your fists.
good luck with that. Sound to me like you are the one who wants to be a Nazi, I mean, what’s the difference between exterminating ideas you don’t like, and the people who have those ideas, really?
From a philosophy teacher I expected better than hyperbole and a binary argument.
Do better.
Dude, you did that. You set up a binary and called me a fence sitter. and now you are personally attacking me. Bravo. Be more of a bad faith actor.
You’re being deliberately malacious. And you won’t own up to it, you will just sit there and blame me and everyone else for not adhere to your personal standards you think are superior, such that you get the authority to harass, name call, and blame everyone else. And also justify your violent attitude.
You see nothing wrong with violence, as long as it’s down to those you dislike and disagree with. Just like the Nazis you think you are fighting, because in your binary world everyone is for you, or against you.
It’s ok. I had plenty of students who wrote me papers telling me how stupid I was and how smart they were. They got failed. Which is actually better than the cheaters.
Lol I clearly stated there is a demarcation between objectively damaging speech and disagreement. Try again dude. What are you, a closeted republican? As soon as someone challenges you devolve into “no, u!”, make accusations of being attacked, and make shit up about your opponent while engaging in projection?
F off. We’re done.
You didn’t define any of those terms. You are not engaging, you are harassing and accusing and personalizing everything I said, and going to the ‘but the nazis’ nonsense.
You’re an absolutist. By definition that’s a binary way of thinking. And your doubling down, ‘oh you must b ea republican if you don’t agree with my world view’. As if your worldview is definitivity anti-republican or something?
Your fault is in thinking you are the center of the universe and the arbiter of others beliefs. You aren’t. You might stop being so hostile towards others if you stopped believing that you were.