Yeah the irony of the people who call other people fascists just begging for censorship is hilarious. They don’t even see what they’re doing. They are the nazis in this situation. They’re the ones calling for violence against “terfs” and the murder of politicians and Supreme Court members.
Yeah, that’s the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you’re being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I do hope that you see how that same exact idea applies to all sides though, right? It’s basically saying that Nazis are allowed to use force to shut up the other side as well.
I don’t think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They’re going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say “No, force is bad!” they’re going to say “Suit yourself!” and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I’ll be condemned along with it.
That’s the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we’re essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they’re wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say “Aren’t you glad these people get to freely encourage each others’ bigotry?”
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I’ll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
The problem is you’re not even trying the rational argument, you’re going straight to censorship and in doing so you’re steeling their resolve and converting more people to be against you.
It’s like the “just stop oil” people - by doing their stupid protests that only hurt regular people they’re hurting their cause and turning people against them.
Oh I have tried the rational argument often enough. I still do, where I see the opportunity. I spend way too much time trying to convince people of my point of view even when I’m pretty sure there never was any hope in the first place.
But the type of hate speech and stochastic terrorism we’re talking about “censoring” is beyond rational discourse. If “Don’t use slurs, please” drives you to say “Fuck you, I’ll hang with the bigots then”, then tolerance can’t have been that important to you.
You don’t need to keep touching the stove to realise it’s hot. Many platforms have tried the free speech angle and realised that it leads to an influx of hate, devoid of reason, and they’ll either introduce some moderation or have all other people leave because nobody wants concentrated vitriol on their feed, except for those toxic enough to thrive on it.
We can debate rationally when both parties are being rational. If you can’t “debate” without spewing hatred, then I shouldn’t have to waste my time playing by rules you never gave a fuck about in the first place.
What exactly is wrong with free speech?
The problem isn’t free speech, the problem is “free speech”.
We should call them “freeze peach” to avoid the constant “what’s wrong with the free speech” arguments.
It’s called thinking freedom of speech means freedom to be a fucking asshole.
Free speech means people have to hear things they disagree with, and that is violence apparently.
Judging by the number of downvotes my question received, looks like most people here prefer censorship over expressing ideas.
Yeah the irony of the people who call other people fascists just begging for censorship is hilarious. They don’t even see what they’re doing. They are the nazis in this situation. They’re the ones calling for violence against “terfs” and the murder of politicians and Supreme Court members.
Yeah, that’s the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you’re being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I do hope that you see how that same exact idea applies to all sides though, right? It’s basically saying that Nazis are allowed to use force to shut up the other side as well.
I don’t think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They’re going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say “No, force is bad!” they’re going to say “Suit yourself!” and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I’ll be condemned along with it.
That’s the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we’re essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they’re wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say “Aren’t you glad these people get to freely encourage each others’ bigotry?”
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I’ll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
(ibid)
The problem is you’re not even trying the rational argument, you’re going straight to censorship and in doing so you’re steeling their resolve and converting more people to be against you.
It’s like the “just stop oil” people - by doing their stupid protests that only hurt regular people they’re hurting their cause and turning people against them.
Oh I have tried the rational argument often enough. I still do, where I see the opportunity. I spend way too much time trying to convince people of my point of view even when I’m pretty sure there never was any hope in the first place.
But the type of hate speech and stochastic terrorism we’re talking about “censoring” is beyond rational discourse. If “Don’t use slurs, please” drives you to say “Fuck you, I’ll hang with the bigots then”, then tolerance can’t have been that important to you.
You don’t need to keep touching the stove to realise it’s hot. Many platforms have tried the free speech angle and realised that it leads to an influx of hate, devoid of reason, and they’ll either introduce some moderation or have all other people leave because nobody wants concentrated vitriol on their feed, except for those toxic enough to thrive on it.
We can debate rationally when both parties are being rational. If you can’t “debate” without spewing hatred, then I shouldn’t have to waste my time playing by rules you never gave a fuck about in the first place.