The neonazi dude who got punched even was stupid enough to say 'nah we dont really care about free speech, we are just using it to get the gullible free speech people on our side' (not literally).
That's why the rest of the alt-right are hostile to him; he gives the game away. There was also leaked audio of him on a massive rant about how 'people like me are supposed to rule the world'. The rest of the alt-right and alt-lite go to great pains to cloak their racism as some form of cultural libertarianism, or cherry-pick stats and figures as though it justifies their racism & violence. Then you get this moron single-handedly undoing all of that.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are missing a lot of cultural context on this.
Isn't it sad for a fundamental right to be willfully misinterpreted and thereby debased by racists?
If you disagree I will not respond since we don't debate racists on this sub.
> People are trying to essentially debase a fundamental right by constantly associating it with bad people.
This is quite the mealy-mouthed take, and quite insinuating at the same time. Impressive!
Now, which people are trying to "debase" free speech, exactly? (Did free speech have value as a currency? News to me. Here I thought it was a "fundamental right"!) Who are the "bad people" they're trying to associate it with? (Is the association a false one?) Why are they doing it, exactly? Is it a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy? It's a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, isn't it?
you claim that the article I linked is an example of "People \[...\] trying to essentially debase a fundamental right by constantly associating it with bad people. "
You provided no argument or proof for your assertion.
So much for thinking better, I guess.
No it isn't. The headline is saying 'this is what racists are doing' you are saying 'People are trying to essentially debase a fundamental right by constantly associating it with bad people.' those things are different things.
Might want to ... Learn to think better.
To have a society where freedom of speech is a "fundamental right" we will have to create a society in which speech does not have a class character. This means a communist society. As Lenin said:
>For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press.
Real freedom of speech will involve workers seizing all communication methods (press, radio, and now the internet) and using it for their own political purposes.
It always strikes me that people should’ve long ago seen through
discourses where even their proponents when challenged can’t ascribe any
higher value to them than being an exercise in “free speech”.
Then again, I feel that liberal dogma around “free speech”,
particularly in the Cold War era, created a whole generation of rubes
who were easily exploited first by cyberlibertarians and and now
fascists taking advantage of the space the tech overlords had
created.
I mean, that’s pretty close, give or take Deadheads declaring the [independence of cyberspace](https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence). I always feel like recognizing their roots in the [Californian Ideology](http://www.comune.torino.it/gioart/big/bigguest/riflessioni/californian_engl.pdf) explains a lot about the Rats. Also a big fan of this piece about the early days of Wired (and Streeter’s work in general).
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/444514?journalCode=ci
Thanks, great reads.
>Capitalist entrepreneurs often have an inflated sense of their own resourcefulness in developing new ideas and give little recognition to the contributions made by either the state, their own labour force or the wider community.
This is truly one of the eigensneers. (I should try and make a list of them: Dunning-Kruger, ["holy shit guys people are complicated"](https://xkcd.com/592/)...)
Try posting an article on /r/censorship about actual censorship. You'll mostly get downvotes and excuses.
To find articles about actual censorship, you can sort by controversial.
Nah, I'm suggesting 'free speech' is bad, as the vague undefined concept it's often being used as
In fact I'd say almost nobody believes in unbridled free speech, the main point of contention is where to draw the line (usually somewhere between 'you cant yell fire in a crowded theatre' and 'you cant disagree with any of my opinions', and almost always closer to the former)
It feels quite disingenious to act like the argument is between people fighting for some lofty ideal and people evilly trying to surpress an important right, rather than what it actually is, aka disagreement over the minutiae of what should be excluded
Well, that’s fine. I think my issue is the marrying of people who yell “but my free speech” with racists. Like, someone even on this thread thinks I’m a racist because I’m sticking up for free speech.
Having a platform is really a separate issue from free speech.
> I think my issue is the marrying of people who yell “but my free speech” with racists.
I sense that one has to be steeped in a lot of right-wing media about 'political correctness' and 'cancel culture' to think this is crux of the issue rather than the reverse, that racists exploit "but my free speech" rhetoric to advance racism.
On the matter of free speech, though I disagree with her philosophy, I have no problem with Ayn Rand being a feature of college curriculums around the country, whereas [the President of the United States has recently declared his intent to rid curriculums of 'left-wing indoctrination.'](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/politics/trump-patriotic-education.html)
Yet we still see "but my free speech" rhetoric deployed almost exclusively in response to the public, social, and economic consequences of far right views. It's hard not to infer another agenda when this rhetoric, as you've used, is deployed consistently this way.
I’m not sure how saying “but my free speech” has anything to do if a statement is racist or not.
Like how now you’re trying to lump me in with racists, when I havent said anything even remotely racist, all because I mentioned the first amendment.
It’s wrong and an error in critical thinking. It’s a poor attempt at guilt by association.
> I’m not sure how saying “but my free speech” has anything to do if a statement is racist or not.
Racists exploit "but my free speech" rhetoric to advance racism.
> Like how now you’re trying to lump me in with racists,
Except I'm not, nor have I called you a racist; just explaining the basis for the suspicion. You can ignore the message and shoot the messenger or seriously consider what I wrote above. Eagerly grasping rhetorical martyrdom of being labelled a 'racist' is exactly how the play goes.
First of all, you can’t exploit a fundamental right but okay.
Secondly, not everyone who uses (“exploits”) their free speech is a racist.
Saying “yea my free speech” doesn’t magically make a statement racist. It’s irrelevant.
Ohhh so you suspect I’m a racist even though I haven’t said anything remotely racist. Nice.
You’re literally doing EXACTLY what I’m talking about.
“Well, he’s a free speech proponent, he may be a racist”
> First of all, you can’t exploit a fundamental right but okay.
The *rhetoric* of free speech.
> Secondly, not everyone who uses (“exploits”) their free speech is a racist.
I agree! But this seems like a wall that you can't seem to think past.
> Ohhh so you suspect I’m a racist even though I haven’t said anything remotely racist. Nice.
Eagerly grasping rhetorical martyrdom of being labelled a 'racist' is exactly how the play goes. Maybe don't grasp for that assumption?
Maybe there are good reasons why propagandising and organising around certain "speech" has been suppressed by society, and maybe this totally (ostensibly) naive view of "free speech", propagated globally primarily by American tech companies, has become a tool for short-circuiting the usual social mechanisms by which repugnant ideas and social movements are kept at the margins.
The idea that somehow all "speech" is valuable, that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, and that somehow the "[marketplace of ideas](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=dlj)" will ensure that truth and good prevail is laughably false at this point. Of course it suits the TechLords, for whom more "speech" aka data is always more profitable.
It also mistakes the nature of discourse at a fundamental level, as if somehow it operates on some removed intellectual plane, sticks and stones may break my bones, etc., rather a being exercise in power in and of itself.
Honestly, again, if what you are saying is of such low value that you have to resort to "free speech" as your excuse for saying it, then I don't see why anyone should feel obliged to offer you the same opportunity to propagate and disseminate your ideas as is afforded to discourses that have actual or potential value and don't tacitly or overtly promote the oppression of segments of society.
Take, for example, how outright fascism is essentially banned throughout much of Europe. This makes it extremely difficult for fascists to organise and carry out violence in the communities they seek to target. And yet, this distinctly American concept of free speech absolutism still gets pushed; to the point where Americans have the temerity to assert that the Europeans are wrong on the issue, despite them having literally lived through full-blown fascism and suffered its consequences.
I had to click on the negative voted r/jordanpeterson iteration to make sure I got all of darth\_\_kek's very rigorous and scientific opinions on race, genetics and IQ.
at least the top comment there is calling out and repudiating the obvious infestation in that sub
I haven't had enough tea yet today to be able to wade deeper and behold the ensuing racist squabbles without damaging my sanity
“freedom of speech” has been reduced to a dogwhistle for a long time now
It always strikes me that people should’ve long ago seen through discourses where even their proponents when challenged can’t ascribe any higher value to them than being an exercise in “free speech”.
Then again, I feel that liberal dogma around “free speech”, particularly in the Cold War era, created a whole generation of rubes who were easily exploited first by cyberlibertarians and and now fascists taking advantage of the space the tech overlords had created.
lol