51–60 of 299 posts
the article is an example of orientalism, presenting the case as if there is no urgency on the matter in the Western world. Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they li…
the article is an example of orientalism, presenting the case as if there is no urgency on the matter in the Western world. Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they li…
Of course, if you start talking about boycotting Israel, they'll be happy to send the law after you (in some states at least). https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/31/texas-boycott-israel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
It's a kind of "have an open mind but not so much that your brain falls out" situation. Too many people think their brain is going to fall out of even the slightest deviation from their moral code is tolerated these days.
"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…
You really should read the article. There’s real threats to free speech out there, not just people telling you you’re an idiot.
Why not take a cynical approach? If free expression is useful, then countries cracking down on it are shooting themselves in the foot. If they want to do it, why stop them? They are delisting themselves from the global competition: set up attractive immigration programs to pick out their most talented population and let the rest sink to Russia/N. Korea level.
the article is an example of orientalism, presenting the case as if there is no urgency on the matter in the Western world. Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they li…
There's quite a bit of difference between the government banning free expression and a private company deciding that they don't want intolerable people on their platform — which itself is an example of their free expression.
Step 2 - private companies that own them hire private security firms
Step 3 - if anyone protests, stands with a banner or says anything in convenient anywhere in the city, they get violently removed.
Step 4 - folks like you yourself defend it under the guide of 'but it's not a government!'
Vioala, no free speech to worry about!
You think this is far fetched? It's happening as we speak, thousands of public spaces across Uk were sold and you can;t protest there anymore.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/05/great-british...
I'm immediately suspicious when I see this map of the world with countries shaded by how "free" they are. What are the units of freedom? What's the color scale? How is freedom measured and who is measuring it? Why does it even make sense to express freedom as a number?
https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/A19-GxR...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
What a clever trick! Like magic, anyone who doesn’t agree with you then instantly becomes “intolerant” and dangerous so we shouldn’t allow them to have a voice or power. That line of thinking is nothing but BS mental gymnastics to justify oppressing and silencing the other side.
edit: and arguably intolerance of tolerance of tolerance of intolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For anyone wanting the full quote from Popper's The Open Society: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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. In this formulation,…
Nothing in your quote talks about speech.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Did you actually read the the comment posted or simply scan it once for the word "speech?"
"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.