91–100 of 480 posts
Lawyer here, and this definitely strikes me as one of a surprising number topics in which, the law has for some time, already a very effective and useful way to get at this concept. Sure, speech can be harmful and hurtful, to the point that someone should get punished for it. But the law has generally done very good job of reminding us that this tends to be a VERY NARROW possibility, i.e. the harm has to be very spec…
People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence. I've always held that position firmly. The trouble is, people are turning out to be a lot more programmable than I thought they (we) were. You could almost say that we're becoming more like machines at the same time that machines are becoming more like us. To the extent that's true, the part of the old saying that goes "... but words…
People who equate speech with violence are usually looking for a way to respond to speech with violence.
In a very similar way, when Group A starts calling Group B "terrorist," it's really an announcement that Group A is going to be compromising their own professed ethics and processes to destroy Group B. It's an announcement of martial law, not a label that reliably describes any particular behavior by "terrorist" groups.
Speech- and thought-violence rhetoric is just empty rationalization and crybully rhetoric from the powerless, but it's often a prelude to a brutal crackdown when it comes from the powerful.
XKCD 1357 End thread. Please never open it again. https://xkcd.com/1357/
I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We…
> few liberal-minded commentators seemed eager to say Rushdie was entirely without fault This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was vigorously defended by the left, which at the time quite liked the idea of freedom of speech. At least in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else.
I would say he was quite vigorously defended by liberals. Since the 1970s there pretty much hasn't been such a thing as the left, especially in Rushdie's hayday of the 80s-00s. If there was, I doubt it would've spent much time worrying about the fate of a bourgeoisie fantasist. Nothing against Rushdie btw. I loved the Satanic Verses. But institutional journalism (which provides the fundamental model most people use t…
How many of these must we suffer through? Why do none of these people grasp the concept that when you speak to other people, they do not have to passively absorb your words?
This author, like many others, could use the sage advice my father gave me in 5th grade when I taunted and made fun of another student and got beat up for it: "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought First off, they are. but if you are saying: loose your job and ability to make a living, losing your ability to speak in public, fuck me give me those charges then! you are backing tyrannical ideas while trying to pretend you are just being reasonable.
Someone reporting something you said to your employer: freedom of speech Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association and so on.