51–60 of 169 posts
If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted. If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will. Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. Don't be offended. That's your choice. P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted! This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line betwe…
I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw lines between speech we're okay with and speech we're not. Literally every human being on the planet does it! This is why I don't like "marketplace of ideas" arguments: the person making them always always always still thinks some speech should be somehow punished in the market.
Honest, but leading, question in return: Offensive to whom? 90% of the population? Wouldn't that block out the Church of Satan's distributed materials (that is, coloring books)? To 80% of the population? Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon? To 60%? The Quran? I think this part of their answer is a great response: "Of course, the simplest reason is that it's not up to us to decide what the rest of the world should or…
Check out their MFFAM policy. Search for, "What is the "MFFAM" policy?"
> "Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. You haven't made them go away. You certainly haven't stopped the people who hold those views from…
There is a pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups; anyone who says otherwise would do well to read about the Rwandan genocide and their 200 days of public radio broadcasting demonizing the Tutsis prior to the genocide itself.
After all, if there wasn't power in speech, none of this would matter; there would be no restrictions on speech anywhere if it didn't threaten someone.
Even in free-speech absolutists, there's often agreement that direct incitements to violence should be off-limits, and why? Because speech moves people to act.
I haven't often seen the position that incitements to violence should also be protected speech, though I'm sure those people are there -- the question to them for me would be, what are you trying to advance or protect against with that position?
The question I'd also ask is: if you want to say that speech such as calls to genocide should also be protected, how is that advancing society, especially for the targets of that? The marketplace of ideas doesn't seem to do a good job protecting them, so...what's the solution there?
If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted. If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will. Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. Don't be offended. That's your choice. P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive…
If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted. If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will. Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. Don't be offended. That's your choice. P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive…
Do they have a policy where they deal with threats of violence / organizing something like that? I couldn't find any, but I'm also not familiar with the site. There's "offensive" as in thinks I don't like, or even hateful statements ... but to me threats of violence and etc fall into another area.
At least in the United States, threats of violence are also protected speech. "Fighting words" are not, but that is generally taken to mean words intending to cause immediate direct and specific harm to a specific person. A generic sort of "I wish $person was dead" is protected. This sort of thing came up a long time ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted! This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line betwe…
I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which would typically be privileged people, non-ironically complaining about other people’s privilege.
People don't have privilege. People toss around that word a lot and it's used incorrectly, as it is here. Say you walk into a store and are followed or stopped quite often for a receipt check. If you're black in certain parts of the world, this is quite common, but much more rare if you're not black. The privilege is a result of a system. You cannot say x people have privilege, and likewise people get offended when p…
I don't know. If you have the power to shut down a whole product line for a trans-national corporation with a single complaint, isn't that a kind of privilege? I certainly can't do it, you probably neither. But some people can. If you have a power to decide what is allowed to be spoken and what gets you removed from the platform, who is allowed to speak and who should be met with violence if only they dare to show up - isn't that a kind of privilege? If you can riot, destroy property, assault people and send them to the hospital - with full impunity and vocal support of major parts of the press and community, that would loudly denounce this conduct in everybody else - isn't that a kind of privilege? Some people seem to enjoy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which would typically be privileged people, non-ironically complaining about other people’s privilege.
People don't have privilege. People toss around that word a lot and it's used incorrectly, as it is here. Say you walk into a store and are followed or stopped quite often for a receipt check. If you're black in certain parts of the world, this is quite common, but much more rare if you're not black. The privilege is a result of a system. You cannot say x people have privilege, and likewise people get offended when p…
This is a distinction without a difference. The Principle of Charity applies and we can easily understand that "You have privilege X" is being used to mean "You are accorded privilege X by the dominant social system in which we both exist".