Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Often, participating is very unpleasant. (I had to leave the Holocaust denial discussion - that one was too personal for me.) And I still think we ought to respect places where people do get to talk like that.
There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder. On the contrary, bad people tend to be better at fighting and at yelling. So if good people fight and yell, they give up the long-term advantages that they may have. Those advantages are that appeals to our common humanity sometimes work, and that peaceful coexistence makes everyone safer and wealthier.
But to have these advantages, you need to be willing to tolerate people you hate and hear them out. After all, that’s what you want the other side to do.
(Sometimes that doesn’t work and you do have to fight, but if you’re in that position then you’re already competing on the enemy’s terms. The Allies didn’t win World War II because they were the good guys. They won because they had more guns, and next time the bad guys may have more guns.)
lmao you are the perfect example of what is wrong with this kind of thinking. You are free to ahead and block someone who was simply arguing in favor of free speech, but no one thinks big of you for it and the fact you decided to declare it to the world is hilarious.
I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.
I feel like Sarah defined pretty thoroughly the type of speech that should be restricted when she said “If you are advocating for the literal eradication of people because they are part of your “out group”, then into the bin with you.”.
That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi’s ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.
You’re 100% right that the exact threshold at which speech verges from the “unpleasant but tolerable” to the “dangerous and requiring censorship” is fuzzy and subjective. But I think it’s entirely safe to say that when what you’re discussing is the eradication of groups or even “just” individuals, you’re on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.
We can talk about where exactly that line falls relative to other issues, but that’s always going to vary from person to person in the fine details, but anyone who thinks that literal Nazis should have a safe space to discuss actual Nazi propaganda frankly isn’t someone whose opinion I’m going to take seriously, in the same way I wouldn’t take seriously someone who argues the Earth is flat (though - being harmless - I’d certainly support their ability to talk about Flat Earth online without censorship).
Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.
To be honest, I don’t have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren’t arbitrary or contradictory. There’s a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.
For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?
If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won’t squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren’t part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?
Maybe I’m being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can’t be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it’s better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don’t want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.
That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi’s ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.
As long as you have the ability to NOT interact with them, via blocking or simply ignoring them, what’s the problem?
But I think it’s entirely safe to say that when what you’re discussing is the eradication of groups or even “just” individuals, you’re on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.
And here is a big problem - currently any and all questioning of trans and gender ideology is shouted down as “transphobic” and “wanting to eradicate trans people” by the far left. Should that all be banned? Are we essentially just going “everything the far left say is the truth so everything else is banned”?
Just because one group kick up a stink and say that someone else is calling for their genocide, when they’re clearly not, it doesn’t mean that you should ban that entire group.
As long as you have the ability to NOT interact with them, via blocking or simply ignoring them, what’s the problem?
Because it lets people advocating genocide further their agenda of actual genocide? There’s a saying in germany “If 10 people sit at a table, and they allow a Nazi to join them, you have 11 Nazis at the table”. Making room for genocidal rhetoric is supporting that genocidal rhetoric. We’re not talking about “bad opinions” here, we’re talking about actual, literal genocide.
And here is a big problem - currently any and all questioning of trans and gender ideology is shouted down as “transphobic” and “wanting to eradicate trans people” by the far left. Should that all be banned?
If by “questioning of trans and gender ideology” you mean “advocating that trans people should not be allowed to exist, by denying them the therapies and procedures they need to transition”, then yes - because that is advocating for the eradication of trans people - not by murder - sure, but by ideological suppression. If instead you mean things like “I have no desire to change my own gender” or “I don’t really understand why someone would want to transition”, then no - of course not.
And because I’ve interacted with enough concern-trolls like you to know what you’re going to say next, yes - the exact line can absolutely be fuzzy and subjective - I’ve already said that, and I don’t pretend to have a nice neat solution to the issue, but you don’t need to have a solution in hand to point out a problem. That’s why the point of my comment was centered around the fact that we should (though clearly you disagree) at least be able to agree that literal, unambiguous genocidal rhetoric, such as that professed by Nazis is something that shouldn’t be tolerated.
The fact that you disagree with that point so strongly tells me all I need to know about you, really - and because this is - in fact a free platform, where we’re all free to engage or not engage with whoever we want - I’m going to go ahead and disengage with you - because, like the lady who originally brought up this point - I really don’t want to waste time talking to Nazi Sympathizers (or people who spend an embarrassing amount of time on this site arguing about what gender other people prefer to identify as, and whether or not that identity should be strongly linked to what’s in their pants)
Can you give a few examples of what kind of speech you think should be tolerated that is not? And do you believe that communities should be allowed to make explicit rules against certain talking points? What stops you from making a discord server or your own instance to discuss whatever these topics are? Why does everyone else should have to read it?
Yes there is. When your freedom directly invades the freedom of other people you are passing the threshold of what is tolerable.
When you form a group of people and declare it’s free speech to discuss how women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, for example, you aren’t just voicing any random opinion. Words have consequences and words can hurt people. You are past the line of tolerance because you actively invade other people’s freedom.
I can only imagine that thinking it’s freedom to allow these talking points to freely flourish online stems from the naive believe that nothing will come of these types of echo chambers, but it does. We have already experience with this from the incel and racist mass shooters and the online communities that helped birthing them.
I don’t say it’s easy to decide in every case when you should put a stop to a discussion. But simply allowing everything is not the way. And ironically this squabble community realises this by also not allowing everything.
Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.
I agree, It’s very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn’t tolerable. That’s the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech–how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?
I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.
I agree, arguing that women shouldn’t have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn’t it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?
You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that’s reasonable, but in practice I’m not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That’s obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?
how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?
The core of the problem, I think, is that there is no non-arbitrary distinction for every case and no one should have absolute authority about these decisions. Cue decentralised communities. The discussions around these topics are messy and exhausting, but I think that’s as good as it gets. Communicating and changing again and again where this arbitrary lines get drawn is what people have to do, even when that doesn’t feel exactly satisfying.
For the suffrage example, if you look up what the counter-arguments where, it’s actually that they believed women weren’t capable of voting because they supposedly didn’t have the time or mental capacity to think about politics. Or that women “don’t want the vote”. I wouldn’t call that feeling threatened in their freedom, they felt threatened in their worldview.
I do think a lot of people do not see this distinction (is my freedom threatened or my worldview?) because they happen to not really fear that their rights might actually be stripped away someday. For someone who struggles to empathise with this fear it might seem overly dramatic how other people react to them just asking questions.
Anyone who advocates tolerating literal Nazis is either a hopelessly naive useful idiot for Nazis, or a Nazi themselves.
This rubbish is part of the problem with the internet right now. Just because you decided that one side is a “nazi” or “hateful” it doesn’t mean it’s actually true. You’re saying “my opinion is right and the only real opinion so everyone else should be banned”.
You know who also thinks that? Fascists. The literal nazis thought like that too.
There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder.
People have to remember that to the “bad people”, you’re the “bad people”. Neither side should be advocating for banning the other from discussing their opinions and views, yet it’s only one side that’s calling for that.
I don’t think this is due to some ideological commitment. The strong can suppress the weak, but the weak can’t suppress the strong. Whichever side has the upper hand at the moment will have members calling for censorship.
Currently the weak are suppressing the strong though through their scare tactics of labelling anyone that disagrees “transphobic” or “bigot” or “nazi”.
I see you’ve got your little bit of screen time so you’re back on your rants. When the world continues to spin and you are the minority, will you be one of the ones to change your views? Will you be the coward who holds his bigotries in silence? Or the vocal minority that rails against the coming of the light and is seen by all as the impotent creature of hate that you would be?
Chemo isn’t experimental though. There are experimental types of cancer treatments and guess what? They go through years and years of trials and tests. You know what hasn’t done that? Puberty blockers.
deleted by creator
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Often, participating is very unpleasant. (I had to leave the Holocaust denial discussion - that one was too personal for me.) And I still think we ought to respect places where people do get to talk like that.
There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder. On the contrary, bad people tend to be better at fighting and at yelling. So if good people fight and yell, they give up the long-term advantages that they may have. Those advantages are that appeals to our common humanity sometimes work, and that peaceful coexistence makes everyone safer and wealthier. But to have these advantages, you need to be willing to tolerate people you hate and hear them out. After all, that’s what you want the other side to do.
(Sometimes that doesn’t work and you do have to fight, but if you’re in that position then you’re already competing on the enemy’s terms. The Allies didn’t win World War II because they were the good guys. They won because they had more guns, and next time the bad guys may have more guns.)
deleted by creator
lmao you are the perfect example of what is wrong with this kind of thinking. You are free to ahead and block someone who was simply arguing in favor of free speech, but no one thinks big of you for it and the fact you decided to declare it to the world is hilarious.
Try visiting Belsen or Dachau, you fucking child.
OK? That doesn’t absolve the real childish behavior I was responding to, you idiot.
Who gets to decide what thoughts, beliefs, and groups are allowed to be tolerated?
Is there a quantifiable threshold for what is and what is not tolerable?
Does that threshold change over time?
deleted by creator
I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.
I suppose it makes sense for somebody unable to express their belief system to also be unable to consider more than one viewpoint.
I feel like Sarah defined pretty thoroughly the type of speech that should be restricted when she said “If you are advocating for the literal eradication of people because they are part of your “out group”, then into the bin with you.”.
That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi’s ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.
You’re 100% right that the exact threshold at which speech verges from the “unpleasant but tolerable” to the “dangerous and requiring censorship” is fuzzy and subjective. But I think it’s entirely safe to say that when what you’re discussing is the eradication of groups or even “just” individuals, you’re on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.
We can talk about where exactly that line falls relative to other issues, but that’s always going to vary from person to person in the fine details, but anyone who thinks that literal Nazis should have a safe space to discuss actual Nazi propaganda frankly isn’t someone whose opinion I’m going to take seriously, in the same way I wouldn’t take seriously someone who argues the Earth is flat (though - being harmless - I’d certainly support their ability to talk about Flat Earth online without censorship).
Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.
To be honest, I don’t have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren’t arbitrary or contradictory. There’s a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.
For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?
If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won’t squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren’t part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?
Maybe I’m being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can’t be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it’s better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don’t want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.
As long as you have the ability to NOT interact with them, via blocking or simply ignoring them, what’s the problem?
And here is a big problem - currently any and all questioning of trans and gender ideology is shouted down as “transphobic” and “wanting to eradicate trans people” by the far left. Should that all be banned? Are we essentially just going “everything the far left say is the truth so everything else is banned”?
Just because one group kick up a stink and say that someone else is calling for their genocide, when they’re clearly not, it doesn’t mean that you should ban that entire group.
Because it lets people advocating genocide further their agenda of actual genocide? There’s a saying in germany “If 10 people sit at a table, and they allow a Nazi to join them, you have 11 Nazis at the table”. Making room for genocidal rhetoric is supporting that genocidal rhetoric. We’re not talking about “bad opinions” here, we’re talking about actual, literal genocide.
If by “questioning of trans and gender ideology” you mean “advocating that trans people should not be allowed to exist, by denying them the therapies and procedures they need to transition”, then yes - because that is advocating for the eradication of trans people - not by murder - sure, but by ideological suppression. If instead you mean things like “I have no desire to change my own gender” or “I don’t really understand why someone would want to transition”, then no - of course not.
And because I’ve interacted with enough concern-trolls like you to know what you’re going to say next, yes - the exact line can absolutely be fuzzy and subjective - I’ve already said that, and I don’t pretend to have a nice neat solution to the issue, but you don’t need to have a solution in hand to point out a problem. That’s why the point of my comment was centered around the fact that we should (though clearly you disagree) at least be able to agree that literal, unambiguous genocidal rhetoric, such as that professed by Nazis is something that shouldn’t be tolerated.
The fact that you disagree with that point so strongly tells me all I need to know about you, really - and because this is - in fact a free platform, where we’re all free to engage or not engage with whoever we want - I’m going to go ahead and disengage with you - because, like the lady who originally brought up this point - I really don’t want to waste time talking to Nazi Sympathizers (or people who spend an embarrassing amount of time on this site arguing about what gender other people prefer to identify as, and whether or not that identity should be strongly linked to what’s in their pants)
Can you give a few examples of what kind of speech you think should be tolerated that is not? And do you believe that communities should be allowed to make explicit rules against certain talking points? What stops you from making a discord server or your own instance to discuss whatever these topics are? Why does everyone else should have to read it?
Yes there is. When your freedom directly invades the freedom of other people you are passing the threshold of what is tolerable.
When you form a group of people and declare it’s free speech to discuss how women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, for example, you aren’t just voicing any random opinion. Words have consequences and words can hurt people. You are past the line of tolerance because you actively invade other people’s freedom.
I can only imagine that thinking it’s freedom to allow these talking points to freely flourish online stems from the naive believe that nothing will come of these types of echo chambers, but it does. We have already experience with this from the incel and racist mass shooters and the online communities that helped birthing them.
I don’t say it’s easy to decide in every case when you should put a stop to a discussion. But simply allowing everything is not the way. And ironically this squabble community realises this by also not allowing everything.
Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.
I agree, It’s very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn’t tolerable. That’s the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech–how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?
I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.
I agree, arguing that women shouldn’t have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn’t it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?
You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that’s reasonable, but in practice I’m not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That’s obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?
The core of the problem, I think, is that there is no non-arbitrary distinction for every case and no one should have absolute authority about these decisions. Cue decentralised communities. The discussions around these topics are messy and exhausting, but I think that’s as good as it gets. Communicating and changing again and again where this arbitrary lines get drawn is what people have to do, even when that doesn’t feel exactly satisfying.
For the suffrage example, if you look up what the counter-arguments where, it’s actually that they believed women weren’t capable of voting because they supposedly didn’t have the time or mental capacity to think about politics. Or that women “don’t want the vote”. I wouldn’t call that feeling threatened in their freedom, they felt threatened in their worldview.
I do think a lot of people do not see this distinction (is my freedom threatened or my worldview?) because they happen to not really fear that their rights might actually be stripped away someday. For someone who struggles to empathise with this fear it might seem overly dramatic how other people react to them just asking questions.
This rubbish is part of the problem with the internet right now. Just because you decided that one side is a “nazi” or “hateful” it doesn’t mean it’s actually true. You’re saying “my opinion is right and the only real opinion so everyone else should be banned”.
You know who also thinks that? Fascists. The literal nazis thought like that too.
People have to remember that to the “bad people”, you’re the “bad people”. Neither side should be advocating for banning the other from discussing their opinions and views, yet it’s only one side that’s calling for that.
I don’t think this is due to some ideological commitment. The strong can suppress the weak, but the weak can’t suppress the strong. Whichever side has the upper hand at the moment will have members calling for censorship.
Currently the weak are suppressing the strong though through their scare tactics of labelling anyone that disagrees “transphobic” or “bigot” or “nazi”.
That’s classic fascist rhetoric.
Fascists love censorship. Who in here is advocating for and begging for censorship?
“It’s bad to be transphobic, bigoted or a nazi”
“you call anyone who disagrees with you ‘transphobic’ or ‘bigot’ or ‘nazi’”
What’s happening however is:
“Maybe don’t experiment on children by giving them irreversible puberty blockers and surgeries”
“Transphobe!!! Bigot! Die fucking Terf nazi!!!”
I see you’ve got your little bit of screen time so you’re back on your rants. When the world continues to spin and you are the minority, will you be one of the ones to change your views? Will you be the coward who holds his bigotries in silence? Or the vocal minority that rails against the coming of the light and is seen by all as the impotent creature of hate that you would be?
Place your bets.
Great fantasies and what ifs! Really making a good point 😂
When you’re dying of cancer, we won’t experiment on you with chemo either. Fair?
Chemo isn’t experimental though. There are experimental types of cancer treatments and guess what? They go through years and years of trials and tests. You know what hasn’t done that? Puberty blockers.