36
37

What are some "trendy" pseudo-progressive movements that you find incredibly annoying. (self.SRSDiscussion)

PlushgunMusic が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着注目論争中古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]NowThatsAwkward 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (43子コメント)

There are countries further socially left than the US with anti-hate speech laws. So some of us from those countries don't see the first amendment as terribly progressive compared to anti-hate speech laws.

Imo it becomes much murkier once you're past anti-hate speech laws, because everyone seems to have their own ideas of where it begins to be unacceptable censorship.

I suppose being for laws about hate speech is another gradient on that scale as well. It just seems that more people agree on that as a stopping point than other pro-censorship positions.

[–]PlushgunMusic[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (27子コメント)

Having the state decide what is and is not appropriate speech by threats of imprisonment is about as regressive as you can get in my opinion. But then again, I am from the US. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–]NowThatsAwkward 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, this is definitely a case of differing opinions, and each being glad for the position their government takes on the issue.

[–]Wyboth -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Shutting up racists isn't regressive. Censorship is just a means to an end, and if the end is a progressive one, then it's fine.

[–]PlushgunMusic[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (23子コメント)

I kinda think that historical precedent says otherwise. Rights have been best preserved when they are equally protected. We can question The validity of those rights, but we can't assume that degradation will not be an end result. Worse, in practice, this can have some dangerous consequences. For instance: American RW Christians think they are persecuted, mocked, and maligned for their beliefs. They see teaching evolution as an affront to their religion. What do you think will be considered "hate speech" when they are in power? And they were in power less than a decade ago..

[–]Wyboth -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (22子コメント)

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Seize power, and ensure they never become strong enough to seize it for themselves. Like I said, censorship is a means to an end, so the historical precedents you are worried about were by the wrong people. Can you honestly say sending racists to re-education classes is a bad thing?

[–]PlushgunMusic[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I tend to exit conversations once they go to Trotskytown

[–]Wyboth -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm an M-L.

[–]PlushgunMusic[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well I was pretty close!

[–]Wyboth -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

By the way, although I am communist, that isn't itself a communist belief, it's just my personal one. Lots of communists oppose liberal free speech, but we have different reasons for it.

[–]grumpenprole 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yours is also the textbook one, though, supported with basically cut-and-paste textbook points.

[–]ModestMaoist -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Maybe you should actually engage with views different to yours or at least debate in good faith. There's a long history of theory and praxis on the left which SRS seems chronically allergic to reading or even acknowledging.

[–]PlushgunMusic[S] [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

You bring up a fair point. I guess I just come from the perspective that it's somewhat useless and always leads to the same place. We believe in different facts -- that never leads to a constructive discussion. It's like someone who worships the Greek gods arguing with a Christian.

[–]ModestMaoist [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Then you should study the basics of Marxist analysis to at least understand their underlying worldview and jargon. If you know which facts you disagree with I can at least give you some relevant context or background.

[–]PlushgunMusic[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Study? I used to be an organizing member.

[–]piyochama 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Seize power, and ensure they never become strong enough to seize it for themselves.

That implies you and your cohort are strong enough to do so.

Can you honestly say sending racists to re-education classes is a bad thing?

Tell me that when they send you first. Quite honestly, I'm pretty sure the racist supremacist groups in any given country is going to be vastly larger than the revolutionary radicals in that single nation.

[–]Wyboth -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That implies you and your cohort are strong enough to do so.

That's why we have the Vanguard Party, to raise class consciousness in the proletariat. "But you aren't big enough to do anything, so why bother?" Because raising class consciousness is exactly how you get bigger. Saying "Why bother trying" is defeatism.

Tell me that when they send you first.

You are misunderstanding me. I said it is fine to send racists to re-education, not communists. Once again, re-education and censorship are means to an end. The end communists work towards when they send reactionaries to re-education is a good end, so it is fine to send them to re-education. The end fascists or reactionaries work towards when they send communists towards re-education is evil, so doing that is also evil. What you said is kind of like when redditors say "Switch the genders," because it ignores the nuance that makes the situation different.

[–]piyochama 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I can see your point about the Vanguard Party.

However, for the re-education bit... It simply seems like indoctrination through torture and force. Do the ends justify the means?

[–]Wyboth -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ah, that isn't what I meant by re-education. Don't think 1984, think college classroom. If you made a racist "joke," you'd have to attend one class about how prejudiced jokes subconsciously increase someone's prejudice. It's literally re-education, because you are erasing the patriarchal and capitalist teachings of the previous society and replacing them with feminist and communist teachings. We would also use the media to promote feminism/communism, just like the current media promotes patriarchy/capitalism. Since it's just a means to an end, and in this case it's a good end, then I'd have no problem doing it. Obviously some wouldn't listen, but a lot who had never truly been exposed to feminism or communism would. The end result would be a dramatic shift in the superstructure and worldview of the society, which is a very good end. Patriarchy would eventually fade away, since lots of people would have their worldviews changed, and the ones who don't change would eventually die out, since the young generation would have a feminist education. Given the excellent end this will bring about, who can honestly oppose it?

[–]piyochama 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's good, but...

Obviously some wouldn't listen, but a lot who had never truly been exposed to feminism or communism would.

That's the issue that I have. How are you so sure they would change? This still seems a bit liked forced re-education.

[–]narrenburg 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Anti-hate speech regulation isn't pro-censorship. And think about it this way:

Every bigot you allow a platform will contribute to the silence of entire groups of marginalized people. That does not jive well with the spirit of free speech. If you're really committed to it, you'll oppose oppressive speech on sight because only then will everyone be comfortable speaking out.

[–]NowThatsAwkward 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. I feel that 100% free speech is to freedom as ancap libertarianism is to economic and social freedom.

[–]plenty_of_time 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't agree with this at all. How exactly do you propose banning oppressive speech? You think that everyone whose comment is on SRS should be legally disallowed from making those posts, or what? Speech isn't zero-sum like you're making it out to be. The fight to give a voice to marginalized people does not depend on the legal silencing of oppressors, or else marginalized people have less of a voice now than ever, since free speech protections (in the US) are stronger than ever.

[–]narrenburg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

How exactly do you propose banning oppressive speech?

I don't know. How do you extralegally sanction people in the present? Gossip? Call-outs? Disassociation? Sabotage?

You think that everyone whose comment is on SRS should be legally disallowed from making those posts, or what?

Not every sanction has to be legalistic.

Speech isn't zero-sum like you're making it out to be.

Precisely. Speech is a form of communication which shapes thought and is (currently) bundled with hierarchy, and received opinion on it. If you don't want discussion to exclude the voices and perspectives of vulnerable groups, it makes sense to counteract all attempts to use speech with the intent of marginalizing them.

If speech were zero sum, then you'd only need a sufficient amount of anti-oppressive speech to counteract oppressive speech. This doesn't work. Only a radical solution - preventing oppressive speech from getting a platform in the first place- will work.

The fight to give a voice to marginalized people does not depend on the legal silencing of oppressors

And who is claiming that it has?

or else marginalized people have less of a voice now than ever

How does counteracting oppressive speech quell minority voices? Do you mean in their capacity to say oppressive things?

free speech protections (in the US) are stronger than ever.

In general? Maybe, I'm not totally convinced. However, you can't make the case that there are more legalistic protections than ever.

[–]plenty_of_time 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If we're not talking about legal restrictions on free speech, what are we talking about? And yeah, I would say that in the US, free speech is more legally protected now.than ever in the history of the country. When would you say the height was?

[–]narrenburg 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I mentioned multiple forms of extralegal sanctions.

[–]plenty_of_time 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You listed some and gave no detail. Free speech generally refers to legal free speech, not interpersonal interactions. I am totally in favor of, for example, banning racist speech from reddit, etc. But I am curious what exactly you are proposing. For example, if you were running a private university, would ypu put strict limitations on who could be invited to campus to speak? Would there be an exception for politically relevant speech? Would you ban College Republicans, for example? Not saying you should have answers to all this. I just think it is very interesting, very important, and very difficult.

[–]rmc 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think the point is that dudebros are all about freespeech when it comes to perving on teenage girls or telling racist jokes, but those same dudebros are very opposed to free speech when feminists give out to them. Double standards from the dudebros

[–]NowThatsAwkward 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, if that's how the comment was meant to be read I definitely misunderstood it.

[–]Wyboth 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Just curious, what countries are these? I have had this idea (anti-hate speech laws) for a long time, so I'd be interested in seeing how it works in practice.

[–]NowThatsAwkward 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The ones I remember are Canada, and Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. I think the UK has some too, but I'm not sure.

[–]piyochama 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Germany I think has them as well.

[–]occamsrazorwit [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Germany is like the standard example of this. You can literally be imprisoned for verbally stating that you support the Nazi party.

The actual law states:

Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional... shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine

You don't even have to squint your eyes to read that in a dystopian light. If you can't already tell, I support the ACLU interpretation that this is too extreme and violates free speech. The ACLU actively defends blatant hate speech which is a (small) step removed from political organizations like the Nazis.

[–]piyochama [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I mean the ACLU is an American organization.

I'm an American, and I fully support our view on free speech, but even I can understand why some people would want to censor it.