31
32

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 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (76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.

[–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]NowThatsAwkward [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    Do you feel the same way about all anti-discrimination legislation, or just the ones involving hate speech?

    E: I didn't mean that flippantly, I am curious what specific counter-position you're working from

    E2: Ah, a /r/ShitStatistsSay poster. Didn't really expect that in SRSD!

    [–]greenduch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    yeah ancaps arent allowed, and that one is banned.

    [–]PlushgunMusic[S] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (52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.

    [–]narrenburg 4 ポイント5 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.

    [–]plenty_of_time 7 ポイント8 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 -2 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 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I mentioned multiple forms of extralegal sanctions.

    [–]plenty_of_time 1 ポイント2 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.

    [–]NowThatsAwkward 1 ポイント2 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.

    [–]rmc 1 ポイント2 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  (6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 5 ポイント6 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 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (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 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (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.

    [–]BlackHumor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    The US is actually kind of an outlier here with how strong our free speech laws are.

    On the one hand I think it's worked out for us; on the other hand slightly weaker laws have also worked out well for many countries. And then on the third hand most of those countries (like France) also have openly racist political parties, so it seems like their laws against hate speech haven't actually accomplished much.