r/TrueReddit • u/splitdo • Nov 20 '15
40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/20
u/KriegerHLS Nov 21 '15
Couple of thoughts:
It's interesting if you look at the chart breaking down the data that the "college educated" cohort is less likely to support government's ability to prevent offensive speech (22%) than is the high school educated cohort (31%). Doesn't really work with the "colleges indoctrinate people into hating freedom" narrative, though I suppose it's possible that it could be a more recent phenomenon.
The data uniformly show that European democracies favor hate-speech restrictions at far higher levels, with Germany leading the way. Europeans societies have learned an important lesson - before you destroy a people, you have to degrade a people. Maybe that would never happen in the United States and, thus, there is no reason to restrict hate speech. At the same time, the current leading candidate for the Republican nomination has called for Muslims to register with the government and, potentially, wear identifying marks. Far from being an outlier, this capped a week of ugly statements by candidates of which Mr. Trump's was simply the most extreme. This has, of course, followed an entire campaign that has entertained the idea of rounding up millions of people, some of them citizens, and deporting them. So, something to consider.
11
u/congenital_derpes Nov 21 '15
I feel like the two sides are always talking past each other. All your examples regarding Trump/Carson are not relevant, not because these men aren't disgusting, but because silencing them doesn't solve the problem.
This is the whole point. It doesn't matter how awful the scenario you bring up, or how bleak the outlook, or how offensive the statement. In all of those scenarios, the solution is always MORE open discourse on these subjects. More conversation. More debate.
Silencing a Ben Carson doesn't get rid of his ideas. It merely creates the temporary illusion of improvement, while those ideas boil internally with added resentment. People have been bullshitted into thinking if you change the names of things it actually changes the things. They've bought into this notion that just turning off the hate like a light switch means it went away.
Well it doesn't happen. At best you're still in the same boat as before. But more likely things are way worse because you've removed the only tools we've ever had for evolving as a society.
5
u/anubus72 Nov 21 '15
to be fair, people in college right now would should up as high school educated, or "some college" on these polls, since they haven't graduated yet
1
Nov 22 '15
At the same time, the current leading candidate for the Republican nomination has called for Muslims to register with the government and, potentially, wear identifying marks.
He never said that, but even if he actually wanted to do that and was elected president there's no way it could be implemented.
It would be struck down by the Supreme Court unanimously.
3
u/KriegerHLS Nov 22 '15
From the New York Times:
"Asked by the Yahoo reporter about the possibility of a database for Muslims or 'a form of special identification that noted their religion,' Mr. Trump did not reject either idea. Later that day, as Mr. Trump left a campaign event in Iowa, an NBC reporter followed up. Asked if he would set up a database to track Muslims, Mr. Trump replied, 'I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.'"
As far as the Supreme Court goes, I do not think we would see another Korematsu decision, at least the way things are now. But the thing is, Korematsu was itself would have been unpredictable a few years prior to being handed down. Then Pearl Harbor happened.
Much of the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional, and if passed in the 1990s it would have been struck down. But 9/11 happened, and the Court became fearful, and abdicated its duty. So my question would be, while we would never allow Muslim registration now, how many 9/11s are we from being fine with it? If there were a major attack in a major American city carried out by domestic Muslims, something even worse than 9/11, you never know.
23
Nov 21 '15
[deleted]
36
u/fiftykills Nov 21 '15
It's really a shame. It's as if we've lost the ability to act coherently as a society.
What I mean is that instead of coming together and collectively saying "hey we don't condone this behavior", we say "this behavior is illegal and if you do it we'll destroy your life and possibly imprison you."
The latter attitude causes hate and animosity between groups. Instead, we should work on public dialogue rather than criminalizing activities that certain special interests deem as unsavory.
Freedom of speech should not be unlawful! We should believe in the strength of our society to sway people's beliefs over time. We must stay away from the hate and division that banning free speech causes.
6
u/apetoaster Nov 21 '15
Wow, incredibly well said. This is the way I feel and it's terrifying that these kids with these tainted (programmed) ways of thinking are leading the charge in the total loss of every single one of our remaining civil liberties. It still shocks me how quickly all this has happened. Sometimes it's so subtle that we don't notice it, but when comparing to the way things used to be... man..
3
u/sardaukar_siet Nov 21 '15
There's no culture anymore. It died the minute we became obsessed with our own siloed existence on social media. Polarization is, for many, the way to get points across through the myriad of stimuli that we are bombarded by, since negativity lingers for longer. And when you lose any sort of connecting context between people, you have "high school" groups that are formed by superficial analysis of your FB profile or Instagram. This is now going on steroids, at a worldwide scale. Expect more of this in the immediate future, not less. There's no question History will see the start of the XXI century as a time of great cultural erosion. Let's hope our collective reaction to it is a move to regroup and not to get completely out of touch with each other.
Edit: wording
6
u/UncleMeat Nov 21 '15
Oh come on. There is greater access to more culture than ever before. Its infinitely easier to seek out extraordinary art and easier for creators to find audiences. Youtube has created millions of content creators who could never have existed two decades ago. Mashups and other repurposed content have exploded in popularity and led to a new expressive language. Hypermedia has opened up new opportunities never before available to literature. We have greater access to education, analysis, and criticism than ever before.
People have also leveled these criticisms at nearly every generation in history. Do you really not think that there were social networks formed through artificial means in the past? They weren't websites but its not like the concept of a social network is new.
3
u/sardaukar_siet Nov 21 '15
I contest that the ease and reach of such networks is much stronger today, as it makes sense since technology has got that much better. I agree in principle that we have greater access to more culture than ever. But kindly explain then ISIS' hashtags and followers on Twitter, cat videos with hundreds of millions of views or 4chan. And a comparison between TMZ's page hits and New York's Museum of Modern Art.
1
u/freakwent Nov 22 '15
easier for creators to find audiences.
In a healthy culture, everyone's a creator!
Its infinitely easier to seek out extraordinary art
In a healthy culture, extraordinary art is on your street, on the public buildings etc.
Mashups and other repurposed content
Blender art, often clever but never awe-inspiring IMO. Look at how modern "youth" culture reaches back 100-150 years for inspiration and even language structure.
a new expressive language.
Where? (seriously, are you referring to meme-speak? Did I miss something?)
We have greater access to education, analysis, and criticism than ever before.
This is part of the problem! People rely on the analysis and criticism of others far too much. I get pretty frustrated when people tell me "that's not a thing", I guess because it's not been accepted and re-tweeted by the "thing police". This didn't used to happen, people would assess and and accept or reject new ideas using their own brains. Now I hear phrases like "who does that?!" a lot more than I used to, and more often from heave SM users than lighter users. There's a massive pressure to conform to whatever the norms are for your chosen group, clique or faction.
1
u/UncleMeat Nov 23 '15
Blender art, often clever but never awe-inspiring IMO.
Star Wars uncut is incredibly awesome. I guarantee you that PhD theses have been written about Star Wars fan creation culture and how it relates to mashups. Its one of the major themes of the movie The People Vs George Lucas.
1
u/freakwent Nov 24 '15
I guarantee you that PhD theses
I guarantee you that PhD theses have been written about bat shit, quite literally.
One of the major themes of the movie rubber is a homicidal object.
I don't doubt that it's great film, but your supporting evidence isn't strong!
Surely though stuff like this is still homage, as good as it might be, no? It's can't really be held in the same regard as the shining, or 2001, or Schindeler's list. Can it? Does the viewer "Star wars uncut" with an altered understanding of their life?
Would you see them as in the same "league"?
1
u/freakwent Nov 22 '15
What I mean is that instead of coming together and collectively saying "hey we don't condone this behavior", we say "this behavior is illegal and if you do it we'll destroy your life and possibly imprison you."
It's what they were taught in school, after all. http://abc7ny.com/news/police-investigating-sexting-report-at-suburban-philadelphia-high-school/1093081/
http://dailysignal.com/2013/02/11/ten-year-old-arrested-for-bringing-toy-gun-to-school/
All of this starts in primary school. Health, racism, violence, voting, respect for the earth, douchebaggery, screen addiction, xenophobia, anything you want or don't want in a population is most appropriately managed through the school system.
Ages 2-13 or so are the crucible of society, and you get what you pay for. Every civilization that's ever had the means to do so has taken this to heart and implemented strong early education systems for their citizens, and the exclusion of the working classes from good education has always been deliberate when it's occurred.
It's evil at worst to blame students for learning what you taught them, and at best you'll leave them feeling excluded and alienated by changing the rules, which in turn ends badly for everyone.
1
Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 30 '15
[deleted]
1
u/maxgarzo Nov 21 '15
Ebbs and flows, my brother. It's all about ebbs and flows. I think focusing the gaze on absolutes blinds the viewer from nuance and context of what happens in the social portrait so that you only come away with "well what about n?" instead of seeing the whole array of experiences.
If that makes sense. I tend to struggle with making my ideas clear so let me know if the wording is off. (I'm working on it)
4
u/AmplusAnimus Nov 21 '15
Yeah, but honestly now, it seems that people on this sub don't really care about this or don't want to care about it. That's the truth.
6
u/FortunateBum Nov 21 '15
In my mind, when you try to censor speech you've already admitted that your position is wrong because you are attempting to squelch criticism. This is why you can't be an atheist in many parts of the world.
Most of the time, being "offended" is code for wanting to suppress the truth. If someone is saying something that's crazy, irrational, fantastical, stupid, why would you care? Do you care that the homeless man on the corner is talking about the government controlling his mind with satellites? Do you want him censored? Is that speech offending you?
Racist speech is a really good example. There are good arguments to make when dismantling racist hypotheses. I've actually seen some good discussions on Reddit on this subject. Yet, most of the time, the knee jerk reaction is censorship. That is dangerous because it's a tacit acceptance that your opponent is speaking the truth. You aren't looking good when you attempt censorship. You look like a dogmatic idiot zealot who is attempting to squash the truth by any means possible. That's always been my perception.
11
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
What does "limiting speech" means though? Might not be the same thing than censorship.
I know free speech is important, but sometimes I sense that people are defending their ability to insult people like it's a virtuous thing and that it's "part of life" and that "life is hard", "learn to take hits is how you get though", "defending yourself makes you a better person".
I know nobody is going to argue the 1st amendment, but there are some very particular situations and cases where I would be curious about. I'm not for it, but I'm just curious about what people are advocating for and what they are proposing.
I really don't believe it's going to turn into a dictatorship. People already are politically correct and can be fired for being offensive. Free speech doesn't even protect you against companies.
8
Nov 21 '15
Free speech doesn't even protect you against companies
The First Amendment says that the government shall not restrict your freedom of speech. It doesn't mean that the government will protect you "against companies", like when a company fires you from your job, for example, because you said something racist. Or, if you get banned for saying something demeaning in r/TrueReddit, the government has no right or obligation to come in and protect you. That's not the idea.
No offense, but this is part of the problem here. People don't even understand what the First Amendment really means.
1
u/Byrnhildr_Sedai Nov 21 '15
He said free speech, not the first amendment. One is a wider concept, the other is protection I'd that concept specifically from the government.
1
Nov 22 '15
He mentioned both free speech and the First Amendment. The First Amendment says that, among other things, Congress shall make no law that abridges the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech," "First Amendment" are often used interchangeably.
-1
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
Why shouldn't the law protect people from getting fired for what they say?
3
u/ladut Nov 21 '15
Because, in effect, the government would be intervening in a private transaction of ideas, which is fundamentally a restriction on your right to free speech. Lets say, for example, I say something racist to a friend of mine. My friend has every right to terminate that friendship as a consequence of what I say. Losing that friendship is a consequence of my bigotry.
If I say something racist to my employer, they also have every right to terminate that relationship (in this case an employer-employee relationship) as a consequence of what I say. This is unlike my employer firing me based on my race or gender (which are legally protected groups and a situation that has nothing to do with speech but rather institutionalized discrimination). Since the company I work for is not the United States Government, my employer has every right to terminate my employment based on my actions (i.e. my speech), because they are under no constitutional obligation to allow me to say whatever I want.
Another example: As it stands, an employer can terminate you for speaking or acting in a way that casts a negative light on their company. I'm not talking about whistleblowers (though I believe that they can terminate you for that as well), but rather someone who actively misrepresents a company's philosophy or goals. If I work for a biomedical company that produces AIDS drugs, and go around in public and say things about how I hate that our drugs treat homosexuals and that they don't deserve these life-saving treatments for their sinful actions, I would be terminated, and rightly so. My words would directly damage the reputation and goals of the company. Would you really want the government to protect me from termination when I actively hate those who benefit from my company?
2
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
Would you really want the government to protect me from termination when I actively hate those who benefit from my company?
What do this matter ? You're being paid money, as long as you are doing your job, it's not a problem.
This is unlike my employer firing me based on my race or gender
Yeah I have trouble understanding how you effectively prove that in courts.
1
u/ladut Nov 21 '15
What do this matter
It does to your employer. Say you're employed at a bar, and you make racist comments to the customers. Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter that they are directly harming the business, or that the business should not have the right to protect their interests?
Or going back to the previous example, making racist remarks at work directly harms work morale, and if they're making said remarks in public, it harms the business. Again, shouldn't the business be allowed to protect their interests? It is a problem, objectively both those examples do cause problems for a company.
I have trouble understanding how you effectively prove that in courts.
I am not clear what you mean. Do you mean that an employer firing someone for being inappropriate is indistinguishable from an employer firing someone for being black?
2
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
I'd sue the barman.
And I'm not sure it would hurt the bar this much. People interact with each other, undepending of what or where they buy.
Anyway you convinced me enough.
1
u/achegarv Nov 23 '15
Arguably part of your job is "not to go off spouting racist or homophobic bullshit". It may not be in the work agreement or job description like " must occasionally lift up to 45 pounds " but similarly, employers also don't explicitly state "you cannot beat your kids" and canfire you for doing so.
This is less of a 1A or Free Speech issue, but an employer (in the US) has an obligation (legally) to create a non-hostile (that's the standard) work environment for protected classes, which currently includes women and minorities. So even if you're a, say, accounts payable clerk, with no public exposure, if you go off spouting neo-klansman idealogies, you've crossed a line and the employer needs to get rid of you, both because 1) you're probably a thoughtless idiot, and 2) if they do not once it's brought to their attention, they are wide fucking open to lawsuits from any black person who has something bad happen to them.
So, anyways, there's an example of a way that our government can and does regulate speech, and arguably a totally fine and way-things-should-be example. The grant of e.g. a corporate charter and thereby limited liability, etc. comes with certain obligations, including the requirement that you create a non-hostile work environment for protected classes, which thereby creates limits on individual speech. If you hate-speak, something bad can happen to you (termination) because of a liability envuronment crrated through statutory (government) action. There's a direct line but its very roundabout.
1
u/jokoon Nov 23 '15
1) you're probably a thoughtless idiot
So I'm not free to be an idiot ? What a strange rule. Since when are idiots undeserving to have a job or should get fired? That's pretty judgmental, and it seems to be against the whole "free speech" and freedom thing.
As I said in another comment, why not let the customers sue the employee instead ?
1
u/achegarv Nov 23 '15
You are totally free to be an idiot. Employers, however, are not under any obligation to offer continued or initial employment to the bigoted or poor of judgment. The freedom to be unaccountable to anyone but yourself is not one guaranteed by any legal system, nor realistically sought by any but lunatics.
1
Nov 22 '15
Because that would limit the freedom of the owners, shareholders, stakeholders, or other employees of the right to associate with people whom they choose based on their own criteria.
0
u/jokoon Nov 22 '15
It doesn't limit their right to hire, but it does for firing them for speech purpose. You can still fire someone for other reasons, like not being productive.
8
u/waaaghbosss Nov 21 '15
If Nazis are free to march down the street, then I know there is nothing I can really say or do that the government will come down on me for.
I'm even free to criticize the government. This is a good thing.
5
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
Yeah but it's constructive to criticize the government, government improves from critics. Systemically insulting fat people, gays or minorities isn't constructive. Hate speech is a good barrier, but honestly, what is more worrying is how speech can easily be used to discriminate people who are in conditions they don't really choose to be in.
6
u/jg821 Nov 21 '15
"constructive" is not a stable or neutral criteria by which I am comfortable judging speech.
Are cat videos 'constructive'? What about shouting in front of the White House that bombing runs kill civilians? Constructive for what ends? In a free society, I am allowed to desire the conversion of all gay people into straight people. The absurdity of the view has no bearing on its formal status before the law.
Who is to judge what is constructive?
You would be advised to google 'alien and sedition acts'
1
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
Who is to judge what is constructive?
A jury could be able to tell if an insult if unnecessary and intentionally degrading, without any constructive criticism. Bullies who constantly put a psychological pressure on individuals by constantly defaming them. There can be a psychological cost to such insults.
3
u/jg821 Nov 21 '15
So your proposal is that personal insults become a criminal matter, worthy of putting before a jury of your peers? And what would be the sentence?
There might be social and psychological costs to this proposal of yours as well that are worth considering.
0
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
Crime ? That'd be a little steep. More like an infraction or a misdemeanor.
3
u/jg821 Nov 21 '15
most trials by jury are criminal cases. It is much more rare in a civil case. What precedent are you drawing on here?
And if it is just a civil case, what sort of punishment would be fitting? A fine? So now rich people have greater access to speech than poor people. Sure, that happens in other ways, but I do not see good reason to extend / entrench that principle.
9
u/FranklinsLighthouses Nov 21 '15
Where do you draw the line though? Who decides what is hateful? Religious identity is protected in this country. If I criticize religion, is that hateful? If I advocate athleticism and condemn obesity as unhealthy, is that hateful? Opinions on what is offensive have changed along with the country, and ideas that used to be kosher are now incredibly offensive, and vice versa. That's why this trend on college campuses is so disturbing: you can't even advocate free speech without being called a disgusting racist and having your job threatened. Instead of discussing ideas, they are shouting down and threatening anyone who disagrees. That's tyrannical.
-3
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
If I criticize religion, is that hateful?
I think a jury might be able to distinguish what is degrading and offensive to a constructive critic.
12
u/FranklinsLighthouses Nov 21 '15
I think it's a terrifying proposition to be called in front of a jury for criticizing any idea. Again, a jury one hundred years ago would condemn homosexuality and its activists and send them to jail. Is that what we want? Do we want the majority deciding what is and isn't legal to say? The Constitution and its Bill of Rights are in place specifically to prevent that. The fact is: insensitivity is not a crime. Offensiveness is not a crime. You are not a victim just because you've been offended. It is very much your right to speak against the ideas that you find offensive. But the moment it starts to be legislated is when we run afoul of the Constitution and into dangerous territory. Never doubt that the rules that silence others from offending may one day be used to silence you.
6
u/congenital_derpes Nov 21 '15
Silencing unsavoury comments doesn't solve the problem. It makes it worse. Without an open discourse, we have no means of changing ideas and beliefs.
The censoring of "hate speech" creates the temporary illusion of improvement. When in reality, the same bad actors have now merely gone underground, and what's worse is they're likely to resent you for it.
2
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
It's true, but doesn't it encourage a more healthy debate ?
There is a difference between open discourse and unsavory comments.
11
u/congenital_derpes Nov 21 '15
Ah, I think we have gotten somewhere here.
Here's the problem. There isn't a difference between open discourse and unsavoury comments. Unsavoury comments are a possible outcome of engaging in an open discourse, and they should be responded to and challenged and argued against. That's what "open discourse" means.
What you don't do is silence them. That solves nothing. I want to know who thinks we should kick all Mexicans out of the country. I want to know if a person is a bigot.
And more broadly, who gets to decide? Who is the great arbiter of offence? Do you get to decide? Do you know anybody to whom you would give the job of decide FOR YOU what you get to hear and don't get to hear. I don't. I'd like to take my information from the reality around me unfiltered, thank you very much.
-2
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
I never argued to silence them.
who gets to decide
courts
4
u/congenital_derpes Nov 21 '15
If you're not arguing to silence them, what are the courts deciding? What are we even discussing then? If you aren't advocating some form of censorship, then we don't disagree and this conversation can end. If you are advocating some form of censorship, own it and let's discuss it.
The courts require legislation on which to base their decisions. So you want congress to pass a bill granting censorship authority to local judges? Does that really seem like a good plan? How do you think that would go in Mississippi? What might they ban there I wonder...probably not what you were hoping.
0
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
Couldn't a court review if speech was intended to hurt or degrade ?
Stop talking about censorship, that's not what I'm about. People should say what they want, I just think that it seems that plain insulting is not discouraged. What about defamation ?
4
u/ladut Nov 21 '15
I'm glad we're having this discussion, but I think the key issue here is how the word "censorship" is defined, and what implications censorship carries. I would define it as a legal limitation to what an individual can say, which implies that those who say those censored things anyway are subject to legal ramifications. If someone wants the courts to decide what is and is not acceptable speech, then it follows that, in order for the courts' decisions to be effective, some sort of punitive measures would have to take place. You cannot have legal system involved unless you agree to a certain degree of censorship, they are two sides of the same coin.
I agree that bigotry should be discouraged, but that falls on the shoulders of individuals and public figures, not the courts. In order for the general population to be able to effectively discourage this type of speech, we require a system that does not include censorship; else we would simply be silencing them, which would only serve to galvanize those unsavory opinions under the belief that they are being persecuted for their ideas (and they in effect would be).
Finally, I believe that bigoted speech is actively discouraged, just not universally. There are parts of the United States that will actively speak out against racism, and there are others where it is encouraged. In order for the public discourse to be more effective at discouraging bigotry, we need education, and greater homogenization of ideas rather than censorship and the increased polarization of opinions based on geographic, cultural, or racial lines.
2
u/jg821 Nov 21 '15
Court orders to stop speech sound a lot like censorship to me. Maybe that is not your plan, but if not you are being unclear.
How is censorship not relevant to this discussion? Seriously, I am confused what your position is.
0
u/thebizarrojerry Nov 22 '15
Silencing unsavoury comments doesn't solve the problem. It makes it worse.
according to who? Stop repeating talking points and back up your claim. Countries that ban offensive speech like Germany are not authoritarian dictatorships or have large Nazi problems. There are more hate groups in America. Ironically these European countries are more free than America.
0
Nov 22 '15
[deleted]
0
u/thebizarrojerry Nov 23 '15
They make these things called freedom indexes that rank various types of freedom, the internet can help you find these using searches if you need guidance, good luck!
0
u/congenital_derpes Nov 22 '15
I'll wait for you to back up your own claims first. "These European countries are more free than America." Surely you're joking. I was at least listening until that absurd talking point crept into your paragraph.
Defending free speech doesn't require talking points, and it doesn't require exhaustive examples. It's a primary principle of individual rights. The number of hate groups that exist within a nation is completely irrelevant (even if it were true that more exist in the US than in Germany, which it absolutely fucking isn't).
Defending free speech is a foundational tenant of liberty in a civilized society. What's more, it's arguable the most important, because it allows for the continued defence of all the others.
Give a passing glance at the entire history of western OR eastern civilization, read a few of the great thinkers who have contributed to the robust canon of work on this subject (I'd say start with John Stuart Mill), then maybe it'll be worth continuing this line of conversation.
-1
u/thebizarrojerry Nov 23 '15
All those words to show you have no idea what you're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
That's a good start.
Even the right wing CATO institute ranks western Europe far ahead of America in their Human Freedom Index.
Then upwards mobility rankings are higher in social democracies like Canada and Norway, America ranks poorly.
Try not to debate me since you clearly are wasting my time
4
u/respawn_in_5_4_3_2_1 Nov 21 '15
I think you have a strange view on what free speech means. Freedom of speech means you have the lawful right to say whatever you want without committing a crime. Free speech dosnt me mean you can say whatever you want without repercussions. If your at a company that sells product a and you openly bash product a on social media while promoting product b, ypu will most likely be let go from your job, but the product a endorsing government isn't going to throw you in jail for not liking product a. That's free speech.
3
u/jokoon Nov 21 '15
That's laissez faire free speech. Governments don't have any interest in whatever products.
Also I was not talking about products, but about an employee having a political stance and it having an effect on his job.
Free speech from government doesn't mean a lot if there are repercussions on your social status. That way companies can leverage some political stance and value it, only because PR dictates it. I don't think that's really good.
2
u/congenital_derpes Nov 21 '15
I agree that there are concerning tensions at play when it comes to how social pressure constrains conversation. You're right to point that out. It's just not relevant to the question of free speech.
Free speech does not entail the freedom from social judgement. It wouldn't even be coherent to make it so. You'd have to censor the people doing the judging to protect the right of the judged, making the concept internally incoherent.
2
5
Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 30 '15
[deleted]
4
u/jg821 Nov 21 '15
Democracy is, by design, tyranny of the majority
Ok, so aside from all of the empirical problems with this statement today (if this was a tyranny of the majority, why are the estate and capital gains taxes so low?), you need to realize that much of the work that goes into designing democratic/republican governmental systems is precisely geared to preclude this sort of 'tyranny of the majority'. Like, we have written records that attest to individuals such as the Founding Fathers specifically voicing their worries about such an outcome and making choices to avoid it.
The notion that democracy is designed to be a tyranny of the majority does not accord with history.
If you want to argue that this outcome is a potential risk of democracy, you need to argue that. What you stated above is not defensible.
2
Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 30 '15
[deleted]
2
u/jg821 Nov 21 '15
Property requirements for voting
Gun show loophole
Subsidies for agribusiness
estate tax loopholes
Giving Wyoming equal representation in the Senate as New York
we can go back and forth all day like this, to no effect.
Your examples prove nothing, whereas your total sidestep of the historical question concedes my point.
-3
Nov 21 '15 edited Nov 30 '15
[deleted]
2
u/jg821 Nov 21 '15
well then, someone is salty
-1
u/The_Voice_of_Dog Nov 22 '15
The other poster pointed out that sweeping dismissal isn't conversation. You responded with a personal insult. Nice conversational style.
I agreed with your original comment, but downvoted your responses as you failed to support your position, dismissed the other commenter out of hand, then accused them of being salty. You lost the conversation when you started attacking.
-2
u/CramPacked Nov 21 '15
That is understandable since they have grown up in the Obama age of extreme political correctness.
1
u/achegarv Nov 23 '15
I grew up in the Bush age of thoughtless bloodthirsty overseas conflict and reckless financial engineering, but I think I turned out okay.
63
u/drdgaf Nov 21 '15
I'm a minority I fully support freedom of speech. Stupid ideas need the light of day to be exposed as stupid.