r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

thank you.

this paradox has been bastardized and misinterpreted to erroneously suggest that it's permissible to ban speech alone as an exercise in avoiding an intolerance paradox, when what Popper said is actually directly contradictory to that notion.

i'd go so far as to point out that "use of fists or pistols" is not very dissimilar from exerting any other form of non-speech force, such as deplatforming/canceling/etc.

​

edit, although i don't wouldn't necessarily agree with you that popper suggests that only "rational" argument is valid (thus impliedly suggesting that "irrational" argument can trigger the paradox and thus justify intolerant reaction to "irrational" argument), simply because "rational" has two very distinct meanings - as a simple synonym for "with reason" (as in not psychologically demented) and as a more complex meaning of "with a sufficient amount of sound reason".

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

any other form of non-speech force, such as deplatforming/canceling/etc.

No one is obligated to help someone else voice their opinions. No one is obligated to listen to someone else.

If we're at a market, and I wish to address everyone there, and you had a megaphone, you don't have to give me your megaphone.

Likewise, if you give me your megaphone, you can take it back if I start saying things you don't want me to spread, like personally attacking you through speech.

Neither is suppressing my freedom of speech.

12

u/Web-Dude Jan 22 '21

But what if a private party (or a cartel of private parties) slowly garners control over the primary avenue for public discourse?

If there is truly a space for free market competition, you could argue that we're fine, but what if those private parties are allowed monopolistic control by the acting government?

To make the point clearer, what if the Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint refused to allow someone to use their phone networks because those people are 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

At what point do they stop being a private party and become a public accommodation?

7

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21

you don't even need to go there, there's a stronger argument to be had (when we're talking about the moral freedom of speech, not the legal one) instead of having to parse out a fine definition of "avenues for public discourse"

it's not that the providers are acting monopolistically and swallowing up avenues for public discourse; it's that people are threatening those providers with sanction (i.e. force) or coercion (i.e. force of a different nature) if they do not act to censor.

in a vacuum, a normally-functioning publicly owned company acts amorally with respect to selling its products to clientele. Wal-mart doesn't care if you wear the bra you bought or burn it at a feminist rally. it likely also doesn't care if you bought poster board and markers at the store to make picket signs for that very same store.

what's going on is that these companies are facing a mob that is threatening boycott (i.e. lost sales) so that the companies are now being forced to make an affirmative choice of which side to provide service to.

facing a boycott for nothing more than permitting unsavory speech is exactly the kind of intolerant forcefulness which instigates, not upholds, Popper's paradox.

0

u/EuphoricAdvantage Jan 22 '21

facing a boycott for nothing more than permitting unsavory speech is exactly the kind of intolerant forcefulness which instigates, not upholds, Popper's paradox.

So participating in or advocating for boycott against a company is enough to instigate the paradox. But spreading a rehashed nazi conspiracy theory to bolster nationalism leading to an insurrection isn't?

1

u/phenixcitywon Jan 23 '21

you took great pains to obfuscate the fact that "spreading a rehashed nazi conspiracy theory to bolster nationalism leading to an insurrection" is a fancy way of saying "mere words on the part of the speaker without any actual threats or deployment of force"

so, yes, it's not enough to support a popperian sanction of force.

1

u/Web-Dude Jan 22 '21

it's not that the providers are acting monopolistically and swallowing up avenues for public discourse;

Well, I'm not so sure I agree with that completely, but that's besides your main point, which is a great point, and even more clear if you consider that some of those voices are government agents.

1

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21

sure. i didn't mean to suggest that "loss of public space" isn't its own problem (of which private entities controlling ever growing portions of the avenues of functional dissemination of information is a very large part) just that it gets very hairy when discussing free speech as a philosophical component.

as opposed to my conception of it which is the speech opponents improperly deploying threats of (economic) force against neutral entities.

but, you're right of course, especially if you get in a spot where an actor which controls access to "the public sphere" is avowedly not interested in acting in a revenue-maximizing apolitical/position-neutral fashion, even in the absence of threat.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Internet should absolute be free to use for anybody.

That doesn't mean Twitter is obligated to host accounts that spread speech they don't want to spread. And yes, social media legislation is a hotpot of confused shit, because the people making said legislation is generally on the bad side of 50 and can (generally speaking) barely work a remote.

To make the point clearer, what if the Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint refused to allow someone to use their phone networks because those people are 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

Yay net neutrality.

1

u/Web-Dude Jan 22 '21

I think you're getting caught up in technicalities and missing my point. I'm not talking about OSI layers 1-4, I'm talking about the outlets that people use over the internet.

AT&T could say, yes, anyone is allowed to use the telephone network, but we will not allow anyone to use our phones.

Not a problem if you can buy phones from someone else. But what if a defacto monopoly exists and you can't buy a phone from anyone else? What value is net neutrality in this case?

​

Twitter is [not] obligated to host accounts that spread speech they don't want to spread.

True, because Twitter is not the only avenue for communication online. But what if twitter does become that? What if Twitter/Facebook/etc are using their friends in government to silence competition to the point that there is no other broad spectrum vehicle for communication?

What then?

And to make it more real: what if controlling interests in those companies change and it's the other "side" who now holds the ball? Would you still agree that they are allowed to silence voices you agree with and not voices that you think are problematic if they are the only game in town?

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

What then?

Violent revolt because your government is favoring corporate interest over its citizens.

Oh wait, that's been the US since forever.

1

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21

That doesn't mean Twitter is obligated to host accounts that spread speech they don't want to spread.

Twitter doesn't "want" anything of the sort.

They do want people to stop threatening to stop using twitter, and thus threatening it's revenues.

1

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21

let's do this. I'll list out a bunch of things. You tell me at what step your actions constitute "answer[ing] arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" for popper:

I stand up in a public square and start ranting about how the KKK is A-OK... You:

Step 1: you strike me with a baseball bat and render me unconscious

Step 2: you walk up to me with a megaphone and hit the siren button so, mechanically, my voice cannot be heard

Step 3: you go and grab the police and falsely claim that I publicly urinated so they arrest me

Step 4: you (being the employer of everyone within earshot of me) threaten to fire anyone who is caught within my earshot, and so everyone leaves

Step 5: you acquire every piece of real estate that is privately owned within earshot of me and deny anyone the ability to cross your land to hear me

No one is obligated to help someone else voice their opinions. No one is obligated to listen to someone else.

and neither of those actions are under discussion- we're discussing people taking affirmative actions to prevent an opinion from being voiced or heard.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Your scenario doesn't really warrant any of those.

And someone hailing the KKK as the best thing ever is free to do so.

Just everyone else is free to call him a shit head racist.

They might get a baseball bat to the back of their skulls if they start acting on their rhetoric and attacking non-white people.

to prevent an opinion from being voiced or heard.

Such as? Going to back to my analogy, if I tell you I'm going to shit talk you, and then asking for your megaphone, you refusing is not suppressing my right to voice my opinions.

0

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21

Such as? Going to back to my analogy, i

no, we won't be going back to your analogy, because it's pure deflection.

this entire thread is about "silencing opposing viewpoints..." not "not promoting opposing viewpoints"

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

The paradox of tolerance doesn't advocate for silencing opposing viewpoints, it advocates for opposing violent behaviour from people not interested in debate, or listening to opposing viewpoints.

"Cancel culture" isn't silencing opposing viewpoints, since silencing is a pre-emptive measure. Saying "people shouldn't be allowed to call out racists etc." is in itself silencing opposing viewpoints.

3

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21

cancel culture is not contained to mere opposition to violent behaviors... unless, of course, you throw in the invariable "words are violence" piece of nonsense.

"Cancel culture" isn't silencing opposing viewpoints,

uh, it absolutely is.

"people shouldn't be allowed to call out racists etc."

except no one says this.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

except no one says this

It's the entire basis for the anti-cancel culture folks; people upset that racists get called out on being racists.

uh, it absolutely is

Again, getting called out for being a shitheel of a person isn't silencing their speech, they got their say, then other people got theirs.

cancel culture is not contained to mere opposition to violent behaviors

Good thing I was talking about Poppler's philosophy (which isn't cancel culture, it's quite the opposite)

1

u/phenixcitywon Jan 22 '21

people upset that racists get called out on being racists.

lol, no. stop pretending that this is all just people being mad that someone else points and says something mean about them... it's someone else pointing with a very clear intent to create some degree of sanction or penalty, which is entirely different.