Alex Jones on JRE

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

100% freedom of speech reduces overall free speech and in some cases increases societal harm. A flat-earthier that no one takes seriously is different than a neo-Nazi group recruiting, expanding and causing harm. 

If one person disagrees and doesn’t listen, it doesn’t mean that other people will disagree and won’t listen. If someone has a platform of 10 million viewers and invites a neo-Nazi holocaust denier on the show and has a “discussion” in which neo-Nazism is just “another opinion” - the Overton window will shift,  giving legitimacy to the views and persuade a portion of the population. “Most people” not taking things like extreme hate speech seriously is insufficient. There is a certain percentage of the population that will take it seriously, get sucked in and cause harm. There is plenty of evidence that hate speech On large platforms increases the incidents of hate crimes. Marginalizing extreme hate groups to underground fringes reduces their capacity to organize, expand and have influence. 

Those that want to maximize the amount of free speech and minimize harm understand that targeted limits of free speech is necessary. 

^ ^ ^ This ^ ^ ^   

The 'Marketplace of Ideas' that people like to argue for is a vast oversimplification of how ideas spread and propagate through a society; (ie that the Better Ideas or Arguments will always end up winning out in the end). The idea that most people in a Society come to their beliefs through  a careful, deliberative process of weighing the pros and the cons of the arguments that they hear is largely a myth; most people will simply accept the view that emotionally resonates with them (for a host of psychological and developmental reasons) most of the time.

And we all know how vulnerable people are to being emotionally manipulated, and how susceptible the average person is to a host of cognitive biases that they have little awareness of. And that's without even delving in to group-think and mob mentality.

In addition to the point made above, I'll also add that even if the vast majority of people don't take hate speech seriously, it only takes one person who's become radicalized to hurt or kill dozens or hundreds of people (the majority of terrorist violence in America is done by white supremacist Hate Groups). I would hope it would be obvious how shifting the Overton window so that ideologies like White Supremacy or Fascism go from being fringe ideologies that are socially ostracized, to gaining some degree of tacit acceptance in mainstream society, is extremely harmful and dangerous. 

[Leo Gura]

Freedom of speech has never existed, nor will it ever exist.

Stop buying into and parroting silly myths.

[PurpleTree]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Freedom of speech has never existed, nor will it ever exist.

Stop buying into and parroting silly myths.

I find it pretty free how people can talk about their government and politicians in the US for example.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

I find it pretty free how people can talk about their government and politicians in the US for example.

Can't talk about killing them.

[PurpleTree]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Can't talk about killing them.

Yea never said totally free just pretty free. 96% freedom of speech is still pretty good, or not?

[Reciprocality]

Ultimate free speech is impossible exactly due to the reason free speech as within the first ammendment is so important, and to a lesser extent those 'paralell' laws in Europe.

For speech is more than the saying of words, but the thoughts prior to it, we can impossibly have a society in which noone were influenced by noone else, and by extention that other things were less influential.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

96% freedom of speech is still pretty good, or not?

Have you ever heard me complain about free speech?

[Reciprocality]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Freedom of speech has never existed, nor will it ever exist.

Stop buying into and parroting silly myths.

 

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Have you ever heard me complain about free speech?

 

I believe there is this thing called "implication", so here my intuition tells me you are complaining, maybe not 'about free speech', but that which have shown to come about due to it. 

Edit, will we not agree those are the same?

Edited October 31, 2020 by Reciprocality

[PurpleTree]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Have you ever heard me complain about free speech?

yea i didn't mean "good" as in not a bad thing, i meant "good" as in total free speech is almost existent

much better than other places type thing

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I believe there is this thing called "implication", so here my intuition tells me you are complaining, maybe not 'about free speech', but that which have shown to come about due to it.

I complain about people who complain about free speech, as though it weren't a myth.

[Reciprocality]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I complain about people who complain about free speech, as though it weren't a myth.

But than you complain also about the asserted, not only the asserter. Does not mean you validate the reality of the asserted.

[Joel3102]

I think it’s worth having some respect for the notion of free speech. Can we not having any guiding principles? 

[Leo Gura]

Americans who complain about free speech are like people who complain about not being allowed to take a shit in the middle of a grocery store.

[Lyubov]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I complain about people who complain about free speech, as though it weren't a myth.

Myths are actually useful for understanding truths through metaphors. Free speech is more a convenient illusion or idea for binding a group of people together no different than a religion. 

[Arcangelo]

On 10/29/2020 at 7:21 AM, Opo said:

Now I think it's just us growing and not Joe regressing so we can clearly see the flaws we couldn't before. 

Me too.

8-9 years when I would listen to Richard Dawkins I will be like : -''Ohh, Ahh!'' Impressed and delighted.

Years later after watching Leo's content, meditating and having an spiritual awakening experience I am like: -''Poor guy!''

[Depersonilized]

@Forestluv Oh, I don't mean 100% free speech of course. That's oversimplifying the issue. The problem lies in how the censorship occurs. If too much is used on one ideology, some people, especially uneducated people, will take that as trying to silence the "truth". We need to loosen up and encourage free thought. Trust in people to come to the right conclusions in their own time. Even Alex Jones. Trying to or wanting to regulate the guests Joe Rogan has on his podcast is silly. 

And again, I obviously do not mean 100% percent free speech. That's taking it too far. 

[Hatfort]

22 hours ago, Depersonilized said:

Trying to or wanting to regulate the guests Joe Rogan has on his podcast is silly.

Who is trying that? We don't need to believe taking this guest seriously is the right call. Jones is silly and crazy for believing the shit that he spits on his channel and so his followers. As far as I know, we have an amount of freedom of speech to say he is deluded and regressive and that Rogan could do better. Also, Trump is a shitty president, shame on voting for him. Sorry, one day for the elections, it has to be said. Freedom of speech.

[DrewNows]

enjoy this little short bit! ???