Is free speech actually a good thing?

[The Redeemer]

10 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Free speech is like a gun. Handle responsibly. 

Free speech shouldn't exist. I believe in censoring hate speech for example.

Edited August 15, 2023 by The Redeemer

[The Redeemer]

2 hours ago, Gidiot said:

and yes it’s tricky, but if you can just say whatever you want in any cicrcumstances with no repercussions or consequences, then you are very reckless and society wouldn’t function harmoniously, curtailing hate speech isn’t about having power over people, although it may seem that, it’s an act of human compassion to protect vulnerable people from the worst faith actors  of our kind.

How could we invoke a system in which we could be assured that no man may ever have to go through such hateful discrimination?

Edited August 15, 2023 by The Redeemer

[Schizophonia]

On 14/08/2023 at 4:34 AM, Recursoinominado said:

Well, historically, white males have done unbelievably bad things when left unchecked. Hint: nazism.

Lol, it's as if I said that "Asians" did some bullshit "example: Pol Pot".
Doesn't make sense

Quote

Also, white males are still the most powerful group, so, the "discrimination" doesn't carry the same weight as discrimination against a gay black woman, for example.

How can you quantify this, it's beginning the question.

Quote

Good for them.

Why not close our eyes and pretend problems don't exist?

Privilege doesn't exist in a vacuum, you have to compare it with something. When you compare with other groups, white males have it easier, which isn't the same as they have an easy life.

It is mostly true, you just don't see it or refuse to admit. 

Well, what are the chances that white males are in danger from said "discrimination"? From who? Blue-haired liberal women?

 

 

Hans will be preferred in far east, Bantus in West africa etc (except when white tourists are privileged in certain third world countries, not because they are white but because they are taken for human wallets).
You can't prevent people from having endogamous preferences out of idealism (protecting your ego).

If the diasporas are not happy, nothing prevents them from leaving the countries where "they are oppressed", ie where they have strangely chosen to migrate.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Recursoinominado]

46 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

How can you quantify this, it's beginning the question.

One easy way is statistics of white people in positions of power.

People in congress, presidents, CEOs, billionaires, etc.

[Buck Edwards]

3 hours ago, The Redeemer said:

Free speech shouldn't exist. I believe in censoring hate speech for example.

Speaking the truth is not hate speech. 

[Raze]

6 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

One easy way is statistics of white people in positions of power.

People in congress, presidents, CEOs, billionaires, etc.

That means nothing regarding the 99 percent not in power 

[integral]

On 8/13/2023 at 11:10 PM, The Redeemer said:

I should have rephrased that statement. I meant all hate speech.

If we banned all hate speech you would of been banned from this forum already.

You don't think your speech is hate speech. But others do.

In all of these scenarios your not aware how what you want will come back around to hurt you.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by integral

[Tanz]

It's required for democracy and foolish to think our ideas or someone's ideas are the best.

What if someone had the cure cancer for free or created energy for free but we're not allowed to tell anyone because a government or corporation didn't want them to?

[Schizophonia]

5 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

One easy way is statistics of white people in positions of power.

People in congress, presidents, CEOs, billionaires, etc.

Yes, the richest people in a country are often of the most common ethnic group in that same country, that's normal.

And anyway you don't have a source 

[Guest Tobia]

On 8/14/2023 at 3:50 PM, Recursoinominado said:

Would you agree for example that if I shout "kill all the jews" is hate speech?

Or "homosexuality is an abomination and should be combated"?

If we don't agree on basic premises, society living is impossible.

@Recursoinominado the law in all developed countries ALREADY restricts speech which directly calls for violence or discrimination.

In the United States direct incitement to violence is illegal so you don't need new hate speech definitions.

If i want to say "i think gay people are stupid", I should be allowed to say it, no matter how unpleasant and idiotic it may be.

Sweden is one of the most conscious and developed societies on earth and yet they allow repulsive far-right activists to burn the Quran in public places.

Why do they allow it? Because the principle of free speech comes before any political inconvenience or people getting offended.

They understand that free speech goes beyond any temporary unpleasantness.

[Recursoinominado]

5 hours ago, Raze said:

That means nothing regarding the 99 percent not in power 

Who runs the world? The top 1% or the rest?

[Recursoinominado]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes, the richest people in a country are often of the most common ethnic group in that same country, that's normal.

Not always. Have you heard about colonialism? Imperialism? 

Also, it isn't about ethnicity only.

[Recursoinominado]

1 hour ago, Tobia said:

@Recursoinominado the law in all developed countries ALREADY restricts speech which directly calls for violence or discrimination.

Fascism is on the rise, bro, wake up.

[Recursoinominado]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

And anyway you don't have a source 

Simple google search: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/09/us/powerful-people-race-us.html

Edited August 15, 2023 by Recursoinominado

[sholomar]

It's what has been called the "slippery slope" argument, or the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Who's to decide what speech is allowed, and what guidelines do they set? In the long struggle between individualism and collectivism, between Plato and Aristotle, it seems like collectivism, authoritarianism, fails spectacularly every time it's tried.

The real reason for freedom of speech is simple... to keep human nature in check. Checks and balances. No entity should have the right to control the narrative and potentially create a reality where what you perceive and believe is simply what the state tells you to believe, actual scientific or otherwise "facts" in the matter be damned. Modern examples include North Korea and the CCP under Xi's leadership. Prior examples include Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

It's all about how many restrictions we want imposed on our right to individual identity by the collective. Of course these same collectivists (whether they are "left" or "right" or whatever nonsense cult they choose to identify as)  will use the more "free" societies to push their philosophy at the same time, so you always have to be on the watch for things like this.  The people who preach freedom once they get power do the opposite, because human nature. Intellectuals traditionally through history like to push Plato and forms of collectivism, which fails due to human nature. It will never, ever work.  Again, the road to hell is paved with "good intentions."  The only thing that seems to work is keeping power and wealth from concentrating, and the system that can do that the best, while still promoting profit and innovation in moderation, will remain the global superpower and promote growth and progress in a more healthy, balanced way.

Also, no matter how hard you try, you will never, EVER please everyone. You need a system that works for the majority. When you go trying to "save everyone" that's when those "good intentions" start to bite you in the ass, and you leave yourself open for authoritarian type rule. It's the paradox of governmental rule. Trying to fight for the minorities ends up subjugating the majority at the same time and provides the right elements for opportunists to gain power.  I personally believe we saw a miniature version of this stage play during the covid pandemic. Fortunately life returned to relative normalcy, minus the damage to the supply chain, resulting shortages, and the subsequent severe rise in the cost of living from the money printing that went on.

Edited August 15, 2023 by sholomar

[integral]

ChatGPT Polarity map for freedom vs. security?

Key points to consider:

• Balancing Act: The tension between freedom and security is a classic example of a polarity. Society often seeks a balance between individual freedoms and the need for collective security.
• Interdependence: The map illustrates how both values are interconnected and influence each other. An extreme focus on security might lead to a reduction in individual freedoms, while excessive freedom could compromise overall security.
• Dynamic Movement: The arrow indicates that societies and individuals often navigate between these values, striving to find an optimal balance that meets both personal and collective needs.
• Integral Perspective: Integral theory encourages recognizing and embracing the inherent value of both poles. It suggests that a truly balanced approach involves integrating and honoring both freedom and security rather than favoring one at the expense of the other.
• Developmental Context: Depending on an individual's stage of development and cultural context, the emphasis on freedom and security can vary. Integral theory acknowledges the importance of understanding these variations.

[Recursoinominado]

Nice video showing the danger of promoting limitless "free speech" to hide HATE speech and the link between hate speech against LGBT people and CRIMES against them.

[ZenAlex]

IMO if something comes in the form of an opinion or argument, then it should be allowed. 

THere's a lot of danger in allowing anyone to decide who's opinion should be allowed or not.

[Consept]

In an ideal world everyone would be able to say whatever they want and there would be a general respect for each other. But the reality is free speech can and has consistently been used in the past to suppress other people as well brainwash and radicalise others. There are countless examples that have led to everything from a group of people being treated unfairly to genocide of millions (Rwanda, South Africa, Germany, lots of countries). Whats been different in the past is that only the rulers have had that platform, now its available for everyone but the risks are the same if not more, because although not perfect there are limits to what big platforms and government can say or do, whereas normal people dont have these checks. 

So before you could just hate black people in your room and maybe talk to couple friends about it, now in theory you can have a platform to get into the ears of millions. People would love to think that all people are critical thinkers and with our freedom we're able to choose whats right and wrong, but heres the thing - propaganda works! Thats why companies spend billions on advertising, they know that they can get you to buy things you dont really need even if these things can actually damage you physically, mentally or financially. So if someone is charismatic and convincing they can definitely get people to follow, the numerous cults throughout history are evidence of that. 

So the balance is how can we let everyone say and do what they want, without people having the power to cause harm to others and society as a whole? If you accept what ive outlined that unchecked freedom of speech can potentially be dangerous, then free speech absolutism is almost like saying there should be no laws, we should be able to do whatever we want and trust each other to do the right thing. 

 

[Adrian colby]

Everyone has the inherent ‘ability’ to do and say whatever they want. To explore and discover their lives as they see fit… provided they don’t impose upon or prevent others from exploring and discovering their lives as they see fit. Individuality ( within the relative) comes with a bias (choice) and there are consequences to choices. That is what moves us through the life experience. Our choices should prompt us towards decisions that are beneficial individually and collectively (cooperation) but often we keep making the same choices because we identify with the pattern of behavior instead of recognising the harmful effects that cause problems for others and eventually isolate ourselves (entropy). The problem with hate speech depends on whether it is derived from a majority trying to silence a valid opinion pointing at something that is actually happening that threatens the identity of the culture or whether what is being said in opposition is based in a lack education/ignorance/ pre conceived or outdated beliefs. ( if you can step back you notice that it’s both) Hate speech and hate speech laws have risen in the past few years out of the chaos as one faction of society has tried to claw back the power of the narrative that determines what our truth is. It’s still the case that much of society doesn’t understand that ‘difference’ is the strength of multiple perspectives working together to get a clearer view of relative truth and so they treat difference and different perspectives as wrong. There is a balance between opposing forces that creates our human story. The question is if you fight to destroy one side that ultimately makes up your whole, when do you realise when it is gone you’ve inadvertently destroyed yourself too?  So what is hate speech? It depends on a persons individual perspective. It’s better to listen to that persons perspective and determine whether they are talking about an opinion or their own lives experience. What they say will always have a half truth, even if it is buried underneath language that sounds like total fantasy.