I’m talking about things such as restricting hate speech, discrimination etc. Like we did with rule 7.
This is a perfect opportunity to mention the Paradox of Tolerance. If we DON’T limit hate speech and discrimination, it will grow until it eventually overtakes everything else. Hate speech and discrimination are also explicitly not protected forms of expression under the 1st Amendment (if you’re American).
Putting the academic perspective aside, no one is entitled to a platform, and arguably there are quite a few viewpoints that should never see the light of day. When all is said and done, that’s a good thing.
I don’t find it oppressive at all, as long as it’s not a government doing the restricting. I find it more oppressive to have to SEE/HEAR hate speech in random unexpected places, in the name of freedom of expression. Go express that shit somewhere else, this community is about marble racing, or whatever.
Indeed. I consider it to be practically necessary for a healthy community.
No, because you don’t run out in public and start insulting random passing strangers without repercussions well you don’t do it and not expect repercussions unless you are mentally ill. So why should you be able to do it in public here, just because it’s online. If you want to say hateful things in RL you have to find like minded hateful people to say them with why should being online be any different?
Be intolerant of intolerance
Hate speech and discrimination are illegal in many countries, I don’t see how respecting the law can be seen as “oppressive”.
So if they make a law opressing some people would doing something discriminatory against those people be less opressive because it’s legal now?
What?
They are asking if, according to your logic, slavery was not oppressive because it was legal.
Legality has nothing to do with fairness nor justice. Laws are a tool of control and most of them are oppressive
We’re talking about laws made to protect people, not oppress them, comparing them to slavery being legal in the past is quite a stretch.
If I invite you to my party and you start insulting my friends, am I oppressing you if I ask you to leave?
What if I don’t ask you to leave and you continue ruining the nights of everyone else present so they are forced to leave instead? Why is it OK to oppress them by default just because some random dickhead wants to be a dickhead in my space?
(Link above is to the best non-reddit, non-twitter version of the bar story, not the original posts.)
Freedom of speech means the government can’t lock you up merely for expressing an opinion. It doesn’t mean anyone else has to put up with your shit.
No.
You can say what you want, but you’re not protected against the consequences of saying it.
Sometimes the consequences is having a post deleted. In real life it’s often worse.
I don’t particularly like the Mexican cartels, the Russian mob or even the Hells Angels, yet if I were face to face with one, I’d probably walk away instead of using my freedom of expression, because I know I wouldn’t like the consequences of stating my honest opinion on their culture.
Why is freedom of expression always measured by what slurs you can say without facing consequences?
No. Not all speech is good speech. If someone wants to say awful things they can go do it in their own space, but I don’t want to be forced to read or hear it.
Freedom of expression is very much a two way street, and does not mean ‘free from consequences’ if someone says something vile.
I am quite free to make rules, and enforce them, for the communities I moderate, just as someone else is free to find a forum where, for example, they can express vile racist, homophobic slurs.
Tolerance cannot extend to tolerating others’ intolerance, or discourse is not possible.
No, because there are many other places you can go. Nobody is throwing you in jail.
No, I consider stating the rules of interaction upfront to be extremely important.
I want to believe that freedom of speech is important, and that outright censorship of any view contrary to the mainstream view is not the way forward. But if you look at a place like Voat was (which prided itself on being truly free speech), my god what a shit hole of racists and homophobes that site turned into. So there has to be some degree of guidance.
BUT there also still has to be a way for people to critique their government, or else we end up with the thought police of Orwell’s 1984.
Freedom of speech means they can’t arrest you for what you say, it’s about the government, not private platforms, in any case it doesn’t mean you’re free to say whatever you want without consequences, let alone that other people have to listen to you.
A private forum banning you for example, is not limiting freedom of speech, they’re not the government, it’s exercising their right to not listen to you, regardless of how good or bad it can be.
This. I find it interesting how many people don’t understand the concept of free speech and to whom it applies :-/
The OP is talking about hate speech & discrimination not criticising governments.
@clueless_stoner A community that states what kind of expression is allowed / not allowed is a lot less oppressive than one where what you’re allowed to say is curtailed by bullying, which is what happens to communities that don’t take a stand.
