but from racism. — Christoffer

Islam is not a race my friend.

Is it well poisoning to mention how “free speech absolutism” is used by extremist groups as a rhetorical tactic? — Christoffer

Yes. Obviously. Hitler loved dogs.

Radicalizing incrementally. How much do you know about extremist radicalization psychology? — Christoffer

Quite a lot. You're caving into a fear of someone else's mental state. Ridiculous.

How do you avoid the tolerance paradox when these groups use the “absolute” to change a society from a tolerate to an intolerant one? — Christoffer

There is no paradox when it comes to speech. In any case, I am not an absolutist so you're asking the wrong person. I wasn't defending absolutism, I was criticising a clear dumb argument against it. There are better arguments (some on this page).

Ahh. Dammit, I was sure you could do this one.

The harm of speech, is that when it is aimed at and intended to cause harm it often will.
If you can't see this, it's a tough go talking about it. Let's just make it simple.

An Iman proclaims that true believers must now, at that moment, leave their homes and kill all infidels.

Fair game? Yes or no will do. We can go from there.

Islam is not a race my friend. — AmadeusD

You saying that just proves my point that many in society are unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios I described.

And I wonder why you use the same rhetoric there as I've heard so many times used by right wing extremists; with a clear dismissal of the fact that muslims is a group of people who are very much targeted not because the religion affiliation, but rather by their brown skin, even to the point that Siks are being branded muslims because they fit the "archetype" within the racist mindset or that christian people from the middle east are still treated as muslims. Muslims have just become the "name" of that group of people being racially targeted and as I mentioned, the difference in how you address the cultural problems within islamic nations is different between saying it comes from the people or saying that it comes from the systemic problems produced by islamic authoritarian figures.

A point that clearly went over your head.

Yes. Obviously. Hitler loved dogs. — AmadeusD

Stop strawmanning. And you're the one trying to lecture on standards of discussions on this forum. Just because you don't understand the subject I'm describing doesn't mean it's well-poisoning. And no, you're not understanding the thing I've describing, by the very nature of the the first thing you wrote above.

Quite a lot. You're caving into a fear of someone else's mental state. Ridiculous. — AmadeusD

So a short sentence is all it takes to describe an entire societal behavior from extremists groups that has plenty of research papers to fill whole volumes of books? Including all the methods and tactics used? And when I describe a common such tactic and rhetoric you counter with just telling me you know "quite a lot".

If you try to lecture others on the standards of this forum, then remember what "low quality" posting means. You've made no substantial counter-argument here, neither understood my point at all, or answer in a way that builds on a discussion that is able to be continued. Telling people "Islam is not a race" as an answer to a description on the difference between hate speech against muslims and criticism of islamic states just shows how little you know of what I'm talking about or that you engage in the discussion in such a sloppy and dishonest way that it falls under breaking actual forum rules of conduct. This is not the lounge and if you want to lecture on forum discussion standards, then people should expect more than "I know quite a lot" as your elaboration on a subject.

There is no paradox when it comes to speech. — AmadeusD

So you clearly don't know what I'm talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Educate yourself on the philosophy before you speak again. This is a philosophy forum, so act accordingly. Especially if you try to tell others the level of quality their writing should have on this forum. There's a lot of irony to how you act here.

You aren't from the UK so I will try and paint the picture. You had members of parliament such as Nigel Farage, prominent far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and very popular voices such as Andrew Tate saying that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It spread like wildfire across all social media platforms in the UK. He wasn't an illegal immigrant, the reason his personal information was not released to the public was because he was under 18, but because of this disinformation spreading across all anti-immigration circles, far-right protests were arranged in every city across the country lasting 2-3 weeks. These "protests" which were actually riots were violent, they caused major property damage as they set cars on fire and threw bricks at mosques and set a divide that we still experience today. When his information did get released he was a second generation legal immigrant born in Wales into a Christian family.

Let me say that again, CHRISTIAN... He wasn't even Muslim so all the hatred, violence and destruction against our Muslim communities can be entirely blamed on the disinformation that was spread. People in the UK have been arrested for their role in inciting violence which in turn, stopped the riots. — Samlw

This is what I was thinking, and is a typical argument made against free speech, made by people that don't understand what free speech is, and make this straw-man argument.

It was not free speech that caused the riot, but a lack of it. If only one side gets to make their case and all others are silenced, then you have something more like fascism and communism, not a free society where the ideas and information of all sides get to make their case on a fair playing field.

Free speech is not letting one side make their case while silencing all opposition. Free speech is the ability to criticize and question all sides.

If all the citizens heard all sides of the issue and were provided evidence to support one side or the other, and intellectually honest debate occurred, who would be to blame for engaging in violence, if not the people that had access to all the information and evidence yet still engaged in violent behavior?

This is the problem with the media today - they have become political, and have an agenda that is not to inform citizens but to manipulate them. Media should not have the same rights as individual citizens. Their job is to inform us of all angles and views of every story.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF. — AmadeusD

Your are correct in saying Free speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view but foolish if you believe that absolutism isn't used by extremists to tolerate the intolerable and as @Christoffer said "Shift the goal posts".

Free speech absolutists just want to spout hateful stuff and get no repercussions for it. .

As I said, the perpetrator of the crime was under 18 therefore his details were not able to be released to the public. Should we start releasing sensitive information about minors so that racists don't riot?

What about inciting people to murder then? Or even inciting them to persecute others? To anticipate a likely objection: you might argue that people make up their own minds what to do, in which case you would be hopelessly naive.

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish.

Your are correct in saying Free speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view but foolish if you believe that absolutism isn't used by extremists to tolerate the intolerable and as Christoffer said "Shift the goal posts".

Free speech absolutists just want to spout hateful stuff and get no repercussions for it. . — Samlw

Exactly, I've never said that absolutism isn't "a thing", but that it's so corruptable as an ideal that it basically always lead to manipulatory rhetoric used by the most extreme.

It's the core problem at the heart of the tolerance paradox, which is the philosophical idea that talks about the very topic of free speech vs restrictive.

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish. — NOS4A2

See, now this is a fair counter-argument or reasonable challenge in support of your point. More or less. Most would find it hard to even fathom an example of such actions described occurring.

But here's one (and while it's not a clear-cut, open and shut "see you're wrong" example, it's certainly relevant and shows that we can be influenced to do things in even the subtlest of ways): Advertising is one of the largest if not the largest industries in the world due to several factors including: the "mere-exposure effect", "illusory truth effect", thought-action correlation or "thought action fusion". Now this in and of itself is more forming the grounds for an argument as opposed to an argument itself. But answer me this honestly after reading the fact below:

"Globally, advertising spending is estimated to have reached around $917 billion in 2024, with a projected rise to $1.17 trillion by 2028. In the United States, total ad spending is estimated to be $389.49 billion for 2025."

Do you really think some of the most educated people in the world with hundreds of think tanks, scientists, studies, financial experts, psychologists, and so many others are really just wasting all that time and money? Really? These are people much smarter than you or I (or at least with advisors who are) and as a result much more efficient and likely much more greedy. To me, as well as to most rational people, that would be doubtful. In short, they know a thing or two when it comes to money and what works and what doesn't.

See, now the burden of proof is on you. How do you respond? :grin:

All you’d have to do is compare the amount of advertisements you see to the amount of those products you buy. I don’t know about your case, but in mine the result is near nil, and I see advertisements almost on a daily basis.

It is likely that my case is similar to many; but perhaps there are people who buy the products of every advertisement they see. In any case, the sheer amount of advertisements one sees in comparison to the amount of those products one buys ought to provide a sufficient data-set of whether it is the case, or is logically falsified.

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? As far as the question of: "Do advertisements work or are near trillions of dollars a year and unfathomable levels of resource both intellectual and physical being wasted?"

It's not always as simple as "Oh look a nose hair trimmer for $10. Honey, it's been years since we replaced our old one. Let's order now!" It's often a tangential concept, need, or desire that is aroused, reminded, or otherwise placed in one's head as the result of an advertisement. You might see an advertisement for Pizza Hut, feel hungry, and end up going to a Subway or an Applebee's instead, for example. Or, you might see an ad for a pet supply company, end up missing your deceased dog and go out and buy a cat or a tank full of fish. Or perhaps even be angered at the fact your dog perished at the hand's of a neighbors dog and go out and buy a gun or hire a fencing company. Or something. Point being, most all advertisements invoke a sense of primal necessity (food, drink, shelter) or desire (love, companionship, convenience, etc.). More so than not. And these things are what drive just about every action man has ever committed or performed.

While I await your answer I will refer you to (or rather introduce into the general debate) another more concrete, actually legally codified set of examples for your consideration. Police entrapment laws. I.E. an undercover detective outside a "bait house" (run down, broken window but actually covertly monitored and set up for the illusion) who comes up to you and is like, "Hey man, these guys have been out of town for weeks, they got all kinds of jewelry in there. I need a car to unload it all, and we'll split 50/50. Meet me here tomorrow at 8." ... or something more realistic... what's the classic example... asking a person who doesn't buy drugs to buy drugs for say three times the value, knowing they need the money, then arresting them as a result, where the otherwise non-criminal who if the person did not use their free speech to entice them to perform an illegal act would otherwise have not.

So riddle me that. If people can't be coerced into doing things they otherwise wouldn't by free speech alone, why is police entrapment against the law in all 50 states? Just another needless ordinance, I suppose? Speaking of entrapment. Gotcha. :wink:

That's fine if you're "Mr. All That", of his own mind and will, unbreakable all time eternal. But not everybody is. Some people are less intelligent (perhaps more susceptible?), some people have moderate to severe disabilities that result in much of the same, some are just young, naive, and inexperienced, some people are just struggling from drug and alcohol addiction and have weaker wills as a result. While I'm sure your response will be along the lines of "well that's their fault" or "that's not my problem", your particular view and circumstance does not dictate the will of society. We look out for those who are otherwise unable or at a lessened capacity to do so themselves. If that's not an important concept for you, that's fine. But if that be the case you ought know your place as a social outlier and eternal subordinate to the greater will of human compassion.

Advertising works. I don’t think advertising is a waste of money. How else can someone know what you’re trying to sell, or that you exist if you don’t tell them that you do?

It’s not magic, though. When people keep treating words and symbols as magic spells, as if they can animate someone to do this or that, I object to that, and I don’t know why it is so controversial.

It has nothing to do with my unbreakable will. It’s simple physics and biology. You cannot control another’s motor cortex with words. You cannot cause someone to buy a thing any more than you cause them to forget the advertisement of the thing altogether. I cannot cause you to agree with me and vice versa.

You’re placing nothing in my head. My desires, fears, beliefs, thoughts, concepts—they all find their genesis in me and me alone. All of your examples about pets and Subway all fall prey to post hoc ergo proctor hoc, after this therefor because of this. None of them show any causal factors between one or the other.

As I said, the perpetrator of the crime was under 18 therefore his details were not able to be released to the public. Should we start releasing sensitive information about minors so that racists don't riot? — Samlw

It appears that you are agreeing with me, if only the person wasn't under 18?

How were they able to determine that it was disinformation if the "personal" information was never released?

Your race and sex are not personal information. That is information available to anyone with eyes. Name, birthdate, social security number, etc. - these things are personal information.

No, they clearly don't. That is simply a way to silence that position, by poisoning the well. "it comes from bigots!" Well, no. Hitchens was probably the loudest absolutist of the last 30 years. The position you hold is one of fear.

You saying that just proves my point that many in society are unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios I described. — Christoffer

No, it doesn't. It just proves that you think racism is a catch-all for any kind of specialized discrimination. Which is exactly what that passage illustrates. You are just wrong - this is something which lives in your head. Not the people you are so badly trying to demonize for reasons unknown *yes, extremists exist. Yes, largely they lack nuance to say anything of worth. No, "right wing" does not = extremist. Good GOD.

Stop strawmanning. — Christoffer

Not a single straw to be seen. You said something absurd. I gave you a reductio. Your bed, mate.

So a shor — Christoffer

It is beyond comprehension why you thought this paragraph would be relevant. It is pure prevarication and an attempt to insult.

You've made no substantial counter-argument here, neither understood my point at all — Christoffer

That is one way to avoid engaging with anything, whatsoever. Feel free, i guess.

So you clearly don't know what I'm talking about? — Christoffer

I know exactly what you're talking about. If you didn't understand what I said, that's fine. Its easier to say that than make it patently obvious you'd rather whistle dixie.

Exactly, I've never said that absolutism isn't "a thing", but that it's so corruptable as an ideal that it basically always lead to manipulatory rhetoric used by the most extreme. — Christoffer

But that is patently untrue. So, it doesn't really matter. I got that this was your point, and that is what I responded to. It is absolutely nothing but a fear of a small sliver of hte 'other side's mental state. Which is what i said (in briefer terms). Nothing about "free speech absolutism" gives us what you want it to.

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish. — NOS4A2

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing. — Janus

Have you ever been incited? If not, then is that not evidence that saying words does not necessarily incite others? Could it not be possible that those that are incited already have hate within them and are looking for any excuse to unleash it?

No, it doesn't. It just proves that you think racism is a catch-all for any kind of specialized discrimination. — AmadeusD

What are you talking about? I used an example to demonstrate the difference between hate speech rhetoric and valid criticism of Islam. On both the side of Islamic extremism and the side of right-wing extremism, they take advantage of this societal confusion to gather more supporters for their causes.

Not the people you are so badly trying to demonize for reasons unknown *yes, extremists exist. Yes, largely they lack nuance to say anything of worth. No, "right wing" does not = extremist. Good GOD. — AmadeusD

Who am I demonizing? Who are you so desperate to defend here? You just sound so confused and your extreme inability to understand the philosophical points I'm talking about makes you drive the whole topic off road.

Not a single straw to be seen. You said something absurd. I gave you a reductio. Your bed, mate. — AmadeusD

Your reductio, "yeah, Hitler loved dogs", as an answer to me mentioning the well-documented use of free speech absolutism by extreme groups, is the strawman since there's no "absurdum" it leads to. The risks of freedom of speech absolutism that Popper and others have been making arguments about is not an reductio argument just because you feel triggered by it.

And stop with the childish tone of language. No on thinks you're cool.

It is beyond comprehension why you thought this paragraph would be relevant. It is pure prevarication and an attempt to insult. — AmadeusD

No, it is relevant, just look at the tone and way you're arguing. It's not befitting of the standards of this forum. You don't argue in honesty or you don't care to grasp the points being made before charging in to attack. You're the one who's constantly acting like an asshole and then you try to play an innocent victim when people get fed up with that tone. It's childish.

That is one way to avoid engaging with anything, whatsoever. Feel free, i guess. — AmadeusD

What is your substantial counter-argument? All you do are these short-burst arrogant twitter-esque answers. Vague, angry, arrogant attempts to combat an argument with writing that in anyone else's eyes just looks like confused misunderstandings of what is being discussed. I can't make any substantial counter-arguments to your counter-arguments if there are non being made on your side. You're failing at basic philosophical discourse here while sitting on a high horse trying to bully your way forward. You think I haven't seen this type of rhetorical behavior before?

I know exactly what you're talking about. If you didn't understand what I said, that's fine.. — AmadeusD

Again, you're just saying that you understand, without actually demonstrating it, and then trying to turn that around into me not understanding you, with the rhetorical weapon of "just saying so".

Its easier to say that than make it patently obvious you'd rather whistle dixie. — AmadeusD

In what possible way have I an overly optimistic view... and of what? What are you on about? You make so little sense in your attempts to sound edgy that I think you're getting lost in your own train of thought.

And did you even care to engage with the further reading material attached to that? The stuff that I've been talking about all this time?

But that is patently untrue. So, it doesn't really matter. I got that this was your point, and that is what I responded to. It is absolutely nothing but a fear of a small sliver of hte 'other side's mental state. Which is what i said (in briefer terms). Nothing about "free speech absolutism" gives us what you want it to. — AmadeusD

It's not untrue, what are you talking about? Free speech absolutism is exactly the thing that Popper and other's are referring to in their paradox of tolerance. And I agree with them that there is a tolerance paradox that needs to be overcome in society in order to sustain tolerance.

What's your argument in opposition to their argument? Just saying that it's untrue does not make it so... You need to get off your imaginary high horse and make your case for why its untrue, act like you're on a philosophy forum rather than some twitter brawl to sound edgy. You're not cool, you're not winning anything through it and no one takes you seriously if you act like this. If anything, it rather seems like you're defending extremism, which I hope is just the misunderstanding that happens because you're unable to actually make your case and formulate a counter-argument against Popper's concept.

Could it not be possible that those that are incited already have hate within them and are looking for any excuse to unleash it. — Harry Hindu

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash it? I don't think this logic holds.

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash them? I don't think this logic holds. — Christoffer

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Yes, yes, and yes. We need to revamp our education system, the way the media disseminates information and abolish political parties (group-think and group-hate).

And the poll is misleading. Free speech is NOT saying what you want to say without consequences because we ALL have the right to free speech - which INCLUDES disagreeing with what someone says.

You have the right to say what you want, but so does everyone else. This is the misconception about what free speech is. It is not "say what you want without consequences". It is the "the ability to disagree using logical alternatives and to question authority, not submit to it without question (being incited)".

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument. — Harry Hindu

You are not looking at how it is used. You are just looking at it's position when a state have become authoritarian. It's not the final state that has the problem with the tolerance paradox, it's the formation of such states:

The Germans’ ambivalent relationship to propaganda was also evident in politics: while the Weimar governments displayed uneasiness towards propaganda, the Nazi movement called for its unscrupulous use. In this way, the Nazis not only prepared for the destruction of democracy, but also stood for a different understanding of ‘Germanness’. — Benno Nietzel

- They used the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly change the perception of the population into a position that later restricted freedom of speech. This is at the heart of the tolerance Paradox, that an absolute tolerance leads to intolerance. And with the backing of psychological research over the course of the post-war period up until today, we can clearly see how people's perception is easily changed and having no guardrails on freedom of speech it opens up the doors to this intolerance establishing itself and easily spreading.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. — Harry Hindu

Not true, people can be shown facts and counter-arguments but will still oppose the rational if their conviction of the narrative they've been led to believe is strong enough. Just look at fanatical religion or any debate going on in the modern climate of debates online. Just look at anti-climate science beliefs; have you seen any of them change their mind because of logical, rational and sane scientific counter-arguments being showed to them?

You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives. — Harry Hindu

Alternative media is no better, it's even worse. While the state of the US media being awfully corrupted by billionaire influence, the alternative is not to abandon institutions which operate on journalistic ethics in favor of alternative sources of information, it's to champion neutral institutions who aren't owned by billionaire's influencing the content and information being broadcasted. And alternative media has even less visible "follow the money": https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election-influencers-youtube

Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking about here. To think that such voices have less of an agenda than legacy media is extremely naive to the point of being dangerous.

And the poll is misleading. Free speech is NOT saying what you want to say without consequences because we ALL have the right to free speech - which INCLUDES disagreeing with what someone says.

You have the right to say what you want, but so does everyone else. This is the misconception about what free speech is. It is not "say what you want without consequences". It is the "the ability to disagree with logical alternatives and to question authority, not submit to it without question (being incited)". — Harry Hindu

Or it's simply about the tolerance paradox. To foster a tolerant society that champions freedom of speech, there has to be limits to that freedom which does not tolerate speech that promotes intolerance.

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

The term “incite” comes from Latin, “incitare”, meaning “to put into rapid motion”. It’s a member of a class of words that has a literal beginning, explainable by physics, but gains a figurative sense over the course of its life they are used unscientifically and in superstitious cultures to explain how words can physically move people.

Another example would be to “stir”, which meant literally “to move”, as in stirring food with one’s hand.

Another one would be to “rouse”, which began as a technical hunting term for hawking, literally “to shake the feathers of the body”.

There is nothing wrong with speaking figuratively. But when figurative language is taken literally and is used to make literal acts illegal, that’s a problem. The fact remains: one cannot put into rapid motion, move, or shake the feathers of another’s body with words.

On both the side of Islamic extremism and the side of right-wing extremism, they take advantage of this societal confusion to gather more supporters for their causes — Christoffer

I understood what you were saying. I disagree, and think the reason you're saying this is disingenuous, whether that's actually your internal state or not. It comes across that way. Though, the point you're getting across is totally reasonable. To be more direct, what i am "talking about" is this, above.

Who are you so desperate to defend here? — Christoffer

Everyone who is thrown under the bus for a vague association with some group you (and many others - me included, don't get me wrong) have deemed unacceptable. I would, almost surely based on our exchanges, come under some similar description for you (if not, fine, that's what comes across in our exchanges, though).

You just sound so confused and your extreme inability to understand the philosophical points I'm talking about makes you drive the whole topic off road. — Christoffer

Well, if that's what you see it's what you see... I think perhaps she doth protest too much.

just because you feel triggered by it. — Christoffer

Quite frankly, you are not being a reasonable person using phrases like this, and the following line. "No one thinks you're cool" is honestly one of the most ridiculously childish things anyone has ever said to me on this forum.
The silliness of your position is writ large with the example I gave. Hitler loved dogs, therefore, we should probably demonize people who love dogs - is literally the exact same logical throughline as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist should be demonized because some number of them are POS's". Free speech isn't a dog, but it is as neutral, without some fear-driven qualification as to it's negative potential.

just look at the tone and way you're arguing. — Christoffer

Are you 'triggered'? ;)

You don't argue in honesty or you don't care to grasp the points being made before charging in to attack. — Christoffer

Yes, that's right. I dishonestly approach conversations by refusing to even read your posts before commenting. When I do comment, its pure luck that things I say i directly relevant and cause us to continue exchanging. Mhmm, Totally reasonable position.
You are just constantly attacking the person in these exchanges, so I don't care to shy from sarcasm.

short-burst — Christoffer

Are you referring to the thorough walls of text I consistently lay out in response to most exchanges I have here? Because this is utterly bullshit, my friend. Do a quick search of my posts... I get fed up with others sometimes, and so i become terse or curt. That is exactly how everyone in the world with a brain responds when things are going no where. I simply do not care what your moral assessment of me is. I would expect you to feel the same in reverse.

without actually demonstrating it — Christoffer

When you cannot read clearly, or understand what someone is saying, you will certainly fall back on claims such as this. Common. My posts speak for themselves, though.

attempts to sound edgy — Christoffer

This is in your head. I cannot possibly pretend to take this seriously.

anyone else's eyes — Christoffer

Your eyes, Christoffer. Yours. And I do not care about your assessment there, because in my eyes, you're doing exactly what you've charged me with. So be it..

Free speech absolutism is exactly the thing that Popper and other's are referring to in their paradox of tolerance. And I agree with them that there is a tolerance paradox that needs to be overcome in society in order to sustain tolerance. — Christoffer

I've responded to this. That you did not get it should have had you asking for clarification, not attacking me and devolving into an angry teenager because I didn't accept your views. You do know that your idols can be wrong, right? Like Popper is probably wrong here? LOL. I fully undertsand that you're taking those positions on board and feel they're correct. I do not. I have no idea how its even vaguely possible that you're having this breakdown in understanding given how direct I was on this point.

What's your argument in opposition to their argument? — Christoffer

"free speech absolutism" does not allow for the outcome you want it to. It is a fugazi of discourse about free speech that it leads to intolerance. It is patently untrue. Only force could do this. Free speech absolutism means no one has the ability to change society on their say-so (i.e using their "speech rights" as it were). The claim made by Popper et al... isn't reasonable in any way. it is a fear-driven expectation that might will overcome the right. But, an absolutely free society (speech-wise) does not have that door open becaues every opposition has the exact same rights.

if you could, perhaps (and not using Popper as your template) come up with an example where you think this could be relevant, I can get on with that. in the abstract, it is patently false.

it rather seems like you're defending extremism — Christoffer

Given I have out-right said that I'm not - at what point would you tell someone to piss off when they wilfully misrepresent you to support insane passages like this:

you're on a philosophy forum rather than some twitter brawl to sound edgy. You're not cool, you're not winning anything through it and no one takes you seriously — Christoffer

??? For me, it's getting very close. This has become an exercise in watching how badly I can be talked past. It is not interesting. So either dispense with the personal garbling in your response, or accept that you wont get replies.

Presenting etymologies and alternative words is not an argument. Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule?

Presenting etymologies and alternative words is not an argument.

The argument, which you dodged, is below the etymologies and alternative words. Avoiding the issue is not a counter argument; it’s a fallacy.

The point is that you're wrong. That is what incitement is, in the law.

No argument just synonyms. People can be spurred to action by another's words. If you want to deny that you are either stupid or dishonest.

No argument just synonyms. People can be spurred to action by another's words. If you want to deny that you are either stupid or dishonest.

There you go using another synonym. You’re incapable of showing cause and effect, hiding behind figurative language.

Spur, a spiked metal implement worn on the heel to goad a horse. No one is spurring another to do anything unless someone is using spurs on another.

You’re incapable of showing cause and effect, — NOS4A2

Mate, this is so bizarre.

There is a legal doctrine known as "If but for". This means that "if but for X, Y would not have happened". This applies to behaviours. "If but for your father's advice to beat the intruder to death with a candlestick, he would still be alive. Your culpability is therefore reduced" is one way this washes out.

If someone tells you there is a good reason to believe your wife is cheating on you, and you investigate - thus causing some other outcome negative to her (perhaps inadvertently running her off the road when you were under the impression its the other man's car), you were acting in good faith on the bad faith say-so of another. That is incitement. Actions which are rational in the face of certain advice are less culpable than those which are not rational. There are entire literatures on this..

Can you make it explicitly clear why you think this does not obtain?

P.S You'll love this passage, i'm sure:

Perhaps the causal connection from inciter to incitees shouldn’t be thought of as direct, having
only one link as it were: strong or weak. We might try to envision incitement as requiring a
complex causal connection with several steps. First, the inciter utters language intended to
cause certain beliefs and emotions in the incitees. (The inciter might but need not hold these
beliefs or experience these emotions.) Next, once the incitees accepts the beliefs and
experiences the emotions, this mental state causes the incitees to commit wrongful actions.
The recent example that seems to fit this model is that of former President Trump’s
impeachment for inciting the crime of insurrection. Trump addressed his supporters and
convinced them that his loss of the 2020 Presidential Election was actually a case of theft; his
audience accepted the belief that a Second Term Presidency was stolen from Trump. Trump
then used language intended to cause anger in his listeners that the election was stolen from
someone (Trump) they supported. Once their mental state was sufficiently strong, it caused his
listeners to act criminally: they violently attacked the Capitol Building trying to stop the Senate
process for officially making Biden US President

Can you make it explicitly clear why you think this does not obtain?

I’m not speaking about law. Law is often wrong. It’s punishable by death to practice sorcery in Saudi Arabia, for example. There are entire literatures on it.

I’m speaking about physics and biology. At least your link makes a decent attempt to square the circle. He says correctly that the incitee’s mental state causes him to commit the action. In other words, he causes himself to commit the action.

But for some reason he adds in another step, more magical thinking and figurative language: the inciter causes beliefs and emotions to arise in the incitee, completely removing the autonomy of the listener. The inciter causes that mental state. How? What’s the causal chain? Do the words swirl around in the head and push a bunch of buttons in the brain?

Sorry. Not good enough. The only cause and source of beliefs and emotions is the one who holds them.