• I like sushi
    4.9k
    It doe not matter what anyone thinks or believes. What you say and do has consequences.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    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:Christoffer
    I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state.

    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.Christoffer
    They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population. I guarantee that the idea of Fascism does not have solid logical ground to stand on when there is a level playing field governed by logic and reason.


    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?Christoffer
    Sigh. You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you. Like Vera Mont, you fail to put all the pieces together, even when they are all right there in one post - either because you lack the awareness or are being intellectually dishonest.

    I said that we need to revamp our education system and the way the media disseminates information, remember? - that part that you did not quote in your response to me, which just makes your response a straw-man? If you're going to respond then make sure you are taking into account everything I have said, or you're wasting your time typing. You are exhibiting those traits you are ranting about - being manipulated by your those in power to diminish the free speech right of others with illogical arguments. You are participating in the very thing you claim you are advocating against.

    Alternative media is no better, it's even worse.
    Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking
    about here.
    Christoffer
    Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time.


    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.Christoffer
    Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule?Janus
    I fail to see your point. Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?
  • Leontiskos
    4.2k


    A healthy body of law and regulation depends on moral realism, and in a culture where moral realism is waning the body of law becomes unhealthy. Like all natural rights, the right to speech requires moral realism. Nevertheless, because the value of speech is more perspicacious than most values, it is easier for the moral non-realist or the morally non-realistic culture to support the right to speech. In the case of speech it is easier for the moral non-realist to have his cake and eat it too.

    When you have a culture that tends towards moral non-realism, free speech absolutism becomes more intuitive (i.e. the idea that there are no values which compete with speech becomes more intuitive). Even so, this merely a stage in a destabilizing process, for the moral non-realist can’t actually justify the value of speech in any significant way, and those who wish to oppose speech absolutism also have no sound arguments to hand, deprived as they are of moral realism. So it becomes the culture of Thrasymachus or Nietzsche, where the power of might makes right. You can actually see this same thing in my thread, “Beyond the Pale,” where the majority of participants said that there simply is no rational justification for prohibiting things like racism (or in this case, racist speech).
  • AmadeusD
    3.1k
    In other words, he causes himself to commit the action.NOS4A2

    Then you're simply ignoring the other half, given your objection below this is entirely hollow.

    completely removing the autonomy of the listenerNOS4A2

    That is, roughly, the point. We do this with mentally incapacitated people. What's the difference in your eyes?

    Do the words swirl around in the head and push a bunch of buttons in the brain?NOS4A2

    All stimuli do. Words are stimuli. This is obvious biological fact.

    The only cause and source of beliefs and emotions is the one who holds them.NOS4A2

    Then I guess you can just choose to never be angry, upset, pining or any other uncomfortable emotion then. Nice.
  • AmadeusD
    3.1k
    A healthy body of law and regulation depends on moral realism, and in a culture where moral realism is waning the body of law becomes unhealthy.Leontiskos

    Not so, and there's no good evidence for it.
  • Leontiskos
    4.2k
    Not so, and there's no good evidence for it.AmadeusD

    That's a good example of a complete non-argument.
  • AmadeusD
    3.1k
    So was the quoted passage from yourself :)
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    Then you're simply ignoring the other half, given your objection below this is entirely hollow.

    What other half would that be?

    That is, roughly, the point. We do this with mentally incapacitated people. What's the difference in your eyes?

    One is mentally incapacitated, the other is not.

    All stimuli do. Words are stimuli. This is obvious biological fact.

    All soundwaves are stimuli. Soundwaves stimulate the ear drum, and that’s about where their work ends. It is the listener who tranduces that stimuli into other forms of energy for the purposes of listening, understanding, etc.

    Then I guess you can just choose to never be angry, upset, pining or any other uncomfortable emotion then. Nice.

    I’m human. But human emotion begins and ends in the human being, with his biology—genetics, brain chemistry, hormones, blood pressure etc.—being the direct cause.

    I understand I’m stubborn on this issue, so thanks for putting up with it and giving me a fair shake.
  • Michael
    15.9k
    @NOS4A2

    If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction?

    Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money.

    Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful.
  • Samlw
    62
    corChristoffer

    They later revealed the information legally once he had been convicted.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction?Michael
    Biden would not be impeached because he spoke, but because he acted in ways that are unconstitutional.

    Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money.Michael
    You would be punished for conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime of action, not speech.

    How about this example:
    If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance?

    It seems you are confusing actions with speech.

    Let me ask you this: Is it always the case that when violence occurs and the suspect points to another person and says, "But he told me to do it!", that the person they are pointing is guilty of some crime? If not, explain to me the process you would determine the other's guilt at the expense of the one that actually committed violent acts.

    Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful.Michael
    It only persuades the weak-minded and uninformed, which is not a problem of an abundance of free speech, but a lack of it - a problem of how we educate citizens and how the media disseminates information.
  • Michael
    15.9k
    It seems you are confusing actions with speech.Harry Hindu

    How do you distinguish between action and speech in the cases mentioned?

    Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General.

    I'm not physically placing a gun in John Smith's hand and pulling the trigger; I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him.
  • Samlw
    62
    How about this example:
    If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance?
    Harry Hindu

    This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives.

    A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't?

    I would like to see how you answer this because of what you said:
    It seems you are confusing actions with speech.Harry Hindu
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    I think they’re guilty of doing what you described, but for different reasons. Speaking or instructing is not the criminal act and the reasons those acts are evil.

    The officer’s who carry out arrests due to a superior’s orders have to obey or face repercussion. It’s that dynamic, not the words, that convinces him to follow those orders. The superior ought not to abuse that power and the officer ought not to follow those orders. If I were to try to persuade or convince or encourage the officers to arrest my political opponents using the exact same instructions, but without the power to threaten his employment, the officer wouldn’t listen to me and would probably laugh in my face. Exact same words and instructions, but two different results. Why? Because It’s not the words or the fact of speaking that convinces an officer to follow such orders.

    Hiring someone to kill your wife in exchange for cash has a similar component. If you made the exact same request but didn’t exchange any cash, the contract killer wouldn’t kill. The exact same request, but one does not convince. Why? The exchange of money, not the request, is the reason a contract killer would kill your wife.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General.Michael
    I'm pretty sure there would be much more involved than just making sounds with his mouth.

    Besides, this misses the point that what you are describing actually a lack of free speech, where a dictator tells people what to do and no one is allowed to question the orders.

    I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him.Michael
    Again, there is more involved than just making sounds with your mouth. You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.

    This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives.Samlw
    You missed the point entirely. I never said they should go to jail for smoking it. I was asking if the one telling them to smoke it should go to jail or not?

    It seems to me that throwing people in jail for saying things ruins peoples lives.


    A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't?Samlw
    What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?

    What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said.

    It is illogical to define free speech as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", as free speech includes the rights of others to say what they want, which could be disagreeing with and criticizing what another says, which are repercussions to what one has said. So in a free society that values free speech - EVERYONE has the right, not just a select few (as that is the antithesis of free speech), to speak their mind, which includes questioning authority and criticizing and questioning what others have said.
  • Samlw
    62
    What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?Harry Hindu

    In no way am I saying that and you know that. Such a non-argument.

    What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said.Harry Hindu

    The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"?

    Your answer will probably be nonsensical in your efforts to defend predators right's to groom children along as they don't do anything with it.
  • Michael
    15.9k
    Hiring someone to kill your wife in exchange for cash has a similar component. If you made the exact same request but didn’t exchange any cash, the contract killer wouldn’t kill. The exact same request, but one does not convince. Why? The exchange of money, not the request, is the reason a contract killer would kill your wife.NOS4A2

    There's not always the exchange of money, it might only be the promise of money, and surely a promise is just a speech-act? But there might not even be a promise; there might simply be a request of one friend to another. If I beg John to kill my wife, and he does, ought I be punished?

    The officer’s who carry out arrests due to a superior’s orders have to obey or face repercussion. It’s that dynamic, not the words, that convinces him to follow those orders.NOS4A2

    You question the physics of my words inciting you to commit a crime but don't question the physics of some nebulous "dynamic" between me and you inciting you to commit a crime? That doesn't seem very consistent.

    Surely if your fear of being punished by me "compels" you to commit a crime then that's entirely the responsibility of you and your psychology?
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"?Samlw
    Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.

    If you have another example then give it. It seems that this is all you have - some nebulous example that can be construed as both action and speech, or speech over weeks, and I'm sure grooming involves more than just saying words.

    I'm waiting on an example that shows a clear distinction between action and speaking where the speaking is clearly the cause of the violent act of another. There isn't one.

    So, you can ignore my main point all you want, but that is a response all in itself.
  • Michael
    15.9k
    You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.Harry Hindu

    Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my involvement in the (conspiray to) murder?
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my wife's murder?Michael
    Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

    Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech.
  • NOS4A2
    9.7k


    There's not always the exchange of money, it might only be the promise of money, and surely a promise is just a speech-act? But there might not even be a promise; there might simply be a request of one friend to another. If I beg John to kill my wife, and he does, ought I be punished?

    No, I do not think you ought to be punished in this instance because you made no obligation to John and did not help him with the planning or execution of the act.

    You question the physics of my words inciting you to commit a crime but don't question the physics of some nebulous "dynamic" between me and you inciting you to commit a crime? That doesn't seem very consistent.

    Surely if your fear of being punished by me "compels" you to commit a crime then that's entirely the responsibility of you and your psychology.

    In my defense it’s difficult to explain. By “dynamic” I mean hierarchical relationship with expectations.

    Absolutely if my fear of being punished compels me to commit the crime, then that is my responsibility—I could have done otherwise— but you are guilty of something like abusing your position. The point is, other reasons besides the speech and act of speaking convinces one to commit the crime.
  • Samlw
    62


    I have just given you an exact example and then you go, "no that doesn't count name another one"?

    Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.Harry Hindu

    This is an extremely ignorant view. An intelligent adult would be able to groom your 8 year old child no matter how you much you are going to inform them. Can I also ask what your young child will know about that will be able to protect your child from being groomed, because it is all good telling them don't go in a van but what else are children going to absorb that will prevent this? Please elaborate because I am genuinely curios.

    Plus, that is entirely irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. Just because YOUR kids may not be the victims of grooming, what about the actual victims? are they considered miss-informed?

    "Yeah sorry you got groomed. Next time, make sure to confront the perpetrator and get more informed" Would this be your advice? Victim blaming 101.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k
    Still hiding behind straw-men. Answer the question you keep ignoring.
  • Michael
    15.9k
    Absolutely if my fear of being punished compels me to commit the crime, then that is my responsibility—I could have done otherwise— but you are guilty of something like abusing your position.NOS4A2

    How have I abused my position? You obeyed, so I didn't punish you, and I might not have even threatened to punish you for disobeying. The only thing I've done is uttered the phrase "throw Trump in prison". You may (correctly or incorrectly) believe that you would be punished for disobeying, but I haven't done or said anything to that effect.

    So this doesn't work unless you want to say that, by virtue of my position, the very utterance "throw Trump in prison" is the abuse of power and ought be punished, in which case you accept the principle that some speech acts ought be restricted, even if the restriction depends both on content and the relative "positions" of the speaker and the audience (whereas others might think that content alone is sufficient).
  • Christoffer
    2.4k
    I understood what you were saying. I disagreeAmadeusD

    You are disagreeing with something that's been reported on and dissected for a long time. You're not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Popper and you have to make an actual counter-argument. This is not a forum where you just say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

    and think the reason you're saying this is disingenuousAmadeusD

    What about this is disingenuous? It's an observation of society through the lens of Popper's stated paradox of tolerance.

    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).AmadeusD

    What are you talking about? You seem so triggered by the philosophical discourse around free speech that you are unable to argue outside of whatever group you, yourself, has attached yourself to. It's not any of us who've put you in some group, it's you and then you're operating on some anger against others that for us makes no sense, especially not within the context of a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is about the ability to argue outside of such biases and if you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance when involved in a discussion like this, then maybe you should take an introspective breath and ask yourself if you're the one putting people and concepts in simplified boxes rather than other people.

    From what I can interpret, you seem to have positioned yourself as a free speech absolutist and you're defending that position not with philosophical arguments, but with arrogance and hostility.

    The fact is that Popper and other philosophers of his time recognized through what happened in 1930s Germany, freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand. It was part of a powerful toolset of reprogramming a population's core beliefs and it's still a powerful tool today when the way its used isn't recognized.

    So when we speak about freedom of speech absolutism, its history and the philosophy around that subject, that's not an attack on your personal beliefs, it's a deconstruction of the subject. When you lash out in the way you do, that just perfectly shows us the cognitive dissonance at play. The inability to form a proper argument, the constant emotional, arrogant and childish bully-speak... how can anyone take you seriously when that's the level you operate on? If you're unable to form an actual argument and just attack, you're shown you are unable to discuss this topic further and only operate on the low-quality level that this forum have rules against.

    Act like an adult or be treated like a child.

    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.AmadeusD

    You're just continuing the "you too" rhetoric that children uses. If someone recognizes your behavior as childish, you simply say that back believing you've leveled the playing field. When I say "no one thinks you're cool" it simply means that your style of writing seems to revolve around compensating the lack of an actual argument with snark irreverant comments to try and disguise its obvious argumentum ad lapidems and it comes off as sounding like someone desperately trying to sound cool to mask this inability to actually engage with the philosophical discussion.

    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"AmadeusD

    That's your strawman right there. Can you see it? Can you see the fallacy you're making in your reasoning that is the foundation of all your quick emotional remarks? - The inability to understand that when I say that free speech absolutism is used by extremist groups to move goal posts and radicalize people; the same observation Popper made in the 40s, that's not in your strawman simplification the same as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist".

    What is telling about all this, is that the way you defend your position is in such a loaded political form that you're not doing philosophy here, you're lashing out a personal belief, an evangelical defense of that belief rather than an examination of what the absolute state of free speech means. This kind of evangelical behavior is also not allowed on this forum. Strawmanning and changing other's arguments in order to make evangelical defenses of your beliefs is not philosophy and belongs in the cesspool of other internet debates that does not have the stricter rules this forum has to cut out that low quality writing.

    Are you 'triggered'? ;)AmadeusD

    No, I'm not, I'm simply observing someone with a bully mentality trying to make some personal win for his beliefs rather than engage the topic in a philosophical way, and not recognizing how futile this behavior is and how the thin veil of this tough guy attitude is transparent for anyone.

    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.
    AmadeusD

    But you're not though. You've not ever once engaged with the actual argument on free speech absolutism. You've evangelically defended your beliefs, without even attempting to address Popper's tolerance paradox in any meaningful way. That's what I mean with you not engaging with the topic in honesty. And this continued sarcasm just continues to prove my point about your dishonest engagement in the topic. You're not here to discuss it, you're here to defend your personal belief and through an obnoxiously silly and childish behavior avoid any criticism. Again, what are you attempting to do here?

    Are you referring to the thorough walls of text I consistently lay out in response to most exchanges I have here?AmadeusD

    You've not engaged in what I said with philosophical scrutiny, you've lashed out with a strawman simplification and downright inability to understand what I wrote, some emotionally triggered defense that you're just escalating over and over and then try to point out, "no, I'm actually writing good long arguments". Saying something is not the same as actually doing it and you've not once engaged with the core of my argument, you avoid it like a plague and continue with your short-burst snark attempts at edgy counters. It's actually like talking to a child.

    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.AmadeusD

    You are on a philosophy forum, with clear rules of engagement. It's meant to keep the people away who "get fed up with others sometimes" because that's not the level a philosophical discussion should be operating on. If you don't understand where you are, and what the rules of conduct is, then that's on you. Grown-ups are able to control their emotions, especially in places that try to focus on intellectual discourse.

    It's not a moral observation, it's an observation of someone failing at the very thing this forum is about. It's you who have decided that things go nowhere, yet you've not gone in the direction of the argument I've made, you've invented your own situation in which things go nowhere in order to try and back up not having to engage with the direction a discussion is actually going.

    This avoidance behavior informs that you've hit a wall or can't engage with the discussion honestly, not because you can't, but because the cognitive dissonance it triggers puts you in the fear of having to examine your core beliefs. But doing actual philosophy is to always examine and question your core beliefs. If you're not up for it, go to Twitter or similar channels where beliefs are shouted into the void. In here you can't interpret a criticism of something you believe in as some attack on you personally and then expect to be in the right by trying to bully that criticism away.

    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.AmadeusD

    Again, you're trying to just flip the criticism you get back at where the criticism came from. It goes nowhere for you. This kind of behavior just leads to eye rolls as it's an obvious attempt to psychologically win an argument. But it doesn't work on people who've seen this stuff a million times before. It's almost a form of easily recognized rhetorical archetype behavior. And your posts speak for themselves in that emptiness, that's true.

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

    I don't think so, I think you genuinely believe that this bully behavior of yours works as a defense, but it doesn't. It just informs on what level you operate in philosophical scrutiny.

    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..AmadeusD

    Again, you try to flip things around. It's a constant and repeating pattern that just repeats the same empty point over and over. And what I mean by "us" is that you've been criticized for this before, not just in this discussion with me. So yes, more eyes than mine and the way you are being criticized is not in the way you operate. If I deconstruct your rhetoric and behavior, that's not the same as conducting that behavior. I'm doing this in order to push you into making an actual argument rather than continue down this path of low-quality writing that you constantly continue with. But I'm starting to see that you are unable to, since you've demonstrated very little effort to attempt any philosophical scrutiny. Even after constantly being asked for an actual counter argument, you continue to avoid doing so. The proof is in that pudding of your rhetoric.

    I've responded to this.AmadeusD

    You have not. Where can I see this argument in opposition of Popper's tolerance paradox for which I've been talking about as the core premise of what I wrote? Stop saying that you have done so and actually show it? Where is it?

    That you did not get it should have had you asking for clarificationAmadeusD

    If you are vague and unclear and being asked to clarify, that's what you should do. This is not a place for you to make plaque statements of your beliefs or anything like that. Again, you don't understand what philosophy is about. This kind of rhetoric is exactly the subliminal "you're too stupid to understand my point" that people who want to avoid a deconstruction of their beliefs make as a form of defense in order to avoid that introspection. You've not made any counter arguments at all and if asked to clarify you should do so on a forum like this, not behave like this is your personal place to shout your beliefs.

    not attacking me and devolving into an angry teenager because I didn't accept your views.AmadeusD

    Again, trying to flip around who's doing what here. You get criticized for acting like a child and then you try to swing that same criticism back. These are such obvious rhetorical tactics that it's getting old. You lashed out with a strawman interpretation of my argument, gets called out for it and then starts to behave like a child would do, trying to bully yourself into respect and when that doesn't work, trying to blame others of doing what you are doing. It's this behavior that is childish, because this is how children acts when emotionally pushed. And you're only indirectly pushed because your core beliefs are criticized within the topic of this thread, leading to a cognitive dissonance triggering this behavior. So you fail at engaging with the topic philosophically, and instead falling back on a rhetoric more fitting of Twitter than this forum.

    You do know that your idols can be wrong, right? Like Popper is probably wrong here? LOL.AmadeusD

    Here you go again, saying something without demonstrating anything. You've not addressed why he is wrong, you're just "LOL"-ing your way out of it... like a child.

    Why is he wrong, what's your actual counter argument? How many times do I have to ask you to make a proper argument? It's this simple thing that makes all your avoidance behavior and bullying attempts echo empty.

    I fully undertsand that you're taking those positions on board and feel they're correct.AmadeusD

    Again, here you try to flip things around. You're the one who's behavior out of some core belief because you're not explaining your philosophical argument, you're just in a desperate defensive mode. You're talking about yourself and that's not me saying it, it's the very fact that you avoid making actual counter arguments to the philosophical argument and then just demand to be taken seriously by force.

    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.AmadeusD

    Can you point to your counter argument of the tolerance paradox? Other than you just saying "there's no paradox" without any further reference to what that means in opposition to Popper's arguments? You're failing philosophy so bad here that I wonder, why are you even on this forum if you can't engage with these topics honestly?

    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:AmadeusD

    So what is it that you are defending really? You are obviously arguing for freedom of speech absolutism, so why are you evangelically promoting it without engaging honestly with the criticism of it? You're rhetorically behaving in the very same way as extremists do when championing freedom of speech absolutism and you're not proving to be otherwise.

    If you actually had an argument that engages with the problems of that ideal in an honest and philosophical way, there would be no problem, but when you behave and argue in the same hostile way around this topic as those who use freedom of speech absolutism for their own agendas, then what should people think of you and your way of arguing?

    Prove you understand the topic, prove that you can argue for freedom of speech absolutism instead of this constant low-quality bully behavior. No one cares about your beliefs and convictions if you can't make a true philosophical argument for it and address the issues raised with it. Do philosophy please, or why should we bother even talking to you otherwise?

    ??? 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.AmadeusD

    Is it "personal" to ask you to behave in line with what this forum is about instead of behaving like a child trying to bully himself to winning an argument?

    It's your attitude that spawns the criticism of your behavior. Do you see me engaging with any other in the same manner? No, because they can discuss the topic on the philosophical level appropriate. Maybe you should ask that question instead, why do you get this deconstruction of your behavior and not others? And the reason why I take time to write all this? I don't like bullies and I especially don't like them infecting philosophical discussions.
  • Christoffer
    2.4k
    And since this is the closest you got to an actual argument, I separated it into this as I've said enough about your behavior in the discussion. I will not engage in that discussion anymore since that's not on topic.

    ---

    "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.AmadeusD

    "Patently untrue" is a rather strong wording for something that literally happened:

    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’.

    ...and which was the thing that spawned the idea behind the tolerance paradox.

    Your strong opposition here leads to a question which answer would form a better context of your opposition; do you not believe that people, a group, can be changed into a new belief through rhetorical means? If such belief can be changed through rhetorical manipulation, do you then consider the way the Nazi's used this unscrupulous use of propaganda and redefinitions of "Germanness" to be of such rhetorical power to radicalize?

    And, if so, does that not lead to a tolerance paradox in which the absoluteness enables such use of rhetorical means to radicalize a people until it's not absolute anymore, but restricted by the rules set by the manipulators? I.e absolute tolerance leading to intolerance.

    How is this "pantently untrue", you've not demonstrated any valid counter argument to it outside of that remark.

    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.AmadeusD

    Do you think that society is operated by a population of people, or by a system that isn't able to be changed by that population? You describe a system, an ideal system, a form of utopian conditions that we've already in history seen easily transformed from such freedoms to no such freedoms, through the means that those freedoms grants individuals to change society.

    Society is an ever-changing entity, with guardrails through laws, regulations and culture that define in what ways and what paths it can change. If we have numerous examples of how a population can be psychologically manipulated into beliefs that roll out the carpet for an intolerant society, then absolute freedom of speech is an ideal that does not function to guardrail a free society.

    That is the core of the tolerance paradox. It's not out of fear, it's out of historical observation and understanding of group psychology. You can't ignore those aspects.

    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.AmadeusD

    I did, with how the Nazis changed the definitions of Germanness and culture by championing free speech absolutism to enable their manipulation of the population through propaganda that eroded the freedom of speech down to controlled speech based on what the Nazis decided to be allowed, changing the perception of the population into agreeing with that limitation on freedom of speech.

    This way of using the idea of championing something good, like freedom of speech, in order to position themselves in opposition of the bad (those who wanted to limit certain speech that promoted the Nazis worldviews) weaponized freedom of speech absolutism in order to form the perception of the Nazis as being champions for good against those who "tried to silence them", while using the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly radicalize the people in a way that any critic would be polarized into being an enemy of the "good side".

    This is the path that the tolerance paradox is talking about. That freedom of speech absolutism is an utopian ideal that ignores that over time there will be those who can take advantage of it to begin radicalizing people in a way that is hard to combat as the very nature of its absolute state makes any critics who tries to stop such radicalization an enemy of freedom of speech rather than combating the radicalization of the people.

    Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.Tolerance Paradox

    Since we have both historical examples and psychological research on radicalization, you need to include that when arguing that the tolerance paradox is untrue. It's not untrue just because you say so, that's a weak and invalid argument.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.4k

    Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?Harry Hindu
    If so, then how do you reconcile that with the notion that free speech is also :
    You can say ANYTHING with no repercussionsSamlw

    Wouldn't disagreeing, questioning, and criticizing what was said qualify as repercussions?

    All the examples you and others have given are basically begging the question that free speech entails "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", while forgetting free speech is the capacity to question authority and disagree with what is said.
  • Samlw
    62


    These are two different things. You can have the ability to question authority and disagree with others AND also face repercussions when you are completely out of line. This is why I outlined a restrictive point of view and a Absolutist point of view.

    Whilst people disagreeing and questioning is technically a repercussion, I would consider it more of people exercising their rights as much as you,(and if you are an absolutist you would also agree). I would also not put it on the same level as jail time / community service.

    So whilst I understand how it may come across as contradictory if you look at it at face value, I think you have to accept that people disagreeing is going to be a fundamental certainty but it should not mean that you can be extreme or push hatred.

    Now that I have answered yours, please respond properly to my previous post:
    ↪Harry Hindu

    I have just given you an exact example and then you go, "no that doesn't count name another one"?

    Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.
    — Harry Hindu

    This is an extremely ignorant view. An intelligent adult would be able to groom your 8 year old child no matter how you much you are going to inform them. Can I also ask what your young child will know about that will be able to protect your child from being groomed, because it is all good telling them don't go in a van but what else are children going to absorb that will prevent this? Please elaborate because I am genuinely curios.

    Plus, that is entirely irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. Just because YOUR kids may not be the victims of grooming, what about the actual victims? are they considered miss-informed?

    "Yeah sorry you got groomed. Next time, make sure to confront the perpetrator and get more informed" Would this be your advice? Victim blaming 101.
    Samlw
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.