Emory U. Students Feel Unsafe - Trump 2016 sidewalk chalk

[Forty Two]

Dude - "what an individual let's pass without standing up to stop what they consider evil..." has nothing to do with "free speech." You and everyone else, including fascists and authoritarians, have the right to stand up and try to stop what they consider to be evil (as long as they don't assault, batter, push, shove, rush stages to attack, pick fights, spit on people, etc, which is criminal behavior).

Dude, you are missing the point. "Standing up to stop.." includes assault, batter, push, shove etc etc. I'd love to see you naively protesting people assaulting Hitler because 'But but free speech, dudes!'

It's easy to refer to Hitler, because we see him as the Chancellor of Germany, engaged in genocide. That's when he's the government, and when he's assaulting, battering, murdering, kidnapping, etc. - if all he ever did was spout hateful comments about Jews, then, indeed, he has free speech, just like Louis Farrakhan and various Muslim Imams. Hitler, as in, someone espousing antisemitic ideas, advocating racist or fascistic viewpoints, that person does have free speech, and is just as entitled as you or me to be free from assault and battery.

See this is what I mean by ideological and naive. It's HITLER, ffs. In the real world, bad people exist, and politely debating with them is patently idiotic. Sometime it requires more than just a counter-argument.

Yours is like the dopey argument about using torture -- what if the torture would get information to stop a nuclear attack. Hitler is dead. He killed millions of people and he was the government. When you say Hitler, I read "someone espousing Hitler's views" -- like neonazis and stormfags and the like.

And, I never argued that person X should be able to stand up and say whatever because free speech is inherently good. Obviously, people can say bad things - things which in my opinion, or your opinion,are bad. But, our fucking opinions don't impact the right of the other person to ALSO express their opinion.

Why is this so hard? What is it that you aren't getting?

You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.

No, I never said fuck-all about "inherently good." Good and bad have nothing to do with it, as they are just fucking figments of the imagination. They are value judgments. One person thinks it's "good" to allow Social Justice Warriors to speak their bullshit, but others think it's "bad." One person thinks it's "good" to allow Trump to speak his bullshit, and others think it's "bad." The goodness of speech, or the goodness of allowing speech, is all a matter of opinion, and it may or may not be good or bad.

The reason equal "allowance" of speech (without interference from the State, and without physical or threatened interference from private actors) should exist is that each individual person ought to be treated equally under the law.

This is a non-sequitur. I never said people shouldn't be treated equally under the law.

You said Hitler shouldn't be treated under the law. You said he wouldn't have free speech. Everyone else does.

And besides, why should people be treated equally under the law? Because you believe that is an inherent good.

No, because it makes sense, because there is no reason why you would be entitled to more favorable treatment than me.

To have a different assumption allows you or me to be the ones who are afforded less of an allowance than others. You assume that it will be the ones you consider nasty, but that is not in the least guaranteed, and history suggests that it s not even the norm that the nice guys are the ones allowed to speak, and only the mean guys are limited. It may start out that way, but the results down the line are never good.

Strawman. I never made that assumption, and I don't now. You need to concentrate harder on the points in this debate.

Well you don't want fascists to be allowed, so they are afforded less of an allowance.

So, don't go telling me what to argue. I never said anything about "inherently good," and that's your straw man. Suggesting that a fascist "of course" has as much a right to speak as a communist or a monarchist is not a suggestion that there is inherent goodness in allowing them to speak. The reason it's "of course" is that whether you think an idea is bad and should be prohibited is just another opinion of yours, and across the population there will be varied viewpoints on what should and should not be prohibited.

That paragraph contains is a non-sequitur with itself. What does "varied viewpoints" have to do with whether everyone should be afforded free speech? The two are unrelated. Unless, of course, you believe that equality of the right to speech (like you do with the law) is inherently good, as I explained above.

I don't say it's inherently good. Fuck off.

The political winds may be that Trump should not have free speech today, and Revolutionist tomorrow. However, the concept of free speech is to remove it from the vicissitudes of public opinion -- truth is not determined by popular vote, and even if 99% of people think something is false or evil today, it may not be tomorrow. Look at sodomy -- ask someone in the 19th century if sodomy was good, and you'd likely get a negative answer. it was a crime punishable by death. Should it have been "free speech" to advocate in favor of criminal behavior then? Those protesters would be advocating in favor of breaking the law! What about marijuana and cocaine? Is it free speech to say that doing these drugs can be good, and that they should be legal, and that people should do them?

This is all straw. It has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am not arguing for the State to ad hoc limit free speech.

Effectively you are, because you've advanced no other way to know who gets and who doesn't get free speech, other than arbitrarily designating someone a fascist.

It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. As John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important–in fact, it would become even more important–that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. Rosa Luxemburg said the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.

Check out Milton's Aeropagitica -- http://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm

As Thomas Paine wrote in his introduction to the seminal work "Age of Reason,"

TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm

And, check out John Stuart Mill's On Liberty - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34 ... 4901-h.htm

This is all just ideology. You aren't doing your argument any good by referring to subjective ideology in an objective way. You are making my point for me.

No, I'm giving you arguments.

You just hand-wave, and have zero argument yourself. You "just believe" some people shouldn't have free speech, because they're bad.

But, do go on to justify why someone who is a fascist or large scale whatevers should not be permitted to speak their mind as much as you, or "small scale" whatevers. LOL. I love love love, that weasel term you stuck in there. You wanted to make sure the social justice regressive left keeps their right to free speech, because they're just small scale.... those are the good intolerants - they're intolerant of the stuff you think is good to be intolerant about.

You really need to start paying attention. I haven't said anything about the left or right in general. My only point has been concerning fascists and authoritarians (the latter of which can exist on the left), and hate speech in general.

A good start would be to stop LOLing.

only "large scale" authoritarians....right?

And, I'll stop LOLing when you stop talking nonsense.

[pErvinalia]

Dude - "what an individual let's pass without standing up to stop what they consider evil..." has nothing to do with "free speech." You and everyone else, including fascists and authoritarians, have the right to stand up and try to stop what they consider to be evil (as long as they don't assault, batter, push, shove, rush stages to attack, pick fights, spit on people, etc, which is criminal behavior).

Dude, you are missing the point. "Standing up to stop.." includes assault, batter, push, shove etc etc. I'd love to see you naively protesting people assaulting Hitler because 'But but free speech, dudes!'

It's easy to refer to Hitler, because we see him as the Chancellor of Germany, engaged in genocide. That's when he's the government, and when he's assaulting, battering, murdering, kidnapping, etc. - if all he ever did was spout hateful comments about Jews, then, indeed, he has free speech, just like Louis Farrakhan and various Muslim Imams. Hitler, as in, someone espousing antisemitic ideas, advocating racist or fascistic viewpoints, that person does have free speech, and is just as entitled as you or me to be free from assault and battery.

See this is what I mean by ideological and naive. It's HITLER, ffs. In the real world, bad people exist, and politely debating with them is patently idiotic. Sometime it requires more than just a counter-argument.

Yours is like the dopey argument about using torture -- what if the torture would get information to stop a nuclear attack.

That's actually a perfectly valid philosophical question. It's so far from dopey, it's no wonder you can't see it. If you knew torture could stop 50 people from dying, would you do it? 500 people? 500,000 people? 50 million people?

Hitler is dead. He killed millions of people and he was the government. When you say Hitler, I read "someone espousing Hitler's views" -- like neonazis and stormfags and the like.

It makes no difference. Anyone espousing Hitler's views is a dangerous person and debating politely with them is simply naive.

And, I never argued that person X should be able to stand up and say whatever because free speech is inherently good. Obviously, people can say bad things - things which in my opinion, or your opinion,are bad. But, our fucking opinions don't impact the right of the other person to ALSO express their opinion.

Why is this so hard? What is it that you aren't getting?

You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.

No, I never said fuck-all about "inherently good." Good and bad have nothing to do with it, as they are just fucking figments of the imagination. They are value judgments. One person thinks it's "good" to allow Social Justice Warriors to speak their bullshit, but others think it's "bad." One person thinks it's "good" to allow Trump to speak his bullshit, and others think it's "bad." The goodness of speech, or the goodness of allowing speech, is all a matter of opinion, and it may or may not be good or bad.

The reason equal "allowance" of speech (without interference from the State, and without physical or threatened interference from private actors) should exist is that each individual person ought to be treated equally under the law.

This is a non-sequitur. I never said people shouldn't be treated equally under the law.

You said Hitler shouldn't be treated under the law.

Unmittigated bullshit.

You said he wouldn't have free speech. Everyone else does.

That says absolutely nothing about the law. I've made it abundantly clear I am not talking about the State. I am talking about individual responsibility. I don't know how many more times I can say it. You've got one particular idea stuck in your head, but it's the wrong idea and you need to drop it and actually start following what I am saying.

And besides, why should people be treated equally under the law? Because you believe that is an inherent good.

No, because it makes sense, because there is no reason why you would be entitled to more favorable treatment than me.

Why should we care about what makes "sense"? Because it is an inherent good. You're just not getting it.

To have a different assumption allows you or me to be the ones who are afforded less of an allowance than others. You assume that it will be the ones you consider nasty, but that is not in the least guaranteed, and history suggests that it s not even the norm that the nice guys are the ones allowed to speak, and only the mean guys are limited. It may start out that way, but the results down the line are never good.

Strawman. I never made that assumption, and I don't now. You need to concentrate harder on the points in this debate.

Well you don't want fascists to be allowed, so they are afforded less of an allowance.

That's (part of) my personal metric. Again, I am talking about what individuals let pass. Other individuals might think my beliefs are evil and shouldn't be just benignly tolerated. Start reading what's written, not what you think is being written.

So, don't go telling me what to argue. I never said anything about "inherently good," and that's your straw man. Suggesting that a fascist "of course" has as much a right to speak as a communist or a monarchist is not a suggestion that there is inherent goodness in allowing them to speak. The reason it's "of course" is that whether you think an idea is bad and should be prohibited is just another opinion of yours, and across the population there will be varied viewpoints on what should and should not be prohibited.

That paragraph contains is a non-sequitur with itself. What does "varied viewpoints" have to do with whether everyone should be afforded free speech? The two are unrelated. Unless, of course, you believe that equality of the right to speech (like you do with the law) is inherently good, as I explained above.

I don't say it's inherently good. Fuck off.

So why should everyone have equality of right to speech (and equality under the law)? Explain it then without invoking the concept of a universal good.

The political winds may be that Trump should not have free speech today, and Revolutionist tomorrow. However, the concept of free speech is to remove it from the vicissitudes of public opinion -- truth is not determined by popular vote, and even if 99% of people think something is false or evil today, it may not be tomorrow. Look at sodomy -- ask someone in the 19th century if sodomy was good, and you'd likely get a negative answer. it was a crime punishable by death. Should it have been "free speech" to advocate in favor of criminal behavior then? Those protesters would be advocating in favor of breaking the law! What about marijuana and cocaine? Is it free speech to say that doing these drugs can be good, and that they should be legal, and that people should do them?

This is all straw. It has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am not arguing for the State to ad hoc limit free speech.

Effectively you are, because you've advanced no other way to know who gets and who doesn't get free speech, other than arbitrarily designating someone a fascist.

Start reading what I am writing, not what you think I am writing. I am talking about personal subjective decisions. Not the State. If I personally decide I think radical feminism is a harm to society and decide to throw eggs at every radical feminist I hear speaking, that categorically has nothing to do with the State.

It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. As John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important–in fact, it would become even more important–that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. Rosa Luxemburg said the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.

Check out Milton's Aeropagitica -- http://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm

As Thomas Paine wrote in his introduction to the seminal work "Age of Reason,"

TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm

And, check out John Stuart Mill's On Liberty - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34 ... 4901-h.htm

This is all just ideology. You aren't doing your argument any good by referring to subjective ideology in an objective way. You are making my point for me.

No, I'm giving you arguments.

No you're not. You are giving me subjective opinions and presenting them as if there should be some inherent reason to value them. I mean, ffs, you've given me the ideological giants of the case for freedom.

You just hand-wave, and have zero argument yourself. You "just believe" some people shouldn't have free speech, because they're bad.

If you'd followed what I am saying, you understand that this is a valid argument. My argument is that we tacitly allow the evil that we let pass. For the nth time.

But, do go on to justify why someone who is a fascist or large scale whatevers should not be permitted to speak their mind as much as you, or "small scale" whatevers. LOL. I love love love, that weasel term you stuck in there. You wanted to make sure the social justice regressive left keeps their right to free speech, because they're just small scale.... those are the good intolerants - they're intolerant of the stuff you think is good to be intolerant about.

You really need to start paying attention. I haven't said anything about the left or right in general. My only point has been concerning fascists and authoritarians (the latter of which can exist on the left), and hate speech in general.

A good start would be to stop LOLing.

only "large scale" authoritarians....right?

And, I'll stop LOLing when you stop talking nonsense.

Unfortunately you have no idea what I'm saying as you have approached this debate with a preconceived idea of what I am saying - that is, you think I'm talking about the state limiting free speech (above and beyond the level that it does now). You need to start reading what is written.

[Forty Two]

I have? Stop projecting.

I keep telling you what I think, and then you keep declaring that what I think is that allowance of free speech for everyone equally is based on its "inherent goodness." No matter how many times I tell you that's nothing to do with what I think, you insist on it.

Look - you think fascists ought not be allowed free speech. That's you're assertion, right? Just explain why, and how exactly their speech will be limited. maybe that will help me understand your position.

And, if you are not talking about the state limiting free speech, then you're not talking about freedom of speech. Nobody has a fucking right to be free from the criticism or protest of anyone else, and it is completely up to each individual who and what is worthy of protest. i think we agree on that.

So who the fuck is "ideologically" worshiping free speech here? I've never once stated or implied that people should not be allowed to protest other people or stand up and speak out against these other people. The only thing I did say in that regard was that people are not allowed to assault, batter, and otherwise interfere in that kind of manner the speech of another person. Trump goons can't go to a Bernie rally and push people around and storm the stage or disrupt the proceedings by assault, battery, pushing or intimidation/threats, spitting, getting in people's faces and engaging in threats and fighting words, and rushing stages. I would think that's fairly obvious.

In what way do you disagree with that?

[pErvinalia]

I have? Stop projecting.

I keep telling you what I think, and then you keep declaring that what I think is that allowance of free speech for everyone equally is based on its "inherent goodness." No matter how many times I tell you that's nothing to do with what I think, you insist on it.

But you can't support it without invoking a greater good. If you think you can, then go ahead. But you most definitely haven't so far. I've explained in each instance where you haven't and you aren't rebutting that. That's telling.

Look - you think fascists ought not be allowed free speech. That's you're assertion, right? Just explain why, and how exactly their speech will be limited. maybe that will help me understand your position.

It will be limited like it has been attempted to be limited in the case of Trump. Either physical disruption and/or erasure of written speech. I've already clearly explained these exact examples.

And, if you are not talking about the state limiting free speech, then you're not talking about freedom of speech. Nobody has a fucking right to be free from the criticism or protest of anyone else, and it is completely up to each individual who and what is worthy of protest. i think we agree on that.

I'm not talking about limiting "freedom of speech" the legal concept. But I am talking about individuals limiting actual speech such that it isn't free, if they think that the speech is inherently wrong/dangerous/whatever.

So who the fuck is "ideologically" worshiping free speech here? I've never once stated or implied that people should not be allowed to protest other people or stand up and speak out against these other people. The only thing I did say in that regard was that people are not allowed to assault, batter, and otherwise interfere in that kind of manner the speech of another person. Trump goons can't go to a Bernie rally and push people around and storm the stage or disrupt the proceedings by assault, battery, pushing or intimidation/threats, spitting, getting in people's faces and engaging in threats and fighting words, and rushing stages. I would think that's fairly obvious.

In what way do you disagree with that?

We agree in a legal context. If you don't think that people shouldn't physically inhibit someone else's speech, then we aren't in disagreement. But I'm still certain that you believe the right to uninhibited speech (within the bounds you set earlier) is an inherent good. You've yet to be able to explain why people should have free speech without invoking a universal good.

[pErvinalia]

Here - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8#p1647882 - is where your problem starts regarding inherent good. You stated that Hitler "deserves" free speech. That's an entirely different thing to saying Hitler has the right to free speech (under the law). A genocidal maniac does not "deserve" free speech. They deserve a bullet. By saying he "deserves his free speech" you are betraying yourself and making the argument that all speech (within your constraints) is inherently a good thing despite particular segments of speech potentially being bad.

[Forty Two]

Dude, you are missing the point. "Standing up to stop.." includes assault, batter, push, shove etc etc. I'd love to see you naively protesting people assaulting Hitler because 'But but free speech, dudes!'

It's easy to refer to Hitler, because we see him as the Chancellor of Germany, engaged in genocide. That's when he's the government, and when he's assaulting, battering, murdering, kidnapping, etc. - if all he ever did was spout hateful comments about Jews, then, indeed, he has free speech, just like Louis Farrakhan and various Muslim Imams. Hitler, as in, someone espousing antisemitic ideas, advocating racist or fascistic viewpoints, that person does have free speech, and is just as entitled as you or me to be free from assault and battery.

See this is what I mean by ideological and naive. It's HITLER, ffs. In the real world, bad people exist, and politely debating with them is patently idiotic. Sometime it requires more than just a counter-argument.

Yours is like the dopey argument about using torture -- what if the torture would get information to stop a nuclear attack.

That's actually a perfectly valid philosophical question. It's so far from dopey, it's no wonder you can't see it. If you knew torture could stop 50 people from dying, would you do it? 500 people? 500,000 people? 50 million people?

If I "knew" torture would save one person from dying, I would consider allowing it. However, the reason why that thought exercise is dopey is because it is not something that is within the realm of reasonable possibility in the real world.

Hitler is dead. He killed millions of people and he was the government. When you say Hitler, I read "someone espousing Hitler's views" -- like neonazis and stormfags and the like.

It makes no difference. Anyone espousing Hitler's views is a dangerous person and debating politely with them is simply naive.

Which views? All of them? Some of them? Does publishing Mein Kampf constitute "espousing Hitler's views?" I read Mein Kampf in my public library. So, Hitler espouses his views in Mein Kampf -- and so publishing those views is "dangerous." LOL. That'd be great -- verboten views! Mein Kampf? Get it out of the library. Communist Manifesto? Dangerous ideas, there. Satanic Bible? Oh, my.... can't have that. Satanic Verses? Can't insult an entire religion! Dangerous! The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The views espoused there between the lines, and the heavy use of the word "nigger" -- dangerous. Protocols of the Elders of Zion? No! Too dangerous! Anyone espousing these views is not entitled to espouse them.... lol.

Nobody says you have to "debate with them politely." You have a right to be impolite. The issue of whether Hitler's views can be published or spoken has nothing to do with how you or anyone else argues against them.

You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.

No, I never said fuck-all about "inherently good." Good and bad have nothing to do with it, as they are just fucking figments of the imagination. They are value judgments. One person thinks it's "good" to allow Social Justice Warriors to speak their bullshit, but others think it's "bad." One person thinks it's "good" to allow Trump to speak his bullshit, and others think it's "bad." The goodness of speech, or the goodness of allowing speech, is all a matter of opinion, and it may or may not be good or bad.

The reason equal "allowance" of speech (without interference from the State, and without physical or threatened interference from private actors) should exist is that each individual person ought to be treated equally under the law.[/quote]

This is a non-sequitur. I never said people shouldn't be treated equally under the law. [/quote]

You said Hitler shouldn't be treated under the law.[/quote]

Unmittigated bullshit.

You said he wouldn't have free speech. Everyone else does.

That says absolutely nothing about the law. I've made it abundantly clear I am not talking about the State. I am talking about individual responsibility. I don't know how many more times I can say it. You've got one particular idea stuck in your head, but it's the wrong idea and you need to drop it and actually start following what I am saying.[/quote]

"Free speech" has nothing to do with how other people react to free speech. When you say "Hitler should not be allowed free speech," if you mean that other people should argue against him, protest him, ridicule him, whatever -- then of course. But, Hitler still HAS free speech, even if the good people of the world don''t tolerate his bullshit.
'

And besides, why should people be treated equally under the law? Because you believe that is an inherent good.

No, because it makes sense, because there is no reason why you would be entitled to more favorable treatment than me.

Why should we care about what makes "sense"? Because it is an inherent good. You're just not getting it.

No, things that make sense are not necessarily good, let alone "inherently" good, and making sense has nothing to do with whether you care about it. You're just not getting it. You're thinking is too muddled.

To have a different assumption allows you or me to be the ones who are afforded less of an allowance than others. You assume that it will be the ones you consider nasty, but that is not in the least guaranteed, and history suggests that it s not even the norm that the nice guys are the ones allowed to speak, and only the mean guys are limited. It may start out that way, but the results down the line are never good.

Strawman. I never made that assumption, and I don't now. You need to concentrate harder on the points in this debate.

Well you don't want fascists to be allowed, so they are afforded less of an allowance. [/quote]

That's (part of) my personal metric. [/quote]

Your personal metric has nothing to do with whether someone else has free speech. If your personal metric is not to associate with people espousing certain views, or to kick them out of your house, or to not hire them, or to protest them and say "hey hey ho ho - so-and-so has got to go!" or some other protesty thing - that doesn't mean the other people are allowed less free speech.

So, in reality, it seems, you do think Hitler or those espousing his base or evil ideas have free speech -- you just think that you and others should not tolerate him or them, and should do what you can to oppose him or them. That's not limiting his or their free speech, unless you are suggesting unlawful conduct, like violence or something, to stop the other person from engaging in speech. I assume you don't think that those opposing a fascist have a right to engage in lawless behavior and conduct to stop a fascist from speaking. Or, well, I'll let you clarify your position, if my assumption there is wrong.

Again, I am talking about what individuals let pass. Other individuals might think my beliefs are evil and shouldn't be just benignly tolerated. Start reading what's written, not what you think is being written.

Look - I do read what's written, but you redefine words if you think that means not allowing Hitler or a fascist or a large scale authoritarian free speech. That's where your sloppy narration caused a misunderstanding. If all you are talking about is what individuals let pass, then (a) we agree, and (b) you ARE agreeing that Hitler, fascists and large scale authoritarians have free speech, because having free speech does not mean that other individuals will let you pass.

Like, Youtube social justice warriors can't expect that their views will be allowed to pass. Other individuals might think their beliefs are evil and shouldn't just be benignly tolerated. Sure. That doesn't mean the social justice warriors don't have free speech. They do. Others can oppose them. As long as they do so within the law, of course..... right? Same goes for fascists, true? Fascists can't expect that their views will be allowed to pass, and other individuals might think their beliefs are evil and shouldn't be benignly tolerated. Sure. That doesn't mean the fascists don't have free speech. They do. Others can oppose them. As long as they do so within the law, of course...

Right?

So why should everyone have equality of right to speech (and equality under the law)? Explain it then without invoking the concept of a universal good.

I have explained it without invoking a concept of universal good, because I've never suggested a universal good. You keep telling me that's what I believe, but I've not argued that.

Why should everyone have equality under the law? Because like things should be treated alike -- i.e. A is A is the axiom. Where A = B and C= B then A=C. This is the underlying logic. It's the same logic that underpins each person having one vote. It's not universally good that people each have one vote. An argument could be made that it would be good for those with more skin in the game to have more votes. But, the logic behind each person having one vote is the essential equivalence of each individual person. Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant, or at least a matter of opinion in and of itself.

The logical argument against each person having an equal vote (or each person having the same rights under the law) is that people do not have equal dignity. You could also make the argument that it is "good" for people not to have the same rights under the law, but that's just a pure value judgment based on what one considers to be good, and whether one is basing that on outcomes or some other measure.

Start reading what I am writing, not what you think I am writing. I am talking about personal subjective decisions. Not the State. If I personally decide I think radical feminism is a harm to society and decide to throw eggs at every radical feminist I hear speaking, that categorically has nothing to do with the State.

And, nothing to do with free speech, either, other than a private citizen assaulting and battering another private citizen in an attempt to shut the person up. The egg thrower should be arrested and prosecuted, and it would be lawful for others to come to the defense of the speaker by taking proportional physical efforts to stop the assault and battery. The police should protect the speaker and arrest the violent protester.

No you're not. You are giving me subjective opinions and presenting them as if there should be some inherent reason to value them. I mean, ffs, you've given me the ideological giants of the case for freedom.

What was important was their arguments.

You just hand-wave, and have zero argument yourself. You "just believe" some people shouldn't have free speech, because they're bad.

If you'd followed what I am saying, you understand that this is a valid argument. My argument is that we tacitly allow the evil that we let pass. For the nth time.

Why are you bringing this up in the context of "free speech." Whether you yourself tolerate another person's position doesn't take anything away from their free speech. This is your problem - you muddle "counterargument" or "protest" with "not allowing free speech." Of course people should protest neonazis and fascists (IMO) -- that's what freedom of speech is all about -- each individual deciding what arguments he or she listens to, tolerates, accepts, denies, protests or ridicules.

Unfortunately you have no idea what I'm saying as you have approached this debate with a preconceived idea of what I am saying - that is, you think I'm talking about the state limiting free speech (above and beyond the level that it does now). You need to start reading what is written.

Look, rEv, you're the one who started out saying that Hitler should not be allowed free speech. If all you're saying is that other individuals should ridicule, protest or not tolerate him themselves, then that is, in fact, allowing him free speech. Don't you get that?

[pErvinalia]

It's easy to refer to Hitler, because we see him as the Chancellor of Germany, engaged in genocide. That's when he's the government, and when he's assaulting, battering, murdering, kidnapping, etc. - if all he ever did was spout hateful comments about Jews, then, indeed, he has free speech, just like Louis Farrakhan and various Muslim Imams. Hitler, as in, someone espousing antisemitic ideas, advocating racist or fascistic viewpoints, that person does have free speech, and is just as entitled as you or me to be free from assault and battery.

See this is what I mean by ideological and naive. It's HITLER, ffs. In the real world, bad people exist, and politely debating with them is patently idiotic. Sometime it requires more than just a counter-argument.

Yours is like the dopey argument about using torture -- what if the torture would get information to stop a nuclear attack.

That's actually a perfectly valid philosophical question. It's so far from dopey, it's no wonder you can't see it. If you knew torture could stop 50 people from dying, would you do it? 500 people? 500,000 people? 50 million people?

If I "knew" torture would save one person from dying, I would consider allowing it. However, the reason why that thought exercise is dopey is because it is not something that is within the realm of reasonable possibility in the real world.

This might be a case of miscommunication. When I originally raised the Hitler analogy, I meant it as "would you give Hitler his free speech [knowing now what type of maniac he was]". In any case, it was pretty clear after a certain time that he was a genocidal fascist. Would you still argue for him to have free speech (whether from the state, or from individual choice)?

Hitler is dead. He killed millions of people and he was the government. When you say Hitler, I read "someone espousing Hitler's views" -- like neonazis and stormfags and the like.

It makes no difference. Anyone espousing Hitler's views is a dangerous person and debating politely with them is simply naive.

Which views? All of them? Some of them? Does publishing Mein Kampf constitute "espousing Hitler's views?" I read Mein Kampf in my public library. So, Hitler espouses his views in Mein Kampf -- and so publishing those views is "dangerous." LOL. That'd be great -- verboten views! Mein Kampf? Get it out of the library. Communist Manifesto? Dangerous ideas, there. Satanic Bible? Oh, my.... can't have that. Satanic Verses? Can't insult an entire religion! Dangerous! The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The views espoused there between the lines, and the heavy use of the word "nigger" -- dangerous. Protocols of the Elders of Zion? No! Too dangerous! Anyone espousing these views is not entitled to espouse them.... lol.

Which views? Oh, I don't know, maybe like EXTERMINATING JEWS.

Nobody says you have to "debate with them politely." You have a right to be impolite. The issue of whether Hitler's views can be published or spoken has nothing to do with how you or anyone else argues against them.

The point is that debating Hitler is naive. When someone is essentially a dictator, debate is useless. I would have thought that was a fairly obvious fact.

You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.

No, I never said fuck-all about "inherently good." Good and bad have nothing to do with it, as they are just fucking figments of the imagination. They are value judgments. One person thinks it's "good" to allow Social Justice Warriors to speak their bullshit, but others think it's "bad." One person thinks it's "good" to allow Trump to speak his bullshit, and others think it's "bad." The goodness of speech, or the goodness of allowing speech, is all a matter of opinion, and it may or may not be good or bad.

The reason equal "allowance" of speech (without interference from the State, and without physical or threatened interference from private actors) should exist is that each individual person ought to be treated equally under the law.

This is a non-sequitur. I never said people shouldn't be treated equally under the law. [/quote]

You said Hitler shouldn't be treated under the law.[/quote]

Unmittigated bullshit.

You said he wouldn't have free speech. Everyone else does.

That says absolutely nothing about the law. I've made it abundantly clear I am not talking about the State. I am talking about individual responsibility. I don't know how many more times I can say it. You've got one particular idea stuck in your head, but it's the wrong idea and you need to drop it and actually start following what I am saying.[/quote]

"Free speech" has nothing to do with how other people react to free speech. When you say "Hitler should not be allowed free speech," if you mean that other people should argue against him, protest him, ridicule him, whatever -- then of course. But, Hitler still HAS free speech, even if the good people of the world don''t tolerate his bullshit.[/quote]

I've explained what I mean enough times. I'm not going to explain it again.
'

And besides, why should people be treated equally under the law? Because you believe that is an inherent good.

No, because it makes sense, because there is no reason why you would be entitled to more favorable treatment than me.

Why should we care about what makes "sense"? Because it is an inherent good. You're just not getting it.

No, things that make sense are not necessarily good, let alone "inherently" good, and making sense has nothing to do with whether you care about it. You're just not getting it. You're thinking is too muddled.

Bullshit. You haven't explained why anyone should give a shit about something making "sense". Why?

To have a different assumption allows you or me to be the ones who are afforded less of an allowance than others. You assume that it will be the ones you consider nasty, but that is not in the least guaranteed, and history suggests that it s not even the norm that the nice guys are the ones allowed to speak, and only the mean guys are limited. It may start out that way, but the results down the line are never good.

Strawman. I never made that assumption, and I don't now. You need to concentrate harder on the points in this debate.

Well you don't want fascists to be allowed, so they are afforded less of an allowance.

That's (part of) my personal metric. [/quote]

Your personal metric has nothing to do with whether someone else has free speech. If your personal metric is not to associate with people espousing certain views, or to kick them out of your house, or to not hire them, or to protest them and say "hey hey ho ho - so-and-so has got to go!" or some other protesty thing - that doesn't mean the other people are allowed less free speech.

So, in reality, it seems, you do think Hitler or those espousing his base or evil ideas have free speech -- you just think that you and others should not tolerate him or them, and should do what you can to oppose him or them. That's not limiting his or their free speech, unless you are suggesting unlawful conduct, like violence or something, to stop the other person from engaging in speech. [/quote]

Ding ding ding! He might finally be getting it! I've only said exactly this about 5 or 6 times at least already.

I assume you don't think that those opposing a fascist have a right to engage in lawless behavior and conduct to stop a fascist from speaking. Or, well, I'll let you clarify your position, if my assumption there is wrong.

God, debating you is like pulling teeth. I've explained this multiple times already, FFS. Laws are not an objective standard of what is moral or not. As I said, major progression in society usually requires people to get up and take it for themselves (i.e. break the law). Having a conversation about it, or ignoring the speech of a fascist isn't going to do shit. Man, please don't make me explain this again.

Again, I am talking about what individuals let pass. Other individuals might think my beliefs are evil and shouldn't be just benignly tolerated. Start reading what's written, not what you think is being written.

Look - I do read what's written, but you redefine words if you think that means not allowing Hitler or a fascist or a large scale authoritarian free speech. That's where your sloppy narration caused a misunderstanding. If all you are talking about is what individuals let pass, then (a) we agree, and (b) you ARE agreeing that Hitler, fascists and large scale authoritarians have free speech, because having free speech does not mean that other individuals will let you pass.

We're not in agreement, as you think lawful behaviour will be enough to affect significant change against dictators and fascists.

So why should everyone have equality of right to speech (and equality under the law)? Explain it then without invoking the concept of a universal good.

I have explained it without invoking a concept of universal good, because I've never suggested a universal good. You keep telling me that's what I believe, but I've not argued that.

Why should everyone have equality under the law? Because like things should be treated alike -- i.e. A is A is the axiom. Where A = B and C= B then A=C. This is the underlying logic. It's the same logic that underpins each person having one vote. It's not universally good that people each have one vote. An argument could be made that it would be good for those with more skin in the game to have more votes. But, the logic behind each person having one vote is the essential equivalence of each individual person. Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant, or at least a matter of opinion in and of itself.

You're just not getting it. You are making a value judgement that one approach is better than another. You are by definition invoking the concept of "good" or "right". Why should like things be treated alike? That's a value system.

And further, it's a ridiculous argument as it can be avoided easily by stating that a fascist is not like a democratist. Therefore they don't deserve the same treatment via your logic.

Start reading what I am writing, not what you think I am writing. I am talking about personal subjective decisions. Not the State. If I personally decide I think radical feminism is a harm to society and decide to throw eggs at every radical feminist I hear speaking, that categorically has nothing to do with the State.

And, nothing to do with free speech, either, other than a private citizen assaulting and battering another private citizen in an attempt to shut the person up. The egg thrower should be arrested and prosecuted, and it would be lawful for others to come to the defense of the speaker by taking proportional physical efforts to stop the assault and battery. The police should protect the speaker and arrest the violent protester.

Non-sequitur. You said I was effectively invoking the state in limiting speech. I just showed you how that was wrong. Your reply has nothing to do with the point under contention.

No you're not. You are giving me subjective opinions and presenting them as if there should be some inherent reason to value them. I mean, ffs, you've given me the ideological giants of the case for freedom.

What was important was their arguments.

And their arguments are ideological and intended as a moral framework! :ffs:

You just hand-wave, and have zero argument yourself. You "just believe" some people shouldn't have free speech, because they're bad.

If you'd followed what I am saying, you understand that this is a valid argument. My argument is that we tacitly allow the evil that we let pass. For the nth time.

Why are you bringing this up in the context of "free speech." Whether you yourself tolerate another person's position doesn't take anything away from their free speech.

It clearly does if you imprison or kill them, for instance. I'd have no problem with someone killing a Hilter. You apparently would, because it's against the law.

Unfortunately you have no idea what I'm saying as you have approached this debate with a preconceived idea of what I am saying - that is, you think I'm talking about the state limiting free speech (above and beyond the level that it does now). You need to start reading what is written.

Look, rEv, you're the one who started out saying that Hitler should not be allowed free speech. If all you're saying is that other individuals should ridicule, protest or not tolerate him themselves, then that is, in fact, allowing him free speech. Don't you get that?

Of course. But what you haven't been able to understand, despite me arguing it many times, is that I'm not talking about legal counter-protest. Please understand this point immediately, or I might start throwing my poo at the computer..

Nb: You fucked the quote tags up hard in your post. I can't fix it. You can try if you like.

[Forty Two]

I have? Stop projecting.

I keep telling you what I think, and then you keep declaring that what I think is that allowance of free speech for everyone equally is based on its "inherent goodness." No matter how many times I tell you that's nothing to do with what I think, you insist on it.

But you can't support it without invoking a greater good. If you think you can, then go ahead. But you most definitely haven't so far. I've explained in each instance where you haven't and you aren't rebutting that. That's telling.

I can and I have supported it without invoking the greater good. I did so in a previous post. Go back and reread it. I most definitely have.

You aren't rebutting anything. You're evading and deflecting.

Look - you think fascists ought not be allowed free speech. That's you're assertion, right? Just explain why, and how exactly their speech will be limited. maybe that will help me understand your position.

It will be limited like it has been attempted to be limited in the case of Trump. Either physical disruption and/or erasure of written speech. I've already clearly explained these exact examples.

That has nothing to do with fascists or with Trump being specially deserving of a limitation. His supporters can do precisely the same thing, if in their estimation their opponent deserves it. Neither side may legally engage in violent conduct, though, in doing so. Is that something you agree with?

What that means, though, is that Trump, fascists, Bernie, and communists, all have the same right of free speech, and the same freedom of action under the law (equal protection). Don't you agree with that? (obviously, you will have a line drawn where you think you need to stand up and protest against people you disagree with; however, other people also can draw their own lines, and they may be opposite to yours -- agreed?).

And, if you are not talking about the state limiting free speech, then you're not talking about freedom of speech. Nobody has a fucking right to be free from the criticism or protest of anyone else, and it is completely up to each individual who and what is worthy of protest. i think we agree on that.

I'm not talking about limiting "freedom of speech" the legal concept. But I am talking about individuals limiting actual speech such that it isn't free, if they think that the speech is inherently wrong/dangerous/whatever.

Then you have just answered your own question, relative to why your position was unclear. You answered in terms of Trump and fascists not having free speech, and accusing me of being "ideologically" worshiping the notion of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't have anything to do with "individuals limiting actual speech." Everyone has the right to try to limit the actual speech of other people, so long as they don't use violence and such to do so, right? If they think that speech is inherently wrong -- like if some group of people think that Hillary's position or Trump's position is inherently wrong or dangerous, they may indeed try to limit the speech of those candidates -- they may deny access to private property -- they may not invite them to places -- they may protest them, march in the streets, camp outside their rallies and chant and such. All those kinds of things.

No "side" however has a legal right to use unlawful conduct, violence (e.g. assault, battery, pushing, shoving, hurling missiles, etc.). Isn't that something you agree with?

So who the fuck is "ideologically" worshiping free speech here? I've never once stated or implied that people should not be allowed to protest other people or stand up and speak out against these other people. The only thing I did say in that regard was that people are not allowed to assault, batter, and otherwise interfere in that kind of manner the speech of another person. Trump goons can't go to a Bernie rally and push people around and storm the stage or disrupt the proceedings by assault, battery, pushing or intimidation/threats, spitting, getting in people's faces and engaging in threats and fighting words, and rushing stages. I would think that's fairly obvious.

In what way do you disagree with that?

We agree in a legal context. If you don't think that people shouldn't physically inhibit someone else's speech, then we aren't in disagreement. But I'm still certain that you believe the right to uninhibited speech (within the bounds you set earlier) is an inherent good. You've yet to be able to explain why people should have free speech without invoking a universal good.

I don't care what you "believe." I do not believe in "inherent goods" at all -- so, I absolutely do not believe that uninhibited speech is an "inherent good." Nothing is inherently good. Good is a function of goals and ends, means to achieve them, etc. Whether something is good depends on a lot of things. Killing a person is not inherently bad, and saving their life is not inherently good. Of course it's not "inherently good" for people to have free speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of and from religion. These aren't "inherent" anything.

And, i did explain why people should have free speech without invoking universal good. You just can't read, or you didn't bother to do so.

[Scot Dutchy]

I hope Trump wins. He is everything America deserves.

[Svartalf]

As a citizen of the rest of the world, no, thank you.

[laklak]

Am I the only one who really really wants President Trump just for the lulz? We're doomed anyway, why not go out with the political equivalent of a Three Stooges movie?

[Svartalf]

I want Cthulhu to rise from the bay of San Francisco and Deep Ones to invade from every bit of coastline.
Drumpf feels just trite, and without any lulz.

[laklak]

I am considering Cthulhu as a write in vote, unless I go with Porky Pig. I think the last thing the Prez should say before he presses the Big Red Button is

Tha tha tha tha

[Scot Dutchy]

Am I the only one who really really wants President Trump just for the lulz? We're doomed anyway, why not go out with the political equivalent of a Three Stooges movie?

It would be an amazing 6 months.

[Forty Two]

I hope Trump wins. He is everything America deserves.

Ah, the commentary of those living in largely irrelevant bubbles, protected by others. It's always nice to hear about what everyone "deserves" from the welfare cases of the world. We should all be like the Netherlands - a little tax haven, surrounded by protector nations, lecturing others. Maybe if you foot your own portion of the bill for your the defense of Europe, instead of siphoning off Germany and and the US, your country would have a more realistic understanding of the world. But, sure, no problem. We'll take care of it. You just keep that $13 trillion tax haven in order. Good work you're doing there.