Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Daddy af, Feb 9, 2018.
Lots of unnecessary spitefulness directed at this kid just for cordially asking a question...
If the Platonic ideal is to say whatever, whenever, and free of repercussion then nobody has it. But having more of it here than anywhere else is far from illusion. No Amendment is more highly regarded than the First.
It might be highly regarded, but I don't think there is a whole lot of philosophical thought on the part of the average American, on what sort of conditions might enable free speech, and which might discourage it.
The consumerism and corporate-driven culture of America certainly serves to discourage free speech and prevent the formation of new, fresher ideas. A person whose livelihood is at stake every time he opens his mouth about a controversial subject, due to potentially being fired and left with nothing, is not a man free to speak his own mind. Even if he will continue to rationalize his own condition as freedom, as all of us do.
Doubt the average person anywhere puts much philosophical thought into much of anything.
Most of us are not existing in the world of corporate oversight and punishment that you seem to believe.
Seems to sum it up nicely
The better question, is if we can tell a corporation they have to serve all customers, then why can't we tell them they have to allow free speech?
Not today, perhaps, but in the future? The future might look very bleak indeed, in that regard.
Not a fair argument. There are plenty of scenarios where a corporation would not have to serve “all” customers.
But that's more about the consequences of free speech as opposed to the availability of it.
I don't know if you're married but people are often circumspect about their speech even with their spouse out of concern for the consequences. Does that mean that there isn't free speech in their relationships? I agree with @Cubo de Sangre, nowhere has speech that is free from consequence. But that's not free speech either.
Free speech must certainly include the freedom to respond to speech. If someone is looking for a world where they can speak and not receive negative consequences then they want authoritarian speech in their favor, not free speech for everyone.
I share that concern. However I have some faith that if it starts to get out of hand there will be push-back. Right now it's just shit you see on the news. When people suffer it themselves, or see their friends and coworkers suffer, it will no longer be something that just happens to some dumb shit that deserved it.
Yeah.. Only if you can show they are behaving like a "state actor" can you get them. Kind of sucks.
TS thinks everyone working at walmart should be able to throw the N word around all the time in front of customers.
Right. So if your daughter or mother was the only female in her workplace, and 20 males called her a slut on the daily, along with graphic descriptions of what they would like to do to her private parts, you'd just tell her to grow some thicker skin... ... ...
Tell me more about how much you hate capitalism.
Does that qualify as "speech conducted outside of work"?
Second only to Marxism which it ultimately enables.
So what's the problem with free speech having the consequence of a lynch mob stringing some guy up in a tree, for being a godless, blasphemous heathen? That's a consequence, right? He was free to speak, and he was free to be dealt with accordingly. His words may well have caused wide-spread rebellion and outrage among a 18th or 19th century uneducated, religiously zealous population. His fault for being born in an environment consisting of stupid motherfuckers who get outraged to the point of violence, by assumptions that god doesn't exist.
Countries like DDR abused that sentiment to no end. Hell, even Putin pretends that they have "free speech" while clinging onto that same type of sentiment (that there are simply "consequences" for speaking out). The government doesn't actually kill or physically assault people for speaking, just the psycho Commie, Neo-Nazi or Russian Mafia groups that it is in control of. Good luck trying to prove that he is actually controlling these groups, oh wait, you just disappeared. Well, that's what you get for trying to "rock the boat". Some people got outraged, and unfortunately you got fucked. Wasn't the government's fault, right?
Nope, that's not it. Free speech can only be enabled if speech does not carry a consequence that threatens a man's livelihood. Otherwise we are still living in an environment where certain thought patterns are discouraged through social pressure.
That's fine, I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that some dude arguing that pedophilia is great, gets shut down and never sees a public office again. Though unlike most, I'd be willing to live with that as long as I were able to speak my mind freely without worrying about these "consequences".
As I've already established, that sort of a free environment can only be achieved culturally, not through government policy. Not by making up authoritarian laws that "impose freedom" on people that do not want it. Part of that is by making people understand that getting fired from your job, for example, is a disproportionately heavy consequence for speaking your mind. A consequence that cannot be excused on a philosophical or moral level. The only consequence that speech may carry, is more speech on the part of others. Which is, countering arguments, or a scolding, or whatever, to "sort a person out". Those are the sort of verbal "consequences" that we may apply to a verbal "offender".