War Room Lounge v97: Jesus Christ, you're even pedantic with foreplay.

[TheGreatA]

By totally free you mean you wouldn’t criminalize disruptive threats of violence, public slander/libel/defamation, panic inducing lies (the classic “fire!” in a crowded theater), speech that violates intellectual property laws, child pornography, false advertising?

Or do you just mean totally free in the way that it is right now in the USA where you can say anything not in those categories but there will be consequences and private businesses can kick you out if you say something offensive to them or that might hurt there business?

I'm saying that we should envision a world where threats of violence, slander, lies, violations of property, child pornography and such things, have become so distant and irrelevant to the human experience, that they may as well not exist. That no law needs to be specifically crafted against them, since all men understand and deeply feel the negative and ill-made consequences of such behaviours.

What I'm talking about, of course, is a utopia. To our current selves. Yet there were times when humans committed actions that were normalized, which today, we barely even fathom to have existed as human behaviours. We don't necessarily have to go on about our day worrying if people around us will suddenly turn into cannibals who rape, enslave and massacre others at a whim, in our current type of society. Likewise, in the future, if we continue to progress as a civilization, we are going to have to worry less and less about people slandering and lying about others. Abusing their ability to speak freely in order to gain unfair advantages, or spread lies.

We can't continue to operate based on the mentality that men are beasts, to be kept on a leash, forever. We must acknowledge that we have evolved greatly, and will continue to evolve. And with each step of evolution, we ought to require less and less of this sort of externally imposed "regulation", and become more and more capable of regulating ourselves.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

We should all want as free everything as possible, what I'm rejecting specifically is the ''trade-off'' paradigm that you see in Hobbes or Locke. Hobbes thinks men are beasts and a heavy hand should be used to deal with them. Locke is a bit more optimistic about human nature and thought that men were essentially good and could be left mostly to their own devices, and that only aberrant behaviour needed correction. But both were in the business of selling freedom for security: selling bits of oneself into comfortable bondage of a sort, which comes with it a certain nasty two-sided assumption. To wit, unregulated speech is always ''freer,'' and that regulations on speech always provide this security. Both of which I reject.

I'm borrowing (perhaps outright stealing) from Rousseau's approach to the problem. That actually there is something ''engraved'' on our hearts that we all want, and that by maximizing it, we sacrifice nothing.

What if child pornography is “engraved” on your heart? That person shouldn’t sacrifice anything? Someone always sacrifices something, that’s life. I’d prefer the child rapist sacrifice something rather than the child.

I find the “no restrictions” crowd to be just as unrealistic as the communists, for the exact same reason.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

He big dead

What was his former account?

 

[Trotsky]

We should all want as free everything as possible, what I'm rejecting specifically is the ''trade-off'' paradigm that you see in Hobbes or Locke. Hobbes thinks men are beasts and a heavy hand should be used to deal with them. Locke is a bit more optimistic about human nature and thought that men were essentially good and could be left mostly to their own devices, and that only aberrant behaviour needed correction. But both were in the business of selling freedom for security: selling bits of oneself into comfortable bondage of a sort, which comes with it a certain nasty two-sided assumption. To wit, unregulated speech is always ''freer,'' and that regulations on speech always provide this security. Both of which I reject.

I'm borrowing (perhaps outright stealing) from Rousseau's approach to the problem. That actually there is something ''engraved'' on our hearts that we all want, and that by maximizing it, we sacrifice nothing.

Your phrasing in this post has confused me a bit. But, to be clear, you are saying that you fundamentally reject the bolded premise? And that sacrifice of non-truths that no one wants in themselves is not a sacrifice at all toward attainment of universal truth, which everyone wants?

What if child pornography is “engraved” on your heart? That person shouldn’t sacrifice anything? Someone always sacrifices something, that’s life. I’d prefer the child rapist sacrifice something rather than the child.

I find the “no restrictions” crowd to be just as unrealistic as the communists, for the exact same reason.

But I think you're misunderstanding his post even more than I am.

@Prokofievian Explain yourself.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes. The free speech debate such as it exists is really fucking stupid. It's only about regulations on speech. The more regulations on speech there are, the more unfree the speech. The question thus becomes which infringements on speech are morally permissible. That shouldn't be the question at all. Freedom of speech should be treated as an objective in itself to be maximized. Thus, what regulations maximize the diversity (and thus freedom) of speech in society should be the question. Why should we tolerate anything else? Internet forums perfectly illustrate this point. Moderated spaces are just better.

Yeah, there's very little theoretical reflection on the basis for belief in free speech. From a liberal perspective, the idea is that hashing things out will get us to the truth, and people have to be free to tell the truth to the best of their ability to make that happen. And on top of that, existing power might find the truth unfavorable so protection of free speech has to be absolute.

When you see right-wingers (@LogicalInsanity, for example) say that the right is the "real" defenders of free speech, I have to wonder what the theoretical basis for that is because right-wing ideologies really don't provide any basis for supporting free speech. It seems to be just a practical thing--the right feels that they are culturally weaker and thus that it's their speech that is imperiled so they have an interest in pretending to support free speech as a principle. So, like, you see outrage when right-wing speakers are protested against, but then when left-wing professors become too outspoken, you also see death threats against them and calls for their firings.

 

[spin]

i knew what was coming on the second time watching, and still busted out laughing.

 

[Sketch]

What was his former account?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Yeah, there's very little theoretical reflection on the basis for belief in free speech. From a liberal perspective, the idea is that hashing things out will get us to the truth, and people have to be free to tell the truth to the best of their ability to make that happen. And on top of that, existing power might find the truth unfavorable so protection of free speech has to be absolute.

When you see right-wingers (@LogicalInsanity, for example) say that the right is the "real" defenders of free speech, I have to wonder what the theoretical basis for that is because right-wing ideologies really don't provide any basis for supporting free speech. It seems to be just a practical thing--the right feels that they are culturally weaker and thus that it's their speech that is imperiled so they have an interest in pretending to support free speech as a principle. So, like, you see outrage when right-wing speakers are protested against, but then when left-wing professors become too outspoken, you also see death threats against them and calls for their firings.

I never said the "right were defenders of free speech."

I said the new left (not classical liberals) are enemies of free speech.

and I stand by that. and it's a shame more classical liberals do not stand up to that scourge.

 

[Falsedawn]

What was his former account?

Shit I dunno, good question.

 

[TheGreatA]

I never said the "right were defenders of free speech."

I said the new left (not classical liberals) are enemies of free speech.

and I stand by that. and it's a shame more classical liberals do not stand up to that scourge.

Not in America where the Democrat Party requires "big tent" politics in order to survive. So liberals and socialists have to pretend like they're on the same side, well, whenever they're not at each others throats during Primaries, that is, fighting over who gets to nominate their guy or girl.

In Europe, with the actual right (conservatism) being rather non-existent beyond recent populist movements, the liberals have been arch-enemies with the socialists, and are usually very prone to calling them out.

Liberals+socialists is one of the last coalitions that you're ever going to see, in European terms. Very rare for that to happen. It's funny that in America they're forced to co-exist because of the prominence of conservatism.

 

[Sara]

Who are you feuding with that would vandalize your car in your driveway?

No one! I am a ray of sunshine from heaven! You know this!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Shit I dunno, good question.

@Lead, now that he's gone, can that be revealed?

 

[Sara]

that or some weather or debris related bad luck.

No,I live on the the corner no one beside my drive way at all, to be hit by anything it had to be on purpose

 

[Jack V Savage]

I never said the "right were defenders of free speech."

I said the new left (not classical liberals) are enemies of free speech.

and I stand by that. and it's a shame more classical liberals do not stand up to that scourge.

The bigger threat is now and generally always comes from the right, especially with Trump as president. But I don't see liberals being shy about calling out bad behavior from the far left. The argument around that is just about how prevalent it is (and dishonest rightists often try to conflate the mainstream left with the fringes--standard propaganda tactics, of course, but it seems unusually effective these days).

 

[Gregolian]

@Lead, now that he's gone, can that be revealed?

 

[Prokofievian]

Yeah, there's very little theoretical reflection on the basis for belief in free speech. From a liberal perspective, the idea is that hashing things out will get us to the truth, and people have to be free to tell the truth to the best of their ability to make that happen. And on top of that, existing power might find the truth unfavorable so protection of free speech has to be absolute.

I just want to say that I find the bolded to be particularly contemptible. Like, I know people think this and I just...don't get it. Are they not paying attention? What's to say we don't just get into an infinite loop of full retard without making any progress whatsoever. You know the type: the ''what about [thing that has been hashed out 1000 times before, in texts that he has never heard of].'' There's one born every minute. What's to say that the stuff we're even talking about is even on the bleeding edge, or that we would tend towards it?

When you see right-wingers (@LogicalInsanity, for example) say that the right is the "real" defenders of free speech, I have to wonder what the theoretical basis for that is because right-wing ideologies really don't provide any basis for supporting free speech. It seems to be just a practical thing--the right feels that they are culturally weaker and thus that it's their speech that is imperiled so they have an interest in pretending to support free speech as a principle. So, like, you see outrage when right-wing speakers are protested against, but then when left-wing professors become too outspoken, you also see death threats against them and calls for their firings.

Yes, it is a basic will to power. If Trump were to Putin some journalists at CNN, people who claim to care about free speech would find a way to support it in the interest of breaking eggs to make an omelette to their taste.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

No one! I am a ray of sunshine from heaven! You know this!

Even in Philly residential neighborhoods you don't really get random vandalism of cars.

Normally windows are broken because something valuable or spare change is visible so a junkie will break a window to get it.

Or people stealing tires

 

[Jack V Savage]

I just want to say that I find the bolded to be particularly contemptible. Like, I know people think this and I just...don't get it. Are they not paying attention? What's to say we don't just get into an infinite loop of full retard without making any progress whatsoever. You know the type: the ''what about [thing that has been hashed out 1000 times before, in texts that he has never heard of].'' There's one born every minute. What's to say that the stuff we're even talking about is even on the bleeding edge, or that we would tend towards it?

I think there's good reason to think that it doesn't work that way, but I don't see it as contemptible at all. Especially since we're talking about people who were writing in a very different time. Isn't your thinking--that we want diversity of expression--along the same lines?

Also, if we reject that framework, what happens to our thinking about free speech? How should it change?

 

[Prokofievian]

Your phrasing in this post has confused me a bit. But, to be clear, you are saying that you fundamentally reject the bolded premise?

Yes, I reject the bolded premises. Specifically, not that they couldn't be true, but that it's easy to concoct examples in which they are not true.

And that sacrifice of non-truths that no one wants in themselves is not a sacrifice at all toward attainment of universal truth, which everyone wants?

Something like that, but not really about truth per se (is art ''true''?). It's about goals. What ought to be the goal? I think that a ''regulation free'' goal being substituted for a truer goal, being the actual experience of freedom of speech, being the ability to exist in society with the greatest diversity of speech, all things accounted for.

 

[Sara]

Even in Philly residential neighborhoods you don't really get random vandalism of cars.

Normally windows are broken because something valuable or spare change is visible so a junkie will break a window to get it.

Or people stealing tires

I don’t have spare change in my car! I carry a purse! There’s literally nothing but window cleaner that is still in my trunk and a phone charger, also still there.