Comment on Is it possible to have a "free speech" platform that simultaneously stops "hate speech"?

• muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

  In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.” - Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)

  Everyone seems to forget the second paragraph of the quote.

  Also a contract by definition cannot be valid and signed under duress thus the social contract is an invalid assertion. At the end of the day only thing that actually matters is Darwinian evaluation.

  source

  • Uruanna@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Everyone seems to forget the second paragraph of the quote.

    No. The “as long as” does the necessary lifting there. Far-right rhetoric is a denial of reality and of any argument with a complete lack of shame or self-reflection, therefor this second part doesn’t apply.

    There was a time when we thought rational argumentation and logic were good enough to convince, but that has been dead for a few decades, and the US just paid that price.

    signed under duress

    I didn’t ask to be born the point is if you don’t sign the contract you’re not protected by it and you get no benefit, that’s not duress. If you sign it but break it, you pay. No one is forcing you to sign, but if you don’t, you can fuck off.

    source

    • muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I took “counter them” to imply countering their actions amd thus their indoctrination of new people (as to keep them as a minority).

      Far-right rhetoric is a denial of reality and of any argument with a complete lack of shame or self-reflection

      Name a single intolerant utterancr that does not fulfill this criterion. Ur welcome to critisize karl popers arguments if u wish. But if u do so u cannot use the same argument to support ur arguments and argue against the second half of that very argument. Classic case of cakeism.

      The election in the use has very little to do with extremism or utterance of intoletant ideology. Trump got the same or very simmillar amount of votes as he did last time. Harris lost millions compared to biden. Most people dont read the news and thus are completly uneducated on politics. They hear a sound byte like “make america great again” go “fuck i cant afford bread id like to be great again when i could afford to eat” and vote based on that. The average person is an idiot and half of all people are dumber than that.

      the point is if you don’t sign the contract you’re not protected by it and you get no benefit, that’s not duress.

      Ur forgetting the most important law of all. Its not illegal if u dont get caught. As long as u dont get caught u can go around breaking the social contract as much ad u want and still get the benifits and protections of it. Eg every billionare or corporation ever.

      If you sign it but break it, you pay. No one is forcing you to sign, but if you don’t, you can fuck off.

      No. If u sing it and break it and get caught breaking it and cant pay ur way out then u pay. The social contract is a tool the government uses to derive its legitimacy while also allowing them and their buddies to neglect holding up their end.

      source