[deleted]
Submitted 2 days ago by الله@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
einkorn@feddit.org 2 days ago
الله@lemmy.world 2 days ago
einkorn@feddit.org 2 days ago
If you require a universally agreed upon legal definition of what is right or wrong you might do well reading some books on philosophy. Or pickup a random religious text and live by it if that’s what you prefer.
الله@lemmy.world 2 days ago
also
Popper did not advocate for pre-emptive censorship or deplatforming of fringe ideas themselves.
The paradox applies specifically to ideologies that seek to disallow debate entirely and dismantle open, democratic institutions.
not all “bigots” are against debate or debate
einkorn@feddit.org 2 days ago
As per the Oxford learners dictionary a bigot is per definition someone unwilling to debate.
GreenShimada@lemmy.world 2 days ago
At least in the US, it’s important to remember that the First Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law…”
People aren’t free from repercussions and consequences if they say dumb shit. That’s the important distinction that more people should understand.
Tetsuo@jlai.lu 2 days ago
I thought that in the US you could say pretty much anything beside :
- Threatening to kill the president
- Diffamatory stuff
Am I misunderstanding how it works ?
What do you mean by “repercussions and consequences” ?
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You’re asking this because provocative “free speech” is now strongly correlated with engagement, thanks to social media.
Free speech is a right. But warping public discussion is not.
This kind of thing has always been a danger (see: Nazis rose to power on populism), but modern social media has definitely crossed a red line.
limeasparagus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Should we have empathy and allow free speech for anti-intellectuals who are rooted in beliefs that stem from personal fears and prejudices rather than any actual metric?
It’s neat that this doesn’t even have to be a hypothetical. Just take a look at the U.S to see how that’s currently going for us.
toomanypancakes@crazypeople.online 2 days ago
If someone deserves empathy and the right to speak freely for proclaiming people like me are monsters, and advocating for me to have fewer human rights, then I deserve the right to punch them in their stupid face.
If they deserve empathy and the right to speak freely about proclaiming other people subhuman, I still deserve the right to punch them in their stupid face. Bigotry has no place in polite society.
leraje@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Depends on how you define ‘bigot’ I guess. To me, a bigot is someone who is intolerant of another person or community despite the fact their existence in no way materially affects that persons ability to live their life. I can’t have empathy for people like that but I might try once or twice to talk with them about it, but only a couple of times - if they’re still a bigot after that, fuck them.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Everyone is free to speak and say anything they want to say. Nobody has ever promised that their speech would also be free of consequemces. That’s the part most people misunderstand.
FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This is part of why hate speech should be legal. Its not illegal to have shitty opinions and beliefs, so long as you don’t act on them beyond that. I’m also concerned with the governing body deciding what hate speech is. What if “support trans rights” or “end genocide” gets classified as hate speech? As much as it sucks IMO its easier to just let all hate speech be legal and we try to build a social system where that noise just gets drowned out by more positive speech.