19 ms·

Nonsense. Almost free speech is censorship by another name. Working "pretty well?" Sure, unless one tries to talk about things that really matter and strays ou

Nonsense. Almost free speech is censorship by another name. Working "pretty well?" Sure, unless one tries to talk about things that really matter and strays outside the dotted lines of permissibility. Some topics are verboten. When you say "other side of the ocean," I assume you're talking about Europe. Try to discuss the muslim rape gangs in the UK. Try to discuss the surge in grenade attacks and many-fold increase in rape in Sweden. Try to discuss the homeless migrants living on the streets and the Aljerian street wars in France. Try to discuss Fulan Gong in China. Or tiannamen square. Try to discuss political assassinations in Russia, or the bribes the wife of Moscow's mayor hands out. Try to discuss alternative political parties in Ukraine. I think there are scores of political prisoners serving time for wrongthink who might disagree with your assertion that almost free speech is working pretty well. If you want to discover who your masters are, learn who you are not allowed to criticize.

Mattasher 6y ago
Put another way, almost free speech works great for those with power, and badly for everyone else. When people advocate censorship of any kind, they're really saying, "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."
- shawnz 6y ago
  > "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it." If the establishment's views are strongly codified and checks and balances are in place to maintain them, is that so bad?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - walterbell 6y ago
    If existing reality seems to "work", is it so bad to exclude non-establishment innovations, while the larger world/markets continue to compete and innovate?
  - exolymph 6y ago
    Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      "Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        Almost free speech isn't acceptable.
        shawnz 6y ago
        That is the question being discussed in the thread where you are replying.
      - RikNieu 6y ago
        Almost. Who decides what "almost" is?
        shawnz 6y ago
        Hopefully the electorate.
      - exolymph 6y ago
        "Dissent as long as a centralized authority permits it" doesn't sound great to me!
        shawnz 6y ago
        How is that different from "free speech as long as a centralized authority permits it" like you have now, besides being more specific?
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Obviously. It’s just that I believe the people that would be/are locked up under the current laws (and the laws in my 30ish years of life) deserve what they get. Conversely, I believe there are a lot of people in the US walking around freely that deserve to be locked up.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
OK, so assuming that free speech must remain inviolate, which I don't agree with, as free speech always has limits, do you see the current state of constant misinformation working as intended? Is the United States as the founding fathers intended it?
cc81 6y ago
>Try to discuss the surge in grenade attacks and many-fold increase in rape in Sweden. Why would you not be able to do that in Sweden? How is it limited?
- collyw 6y ago
  "That's racist"
  - cc81 6y ago
    Ok, and the difference between discussing it in the US is?
  - estebank 6y ago
    People responding to someone with "that's racist" isn't censorship. It's others exercising their free speech to strongly disagree with the points raised.
    - collyw 6y ago
      The end effect is the same, shutting down the conversation.
      - shigawire 6y ago
        Then come up with a better defense. The government is not preventing you.
        collyw 6y ago
        How can you when the effect is to shut down the conversation?
      - EL_Loco 6y ago
        That just means it's a low value conversation. The end effect is very different. In my country there are anti-racism laws that /can/ put you in jail for saying something considered racist. Btw, I'm not totally against those laws. To say free speech has to be completely, 100% free, say /anything/ and any message you can think of, seems flawed to me.
cseleborg 6y ago
You're getting free speech wrong, at least by european standards. In Sweden or in France, you can certainly discuss the topics you proposed without risking prison or worse. But free speech applies to other people as well, who are equally free to refute your opinion. Free speech is not censorship merely because it stops at other people's basic rights. That's merely finding a balance between fundamental rights that may come in conflict. Russia and China do not have free speech. If you say the wrong thing there, you go to prison (or worse). That's censorship.
- collyw 6y ago
  Conversations about Muslim integration are sensitive enough that you wouldn't mention them in your workplace in fear of being labelled racist and possible repercussions. Not quite illegal, but its going that direction.
  - eropple 6y ago
    "If I say shitty racist things that others correctly perceive as shitty and racist people won't want to associate with me" isn't even remotely comparable to the state putting you in jail and it requires an incredibly easily bruised sense of self to suggest it.
    - collyw 6y ago
      Why do you instantly assume that anything said is "shitty and racist"? You seem to be doing the kind of thing that I am referring to - nothing in my comment was racist, but you are doing your best to imply that it is. And potentially loosing your job is quite a big deal for most people. That's what happened to James Damore for bringing up the wrong subject.
      - Aeolun 6y ago
        Indeed, but you might note that happened in the US, and not Europe. Not saying you think muslims are dangerous is at the same courtesy level as not telling your coworker his hair looks like shit every day. Nobody is going to (immediately) fire you for it, but people will definitely start avoiding you if you do it to an obnoxious degree.
notahacker 6y ago
> Try to discuss the muslim rape gangs in the UK. Like front page newspaper stories, senior politicians and even a dramatisation on the desperate-to-be-inoffensive BBC, you mean? Sure, not everybody approves of people whose take on the cases obsesses about the ethnicities of the perpetrators above all else, but free speech doesn't mean a point of view has to be agreed with.
Karunamon 6y ago
Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here: The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
- blackbear_ 6y ago
  This quote comes from Chomsky's book "Understanding power" [1], which I highly recommend reading.. more than once [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Power
- arethuza 6y ago
  That reminds me of the Overton Window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window In fact, that quote is on the Wikipedia page!
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here: >> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. That sounds bad, but I wonder how Chomsky would feel if that wasn't the case and the "spectrum of acceptable opinion" included stuff like literal Nazism.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Depends on how you enforce your acceptable opinion I think. You need to find a way that makes it socially unacceptable without literally locking people up for whatever they say.
hef19898 6y ago
I had to google the UK and France stuff. Seems to be, as bad as they are, well covered single cases (one group of rapists in the UK and a couple of riots in Dijon). So what exactly are you not "allowed" to discuss?
- collyw 6y ago
  There are a lot more than one case in the UK. The fact you can only find one seems that the cover up has worked. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/839509/Britain-towns-cities-asian-grooming-gangs-Newcastle-Rochdale-Rotherham https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/839509/Britain-towns-citie...
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Get a grip on reality, jumping from an non-Brit doing a 5 sec Google search and maybe 10 sec headline reading to the conclussion that some mind cover-up exists and works is really sad...
    - collyw 6y ago
      You flatter yourself thinking that you had that much influence over my opinions. The government have done research on this and keep flip flopping on whether this will be released to the public (currently not). Doesn't that sound like a cover up to you? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gan...
      - hef19898 6y ago
        No, simply becasue they are publicly talking about it. Not much of a cover up, it seems. Especially since the government is headed by Johnson, who I would suspect to be first one to publish such things. But whatever.
        collyw 6y ago
terhechte 6y ago
> I think there are scores of political prisoners serving time for wrongthink who might disagree with your assertion that almost free speech is working pretty well. So you're claiming that Sweden has put people into prison because they discussed the increase in rape? Citation please. Your whole comment is a prime example of unfounded FUD. [1] [1] With the exception of Russia, China, and probably Ukraine, but in what world do they belong in one bucket together with Sweden or France in terms of democracy?
ledneb 6y ago
How hyperbolic. I'm struggling to imagine what you may have experienced, exactly, to put discussing such issues in the UK alongside discussing Tiannamen Square in China.
EL_Loco 6y ago
I'm pretty sure parent meant western Europe, not China and Russia. Who would assume someone means China and Russia when talking about countries with free speech?

Mattasher 6y ago

Put another way, almost free speech works great for those with power, and badly for everyone else. When people advocate censorship of any kind, they're really saying, "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."

shawnz 6y ago
> "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it." If the establishment's views are strongly codified and checks and balances are in place to maintain them, is that so bad?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- walterbell 6y ago
  If existing reality seems to "work", is it so bad to exclude non-establishment innovations, while the larger world/markets continue to compete and innovate?
- exolymph 6y ago
  Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    "Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Almost free speech isn't acceptable.
      - shawnz 6y ago
        That is the question being discussed in the thread where you are replying.
    - RikNieu 6y ago
      Almost. Who decides what "almost" is?
      - shawnz 6y ago
        Hopefully the electorate.
    - exolymph 6y ago
      "Dissent as long as a centralized authority permits it" doesn't sound great to me!
      - shawnz 6y ago
        How is that different from "free speech as long as a centralized authority permits it" like you have now, besides being more specific?
Aeolun 6y ago
Obviously. It’s just that I believe the people that would be/are locked up under the current laws (and the laws in my 30ish years of life) deserve what they get. Conversely, I believe there are a lot of people in the US walking around freely that deserve to be locked up.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

OK, so assuming that free speech must remain inviolate, which I don't agree with, as free speech always has limits, do you see the current state of constant misinformation working as intended? Is the United States as the founding fathers intended it?

cc81 6y ago

>Try to discuss the surge in grenade attacks and many-fold increase in rape in Sweden. Why would you not be able to do that in Sweden? How is it limited?

collyw 6y ago
"That's racist"
- cc81 6y ago
  Ok, and the difference between discussing it in the US is?
- estebank 6y ago
  People responding to someone with "that's racist" isn't censorship. It's others exercising their free speech to strongly disagree with the points raised.
  - collyw 6y ago
    The end effect is the same, shutting down the conversation.
    - shigawire 6y ago
      Then come up with a better defense. The government is not preventing you.
      - collyw 6y ago
        How can you when the effect is to shut down the conversation?
    - EL_Loco 6y ago
      That just means it's a low value conversation. The end effect is very different. In my country there are anti-racism laws that /can/ put you in jail for saying something considered racist. Btw, I'm not totally against those laws. To say free speech has to be completely, 100% free, say /anything/ and any message you can think of, seems flawed to me.

cseleborg 6y ago

You're getting free speech wrong, at least by european standards. In Sweden or in France, you can certainly discuss the topics you proposed without risking prison or worse. But free speech applies to other people as well, who are equally free to refute your opinion. Free speech is not censorship merely because it stops at other people's basic rights. That's merely finding a balance between fundamental rights that may come in conflict. Russia and China do not have free speech. If you say the wrong thing there, you go to prison (or worse). That's censorship.

collyw 6y ago
Conversations about Muslim integration are sensitive enough that you wouldn't mention them in your workplace in fear of being labelled racist and possible repercussions. Not quite illegal, but its going that direction.
- eropple 6y ago
  "If I say shitty racist things that others correctly perceive as shitty and racist people won't want to associate with me" isn't even remotely comparable to the state putting you in jail and it requires an incredibly easily bruised sense of self to suggest it.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Why do you instantly assume that anything said is "shitty and racist"? You seem to be doing the kind of thing that I am referring to - nothing in my comment was racist, but you are doing your best to imply that it is. And potentially loosing your job is quite a big deal for most people. That's what happened to James Damore for bringing up the wrong subject.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      Indeed, but you might note that happened in the US, and not Europe. Not saying you think muslims are dangerous is at the same courtesy level as not telling your coworker his hair looks like shit every day. Nobody is going to (immediately) fire you for it, but people will definitely start avoiding you if you do it to an obnoxious degree.

notahacker 6y ago

> Try to discuss the muslim rape gangs in the UK. Like front page newspaper stories, senior politicians and even a dramatisation on the desperate-to-be-inoffensive BBC, you mean? Sure, not everybody approves of people whose take on the cases obsesses about the ethnicities of the perpetrators above all else, but free speech doesn't mean a point of view has to be agreed with.

Karunamon 6y ago

Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here: The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

blackbear_ 6y ago
This quote comes from Chomsky's book "Understanding power" [1], which I highly recommend reading.. more than once [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Power
arethuza 6y ago
That reminds me of the Overton Window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window In fact, that quote is on the Wikipedia page!
ardy42 6y ago
> Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here: >> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. That sounds bad, but I wonder how Chomsky would feel if that wasn't the case and the "spectrum of acceptable opinion" included stuff like literal Nazism.
Aeolun 6y ago
Depends on how you enforce your acceptable opinion I think. You need to find a way that makes it socially unacceptable without literally locking people up for whatever they say.

hef19898 6y ago

I had to google the UK and France stuff. Seems to be, as bad as they are, well covered single cases (one group of rapists in the UK and a couple of riots in Dijon). So what exactly are you not "allowed" to discuss?

collyw 6y ago
There are a lot more than one case in the UK. The fact you can only find one seems that the cover up has worked. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/839509/Britain-towns-cities-asian-grooming-gangs-Newcastle-Rochdale-Rotherham https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/839509/Britain-towns-citie...
- hef19898 6y ago
  Get a grip on reality, jumping from an non-Brit doing a 5 sec Google search and maybe 10 sec headline reading to the conclussion that some mind cover-up exists and works is really sad...
  - collyw 6y ago
    You flatter yourself thinking that you had that much influence over my opinions. The government have done research on this and keep flip flopping on whether this will be released to the public (currently not). Doesn't that sound like a cover up to you? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gan...
    - hef19898 6y ago
      No, simply becasue they are publicly talking about it. Not much of a cover up, it seems. Especially since the government is headed by Johnson, who I would suspect to be first one to publish such things. But whatever.
      - collyw 6y ago

terhechte 6y ago

> I think there are scores of political prisoners serving time for wrongthink who might disagree with your assertion that almost free speech is working pretty well. So you're claiming that Sweden has put people into prison because they discussed the increase in rape? Citation please. Your whole comment is a prime example of unfounded FUD. [1] [1] With the exception of Russia, China, and probably Ukraine, but in what world do they belong in one bucket together with Sweden or France in terms of democracy?

ledneb 6y ago

How hyperbolic. I'm struggling to imagine what you may have experienced, exactly, to put discussing such issues in the UK alongside discussing Tiannamen Square in China.

EL_Loco 6y ago

I'm pretty sure parent meant western Europe, not China and Russia. Who would assume someone means China and Russia when talking about countries with free speech?