Yes, there is a long history but fortunately we live in the present.
Restricting peoples opinions is a very horrible thing to do. It doesn’t matter if it’s to “preventing a capitalist counterrevolution” which is you a bunch of bullshit made up because they want to repres people.
Can you explain why people shouldn’t be able to express their opinions?
Pretty much everyone and every human right group thinks so, except people on Lemmy.ml, lemmygrad and hexbear. For some they like censorship but only for their advantage which is ludicrous.
I am not for absolutism because in some cases it can be disallowed. But only for very specific reasons and that the government is afraid of different ideologies isn’t a valid reason.
I am not for absolutism because in some cases it can be disallowed. But only for very specific reasons and that the government is afraid of different ideologies isn’t a valid reason.
It sure is when the government represents the interests of the working majority. And the government is the only body that can decide what speech is or isn’t allowed, so your whole statement is self contradictory. If you accept that some speech is harmful and needs to be suppressed, then it becomes a question of degrees. And westerners thinking that they got the level of censorship fundamentally right while everyone else has it wrong is just plain old chauvinism. Western societies are currently the most polarized societies with some of the lowest levels of social cohesion. Anybody looking at the west and thinking that this is a good model should get their head checked.
I understand the link you posted and I knew you’d post it.
Generally the western societies you hate is very for free speech and tolerance. The world you want is generally very against that.
Socialism doesn’'t have to be, but for some reason you guys want that. Which is frankly insane.
If we go by the paradox shouldn’t western societies ban socialism speech?
If your opponent respects your opinion and doesn’t censor you, you should do the same.
A great government shouldn’t have to censor the opinions of its citizens if they are truly so great.
And no a government doesn’t have to be great just because it doesn’t censor, but a government can’t be great if it censors.
If you disagree that’s currently fine.
And westerners thinking that they got the level of censorship fundamentally right while everyone else has it wrong is just plain old chauvinism.
You want more censorship that’s oppressing your opponents from expressing their opinion because you think you are objectively right and everyone else is wrong. I think it’s enough to ban hate speech. There is a huge difference there.
I can’t believe I’m here arguing with you guys again. It’s useless because you guys are so far up your own asses that you can’t hear a ship horn.
I’m not against socialism per se but you certainly don’t make a good case for anyone reasonable to support it.
Again, there is nothing to support the assertion that the level of speech tolerance in western societies is desirable or a net positive on society as a whole. You are a product of a particular society which plays an anchoring effect in what you consider to be the right level of free speech. This alone is not a rational basis for deciding that this is fundamentally the right amount of free speech we should strive for.
I can’t believe that this such is a difficult concept for free speech zealots to wrap their head around.
Yes, there is a long history but fortunately we live in the present.
Restricting peoples opinions is a very horrible thing to do. It doesn’t matter if it’s to “preventing a capitalist counterrevolution” which is you a bunch of bullshit made up because they want to repres people.
free speech absolutism is an infantile ideology
Can you explain why people shouldn’t be able to express their opinions?
Pretty much everyone and every human right group thinks so, except people on Lemmy.ml, lemmygrad and hexbear. For some they like censorship but only for their advantage which is ludicrous.
I am not for absolutism because in some cases it can be disallowed. But only for very specific reasons and that the government is afraid of different ideologies isn’t a valid reason.
here, educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It sure is when the government represents the interests of the working majority. And the government is the only body that can decide what speech is or isn’t allowed, so your whole statement is self contradictory. If you accept that some speech is harmful and needs to be suppressed, then it becomes a question of degrees. And westerners thinking that they got the level of censorship fundamentally right while everyone else has it wrong is just plain old chauvinism. Western societies are currently the most polarized societies with some of the lowest levels of social cohesion. Anybody looking at the west and thinking that this is a good model should get their head checked.
I understand the link you posted and I knew you’d post it. Generally the western societies you hate is very for free speech and tolerance. The world you want is generally very against that. Socialism doesn’'t have to be, but for some reason you guys want that. Which is frankly insane.
If we go by the paradox shouldn’t western societies ban socialism speech?
If your opponent respects your opinion and doesn’t censor you, you should do the same.
A great government shouldn’t have to censor the opinions of its citizens if they are truly so great.
And no a government doesn’t have to be great just because it doesn’t censor, but a government can’t be great if it censors.
If you disagree that’s currently fine.
You want more censorship that’s oppressing your opponents from expressing their opinion because you think you are objectively right and everyone else is wrong. I think it’s enough to ban hate speech. There is a huge difference there.
I can’t believe I’m here arguing with you guys again. It’s useless because you guys are so far up your own asses that you can’t hear a ship horn. I’m not against socialism per se but you certainly don’t make a good case for anyone reasonable to support it.
Again, there is nothing to support the assertion that the level of speech tolerance in western societies is desirable or a net positive on society as a whole. You are a product of a particular society which plays an anchoring effect in what you consider to be the right level of free speech. This alone is not a rational basis for deciding that this is fundamentally the right amount of free speech we should strive for.
I can’t believe that this such is a difficult concept for free speech zealots to wrap their head around.