Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Maholmire (maholmire@crlf.ninja)'s status on Saturday, 28-Oct-2023 21:24:01 JST Maholmire

   • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:
   • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
   • pwm

   I have a question for you @p. Given your position on freedom of speech, I’m inclined to believe that you may be a libertarian yourself as well.

   Just been wondering how you grapple with the age-old problem of advocating for the rights of degenerates whose views you cannot or will not condone but nonetheless support their ability to hold and express them.

   CC: @dcc, @pwm.

   #freespeech.

   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 28-Oct-2023 21:24:00 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • pwm
     @Maholmire @dcc @pwm
     
     > I’m inclined to believe that you may be a libertarian yourself as well.
     
     You know, very recently, freedom of speech was considered a left-wing value. The fact that both of the two major parties have gone hard-line authoritarian doesn't make me a libertarian. Reagan was asked why he left the Democratic Party and he responded that he didn't leave the party, the party left him. I'm effectively an anarchist. But you ask "What kind of world should we live in?", "What would be ideal, given that we live in *this* world?", or "What's the best way to push things, given that none of us is the temporary dictator?" and you get different answers.
     
     Freedom of speech is a philosophical concept in my case, not as much a political one. Law just overlaps with philosophy a lot, and politics is mainly concerned with ruining the law.
     
     > Just been wondering how you grapple with the age-old problem of advocating for the rights of degenerates whose views you cannot or will not condone but nonetheless support their ability to hold and express them.
     
     This is a philosophical question rather than a political question.
     
     There are a lot of levels: people tend to segment it into "tolerance" and "acceptance". But if you consider what bothers you to see anyone doing anywhere on earth (say, ritualistic child sacrifice), or anyone doing in your country, or in your town, or if your friends or family do something, or what you would tolerate from your own children, then finally yourself, the one thing you have ultimate authority over, and these are all very different. The farther you are from something that is happening, the less you know about the group doing it, the less whatever they're doing affects you, the less authority you have to speak. That's the first division; the second is what you'll help with, what you'll ignore, what you'll try to discourage, and what you'll try to stop by force. So, for example, I would not shoot heroin, I might physically stop a member of my family and drag them to rehab, I might discourage a friend or neighbor but not force them into rehab, and some dude I've never spoken to on the other side of the earth that is sucking the HIV out of random dicks in exchange for fentanyl has nothing to do with me: he can do that if he wants, I'm not going to stop him. Where would I get the authority to tell him to stop, let alone compel him by force? Obviously it's stupid to do that but maybe he'd rather do something stupid. It's his business, not mine: he's a grown-ass man, he can do what he wants.
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Your New Marijuana Injecting Waifu :weed: (sjw@bae.st)'s status on Saturday, 28-Oct-2023 21:35:28 JST Your New Marijuana Injecting Waifu :weed:

     in reply to

     • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:
     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • pwm
     @Maholmire @dcc @pwm @p for me it mostly comes down to two questions:
     
     1. Is this content illegal?
     
     It almost never is
     
     2. Does this content cause harm?
     
     I don't mean like "words are violence" I mean like does posting this actively cause harm to someone. Think stuff like revenge porn, doxxing, etc.
     
     However harming someone isn't always against the rules. e.g. telling the truth could harm someone's reputation.
     
     99% of the time we don't have issues. Most of the moderation is actually dealing with Mastodon instances.
     
     Basically I just try to do what I think is right and so far it's worked pretty well.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 28-Oct-2023 21:36:07 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • Your New Marijuana Injecting Waifu :weed:
     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • pwm
     @sjw @Maholmire @dcc @pwm Good shit.
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 28-Oct-2023 22:24:22 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • kumicota
     • pwm
     @kumicota @Maholmire @dcc @pwm
     
     > Everyone has a line where they don't wanna the other person to be able to express freely.
     
     I do not think this is the case, but if there is something that people do not want me to be able to say, I am completely fine ignoring them and continuing to say it.
     
     > For me freedom of speech is an utopic concept that can't be implemented IRL
     
     It already is implemented. If you want to redefine it to mean something that cannot exist, that's not a useful activity, I think.
   • Embed this notice
     kumicota (kumicota@bae.st)'s status on Saturday, 28-Oct-2023 22:24:23 JST kumicota

     in reply to

     • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:
     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • pwm
     @p @dcc @Maholmire @pwm I agree with freedom of speech being a phylosofical concept. Everyone has a line where they don't wanna the other person to be able to express freely. The problem is that either side wants to use free speech to say what they want and block what they don't want.
     
     For me freedom of speech is an utopic concept that can't be implemented IRL
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 29-Oct-2023 15:55:09 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • kumicota
     • pwm
     • smartomato
     @smartomato @kumicota @Maholmire @dcc @pwm
     
     > total freeze peaches only exist in a individualist vacuum
     
     This is not real. There is, in fact, no communication needed or possible in "an individualist vacuum".
     
     Freedom of speech is a non-theoretical concept that has existed since forever, it's not a concept I made up, it's got a clear meaning and a history of existing in this country (and also a history of occasionally being fucked up for a decade or so of overreach).
     
     > just like the right to pee anywhere being limited isnt
     
     This is the core of the "freedom of speech is a like a frictionless, massless rope" misunderstanding. The action of flapping your face-meat around while you push air through it is not the same thing as the natural right of all humans to speak their conscience.
     
     This wishy-washy "Oh, you know, you can't really have freedom, what if someone does something bad, what if people don't like it, the government should be able to stop it, but you can mostly talk about most stuff unless the government doesn't like it or people don't like it, you know." It's an anathema, it's the open door for tyranny, it's servile European nonsense, which is the worst kind of nonsense. Under brutal regimes in Asia or South America, the serfs have an excuse: a lot of them have got guns to their heads, they're swinging from helicopters, communists are rolling tanks through their villages, cartels are stringing them up by their own viscera. That sort of person doesn't need to make excuses for working a collective rice paddy, the counter-argument is made by the tank, but people here on fedi spouting European nonsense have no excuse. It's an offense to the English language to excuse the state repressing anything.
     
     It's interesting to discuss the actual concept, but there's no reason to discuss the strawman version: the straw man has no depth and has no proponents, only detractors. Even if we were talking about the thing instead of the caricature of the thing, though, I'm busy. I'm the hell out of this thread.
     ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     smartomato (smartomato@eientei.org)'s status on Sunday, 29-Oct-2023 15:55:10 JST smartomato

     in reply to

     • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:
     • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware:
     • kumicota
     • pwm
     @kumicota @dcc @Maholmire @pwm @p simmilarly to p's notion of proximity i believe free speech exists IRL and limited not by nature of content, but by local culture, law and order, as a matter of praxis. We can say "place X or Y have more or better free speech rules" but total freeze peaches only exist in a individualist vacuum (and thats not a problem, just like the right to pee anywhere being limited isnt).