***Official Political Discussion Thread***

barring some extraordinary like explicit calls to violence I am anti censorship.
That bar is too high of a bar considering that there is a process to weaponize speech, and it almost never starts with explicit calls to violence. Someone who wants others to be hurt because of their identity doesn't ever need to be explicit about promoting violence towards that demographic. That's why hate speech is a thing.

and as i've argued in the past some progressives use escalation of harms to stifle dissent in cultural spaces.

What kind of dissent is being opposed? All of it, or the kind of dissent that demonizes and dehumanizes the subject? Can we agree that there are degrees to dissent, from "let's agree to disagree" to "let's eliminate those who disagree?"

If you think the book i described is comparable to the protocols of the elders of zion or mein kampf I don't really know what to say. you want to escalate it to naziism to make the zeal for censorship justifiable.
You asked if distributing a book can be considered violent, and I asked you what your thoughts were on how the German public perceived the Jewish population after buying and reading those books that advocated dealing with the Jews. I don't know how that constitutes an escalation.

Now, I don't agree with a ban on those books (for the same reason I think confederate statues belong in museums - historical purposes), but I won't pretend that the promotion of those books/statues as politically and historically accurate is harmless because they're just words on paper.

saying one is worse than the other is not a rebuttal.

im not going to argue with you about harms,
those can be subjective and often hard to pin down, im arguing about the principle.
It is.

When the principle of free speech can be used to kill free speech, one has to separate the scenarios where the application of the principle doesn't eliminate it from the scenarios where the principle cannibalizes itself, if they care about preserving free speech.

Here, the harm can be measured and is not difficult to pin down. Because of that, I fail to see the hypocrisy in staying silent when someone decides to burn his books vs speaking up when the state decides which books you should have access to.
 


FIDbZ0PWQAoPkA4
 
She how happy she looks mplsdunk mplsdunk . You really she wants to leave this bliss to beg Joe Rogan listening white folk to not walk off the cliff.

I’ll be honest, she looks happy and like she’s ready to come out and tell the world she’s running for president in 2024.

Obama is amping her up too since she’s a little drunk.

“Run for president Michelle, I told Biden not to and he did anyways. In 2024 it’s your turn.”
 
That bar is too high of a bar considering that there is a process to weaponize speech, and it almost never starts with explicit calls to violence. Someone who wants others to be hurt because of their identity doesn't ever need to be explicit about promoting violence towards that demographic. That's why hate speech is a thing.

imo This only make sense in like between bong rips in a freshman dorm thought experiment vacuum.

in actual practice creating exceptions for principles just lead to them being abused by the most mendiacious people in socitey.
hate speech is a thing but if it isn't specifically and narrowly defined it's just a tool to stifle dissent.

cultural conservatives justified their censoriousness by a desire to protect society from xyz social ill. Im very skeptical of these kind of arguments.

I don't believe cultural conservatives bank shot arguments about gay marriage leading to the end liberal democracy

and I also don't believe in some progressive bank shot arguments that xyz cultural content they don't like is going to lead to the murder wave again xyz marginalized group.

What kind of dissent is being opposed? All of it, or the kind of dissent that demonizes and dehumanizes the subject? Can we agree that there are degrees to dissent, from "let's agree to disagree" to "let's eliminate those who disagree?"

I think legitimate dissent is being suppressed


You asked if distributing a book can be considered violent, and I asked you what your thoughts were on how the German public perceived the Jewish population after buying and reading those books that advocated dealing with the Jews. I don't know how that constitutes an escalation.

because it's sidestepping the original example, because easier to substitute nasizm.
this is my point, it's easier to brush ideas you don't like under the umbrella of hate speech to justify their suppression.

im not describing a polemic calling for the genocide of jewish people,
an organization of booksellers is calling the distribution of book, literal violence
a book, reviewed by many reputable outlets positively and negatively.
I don't think that speaks to a culture of free expression

Now, I don't agree with a ban on those books (for the same reason I think confederate statues belong in museums - historical purposes), but I won't pretend that the promotion of those books/statues as politically and historically accurate is harmless because they're just words on paper.

we agree, bans on books are bad and words on paper aren't always harmless.
it's just for me the harm needs to be really acute and really really really clear for me to countenance suppression.
 
She how happy she looks mplsdunk mplsdunk . You really she wants to leave this bliss to beg Joe Rogan listening white folk to not walk off the cliff.

Rogan already endorsed her apparently.

“She’s intelligent, she’s articulate, she’s the wife of the best president that we have had in our lifetime in terms of like a representative of intelligent, articulate people. She could win,” Rogan said.

Alex Jones gunna have a heart attack when the pod drops.

1641097961673.png
 
“The social network”…..is one of the biggest propaganda films of recent memory.

The way those tech bros laundered their image, in the early 10s, through media (they bought/created/collaborated) and tv is wild. They really just old school texas oil good ole boys…in Silicon Valley some decades later
 
Back
Top Bottom