Twitter agrees to Elon Musk buyout, a reminder we're on Mastodon

Nobody can stop you from being gay, lesbian, bi, trans, whatever else. Nobody can stop you from expressing yourself in any way you please.

I'm not sure if you're from the US or not or follow the politics here, but Missouri is banning trans affirming care for individuals up to the age of 25. So yeah conservatives are indeed trying to stop even adults from being trans. Conservatives fought forever to stop gay marriage and I imagine now that they have a solid hold on the supreme court and that the culture war is a central part of their identity I bet it's going to come up again. Not to mention you have everyday gay couples with children getting harassed in the real world and accused of stealing children, because of the prevalent grooming narrative. So yeah people are very much being stopped from expressing themselves from fear of retaliation of bigots or the laws put in place by bigots.

If you can't unplug from the virtual square, you're missing out on what life really means. I'd rather a million online strangers hate me so long as my family and friends do not, because they can't stop me from being who I am outside of the screen.

It's great if you're in the position to be able to disconnect and not have any of this affect you personally. Not everyone is so lucky and all this hate and misinformation have very dire real world consequences for people. It's not just people having their feelings hurt online.

Start at the bottom if you want to affect change in a meaningful way that isn't limited to scoring internet points.

It's not just about internet points. Conservatives have weaponized misinformation and are using it to stigmatize the groups of people they don't like and push for legislation that impacts these groups negatively, while letting their hate mob put the fear into the marginalized groups forcing themselves into the closet to protect themselves.

...

If you don't have political aspirations to change the status quo, then that's as good as giving up. You're assuming helplessness to a situation when you're likely not whatsoever. If this is a worthy cause to you, you need to sacrifice to make what you want happen. That may mean putting a potential target on you and your loved ones. That may mean people will be unhappy with you. That may mean you become a political dissident and end up arrested or stigmatized unjustly.

Hasn't this already happened enough times in the world's history that we can see a pattern? The ones who never give up despite the massive odds against them tend to win.

"But THIS side did THAT!" kinds of comments are not a solution for anyone. Nor are they an opening to dialogue or negotiation. It's railing against "the other side". It feels good and powerful in the moment. But it doesn't win any hearts and minds that weren't already agreeing, so the usefulness is limited.

I want people to talk to one another like fellow human beings again. No more blaming, no more accusations, but really speaking and understanding one another. Maybe that's a pipe dream, especially online, but it's definitely worth fighting for, in a small, limited way.

Think about people as people, instead of your enemy. It wasn't always like this.

...let's be honest, here: the 'free speech' being championed, even if it doesn't purport to be, on the surface, invariably becomes a vehicle for hate of anyone 'other'.

Let's be honest, here: a lot of what is decried as "hate speech" is simply whatever opinion a liberal happens to disagree with. It's like the whole "microaggression" and "white privilege" nonsense where you can be condemned as guilty no matter what you do or say.

You know, when you stop sorting out all the little labels, the L's vs the G's and the B's and the T's and the Q's, the aros and the aces and whatever, it's actually very simple:
What liberals (of which I am not one, incidentally, I'm a radical leftist) disagree with is the idea that everyone isn't equal. So every single one of these "whatever opinions" the liberals are disagreeing with that constitute hate speech are about bashing someone for existing because you want to say their group is bad or inferior by nature.
So yes, I can see conservatives getting frustrated; first it's not OK to trash talk Jews for being Jews, then it's bad to go after blacks for being blacks, then sexism started being bad in the 70s, suddenly in the late 90s you can't bash gays any more, now these trans people one never even heard of before about the oughts are already not OK to beat up before people even really got into the swing of doing it, we only got maybe 15 years of open season on Muslims out of 9/11, and sheesh, won't the dang liberals let us go after anybody?

Well, no. One wouldn't think this would be very controversial in the US, where you supposedly "hold these truths to be self-evident . . ." All people are created equal. You can go after people for being assholes, because it's their choice to be an asshole. You can't go after people for just being the kind of people they are and minding their own business. And by "minding their own business" I do not mean pretending for the benefit of the close-minded majority that they are more like that majority than they really are, I mean being as open about what they are as straight males are open about what they are.

I do agree, the whole microaggression thing is a bit silly.
The concept of white privilege on the other hand is no doubt misused sometimes, but it's not like it's not a real thing. As a white, even in Canada let alone the US, there is stuff I can do and expectations I can have that a black or an indigenous person cannot. Whether it's not having to be too afraid upon meeting a police officer, or knowing I will get the going rate on a mortgage instead of a higher rate, or generally being able to walk around, say downtown, without looking over my shoulder, or having people naturally pay attention when I talk. And despite all the squalling one hears from white right wingers about supposed reverse discrimination, in the real world, when they do studies, they still find that people with black-sounding names, with the exact same qualifications and exact same resume, are less likely to get interviews or jobs. Being white gives me stuff; it's not my fault, and I may not notice that stuff because it's normal stuff that frankly everyone should have, but I have the stuff and certain groups don't, and that makes the stuff a privilege.

The problem with liberals is not that they believe in equality for all categories of people, or even that they believe in enforcing some level of civility. They occasionally overdo the latter, but it's not a huge issue. The problem is that they are never willing to put their money where their mouth is. They want to say blacks are equal, they don't want anyone saying anything bad about blacks, but they also aren't willing to do anything to arrange for blacks to have decent schooling or decent neighbourhoods or decent jobs or not all be sent to jail for whatever trivial offences can be dug up. They want there to be rich and poor, and they're perfectly happy for groups which are currently structurally made more poor on average to stay that way--as long as it's not actually legally proscribed for at least a few people in those groups to scramble to the top of the heap.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 2 August 2022 at 2:50 am UTC

Incidentally, on the question of censorship on social media or gaming chat or such, conservatives are rather hoist on their own petard: From a conservative point of view, free speech is something the government has to concede to you. Conservatives view private property as sacrosanct. So for instance, they're always trying to say that shopkeepers should be allowed to deny service to gays or anyone else they hate, because it's their shop and they can do what they want.

But all these platforms conservatives want free speech on are private property. If the government ran social media, there would be a conservative leg to stand on in insisting they should allow free speech, but since it's private property, the conservative position should be "Their place, their rules, if you don't like it you can leave their property". Note that that's not what I believe, 'cause I'm a radical leftist, but it's what conservatives should believe.

Conservatives in any case don't actually believe in free speech. They muzzle it all the time when they get the chance; cf. "critical race theory". What they believe is that conservatives should be able to say all their stuff, and nobody else should. You can tell by the way conservatives are always bitching that people disagreeing with them on the internet constitutes violation of their free speech--it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.

...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.

It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

... it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

I don't care what you choose to say or where you choose to do so, you should be allowed to say it without any arbitrary limitations. So long as that speech doesn't cause physical harm to someone else, it should be permitted.

... it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

I don't care what you choose to say or where you choose to do so, you should be allowed to say it without any arbitrary limitations. So long as that speech doesn't cause physical harm to someone else, it should be permitted.

As purple, I don't agree with you (there's other important harm), but it's at least a consistent standpoint.
Just the other day I saw someone thinking they would be defending freedom by forbidding gender aware speech by law.


Last edited by Eike on 2 August 2022 at 5:03 pm UTC

...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.

It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

As purple, I don't agree with you (there's other important harm), but it's at least a consistent standpoint.
Just the other day I saw someone thinking they would be defending freedom by forbidding gender aware speech by law.

Are they in a position to make their wishes happen on a governmental level or not? A lot of inflammatory words from people in general can be safely ignored unless this person has the power to implement change you're against.

That's why I was suggesting actively trying to make changes to laws in the first place. If it's disturbing you, DO something about it instead of worrying that people say or believe things antithetical to your beliefs, since those people will always exist. It's turning something you can't do anything about into something you could possibly change for the better.

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

As purple, I don't agree with you (there's other important harm), but it's at least a consistent standpoint.
Just the other day I saw someone thinking they would be defending freedom by forbidding gender aware speech by law.

Are they in a position to make their wishes happen on a governmental level or not? A lot of inflammatory words from people in general can be safely ignored unless this person has the power to implement change you're against.

Ah, it wasn't meant as an example for harmful, it was meant as an example for an inconsistent "conservative" standpoint.

That's why I was suggesting actively trying to make changes to laws in the first place. If it's disturbing you, DO something about it instead of worrying that people say or believe things antithetical to your beliefs, since those people will always exist. It's turning something you can't do anything about into something you could possibly change for the better.

I'm fine with the laws we've got in Germany, disallowing e.g. insults. (It's just hard to actually enforce it in antisocial media.)

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.

That's where most people differ, true. I'd prefer to maximize freedom and limit restrictions and government to a smaller, less bureaucratic state, but also acknowledge that every noble idea is capable of becoming corrupted over time, so there wouldn't ever be any perfect solutions. That said, if we were all cooperating more and seeing our similarities instead of differences, the sky's the limit for what we could accomplish.

...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.

It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

You can claim that believing other rights exist and/or should exist is arbitrary, but I don't see what makes other rights arbitrary but speech rights not arbitrary.
Anyway, everyone is opposed to unlimited freedom of speech. Including you. Do you push for the repeal of libel laws? Do you back permitting death threats and open calls for assassinations? I'm thinking no. So, we both back limits on freedom of speech. You just apparently find constraints on racism and gay-bashing, by private rather than governmental entities, to be where you draw a line, where that's not particularly something I have a problem with.

... it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

I don't care what you choose to say or where you choose to do so, you should be allowed to say it without any arbitrary limitations. So long as that speech doesn't cause physical harm to someone else, it should be permitted.

There are two possibilities here: Either you are decidedly out of the mainstream of modern (and, really, historical) conservatism, or I don't believe you.
Who burns books? Why, that would be conservatives. Who gets people sacked from universities for saying positive things about Palestinian rights? Why, that would be conservatives. Who is obsessed with purging curricula of anything that happened in history that might make white people uncomfortable? Why, that would be conservatives.

Conservatism is all about social control and enforced homogeneity. Historically, free speech was never a major concern of conservatives; to the contrary, they prefer to regulate speech strongly when they are in charge, to purge expression which deviates from the accepted norm. Threatened by new norms which explicitly accept diversity and aim at reduced social control, in part by rejecting bullying as a way of enforcing social norms, conservatives have discovered freedom of speech as a weapon to re-enable bullying so they can try to re-establish control. But they don't mean it. It's just a weapon that is useful because it's an idea broadly accepted by liberals, so it's harder for them to argue against it.

If you do believe it that's fine, but you're naive about your own side.

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.

The crime of murder exists because killing someone without just cause deprives them of their fundamental right to life. I really don't see how this is analogous to speech.

Suppose you joined a religion that required you to wear pink pajamas with purple polka dots in public, and suppose I made a disparaging remark about your attire that you found offensive. What fundamental right have I violated? The right not to be offended? Please, if that was a fundamental right then humanity may as well cease to exist because no matter what the circumstance, you are guaranteed to find someone in the world who is offended by it.

Offensive speech is protected speech by definition, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

That's where most people differ, true. I'd prefer to maximize freedom and limit restrictions and government to a smaller, less bureaucratic state,

Mind you, none of this is actually about government. What's under discussion here is, again, the actions of a private corporation--as it has been in most similar controversies. I've never heard of a situation where it was a government social media portal which was regulating speech. Nor are the actions of these corporations generally triggered by the existence of laws--if anything, they usually respond to upset customers, actual people.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that corporations have too much power, and in specific too much power over our discourse and over what we see, read and so on. But conservatives seem to insist, whenever they have problems with the actions of a corporation, on pretending that the problem somehow is the heavy hand of government.

There is no government in this story. And the only way to get the kind of unfettered speech conservatives say they desire in this situation, would be precisely by bringing the government in, having government pass laws and regulations enforcing lack of speech limits on corporate speech platforms. And again, I have no problem with the basic idea of government regulating the actions of corporations, although I might not favour the same kinds of interventions conservatives do. But we should be clear here that the problem is not the actions of a large, bureaucratic state. Rather it is the absence of a large, bureaucratic, democratic state, one which could actively defend our freedoms against the encroachment of unaccountable private power.

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.

The crime of murder exists because killing someone without just cause deprives them of their fundamental right to life. I really don't see how this is analogous to speech.

Suppose you joined a religion that required you to wear pink pajamas with purple polka dots in public, and suppose I made a disparaging remark about your attire that you found offensive. What fundamental right have I violated? The right not to be offended? Please, if that was a fundamental right then humanity may as well cease to exist because no matter what the circumstance, you are guaranteed to find someone in the world who is offended by it.

Offensive speech is protected speech by definition, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

See, this is the kind of reason laws are complicated--because they always have a bunch of careful wording so as to avoid exactly the kind of trivial problem you're referring to. So you can pretend that hate speech laws lead to this kind of problem, just as you can pretend they are arbitrary, but they don't and they aren't, because they're carefully worded and generally err on the side of caution. So for instance, Canada has hate speech laws, but the only people who have ever been prosecuted under them are far-out neo-Nazis with extensive public records of holocaust denial and Jew-bashing. Libel remains way more common and a lower bar when it comes to going after people for unacceptable speech.

You can claim that believing other rights exist and/or should exist is arbitrary, but I don't see what makes other rights arbitrary but speech rights not arbitrary.
Anyway, everyone is opposed to unlimited freedom of speech. Including you. Do you push for the repeal of libel laws? Do you back permitting death threats and open calls for assassinations? I'm thinking no. So, we both back limits on freedom of speech. You just apparently find constraints on racism and gay-bashing, by private rather than governmental entities, to be where you draw a line, where that's not particularly something I have a problem with.

I find that liberals define terms like "racism" and "gay bashing" broadly to the point of absurdity such that statements that are neither of those things are often targeted for censorship, and that's the problem. For example, if I were to point out that according to FBI statistics, blacks in the US commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes compared to whites, I bet you would call it racist and demand it be censored even though it's nothing more than a plain statement of fact. Or if I were to point out that according to the Bible, being actively homosexual is a sin, you would decry it as gay bashing even though it is, again, a plain statement of fact. In both instances, I should be allowed the freedom to say them without fear of reprisal, but liberals would demand that I be punished in some fashion, either by having my comments removed, my posting privileges revoked, or, most probably, both. Some of the more extreme brand of liberals might even try and to "dox" me and get me fired from my job.

It comes down to this: I believe that one's fundamental rights should be protected only to the point that they do not infringe on someone else's fundamental rights. So what are these fundamental rights? I believe the Declaration of Independence has as good a definition as any: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that "not getting your nose out of joint because someone said something that offends you" is not on the list.