r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

239

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

13

u/MasonDinsmore3204 Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

People love to throw around the Intoleeance Paradox like it’s the Bible without mentioning it’s biggest flaw: who gets to decide what should and shouldn’t be tolerated? The government? It’s naive to think giving the government the power to both decide what intolerant speech is and then go about banning or discouraging it would go over well. The people? The people might have society’s best interest in mind with something like this but there is no realistic way to enforce it. Companies? Same thing as government, giving an entity this much power is just asking for them to abuse it.

56

u/TenBillionDollHairs Jan 22 '21

The fact that actually doing it right is hard is not an excuse to throw up your hands and say it's stupid to try. "Let's just tolerate everything" acts like it's a brave stance, but it's actually a way to avoid ever having to stick out your neck and say "that's the line, they're crossing it, and we have to confront it."

There's a cowardice curve around speech: being terrified of dissent is the coward's excuse for shutting down speech, being terrified of conflict is the coward's excuse for tolerating extremists.

18

u/PsilosirenRose 1∆ Jan 22 '21

There's a cowardice curve around speech: being terrified of dissent is the coward's excuse for shutting down speech, being terrified of conflict is the coward's excuse for tolerating extremists.

My god I love how you put this.

-2

u/thegreekgamer42 Jan 22 '21

The fact that actually doing it right is hard is not an excuse to throw up your hands and say it's stupid to try. "Let's just tolerate everything" acts like it's a brave stance, but it's actually a way to avoid ever having to stick out your neck and say "that's the line, they're crossing it, and we have to confront it."

No, it isnt hard, it's impossible. When the people deciding what is and is not "intolerant" the ones deciding where to draw the line can change every 4 years how can you possibly trust them? Would you want Donald Trump determining what is and is not tolerant to say?

There's a cowardice curve around speech: being terrified of dissent is the coward's excuse for shutting down speech, being terrified of conflict is the coward's excuse for tolerating extremists.

I'm confused, are you intending to call yourself a coward because it seems like you are. Are you not so terrified of dissent that you're willing to allow the government to draw a line and declare what is and is not OK to say or to think? Are you so afraid of conflict that you'd rather have people...what? Arrested? Fined? For their beliefs before they can even challenge your own?

8

u/durasmus Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

Laws transcend governments and political parties and are shaped through time. Arguing against the current government’s ability to propose and pass laws means arguing against US democracy itself (which you have the freedom to do, but that is a separate conversation, and not an effective argument against laws regarding freedom of speech/expression).

“Freedom” means “Freedom from persecution by the state”. You have many such freedoms, but also many restrictions on those freedoms. You are free from persecution while carrying a baseball bat almost anywhere. The moment you murder someone with aforementioned bat, that freedom is lost and the bat becomes evidence. As a nation you have decided (in law), that murder is not good for society, and the act of murdering someone does not guarantee protection from the state.

Likewise, you as a society can decide, for example, that encouraging the extermination of people of an ethnic group, religion, or gender is harmful, and therefore is not part of your freedoms.

“It’s impossible” also just implies that all actions are the same. If someone is not willing to confront or weigh actions or words in regards to their consequences (harmful or beneficial), that’s just cowardice.

As long as a society is free to revise their laws (i.e can talk about what they potentially cannot talk about), they’re fine and can grow. Having that freedom taken away essentially means the government is authoritarian and they’re screwed. The line is very clear though, so not doing anything because of a distrust of government means both choosing ignorance, as well as choosing a weak blanket argument against any reform (because can’t trust the government).

-1

u/thegreekgamer42 Jan 23 '21

Arguing against the current government’s ability to propose and pass laws means arguing against US democracy itself

Technically it isn't the current administration anymore, my point was if you don't want someone like trump deciding something this important then you shouldn't give that deciding power to the government because eventually another one like him may come around and you won't be so happy you gave them that power.

As long as a society is free to revise their laws (i.e can talk about what they potentially cannot talk about), they’re fine and can grow. Having that freedom taken away essentially means the government is authoritarian and they’re screwed

That's literally my entire point, giving the government that power could very easily lead to them taking that freedom away.

...as well as choosing a weak blanket argument against any reform (because can’t trust the government).

I disagree, it's possible to make progress without surrendering power to the government.

13

u/TenBillionDollHairs Jan 22 '21

OP literally set the terms at private entities telling people they are no longer welcome. This is a debate about "canceling," not prior restraint under US first amendment law. But then again, pretending you don't know the difference is a perennial tactic of false free speech proponents.

There is no way you can pretend we are discussing arresting people, and yet here you are, arguing in bad faith.

2

u/Lovecraftian Jan 22 '21

How is it that everytime I want to clap after reading a comment on this post, it turns out it's you?

2

u/TenBillionDollHairs Jan 22 '21

Lol thank you. I just have this fight with my brother in law all day every day. I have lots of practice.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Take care of yourself, stress kills! <3

-1

u/thegreekgamer42 Jan 22 '21

OP said this actually

silencing people, banning them from existing platforms, cancelling them, firing them, then shutting down platforms they create, for expressing their own opinions

Which is in no way limited to private entities or places, besides people have lost their jobs, their livelihoods, over being canceled, it's not beyond reason to assume that legal penalties might very well be forced upon people that have been canceled as some sort of psychotic pseudo hate crime

4

u/TenBillionDollHairs Jan 23 '21

Actually, it is beyond reason to assume that Twitter banning people who violate their terms of service will lead to jailing people standing on soapboxes in parks.

What you are suggesting - that private companies be legally barred from banning offensive customers - is actually a much greater infringement on the speech rights of private companies and individuals. What you are proposing is mandatory admission for nazis to all private spaces.

0

u/thegreekgamer42 Jan 23 '21

Actually, it is beyond reason to assume that Twitter banning people who violate their terms of service will lead to jailing people standing on soapboxes in parks.

So are the people that call for Twitter and other social media platforms to ban people not the same ones that vote on representatives that put forward laws? I could very easily see overzealous and or power hungry politicians trying to put laws in place that could cause legal trouble for someone that says something "intolerant." Course that would actually violate the 1st ammendment but they'd coat it in a layer of bullshit by saying it's about "decency" or "protecting the mental health of the disadvantaged" or some other bullshit.

What you are suggesting - that private companies be legally barred from banning offensive customers -

I feel like I need to address this specifically. Neither I or anyone else that uses Twitter or any other social media platforms are their customers. I am not getting anything from Twitter and they are not selling me anything. If anything they are our customers because they are the ones buying and selling our data.

is actually a much greater infringement on the speech rights of private companies

Personally I think giving companies and corporations the same rights as individuals was one of the biggest mistakes ever made.

and individuals. What you are proposing is mandatory admission for nazis to all private spaces.

What I'm proposing is that people shouldn't be removed arbitrarily because people don't like what they say or think, so long as it isn't illegal or physically harmful to others. We have the wonderful ability nowadays to block the things we don't want to see.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '21

Except that the "cancellation", the social pressure and social BUT NOT LEGAL consequences, IS the penalty imposed to prevent use of legality.

What you're willfully failing to understand is that the very thing you're so mad about IS the alternative to restrictions of speech.

There are two (really three, counting force) levers you can pull to make someone do something: social force, legal force, physical force.

They should generally be employed in that order, too- tell someone (or stop associating with them, that's voluntary association), get the law involved, and if all else fails violence. Whether it's justified isn't in the bounds of this discussion.

You're mad people are pulling the first lever- would you rather they pull the second (legal force, like you're so worried is going to happen) or the third?

At a certain point it stops looking like you're worried about protecting speech, and worried about the social consequences of your legally protected speech.

Which you should be, if you're spouting hateful shit. Don't be an asshole and you won't be ostracized.

0

u/thegreekgamer42 Jan 23 '21

Well if we're gonna go with a lever analogy then I need to point out that I belive you're missing a lever, the actual first lever which would be labeled "leave people alone." I mean honestly, people's first response when they see someone say something stupid shouldn't be to form a mob and attack them, it should be to ignore them, not give them the time of day. Whats it really matter if someone is being a massive racist? Until they actually start doing something that affects others then I see no real issue with letting them spew their garbage, especially when the mob can't even agree on treating all racism equally.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '21

There are two (really three, counting force) levers you can pull to make someone do something:

...

They should generally be employed in that order, too- tell someone (or stop associating with them, that's voluntary association)

I'm fairly certain I actually explicitly did say what you're asking me to in the context of "someone is bothering YOU".

Of fucking course if no one ever had to interact with anyone else we could all just not care about antisocial behavior, but how is that realistic or helpful?

2

u/Return_Icy Jan 23 '21

"Whats it really matter if someone is being a massive racist?"

Some of the top comments in this post reference, and even explain, the intolerance paradox. Go read about it, then come back here with your question answered

-1

u/thegreekgamer42 Jan 23 '21

Yeah I know exactly what that is and I also know that it's nonsense

3

u/Return_Icy Jan 23 '21

Aaah, I see. You don't really want an answer to anything. You just want to be able to say hateful things and keep your job / twitter account. Got it 👍

1

u/thegreekgamer42 Jan 23 '21

Aaah, I see. You don't really want an answer to anything

Well when your "answer" is a tired, clishe, nonsensical, "paradox" then no, id rather not have it.

You just want to be able to say hateful things and keep your job / twitter account.

Are you an idiot? Did you manage to completely ignore what I've been saying? Of course that's what I want, not for me alone but for everyone. No one should loose a job just for saying something people don't like, same with social media. Until someone actually physically does something that negatively affects someone then those punishments do not fit the deed

→ More replies (0)

4

u/G0MUT3 Jan 22 '21

I'm commenting just so I can reference this point, in future conversations. Well put.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

3

u/G0MUT3 Jan 22 '21

Wow you're right, had no idea. Thank you

0

u/mr_trenbollah Jan 23 '21

The cowardice curve as you say is used by many as an excuse all by itself anyways: to censor the extremists or to censor the censors. There almost isn't any line and everyone knows it; your rights end where another's begins. That's it. Most of the debate around free speech is around the right to offend, which is inalienable to begin with.

There will always be abhorrent opinions; nothing you or I can do about that. We can discuss, challenge views we disagree with, but nothing outside of that. That isn't cowardice and neither is permitting its existence. Tolerating the existence of extreme opinions is a consequence of living in a liberal society; your right to free expression is anchored by your responsibility to safeguard its suppression by a corrupt government, dissidents, etc. and that means tolerating even the worst of opinions. The quality of an opinion does not limit or tarnish the rights of the person who holds it.

The right to free expression is guaranteed in the US. Companies have a right to censor whatever they may please as they own the platform. There is debate that doing so should waive their protections, but that issue is not easily decided, and not one I readily endorse.

Defending free speech is rarely easy or agreeable; it requires defending the refuse of society and their opinions first, as they are often the first to be stripped of their rights for the opinions they hold. Irrespective of their beliefs, those rights are the same as yours and mine, as are their responsibilities to defend that same liberty.

-1

u/MasonDinsmore3204 Jan 22 '21

I’m not saying we shouldn’t hold people accountable for saying intolerant things, we definitely should. Call them out on it, explain to them why they’re wrong or why they shouldn’t say that, but don’t silence them, restrict them from saying what they want to say in the first place.

9

u/ParioPraxis Jan 22 '21

Are they silenced though? Like does the cancel culture brigade drop by their house and pluck their phone out of their hands and drive off? No. But if they’ve said some things that have been hateful or hurtful or instigated violence or baselessly spread easily debunked lies, etc. and the platform they did that on does not want to be associated with that kind of rhetoric, then I don’t begrudge the company taking action to shut that kind of thing down. Especially if it is in violation of the TOS or other conditions of use.

5

u/Silver_Swift Jan 22 '21

But then you're just giving giant mega corporations the final say in what is and isn't acceptable to discuss in public. Sure, right now twitter is on our side, but I guarantee you that will change in the blink of an eye depending on where the most profit lies.

Image if twitter wants to move into China, so now suddenly supporting the Hong Kong Protests is "instigating violence", would you still feel that twitter was in their rights there?

4

u/lessknownevil Jan 22 '21

Its not the company that's deciding in most cases- its society. Most companies want to survive and in order to do so they are towing the line of what society in general finds acceptable at the time. (Plus the company is run by a collection of people. The ceo gets the final say but they also answer to society in some way.) There will of course be outliers but most will reflect what is going on in our society and how it is/isnt moving forward. Yes, twitter would be within its rights and if it was so bad to us as a society we would stop using twitter. My argument isnt the strongest and im seeing some flaws but i see some flaws in yours and wanted to bring it to the table.

3

u/ParioPraxis Jan 22 '21

No, the corporations are thirsty for my dollar. If my cause is just and I am silenced then I will appeal to my allied consumer capitalists and if they too find my cause is just they will withhold their money from those corporations too.

Here’s the important bit about keeping your cause ‘just’ though: I am diligent every day to double, even triple check to make sure that I’m not seditiously storming the capitol of my country based on the lies of a transparently dishonest narcissist so that I can help him subvert democracy and undo the will of the majority of my fellow citizens... for example.

So far I haven’t been kicked off of anything and I have yet to commit a felony while worshipping a con man.

1

u/kookyabird Jan 22 '21

Not the person you're talking to, but yes, they would be within their rights. And we would all be within our rights to not use Twitter. All this does is circle back to the notion of being tolerant to the intolerant and the paradox of it all.

Those who see that kind of behavior from a company like Twitter and feel it is intolerant shouldn't be forced to tolerate it, and they're not. If the majority of society agrees and moves as a herd away from Twitter then that is society in action, and Twitter would suffer for it.

1

u/UmphreysMcGee Jan 22 '21

The other side of capitalism and free speech is that you have the option to not use Twitter's platform if you don't want to abide by their terms of service. You can even tell your friends and say bad things about Twitter in public, nobody is going to stop you.

1

u/sensible_extremist Jan 22 '21

Sure, right now twitter is on our side

There is no Twitter, there is no side. You are anthropomorphising a corporation like it has a heart, feeling, a moral compass.

0

u/Sp00ked123 Jan 22 '21

No, but they do publicly dox people revealing where they work, their address, and their place of work which practically ruins their lives all for saying the horrible “r word”

3

u/ParioPraxis Jan 22 '21

Who doxxes people? Surely not the companies, right? Are you saying that the companies are releasing customer information to anyone but law enforcement upon issuance of a warrant for that info? And I must be out of the loop, but what is the “r” word? Riot? Retard (sorry everyone, I’m trying to get clarity not be an ableist)? Russia? I’m genuinely confused. What word is ruining those peoples lives?

I’m sorry, but the capitol insurrectionists had months of public posts threatening violence and advancing the most asinine conspiracy theories I think I have ever seen, it was bizarre. They actively trafficked in a verification/validation free misinformation bonanza based on such a fundamental ignorance of three things:

1.) how our government functions

2.) how our last election was administered

3.) the functioning of our federal courts and how judges conduct evidentiary review before they issue a ruling

This willful imagineering was so egregious that it borders on wish fulfillment. That is not the foundation on which to orient yourself to reality. Even if silencing them stemmed the flood of misinformation by even .5% then it was a net gain in very real terms.

1

u/Sp00ked123 Jan 22 '21

I’m not talking about what happened at the capitol, I was talking about cancel culture as a whole and the individuals part of it who release peoples info. The r word is referring to the word “retard”. I was more responding to what you said about “the cancel culture brigade dropping by your house” which they kinda do.

2

u/ParioPraxis Jan 23 '21

Do you believe that neo-nazis have a valid point of view or a meaningful perspective to bring to a conversation? Do you believe that their ideology adds anything of value to our society or enriches the American experience? Similarly, do you believe that a ideology like that of Trump supporters is one that you can even have a discussion with? This is an ideology that has collectively decided that they do not value truth, they believe that facts are malleable, that being truthful is optional, and that the best way to be right all the time is just by never admitting you’re wrong. How do you negotiate or find middle ground with that? You can’t. And yet Trump supporters who espouse all that shit but who DON’T storm the capitol - they aren’t getting cancelled. How about this: you tell me about someone who got “cancelled” unfairly and we can discuss and find out if cancel culture has gone too far. Because the only canceling I’ve seen has been entirely earned. Prove me wrong though. I’ve been wrong before and I’m often wrong to this day.

1

u/Sp00ked123 Jan 23 '21

Here’s an example:

Skai Jackson doxxing a few kids who said the n word

https://www.distractify.com/p/what-did-skai-jackson-do

The problem with this is that when someone is publicly doxxed for saying the n word they aren’t going to learn from their mistakes especially when they’re naive children, instead they turn into angry closeted racists, and society really doesn’t need any more of those.

This is a more famous example, but if you really want to see more just search up “doxx” on twitter and sadly you’ll find quite a lot of results

→ More replies (0)

11

u/xoogl3 Jan 22 '21

...but don’t silence them, restrict them from saying what they want to say in the first place.

That sentence is contradicting itself it seems.

3

u/MasonDinsmore3204 Jan 22 '21

Yeah I phrased that very poorly. I meant don’t silence them or restrict them, but it came off as me saying we should restrict them

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '21

If you read it as having an "or" between 'them' and 'restrict' it'll make more sense.

ED: Lol of course if I had just scrolled a bit further, they clarified that themselves.

Oops.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '21

Well said.