Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Defending the right to unpopular and offensive speech is not the same as compromising with the speech. You can truly abhor what someone's saying and not try to some them.
Okay, so then do you really want the Trump administration deciding on what speech to ban? Freedom of speech isn't just about defending monsters. It also can save us from them.
Hitler will be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
Surely, as he was in reality. I'll be paraphrasing this, thanks.
"The Marketplace of Ideas" is such a scam, all that phrase accomplished was getting Bill Nye to debate creationists, who then gained followings because "The TV Box said that the Creationism and Evolution are equal ideas worth debating and considering the merits of!"
Don't let them make you think that Piss belongs on the shelf with Pepsi.
The comic is actually self contradictory, because the top-left panel satirizes being tolerant with Hitler, while the bottom left satirizes accepting some wars. No wars would mean letting Hitler just go around annexing countries and creating concentration camps wherever he wants.
There's a big difference between defending your country within your borders and crossing a border to fight in another country.
Insistence on classic freedom of speech doesn't mean centrist, moderate, or apolitical. It means supporting civil liberties without being an ignorant hypocrite that takes those hard-fought liberties for granted. There was a whole movement that was pivotal to the civil liberties movement.
not taking a side, is taking the side of inaction, which will inevitably result in oligarchy. You can say you don't care, withdraw, and refuse to participate, but don't pretend like it's not an active participation. You're actively in this life, you're just choosing to let the wrong team win.
Most people will choose the side of inaction as long as they're comfortable enough. That's something I don't get with today's oligarchs. They are just as stupid as they are greedy. If they hoarded just a bit less -- if they were willing to live a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a SMALL country rather than living a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a midsize country -- they could live the exact same day to day existence without the working class being up in arms and in love with CEO assassins.
In the movie of their life, the only difference would be the "high score" text at the top of the screen.
But I guess if you value a practical good life over unchecked avarice and ego, you probably aren't cut out for the oligarch lifestyle.
I once saw a guy on Twitter who edited the second panels compromise sign to say "You're both fucking stupid". He used it as his profile banner.
People like this actually exist in real life.
The moral purists are lashing out with hyperbole since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire has castrated their big issue. They have to pretend letting Trump win by refusing to vote for Harris cuz she "supported genocide" was still the right thing to do, and they weren't just being impatient toddlers demanding a cookie RIGHT NOW. Apparently they don't understand that diplomacy isn't something you can just click on.
People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.
It's your inability to differentiate between political speech and hate speech that's the problem
In modern societies, we're happy with the government banning the latter and not the former
In undeveloped countries like the US, their toddler-level reading skills prevent them from knowing which one's which
There is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st amendment of the US constitution. That's a well-established legal precedent that no succeeding court has been willing to overturn.
If you decided to make hateful speech illegal, then it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians to claim that my advocacy for my religion--Satanism--was hate speech.
You cannot apply the paradox of tolerance without understanding the outcome. If you tolerate everything, the extreme takes over. You are also making it an either:or choice - don’t censor vs lose control of all free speech.
This is false, and stems from the assumption that there is a victory only one way or the other.
There is no victory in any form of governance seeking to hold a middle ground for any aspect of society. You don’t get to set up some rules, dust off your hands, say “That should do it…” and think you’re done.
It is a constant battle that must be fought every single time an issue becomes a problem. No, not all speech is acceptable. But we should also aggressively protect the speech that is acceptable even if we don’t like it. If we can’t do that, then we’ve lost for different reasons.
The paradox of tolerance is a concept, not a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls':
Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
Sacrificing freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one's mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty.
"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
This is the entire thrust of the argument I am making. My position is that you cannot tolerate extremes that pose a legitimate threat as posited by the quote you selected.
You are arguing that freedom of speech should be tolerated as long as possible. I already clearly stated that.
I don’t know why you felt the need to reiterate what I said.
Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they're fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.
From context
Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties
and key words
only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe
and my direct statement
speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty
I'm stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one's mind doesn't cause harm. Harm requires an act.
Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl's conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.
Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.
By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?
I'll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I'll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh when their mind is filled with hate and bile.
just because you can speak your mind doesn't absolve you of the consequences of doing so.
I also would like a reasonable amount of wars.
The reasonable amount of wars just happens to be 0.
Within reason.
The line is very clear: You have those rights ... so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.
If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc... Sure: they're free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.
Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it's important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It's important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.
Moderates fuck this up frequently... and I'm saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.
Edit:
It's been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result.... genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed... but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff 🍻
