:up:

But what about when some of you justify the nuclear attack on Japan? Would I be ok with just ignoring it too?

A 'double standard' for free speech, huh.

I don't think that's what he actually said, though. — Tzeentch

He hoped for a future without women. It is not the exact same thing. The difference doesn't matter much.

I'm still waiting for individuals who rejoice in the genocide in Gaza to be banned. But I suppose making weird and incel posts about women is worse than endorsing the eradication of an ethnicity. — javi2541997

The state of public discourse matters unfortunately. We've had lots of discussions that will almost certainly be looked back on as adjacent to hate speech, or enabling genocide, just because that's where the state of public debate is at. Gender, Palestine, climate change, all fucked.

I think this touches on a crucial question: Is free speech a value in itself, or a means to an end?

In the U.S., there's often this almost sacred reverence for free speech as an absolute principle. But I’d argue that speech is only valuable insofar as it sustains the conditions for open, inclusive, and rational discourse. Once it begins to actively undermine those conditions – by dehumanizing people, inciting hatred, or flooding the space with bad-faith noise – its “freedom” becomes self-defeating.

For example: should a philosophy forum tolerate someone saying “I hope women no longer exist in 10,000 years”? Or “Blacks are genetically inferior”? Or “The Holocaust didn’t happen”? These aren’t edgy thoughts. They’re acts of exclusion. They don’t provoke thought – they shut thought down.

Take a practical case: imagine a female newcomer logs into this forum, excited to engage with deep philosophical topics, and then stumbles across a thread where someone writes “Women are a waste of time", “They make terrible friends and even worse girlfriends." or one of the other. That’s not just distasteful – it’s a message loud and clear: "You’re not really human here. You’re a problem to be explained, not a person to be heard."

Free speech isn’t sacred. It’s instrumental. And if it’s used to destroy the conditions that make real discourse possible, then drawing lines isn’t just justified – it’s necessary.

:up:

Excellent points. This should really be an OP to discuss the philosophy of speech in a democracy. For now I'll just say that I don't think free speech is an absolute value in the sense that it can be played like a trump (sorry!) card to end a discussion like the one we're having. I would put free speech, along with other democratic values, in a Habermasian context and ask, How can we achieve a discourse that respects the rights of others to safety and flourishing? Also, how a government may handle speech is quite different from how we might do it, for instance, here on TPF. One can oppose government's restrictions on free speech while approving, and even demanding, such restrictions on private forums.

but I also respect how European countries have handled such noxious speech. — J

But antisemitic hate speech is illegal in Germany, right?

But what about when some of you justify the nuclear attack on Japan? Would I be ok with just ignoring it too?

A 'double standard' for free speech, huh. — javi2541997

I guess we could talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki elsewhere if you want. Talking about the morality of events in war isn't the same thing as outright bigotry.

That's right.

My point was not backing Gregory but protesting that there are folks who are also toxic like a rotten swamp.

Even though it is complex to moderate a website where different people with mixed opinions can post, I think it is not the right thing to draw a scale where the tones represent the topics or opinions that are more or less tolerated.

Since he wished the death of women, that's obviously a 'red flag' for someone who wants to interact with others. But I also received replies such as "your country should have never existed" because of the colonisation of America. Topics where our emotions are out of control. I guess the intelligent way to act is to ignore those kinds of comments, but I understand that some can't just let it go.

Take a practical case: imagine a female newcomer logs into this forum, excited to engage with deep philosophical topics, and then stumbles across a thread where someone writes “Women are a waste of time", “They make terrible friends and even worse girlfriends." or one of the other. That’s not just distasteful – it’s a message loud and clear: "You’re not really human here. You’re a problem to be explained, not a person to be heard." — DasGegenmittel

Oh, I can almost hear the sad violins in the background.

Anyway; women need to be protected from weird opinions?

Come now.


Honestly, if people were spamming the forum with weird nonsense I'd see the point, but Gregory shared one weird opinion when half the forum was dogpiling him.

A warning would have been enough.

but I also respect how European countries have handled such noxious speech.
— J

But antisemitic hate speech is illegal in Germany, right? — frank

Yes, exactly -- they take a different approach than the somewhat more rigid ideas of US "free speech." And I respect that. I'm using "respect" to mark out an attitude roughly like, "Yes, this approach makes sense, and the reasons behind it must be taken into account in any decent discussion of the question." So "respect" would also apply to the US reasons for permitting anti-semitic speech.

:up:

My point was not backing Gregory but protesting that there are folks who are also toxic like a rotten swamp. — javi2541997

Oh no, and who are those toxic individuals so we can do something about them?

Good post. I’m not used to seeing anger from you. You do it well.

As it says in the guidelines, this kind of thing is not tolerated. — Jamal

Once here on the forum, there was an entire thread about how good it would be if we could figure out a technological way to get rid of men so that there would only be women. That didn’t seem to raise much of a ruckus with anyone. No one was banned, the thread wasn’t even removed. I doubt things would be different if it happened today.
.

Bedtime, Carlitos. It is important to sleep early so you will not miss the catechesis exam tomorrow. :wink:

I’m not used to seeing anger from you. — T Clark

Because I am shy.

In the U.S., there's often this almost sacred reverence for free speech as an absolute principle. But I’d argue that speech is only valuable insofar as it sustains the conditions for open, inclusive, and rational discourse. Once it begins to actively undermine those conditions – by dehumanizing people, inciting hatred, or flooding the space with bad-faith noise – its “freedom” becomes self-defeating. — DasGegenmittel

It’s funny, this is exactly the argument people use when they want people to stop talking about issues that go against those in power. Every tyranny there has ever been has used this exact same argument.

Every tyranny there has ever been has used this exact same argument. — T Clark

Of course they have. But they lie and distort what is going on under their tyrannies, so that criticisms of the regime are vilified as "dehumanizing" and "bad-faith noise" that criticizes a "rational and open" government. That doesn't make it true. Let's not get distracted by "false equivalence" strategies, which will always be yapping at us.

Imo the one where he hoped every woman would die
— fdrake

I don't think that's what he actually said, though. — Tzeentch

He hoped for a future without women. It is not the exact same thing. The difference doesn't matter much. — fdrake

As I noted in my response to Jamal, an entire thread here on the forum proposing that the same thing should happen to men did not receive any complaints except from me. If it happened again today, I doubt there would be any difference.

Every tyranny there has ever been has used this exact same argument. — T Clark

tyranny of tolerance

Of course they have. But they lie and distort what is going on under their tyrannies, so that criticisms of the regime are vilified as "dehumanizing" and "bad-faith noise" that criticizes a "rational and open" government. That doesn't make it true. Let's not get distracted by "false equivalence" strategies, which will always be yapping at us. — J

When you give them an opportunity, the people in power are the ones who get to decide what “sustains the conditions for open, inclusive, and rational discourse.” That’s why you don’t give anyone the opportunity. If that leads to a somewhat rigid set of rules, that’s the price you pay.

tyranny of tolerance — frank

I don’t know what that means.

I don’t know what that means. — T Clark

It means that if we want an environment without racial, religious, or sexual intolerance, we have to be somewhat intolerant of it.

Bedtime, Carlitos. It is important to sleep early so you will not miss the catechesis exam tomorrow. :wink: — javi2541997

Javi, I would never be able to fall asleep knowing that there are toxic elements among us. Perhaps we need an Inquisition into the matter? :chin:

Yeah, but practically speaking such a discussion is not going to scare men off from the forum. It's not particularly toxic. It could become toxic if it escalated I guess. I didn't see the thread.

Perhaps we need an Inquisition into the matter? — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, perhaps mate. But I would ask the Rota Inquisition court to act in a less malicious manner than Jews do in Palestine.

I see your point. But to deny them that opportunity, shouldn't we start by branding them as liars and tyrants? (If we're willing to suffer the consequences.) I think there's a difference in the way a democratic society should treat demagogues versus those committed to a genuine public discourse. The conditions for an "open, inclusive, and rational society" are not, past a certain reasonable point, a matter of opinion.

John Stuart Mill argued that freedom of speech ends where it causes real harm to others. Kant went further: freedom is only possible when it’s limited by the equal freedom of all. In this view, boundaries don’t suppress liberty—they make it possible.

When speech dehumanizes or systematically targets others, it's not freedom under threat—it's the very space in which freedom and dialogue can exist. As Popper warned, unlimited tolerance of intolerance will ultimately destroy a tolerant society.

And like Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, those who see truth as a tool of power aren’t seeking dialogue—they're seeking dominance. That’s not dissent. It’s the dissolution of discourse.

The conditions for an "open, inclusive, and rational society" are not, past a certain reasonable point, a matter of opinion. — J

And the people in power are the ones who decide where that “certain reasonable point” is.

A long discussion of freedom of speech probably doesn’t belong in this thread. I’m going to leave it at that.

Fair enough. It would be a good OP though -- if you start it, I'll gladly participate.

Yeah, perhaps mate. But I would ask the Rota Inquisition court to act in a less malicious manner than Jews do in Palestine. — javi2541997

In Palestine? What is Palestine to you? So you support the war but want it less vicious?