The Pitters' Place

I've always suspected this but it's nice to see that some research supports it.

Yeah - I wish I was more surprised by that but unfortunately not...

No surprise there.

We'll, I'm a bit surprised by the seemingly unanimous lack of surprise because I could have sworn some of y'all have made free speech defenses(or used similar logic) in certain controversies involving racism/bigotry. I'm thinking about the recent Nazi-punching controversy, Milo, etc.

Anyway, this study is relevant right now because a lot of free speech warriors obsessed with college campuses get real quiet when a woman is being prosecuted for laughing at Sessions(or when a billionaire Trump-supporter secretly uses his power(through the courts) to make a publication go bankrupt because of a personal vendetta).

The other thing to think about is that you don't have to have personal prejudice in your heart to make stupid arguments and hold stupid positions that support bigots. All you need is a naive faith that comes from privilege(which is why privilege is so dangerous). I witnessed an interesting discussion about this a while ago. Conversation was about why many high-profile leftists and liberals(usually white dudes) keep using free speech defenses to attack college students that are protesting hate speech on their campuses. It was asserted that it might be because they have this naive assumption that good will eventually triumph if everyone just follows certain codes of civility. That the reason they don't find hate speech dangerous is because they have the luxury to foolishly believe(or stubbornly insist) that as long as everyone gets to speak(fascists and anti-fascists), good will somehow naturally rise to the top. It's ultimately because they are more invested in order than in justice. Same with people who are against Nazi-punching. Meanwhile, the folks who are the main targets of the fascists see hate speech being publicly validated and bigots becoming more emboldened. They don't have time for foolish faith.

i've been saying this shit for years

I think on the Nazi-punching thread everybody ended up being in agreement regarding free speech - it's an important concept, but if we can draft laws that prohibit hate speech without allowing the government to abuse that power by, say, jailing people who laugh at them, then that would be a good thing. DA and Salmon thought they were arguing for a bit, but they really weren't. Also, I voted for punching Nazis.

I also voted for punching Nazis and i have never supported true free speech in the way some in the US want it.

I'm not in favour of unlimited free speech. But I don't think that equates to arbitrary violence against people we disagree with.

I support the freedom to spew hate speech.
I also support the freedom to punch them in the face for it.

I have a knee-jerk reaction against censorship because of a censorship-happy government here that both sends people to jail for writing racist things on their blogs and also fines a broadcaster $15k for showing a gay couple renovating their home on national TV. So I am extremely wary about any laws surrounding what's considered allowed speech and providing penalties for violations, because while it's great when it's targetting actual hate speech and offensive content, the people determining what qualifies as such are themselves human with their own biases who will ultimately privilege their own worldviews, and that's a dangerous path to go down. (e.g. even on the racism front here, just speaking *about* racism apparently qualifies as racism and can get people in trouble because they say it's racist to say that a certain race is racist.)

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:I'm not in favour of unlimited free speech. But I don't think that equates to arbitrary violence against people we disagree with.

This.

I don't recall anyone on here saying freedom of speech means there should be no consequences for racism, and I've specifically stated racists should be fired, kicked out of their apartments, their businesses boycotted, etc.

However, I was and still am against the whole Nazi-punching thing, especially now since some people are entertaining the Orwellian idea that defending free speech = racism. If we allow the punching of Nazis I see no reason why lefties wouldn't extend that to racists next. Slippery slope, and all that.

1) Specifically making sure Nazis don't get too comfortable being Nazis in public =/= "arbitrary violence against people we disagree with". Framing it in this generic slippery slope way is an expression of your blind commitment to order.

2) Who the fuck said defending free speech = racism?

3) It's already socially acceptable to punch racists sometimes...particularly bold ones who might be foolish enough to use the n-word in public.

Cassius Clay wrote:2) Who the fuck said defending free speech = racism?

3) It's already socially acceptable to punch racists sometimes...particularly bold ones who might be foolish enough to use the n-word in public.

You provided a study that, in certain instances, ties freedom of speech defenses of racist acts to racial prejudices, and then tried to equate this to the discussion on this board regarding Nazi-punching, specifically noting people who weren't okay with the violence used a freedom of speech argument. How did you mean this to be interpreted?

To your third point, plenty of shitty things have been and continue to be "socially acceptable", so that's not really an argument that helps your cause. But again the slippery slope argument is being validated, because now we've moved from punching nazis to punching racists in *some* circumstances. Allowing violence into the equation doesn't have a logical endpoint of said violence.

So, are you saying that I implied that defending free speech = racism? Because I still don't see where I did that. Maybe you inferred incorrectly. My point is that people who don't think Nazis should be punched(but are okay with other consequences) still ultimately share a fundamental assumption with many free speech warriors(rooted in a blind comfort with order) that good will prosper if we commit, with no exceptions, to certain codes of civility. I don't see "defending free speech = racism" anywhere in there. Why aren't you worried about slippery slopes for non-violent consequences? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

I know plenty of "shitty things" are socially acceptable. I know you clearly think punching racists is a "shitty thing", and I don't...so that's not the point I'm arguing. My point is that you're crying about how accepting punching Nazis will lead to punching "racists"...as if society will descend into chaos if we allow it. Meanwhile people have been punching regular old racists for a long time and we're doing just fine. That's because most slippery slope, pearl-clutching arguments from people like you(that is, people defending Nazis, bigots, and oppressors with appeals to order) are complete bullshit.

Most of Western Europe deals this sort of thing by criminalising hate speach. So you don't need to go round randomly punching people and if someone does start spouting racist/hate filled shit the legal system will deal with them. So they don't feel the victim of mob vigilantism but rather the rule of law.

To be clear, when I said everybody on the Nazi-punching thread generally agreed regarding free speech, I meant the subtopic that sprouted up around free speech, not the original topic about whether or not it was moral or just or ok or whatever to punch Nazis. There were still plenty of people who think you shouldn't punch Nazis.

I dunno, I mean how can you watch this video and not want it to end with somebody pounding Green-tank-top-guy into the ground?

Most of Western Europe deals this sort of thing by criminalising hate speach. So you don't need to go round randomly punching people and if someone does start spouting racist/hate filled shit the legal system will deal with them. So they don't feel the victim of mob vigilantism but rather the rule of law.

Has there been any issues with people trying to use this law against people speaking out against racism? e.g. where saying that white people are racist gets classified as hate speech.

Anakin McFly wrote:

Most of Western Europe deals this sort of thing by criminalising hate speach. So you don't need to go round randomly punching people and if someone does start spouting racist/hate filled shit the legal system will deal with them. So they don't feel the victim of mob vigilantism but rather the rule of law.

Has there been any issues with people trying to use this law against people speaking out against racism? e.g. where saying that white people are racist gets classified as hate speech.

Not that I'm aware of.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:So you don't need to go round randomly punching people and if someone does start spouting racist/hate filled shit the legal system will deal with them.