vershy versh

Well-known member
The ones without hate speech laws are more liberal on account of not having these laws e.g. Britain was more liberal before they were brought in. I don't think you understand how corrosive laws on freedom of expression are; for instance, there are probably things that you've said on here that could land you in prison either now or in the future, so what should that realisation do to your willingness to share your opinions?

I think this only makes sense if you consider the existence of hate speech laws the sole arbiter of liberalism. A liberal society could introduce said laws whilst progressing in other areas and probably continue to consider itself more liberal than an authoritarian society without said laws.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
You'd run into fewer of these tangles if you actually read what people have said and realised ideas can be discussed without being subscribed to.

I'll refer you to the second page of the thread once again where I said the mask can come off liberalism once it gets into trouble, which your example via yyaldrin illustrates.
Okay, you agree with me. The laws are fundamentally flawed in that there is no infallible moral authority that can be trusted to make the right call on whether some statements are "bad" or "good".

You can't take yourself seriously as a philosopher or philosophical being if you subscribe to laws that limit verbal expression beyond incontrovertible statements of untruth involved in existing law on defamation, slander etc.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Imagine if the anti-version party came to power whose unstated purpose was to oppose version in all its manifestations. Anything you say would be considered hate speech by definition.

Alternatively, imagine Reform coming in and using the laws to suppress contradictory political agendas.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I think this only makes sense if you consider the existence of hate speech laws the sole arbiter of liberalism. A liberal society could introduce said laws whilst progressing in other areas and probably continue to consider itself more liberal than an authoritarian society without said laws.
Communication is the bedrock of society and, by stifling it, the purportedly "liberal" society is biasing the means by which a society assesses itself. So I would consider your assessment, being produced by someone who happily subscribes to this regime of self-censorship, to be low on credibility because of your subscription...another example of the corrosion.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Eastern Europeans literally fought for decades to get rid of this crap, only to have it crop up in GB of all places.
 

vershy versh

Well-known member
Okay, you agree with me.

I would consider your assessment, being produced by someone who happily subscribes to this regime of self-censorship, to be low on credibility because of your subscription...another example of the corrosion.

Which is it, do I agree with you or am I a happy subscriber? You've jumped from one to the other within a couple of posts.
 

vershy versh

Well-known member
I can't work out whether Biscuits genuinely believes discussing something means you must agree with it or whether he just pretends not to understand that to manufacture and prolong these sorts of arguments.

The thread clearly isn't an argument for or against liberalism. It's a discussion of its strengths and weaknesses, where it might be going.
 

luka

Well-known member
Unfortunately someone on dissensus (i think it was mr tea) tipped off the animal shelter he was volunteering at about his contentious beliefs and hate speech acts and they said he couldnt volunteer there any more
 

luka

Well-known member
He feels,with some justification, that he is being pushed out of society for his beliefs. Like what used to happen to people under communism
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Unfortunately someone on dissensus (i think it was mr tea) tipped off the animal shelter he was volunteering at about his contentious beliefs and hate speech acts and they said he couldnt volunteer there any more
I wish I'd thought of that.
 

vershy versh

Well-known member
An old thread of Mark's batting some of these ideas around.

 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
People dont really appreciate how much of a saint sufi is. He believe in the power of love.
It's ironic for someone who despises free speech, like version, that he is so happy under Sufi's unmatchedly hands-off moderation; on most forums his comments in the anti-semitic thread would have been butchered out of existence, taking with them the bulk of evidence that he ever set foot on this fair earth.
 
Top