Such as? Ted Cruz sort of said that during that congressional meeting that Zuckerberg was at, though it was more of a stunt to win brownie points with the Republican base over "liberal bias" on Facebook than it was advocacy for right-wing extremists to be represented in all forms of media (Cruz specifically used a questionable piece of law that would apply to Facebook but not media companies). Otherwise, I don't know any.
I mean, it's been a fairly common talking point among people like Hannity et al.
Someone here, possibly not you but maybe Mort or Black Orifice, can't remember, posted a NYT piece honoring Marx just a month ago. Pretty sure you didn't speak out against that piece.
Haha, well I should have clarified. Marx is a dead 19thc philosopher whose work goes well beyond collectivism. I'm referring to active living radicals calling for the systematic execution of the bourgeoisie.
It is an issue when the protest uses violence to attack speakers and attendees alike. "Shut the fuck up, it's just rehabilitative violence you cunts."
Single individuals resorting to violent actions isn't an excuse for shutting down protests entirely.
How is permitting them to speak naive? Can you name a couple examples where a given society allowed too much free speech and it led to the rise of extremists? I could name countless examples where attempts to stifle some forms of speech led to far worse.
I can appreciate this, and the fact that there has never been a society (to my knowledge) that allowed pure, unadulterated free speech. The reason for this, however (this is inference, mind you), is that pure, unadulterated free expression is a fantasy of the liberal West. Since the American Revolution, freedom of speech has been idealized into this supreme commandment (thou shalt not infringe upon free speech) to be pursued at any cost.
I call bullshit on such a perspective, and would say that ultimately all developed societies advocate freedom of expression while simultaneously regulating what can be said. I don't view this as the tyrannical oppression of governmental overlords, but as the result of impersonal, multi-year (multi-decade even) conversations happening within a society over time--like how it was decided that the n-word isn't appropriate in social discourse.
Well, in a free society, people should idealistically be able to dictate what they want. The people in power may be able to control this, but the everyday people should not feel as though they cannot express their opinion. How can we mediate opinions without eliminating legitimate questions? To me it sounds like you are trying to play god. Your judgment, or those of the educated, are not divine. What you suppose is not freedom, but enforced ideals.
I'm not trying to play god. I'm not even in a position to make decisions on this (that would ultimately land, presumably, on media and communications institutions).
I'm willing to have a meta-level conversation about it though, and that's something everyone can participate in.
I understand what you are saying, and strongly disagree. You want to regulate free speech in a way to eliminate dissent and encourage people to live by your ideals. This is only ok if you are somehow divine and separate from human judgment. You aren't. You are biased; so please dont think your opinion is somehow better than everyone elses. Science is a discipline meant to observe and make inferences, not to judge and confirm objectives.
I kinda think your bias toward unadulterated freedom (a fantasy) is preventing you from understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that my opinion should be held in higher regard than others, or that I'm unbiased. Everyone is biased, I'm not denying that.
What you and others have to understand is that I'm saying this could happen on a complex level. It wouldn't need to be hierarchical, but merely organizational. It would be part of a meta-level conversation about productive speech, rather than a hungry hungry hippos version of language gluttony.
So complaints should be arbitrarily ignored by people who know better? You are no better than your forbears with a different perspective.
Better or worse doesn't matter, and is largely immaterial. The perspective does matter though.
The restriction of thought is definitely comparable to enslavement. Ultimately enslavement is forcing people to do as you wish. I mentioned enslavement as an intellectual equivalency, not as a physical restriction. Telling people what is legitimate or not to think is the epitome of Orwellian thoughtcrime. Who are you to be able to judge whether people's personal opinions matter or not?
I'm not advocating that people do what I wish, or what any specific individual wishes.
If you carry your argument to its logical conclusion, then every individual is a slave to society. A sense of social obligation and conciliation is not the same thing as slavery. What Van Norden was saying about speech and mediation isn't that individuals should see themselves as the watchmen of a society that needs their wisdom, but as participants in a society that wants to improve.
Once again, I'm not saying that certain language should be illegal, or have penal consequences. Everyone can, theoretically, still say whatever the hell they want. I'm simply calling into question whether all opinions and comments should have equal access to platforms of distribution. I don't think, for instance, David Duke should have the same access to a university lectern as Henry Louis Gates. I believe there's a distinction in kind that can be made here. I don't think that makes me a power-hungry tyrant, but if you disagree then you disagree.
