zlacker

Where is the Free Speech Absolutist outrage? What happened to the answer to bad speech is more good speech?

Can I conclude that both of those positions are by and large rhetorical shams?

>>bedige+(OP)
No shams and the inevitable and predictable result of people not advertising the wiser position. That people are silent should come to no surprise and some might even revel in that the tables have turned on some platforms. I expect the majority to just bang their heads into the nearest table though.

Ironically it was defenders of freedom of speech and expression that were threatened with consequences.

> journalists and leftist pundits

usually you can be one of these but rarely both at the same time.

>>bedige+(OP)
> They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.

The next part talks about how they fall silent when pressed hard, but that was before the internet. Now they slip back, disappear, and re-emerge elsewhere. We don't even have the pleasure of their silence.

>>bedige+(OP)
It was always pretty transparent what "free speech" meant to Elon (and many others like him). It means "I personally should be able to say and do whatever I want without consequences".

The week before he tweeted about "free speech absolutism" he canceled a dude's Tesla order because they criticized him on X.

>>bedige+(OP)
Free Speech Absolutist left twitter before Musk and are living in decentralized platforms.

>>raxxor+g3
>> journalists and leftist pundits

> usually you can be one of these but rarely both at the same time.

I didn't parse this as referring to only one person, so there's no "at the same time" here.

>>bedige+(OP)
No, it is not sensible to "conclude that both of those positions are by and large rhetorical shams". An age old seeming inevitability is that longstanding gripes get their banner taken up by charlatans dishonestly using them for personal gain. This does not mean the original concerns are dishonest or invalid. Rather it means we need to scrutinize people referencing these topics to see what they actually do when they have power, rather than uncritically supporting them merely because they claim to care about something we do.

>>bedige+(OP)
> Can I conclude that both of those positions are by and large rhetorical shams?

I wouldn't be surprised if some reach that conclusion. It's much more complicated than that -- but also pretty simple:

No one feels bad for a bully that gets punched in the face even if they believe violence is wrong.

>>kelsey+D4
Ironically, it is the Trump supporting types that seem to really enjoy explaining their positions. Left wingers cannot handle being pressed hard -- particularly in a corporate setting -- about things like DEI and other matters they are unwilling to cede.

Press me as hard as you want! I can defend my positions easily and without getting emotional.

>>dralle+I4
> "I personally should be able to say and do whatever I want without consequences"

I think it's more "I'm not accountable to you people". At least that's my position. Left wingers seem to think I have to care what they think about what I say on the internet. I do not, and I will not.

>>bedige+(OP)
If you fear the consequences of your speech, then you are likely to self-censor, and (one can argue) you no longer have free speech. This is the argument that "Free Speech Absolutists" tend to use to justify trying to protect people from the consequences of their speech... which necessarily infringes on others' speech.

You fundamentally cannot enable people to speak without fear without infringing others' right to speak freely. In the context of a government, it is possible (only very barely, and frequently governments are unable to rise to this level) to create systems that punishes neither party and exit any and all attempts at moderation. But when you are running a social media site, this isn't a feasible option, and trying to punish people who are causing fear and limiting free speech will only cause the next wave of free speech sites to arise. Techdirt has a nice article on speedrunning content moderation: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you...

Is it a rhetorical sham? Not necessarily, in the sense that I think its proponents could very well believe in what they say. But it is a belief whose consequences hasn't been fully thought-through, and I can't see anyone who still hews to that belief after fully thinking it through.

>>k33n+A7
The mistake here is in casting left-wingers as the alternative to Trump, when Trump is so far beyond the right-wing event horizon that even Reagan-era republicans would oppose him. Please understand that the world is not so simple as left vs. right.

>>kibwen+1c
Fascinating perspective -- given that I completely disagree. Trump is not right wing by any historic metric. He shouts a lot. That's the only thing he has in common with "fascist dictators". His policies are not conservative. Dude spent like it was going out of style.

>>k33n+h8
Right wingers sure do care a lot when the rest of us don't want to hear what they say though

>>k33n+A7
There are entire communities and prominent influencers on every platform specifically dedicated to explaining leftist positions, just as there are on the right.

It turns out a lot of people love debating on the internet.

>>IntelM+Dc
The rest of who? The fringe left who is simply adopting positions that were spoon fed to them? Yeah not terribly concerned with your wants, that's accurate.

>>k33n+kc
At the risk of repeating myself, please understand that the world is not so simple as left vs. right. "Conservativism" is irrelevant as an ideology, since it's now just a hollowed-out husk that has been adopted by authoritarian extremists in an attempt to deflect from criticisms of their authoritarian nature. And Trump is an authoritarian to the core.

>>k33n+xe
Point proven :)

>>k33n+xe
I'm not sure I follow. It's so bad there's an in-joke among the left that their memes are walls of text referencing the most dense prose you'll ever read and that the required reading will take you years to complete. The bar seems to be rather high.

Is there a similar self-deprecating joke amongst the right? What's the required reading list look like for those on the right?

>>kelsey+KM
Not sure I get the joke but I'm sure it's very funny to you. I don't really get into the meme world.

As for self deprecating jokes, I suppose I'd just point you to the right's love of over the top Trump impersonators who make fun of Trump's various verbal ticks and his general public speaking style.

As for "required reading" I don't believe that the various factions within non-left-wing communities have one unified reading list. You'd have to get out more and talk to some to find out what they're reading IMHO.

>>k33n+5s3
The point I was making is that leftists gate-keep participation by requiring reading and self-acknowledges this. That seems at odds to the notion that leftists are spoon-fed. How do you reconcile this?

>>kelsey+WI3
I'm sure they "self-acknowledge" that their ideas are very complex. It's something I've seen leftists claim time and again. Their ideas are quite simple and flimsy from my POV.

IME, nothing impressive there. If only they'd read some Sowell instead of headlines on Reddit.

>>k33n+Gz6
Exactly how much time have you spent in leftist spaces?

From what I observe they seem to be riddled with bookclub after bookclub so much so that it prevents them from doing anything at all.

>>kelsey+TT7
What is a "leftist space"? I go wherever I want and stay however long I choose.

If you're spending a lot of time with those people and finding value in what they're saying then keep doing it. Do whatever makes you happy.