Comment by Capricorn2481
11 days ago
It's not weird at all, it's pointing out most free speech absolutists just mean speech for themselves and their friends. Musk will be silent about this.
11 days ago
It's not weird at all, it's pointing out most free speech absolutists just mean speech for themselves and their friends. Musk will be silent about this.
Those aren't free speech advocates, and there is no absolutism with speech - you either have free speech or you don't.
Classic no true Scotsman. All the people who proclaim to be absolutists or advocates but dont meet my definition clearly are not.
That makes no sense. Free speech is clearly defined, say what you want and the government has no authority to censor you. Anything short of that isn't free speech, and creating some middle ground between "free speech" and "absolutism" is nothing more than an attempt to move the goal posts.
What most people seem to miss is that companies like Facebook aren't the government and therefore aren't held to the standard of free speech. Signal ng up for an account and agreeing to their terms gives them authority to censor.
6 replies →
> you either have free speech or you don't
except for everywhere in the real world, where you have "free speech, kinda"
At least in germany there are more gradient,you can't say anything but most things. And thats ok i'd say.
That's totally reasonable. I don't fault people for wanting limitations on speech, I just take issue with drawing a line between free speech and "absolute" free speech.
Germany may not have free speech, and if the German people don't want it that's totally fine.
"Free speech absolutist" was a strawman used against anybody who spoke out against deplatforming as a dangerous idea, which included a lot of liberals. (The pro-deplatforming crowd are very much not liberals.)
Watching the pro-deplatformers get burned by their own illiberalism is very satisfying; watching some of them not having learned any lesson from it, doubly so.
> "Free speech absolutist" was a strawman used against anybody who spoke out against deplatforming as a dangerous idea, which included a lot of liberals
Definitely not on the scale you're implying. People disagreed on who should be deplatformed. People generally didn't call you a "free speech absolutist" if you didn't self identify as such. That was a term people dubbed themselves (and often failed to live up to).
You're making it sound like there's a large group of people that were concerned about deplatforming in general and they were randomly and derogatorily labeled free speech absolutists against their will, to shut the conversation down. Maybe that happened in a few very specific places on the internet, but that's not what the broader conversation was.
So wait… are you supporting Meta’s censorship here or not? Another weird comment
It just seems like these comments want to stir the pot
Do I support a ban with no reasoning behind it? Not particularly.