Petal_Chatoyance t1_j5mtke0 wrote on January 24, 2023 at 2:48 AM

Absolute Tolerance, like most any Absolute, inevitably leads to disaster. Why would anyone ever think tolerance should be absolute? Once this silly notion is addressed, there is no paradox at all: free speech for all who support free speech and none for those that would destroy it.

HotGeorgeForeman t1_j5npxfp wrote on January 24, 2023 at 8:10 AM

You saying that directly contradicts my interpretation of what free speech is, so I’m going to imprison you for saying it. Hopefully next time people think twice about openly advocating for what you just did.

Free speech does not include speech against what I consider free speech.

Petal_Chatoyance t1_j5nwdi3 wrote on January 24, 2023 at 9:42 AM

Not the same thing, No True Scotsman, logical fallacy.

If you are going to make a counterargument, make a logical, rational one.

The Popper Paradox is semantic, and not truly a problem of logic.

No structure should include it's own annihilation: this is why it is illegal to try to overthrow a government, for example. Taking the term 'free speech' as an absolute has already been thrown out in countless ways, because it cannot be allowed to exist as an absolute. Calling for the murder of others is illegal, despite 'free speech'. So are making threats of bodily harm. And countless other forms of criminal speech.

Such limits are imposed because not all humans can be trusted to be responsible, reasonable, rational, or have good intentions. It is the same reason anarchy cannot ever be allowed: it always ends in violence and collapse (and warlords!).

Truly free speech could only be permitted if humanity was incapable of violent crime and destruction for its own sake. And that is not going to happen. 'Free speech' always means free speech with conditions. Always.

HotGeorgeForeman t1_j5nwpac wrote on January 24, 2023 at 9:47 AM

Cool rant bud but I’m replying to someone who didn’t say anything you said and just made the nebulous argument of no free speech “for those who would destroy it” which is just a convoluted way of saying “free speech but not for the bad ideas”.

You gave a bunch of extremely narrow and well defined examples of things not covered under most understandings of free speech, which I agree with as a non-free speech absolutist.

But I noticed you didn’t include advocating for anti-free speech ideas. Which as someone who believes in free speech I want to defend the right to express even if I think they’re stupid, and why I have such a visceral reaction every time I read an “ok I like free speech but just let me censor that one it’s the bad one I promise it’s ok just give me the power…”