Daily reminder

Problem is that people who control big websites like youtube, twitter, facebook, ect are essentially unelected officials in their power over speech

Was the green text not enough information for your inferior mind to comprehend?

>Problem is that people who control big websites like youtube, twitter, facebook, ect are essentially unelected officials in their power over speech
That's not my problem. Unless these websites are government owned. it's admins can do whatever they want with them because it's their personal property.

No. Freedom of Speech is being able to criticize the government without having to fear suppression. It was never about ''You can say whatever the fuck you want, when you want''.

That doesn't mean include campaigns to get someone shown the door by claiming that they're saying something they're not.

>''You can say whatever the fuck you, when you want''.
Except it always was and your shit tier web comic conflates freedom of association with cultural enforced censorship and egocentrism?

It was always about keeping the populace informed, not about having the populace censor itself.

See

>It's just that the people listening think you're and asshole, and they're showing you the door.

No it isn't. It is one group of people who think you're an asshole and therefor want to deny another group of people, who don't think that, the right to hear you speak.

This

>Except it always was
no it literally wasn't. All Adams says in your quote is that the government shouldn't try to hide shit form the people. That's it. In no way does it back up your argument.

>mfw people aren't shunning them anymore

>think you're an asshole and therefor want to deny another group of people
And they can do that, Unless they are the government. They are not obligated to give you a platform, or listen to you in any way, shape, or form.

No, that is the legal right of free speech, free speech as a principle goes beyond that to believing that allowing a large range of debates and ideas into our society is for the good, even if individual ideas are dangerous.

Adams literally says
>Liberty cannot be maintained without a well informed populace
Meaning, the point of free speech was to have a dialectical debate with people where people can come to unbiased conclusions without interference from anyone else, not just the government.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right or moral authority to no listen to others and actively try to shut down their ability to speak. You are arguing in favor of the logic of a web comic, just a reminder, against what John Adams said.

Not only that, but you're trying to twist John Adams words. Have you no shame?

That's my whole point if you can read? The problem is the want to deny OTHERS from giving me a platform or listening to me.

Social coercion can be, and in fact almost always is in the West, a greater force of coercion than legal coercion when it comes to speech. Just because there are no laws against ostracising a person on the basis of opinion to the extent that they loses their livelihood and are essentially financially ruined doesn't make it right, desirable or, to a degree, excusable.

Someone who has no idea of WHY freedom of speech is guaranteed in the American Constitution might be totally okay with mob coercion silencing opinions rather than just the state doing it, but you if that's the case then you don't truly respect the freedom of speech.

Except free speech is a culture not a government decree you thick fuck. Topkek, how can you see "you have the freedom to speak" when you are simultaneously saying "you don't have the right to speak when I disagree with you"

How much hypocrisy can one butthurt turbo-leftist have?

>The problem is the want to deny OTHERS from giving me a platform or listening to me.
Yes, and they can do that if its their own privite platform.

>If it is their own private platform
Then maybe certain platforms need to be given to the government if it's allowed to sway the opinions of the masses based on personal preferences? Oh wait, but then they would be censoring people because you've made private censorship into collective and state enforced censorship.

Because there really is THAT much of difference :D

>hyper conservatives want a return to a pre-modern style shame culture where non-normative practices and opinions are ridiculed and silenced in an effort to fight 'degeneracy'
>gets mad at the communal shaming and silencing of their opinions by society

How much did he get paid for this?

>unironically posting a tfwtard
Supreme court has decided corporations count as individuals, denying people a platform to speech they don't like is completely legal under the law.
Opinion discarded

>hyper conservatives want a return to a pre-modern style shame culture where non-normative practices and opinions are ridiculed and silenced in an effort to fight 'degeneracy'
We do? I didn't know that! I thought we would have a community where we could interact and care for one another by warning people why hedonism leads you down a bad path in life and letting them come to their own conclusions through interaction with others, but hey if this strawman says otherwise then I'm all aboard!

>, how can you see "you have the freedom to speak" when you are simultaneously saying "you don't have the right to speak when I disagree with you"
Nice way to put words into my mouth. You have the freedom to speak in a public or state platform,but in a private platform people are not obligated to listen to you or entertain you views. You can go pound sand if you don't like that.

>posts reddit comic for bait post
>34 replies

>Get paid
No he really is just that much of a moron.

Why do leftists and liberals suddenly love corporations? Are they just hoping that corporate executives become the new economic directors?

>The state says x therefore it's correct
Someone warned us about this a long time back, kek. It's censorship either way

>the law and what is right are one and the same

There is no law in the UK which requires you to save a drowning child even if the only inconvenience to you is getting your shoes wet, so I guess that means letting that child drown is fine.

Whatever he makes on Patreon/Merch. It is his Job

Are you really calling it a strawman that shame culture is a hallmark of conservativism?

>Nice way to put words into my mouth
Alright I will be more specific
How can you say
>You have the freedom to speak
When you also say
>but in a private platform people are not obligated to listen to you or entertain you views,
Which also means
therefore private entities have every right to censor your media being shared on the platform that hundreds of millions of people use via oligarchic decree

And you are doing this all the who ignoring the intent of founding fathers was to promote a CULTURE of learning

Christ, you liberal will do anything to justify shutting down your opponents and plugging ears when the say something you don't like, huh?

>post reddit comic
>41 replies

This is what baffles me. I was a lefty from 16 til my early 20's and the main talking points were anti-globalism, anti-migration but not anti-people. We were all euro-sceptic because it made sense with our views of the working class.

Now the left seems to hate the working class, love globalism, love migration.

Yes, because the assumption here is that shame culture is like liberal shame culture where we invade your place of work, try to get you fired, harass you while you are at home with your family, beat you up and throw bags of our own piss at you, etc.

Shame culture means interacting with people and trying to learn from other people's mistakes. There are conservatives who just disown people they don't like as well, but to imply that conservatives as a whole think of shake culture in that manner is a gross stereotype. Shame doesn't come from coercion, it comes from understanding.

>Reddit invades
>Do nothing
>Become Reddit

Yes, that's the issue here.

>They are not obligated to give you a platform, or listen to you in any way, shape, or form.
The problem is not "forcing someone to give a platform". The problem is that "progressive" activists force people to deny others platform. No one is asking some super liberal trans activist to listen to Ben Shapiro or to host his speeches in xir house.

Perfect.
I think that one problem with some American "progressives" is that they think that "as long as it is legal, anything that you can do against a conservative is moral".

>Implying any country in the world follows Mill's version of freedom of speech
Go try to be a Fascist, Islamist, Communist, or any other ideology that challenges the current liberal/Capitalist status quo. See how that works for you. Mill's version of freedom of speech has never existed and never will.

>Christ, you liberal will do anything to justify shutting down your opponents and plugging ears when the say something you don't like, huh?

They can't be called liberals. Free speech is an important part of liberalism.

>post reddit comic
>50+ replies

Does that mean Mill's view of free speech is wrong?

That's how our society works.
Why do you think our politicians harp on about the rule of law.
If you don't like it you're free to leave

>Mill's version of freedom of speech has never existed and never will.

No right has been perfectly respected, ever. That doesn't mean we should aspire to respect them more completely. That's the exact reason why we have laws regarding these rights; so that they can be enforced against the abuser when they are breached.

>makes sweeping generalizations about 'liberal' shame culture
>how dare you generalize about the way conservatives shame people!

You'll notice I prefaced my post with the term 'hyper conservatives' Your definition of shame culture makes absolutely no sense at all. And if you don't think conservatives try to intimidate and harass people to shame them then you're blind or dumb.

That's not how our society works. There's no law stating that you have to love your kids, but if you tell your kids you don't love them and never will, society would look extremely poorly upon you. Again, what is the law and what is right are not synonyms.

That's true actually, funny how far modern liberalism has strayed from liberte, fraternite, and egalite and has just become more authoritarian over time

Using these exact same means, society has silenced ethnic and ideological minorities in the past.
Now they're just doing it with ideological minorities, and less officially with ethnic minorities.
In what way is this acceptable?
[spoiler]entshuldingung fuer schlechtes Deutsch[/spoiler]
>Herr Hitler, ich denke nicht, dass sollen Sie die Juden gassen
>DEIN GLAUBEN SIND VERBOTEN!

Tu quoque is not an argument, assuming you were trying to argue against the point there.

You're an idiot if you assume society works on what is right instead what is legally permissible.

>Not understanding what hyperbole is
I was using s radical extreme of liberalism (anarcho feminists, black bloc fags, etc) to describe the radicals on your end of the spectrum
>Right wingers don't use coercion
Not really no
>Inb4 Charlottesville
It wasn't a bunch of white nationalists beating up black people, it was supposed to be peaceful alt right protests for Confederacy statues , like the one in Pikesville they had which went peacefully.
Right wingers don't generally harass or coerce people, in the USA they are total spergs about freedom of speech

Are you saying that pointing out hypocritical inconsistencies in belief is irrelevant to a discussion of how those beliefs should be applied to the real world?
Because yes. Yes, it is very relevant.

Nice thread Veeky Forums

Yes.

Leftists have no argument; they lost the battle of words. They realize how stupid they look and sound so they resort to the adult equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah I can't hear you"

It's hilarious and pathetic at the same time. I feel bad for them.

The comic does a good job showcasing why free speech doesn't really exist desu

Yes.
I think the biggest issue is that they have some arrogance where they believe they can never be wrong. So, if "their team" is pro-choice, everyone who is pro-life is stupid and we don't even need to hear their arguments, so we might as well silence them, since giving them a voice slows down progress.

>Your definition of shame culture makes absolutely no sense at all.
Probably because your basement dwellers who has no sense of community. You can't coerce people into being shamed to a culture they never belonged to in the first place. If you want to shame people, you have to get them into the mindset of your own belief system and in-group identity through dialectical persuasion.

In other words talking to someone like a rational human being is more effective than force

You think that there is nothing that can be at the same time immoral and legal?

>post reddit comic
>70+ replies

>your end of the spectrum
I'm literally a conservative you mong
>Right wingers don't generally harass or coerce people
Wow. I must have imagined all those abortion doctor killings on my own. For someone who moans about generalizations, you sure are happy to make them.

>Shaming happens through treating people like rational human beings
That is one of the stupidest things I've read. Cultural shaming is a process of othering and ostracization

To restate, if you think that law and what is right are the same, then you are absolutely wrong. Crucial parts of social interaction are not governed in any way (save in exceptional circumstances, such as court rooms) by law.

For example, there are no laws against:
>RSVP'ing to a wedding and then not showing up
>insulting people around you and treating them in a rude, unfriendly manner
>never showering and smelling like absolute shit and wearing ripped, stained, rag-like clothes whenever you walk around outside
>flushing condoms down the toilet and mucking up the sewer pipes

All of these are clearly NOT 'right' to varying degrees and I'm sure you can think of several other examples of anti-social but legally permissible behaviour.

Similarly, there are laws in parts of the world which are extremely unjust. Think of Sharia law, or the precedent in China which implies that the first person to help an injured party is by virtue of that fact guilty of harming them in the first place, or of the law in France that bans paternity tests other than in exceptional circumstances. Some of these are fuzzy at best and I'm SURE at least one goes directly counter to what you would consider 'right'.

>what is the principle of free speech vs the 1st amendment

It's irrelevant because it doesn't address at all the core issue of 'should we permit social coercion as a means of silencing dissent'. It's just pure ad hominem.

As an aside, we don't give rights to ideas, we give rights to people. What that entails is that hyper conservatives (or ultra leftists) advocating censorship should always, ironically, have the ability to air their views.

The thread's been pretty good so far 2bh

I assure you OP never made a second post

People nowadays are so obsessed with fair representation that they conflated the issue with free speech.

In what way?

No need to apologize.
>Herr Hitler, ich finde, dass wir die Juden nicht vergasen sollten.
>DEINE MEINUNG IST VERBOTEN!
ftfy

Your boss disliking you for your opinions is not something the government should concern itself with.
I could see your boss wrongfully terminating your contract or defaming you as an issue, sure, but the problem would be the act rather than the cause.

I'm pointing out how fundamentally flawed people's (especially radicals) response to that question is. Everyone will always say they think people should be able to speak their mind, until someone else says something that crossed the line and just went too far and hurt my feelings really bad.
I find it especially funny when a huge cornerstone of conservativism is shame culture and a new wave of reactionaryism has brought it to the forefront, while these same reactionaries are getting pissy about being shamed.

The question itself is tied up in the inherent inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the issue
>'should we permit social coercion as a means of silencing dissent'
How 'should we' police people on not policing people? It just doesn't make sense.

>I'm a conservative
*Neoconservative , therefore a liberal
>Abortion bombings from a few nuts is mass coercion.
Rlly makes me think

In this thread we're basically talking about people with less accepted opinions pretending to be given the same platforms of expression as people expressing the most mainstream opinions.

What I actually said was
>In other words talking to someone like a rational human being is more effective than force
Because you can't shame people who don't care about what you think ya fucking brainlet lol

If you want someone to feel shame they need to feel guilty for something in first place, how are you not getting that?

This. People are lazy.

Cool! We get to define what other people are now from a few messages on an image board?
Hmm... I guess I'll define you as a hopeless retard

>find it especially funny when a huge cornerstone of conservativism is shame culture and a new wave of reactionaryism has brought it to the forefront, while these same reactionaries are getting pissy about being shamed.
Except you concept of shame is retarded and you're just repeating the same statement ad nauseum while, when anyone tries to explain something to you , your counter point is "I don't get it"

If you think freedom of speech is freedom from government interference and not sure series of cultural mores that tries to promote education among the masses, then you're a neocon.

It's that simple.

>How 'should we' police people on not policing people? It just doesn't make sense.

The proposal according to Mill and others who wrote on this would be attempting to persuade people to embrace a cultural shift towards engaging and defeating bad arguments instead of knee-jerking towards censorship, to be policed in the same way that being unfaithful to your friends is policed, which is to say, culturally.

It's probably about as realistic as >muh ideal state gommunism, but still

You'll find that nowhere in anything I said

>My opinions are 100% valid
No, they are just your opinions. And if your post is any measure, your opinions are usually not valid at all.

What makes an opinion invalid?

And? The latter isn't done to prevent degeneracy, in fact, it's done to promote it.
There's no hypocrisy there.

It's how we started the conversation, unless you're some fag who butt into a conversation I was having with another user and forgot to say "not him, but"

Ouch.

How would firing decent, capable employees even be a sustainable business strategy? Only idiots would fire people that disagree with them on such unrelated things.

>How would firing decent, capable employees even be a sustainable business strategy?

Easy, just fire a few, the rest get scared into silence.

Nope. Never said that
I said that hyper conservatives routinely deploy shame culture and then attempt to defend themselves against shaming via free speech

I have never commented on the nature or place of free speech in an ideal society

>I said that hyper conservatives routinely deploy shame culture and then attempt to defend themselves against shaming via free speech
Not the guy you're talking to but these "hyper conservatives" you talk about sound more like a strawman than anything real.

I don't think you understand what i'm saying. Mill's version of freedom of speech literally doesn't exist. It cannot be ''perfected'' or ''respected''.
It's literally illegal to even question the numbers of the Holocaust victims. The West moans about how Muslims force their women to wear veils then go on to ban them in their own countries. Regardless of whether the Muslim women wants to wear to them, or not. Christians are forced to bake cakes for homosexuals and priests are forced to marry them in church out of pure spite.
Criticism of the behavior of modern day women will get you utterly bombarded with Ad Hominem like questioning your sexual life and virginity. As if that refutes your argument.
Mills version of freedom of speech is bullshit Utopian nonsense. People are willing to tolerate ideologies they agree with, or are neutral too, but will never tolerate ideas they truly despise.