have any intelligent books/papers been written on the dangers of modern political correctness that aren't right wing dogma or written by some comedian or pop psychologist fraud?
libertarian socialist here, tired of hearing the left tell me free speech has its limits
Other urls found in this thread:
thesmartset.com
clementecourse.org
twitter.com
Ego and his Own warned about it before it was a thing, desu
After Virtue and Whose Justice Which Rationally by MacIntyre
Pic related.
Has Zizek written anything on it? I don't read Zizek since I mainly watch him for his sniffs and gestures, but he talks about it enough that I would assume he's written about it as well.
This and his other book Tyranny of Liberalism.
free speech should have limits for retards and be reserved for the intelligent.
Free speech shouldn't have limits for anyone. It shouldn't need to be a vent for retards to expel their pent-up rage over their shitty lives, while we're being idealistic.
in an ideal world said retards should be sent to permanent manual labor (read: concentration camps) where they can contribute their retard energy to something useful so they don't pollute the intellectual waters.
>It shouldn't need to be a vent for retards to expel their pent-up rage over their shitty lives
it is in most cases.
The right hates free speech too. Trump literally said that a comedy show was rigging the election, which shows his level of faith in free speech in general.
If you let idiots "pollute the intellectual waters" with what they say, then that's your fault for making shitty arguments that can't easily btfo that stuff. Everybody whines and bitches about their crappy lives to some extent, but when you sympathize with it (because of spooks, ideology, or whatever you want to call it), it doesn't seem retarded, which is why government doesn't pick sides as to which one is okay to express.
Chomsky has some good passages on free speech, many in connection to his involvement on the Faurrisson affair. Since he is obsessive with footnotes and references, you could find more sources through him. Also wouldn't hurt to read some First Amendment jurisprudence.
>on the left
>unironic thomist
>it is in most cases.
I agree, that's my point. If people weren't repressed in other facets of their life they wouldn't feel a need to shit up free speech.
Agreed the upsilons should be sent to manual labor, such a brave new idea you have :P
>then that's your fault for making shitty arguments that can't easily btfo that stuff.
If you've ever had an argument with a retard, you'll realize that the sharpest, most concise argument won't chink their retard armor. They just shit up talk space and are best left ignored, where, unfortunately, their bullshit opinions multiply like water on gremlins.
>free speech shouldn't have limits
The limits on free speech on the US (which has probably the most liberal free speech laws in the world) are defined by law. One such standard is whether the speech or expression "incites imminent lawless action" for example, you can have a megaphone and shout "DEATH TO THE JEWS" but you cannot shout "TOMORROW AT 5PM I WILL BEGIN MURDERING EVERY JEW I SEE"
Do you disagree with this?
John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is what you're looking for.
>Taking anything that Trump said during his campaign seriously
brainlets get out
I disagree with it on principal, but in practice I can abide it on the condition that there is a secondary reason outside of the speech itself to suspect imminent lawlessness, i.e whatever the technical legal definition for the retrograde version of probable cause is.
While I have had this experience many times and can sympathize with your feelings, it's still your choice to stay and keep arguing or to walk away. Most people have their mind made up to some degree on any number of issues, you don't have a right to convince them of your position, no matter how skillfully you express it. I stay away from places like /pol/ and Tumblr because I know the quality of arguments there are low, but that doesn't mean I think the idiots should be kicked out so that I can have more forums for what I think is a high-level reasonable discussion. Otherwise it just ends up like reddit, where people get viciously downvoted or b& for going against the orthodoxy anf it turns into a circlejerk.
US free speech limits are mostly based on traditional common law exceptions, which are often justified by the convenient intellectual trick of deeming them part-speech, part-action. Not perfect, but it's at least somewhat coherent, although personally I think this doesn't hold up well for libel/ slander. Your example is more of a "true threat" than "incitement to imminent unlawful action", and while DEATH TO THE JEWS would not get any scrutiny under US law, the latter would if it was believed this indicated an attempt or conspiracy to murder Jews or was intended by the speaker to intimidate Jewish people and place them in imminent fear of harm (the latter would be considered the "action" component of the speech).This intent would be difficult to prove if, for instance, the speaker is a quadriplegic or there are no Jews living or working in the area.
Also J.S. Mill wrote a lot about free speech in On Liberty; it is usually considered the classic liberal (in the modern and traditional senses) defense of free speech.
>but that doesn't mean I think the idiots should be kicked out so that I can have more forums for what I think is a high-level reasonable discussion.
/pol/ is the classic example of a containment board for retards, which is the equivalent to the other anons "shipping them off so as not to pollute the intellectual waters" thing, but sure, you have a good point on echo chamber avoidance. It's a shame low levels of discourse tend to have so much concentrated vitriol as to detract other opinions, thus turning them into circlejerks in any case.
>but you cannot shout "TOMORROW AT 5PM I WILL BEGIN MURDERING EVERY JEW I SEE"
Laws against incitement to violence are fine, but tbqh, they are not, and have never been the kind of speech that has been a problem.
The speech that has been seen as a problem is usually intellectual in content, but is so against the prevailing groupthink that people get butthurt.
Even the case in America where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes allegedly issued the dictum that shouting fire in a crowded theater was a reasonable limitation of free speech; was applied to a group of Jews who protested America's involvement in WW1 by delivering flyers to people in the street.
They were literally sentenced to life in prison under the Espionage Act for voicing opposition to war.
So tbqh, usually, even the people who claim to be for free speech aren't for it.
The case that you referenced, Schenck, is one of the most infuriating SCOTUS decisions. Holmes proposed some hypothetical situations involving a restriction on free speech that everyone would agree to, and then used that to uphold the conviction of these men for encouraging young men to resist the draft during WWI, a much less obvious proposal. It was intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
Meant for:
His book on the Cartesian Subject deals with this, I don't know the name in english but it's from the mid 90s
Freedom of speech shouldn't be an issue of law and in any properly socialist society isn't an issue, though it's understandable that in struggling, transitioning societies (e.g., the USSR) there is a temptation to limit speech in fear that intellectual enemies throw a wrench in the transition by manufacturing lies (especially those from half-truths) against that very transition. In the defense of "limiting" freedom of speech, this is a very real danger to which all states, be they socialist, capitalist, monarchist, what-have-you, attest to. And look what happens after the fact, pictures of socialists/communists from the Eastern bloc or Tienanmen, whose goals are merely to rally for freedom of speech and a more libertarian socialism (reactions against Khrushchevism and Dengism), end up becoming "heroes" against communism and pawns in the ideological war of the liberal states. The reward of which, once the socialist states are overthrown, is to become cheap wage slaves to global capital, a state which grants no freedoms of any kind.
The wider point being: the goal of socialism is a society where laws are unnecessary, so matters like freedom of speech are matters of the people entirely and an issue that takes place organically within the workings of the commons. I do think it was a big mistake by the various communist experiments to be restrictive in this sense, they didn't trust the people to overcome and rehabilitate would-be wreckers. But in the age of espionage, proxy-war, and counter-intelligence this is a bit of a gamble.
>tired of hearing the left tell me free speech has its limits
Very few rights are. In fact, none of the Constitutional rights are absolute.
>libertarian socialist
kys
we already accept certain form of censorship, such as a parent preventing their child from viewing certain media.
Why?
or how the FCC will censor the fuck word and bare breasts but will allow for fairly unrestricted gore, and how movies not rated by the AMPA basically can't get aired in theatres
because I am a tankie faggot with a hard-on for uniforms and Stalin
there's tons of these people m8s
>there is a temptation to limit speech in fear that intellectual enemies throw a wrench in the transition by manufacturing lies (especially those from half-truths) against that very transition
If words and thoughts could hinder your "transition" then it wasn't likely to succeed in the first place. I mean according to the one democratic election Russia had before the Bolshevik takeover, the majority of citizens were "intellectual enemies." There were entire ethnic groups ( eg Ukrainians) that were "intellectual enemies." All the best artists were "intellectual enemies." Thousands of loyal military officers were "intellectual enemies." Biologists and architects and civic planners were "intellectual enemies." There were tens of millions of "intellectual enemies" that had to be, uh, disposed of before the USSR could become a glorious paradise for workers.
Standing on shaky ground m8.
Camp of the Saints.
>libertarian socialist here
If you'd avoided that last sentence you would've had me
It's the most reasonable political position.
the problem with that statement is that if you think you're the latter, you're almost certainly the former
There are some sharp and intelligent people who've tackled the problem yeah. Camille Paglia for one:
thesmartset.com
Allan Bloom is bullshit. If you want somebody who argues for all the good parts of his argument but without any of the elitist bullshit you should look into Earl Shorris:
clementecourse.org
What's wrong with Bloom? I don't know much about him, but I'm interested in reading that book.
He thinks humanities are the answer to humanities ills (correct) but he believes in an iron clad canon that doesn't change and that only the elite (ie only the rich) are capable of grasping their study and that they are best studies separate from the real, political (and thus lesser) world.
Basically he is a dogmatic believer in the ivory tower.
Not sure, but he did an interview on it. It's on YouTube.
Just like an atheist Catholic
While students do not necessarily shed their freedom of speech at the school house gate there are considerations of types of speech that can be restricted. This case law is defined initially by Tinker, in which speech must cause a dramatic disturbance or threaten the school or other students. There are three supplementary cases that the supreme court has ruled on, furthering restriction of speech on School sanctioned speech, lewd or offensive speech, and illegal drug related speech. Some circuit courts have acknowledged that tinker applies to some speech off-campus, but other circuit courts have yet to rule on these issues. In fact, the third circuit court produced two radically differing opinions on the same day, leading some to believe that they have absolutely no fucking idea what is going on.
Lots of cold war prop. "Ukrainians" died because of famine conditions created by war combined with drought and a minority population of counter-revolutionaries intentionally sabotaging "their" own livestock and crop, we've been over this. Stalin personally ordered surplus aid be delivered to the Ukraine when famine was confirmed. Great artists and scientists thrived. There is no denying however that there were enemies of the state, internally grown and externally funded. Try building a workers state with the entire world literally trying to choke you to death, finding any kind of reason to drop nukes on you.
>Trump
>The right