I am not targeting any group, race or religion or whatever, just an observation why does it seem that freedom of speech appears to invoke an image of a defence to be an asshole?
I get it, free to speak your mind and all and sometimes hard truths need to be said that but is the concept so out of whack that people have less empathy for others that they don’t agree with that they antagonise another to the point of disrespecting the right to dignity?
It seems like humanity is hard wired for conflict and if it isn’t actively trying to kill itself it seems to find an outlet for violence some way somehow. Maybe it is social conditioning or just some primal urge that makes humans human.
I don’t even know where else I could ask it, and it seems kind of stupid to think about so… have at thee
It invokes any number of people from all around the spectrum to be an arse.
If you’re trying to be neutral or just don’t much care for some particular political issue (what’s political or not is an interesting question in itself, but nowadays anything is), you see just as much toxicity from all the ends of the spectrum.
I still can’t believe all the fights that were ensuing regarding wearing masks. But once something becomes a symbol…
I’d even argue the “left” is faster to call names and dump baseless accusations on anyone quite at random, to be honest.
I mean, just watch the downvotes on this comment from the “if you’re not with us, you’re a nazi” crowd.
I won’t be getting into it more in public. It’s just hard for me to leave posts like this alone.
If you’re trying to be neutral or just don’t much care for some particular political issue
There is no such thing, if you’re “neutral” you’re merely defending the status quo. The right defends the status quo, the left opposes it.
Read this quote by one of the greatest heroes of the world, Martin Luther King:
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice […]
I guess that’s not wrong, but I can passionately care about some other matter where the status quo is borked, and I can choose to fight that, and not some other random thing you care about. That doesn’t make me an ass or something other.
It’s a really interesting thing how the so-called “left” and “right” have chosen to fight over a handful of random things, and just as randomly chose to support one or the other side of the argument.
Almost as if, I dunno, these things weren’t even all that divisive in the first place, but it just might be in someone’s interest for people to fight over and not notice potentially worse things that are going on.
and just as randomly chose to support one or the other side of the argument.
Randomly? This has never happened even once in the entire history of the human race.
But I see it where you’re coming from, neoliberal propaganda convinces its viewers that politics is something out of touch for the masses, it’s their way of taking your out of the fight because you educate yourself, you’d become their enemy.
Meh, confirmation bias here anecdotal notions. As someone on the left I can say I argue with people all the damn time without calling them nazis Assuming of course they aren’t pushing for the genocide of a people.
A lot of people in both the left and the right argue with the other side all the time withour abusing the other of being a Nazi. However there are a number on both sides that assume anyone not in perfect agreement with them must be a Nazi. (Hint there are now two people on earth 100% agreed on everything, so such people tend to accuse a lot of people of being a Nazi)
Not an American, so the whole America politica is not my thing
My personal opinion or stance if I had to take one is one has the freedom to express themselves, but to also take into to try respect another’s beliefs and reasoning
So in this case, you have the right to express your opinions, you have made some assumptions, but still showed some level of restraint. Therefore I am, personally, going to respect your right to expression - seems sanctimonious for me to write that case but yeah… I do not know I am trying not to get into any ideology facets just trying to explore a question that has been bubbling in my mind.
( if you want my take on masks and you are free to disagree, is that during covid masks would lessen viral aerosol load… so not foolproof but I find dealing with a 10000 viral load easier to deal with than 100000000 viral load)
Because assholes commonly don’t understand “free speech” doesn’t also mean “free of consequences.” They don’t think they should have consequences. They don’t actually care about free speech.
Yep. It’s because assholes who cry about “free speech” tend to not understand this - https://xkcd.com/1357
That’s part of the problem with online speech: you spew your rhetoric out to the world, with no direct consequences. We need to develop an online equivalent to throwing tomatoes.
Actually, I don’t know what to think of gullible people. In the village, there’s only so much danger, plus people can take them aside and tell them not to be dumb. But what of the idiots sitting home on Facebook in an echo chamber of madness, getting angrier and angrier?
It’s because there are, like many things, 80% of us who get what the intentions were, while there is 20 percent who abuse it or mishandle it. It’s not the a majority are asses though, just the crazies get more airtime, and then it becomes an echo chamber.
Makes sense keep forgetting how a minority make enough noise and saturates things to a point where it appears more common than it seems
None of the free speech crowd actually understand what the first amendment means. So they claim that boycotting an artist for saying some racist shit is denying them their freedom of speech. These turds need to take a civics class.
I am not an American, but reading your Constitution… with respect, I feel like your Founding Fathers would have many issues with how your Country is currently run, from what I have seen and read in the media
People only invoke the feelings of the founders when they either don’t have a stronger argument or are trying to appeal to conservatives. It’s basically religious interpretation at this point - mostly used to manipulate people who don’t know better.
Okay an example if I must provide one
I feel according to brief look at American constitution in spirit if the Founding Fathers that governement should be neutral in religious matters and people have the freedom of religious choice without being discriminated against while still in the spirit of freedom and comradie not resort some sort of cannibal death cult.
The people have the freedom of choice, however the government must not be swayed and run by one motivating group or factor in the spirit of the writing how the British wished to exert their power and influence to control the then original 13 states
I also feel that again in spirit of what they wrote something like abortions shouldn’t be banned unless there was some catastrophic failure rate where government must intervene to prevent people from commiting suicide by doing so.
I am going to get flak by writing it but I believe that abortion can be made a case when it is ill advised at a certain point or if the if the parents decide that a birth is too dangerous, to be able to abort at a late stage.
By my limited understanding is that if doctors want to choose not to abort then are then in their right to do so if it is not life threatening. The government should not interfere but instead make it clear that individual practioners are under no obligation to help you if they strongly believe they don’t believe in it and within reasonable circumstance and that those that do wish to go with it should be given the option to instead of shutting them down.
But ultimately it should be the individuals choice to choose even if it is a bad choice and the unfortunate burden of guilt should be shouldered on an individual. I feel that is the freedom that was intended
But we’re all lowly plebe. That’s sorta the point of the constitution. The people pushing the idea that money or your job makes you more important are full of crap. The only thing it implies is that all of us should be well-informed, but equality is the whole reason for the constitution
Also, “Freedom of Speech” is likely the last (or only) defense they have. When they say indefensible shit, it’s often the only shield they have. Because if you can’t justify your speech or back it up with anything substantive, it’s essentially the only thing you can rely on.
It’s basically the “God told me” argument that religious people use. It can’t be argued against, because nobody can refute it. But it also means that when you hear someone using it as their first and last line of defense, that they actually have zero defense for it aside from that.
And yeah, it’s often misunderstood. People scream about free speech when getting cancelled for being racist, but that’s not an actual defense because they’re not being arrested for saying it. It isn’t the government imposing restrictions on your speech.
Best joke I heard is: if everyone’s pissed at what you said, and your only defense is “technically, it wasn’t illegal for me to have said that!”, it was probably a pretty bad argument.
It’s very simple. It’s because people falsely mistake freedom of speech for freedom from consequence.
In other words, you have the right to be an asshole, but if you do it too much, others can invoke their right be assholes right back to you.
People constantly thinking they can say what they want until they encounter that person that’s willing to get arrested for assault when the wrong thing is said to them. That’s freedom
