this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
5 points (85.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34964 readers
530 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

The simple answer is they're attempting to insulate themselves from consequence or challenge.

Free speech doesn't work like that (it only protects you from gov't retaliation, not other private citizens), but it doesn't stop them from trying because as some of the responses here exemplify, people will fall for it and let them continue saying whatever, regardless of whether it's true or harmful to the vulnerable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

GenX lefty here.

I grew up with freedom of speech (the overall ideal, not the US legal concept) being a non-negotiable, axiomatic thing.

Every bit of social progress the world has seen, came about by loudly and obnoxiously challenging accepted norms, and refusing to sit down and shut up. Civil rights, worker's rights, women's rights, gay rights, trans rights and a whole bunch more - all of them only advanced by brave people getting up on their hind legs and speaking up for them, even though it was considered an affront to common decency, even an abomination.

For a bunch of overprivileged idiots to try and pull the ladder up behind them because their comfort is offended... really fucking bothers me.

I promise, I absolutely guaranfuckingtee that every person alive today will one day be on the wrong side of history; there are norms in society that our descendants (should humanity survive long enough for us to have any) will be utterly disgusted with all of us; and we would be just as disgusted by them. The shiny GenZ hope-of-the-world darlings of today will be the contempible boomers of 60 years from now, that's just how history works. You can't stop that from happening; the best you can do is increase social flexibility and mobility so they don't remain totally rooted in the norms of their youth.

The absolute unmitigated gall of people today to imagine that no, unlike all that came before them, they have the right of it, that their accepted norms must be coddled and protected from any that might dare challenge them, that social change can stop right here.... fuck no, fuck that, fuck them, fuck the entire concept.

You don't disable progress, you mustn't hobble change. And speech that offends us is the only way you get change, pretty much by definition.

Once you silence offensive speech (of whatever form), you're locking in the status quo, and ironically that's the most conservative thing you can ever do. Even if you believe that you and your team will never censor genuine activism, once you enable shutting-people-up as an option, you hand an absolutely terrifying weapon to the assholes that take power next time you lose the election.

Now I will grudgingly concede that the landscape has changed, that the coming of the information age has shifted the way everything works, that the mechanisms and underlying rules are changing, and that the principles of absolute freedom of speech that made sense in my youth no longer get you the same results. The internet is a big scary machine, and its ability to create filter bubbles and viral trends and cliques and misinformation and just general ugh... is pretty damn terrifying. Just look at the damn antivaxers, climate change deniers, the rampant and increasing transphobia, the fascist assholes getting their hooks in everywhere - clearly the marketplace of ideas is a mob town now, and we can't just expect it to run itself.

How do we fix it? I don't fucking know. Both sides seem to lead some pretty terrible places - is there a middle path somewhere? How do we trust anyone to steer it?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s very simple. It’s because people falsely mistake freedom of speech for freedom from consequence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or arrested for saying free stuff that calls for harm of other people. Your freedom ends where someone elses freedom starts vice versa. If you harm someone you are no longer protected

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yep. It's because assholes who cry about "free speech" tend to not understand this - https://xkcd.com/1357

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Because people don't grasp what "free speech" means, at least in the US context.

Freedom of speech (expression) protects one against government interference with expression. The US government can't stop you from saying bigoted, racist, or sexist things because you have the freedom to express yourself.

But.

Freedom of speech doesn't require anyone to offer you a platform to share your views, nor does it mandate an audience. If your views are unpopular, freedom of speech doesn't prevent others from denying you business or employment generally either; the ol' "consequences of your actions" principle.

Bad actors want the right, a mandated platform, and no consequences for being shitty. They get upset when they find out that they're entitled to neither a platform nor protection from consequence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think those people are worried about losing their freedom of speech because people often tell them to shut the fuck up.

They are afraid of "cancel culture" because when they see someone being punished for being loud and obnoxious, they get concerned that THEY might get in trouble for being loud and obnoxious. They don't want to stop being that way, so they feel the need to fight for their right to be an asshole.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.". ― H.L. Mencken

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Freedom of speech does mean that.

It means you have the absolute right to say anything you want to say. It also means you can say something without being a hypocrite, as you are free to speak on a particluar topic you have knowledge on or have not committed whatever you are condemning.

Many people misunderstand the term freedom of speech with regards US federal law. That law is a specific protection from the federal government for citizens, businesses, and other organizations. It is specifically to protect them from retaliation by the federal government.

It is important to note that the law does not protect citizens, businesses, or organiztions from each other. Such protections would be from local laws regarding defamation or libel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

It's actually an off shoot of a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad antiquitatem" which is just an appeal to tradition or the past as being correct because it's old basically. Same thing trying to map the founding fathers thoughts and feelings on modern norms and mores

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Technically it is, but thats more about difference between free speech and 1a.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Because insuring free speech includes everyone and the most strident assholes believe themselves to have the right to speak first and as loudly as possible.
It doesn't mean we don't discount their bullshit and laugh at them, it just means they are the loudest and quickest.

Just to be clear, if they do somehow bring up a valid point, it is not dismissed out of hand like the obvious bullshit is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's usually no need to invoke "freedom of speech" when the things you're saying are popular and nobody is offended by it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But there is also no need to invoke "freedom of speech" if the things you're saying are unpopular and many people are offended by it... unless the government is trying to stop you from expressing those things. If people are asking the bouncer to chuck somebody out of the bar, that person might as well invoke the third amendment against quartering soldiers in their house because that's exactly as irrelevant to the situation as the first.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

There comes a point when something becomes a common utility, and should be treated as such. Like electricity for example. Question becomes, where do you draw the line?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wish people didn’t confuse the right to do something with the necessity to go do it. I fully support people’s right to be removeds, but I honestly don’t understand why anyone would want to be an removed

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cuz whats abhorent to one only makes sense to others. For me, I think abortion is murdering babies. To others, unborn babies don't have rights.

On many internet communities, Im a REMOVED but I truly believe what I say.

load more comments
view more: next ›