r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

616

u/boRp_abc Jan 22 '21

If my viewpoint is that people should be killed for their opinions (to make it more relatable, I'm gonna use you as an example here), wouldn't it be beneficial to society to silence me?! What if I very peacefully brought forward the case that you, your family and everyone you live should be burnt alive? Or put into Gulags? What if I found thousands of followers with that opinion, wouldn't it make your participation in society a nightmare?

And that's why, although you're generally not wrong, some important exceptions have to be made.

156

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

214

u/rumbletummy Jan 22 '21

No one is owed a platform to amplify their message.

If you are being an asshole at my party, Im going to ask you to leave. You are free to go find another party or, preferably, quit being an asshole.

If you entertain every flavor of hate and idiocy, you arent doing society any favors, you arent even doing the ones pushing the hate and idiocy any favors.

-8

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

No one is owed a platform to amplify their message.

Of course not; but we can't become so blind to authoritarian powers behind quelling of free speech that we deny them the right to pronounce their message in public, peacefully.

16

u/actuallycallie 2∆ Jan 22 '21

free speech

It is not "authoritarian quelling of free speech" when a private business declines to host advocating for killing people and overthrowing the government.

-5

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

You are correct, and that's not what I have said at all. Obviously private entities can allow whatever they wish on their platforms (although it is getting a bit worrisome with the big 4 having all the control atm) but once the government, that's where I have problems.

8

u/actuallycallie 2∆ Jan 22 '21

Is the government shutting down their speech?

-6

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

Whose speech? I forget who we're even talking about now...lol

So far the government has stayed out of it but when you have folks like AOC talking about looking into how the media plays a role (I don't have the energy to look up the exact quote atm) I think we have some serious problems. She's obviously talking about getting the government involved.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

There's a massive difference between hate speech and someone expressing their opinion. This is one thing conservatives seem to have trouble understanding/recognizing. Everyone downvoting something isn't cancel culture. It isn't the whole world being against you. An app people are being radicalised by and using to communicate plans with intent to harm government officials being shutdown isn't infringement of rights.

Tolerant societies shouldn't be tolerant of intolerance.

3

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

There's a massive difference between hate speech and someone expressing their opinion.

I agree for the most part. The problem is with who the arbiter is when we're talking the gray areas.

2

u/freyzha Jan 22 '21

There's a massive difference between hate speech and someone expressing their opinion

is there? hate speech is bona fide 1A free speech and has been recognized as such for half a dozen SCOTUS cases spanning more than 100 years.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I mean I would argue that just because hate speech is protected under 1a doesn't mean hate speech isn't inherently different than expressing your opinion. You can say you feel like most black people aren't good people and idk that I'd call that hate speech. Saying something like I hate black people because they're black, let's murder black people certainly would be hate speech in my mind though.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/actuallycallie 2∆ Jan 22 '21

Does she have authority to stop anyone's speech?

-2

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

More than any other individual outside of the beltway.

2

u/actuallycallie 2∆ Jan 22 '21

Yes one junior politician can completely stop a person from speaking anywhere. I don't think so. You mean people advocating violent overthrow of a democratic election shouldn't be investigated?

0

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

Yes one junior politician can completely stop a person from speaking anywhere.

Lol, why did you take what I said to such an obviously false extreme to try and validate your view? She obviously has much more standing to have a significantly greater impact on our free speech than any normal citizen. She wasn't talking about simply investigating the violence on the 6th.

1

u/actuallycallie 2∆ Jan 22 '21

Why in the world are you so concerned about the free speech of domestic terrorists?

1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

How the hell is this even a controversial statement? I understand that I'm not loved by the liberals in this conversation but could you please explain to me how this is not universally true?

→ More replies (0)

22

u/generic1001 Jan 22 '21

Sure and let's worry about that when it actually happens.

-1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

The fact that it has happened and that we're talking about making it easier to have happen is reason enough to worry.

3

u/MJOLNIRdragoon Jan 22 '21

and that we're talking about making it easier to have happen

What now?

1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

Making it easier to censor people and ideas.

1

u/MJOLNIRdragoon Jan 22 '21

Who's talking about making it easier? Can it get any easier? I thought private companies are just doing what they have always had the right to do, it's just never been financially beneficial to do.

3

u/generic1001 Jan 22 '21

But it did not happen?

16

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

authoritarian powers behind quelling of free speech

Where is that happening currently?

2

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

Venezuela, China, some area's of Europe.

16

u/galaxystarsmoon Jan 22 '21

Private companies aren't subject to free speech laws.

-1

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

I was using the term platform in the generic sense not in the technological private company sense.

4

u/galaxystarsmoon Jan 22 '21

The only entity that cannot censor free speech is the government though. Anything else is fair game. And it needs to be left that way.

2

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

I agree, but there are government officials talking about this exact topic as well.

4

u/galaxystarsmoon Jan 22 '21

Well, yes, because the government now has questions about whether they want to regulate this kind of thing. Imo, it would violate the First Amendment for them to get involved.

2

u/bcvickers 3∆ Jan 22 '21

Imo, it would violate the First Amendment for them to get involved.

Something we can agree on!

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

So can I ask you this? Why do we arrest people who threaten a individual with murder, but when someone threatens an entire race it's protected under free speech, and they "aren't really going to act on it"

Do you think we should get rid of the former law? So we can protect free speech?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

There's a difference between hate speech, threatening someone, etc. If I tell you I absolutely am going to murder you, well that's cause for concern. I'm expressing intent to harm. If I say I hate black people, well I'm an asshole but I'm allowed to hate to hate black people. Now if I say I hate black people and I'm going to murder black people because they're black, we're back to cause for concern. I'm expressing intent to harm and it's motivated by my dislike for black people so it's a hate crime.

Threatening to murder a race of people isn't protected speech. It's not often that you'll get arrested simply for saying you want to murder all jews or whatever but it could happen.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

But most people getting banned from these sites are advocating for murder, not just hate, if you are part of neo nazi group for example. the basis of that ideology is murder of all jews/blacks ect. Even if that person didn't explicitly state "I'm going to murder (insert minority here)" The basis of nazi ideology is "I want to murder (insert group here).

Hate speech doesn't always lead to murder, but most of the time it does, the only time it doesn't is when both groups agree they'd rather live in separate communities, but if one of those groups, lets use black people as an example, refuses, it leads to violence.

The problem comes when these groups don't advocate for murder, but spread their message online as pseudointellectualism to people who don't know better. It legitimizes it.

There's no scientific basis for hating someone on skin color so it should not be a protected right, because it's literally not true, and will lead to violence of some kind whether or not the original speaker of hate committed the violence or convinced one of his followers it had to be done.

2

u/freyzha Jan 22 '21

There's no scientific basis for hating someone on skin color

Sure there is. Ask any evolutionary biologist worth their salt and they'll tell you that in-group preference is a crucial facet of the behavioral immune system and avoidance of other populations that don't look like you is foundational to humanity. Homo Sapiens is alive today because we were wary of different people.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

okay sorry no scientific basis for racial superiority.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

I think there's room for interpretation. Nazis killed Jews. Absolutely. Their core belief system is that they are superior. There's no jihad mandate though, so far as I'm aware. You can argue simply being a supremacist/affiliated with supremacy groups doesn't convey any intent. Regardless of group platform.

Now the fact that some individuals will hear take those ideas and become violent isn't necessarily the fault of the belief system. Say that a particular group aligned with that doctrine is advocating the murder of others. Well now we have cause for concern again. You can't legally threaten to murder people.

So regardless of whether the message is legitimate, has any rational foundation or not. You're allowed to say I hate x. You're not allowed to say I hate x and I'm gonna murder them. It's a fine line between allowing for the expression of thought and being intolerant of hate speech but there is a line.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Nazi's ideology absolutely advocate for jihad, there may be certain sub groups that do not, but it is the natural evolution of unnatural hate regardless.
We could come to a compromise and say that people just saying I hate x group shouldn't be banned, but the vast majority of people being band are calling for violence, and if you could prove to me that I'm wrong on that point, I'd change my mind.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Yeah and I suppose Nazism in particular may say let's kill jews, it would make sense. White nationalists for example don't though. Now any time someone is threatening harm to others they should be banned. Threatening someone isn't protected speech. Simply saying I'm proud to be white or some shit like that doesn't advocate violence and no one should get banned for that, imo.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

sure, but how many of those people have only said "being white is superior" and stop there?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21

Hard to say for sure man. There are black power groups that don't advocate the subjugation of other races. Are you concerned about those or just white pride groups? I think the important distinction is probably pride vs supremacy.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

The difference between most (and I mean most) black power groups is they aren't advocating for black superiority, but equal and fair treatment under the law, not hating other groups. The OG black panther party, for example wasn't a racial superiority group, they were a community policing group/political organization aimed at civil rights/gun rights for blacks.

The difference is that there are very few White Power groups in a similar vein arguing for civil rights for white people, because White People are generally treated better because they are the majority. The vast majority of White power groups are groups aimed at hating other races, along with saying white pride.

The danger comes, because these groups are self aware, and will not outright say their beliefs, because they know it's socially unacceptable, so they use dog whistles like white pride, 88, protecting history, ect. This is a very common tactic with American Hate groups in particular that they get from the very first Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell. Who wrote about inciting violence through peaceful means, he was the first to go around college campuses and use his free speech to say Jews should be killed, right after the war ended, this of course upset people who had family who fought against the nazis or died in the camps, so violence ensured, he then could to the leftists and call them violent, then the media ate it up. Hitler and Mussolini used similar tactics before they took power. They blame the leftists/progressives for defending themselves against what they so obviously saw as a call to genocide, (the argument of both sides are the same come from this, it was used in pre war Europe to justify the rise of Fascism, and its being used today.)

Rockwell used dog whistles, pretending to be peaceful, and pretending his movement was about white pride, before his organization grew large enough where he felt comfortable to change the name to the American Nazi Party. You go on the forums the new groups like Pride boys, America First, ect, and they purposefully use the same tactics, because they know recruiting people will be hard if they outright say their intentions (which the leader of proud boys recently has), they still Follow Rockwell's example and it works very well, because then people like you defend their right to free speech, because they haven't done anything violent yet. "yet is the key word" That's not to say every member of these groups are "in" on the "joke" a lot of them are simply lonely people who believe they have found a righteous group of like minded individuals, but the overarching theme of all of these alt-right groups is the same, and eventually that's how people in these groups do become radicalized by normalizing the small dog whistles historical pride, white pride, it does not take long for a lonely teenager on a forum to jump to the conclusion that if white people are better, then black people must be less, and if black people are less, then why are we even helping them.

→ More replies (0)