this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
467 points (93.5% liked)
Technology
58142 readers
4266 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fwiw, you got my up vote for contributing an honest opinion to the thread. Totally excellent in that regard.
Where I disagree is in thinking that muskrat is making decisions based on a moral compass defending free speech. He will gladly suppress speech he doesn't like, given a chance.
I would also point you towards the so called tolerance "paradox". There must be limits to what is tolerated, or the whole thing breaks down. And that's coming from someone that's pretty damn tolerant of extreme speech as a matter of principle. But the truth is that musk has free speech. He has publicly made statements, and has not received governmental interference in his ability to say dumb shit. Nor have any of the idiots spewing bigoted rhetoric.
I will also exercise my free speech and say that I will gladly put my foot up the ass of anyone that says the same shit as musk approved of in my presence. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequences of speech. That includes my preference for kicking the shit out of bigots, advertisers backing away, etc.
Edit: I would also encourage anyone finding this to go and upvote the person I'm responding to. They made a comment in good faith, that was on topic and honest. That should be an opportunity to have a good conversation about it, no matter how many times it's been covered before. It's an important conversation to repeat. The boundaries of one of the core human rights (that of freedom of speech/expression) is too important to not merit repeated discussion.
The limits are violence, no? The point of free speech is that the government doesn't get to use violence against you for words. When that turns into actions such as violence or credible threats, then self defence and law enforcement come into play.
If you meant that their intolerant language should warrant intolerance from you, then great, that's covered under free speech. But that's not what you mean, you want to respond to intolerant language with violence and want to pick which language is intolerant enough.
Ah, I'd say that when it's the government, any application of the power of state against speech has to be rigorously prevented. Not just violence.
I'm not claiming perfection for myself, I do hold contradictory beliefs (on the surface anyway, underneath they're extensions of a more complex thought process). But, yeah, there's a point at which intolerance becomes such a threat to a stable society that only eradicating it when it arises is going to allow for stability. Once you get into nazi territory, all bets are off for me.