Amerika

The Left has a new talking point, so we have a new high colonic of raging realism to show how it is not real at all. I saw this one in the wild before reading this article: the Left opposes free speech because it might cause some people to avoid being part of the conversation.

To this I say, good: people who cannot handle free speech have no actual contributions to make except passive-aggressive narcissistic whining. However, I do not believe it for a second, since people who are that ready to toe the Leftist party line are also ready to defend their opinions.

No, this is just another Leftist attempt at seizing control, because they are the people in denial of overpopulation and therefore, who form a little clique that shares this denial in order to seize control of the herd that is growing beyond the point it can manage itself.

Let us look at the Leftist cries for more censorship and consider why this is nonsense:

Research has shown that hate speech online in particular and the proliferation of extremism online in general have a chilling effect on online speech through intimidation and fear. So, restrictions on hate speech can support free speech rather than undermining it.

First, the “research” consists of a chapter of a theory book on political philosophy, an essay for a symposium on legal theory, and a paper on the types of chilling effects there are… or could be. No research is present in these since they are opinion pieces.

Next, we should consider the argument: because extreme free speech exists, some will not participate because of fear of… of what? Of hearing or reading something they dislike? Of having to share an internet or Earth with the people who say things they dislike?

This reminds me of all binary arguments starting with the question of “good” and “evil.” If they are linear opposites, then for good to tolerate evil is… evil, while for evil to tolerate good is… good.

Karl Popper took this further, extending the mysticism to “tolerance.” Tolerating intolerance is evil, but intolerance tolerating tolerance is good. More voodoo mumbo-jumbo Arabic mysticism for you, since tolerance is artificially polarized by being open-ended and having no standards.

Think about it: what is tolerance, really, except the dominance of means-over-ends thinking that holds acceptance of viewpoints (a method) as more important than determining what is real, actual, and true (a goal)?

The closest sane people get to “tolerance” is listening to all viewpoints, but the Left is now arguing against that by demanding censorship anywhere in case someone gets offended. The same tactic worked well with Political Correctness and blasphemy laws in the past, so they are doubling down.

Back in RealityLand, we question whether anyone would stop participating in the internet, especially since simple word filters will remove almost all of the ethnic slurs and other extreme language. More likely this is the Left playing the victim again while they victimize you.

Tags: censorship, free speech, good/evil, karl popper, oppression, tolerance, viewpoint discrimination