Dystopian Science Fiction only reinforces the real world Status Quo

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It’s not really a new dilemma.

I wouldn’t really cite Peterson himself because he’s one of the only people that actually knows what he’s talking about on the right with regard to progressive politics. But his argument gets reduced to a matter of semantics when that’s not a practical assertion of the dilemma at all, and is commonly employed as a defense tactic by people not interested in understanding what’s going on.

It’s the same general reason you can’t say fire in a theatre. It goes beyond issues of censorship and verges into civil disruption by action.

[KuudereKun]

No one is being Fire for using the wrong Pronouns, that's a delusion Jordan Peterson made up.

The double standard is something that can also be noted. I used to be kind of an idiot who believed people should be allowed to discriminate as long as people discriminate right back. The guy who won't serve, let's say mutants from the X-men because I was a dumbass and don't want to repeat my old beliefs (I was 16), because of religious reasons. Fine, why would you want to patronize that guy anyway.

Well, the people advocating his right to discriminate will still advocate against the right for someone to protest against them. As they advocate for his free speech, they attempt to throw out all the books talking about mutants.

The power imbalances and agendas need to be brought up in these things.

Or in the case of, "These guys will claim that people get fired for using the wrong pronouns will also advocate the right to fire people for being trans."

Another Problem with that old Libertarian viewpoint is you might live in a small town where there only even is one Restaurant you can eat at.

[KuudereKun]

It’s not really a new dilemma.

I wouldn’t really cite Peterson himself because he’s one of the only people that actually knows what he’s talking about on the right with regard to progressive politics. But his argument gets reduced to a matter of semantics when that’s not a practical assertion of the dilemma at all, and is commonly employed as a defense tactic by people not interested in understanding what’s going on.

It’s the same general reason you can’t say fire in a theatre. It goes beyond issues of censorship and verges into civil disruption by action.

That's a myth actually, you cna yell fire in a Movie Theater.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It’s not really a new dilemma.

I wouldn’t really cite Peterson himself because he’s one of the only people that actually knows what he’s talking about on the right with regard to progressive politics. But his argument gets reduced to a matter of semantics when that’s not a practical assertion of the dilemma at all, and is commonly employed as a defense tactic by people not interested in understanding what’s going on.

It’s the same general reason you can’t say fire in a theatre. It goes beyond issues of censorship and verges into civil disruption by action.

That's a myth actually, you cna yell fire in a Movie Theater.

You can get detained and such also if it’s determined that you did it as a hoax.

[CharlesPhipps]

Yes, the "yell fire in a theater" example is also meant to assume you cause a stampede where people are injured.

To go with a movie example relevant to our lives, CONTAGION was a movie about a pandemic that had some similarities to our RL lives of recent years. One of the characters, played by Jude Law, weaponized social media to spread rumors that vaccines didn't work and that a ineffective medicine was, in fact, a cure for the disease. This drove up the profits on said ineffective medicine tremendously and made him a shit ton of money. It also resulted in a lot of people not becoming vaccinated and dying as a result.

Which is to say propaganda, fraud, libel, and hate speech aren't the kind of protected free speech that you want because it abridges the freedom of others.

Absolute freedom offers the absolute largest amount of ability to create a fascist state because nature abhors a vacuum. Something, of all things THE PURGE movies handled rather well. Random looters and citizens aren't the dangers but organized gangs of white supremacists and the fascist government.

[KuudereKun]

Yes, the "yell fire in a theater" example is also meant to assume you cause a stampede where people are injured.

To go with a movie example relevant to our lives, CONTAGION was a movie about a pandemic that had some similarities to our RL lives of recent years. One of the characters, played by Jude Law, weaponized social media to spread rumors that vaccines didn't work and that a ineffective medicine was, in fact, a cure for the disease. This drove up the profits on said ineffective medicine tremendously and made him a shit ton of money. It also resulted in a lot of people not becoming vaccinated and dying as a result.

Which is to say propaganda, fraud, libel, and hate speech aren't the kind of protected free speech that you want because it abridges the freedom of others.

Absolute freedom offers the absolute largest amount of ability to create a fascist state because nature abhors a vacuum. Something, of all things THE PURGE movies handled rather well. Random looters and citizens aren't the dangers but organized gangs of white supremacists and the fascist government.

youtu.be/DeCmDqp3IL0D

[CharlesPhipps]

Yes, the Weihmer Fallacy where it says that laws were ineffective is a sign the laws were a bad idea. Also, that the people the laws were meant to oppose which had a massive number of paramilitary soldiers and support of Far Right government assholes were somehow to blame for the subsequent coup de tat.

I had this basic EXACT ARGUMENT taught to me as a child about the Southern Apologia and Confederate Lost Cause myth that was taught to me, unironically, as a child of the Eighties. That slavery wasn't as bad as people claimed, that it was illegal for the North to invade, and slavery was dying of its own. Also, it wasn't motivated by racism.

And the source for this is the government didn't go HARDER on the Confederacy.

Because the Weihmer Fallaxy can be IMMEDIATELY refuted by Denazification after the war. Strict powerful laws designed to crush the ideology that worked.

[KuudereKun]

Yes, the Weihmer Fallacy where it says that laws were ineffective is a sign the laws were a bad idea. Also, that the people the laws were meant to oppose which had a massive number of paramilitary soldiers and support of Far Right government assholes were somehow to blame for the subsequent coup de tat.

I had this basic EXACT ARGUMENT taught to me as a child about the Southern Apologia and Confederate Lost Cause myth that was taught to me, unironically, as a child of the Eighties. That slavery wasn't as bad as people claimed, that it was illegal for the North to invade, and slavery was dying of its own. Also, it wasn't motivated by racism.

And the source for this is the government didn't go HARDER on the Confederacy.

Because the Weihmer Fallaxy can be IMMEDIATELY refuted by Denazification after the war. Strict powerful laws designed to crush the ideology that worked.

Nazism Thrived in West Germany, they ran everything because the CIA actively put them in power.

[CharlesPhipps]

Nazism Thrived in West Germany, they ran everything because the CIA actively put them in power.

And it is now the least Far Right nation in Europe.

[Frustration]

Freedom to say is different from freedom from consequence.

There may or may not be social consequences of airing unpopular views. That has little to do with legal freedom of speech.

Saying that someone is a piece of shit is very different from saying, "Joe Johnson is a pedophile. He regularly rapes the children in his basement. We should go kill that guy before he rapes any more children."

That's incitement, which is already a crime. And can probably be charged as slander.

Take for instance the politicians who are FURIOUS at the idea of Twitter banning certain politicians for hate speech. They claim that free speech should allow them to do whatever they want--but Twitter is a private entity and should have the free speech to kick them out of their equivalent space. These same politicians also advocate for a war on wokeness even though they're a PUBLIC entity.

One of the problems with Twitter is that it simultaneously claimed it merely provided a venue for people to communicate and thus were not responsible for the content they chose to share, AND imposed poorly-defined speech codes which included restricting protected speech.

Either one of those positions is acceptable, but not both.