pandarilla Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 Depending on the subject matter what you term an "extreme" reaction can often be proportionate.I don't necessarily disagree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, MixuFruit said: Because unlike you, astonishingly given what you do for a living, I think the tendencies and motivations of the people behind something are important pieces of context that shouldn't be ignored, compared to accepting it at face value. Extreme example but I just keep laughing imagining pandarilla asking people to engage with the views in this rather than dismissing it based on who wrote it https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/06/terrorism.comment Edited July 19, 2020 by NotThePars 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 16 minutes ago, NotThePars said: Extreme reaction but I just keep laughing imagining pandarilla asking people to engage with the views in this rather than dismissing it based on who wrote it https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/06/terrorism.comment I think of this clip in particular -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 Extreme example but I just keep laughing imagining pandarilla asking people to engage with the views in this rather than dismissing it based on who wrote it https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/06/terrorism.commentI'm pleased that i bring you so much easy merriment. I think of this clip in particular I have no idea who these people are, or what the point of your post is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcor Roar Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 3 hours ago, MixuFruit said: The point is Chomsky regularly gets pelters for this all the time and so is an unsurprising signatory to a letter asking for civility in the vaguest terms. He's free to say stupid stuff just as we're all free to call him an arsehole. That's the deal. I could not disagree with you more on your last point. It's a freeing, exhilirating, equalising thing that's happened. What is it specifically that Chomsky has said which you would consider stupid? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcor Roar Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 32 minutes ago, MixuFruit said: He's been criticised for years because of defending that French holocaust denier on free speech grounds. But it's not that I personally think he's done anything stupid, it's just that there's this well known case that has opened him up to a lot of criticism and so I'm not at all surprised to see his name on a letter asking in vague terms for everyone to be nice to each other. I don't think the letter itself is unreasonable. There have been cases where perceived transgression of thought has been met with ridiculous calls for boycott and punishment and that is concerning. Why they then got the likes of JK Rowling to sign it and undermine the whole message god only knows. The outcome is that any moron who has been given a telt now thinks they've been cancelled somehow. And any bigot who has been deplatformed now thinks this is a matter of free speech. Its worth considering who exactly were the most vociferous voices against Chomsky in the Faurisson issue and what their motivations were, and the context to which his comments relate. I doubt whether Chomsky worries that his opinions are met with hostility in general terms as his views run completely counter to indoctrinated norms. I don't doubt however that his reasons for signing the letter are quite serious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 He's been criticised for years because of defending that French holocaust denier on free speech grounds. But it's not that I personally think he's done anything stupid, it's just that there's this well known case that has opened him up to a lot of criticism and so I'm not at all surprised to see his name on a letter asking in vague terms for everyone to be nice to each other.He's not defending the guy, he's defending his right to question whether or not the holocaust happened.He thinks the guy's view is completely ridiculous. But he's defending his free speech. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 And unfortunately for him a lot of people (initially the French Jewish community, latterly Israelis who want to annexe the West Bank) also exercised their free speech a lot to the detriment of his reputation and career. Free speech =/= consequence-free. They're free to criticise him, but the recent trend is just to use that one thing to dismiss everything he's ever said (it goes on to say), and to disengage with him entirely. It's incredibly childish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 Defending his right to holocaust deny is defending him. Freedom of speech is quite rightly not absolute, and defending someone’s right to be a Holocaust denier is an absurd position to take. No it's not. I think letting someone suggest holocaust denial gives a fairly good indication of the person and their beliefs. Is it just the holocaust you believe this should apply to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 And does being a signatory of the letter and holding the view he does in relation to free speech make chomsky a centrist?That would be quite amusing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcor Roar Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 16 minutes ago, ali_91 said: Defending his right to holocaust deny is defending him. Freedom of speech is quite rightly not absolute, and defending someone’s right to be a Holocaust denier is an absurd position to take. Idiot found. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 Defending his right to holocaust deny is defending him. Freedom of speech is quite rightly not absolute, and defending someone’s right to be a Holocaust denier is an absurd position to take. It’s certainly at the more extreme end of the “Not sure cancel culture is an entirely good thing” movement. I’ll grant you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 I think anything that can be proven isn’t the case but is used regardless as a stick to beat a group of people to justify persecuting them should clearly not fall under freedom of speech. It does give a good indication of their believes, and when they air such believes they should be prosecuted and derided. Hate speech is not free speech. People do get prosecuted for hate speech though? What doesnt happen to them is that they get their right to free speech revoked, so they are free to go and spew whatever they want again, and answer to whatever laws they have breached whilst doing so. That's the essence of the whole thing. Freedom of speech is the right of person A to say whatever the f**k he wants, but the law will review his speech and take retrospective action. Not sure what the alternative is? Its surely either freedom of speech (with the application of laws and consequences) orbyou dint have freedom of speech? What is the alternative, and who decides what falls under this side law that runs alongside free speech? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 1 minute ago, ali_91 said: Well quite, but those advocating absolute freedom of speech are surely meaning freedom of speech without consequence? I think you are right there and I think (and I dont think I am speaking about anyone on here, although I might have missed posts?) theres not anyone on here in that camp? There do seem to be a lot of stupid people out there who think getting binned off a social media site after going against the rules to which they signed up is an infringement of their right to free speech. I think I maybe said nearer the start of this thread or mayne a similar one recently that people confuse the two, so youl get no argument from me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, ali_91 said: There’s people on the last page defending people’s right to deny the Holocaust, don’t think you can get closer to being a fan of absolute freedom of speech. But such an issue would still be subject to the laws of whatever land it was in? Someone saying it, then being punished accordingly because it's out of line is free speech and consequence. If you dont believe questioning the holocaust should be allowed to be spoken/typed, what do you do to prevent it? How do you remove that subject from the umbrella of free speech? I get that it's an abhorrent viewpoint, but I dont know what you are getting at here on this specific point. What are you suggesting should happen in an instance of holocaust denial that doesnt already happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: I get that it's an abhorrent viewpoint, but I dont know what you are getting at here on this specific point. What are you suggesting should happen in an instance of holocaust denial that doesnt already happen? IDK about anyone else but immediately stamping down on Holocaust denial views with unanimous approbation is something that should be enforced within a functioning civil society - as opposed to the usual, tedious handful of people taking a 'well, actually...' stance on the ridiculous grounds of free speech. Those who think that a proven act of genocide of any kind is a great parlour game topic about the limits of free speech should have their public platforms removed as far as possible and probably put into a high chair and bib while we're at it. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 I think you have completely misread this and what people mean by ‘free speech.’ Those saying people shouldn’t be allowed to deny the Holocaust are advocating for the laws of the respective land to punish those who do so, and suggesting those laws should be in place. Those saying people should be allowed to deny the Holocaust mean they should be able to do so without consequence. I don’t want their tongues removed ffs. Without consequence?Have a word.Once again the tone of your posts suggests that people who are defending someone's right to free speech are essentially endorsing what the person is saying. It couldn't be further from the truth. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, pandarilla said: Without consequence? Have a word. Once again the tone of your posts suggests that people who are defending someone's right to free speech are essentially endorsing what the person is saying. It couldn't be further from the truth. By defending the right of a Holocaust denier to 'free speech' you enable such obnoxious lies to be spread in the community as some sort of competing rendition of the facts to actual history. Thereby doing the bulk of the Holocaust denier's task for them by providing their claims with a legitimate platform and making them seem even the slightest bit respectable on the surface. Edited July 19, 2020 by vikingTON 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 Perhaps we need to set up a Venn diagram on the thread to help try too hard centrist liberals work out which views actually fall under the old free speech trope of 'I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it' and which do not. Round 1: Stating a preference for white wine over red v Denying the meditated genocidal murder of 6 million European Jewry. It's a toughie! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, virginton said: By defending the right of a Holocaust denier to 'free speech' you enable such obnoxious lies to be spread in the community as some sort of competing rendition of the facts to actual history. Thereby doing the bulk of the Holocaust denier's task for them by providing their claims with a legitimate platform and making them seem even the slightest bit respectable on the surface. Ok, so once again, what's the alternative to "everyone can say what they like, but there are consequences" since that what we currently have and what Pandarilla seems to be in support of. And who decides which narratives that run counter to accepted history are no longer allowed to be repeated as per the rules you are about to lay out for us? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.