Scott H: Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech are two vastly different things.
The Paradox of Tolerance: Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (in note 4 to Chapter 7).
“Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
Going to Getugly: You’re right. Freedom of speech and “hate speech” are two vastly different things. The former is real, can be objectively quantified and is foundational to a free, open and flourishing society. The latter is a completely abstract, arbitrary and vague conception of ideology which is grounded in subjectivity. It is a term that is used to justify controlling people and punishing those who do not voluntarily submit.
Scott H: … you’re so predictably on cue.
And so predictably incorrect.
Try reading some Hobbes one day. Your absolutist construct has never existed. We’ve always restricted hate speech to various degrees – in the interest of maintaining civil order and social peace.
Going to Getugly: Writing the words “And so predictably incorrect” and “Try reading some Hobbes one day” is not an argument Scott. It doesn’t demonstrate that your opinions have any merit or that you know what you’re talking about. All it demonstrates is that you can’t respond to criticism of your personal opinions using your own words.
Saying “We’ve always restricted hate speech to various degrees” is a nonsensical sentence. “Hate speech” was never a recognized classification until quite recently.
Scott H: … you always accuse others of not forming cogent rebuttals to your American radical-right talking points, while simultaneously ejaculating another predictable ad hominem argument.
Can you spell “ironic”?
The regulation of hate speech goes back at least to the English sedition laws of 1590.
The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the “notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority”.
As English Common Law applies to the British North American Colonies and Canada historically, there has thus been a long & clear regulation of hate speech in this country – and the first modern laws around the construct we call “Hate Speech” were passed in 1970.
49 years ago.
So – as I’ve said repeatedly – we have a long history or regulating hate speech in this country.
Since 1590, to be exact. And again, rather pointedly since 1970.
Going to Getugly: Scott, you can’t complain that I’ve unjustifiably accused you of “not forming cogent rebuttals” and immediately follow that with this logically fallacious assertion: “your American radical-right talking points”.
What on earth is an “American radical-right talking point” and what does that obscure characterization have to do with me?
Like a lot of people these days you appear to conflate accurate, specific descriptions of your claims and reasoning with ‘ad hominem’ simply because you find the description unflattering. I can’t say for sure why this is… but I would guess it has something to do with existing in a bubble in which you never encounter anyone who doesn’t have the exact same generic opinions as your own. And therefore you’re not used to having your objectively incompetent reasoning described to you as incompetent reasoning. And so you experience unvarnished criticism like a spoiled child who has only ever been told how clever he is and we get the whining about how mean everyone is being to you.
Speaking of objectively incompetent reasoning… your history lesson is so self-evidently ridiculous there is no way to account for it other than incompetent reasoning.
You begin by attempting to establish your false premise: “The regulation of hate speech goes back at least to the English sedition laws of 1590.”
And then you just shift to describing the term ‘sedition’ and act like no one is going to notice that ‘hate speech’ and ‘sedition’ are completely different terms: The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the “notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority”.
Scott… it isn’t ‘ad hominem’ to characterize this as “not forming cogent rebuttals”.
Like I say… you need to be able to separate not liking having this quality of reasoning correctly identified as poor, weak, fallacious, incompetent… take your pick…. and recognizing the validity of the criticism.
Scott H: The difference between you and I being that I have academic credentials and knowledge, and you are just some agent provocateur of the American radical-right.
You are a fifth-columnist, attempting to undermine Canadian Laws, Customs, and Conventions – in the service of a foreign ideology.
Going to Getugly: This is so sad and embarrassing.
You are now the third person on this thread alone who has felt it necessary to provide academic biographical information to attempt to bolster your credibility and compensate for your lack of confidence in your ability to support your own position and refute criticism. Check it out:
Jessica T: “Not that I like to bring it up, but I’ve got a masters of science degree from one of the top 10 universities in the world.”
Katherine M : “actually I have an M.A. in English Literature so I doubt I missed the point.”
You: “The difference between you and I being that I have academic credentials and knowledge, and you are just some agent provocateur of the American radical-right.”
The three of you and many others that I’ve encountered who have resorted to this tactic in order to boost your self-esteem are only supporting the perception that contemporary academia is a complete waste of time and either takes reasonably smart people and makes them dumber or attracts people who are already dumb.
Commentaires