Political Discussion and Commentary
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that free speech absolutism is a pipe dream. It's idealism that assumes bad actors will be countered and eventually drowned out by the folks acting in good faith.
I wish it were true, but it isn't.
When it comes right down to it, speech as a right has limits, and it has to. Pretty much everywhere has limits about what you can say when. But, that's another form of idealism, expecting that state/government actions are in good faith. So you also need limits to what kinds of speech can be limited.
Riots are not speech/expression. By nature, they are an uncontrolled, chaotic thing. A riot is not the same as violent protest, or other forms of direct action.
And, free speech is not the same as revolution, rebellion, or other forms of action. You do need free speech to organize such things, but they aren't the same, just tightly interwoven.
Wanna see something ugly? Those right wing assholes have just as much right to rebellion as those of us on the left do. And I use the word right as a human right, not a civil right. We all have the right as individuals and as groups to self governance. When a government entity exists in a state we can or will not abide, it is our right to overthrow it.
But! It's the right of everyone else to object to and resist that.
Censorship is inherently bad, even when directed at ideology that is also inherently bad. But, sometimes, we have to do bad things in order to have a stable society. That's when enough people get together and agree that suspending the right to free speech is necessary in order to function as a group. That suspension may be in part, or in toto, it doesn't matter.
And, yes, of you're going to suppress such a core right, you'll have to use other inherently inherently bad means to do so. You can't just waggle your finger at a nazi and assume they'll be quiet. You have to stop their ability to spread their ideology. That means imprisonment, killing, or otherwise stomping out anyone that holds that belief.
We've already proven that leaving nazis alive is a failure. It does not work to prevent the ideology from staining humanity.
You know what's fucked up though? That's exactly what a nazi would say. They'd be right, in that the only way to ensure their beliefs become dominant is to be merciless to their enemies.
So, you come back to the ugly truth of human society. Might, power, numbers do make right. Not in a morally absolute way, no. But in the way that matters, where the steering of human society is done by the people with the power. That power may be money, words, numbers, arms, whatever. But the motherfuckers that can take the reins and control the masses get to decide what right is, in any way that matters.
Now, I'm pretty damn far left in the American sense of things. Kinda mid-left in the more global sense. I think my set of beliefs is "right" in that it would allow the greatest number of humans to live as stable and healthy a life as possible within the boundaries of natural forces. I want equality for all, I want a well educated, and well taken care of populace. I fair want war to be a relic, along with poverty, famine, disease, and all the other ills you can think of.
But we ain't getting there by holding hands and pretending that there aren't people willing to eradicate others based on something as pointless as skin color, or genitals, or whatever.
So, no, your question isn't stupid. It's only part of a bigger picture, but it's very much a central principle in the struggle for people to have the freedom to be, the freedom to not be eradicated by hate.
Which, there's a shit ton more to all of that, but there's only so much text that's readable on a screen. So it's broad brush strokes, and that's the best that I can do in this format.