Strawman. You're implying that OP believes hate speech can't encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.

To me, this demonstrates importance of good faith arguments. It indicates that yes, some people should be effectively silenced for their beliefs.

I say “effectively” because he’s right that it IS a good safety net when things you say cannot hurt you. People correct toxic viewpoints like “Why are immigrants the cause of so much crime?” only by being allowed to ask the question and getting corrected.

The ideal case of fixing bad faith arguments would be: Someone engages in repeated zero-effort fake claims as you described at the end, and after the first round is corrected, everyone involved in that conversation declares “All right, this is a bad-faith argument; you’re not genuinely curious about the response, you’re just trying to force a reaction.” And then, ideally, finding ways to de-platform the individual. Again, “effectively” denying them speech by simply not assisting them with theirs. To me, that’s the role of what many call “Cancel Culture”, and I’d want it to be a stronger thing.

I will also say: You made a LOT of claims in your post that the above poster did not make. I was very much considering a downvote, although I agree with the dangers you’re talking about. Ironically you’re exemplifying some of the problems with cancel culture taking effect without conversation and understanding.

So, I'm not the person you're responding to, but I have similar views. I'm going to skip some statements, as I can't speak for yggstyle, only my own stance.

You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.

Yes? Harmful statements should be removed, but if there's no explanation given, people are probably just going to roll their eyes about it.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.

Content moderation is simply the removal of rule-breaking content. Xitter removing Musk hate is content moderation, but not an opposition to harmful views. In order to actually oppose said views, a site needs to be more transparent about what a harmful view is and be able to say how removed comments are harmful.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.

There's a difference between platforming hate speech and letting people fuck up without immediately banning them. I was raised christofascist, and the only reason I was able to change my mind is because people engaged with me about why it was harmful to trust my family. If I'd just had content removed for opaque reasons, with zero explanation as to what I'd done wrong and didn't respond to questions about why it was wrong, I wouldn't've had a reason to distrust my family. Your approach also actually reduces genuine dialogue.

You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”

Again, education isn't the same as platforming something. If somebody genuinely doesn't understand why arson is bad, I absolutely want to teach them why and not just tell them to get lost.

but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.

The limit of "so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others" means it's not absolute freedom of speech though?

It would appear we have a lot to unpack in the replies - but your post checks most of the boxes so here we go:

A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”

First and foremost the stammer was a nice touch. It really gives that extra oomph to the feigned offense. I chuckled.

When I composed that list I was very specific about which items were being added to it. Are you familiar with a dog whistle? It does have several "topical" meanings but in this case lets use the one talking about "frequency of sound." Now most people cannot hear a dog whistle - but are able to discern that dogs do hear it when they start flicking their ears about and behaving oddly in the presence of it. A post is text so I cannot use sound... however (and I love this example for... reasons):

If I showed 3 dots that were green, red, red to a group who were colorblind - all they would see three similar dots. However someone who saw color would be confused as to why a dot was standing out and might react to it. This is, in effect, the dog whistle behavior I spoke about.

On to my point: for most people I listed three obviously ridiculous concepts that are meritless / easily disproven. For these people they might acknowledge my jab as amusing - but overall would not see anything but 3 of the same example. It wouldn't warrant a specific response... However - to someone who was looking to troll, disrupt, or perhaps even finds one of those topics to "not belong" in the silly notion category... they would jump all over it. Fight me Elvis fans. I'm ready.

Side note: What is so fantastic about this - is it got multiple hits and other people immediately identified the response to those hits. Its a demonstration of both the whistle and people seeing the result of the "unheard" whistle.

I have read your post completely and its pretty textbook; which I am certain you are aware of. I will do my best to cover your best shots though.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views... (moderation.)

It is important that people see both the views and the response to those views. If they are allowed to speak and are admonished, publicly - they are defeated and have no recourse. If they are silenced - they are allowed a "martyrs death" through repression. This is a tool used by many groups (not just hate groups) to deepen the rift between "us and them." It reinforces loyalty - because out there "they" don't understand you. This is the additional benefit of airing the dirty laundry - so to speak: when people talk things out they may find something they both agree on.. and learning can happen. In the case of say our much reviled "Elvis fans" they may realize that even if the king faked his death ... he probably did die of old age... So seeing him now is obviously silly. Yes that goes both ways - but the result is far more favorable to the party with their head screwed on right.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers.

It does. I spoke to this above - but to expand using another example: using capital punishment during the witch trials made a very binary situation. You are or aren't a witch or witch supporter. And while there were no definite ways to test for a witch... ...people were incentivized to report friends and family out of fear that they might be associated with them. This is why absolute moderation is a bad thing. Many mods will simply delete a post leaving some to wonder wtf even happened. Banning someone while posting a response is better - but the best way yet for reasons I outlined above - is to give them an opportunity to respond to the charges before a decision is made. This shows that discussion can occur and allows outsiders to grasp both sides and form their opinions on the matter.

How does that pertain to echo chambers? Simple. We are social creatures - we learn largely through negative reinforcement (that awkward moment in highschool with free rent in your mind was actually a survival mechanism at one point.) This is apparent in nearly every online community in some form or another but anywhere there are "point based systems" the results are self evident. Downvotes both discourage posts against the grain and because they are visible to all - are a stark reminder to not fall out of line. If you cannot beat them - join them. Its simple human behavior. Now what is the end result of beating down other schools of thought and the championing of bandwagoning? Self evident.

...you’re actually trivializing historical persecution

You've already played the righteous indignation / offense card already. I'll answer you earnestly though: My statements, as a whole, were put together in a way that clearly says - "these are my viewpoints, and I welcome discussion on it." I believe the statement you cherry picked for outrage here was followed by "It is important to debate and not silence people." People can be surprisingly rational when presented with facts and left to form their own opinions? How do you think history would have been different had it been acceptable to have a difference of opinion and matters of science were discussed openly rather than obliterated by those in power at the time? I imagine we'd be better off than we are now, personally. That is my perspective and you are absolutely welcome to disagree with me on it.

we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down

I will quote @radix@lemmy.world because it is simple and to the point: You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.

It sums it up nicely. If bob feels comfortable platforming his desire to burn down alice's home ... I imagine that would provide multiple people an opportunity to ... stop him. Wild concept - I'm aware.

it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything”

And yet I didn't get to lemmy today until not to long ago because of life stuff and wouldn't you know it: "But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong." I think those users covered it better than I could: simply by acting like rational people - and the result, in my opinion, is better than if I snubbed you myself.

I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.

And I hope that our exchange has taught you something.

My views are largely shaped by a psych professor whom I respect quite a bit: in his spare time he would find public rallies by hate groups and go to debate them. I was fortunate enough to be brought along a couple times... and I have to say some of the most satisfying things I have ever witnessed is watching hate groups get the platform they wanted and hang themselves with the rope he provided during the exchanges. He instilled in me the value of both hearing what your opponent says and presenting your views. In the end - you may agree to disagree... but frequently saner heads prevail.

Answering your post has been a blast - I welcome continuing it, should you be inclined... but hopefully I have cleared up any misconceptions you had.

edit: fixed a formatting faux pas

If you took away the internet and TV, People would riot like they never have before. You hit the nail on the head, enough of us who would do something are just comfortable enough not to. We have comfort food, alcohol, weed, TV, video games, and movies. All distractions. Take away the comfort, take away peoples last remaining reason not to revolt.

This is one of the best summaries of it that I've seen.

People are being stupid when they call oligarchs selfish. They aren't selfish. They're idiots.

Remember that bill that would strip non-profit status from any group, based on the whim of the president? With no hope of appeal? That was very popular with Democrats, until Trump won.

Even if you assholes don't abuse something like that, you know that you aren't going to be in office forever? There's an election every 4 years, remember?

Don't go conflating Democrats with the left, though. There's some overlap, but they aren't the same.

This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?

People who support censorship always believe the censors will always side with their preferences. They never consider what happens when people they oppose control the censors, and for them merely not having allied censors in place feels like they are being silenced (see conservative Christian types who inevitably get angry any time Christian-focused language isn't enforced [aka War on Christmas or anyone else requesting a display when there's a public religious display on government property]).