Oddbean new post about login | logout It seems that a recurring theme when exploring the edges of freedom of speech is that many folks believe that since speech can influence the thoughts and actions of those who consume it, we should consider second and third order effects of speech to be harm for which the original speaker is responsible. I don't see how anyone can fit that concept into a workable framework that doesn't devolve to the point at which saying mean or critical things is equated to violence because hurting someone's feelings is harmful.
They have been trained to see the violence of the speech while ignoring the violence needed to control that speech.
What is your view of direct and credible threats of violence? If an armed man tells you that he’s going to kill you and begins advancing in your direction, at what point are you justified in defending yourself? Similarly, what if a man in charge of a group of armed men tells you that he’s instructed his group to kill you, at what point are you justified in defending yourself? Additionally, from whom are you justified in defending yourself?
The short version is that what happens in cyberspace is distinct from what happens in meatspace. When I've received threats in cyberspace I'll take my firearms out of the safe and pay closer attention to my surveillance system, but I can't actually shoot anyone unless they physically approach me.
As far as I am concerned, self defense comes into play at the first sign of intent to act on the words. Scenario 1, the mere presence of the weapon along with words is enough. Scenario 2, if those armed men are within attacking distance and the potential threat is immediate again, game on. If these men are not present and the one making the threat is unarmed, and not advancing, that wouldnt be an immediate threat. Basically, so long as it can be reasonably argued you felt an immediate threat to your life, defend it however necessary.
Simplest I’ve managed to frame it in my own head and for my own behavior is, do and say whatever you’re prepared to live with / die for. Whatever the consequences happen to be, they’re real no matter the justification for the behavior that earned them.
I think the West has made wise distinctions between words and actions, between feelings and bodies, and about holding only agents responsible for their own actions. 'Harm' should be limited to bodies and property. Libel and slander ares tough ones, but if we require evidence that this libel or slander has led to a loss of property then it seems to me that should be the limiting principle. "It hurt my feelings" should not be a matter for litigation. Neither should "he made me do it." Matters of reputational harm (whether true or false) should be settled in the open, not in courts. Still exploring this, though, open to other perspectives.
What I meant to say is, "he made me do it" should not absolve the agent of his act nor should it implicate the influencer.
A sad state of affairs.
The saying goes that my right to free speech ends at the tip of your nose. That’s because violence is by definition an inherently physical act. I think this theme comes from the same lineage of thinking as that which gives trophies for last place. It diminishes the import of those individuals who have survived violence or commit violence, and the ability for people to recognize violence. It’s an intentional act, redefining words to sow confusion and eliminate defining characteristics in order to prevent influential thoughts and actions from catalyzing social unrest.
You're correct. It's retarded.
People making bad decisions based upon anything anyone says, and then blaming the speaker is the issue, are basically the weak in society... Responsibility starts with one self, that includes one's actions regardless if you got inspired by someone or not. Hitler (here he is again!) could have blamed America for his actions as he was treating The Passing of the Great Race as a bible for which he thanked the US. But he and his followers were the ones deciding to take action. That action was wrong.
I’ve got the perfect framework but I’ll keep it to myself in case it hurts someone’s feelings
It all comes back to responsibility. We've delegated all responsibility to the state & the state has become used to this delegated authority. You cannot have freedom without simultaneously taking responsibility for your own welfare, thoughts & feelings. Who is responsible for your current state of being, if not yourself?