Free speech is definitely an idea we should strive for on its own.
We should strive for free speech even if it hurts people’s feelings, and even if it gives a microphone to crazy people, even Nazis.
The alternative is a world where the government, or a mob, or both, get to dictate what we can say and think. It would also be a world where we cannot point out errors without being shouted down, resulting in things like Soviet science and basic errors of governance being uncorrected until they ruin everything (e.g. the recent history of Sri Lanka). It would be a world where both scientists and critics of science have no ability to deal with pandemics or other disasters outside the bounds set by politicians who have no idea what they are doing.
There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.
> Free speech is definitely an idea we should strive for on its own.
Utter nonsense. Would you rather have free speech or live? Only one of these is a primary goal. The other is merely a means to attain the other. Hence, the restrictions on free speech provided by every country's laws.
> There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.
Cancel culture itself is free speech. The right used it to morally bankrupt ends that resulted in people losing their lives.
You seem to be missing the point that if something can be weaponized by the right, it can be weaponized by the left, and then the right can weaponize it again…
Any argument you have given so far can also be used by your opponents.
> You seem to be missing the point that if something can be weaponized by the right, it can be weaponized by the left, and then the right can weaponize it again…
No, I'm not. If some speech serves to cause people to die, that speech is bad and is not worth protecting. Preventing people from dying is the opposite of weaponizing. If my opponents want to prevent me from dying, I won't oppose them in doing so. My opponents and I don't disagree on everything.
If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong.
You seem to be missing that cancel culture is itself free speech, so your position contradicts itself.
> If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong.
I’m not sure why you keep going with the weird shit-based analogy.
My argument is simply that if you can control the speech of others, then they can control yours.
Whether some speech is “right” or “wrong” is always going to be up for debate. The result will simply be that anyone in power will ban speech they don’t like.
Your argument is fundamentally a nonsense slippery slope one. The eating shit analogy makes this clear. People in power can do what they want no matter what. The solution to that is to choose wisely when putting people into power, not preemptively eating shit.
We should strive for free speech even if it hurts people’s feelings, and even if it gives a microphone to crazy people, even Nazis.
The alternative is a world where the government, or a mob, or both, get to dictate what we can say and think. It would also be a world where we cannot point out errors without being shouted down, resulting in things like Soviet science and basic errors of governance being uncorrected until they ruin everything (e.g. the recent history of Sri Lanka). It would be a world where both scientists and critics of science have no ability to deal with pandemics or other disasters outside the bounds set by politicians who have no idea what they are doing.
There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.