• 1 Post
  • 37 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: January 24th, 2025

help-circle
  • Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.

    If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.

    Look, statements like this are very easy to make but nearly impossible to implement in the era of LLM-powered bots riding the Algorithm. Unless you simply give free rein to the bots, which is often the goal and ultimately eliminates actual humans’ free speech. I don’t pretend that I have a perfect solution, but there is sufficient historical evidence to point out the threads’ original statement on absolutistic terms. For the rest, I’ve used the word “some” because not everybody has ulterior motives, but the most motivated ones in the present era tend to.






  • I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response…sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.

    The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less. I’m not here to relitigate the limits of free speech no matter how hard you want to steer the discussion in that direction.

    On the other hand, if you come to discussions with this many preconceived notions and generalizations wrapped in a metric ton of condescension, then perhaps you might be the driver of your own “statistical bafflement”.


  • America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I’d suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.

    You are assuming ignorance from others while projecting ideas from other discussions you’ve had in the past onto my original post. I purposely avoided making any statements on how to approach or resolve the tolerance paradox because it’s complicated. Nazis lying about their affinity for free speech isn’t.



  • Interesting read.

    They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The antisemites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

    This is what we see these days. Trump and his followers lying is normalized, i.e., they are not “obliged to use words responsibly”, whereas anybody argues against trumpists is.

    They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

    This is what changed since then. They no longer fear being seen as ridiculous or stupid. They embrace it.


  • the problem is exactly what we see with measles.

    1. children who have no choice are the ones who suffer the consequences
    2. because most vaccines cannot be 100% effective (e.g., I got 3 extra MMR shots and I still don’t have detectable measles antibody levels despite being fully immunocompetent), they do rely on herd immunity protecting those who don’t mount full responses to the shots.

    The thing about public health is that it’s public interest over personal choices. In a functioning free society those personal choices would still align with public interest based on the understanding of societal good. So the antagonism is totally artificial.





  • This is the thing that distinguishes the intellect of orbán and trump. Orbán developed what he officially named “the system of national collaboration” with an unofficial motto of “those with us will thrive [and those who are against us will struggle]”. So initially they made sure that it was a lucrative thing to align with the system making it very inconvenient for systematic resistance to emerge. Trump seems to be failing this idea already in the acute phase: maintaining pressure even when companies realign with him makes it much more convenient to push back straight up…


  • This has nothing to do with antisemitism and everything with oligarchic takeover of academia. The goal is to inflict financial pain on the largest research universities located in states where republicans have limited power. Many of these universities (at least the private ones) will be able to offset some of the financial deficits through accepting private donations that will increase the influence of donors over university policies, so they can realign them with the oligarchs.

    In the meantime, the big name universities will start applying for private grants making those unattainable for smaller institutions, so this financial pain will “trickle down”. The long-term effect will be, fewer PhDs, fewer people wanting to do science, fewer people coming to the USA to do research and will overall put an end to US scientific supremacy that has always relied on brain drain anyway.

    Just another great example how trump and trumpists don’t understand geopolitics (they are triggering nuclear rearmament), and they don’t understand science either (they want scientific solutions, like carbon capture, but hate scientists who figure these out).

    The GOP is trying to portray itself as the “anti elitism party”, but in reality they are simply the financial elite’s party attacking the intellectual elite. Ironically what draws working people towards the GOP is the idea that one day they’ll become rich-rich. In reality, helping people to get an education is a much more realistic goal and would actually help society as a whole.