Freedom of debate

[Ordnael]

With all the new restrictions on freedom of speech put in place by 1st World countries I fear if we, as multiple societies, aren't loosing the freedom to debate as well.

I am reminded of Charlie, sure his ideas on a number of subjects were horrifying, at least for me, but I am also sure he never got on the stage and directly pointed fingers saying "you that is X or Y and does W or Z should just drop dead for the benefit of society".
In this sense I believe he never went, truly, too far with is freedom of speech and so another form to curtail his ideas from spreading was found...killing him shows that beyond freedom of speech being at risk we a have a risk of loosing our freedom to debate ideas without dogmas or taboos.

And I wonder if forbidding debate is the right thing to do by democracy.
Is shutting other's opinion on a matter really the right thing to do to protect others sensibilities?
Won't this give rise to more extreme views from folks who find their voice silenced?

 

[Snowygerry]

What restrictions were put in place specifically in your country ? Here the freedom is unbearable, every Belgian has an opinion on everything and they all express them continuously

 

[Ordnael]

I can't write about the news I get from UK or US?...I didn't realise that. How about freedom of debate in internet forums?
But sure go on, gloss over this.

 

[Snowygerry]

In internet forums you freedom of speech is limited by forum rules. In the UK and US they seem to suffer from I would call the "dictatorship of the large minority",

not my speciality

 

[EnglishEdward]

The laws of libel in the UK protect the wealthy against criticism.

 

[Snowygerry]

Like this ?

UK vows to stop the super-rich using courts to silence critics

The justice secretary vows to end the legal "bullying" of journalists by the wealthy and powerful.

www.bbc.com

The Ministry of Justice said these lawsuits "involve wealthy people or large businesses using the threat of endless legal action and associated costs to pressure their opponents under defamation and privacy laws".
"This tactic is increasingly being used to intimidate journalists, authors and campaigners to stifle legitimate criticism and prevent the publication of critical stories and books," the ministry said.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And I wonder if forbidding debate is the right thing to do by democracy.
Is shutting other's opinion on a matter really the right thing to do to protect others sensibilities?
Won't this give rise to more extreme views from folks who find their voice silenced?

I think it's enough to say this is just a bad thing, or a restriction we shouldn't have to live under in a free and democratic society, without having to predict further negative outcomes as a justification.

 

[Ordnael]

I think it's enough to say this is just a bad thing, or a restriction we shouldn't have to live under in a free and democratic society, without having to predict further negative outcomes as a justification.

As I read this I think that "Won't anybody think of the children?" has had some very bad ramifications down the line in terms of curtailing free speech, free debate, free art expression and so on!

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Who is Charlie?

 

[Snowygerry]

Charlie Hebdo I think ? Or Kirk idk.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Like this ?

UK vows to stop the super-rich using courts to silence critics

The justice secretary vows to end the legal "bullying" of journalists by the wealthy and powerful.

www.bbc.com

The date of the article was 17 March 2022.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Charlie Hebdo I think ? Or Kirk idk.

Well, in both cases wouldnt says their freedom of speech was curtained, they were free to say whatever they wanted until some crazy nutjobs shot them. That is not crimen against freedom of speech but crimen against freedom of staying alive.

 

[Snowygerry]

The date of the article was 17 March 2022.

St. Patricks Day

 

[EnglishEdward]

It might have as well have been April Fools day.

And I note that the ROI has decided it too can make
money by being an international libel case capital.

 

[Ordnael]

Who is Charlie?

Charlie Hebdo I think ? Or Kirk idk.

Kirk. I though the rest of phrase gave enough context but apparently I was wrong. My bad.

 

[JollyRoger]

The crackdown on commenting on the death of Charlie Kirk is also disturbing. I'm sure Charlie would be horrified that invoking his name would cause the loss of a job thanks to freedom hating busybodies.

 

[Kaitzilla]

The idea of silencing debate is that hate feeds hate.

Snip it in the bud and it won't set down roots and spread.


Here is some aggressive German policing of hate speech, like insulting politicians.

Imagine if USA could arrest people who insult Trump?

 

[Ordnael]

The crackdown on commenting on the death of Charlie Kirk is also disturbing. I'm sure Charlie would be horrified that invoking his name would cause the loss of a job thanks to freedom hating busybodies.

I is wrong for people to loose their jobs because of something they said beyond the scope of their job be it private or state funded.
But it sure was hilarious to see the consequences of FAFO when the shoe is in the other foot.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I is wrong for people to loose their jobs because of something they said beyond the scope of their job be it private or state funded.

Someone took a stab at explaining the explosion of cancel culture (around 2018?) with a crazy theory.

Apparently it happens when any profession reaches or exceeds 50% female.

The Great Feminization

In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world.

www.compactmag.com

A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.

Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.

The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The law is firmly on women's side.

That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

The most obvious thumb on the scale is anti-discrimination law. It is illegal to employ too few women at your company. If women are underrepresented, especially in your higher management, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten simply in order to keep their numbers up.

It is rational for them to do this, because the consequences for failing to do so can be dire. Texaco, Goldman Sachs, Novartis, and Coca-Cola are among the companies that have paid nine-figure settlements in response to lawsuits alleging bias against women in hiring and promotions. No manager wants to be the person who cost his company $200 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit.

The argument is already one step away from red-pill, manosphere, women-hating nonsense, but it is worth thinking about for 5 minutes.
Never before in human history have all the professions gone majority-woman before.

I think the main argument is this one. Some professions need jerks.

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

 

[JollyRoger]

I is wrong for people to loose their jobs because of something they said beyond the scope of their job be it private or state funded.
But it sure was hilarious to see the consequences of FAFO when the shoe is in the other foot.

Are you laughing at the FAFO that happened to Charlie Kirk?