Where is this most important of caveats that Free Speech must exclude hate speech. It ain’t in our constitution that’s for sure, but you do you. And, it goes without saying that university educated, liberal women, of all colors, must by all means make the majority of any committee that defines “hate speech,” for the ignorant masses hell bent on making their frustrations heard.
Free speech importantly comes with a caveat built into it, that hate speech must not be tolerated. It reflects Karl Popper’s philosophical Paradox of Tolerance, which argues that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. There is a fine line between that and curbing free speech, which we in Britain are trying to find and map. It is a job which needs to be done but it will be messy and we will get it wrong many times before we get it right. It is also important to note that those who are against us achieving true freedom of speech will want to criticise this effort - including by suggesting we don’t have freedom of speech if we don’t allow hate speech. This is a dangerously subtle fallacy and must be exposed as such. (Just as feminism is often criticised as being anti-men, when it is in fact against inequality, including inequalities which affect men; and just as currently transphobia is being dressed up as feminism, as protecting women, when in fact it is a form of misogyny, which is designed to divide women and disrupt feminism.) Future societies will have to be better at recognising and accepting that positive change comes with challenges. As you confront important issues, the questions you need to answer become more nuanced and often harder - compare trying to eradicate racism before you fully understand institutional racism. But we must continue to move forward, to expect new problems to arise as a result, and to adapt, not to resist positive change just because new problems arise.
This is not true and a misrepresentation of Popper’s position. First, he never suggested that the answer to the paradox of intolerance is to outlaw all speech somebody personally finds offensive. The problem for a liberal society is tolerating speech which explicitly calls for overturning of the liberal order and imposition of censorship. By this metric, the first kind of speech to be outlawed should be radical Islamist teaching in mosques. Second, your examples are even more alarming than your suggestion that censorship should be outsourced to mobs of fanatics. How is the claim that we should not tolerate males in female sports a form of misogyny? Feminism is about protecting the rights of females and dismantling regressive gender stereotypes, even is assumed by males. And finally, if you want to get rid of structural racism, please define what it is and how somebody’s post on FB which explicitly deals with religion is related to race.
I'm increasingly convinced that hate speech laws ARE the intolerance Karl Popper's paradox was warning about and folks who promote such laws should not be tolerated in polite society.
‘Bringing’??"
Where is this most important of caveats that Free Speech must exclude hate speech. It ain’t in our constitution that’s for sure, but you do you. And, it goes without saying that university educated, liberal women, of all colors, must by all means make the majority of any committee that defines “hate speech,” for the ignorant masses hell bent on making their frustrations heard.
Free speech importantly comes with a caveat built into it, that hate speech must not be tolerated. It reflects Karl Popper’s philosophical Paradox of Tolerance, which argues that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. There is a fine line between that and curbing free speech, which we in Britain are trying to find and map. It is a job which needs to be done but it will be messy and we will get it wrong many times before we get it right. It is also important to note that those who are against us achieving true freedom of speech will want to criticise this effort - including by suggesting we don’t have freedom of speech if we don’t allow hate speech. This is a dangerously subtle fallacy and must be exposed as such. (Just as feminism is often criticised as being anti-men, when it is in fact against inequality, including inequalities which affect men; and just as currently transphobia is being dressed up as feminism, as protecting women, when in fact it is a form of misogyny, which is designed to divide women and disrupt feminism.) Future societies will have to be better at recognising and accepting that positive change comes with challenges. As you confront important issues, the questions you need to answer become more nuanced and often harder - compare trying to eradicate racism before you fully understand institutional racism. But we must continue to move forward, to expect new problems to arise as a result, and to adapt, not to resist positive change just because new problems arise.
This is not true and a misrepresentation of Popper’s position. First, he never suggested that the answer to the paradox of intolerance is to outlaw all speech somebody personally finds offensive. The problem for a liberal society is tolerating speech which explicitly calls for overturning of the liberal order and imposition of censorship. By this metric, the first kind of speech to be outlawed should be radical Islamist teaching in mosques. Second, your examples are even more alarming than your suggestion that censorship should be outsourced to mobs of fanatics. How is the claim that we should not tolerate males in female sports a form of misogyny? Feminism is about protecting the rights of females and dismantling regressive gender stereotypes, even is assumed by males. And finally, if you want to get rid of structural racism, please define what it is and how somebody’s post on FB which explicitly deals with religion is related to race.
I'm increasingly convinced that hate speech laws ARE the intolerance Karl Popper's paradox was warning about and folks who promote such laws should not be tolerated in polite society.
Nice try but feminism has never been about equality. It's always been about lowering men.