Political Discussion and Commentary

laws against homophobia and conspiracy theories

Oh, could you elaborate on this more? I've also been trying to promote a similar idea lately without violating freedom of speech principles. In brief, the essence is that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to monetize such content, nor does it mean that platforms should include such content in recommendations and subscriptions alongside other content. I described this more thoroughly in that post and texts referenced from it. Nevertheless, I haven't heard any news about such laws being adopted anywhere or already being adopted.

the right always whine about censorship and "cancel culture" and being silenced...yet aren't silent about it

then they turn around and ban books and burn all their nike stuff

I don't think it is a stupid question. This is the main question, really. I don't want any government to be the arbiter of what should and shouldn't be censored. This is a difficult thing is, we as a species would (hopefully) want to reduce harm to others, and misinformation can cause major harm, especially to those who do not have the capacity or capability to sort through it/find good information. To be clear here, I am not for censoring misinformation, I want a better solution than that. And no, I don't have any ideas on how to that other than to combat with good information and make the good information easier to access.

The problem is that free speech absolutism is a pipe dream. It's idealism that assumes bad actors will be countered and eventually drowned out by the folks acting in good faith.

I wish it were true, but it isn't.

When it comes right down to it, speech as a right has limits, and it has to. Pretty much everywhere has limits about what you can say when. But, that's another form of idealism, expecting that state/government actions are in good faith. So you also need limits to what kinds of speech can be limited.

Riots are not speech/expression. By nature, they are an uncontrolled, chaotic thing. A riot is not the same as violent protest, or other forms of direct action.

And, free speech is not the same as revolution, rebellion, or other forms of action. You do need free speech to organize such things, but they aren't the same, just tightly interwoven.

Wanna see something ugly? Those right wing assholes have just as much right to rebellion as those of us on the left do. And I use the word right as a human right, not a civil right. We all have the right as individuals and as groups to self governance. When a government entity exists in a state we can or will not abide, it is our right to overthrow it.

But! It's the right of everyone else to object to and resist that.

Censorship is inherently bad, even when directed at ideology that is also inherently bad. But, sometimes, we have to do bad things in order to have a stable society. That's when enough people get together and agree that suspending the right to free speech is necessary in order to function as a group. That suspension may be in part, or in toto, it doesn't matter.

And, yes, of you're going to suppress such a core right, you'll have to use other inherently inherently bad means to do so. You can't just waggle your finger at a nazi and assume they'll be quiet. You have to stop their ability to spread their ideology. That means imprisonment, killing, or otherwise stomping out anyone that holds that belief.

We've already proven that leaving nazis alive is a failure. It does not work to prevent the ideology from staining humanity.

You know what's fucked up though? That's exactly what a nazi would say. They'd be right, in that the only way to ensure their beliefs become dominant is to be merciless to their enemies.

So, you come back to the ugly truth of human society. Might, power, numbers do make right. Not in a morally absolute way, no. But in the way that matters, where the steering of human society is done by the people with the power. That power may be money, words, numbers, arms, whatever. But the motherfuckers that can take the reins and control the masses get to decide what right is, in any way that matters.

Now, I'm pretty damn far left in the American sense of things. Kinda mid-left in the more global sense. I think my set of beliefs is "right" in that it would allow the greatest number of humans to live as stable and healthy a life as possible within the boundaries of natural forces. I want equality for all, I want a well educated, and well taken care of populace. I fair want war to be a relic, along with poverty, famine, disease, and all the other ills you can think of.

But we ain't getting there by holding hands and pretending that there aren't people willing to eradicate others based on something as pointless as skin color, or genitals, or whatever.

So, no, your question isn't stupid. It's only part of a bigger picture, but it's very much a central principle in the struggle for people to have the freedom to be, the freedom to not be eradicated by hate.

Which, there's a shit ton more to all of that, but there's only so much text that's readable on a screen. So it's broad brush strokes, and that's the best that I can do in this format.

the problem is that natural rights theory is made up bullshit. instead of clinging to this enlightenment fiction, we should be developing actual social standards of behavior.

Look at how it's done in developed countries.