Does this also apply when someone say: expressing X has consequences and is damaging/dangerous?
-
-
Replying to @oreil_m @Metamagician
They're justifying punitive consequences. Obviously, ppl hope speech will have consequences in terms of persuading others.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Opponents of free speech often fear people will be influenced by the bad ideas whilst defenders usually think it's the way to defeat them
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Metamagician
Yes, I think that's the difference in a nutshell.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Opponents also seem to think that someone expressing a controversial view will likely cause others to believe that view and act on it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @oreil_m @Metamagician
I think it's coz they are pessimistic abt society & view things like racism & sexism as dominant discourses which construct social reality.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Because it is all underlain by a belief that society has one episteme & individuals are merely conduits for it depending on group identity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
They may not articulate this but this is underlying assumption. Then it makes sense to reduce horrible & discourses & promote good ones.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Whereas liberals think it's clear there are numerous discourses going on & individuals can assess them & this is how progress happens.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Metamagician
They are probably less likely to subscribe to a blank slate view of humanity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, probably right now. Tho this isn't incompatible with liberalism providing it doesn't remove the autonomy of the individual.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.