Conversation

Replying to

If you're seriously suggesting that your position can't be adequately defended by free speech... ...maybe it's because it isn't defensible?

Replying to

any rational conception of free speech recognises that there are reasonable limits. (harassment, incitement, malicious libel)

Replying to

Oh yes, maybe it reads like I don't agree with that. I do. But those limits are already well-understood, at least in law.

Replying to

Concerning Milo in particular, there are some bugbears related to private companies & censorship, but it shows similar results.

Replying to

One moment you're banning Milo, the next you're censoring Trump voters & opposition journalists in countries holding your stocks.

Replying to

the high level issue is that liberals understand that rights compete and need to be balanced, while radicals only see power

Replying to

the problem is if radicals can label someone as privileged, they can arbitrarily deprive them of their claims to competing rights

Replying to

two distinct levels of abstraction: the one at which we socially instantiate rights and persons, and another at which we negotiate them

Replying to

radicals are stuck on who really 'counts' as a fully rights-bearing person, b/c any answer besides 'everyone' can only get bogged down

Replying to

For me, the worst thing is when all sides on an issue are distorted past reason. Corporate censorship vs hate speech = bad axis.

Replying to

It becomes like debating Seneca: "Of course you shouldn't arbitrarily execute your slaves. They're people like you." Yes, but...

6:50 PM · Feb 19, 2017Twitter Web Client