Paradox of tolerance. if some use their free speech to actively/directly hurt or incite harm to others, consider that they may have broken the social contract, and thus might no longer expect their harmful speech to be tolerated by others.
define harmful speech.
beause that’s the crux of things. not everyone agrees on what is harmful, and many what some find harmful, others may find beneficial.
i mean, i am not one for violence and hate, but plenty of people find violence fantasizing and hateful speech to be empowering. and on the flipside, many think anything they disagree with as hateful and violence towards themselves, even if it not, and feel justified in perpetuating violence against anyone who question the orthodoxies they hold dear.
i used to teach philosophy. lots of people think philosophy is harmful and respond with violence when asked to engaged in it.
“a cop shoots a murderer to prevent them from killing any more victims, ergo, he’s the same as the murderer”
No tolerance for intolerance. If speech is a call to action that would move the discourse towards less tolerance, it should be the exception that should not be tolerated.
So you’re saying that quote is intolerant of cops? And should not be allowed to be said?
I used to be free speech absolutist until we get to the conundrum as you presented. For me, free speech will never be settled and is a perpetual debate. I think what is considered hate speech is on a case by case basis. Like an individual human who is being tried on a court and his/her case is examined, what is considered harmful or free speech is kinda like that. We examine the minutae of the speech based on the context, semantics, syntax logic, reasoning etc. if the speech can be considered harmful or not. It’s a perpetual debate.
define harmful speech
From the post you are replying to:
if some use their free speech to actively/directly hurt or incite harm to others
Do you feel that definition is lacking? If so, what should be clarified?
of course it is lacking. because different people have widely different ideas of harmful speech.
i’ve been told my mere presence, doing nothing but minding my business, is harmful and inciteful. i didn’t even need to talk to be considered harmful.
and lots of people think this way. racists certainly thing the mere presence of non-white folks is harmful. they feel normalization of lgbt folks and lgbt language, is also inciteful and harmful.
you need to provide a definition that sets limits on what harm is. and if you base it on ‘how people feel’, well you’ve set yourself up for disaster because people’s feelings are radically different.
for me it would be something that is objectively harmful, not something rooted in feelings or perceptions. but in today’s work that definition is not popular, and it is more about ‘making people feel unsafe’, even if it’s saying you like peanuts and they are allergic to peanuts.
One issue is that speech and action are blurred online.
In real life, my friends would disinvite me from things if I started using the n-word. Action (consequence) would follow speech.
Online, you permit the n-word and you end up with Nazis and no black people. Speech and action are indistinguishable in this regard and self-compound. The only “disinvitation” is moderation, which is often, debateably, equated with censorship.
Therefore, there is a case to be made that free speech absolutism is the act of empowering the loudest and most offensive minority at the cost of any and all diverse voices.
Perhaps not in a dry-run, on-paper scenario, but I’d be interested to a see a website with no moderation where there is no white supremacy or CSAM.
I’m not sure I agree with any of that necessarily There are black people who are Nazi dude, tons of counter examples to play with.
I would say online anonymous speech, is very different from public speech and private speech. If you only make racists comments in your home, and body hears them, is that action? Or is that more akin to personal thoughts? Also, lots of people misread the intent of such things. If there was an online community of black users using the n word in a comical or therapeutic text… is that permissible? Certainly many people looking at that from the outside may think differently and fail to grasp the specific context.
Public speech is very different. It would be like public speaking, protest, or other such public acts. I’m not sure private discourse is an action. But it’s probably true if you made racist remarks your friends would not want to hang out with you… but then again maybe some of your friends would agree with you and you’d form a new closer friend group based on that. I’ve personally met many closeted racists (who identify as anti-racist publicly), a lot more than I’ve met openly public racists. Though I admit there is tonal shift has happened where public racism is more tolerated than it was a decade or two ago.
I’m also disagree though about offensive minorities though. in my experience of reddit, a lot of subs became dominated by loud offensive types as long as there was popular agreement and they used the ‘tolerance’ approach to push their toxic agendas. a lot of people love the ‘drama’ of loud offensive people pushing hateful agendas, as long as they do so ‘politely’ using euhapnisms and dog whistles. Challenging this type often resulted in mods banning you. Hell, I was banned from my local city subreddit last year for pointing out racism and sexism against my cities mayor being perpetuated by sock puppet accounts. But because I pointed these this out directly, I was told I was the racist one. Often ‘tolerance’ creates spaces where even the mention of the existence or pointing out of racist events or words is considered hate speech itself. It’s racist to acknowledge racism exists, in many big subreddits now. We’re supposed to pretend it doesn’t. And a lot of ‘polite’ racism is 100% tolerated as long as keywords aren’t used.
there are black nazis
the main is issue is not that occasionally there are black nazis, really. Let’s table that for another discussion.
if you only make racist comments at home… is that an action?
In a loose definition, yes. However, again, to keep us on track here, I don’t think we need to focus on the exact definition of an extended qualia phenomenon in epistemology/alethiology.
I think its reasonable to assume we are talking about observed, lived and experienced phenomena by at least two conscious humans.
lots of people misread
that’s why I went with the n-word, hard R. There’s little to be misread.
I do find that kind of discussion tedious so if we’re going to get into “but what do we mean by a word? a thought? a person?” - I’m out, that’s sophistry that i find frustrating.
If there was an online community of black users using the n word in a comical or therapeutic text… is that permissible?
uno reversi: how does one ensure an online community of black users without moderation? doesn’t it presuppose a selection process to suggest that closed communities can exist? And if there is no moderation (/“censorship”) there is no “from outside” because no one can possibly be excluded.
maybe some of your friends would agree with you and you’d form a new closer friend group based on that.
kinda my point: racists find each other and piss in the pool until there’s only racists left. That’s only not a bad thing if you think racist communities should exist, or all communities should be racist - something i don’t think is worth debating.
, a lot of subs became dominated by loud offensive types as long as there was popular agreement and they used the ‘tolerance’ approach to push their toxic agendas
how is that disagreeing with me? that’s what I’m saying is the problem: if you don’t remove an issue, it compounds. Reddit has a level of moderation, and this statement seems to be saying that you should censor it more
so leave the pool?
frankly, that’s what I do. ever ‘group’ i have been a part of inevitable tips over into exclusionary thinking over time. they start open and welcoming, and then insecure people start taking over and policing people’s words and beahviors, and then I leave.
I also see the flipside, a established group gets criticized for not changing it’s discourse to be more ‘inclusionary’… but often those critics have no interest in joining, they just want to police from the outside because they too are insecure and controlling types of people.
Personally I don’t think it’s for me to tell other people how to live their lives, or what to say or think or do. Let racists be racist in their racist pool. I don’t believe in a social project of imposing my form of justice on other people, because to me that’s just authoritarian. I also regard a lot of contemporary ‘anti racist’ rhetoric as incredibly racist. I also don’t think certain words are universally wrong or offensive given they are used in context.
ke I don’t think Huck Finn is a racist book, but in 2025, a lot of people certainly seem to think that. Because of the use of a word they think is universally wrong, and they have no concept of context, historical or literary. Like, is a community about Huck Finn, pulling quotes from a book, racist? According to many ‘policies’ it would be. That’s insane to me.
But I also don’t believe in white washing our history the way a lot of people on the left, and on the right, seem hellbent on doing.
You are conflating things that are not the same in a fence-straddling argument. There are things that objectively cause harm. Using X’s Grok to make CSAM. Using AI to deepfake people telling outright lies or giving damaging instructions to the public. Inciting people to engage in illegal behavior. We already have definitions of harmful speech, what we also have is people arguing that it isn’t harmful because it serves their agenda.
Disagreeing with someone is not even close and shouldn’t even be part of the discussion when considering actual censorship. Philosophy is a lovely fun exercise in arguing every point on the curve of a circle, but it doesn’t keep the Nazis from taking power.
Right, so if you disagree with someone punch them in the face, until the agree with you. Or at least verbally harass them into submission.
Because you are somehow the sole arbiter of what objectively causes harm? And you will enforce that objectivity with your fists.
good luck with that. Sound to me like you are the one who wants to be a Nazi, I mean, what’s the difference between exterminating ideas you don’t like, and the people who have those ideas, really?
From a philosophy teacher I expected better than hyperbole and a binary argument.
Do better.
Dude, you did that. You set up a binary and called me a fence sitter. and now you are personally attacking me. Bravo. Be more of a bad faith actor.
You’re being deliberately malacious. And you won’t own up to it, you will just sit there and blame me and everyone else for not adhere to your personal standards you think are superior, such that you get the authority to harass, name call, and blame everyone else. And also justify your violent attitude.
You see nothing wrong with violence, as long as it’s down to those you dislike and disagree with. Just like the Nazis you think you are fighting, because in your binary world everyone is for you, or against you.
It’s ok. I had plenty of students who wrote me papers telling me how stupid I was and how smart they were. They got failed. Which is actually better than the cheaters.
Lol I clearly stated there is a demarcation between objectively damaging speech and disagreement. Try again dude. What are you, a closeted republican? As soon as someone challenges you devolve into “no, u!”, make accusations of being attacked, and make shit up about your opponent while engaging in projection?
F off. We’re done.
You didn’t define any of those terms. You are not engaging, you are harassing and accusing and personalizing everything I said, and going to the ‘but the nazis’ nonsense.
You’re an absolutist. By definition that’s a binary way of thinking. And your doubling down, ‘oh you must b ea republican if you don’t agree with my world view’. As if your worldview is definitivity anti-republican or something?
Your fault is in thinking you are the center of the universe and the arbiter of others beliefs. You aren’t. You might stop being so hostile towards others if you stopped believing that you were.
I’m not into anti-intellectualism, hence why the Aaron Swartz quote I posted is the opposite of the “paradox of tolerance” gaslighting shit you people post & I called you out for it in the post title
Aaron is rolling in his grave with what Reddit has become.
This is one of the those “this system has the potential for abuse, so the system can’t exist” conundrums. Doing no moderation because “free speech” is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s just that the moderation needs to be answerable to the population is moderating.
accountability is a thing people who are in power though desperately avoid, in order to hold onto their power.
moderators also have the ability to shape the narrative on a community in a way such that dissenters have no voice, usually be removing them from the community for their dissent.
Yes, I’m aware of the Iron
RuleLaw of Oligarchy. Doesn’t change the baby with the bathwater of it all.
Real question though, was this about r/jailbait.
Or fatpeoplehate, gone at the same time. Porn was hidden a bit later
fatpeoplehated was banned 5 years after jailbait was. get your facts straight guys.
No, fatpeoplehate definitely hadn’t been created yet at this time
No. Schwartz died before /r/jailbait was banned. that happened in like 2012, after CNN ran a story on it in 2011 and Violentacruz was doxxed by a reporter later that year.
I don’t see why that wouldn’t be included
If you mean the actual discussion he was having, idk, that subreddit wasn’t hugely discussed that year / not sure if it existed yet
r/jailbait is protected expression. free speech also grants everyone the right to object & condemn it.
Where is the speech in sexualised images of children? What ideas are you putting forward that could be silenced? Getting tired of you amoral sophist freaks, goddamn.
people jerk off the images on the internet. not sure if that’s ‘speech’, but it’s just how it is. pretty much anything can be ‘sexualized’ in that way.
it’s just the context of who is doing the jerking off and to what they are jerking off you find objectionable.
if a bunch of middle aged women made a sub jacking off to teenage boys would you find that equally as objectionable? or is only the fact it was men jacking off to pictures of teenage girls you find upsetting and immoral?
what if the images were fantasy/ai/drawn?
lots of people jack off to things i would be disgusted by, but i’m not sure it’s my place to tell them to stop doing it. anymore than it is my place to tell people what to think, what to feel, how to behave, etc. because i certain don’t agree with a lot of other people’s behaviours, actions, and speech, sexual or not.
if a bunch of middle aged women made a sub jacking off to teenage boys would you find that equally as objectionable?
YES.
It’s not that hard to grasp.
Leave anything <18yo outside the internet.
I don’t think we need to have any children here. We should educate them about it, but maybe not let them participate.
AI must be trained on something to create images, so AI should not be trained on any children content, either.
Draw whatever the fuck you want.
But leave children to be children. Until they hit 18, then it’s up to them.
So ban all pictures of anyone under 18 on the internet?
You realize the biggest objectors of that, would be under 18s themselves?
I mean you’re consistent, but that isn’t really pragmatically possible.
As I said - nobody needs children on the internet.
I used to be young on the internet, I did a lot of stupid shit, my peers did a lot of stupid shit. Nowadays you have billions of dollars forcing shit on vulnerable people in algos and content machines, while recording any interaction ever. Nothing for developing minds.
And guess what, if no young people entered the internet, they would not be relying on it for communications or fun, and perheps found other, more healthy options.
OK, well should we ban the eldery too? they are a vulnerable group.
Internet is only for people, what, 18-65?
And banning it was still a downgrade in freedom of speech for reddit
And the authorities allowing its supporters to be targeted for removal from political discussion is, in my opinion, a downgrade in constitutional protection of free speech
CSAM is not speech, it’s a crime with actual victims.
I thought we were talking about “jailbait” i.e. not CSAM
Sexualized pictures of clothed children exist in a grey area that may or may not be CSAM depending on jurisdiction.
My understanding of jailbait (what an intro to a sentence) is that it’s about adults who look young, not children at all. Maybe my terminology’s behind the times though.
That’s not what the sub was, it was adults posting images of underage girls in their underpants.
Nah that subreddit was for younger ones but not fully nude
And?
I don’t think I have to explain how victimizing children is generally a bad thing.
Didn’t ask, do you have anything relevant you’re getting at here?
You are the one defending CSAM in the name of free speech.
Holy shit, somebody scan this dudes pc asap. I have never wanted tp throw someone into an oubliette this bad. Fukcing creep.
I didn’t know that it was possible to have negative knowledge about what freedom of speech is, but there your brainwashed ass is talking.
If you think knowledge is negative, you’re simply anti-intellectual
Your reading comprehension checks out. I’ll block you before I get more of your valuable thoughts
We self censor and that will not stop anytime soon.
We are a shame based society. It controls us and hold us back. It will continue to do so until we reach a point where it cannot be hidden.
The need for downvotes on these types of platform is an simple example of this.
People using shame to silence the inconveniences of the world and silence other. It is an insidious beast.
The damage caused is immeasurable. It is a Pandora’s box and we cannot close it, only toss it aside and accept ourselves and others exactly as they are.
Our rising suicide rates indicates we are losing this battle.
Downvotes aren’t always censorship. Silence isn’t always censorship. You’ve got the lines a bit blurred I think
Guy seems like an idiot who can’t tell the difference between community regulation and authoritarianism. This is the kind of shit you see some asshole man who’s only ever had to worry about themselves say.
I wonder if there’s a reason we can trace part of the current popularity of fascism in the US to the communities that festered on his dipshit site.
Guy helped make academic articles and journals available for free to people regardless of their means; guy did the same for public court documents hidden behind a paywall; guy founded a website aimed at keeping track of politicians; guy was involved in several progressive campaigns; guy also helped develop a lot of really cool freely available tech like RSS feeds, the technical architecture for Creative Commons, and the Markdown language. When he was prosecuted for his activism, he eventually rejected a plea bargain for six months when the alternative was 30+ years in prison, and ended up committing suicide.
But yeah, he sure seems like an asshole man who only cared about himself…
You’re really centering him in movements he was a part of. I know he’s credited with a lot of “activism” such as vague, “progressive movements.” I’m saying those libertarian ideals are fundamentally dissonant with the reality of social and political life under settler-colonial capitalism. Look at the people who defend him, pay attention to their positionality.
Whatever good you want to say this guy did, he is responsible for platforming a modern fascist movement fueled by exactly these talking points. Maybe if he was actually anticapitalist instead of “pro-freedom” his positive actions wouldn’t be so outweighed.
“Guy seems like an idiot” said by the guy who doesn’t know who Aaron Schwartz is or what he did to stand up to authority.
Every day I award the Stupidest Comment on the Internet award; congrats, you’re today’s winner.
