New Bespoke Post subscribers get 20% off their first box of awesome - go to bespokepost.com/wisecrack and enter code WISECRACK at checkout. Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring!
Separating Telsa's objective benefit to world (I wish people would just stop the thoroughly debunked mass exploding and safety issues) from Elon, he especially frustrated because I can resonate with fellow aspie's cognitive process though many of his actions over past few years seem contemptable - including the "twitter is effectively the new townsquare (so let's further privatize and monetize it)" seizure of a large slice of global discourse.
This video proves freedom of speech is in danger. People in countries like China, Russia or North Korea do not have the right to free speech that is the reason why they are viewed as totalitarian states. It is lack of free speech that lead to totalitarian state, not the abundance of it. The author tries to convince the viewer that the reason democracy turns into tyranny is too much free speech based on one case from ancient Greece. He is unknowingly making an argument for totalitarianism based on too much free speech which is a huge logical fallacy. You cannot blame the consequence on the cause if the cause counters the consequence. Free market has always rewarded good ideas and rejected wrong ideas, because bad ideas did not work out long term. The problem is not with hate speech, because it is moderated and even free speech absolutists like Elon support moderation of hate speech. Problem is with the modern liberal world view of "We want free speech unless it contradict our narrative." which is exactly what communist parties in Russia, China and North Korea are doing to stay in power.
@@ryvyr Of course there are other factors but free speech is the most essential for free society. If there is no free speech people cannot resist totalitarian regime, cannot organise protests against the regime, cannot criticize the regime without going to jail. This makes people afraid to express their opinion because it is against the opinion of the crowd around them. When you ask people about their opinion they will give different answers when they are alone and when they are in a group. Humans seek for approval rather than for truth because this is how evolution wired us to survive. Totalitarian regimes use these evolutional traits against people in order to make them obidient.
I think all of this comes down to the same reason debates are supposed to have moderators, camps have councillors, broadcasters have ombudsmen(people). It's not that freedom is the issue, it's that some level of mediation is almost always necessary when there are differences. It's why message boards invented the task of Moderator in the first place. You can't just let every discussion devolve into a flamewar, nobody benefits from that except the troll whose intent is to aggravate.
So you think you should have in what is essentially a global town square have a daddy that just bans anyone who it deems "hateful" . Not Orwellian at all. And not easily abusable when you consider most people in power are corrupt and psychopaths. "You can't just let every discussion devolve into a flamewar" so you should control the discussions that all people have? The insanity of what i'm reading my god.
Call me crazy but the philosophers and professors of Greek society saying that the philosophers and educated of society should rule might have an agenda with their opinions and maybe shouldn't be taken as doctrine.
That was a Plato thing. The concept of the philosopher king was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Plato in his dialogue, the Republic. It refers to a theoretical ruler who combines philosophical knowledge and temperament with political skill and power. So, like you're not wrong but you should read or like watch a couple RUclips videos more realistically, Plato's Republic. (Lmao, or this video. I answered before I got through more than a couple minutes)
Sure but when, at any point, in human history has there not been a leader that has ruled and made decisions based on their opinions or had an agenda with the power they where given?!
@@Newton-Reuther MAGA folks say "America isn't a Democracy" because they haven't won the popular vote since Reagan. It's a modern thing. We're a representative democracy.
Those who are interested in more on this topic, I highly recommend an older (pre-transition) Philosophy Tube video: "Brexit: What is Democracy?", in which Abigail describes the tensions inherent in democracy via references to the 2016 Brexit referendum and the movie "Arrival."
I searched for your recommended video. It took me a minute to realise what you meant by (pre-transition) because I mistakenly thought I was still on Wisecrack, which is, after all, literally 'philosphy tube'. Then it clicked who Abigail is. Good recommendation, thanks!
Jürgen Habermas is a philosopher that has some very good theories regarding speech and democracy. His discourse theory of democracy demands that everyone have equal communicative opportunities, and the only power allowed is the power of the best arguments. So the powered granted by the number of followers would not be allowed and would pollute democracy. Although it is virtually impossible to totally have the ideal speech situation, as defined by Habermas, it is a very good guide on what to safeguard against.
There are some problems with this: equal communicative opportunities is impossible to come by naturally because that would mean forcing people to listen to people they don’t want to or have no grounding. Imagine having to listen to a flat earther as if they are on the same level as a physicist? Also, people are able to use logical fallacies to communicate a false idea very quickly that takes far longer to debunk. There is the classic tactic of the “gishgallop” where a person shouts out a ton of arguments really fast with the presumption that if even a single one of these arguments stands- then the source is valid and right. But then it takes two hours answer 5 minutes worth of arguments, especially when the answers to these take huge foundational sources of knowledge to even understand. Equal communicative opportunities =\= equal powers of persuasion. People are not logical and are easily tricked and people know this and will take advantage.
Who or what says what is the best argument? And whoever postures the best argument doesn’t actually mean it’s the best idea or concept. It would just be whoever is the best at argument and debate
Like you said, it's a good guide. An ideal doesn't have to be a goal or enforced with authority. The first problem I saw was that not everyone is equally capable or even able to argue critically. But we definitely need more proper discourse and less individual opinions.
That's exactly what it's useful for. You gotta have people say outrageous crap so that the reasonable will tear it down. The problem isn't with the liar or fraudster, it's with the consumer of media. American students are discouraged from critical thinking or questioning authority, so many are susceptible to comforting lies. Thus the current power of the Republican party: their 40+ year assault on public education has led to red states filled with easily led voters with legitimate grievances (that can be blamed on politically convenient scapegoats.) Hope this helps, it's killing me.
@@yol_n I'm not saying there aren't issues with that standpoint, or that I have the answers, don't mistake me. What I will say, tho (& I don't mean that I think you're necessarily doing this, only that it follows the same pattern), is that your response is the tired, worn out, pat response of a conservative who regards the constitution & its amendments as infallible scripture, which eventually (typically) leads up to "you can't, you just need to let people say whatever they want in order to have 'true' freedom. So don't make any effort at all," because that's useful to the GOP (last bit is the quiet part said aloud). Unrestricted freedom of speech isn't defended by the Right for it's virtues, but for its capacity to sow confusion. So, do I have simple answers for complex questions? No, I do not, but I would caution against anyone who does. That's a red flag of a con job. I do believe those complex answers are out there, tho.
@@tzgaming207 *worn out, pat response of a conservative who regards the constitutions & its amendments as infallible scripture* When you hear a prog use language like this, you NOW know why people so see them as that. Do you also feel the same about he 13th amendment, or just the two where people have the right to dissent and shoot back at the lefty-Fascism you secretly want to engage in?
@@tzgaming207 So although not perfect it allows an antagonist system where big brother and the little guys are in a big battle over placing legitimacy in their claims. Which usually involves actual objective evidence we have free speech as it is the greatest weapon against tyrants When we don’t have free speech big brother is gonna sow confusion like you said no consequences in order to make him look good
@@newb431 You want him to argue multiple conflicting viewpoints, thereby saying absolutely nothing about anything? No thank you. You got a conflicting opinion, make your own video to balance this one out, my dude. Two sided arguments are for me in the cereal isle trying to choose between the frog one and the one Mikey likes. I'm glad to hear other's actual viewpoints, even when I disagree. Wasting time with mentioning every argument there is that conflicts your own would be dumb as hell, boring as crap, and two hours long. If your planning on writing a balanced, multiple-sided, well thought out essay on the topic, you could put it here in the comments for everyone to enjoy. I might even read it.
@@newb431 Sorry that you found it that way. I think at least in my mind, going back to ancient philosophy is a way to avoid contemporary dichotomies in culture. Especially as this is the tradition where most modern philosophical and political thought can trace its roots back to.
I'm still impressed by Marshall McLuhan suggesting electronic media would shift us from a literate, visual culture back to an oral culture. I think all forms of televisual communication should most likely take the form and format of a zoom call, whether it's the product, or the marketing, or the finance meeting - everything is a zoom call. Everything is conversational. Free speech today is more like the freedom to shout a one liner across the bar than to revise our traditional moral framework in a written treatise
That sounds profound, but is actually completely garbage. Try saying that to the people who got rammed over by a tank in China because they fought for their rights to have a voice.
@@samhwwg Context matters. Some people - i.e. most people that pay for Twitter - screech about their Free Speech solely because they don't like being called dumb when they say dumb shit.
@@LonkinPork Context does matter, but standards apply universally. If people say dumb things on the internet and face backlash from other internet users, fine. If the platform provider or the government steps in and say that this is unacceptable, then there’s a lurking danger. Free speech is very very very difficult to come by, but extremely easy to lose. I’m always for free speech for both side, provided that those are members of the public, not people in positions of power wielding the weapon of “misinformation” or “hate speech”.
@sam: "If the platform provider or the government steps in..." - there's a huge difference between those 2 (the government vs a corporation that gives platforms). Free speech simply means the government cannot arrest or hurt you for saying what you want. By contrast the principle of free speech and free speech laws do not say that a corporation owes you a platform.
Nice propaganda bud @@samhwwg and tell the civil rights movement how much free speech they has when they were (and are, it is not over) getting killed by both random citizens and the state in peaceful protests and direct action
I feel like we don’t mention enough how Elon’s idea that "free speech should only be restrained by law" doesn’t consider how different those laws are around the world and how easily mutable they are
Easy solution, US tech platforms should enforce First Amendment speech norms globally and tell any countries that object because “mUh cEnSoRsHiP” to get stuffed. The American conception of freedom of speech as succinctly enshrined in the First Amendment and upheld by almost 250 years of legal precedent is truly one of this country’s greatest contributions to the betterment of the human condition.
@@RockerTopper-hh3ruSo you are saying your american vote counts, but what people vote around the world doesn't? Spoken like a true fascist, it's your way or the highway.
Plato saying we should have philosopher kings vibes like engineers saying we should have engineer presidents because they’ll “engineer all the problems away.” 🤔
I imagine lots of the dislikes are just from the title. "Was Free Speech A Mistake?" is an _incredibly_ bold choice. Personally, I would have taken it in a more political science direction, and how "free speech" isn't real. Rather, places that have "free speech" are constantly chipping away at what is "free", and places that have "protected speech" add to that definition what speech must be "protected". Personally, I think the latter is more useful for a society, since it makes people think about what deserves to be protected. The alternative, in a "free speech" space would be to make it more obvious what "punishable speech" is, and talk about speech in those terms. I think that could work, but that's not the experience I have had discussing speech. When "free speech" is your baseline, it can feel sacrilegious to mark _any_ speech as being unworthy of protection.
Yeah not a bad note. Looking like the title is putting lots of folks off. And I think your point is good, so if we change the title to something like that, thanks!
I can only call my congressman (congress member?) And tell them that i don't want US arms to be given to countries that violate human rights because of free speech. I wish it worked better tho
@@MmKayUltra1 Referring specifically to the "congress member question mark" part; and the term Congressperson has been around long before some people got scared of and other people got excited by the word woke.
@@Stryfe52 I was on Facebook for that reason until the algorithm changed and all I saw were ads and posts for groups I wasn't a part of. I felt like the only thing Facebook wanted me to see were inflammatory posts from content farm pages. I hope it's changed. I do miss talking to my friends and seeing what they're up to. Not as many people text back but just about everyone would respond to a comment
@Ford_prefect_42 I just wanted to tell you that your RUclips name is awesome not sure if that is the right term but I have no idea what else to call it
His perspective is valid but it is incorrect. The correct logic will always trump flawed logic. Yes there are persuasive tactics but there will always be a way to expose them with logic just as he is attempting to do in this video. If someone is getting attention for crazy beliefs but they can defend their crazy beliefs when confronted in a debate, then most likely it isn't crazy. It could still be wrong but not crazy. Eventually over time if you keep debating them you will reach a logical dead end where they admit to being wrong and this applies to both sides. No one person will be 100% correct, so the only way is to try and search for the truth in perspectives other than your own. This is what makes free speech so important.
@@TopMusicChartsChannel I mean, there are tons of studies across a variety of disciplines that directly contradict you. People who have 'crazy ideas' don't change those ideas no matter what or how many logical arguments are made. That just isn't how people behave, especially online. Also, 'free speech' is a reference to a legal right whose intent is to prevent authoritarianism. Trying to apply it to epistemology is a misapplication of the term's context.
@@derekkellogg8414 There is a distinction between followers and leaders. It's harder to change minds of followers, and more impactful to change minds of opinion leaders. And yes it is possible for people to be convinced through logical arguments. It's worrying to me that people can't see this. It's either debate or war. No communication
Being a _________ absolutist seems to be almost always misled at best. Ignoring all context in favor of a pre-determined principle seems to pretty consistently lead to problematic stances and the inability to engage in good faith dialogue.
I was champing at the bit to fire back about this ridiculous misrepresentation of free speech absolutism, but then realized if i comment it will only strengthen engagement and make people think this video is worthy of debate! You're not going to get me that easily, Wisecrack! 😅
The amount of censure is proportionally inverse to the community's criteria. If ideas that may be "controversial" are censored, it means that we belittle the audience; and even more worrying, who is the one who decides what is correct and what is not.
Cool comment bro, but we have to establish things like human rights (bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, freedom to peacefully assemble, protection from bigotry, protection from arbitrary deprivation of property, a right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, right to seek asylum in a foreign state, etc) are not up for "controversial debate". That's why most of us decided that they're called human rights, after all. And yet when people bring up "controversial debates", it usually involves violating one or more of these.
I only just started the vid but two quotes immediately come to mind. One is your boy Kierkegaard, and I am paraphrasing these from memory but "people demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use", and I forgot who said this other but it was someone like Thoreau or Emerson, but "democracy trades rule by the corrupt few for rule by the ignorant many".
The biggest problem i see (in america at least) is that the average person is shut out of the political governance of of our nation. The only answer ever given to us is to vote... But we only get to vote for one of two corporate backed lobbyist owned political parties. Its created an election cycle that makes people vote AGAINST the candidate they hate more... We are held hostage by the status quo... We the people are pitted against eachother in the sake of keeping us separated and more easily controlled by the corporate class
Lmao you do realize there are other elections outside of the president? And that voting is just the bare minimum you should be doing to be involved? Honestly, “I’m a gigantic baby that does nothing and complains about everything” is one of the most annoying types of people.
You drank the koolaid. Go outside look around. See everything - that’s your community where you live. That’s where your political power is. Get involved in civics close to home, where your opinion will actually matter. This is a republic, your presidential vote is actually the least important.
@@rand0mletters1 i wasn't just talking about presidential vote. I'm fully aware I live in a local community and could potentially make my voice heard here... I feel like you completely missed what I was saying. My community has an almost non existent say in state or federal matters. You say I drank the Kool aid... When what I'm saying is so many HAVE drunken the Kool aid in fighting over which corporate backed political party candidate they'll vote against... Regardless of it being governor or state representative or congressman or president. Very few truly vote FOR any candidate. Most vote for the lesser of two evils. They know they won't have any representation but feel it'll be slightly worse if they vote for the other candidate... Democracy is a sham when the only ones guaranteed to win are fully owned and controlled by billionaires, corporate interests and even foreign governments. So no I didn't drink the Kool aid... I opened my eyes and looked at reality in front of my face
@@roscojenkins7451 you did. Think of America as an organism rotting from the inside out, the rot started with the American people. Americans are rotten. We buy things on credit we don’t need, we waste away hours watching reality television. How can I be mad at these billionaire technocrats when we gave them all our money and on credit! Imagine your body has sepsis and you’re beginning to see necrosis build as we are seeing in this country. Can you fix necrosis with a topical ointment? Does replacing the rotting leg remove the sepsis? No you have get antiobiotics flowing through the whole blood system. America flows upward, your community decides who represents your state, which decides who represents you federally which decides yadda yadda. Where do you think these politicians come from? They start at the state level. A future president is likely right now in a state congress. You aren’t vetting those people and you are surprised when the chaff drifts to the top when you never separated it from the wheat?
I love how the defense against free speech is always about being able to say racist things. It's key to being able to speak freely to power. For instance, in America we can say our president looks like Winnie the Pooh without repercussions.
The cover clip you did for the flat earth conspiratorial comment is actually from a video that points out the origins and problems and debunks flat earth conspiracy theory.
I'm no fan of the "cis" thing, but, I am for free speech, so if you got banned on X for calling yourself cis, that's crazy and stupid. They say that you should know for what reason you get banned, or suspended, I would love to see a pic of the reason you got suspended, and if it's the cis thing, you should get reinstanted promptly. I myself got suspended for saying a "bad word" once and I just contacted them back, pointing out the context of the "bad word" and got promptly unsuspended, so, try that?
Nah dude you're a regular person who believes in basic biology but implements the silly change in language in order to normalize those types of people that believe in delusion. I'd personally say that it's a overcomplication of language to create the illusion that the basic knowledge of biology has changed and normalizing individuals like the trans woman that sexually assaulted a baby at a daycare is a women then why did that person not face jail time due to identifying as a trans woman and not a cis woman which implies that trans women are not cis women which implies that trans women aren't women and that real women don't get any additional protection when commiting a crime as they are just cus women which means they are just humans that give birth and that's it but if you identify as trans you will get protection and attention and support from media. Just like with the boy who was let into the locker room for identified as trans who graped Scott Smith's daughter but was not punished and instead protected by police who simply moved him to another school where he got away with graping another minor in the girl's locker room at that school. Sorry didn't mean to say all that but just wanted to say that changing language and calling normal people a word that is supposed to make them be just a human with one function actually states that trans people are still the way God made'm despite the mutilation and unnatural hormone pumping so that's probably why you can get banned for saying it cause it's like saying normal people aren't special and trans women means women not a cis woman so he's not actually women but in truth remains a man. But if ya call me one of the words that end with phobic or ist that's fine I'll keep relying on the GOAT Jesus to keep stating the facts of normal people being called normal people that will always be what they are and not what they will never be and praying for everybody regardless 👍
Nah dude you're a regular person who believes in basic biology but implements the silly change in language in order to normalize those types of people that believe in delusion. I'd personally say that it's a overcomplication of language to create the illusion that the basic knowledge of biology has changed and that men and women do not have differences or now have the ability to not have differences but if that were the case then there wouldn't be a need to add the trans or cis to the word women as it insinuates that that differs from regular women and how they are treated which is evident with the normalization individuals like the trans woman that sexually assaulted a baby at a daycare is a women then why did that person not face jail time due to identifying as a trans woman and not a cis woman which implies that trans women are not cis women which implies that trans women aren't women and that real women don't get any additional protection when commiting a crime as they are just cus women which means they are just humans that give birth and that's it but if you identify as trans you will get protection and attention and support from media. Just like with the boy who was let into the locker room for identified as trans who graped Scott Smith's daughter but was not punished and instead protected by police who simply moved him to another school where he got away with graping another minor in the girl's locker room at that school and the recent planet fitness situation where the women reporting a dude shaving in front of a 12 year old girl was the one that was punished or the fact that they covered up a dude who called himself a trans woman being allowed to expose himself to minors and employees in the women's showers as they did not report him based in the fact that he added the fact that he suddenly and instantly realized he changed his identity and gender so he called himself a transwoman so he could be allowed to do whatever he wanted without being reported on or punished. Those who do not have those trans identities but call themselves cis, which again normalizes a slur toward normal people and highlights trans not actually being the opposite gender, would more than likely face punishment. Sorry didn't mean to say all that but just wanted to say that changing language and calling normal people a word that is supposed to make them be just a human with one function actually states that trans people are still the way God made'm despite the mutilation and unnatural hormone pumping so that's probably why you can get banned for saying it cause it's like saying normal people aren't special and trans women means women not a cis woman so he's not actually women but in truth remains a man. But if ya call me one of the words that end with phobic or ist that's fine I'll keep relying on the GOAT Jesus to keep stating the facts of normal people being called normal people that will always be what they are and not what they will never be and praying for everybody regardless 👍
Nah dude you're a regular person who believes in basic biology but implements the silly change in language in order to normalize those types of people that believe in delusion. I'd personally say that it's a overcomplication of language to create the illusion that the basic knowledge of biology has changed and that men and women do not have differences or now have the ability to not have differences but if that were the case then there wouldn't be a need to add the trans or cis to the word women as it insinuates that that differs from regular women and how they are treated which is evident with the normalization individuals like the trans woman that sexually assaulted a baby at a daycare is a women then why did that person not face jail time due to identifying as a trans woman and not a cis woman which implies that trans women are not cis women which implies that trans women aren't women and that real women don't get any additional protection when commiting a crime as they are just cus women which means they are just humans that give birth and that's it but if you identify as trans you will get protection and attention and support from media. Just like with the boy who was let into the locker room for identified as trans who graped Scott Smith's daughter but was not punished and instead protected by police who simply moved him to another school where he got away with graping another minor in the girl's locker room at that school and the recent planet fitness situation where the women reporting a dude shaving in front of a 12 year old girl was the one that was punished or the fact that they covered up a dude who called himself a trans woman being allowed to expose himself to minors and employees in the women's showers as they did not report him based in the fact that he added the fact that he suddenly and instantly realized he changed his identity and gender so he called himself a transwoman so he could be allowed to do whatever he wanted without being reported on or punished. Those who do not have those trans identities but call themselves cis, which again normalizes a slur toward normal people and highlights trans not actually being the opposite gender, would more than likely face punishment. Sorry didn't mean to say all that but just wanted to say that changing language and calling normal people a word that is supposed to make them be just a human with one function actually states that trans people are still the way God made'm despite the mutilation and unnatural hormone pumping so that's probably why you can get banned for saying it cause it's like saying normal people aren't special and trans women means women not a cis woman so he's not actually women but in truth remains a man. But if ya call me one of the words that end with phobic or ist that's fine I'll keep relying on the GOAT Jesus to keep stating the facts of normal people being called normal people that will always be what they are and not what they will never be and praying for everybody regardless 👍
This was a great discussion of this topic! Excellent food for thought, with well organized ideas IMO, which is hard since, personally, this topic has me impaled (can I even say impaled in YT comments?) on proverbial fence posts. I suppose disinformation (i.e. people lying?) can't go away, but not allowing profiteering from misinformation can't be a bad starting point for addressing this... Happy Friday Wisecrack team.
Musk is a modern day, real life Music Man aka Harold Hill. Throw in a little Bernie Madoff, PT Barnum, and Elizabeth Holmes and you have perfect replica of Elon Musk.
"4Chan has rules" Fun fact 4Chan also has anti-racism in their rules Its similar to Twitch in a way that it simply doesn't enforce a lot of rules, less in blue boards and less per boards
Speaking as a left-libertarian, this video is the single best example of the absolute contempt of the leftist intelligentsia for regular people I have ever seen. Democracy is not simply one idea for how to create a just society, it is the only just society which can exist. For I believe that any state which imposes laws on individuals who do not have a say in the policies of that state is fundamentally illegitimate.
So my problem with free speech in America is this: you're not allowed to lie about or threaten another individual. Unless you do it to a million individuals at a time, then it's completely fine.
Two things of note: 1. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. 2. The Paradox of Tolerance is something we should all familiarize ourselves with.
@@yol_nare you saying it’s NOT okay to want to curb your Elon like I’m in American History X whenever he opens his mouth about anything, at all, ever? I should be okay with him when he spews hatred so appalling that no human being should be allowed to roam in society with the attitudes and beliefs he arms himself with? Because you’re wrong.
Free Speech is not simply an imperfect means for generating a safe and just society. Free Speech is an end in and of itself without which a society is not safe and just.
Should limits be placed on free speech? Should citizens be emboldened to defraud and utter death threats with abandon? And if so, what is the tangible value add of such behaviour to public discourse?
Nothing is an end in and of itself except for the preservation of human dignity. There are plenty of ways that absolute free speech can violate that most basic value.
@@Crazy_Diamond_75Perhaps you mean nothing should be an end in and of itself except for the preservation of human dignity, but I don't subscribe to that.
@@iExploder I'm not saying it should be pushed to the absolute limit, such as in the cases you've presented. Free speech, safety, justice, happiness, prosperity etc. are all valuable ideals to strive towards, none of which should be held as the only ideal in a society. If pursued effectively each of these ideals can support the expansion of the others, but they each have their limits where the benefits outweigh the costs in other areas. I'm simply objecting to the frame in which free speech is placed in a subordinate position to other values.
Lesson I was taught young was "With freedom comes responsibility", yes it does sound a lot like "With great power comes great responsibility." The problem with today's society is that the world is full of irrational and irresponsible people that do not know what the power their words hold. "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This has been proven to be utter bull.
@@NWPaul72I always assumed that the point of the phrase was you shouldn’t take what people say - no matter how harsh - to heart. I can talk shit about your passed mom but at the end of the day it will still be your fault for turning to violence. God, I wish we had these kinds of discussions more
@@Stryfe52 some people need to learn that what you say possibly come with harsher consequences. I'd wager majority of mass shootings have originated with something someone said.
the background music in the video is the sort of thing i vibe with and had to do a double take and pause you to make sure i didn't have a music player going at the same time lol
Free means without censorship and with inclusion, everyone has a voice. The problem with truth is that each person has a viewpoint derived from many different streams of information. Truth refers to factual events but the causes and effects of those events are conjectural and multiple.
@@fredwelf8650 that’s the trick.. free became free when they realized no one knew what it meant and people in the name of safety would derived the wrong interpretation.. but fuck it. Those of us who get the joke laugh and exploit it bc “we are being fair”. The gift came in too late. Late enough for the average person to misinterpret it and early enough for us to get it to capitalize on it. You’re welcome algorithm. That’s something else for you. Just send me the damn fucking ticket and show me you are what I think you are
People like Elon Musk and other techbros are cosplaying the roles of a philosopher, critical thinkers etc, because we as a society are beginning to realize the importance of humanities in the age of post-truth, also money is being made in the market place of ideas. They want their cut. But, the thing is these tech bros dont have a clue about how to do philosophy, or understand epistemology, sociology, psychology etc. So they end up looking like fools when they talk about these subjects. To them its all "woke' DEI' 'CRT' etc.
As a braziliam who has seen the bad of both dicatorship and democracy: although free speech could be misused by uneducated or greedy individuals it's still far better to reserve that as an individual right than delivering it on a golden plate for a group of selected politicians that won't necessarily view their own people wellbeing in the first place, especially if they are corrupted, which unfortunately all of them are, being they more or less in some countries. This subject becomes even more fragile if we take how people are more sensitive nowdays and ruining people's lives out of simple misunderstandings. Free speech should be viewed as a right that comes with its good and bad sides. Even so, free speech in any country doesn't mean you can simply say anything without paying the price for it, that's why suing and arresting are there for. You are even free to steal and kill, but you are also responsible for carrying the consequences of your actions. The same is applied for your speech.
Because they're obviously biased and with never look up any sources that counter their arguments. This dude is a joke of a philosopher. He's a simping beta communist at best.
“Giving the illusion that an idea is worthy of debate simply because it has high engagement” “Just gonna say controversial stuff to get money” Looks at the title of the video again
I guess the difference would be that the posts that do it to get engagement are vapid and dumb and this is a 20 minute video that digs into the issues with research and the exploration of big ideas? So even if the spicy title gets you in the door, once you're in we're not just throwing BS at you.
@@WisecrackEDU I guess in principal I agree with you,. But then again, are you the ultimate arbiter as to what correctly engages with big ideas and what is just vapid and dumb? A lot of bias just revealed in that statement right there. I'm a long time subscriber, but not anymore, though I'm sure that won't mean much to you as you gain more viewership by appealing to the status quo. This used to be a channel that would challenge the popular narrative, but who's content now boils down to the simple equation of "Liberal= Good, Conservative=Bad" which has become nauseating and tired ( even to a left leaning person such as myself). As much of your content critiques capitalist culture, you still are content creators, on a privately media platform, and have progressively capitulated to common views and taste to appease the majority of potential views, in order to increase the views, and therefore increase you ad revenue. The old saying is true then, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
I wonder if it would possible to structure social media so that it encouraged good conversation and encouraged the kinds of virtue needed for democracy to work. The first step would be taking it out of the hands of for-profit entities. If it was seen as a public utility, how would the technology change? Could we have algorithms that promote thoughtfulness, kindness, compassion, and polite debates done in good faith?
We need more assemblies of 20-100 people to deliberate decisions, just like we use juries in the courts. A group of laymen taking the time to discuss a decision will still be flawed and prone to error, but they won't have an incentive to promote their own power, any more than a juror gets to dominate the legal system. It also provides us with a huge incentive to make sure our population (out of whom these assembly members would be drawn) is politically and critically educated. This is much closer to true democracy than the kind where a rotating circuit of elite gets nominal support from the occasional vote.
There has never been absolute free speech...ever. If you consider power dynamics there have never been a capitalist free market...ever. You can be absolutely free, or you can have a functional society. You can't have both.
Money is coerced into use through the same forces that the boundaries of speech are. Free speech, for whatever that means, has to be defined and enforced the same way blasphemy laws are. Absolute free speech contradicts the legal and market system by making fraud and slander on equal footing with investigation, objectivity and other honest pursuits that hold a non-autocratic society together. Democracy cannot live in a space where the criminals tame the legal institutions and make the laws. That's all speech online is being used for in the current model, to disconcert, confuse, slander, lie and undermine our more cooperative tendencies. Speech is being curated and targeted to manipulate groups in ways our founders never could have foreseen. Ultimately what really matters is the ability to openly criticize our leaders and to have a variety of media outlets and journalists to investigate, curate and collect our thoughts for us without retaliation. As long as that is not directly undermined, I think the current sick models of social media will be dropped eventually although I see people stay on Twitter even when it's blatantly manipulated to shove undesirables off into one corner of the internet while openly promoting not-C conspiracies all over the site.
“Build a society with healthy speech” seems very much an euphemism for “controlled speech” because it’s impossible to agree on what healthy means. I miss Jared…
If a robust case for Free Speech were made loudly and continuously in a public forum so as to drown out all other speech, or repeatedly cut and pasted into a forum online, those drowned out have no free speech. On the other hand, if the Free Speech advocate is stopped, is his freedom compromised? A solution might be to let everyone have their say in turns.
The entire concept of free speech exists to protect unpopular opinions. If you disagree, you don't believe in free speech, you believe in allowed speech.
exactly. Its weird to me that a leftist of all people would be against it, since leftist ideas are often the underdog ideas and that free speech protects the most
Media need to have proper nutral oversight, keeping things truthful similarly to the idea behind peer review, but for that, you'd need to prevent toxic discorse hitting the public, and that's practicly impossible
@@TheSundayShooterI notice those saying people have a problem with criticism confuse actual criticism with using slurs, insults, and dehumanizing language.
The importance of free speech is not based on the value or accuracy of what is said, on the contrary, free speech is important because it gives people a way to verbally fight against totalitarian rule without having to resort to a physical revolution. Certainly censorship is an essential ingredient needed to successfully form a totalitarian dictatorship. That's why our first president, George Washington warned, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
Banning hate speech bans the abilty to know when the conditions of life can lead to people hating other groups so you never correct for those eras. Such as over favoring a group of people to the point they enact violence against others simple because they belong to a group. The presupposition of banning and curtailing speech is one persons sense of justice looks like to another just power hungry greed. People are far to willing to ascribe psychopathic tendencies to their opponents rather then genuinely felt sense of justice. In Jonthan Haidts examination of morality he found that left people only exhibit 2 morals where as Right exhibit 5 morals. The left cant fathom moral impulses of the right and ascribe selfishness to the right cause it does value anything the right values. And the right sees the left as either stupid or morally insufficient. Also nobody thinks their side has bad actors. The reality is all sides do and that is the game we play.
Why would anyone that wants real debate do that in public on the internet? That's never how good debates were started in meatspace so what magic would make it work in cyberspace? It's much better to just write a 2 sentence idea on public websites and then go back to private discord/reddit groups where people are vetted before joining and moderation is enforced -- you know -- similar to real life. If I want a real debate on, how much gun control is a good amount, I don't scream on the streets -- I talk to people I know that span a variety of views.
Let's remember that aristotle was not a democrat. He was, explicitly, monarchist, that the best system was that the someone was trainned since birth to rule. He Said democracy hás failed.
It is not undemocratic nor anti-free speech to suppress or silence that speech that would take freedoms or democratic rights from others (hate speech, hate figures, hate groups, etc). The paradox of tolerance!
I disagree. I think that should someone with a platform lie or defame, the government should be responsible to counter that information, not suppress it. If it's gov't secrets, they shoulda got 'im before he left the building.
@@NWPaul72 oh yeah I agree there. I don’t think the government should do much in the way of censorship at all, rather, it should be incumbent upon the polity as a whole to deplatform speech that is widely seen as hateful or violent. We’ve seen deplatforming work on people like Andrew Tate and Alex Jones before
Yeah it is. Don't we advocate for men not being able to protect humans when they're in the womb of women? While simultaneously doing nothing about the fact that men have to pay child support even if they've been raped by women? Don't we advocate for women having positions of power that can control War decisions despite the fact that they do not have to sign up for the draft and only males and trans women do. The left has no problem taking the right others away and they still call it free speech.
“It’s not anti-free speech to suppress or silence speech” You do not believe in free speech How does speech take away rights? What constitutes hate speech? Or hate figures? Or hate groups? You guys never think 3 steps ahead of the ideas you propose
@@StephenGleason0 wait but you missed the last half of my sentence. I’m saying it’s PRO free speech to silence speech that would threaten taking free speech or right from others. For example, I think it’s totally fine to silence Nazis, because they would take speech and other rights from all kinds of people. It’s like being pro-peace. You can fight a war against a major power that threatens peace while being pro peace, because you have to defend it
Today's Fact: In 2014, a man named Eric Garner died in New York City after being put in a chokehold by a police officer; years earlier, he had worked with the same officer to break up a fight in the same spot.
@@zenleeparadiseWell no matter if he did something wrong - we kind of agree in the western countries, that the death penalty is obsolete and does not work in combination with human rights…. Oh sorry, it was in the US? Yea ignore that - does not extend to third world countries.
@@johnmclaughlin4802bullshit. Disproven and pathetic lie. Fucking hell how stupid do you have to be to believe this shit? Probably as worthless and stupid as you have to be to be a racist bootlicker
The obsessive-compulsive nature of social media is exactly why I've hated it from the start. The comparison to slot machines/gambling is more than apt.
I think the digital town square idea is fundamentally flawed in its current implementation. In a physical town square you need to take ownership of your actions and risk real consequences ranging from a warning to jail time, while in a digital town square you're anonymous and the worst punishment you can suffer is having your account suspended, which can be undone in 5 minutes by making another account. In a true digital town square you should: - be able to say anything without being silenced - be identifiable, so you can be held accountable, socially or legally, for anything you say
The flip side is that a physical town square might privilege the loud, the popular, or the intimidating folks. The social consequences you’re talking about mean that unpopular ideas might not get aired - even if they’re better supported by data. It can also mean people judging ideas based on the physical appearance of the speaker. So all the usual biases and prejudices influence which ideas get promoted.
Once upon a time there were "Speaker Corners" in such places as 125th street and Lenox Ave in Harlem where anyone could get up on a soap box and speak. People like Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey gained followers from such. I believe that in London they have the same thing (although I don't recall specifically where in that city.) That might be in line with what you speak of.
It also assumes that the audience recieving the speech is perfectly rational, can’t be manipulated and that the best idea therefor will always win out. That is extremely extremely naive, and never happens. Most people are deeply irrational. Conservativism and fascism grows rapidly exactly because it appeals to insecurity and fear and turns people against each other and their own interests. The compelling ideas in a public forum are those delivered by a charismatic and skilled rhetorician who knows consciously or not what people are afraid of. Even ads appeal to these emotions. So what actually happens in an unmoderated public forum is that those with the most irrationally compelling ideas, often delivered charismatically and even with a money backed megaphone or stage, win out. While the actually good ideas are left in the margins, desperately trying to mediate and prevent the harm of the populist speaker. This is an ever looming flaw of democracy as well. Plato thought democracies would always be hijacked by demagouges who turn into tyrants. To protect democracy, we must not only protect the univeral right to speak, but also what quality og speech is productive and should be promoted. The forum should have rules, in other words, rules that must be enforced. Or else we have Hitlers and the like constantly and consistently commiting mass atrocities, rampant fascism, maybe even the very destruction of the eco system, like we see today. People who lie, harass, misrepresent should be punished and disallowed to speak until they can provide an actual good faith, honest, justified argument. Something I have never ever seen from the conservative right.
As an Australian, the only thing more concerning about absolute free speech in 2020s is the absolute oxymoron of Outback Steakhouse. There are no steakhouses in the outback. Just pubs that will sell you a steak… probably for $40 these days (chips extra).
I am an in actual Awe and shock that this guy who I used to love watching and listening to is actually advocating against free speech. Moderation is censorship, because ultimately someone is deciding what needs to be moderated and what doesn't. there is no answer that doesn't exist in tension around this subject. As an American though, a persons right to feel comfortable does not exceed my right to free speech and that is the way it should be.
Context matters. A private group or forum can decide what their purpose is. They can say our house our rules. You’re still free to express yourself outside of that group. But if you come into a feminist club saying all women are evil, they have a right to kick you out. When it comes to large social media companies, I generally think it’s better to combat misinformation by pairing it with other information or context. Like when RUclips adds a link to the CDC on anything involving COVID. It’s not stopping free speech; it’s just letting people know that the information is contested, or not shared by mainstream science, or what have you.
Free speech doesn't work when the populace isn't educated sufficiently, and the US certainly isn't. It just serves to sow more confusion and falsehoods.
I feel Freespeech done a lot of good than bad. Without Freespeech, a lot of progressive changes we taken to granted wouldn't happen as fast aswe have right now. Feminism, Race relations, LGBTQ rights, would still be extremely censored because it disrupts the status quo by traditionally religious society. And i fear that if freespeech gets removed, how long will we able to retain the rights and freedoms we gained over the years. Like how RvW got overturned a couple of years ago. How would women get that right for abortion back? If feminism gets censored and Freespeech isn't there to uncensored it, it would be impossible and would be easier to just accept that right is gone. Freespeech is a 2-way street. Someone can scream out anti and hateful things, but also someone with the same right can scream out pro and supportive thing to counter the hateful speech. Resorting to censorship is leaving the opportunity to have the supportive stiff censored while the hateful speech run free. It takes a political document to change everything. I rather be called hateful names and able to keep my rights and freedoms, than having a chance that it get sripped away without a way to fight it.
free speech had nothing to do with progress - people lost their lives for all the progress we have made - free speech does not do anything for progress -
@@zacharybosley1935 silencing others voicing different opinions, even objectively harmful ones, is a form of puritanical intolerance. Being opposed to them should be encouraged, but silencing them is counter productive. Sunlight is a disinfectant, figuratively, and ideas suspected of wrongness should be publicly tested, not relegated to darkness, as it can flourish and grow in secret.
Judging how many people saw the title and are like "yeah! Free speech is stupid and we need to censor it", the clickbait worked in the wrong direction.
@@xandercruz900 That's what I'm saying. The point of the clickbait is to drive engagement. People getting mad and commenting only boosts the video in the algorithm lol
@@ashvioit’s reasonable to dislike this video because it’s trash. Free speech isn’t something that the powerful lend to the masses like Elon Musk or any other technocrat. Free speech is a right that has to be protected from authoritarians that want control over acceptable speech. The central problem to solve isn’t democracy, free speech etc. it’s authoritarianism - which Plato felt grew naturally out of democracy. Which is why today we are a republic and not a democracy. However the challenge of this video that free speech is ‘bad for democracy’ is a severe bastardization of Plato - especially considering the section used in this video is about Socrates execution which happened as a result of his lack of free speech. It’s a tragic scene, authoritarians usurped power and when they couldn’t constrain the Socrates from saying what he wanted, they put him to death. Plato was upset that in democracy anyone could get power, not that speech lead to authoritarians….
Hypothetical what if: What if we had a society where those who run for political office must register to run 5-10 years in advance. Every election cycle, we take the time not only to vote for those soon to be in power, but have an official "mock vote" for those future elections (no campaigns). Winners would be announced. Over the years, we can take a look at the behaviors of those who will find themselves on the ballot, and better assess their character. My theory is, it's a lot harder to keep up appearances and lie your way into office over a course of many years, rather than the 8-12 months of ads, rhetoric, and empty promises.
It's not hard when you have an entire team dedicated to cultivating your public image. Don't forget, may members of the senate have been public figures for decades. And they keep up appearances basically that entire time.
Hatespeech is subjective, thusly it is a part of free speech. If you think hate speech is real and shouldnt be covered by free speech, say goodbye to flag burning, protests, political satire, any jokes about anyone. Your jokes now all have to he Flanders approved. All your content in general has to be Flanders approved.
![Christopher Hitchens - Free Speech (2006) [HQ]](/img/1.gif)
New Bespoke Post subscribers get 20% off their first box of awesome - go to bespokepost.com/wisecrack and enter code WISECRACK at checkout. Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring!
Separating Telsa's objective benefit to world (I wish people would just stop the thoroughly debunked mass exploding and safety issues) from Elon, he especially frustrated because I can resonate with fellow aspie's cognitive process though many of his actions over past few years seem contemptable - including the "twitter is effectively the new townsquare (so let's further privatize and monetize it)" seizure of a large slice of global discourse.
Why did you change the title of the video?
This video proves freedom of speech is in danger. People in countries like China, Russia or North Korea do not have the right to free speech that is the reason why they are viewed as totalitarian states. It is lack of free speech that lead to totalitarian state, not the abundance of it.
The author tries to convince the viewer that the reason democracy turns into tyranny is too much free speech based on one case from ancient Greece. He is unknowingly making an argument for totalitarianism based on too much free speech which is a huge logical fallacy. You cannot blame the consequence on the cause if the cause counters the consequence.
Free market has always rewarded good ideas and rejected wrong ideas, because bad ideas did not work out long term. The problem is not with hate speech, because it is moderated and even free speech absolutists like Elon support moderation of hate speech. Problem is with the modern liberal world view of "We want free speech unless it contradict our narrative." which is exactly what communist parties in Russia, China and North Korea are doing to stay in power.
@@classicalmechanic8914 Do you suppose that there are additional qualifiers for those countries' circumstances apart from broad free speech?
@@ryvyr Of course there are other factors but free speech is the most essential for free society.
If there is no free speech people cannot resist totalitarian regime, cannot organise protests against the regime, cannot criticize the regime without going to jail. This makes people afraid to express their opinion because it is against the opinion of the crowd around them. When you ask people about their opinion they will give different answers when they are alone and when they are in a group.
Humans seek for approval rather than for truth because this is how evolution wired us to survive. Totalitarian regimes use these evolutional traits against people in order to make them obidient.
Show us on the doll where Outback Steakhouse hurt you
in the middle of the Bloomin' Onion
@@WisecrackEDU If it helps, Outback Steakhouse is not actually affiliated with the country of Australia, and Australians do not endorse it.
pña😊@@Zahaqiel
Me with teary eyes: Points to the doll’s tummy and then points to the doll’s anus
@@WisecrackEDUAustralian sex acts?
I think all of this comes down to the same reason debates are supposed to have moderators, camps have councillors, broadcasters have ombudsmen(people). It's not that freedom is the issue, it's that some level of mediation is almost always necessary when there are differences. It's why message boards invented the task of Moderator in the first place. You can't just let every discussion devolve into a flamewar, nobody benefits from that except the troll whose intent is to aggravate.
Great point
So you should just silence or ban whoever you deem a "troll" huh
So you think you should have in what is essentially a global town square have a daddy that just bans anyone who it deems "hateful" . Not Orwellian at all. And not easily abusable when you consider most people in power are corrupt and psychopaths. "You can't just let every discussion devolve into a flamewar" so you should control the discussions that all people have? The insanity of what i'm reading my god.
Your error: "every discussion devolves into a flamewar"
Personally, I blame it all on Outback Steakhouse.
Wise choice. Would you want some of them blooming onions with that blame?
*has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia or Australian culture. We're still waiting for an apology.
Call me crazy but the philosophers and professors of Greek society saying that the philosophers and educated of society should rule might have an agenda with their opinions and maybe shouldn't be taken as doctrine.
That was a Plato thing. The concept of the philosopher king was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Plato in his dialogue, the Republic. It refers to a theoretical ruler who combines philosophical knowledge and temperament with political skill and power.
So, like you're not wrong but you should read or like watch a couple RUclips videos more realistically, Plato's Republic.
(Lmao, or this video. I answered before I got through more than a couple minutes)
It clearly only works if the large majority of people have had an education
Sure but when, at any point, in human history has there not been a leader that has ruled and made decisions based on their opinions or had an agenda with the power they where given?!
Indeed, Plato is the father of all tiranies
I'll take the Agenda of Wisdom over what we have now for elected officials any day
"In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Tocqueville
Alexis de Tocqueville didn't say that.
Nice joke
"America isn't a democracy" -Every conservative 'free thinker'
@@Newton-Reuther MAGA folks say "America isn't a Democracy" because they haven't won the popular vote since Reagan.
It's a modern thing.
We're a representative democracy.
@@Newton-Reuther They say that because they haven't won the popular vote since Reagan.
Those who are interested in more on this topic, I highly recommend an older (pre-transition) Philosophy Tube video: "Brexit: What is Democracy?", in which Abigail describes the tensions inherent in democracy via references to the 2016 Brexit referendum and the movie "Arrival."
I searched for your recommended video. It took me a minute to realise what you meant by (pre-transition) because I mistakenly thought I was still on Wisecrack, which is, after all, literally 'philosphy tube'. Then it clicked who Abigail is. Good recommendation, thanks!
Jürgen Habermas is a philosopher that has some very good theories regarding speech and democracy. His discourse theory of democracy demands that everyone have equal communicative opportunities, and the only power allowed is the power of the best arguments.
So the powered granted by the number of followers would not be allowed and would pollute democracy.
Although it is virtually impossible to totally have the ideal speech situation, as defined by Habermas, it is a very good guide on what to safeguard against.
There are some problems with this: equal communicative opportunities is impossible to come by naturally because that would mean forcing people to listen to people they don’t want to or have no grounding. Imagine having to listen to a flat earther as if they are on the same level as a physicist? Also, people are able to use logical fallacies to communicate a false idea very quickly that takes far longer to debunk. There is the classic tactic of the “gishgallop” where a person shouts out a ton of arguments really fast with the presumption that if even a single one of these arguments stands- then the source is valid and right. But then it takes two hours answer 5 minutes worth of arguments, especially when the answers to these take huge foundational sources of knowledge to even understand. Equal communicative opportunities =\= equal powers of persuasion. People are not logical and are easily tricked and people know this and will take advantage.
Who or what says what is the best argument? And whoever postures the best argument doesn’t actually mean it’s the best idea or concept. It would just be whoever is the best at argument and debate
Like you said, it's a good guide. An ideal doesn't have to be a goal or enforced with authority. The first problem I saw was that not everyone is equally capable or even able to argue critically. But we definitely need more proper discourse and less individual opinions.
As I get older, my present hang up with free speech is, what good is it, if there's no obligation or responsibility to truth & fact?
That's exactly what it's useful for. You gotta have people say outrageous crap so that the reasonable will tear it down. The problem isn't with the liar or fraudster, it's with the consumer of media. American students are discouraged from critical thinking or questioning authority, so many are susceptible to comforting lies. Thus the current power of the Republican party: their 40+ year assault on public education has led to red states filled with easily led voters with legitimate grievances (that can be blamed on politically convenient scapegoats.) Hope this helps, it's killing me.
Who should be the arbiter to decide what's truthful and what's factual?
@@yol_n I'm not saying there aren't issues with that standpoint, or that I have the answers, don't mistake me. What I will say, tho (& I don't mean that I think you're necessarily doing this, only that it follows the same pattern), is that your response is the tired, worn out, pat response of a conservative who regards the constitution & its amendments as infallible scripture, which eventually (typically) leads up to "you can't, you just need to let people say whatever they want in order to have 'true' freedom. So don't make any effort at all," because that's useful to the GOP (last bit is the quiet part said aloud). Unrestricted freedom of speech isn't defended by the Right for it's virtues, but for its capacity to sow confusion. So, do I have simple answers for complex questions? No, I do not, but I would caution against anyone who does. That's a red flag of a con job. I do believe those complex answers are out there, tho.
@@tzgaming207 *worn out, pat response of a conservative who regards the constitutions & its amendments as infallible scripture*
When you hear a prog use language like this, you NOW know why people so see them as that.
Do you also feel the same about he 13th amendment, or just the two where people have the right to dissent and shoot back at the lefty-Fascism you secretly want to engage in?
@@tzgaming207 So although not perfect it allows an antagonist system where big brother and the little guys are in a big battle over placing legitimacy in their claims. Which usually involves actual objective evidence
we have free speech as it is the greatest weapon against tyrants
When we don’t have free speech big brother is gonna sow confusion like you said no consequences in order to make him look good
In the immortal words of Socrates: I drank what? :)
Relax, it's just yogurt.
Dude you win the day for that Real Genius reference.
I may not like what the porn bot says but I will die to protect its freedom to say it
this is the way.
@@WisecrackEDU ASS IN BIO 💦💦💦🥵🥵🥵
Especially if it caters to my fetishes, lol!
FREEDOM IN BIO!
Me, at title: wha?
Me, at video: ah.
Me, reading comments: HAhahaHAhahaha!
this is perfect.
I read this in Tidus' voice.
@@WisecrackEDUeven funnier is how one sided your argument is
@@newb431 You want him to argue multiple conflicting viewpoints, thereby saying absolutely nothing about anything? No thank you. You got a conflicting opinion, make your own video to balance this one out, my dude. Two sided arguments are for me in the cereal isle trying to choose between the frog one and the one Mikey likes. I'm glad to hear other's actual viewpoints, even when I disagree. Wasting time with mentioning every argument there is that conflicts your own would be dumb as hell, boring as crap, and two hours long.
If your planning on writing a balanced, multiple-sided, well thought out essay on the topic, you could put it here in the comments for everyone to enjoy. I might even read it.
@@newb431 Sorry that you found it that way. I think at least in my mind, going back to ancient philosophy is a way to avoid contemporary dichotomies in culture. Especially as this is the tradition where most modern philosophical and political thought can trace its roots back to.
I'm still impressed by Marshall McLuhan suggesting electronic media would shift us from a literate, visual culture back to an oral culture. I think all forms of televisual communication should most likely take the form and format of a zoom call, whether it's the product, or the marketing, or the finance meeting - everything is a zoom call. Everything is conversational. Free speech today is more like the freedom to shout a one liner across the bar than to revise our traditional moral framework in a written treatise
"When you know that what you're saying is indefensible, all you can defend is your Right to say it."
- paraphrased, but original author unknown
That sounds profound, but is actually completely garbage. Try saying that to the people who got rammed over by a tank in China because they fought for their rights to have a voice.
@@samhwwg Context matters. Some people - i.e. most people that pay for Twitter - screech about their Free Speech solely because they don't like being called dumb when they say dumb shit.
@@LonkinPork Context does matter, but standards apply universally. If people say dumb things on the internet and face backlash from other internet users, fine. If the platform provider or the government steps in and say that this is unacceptable, then there’s a lurking danger. Free speech is very very very difficult to come by, but extremely easy to lose. I’m always for free speech for both side, provided that those are members of the public, not people in positions of power wielding the weapon of “misinformation” or “hate speech”.
@sam: "If the platform provider or the government steps in..." - there's a huge difference between those 2 (the government vs a corporation that gives platforms). Free speech simply means the government cannot arrest or hurt you for saying what you want. By contrast the principle of free speech and free speech laws do not say that a corporation owes you a platform.
Nice propaganda bud @@samhwwg and tell the civil rights movement how much free speech they has when they were (and are, it is not over) getting killed by both random citizens and the state in peaceful protests and direct action
What better way to enjoy the outdoors than to buy a box of crap. Right...
I feel like we don’t mention enough how Elon’s idea that "free speech should only be restrained by law" doesn’t consider how different those laws are around the world and how easily mutable they are
Easy solution, US tech platforms should enforce First Amendment speech norms globally and tell any countries that object because “mUh cEnSoRsHiP” to get stuffed. The American conception of freedom of speech as succinctly enshrined in the First Amendment and upheld by almost 250 years of legal precedent is truly one of this country’s greatest contributions to the betterment of the human condition.
@@RockerTopper-hh3ru American exceptionalism in full display.
@@RockerTopper-hh3ruSo you are saying your american vote counts, but what people vote around the world doesn't? Spoken like a true fascist, it's your way or the highway.
It's cute that you think he cares about the adverse affects of things he deems important.
@@Petard01If you don't believe in free speech, you have a garbage country and deserve to be dominated.
My dude over here dead naming X like that.
😂
Ahhh... 'corporations are people my friend'.
His mama named him Twitter so that's what imma call him
Hey look… he’s called it “Twitter” for years and it’s hard for old people to change the habits they’ve had their whole lives…
With intention!
In the add when you mentioned the "firestarter" I was lowkey kinda sad when you didn't make a prodigy joke.... I'm old lol
Ugh I really wanted to, but we assumed the sponsor probably didn't want us playing a clip of that music video.
@@WisecrackEDU very understandable. I feel better knowing it crossed your mind 😂
I’m the fire starter, twisted fire starter… ohh, ohh.
You mean child prodigy Drew Barrymore? Cuz she was the definitive firestarter.
You may be old, but I may be older. 😂
@@catsmom129 bahahaha okay... I stand corrected. Well played 😂🤣
Plato saying we should have philosopher kings vibes like engineers saying we should have engineer presidents because they’ll “engineer all the problems away.” 🤔
Let me dramatically simplify the issue: Garbage in, garbage out.
Yeah basically.
Talking trash is always fun though
I imagine lots of the dislikes are just from the title. "Was Free Speech A Mistake?" is an _incredibly_ bold choice. Personally, I would have taken it in a more political science direction, and how "free speech" isn't real. Rather, places that have "free speech" are constantly chipping away at what is "free", and places that have "protected speech" add to that definition what speech must be "protected".
Personally, I think the latter is more useful for a society, since it makes people think about what deserves to be protected. The alternative, in a "free speech" space would be to make it more obvious what "punishable speech" is, and talk about speech in those terms. I think that could work, but that's not the experience I have had discussing speech. When "free speech" is your baseline, it can feel sacrilegious to mark _any_ speech as being unworthy of protection.
Yeah not a bad note. Looking like the title is putting lots of folks off. And I think your point is good, so if we change the title to something like that, thanks!
I can only call my congressman (congress member?) And tell them that i don't want US arms to be given to countries that violate human rights because of free speech. I wish it worked better tho
I think Congressperson is the gender neutral term- though to be fair, "Congressman" tends to be factually correct more times than not.
@@Sephiroth144 if using the gender neutral form is somehow more cumbersome than the word congressman maybe woke has indeed gone too far.
@@MmKayUltra1 Referring specifically to the "congress member question mark" part; and the term Congressperson has been around long before some people got scared of and other people got excited by the word woke.
@@MmKayUltra1”Let’s judge the wisdom of ideas by how many syllables they have.” Um, no
Representative works
12:32 Props for showing Then & Now! 😍 Some of the deepest education of my life has come through that guy. Wisecrack is brilliant too 😊
I'm so glad I'm not on social media anymore. RUclips is literally my only "social media" account and i mainly use it to watch cats
Social media can be good if you’re just chatting with people or enjoying yourself, but otherwise yeah; 100% better to cut that shit off.
@@Stryfe52 I was on Facebook for that reason until the algorithm changed and all I saw were ads and posts for groups I wasn't a part of. I felt like the only thing Facebook wanted me to see were inflammatory posts from content farm pages. I hope it's changed. I do miss talking to my friends and seeing what they're up to. Not as many people text back but just about everyone would respond to a comment
@Ford_prefect_42 I just wanted to tell you that your RUclips name is awesome not sure if that is the right term but I have no idea what else to call it
then how did you end up here?
@@thejuiceking2219 I said mainly for cats. Not exclusively. Though if wisecrack had cats this channel would be 80% more awesome
You have my support when the position of philosopher king opens up
His perspective is valid but it is incorrect. The correct logic will always trump flawed logic. Yes there are persuasive tactics but there will always be a way to expose them with logic just as he is attempting to do in this video. If someone is getting attention for crazy beliefs but they can defend their crazy beliefs when confronted in a debate, then most likely it isn't crazy. It could still be wrong but not crazy. Eventually over time if you keep debating them you will reach a logical dead end where they admit to being wrong and this applies to both sides. No one person will be 100% correct, so the only way is to try and search for the truth in perspectives other than your own. This is what makes free speech so important.
@@TopMusicChartsChannel I mean, there are tons of studies across a variety of disciplines that directly contradict you. People who have 'crazy ideas' don't change those ideas no matter what or how many logical arguments are made. That just isn't how people behave, especially online.
Also, 'free speech' is a reference to a legal right whose intent is to prevent authoritarianism. Trying to apply it to epistemology is a misapplication of the term's context.
@@derekkellogg8414 There is a distinction between followers and leaders. It's harder to change minds of followers, and more impactful to change minds of opinion leaders. And yes it is possible for people to be convinced through logical arguments. It's worrying to me that people can't see this. It's either debate or war. No communication
@@TopMusicChartsChannel that's generally true, but if someone doesn't reach a belief using logic, logic can't change their mind
Being a _________ absolutist seems to be almost always misled at best. Ignoring all context in favor of a pre-determined principle seems to pretty consistently lead to problematic stances and the inability to engage in good faith dialogue.
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes." Obi-Wan stated absolutely.
There's two kinds of people in this world: those who believe there are two types of people and those who know better.
Awesome Love this one keep up the great work!
Do a philosophy of George Carlin Video please!
Carlin supported free speech.
Free speech is cool, but have you ever tried empathy?
We're adults, how about we do both? I vote empathy first, it should lead to less free speech problems.
@@NWPaul72 ⬆ This guy gets it.
Wish more people had it
@@Vontiri Ah, militant empathy lol No, I agree.
Leftists often confuse empathy with egocentric victim hood.
I was champing at the bit to fire back about this ridiculous misrepresentation of free speech absolutism, but then realized if i comment it will only strengthen engagement and make people think this video is worthy of debate!
You're not going to get me that easily, Wisecrack! 😅
The amount of censure is proportionally inverse to the community's criteria. If ideas that may be "controversial" are censored, it means that we belittle the audience; and even more worrying, who is the one who decides what is correct and what is not.
You can't know. You have to just try, then negotiate the consequences.
We are both the prisoners AND the guards
Cool comment bro, but we have to establish things like human rights (bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, freedom to peacefully assemble, protection from bigotry, protection from arbitrary deprivation of property, a right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, right to seek asylum in a foreign state, etc) are not up for "controversial debate". That's why most of us decided that they're called human rights, after all. And yet when people bring up "controversial debates", it usually involves violating one or more of these.
One of the few channels where the online discussion is as interesting as the video. Cheers!
I only just started the vid but two quotes immediately come to mind. One is your boy Kierkegaard, and I am paraphrasing these from memory but "people demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use", and I forgot who said this other but it was someone like Thoreau or Emerson, but "democracy trades rule by the corrupt few for rule by the ignorant many".
Oh those are great thanks for sharing.
Freedom of thought is something that can't be taken away, luckily, but that thought is useless if you can't share it with others.
The biggest problem i see (in america at least) is that the average person is shut out of the political governance of of our nation. The only answer ever given to us is to vote... But we only get to vote for one of two corporate backed lobbyist owned political parties.
Its created an election cycle that makes people vote AGAINST the candidate they hate more... We are held hostage by the status quo...
We the people are pitted against eachother in the sake of keeping us separated and more easily controlled by the corporate class
Lmao you do realize there are other elections outside of the president? And that voting is just the bare minimum you should be doing to be involved?
Honestly, “I’m a gigantic baby that does nothing and complains about everything” is one of the most annoying types of people.
You drank the koolaid. Go outside look around. See everything - that’s your community where you live. That’s where your political power is. Get involved in civics close to home, where your opinion will actually matter. This is a republic, your presidential vote is actually the least important.
@@rand0mletters1 i wasn't just talking about presidential vote. I'm fully aware I live in a local community and could potentially make my voice heard here...
I feel like you completely missed what I was saying. My community has an almost non existent say in state or federal matters. You say I drank the Kool aid... When what I'm saying is so many HAVE drunken the Kool aid in fighting over which corporate backed political party candidate they'll vote against... Regardless of it being governor or state representative or congressman or president.
Very few truly vote FOR any candidate. Most vote for the lesser of two evils. They know they won't have any representation but feel it'll be slightly worse if they vote for the other candidate... Democracy is a sham when the only ones guaranteed to win are fully owned and controlled by billionaires, corporate interests and even foreign governments.
So no I didn't drink the Kool aid... I opened my eyes and looked at reality in front of my face
@@roscojenkins7451 you did. Think of America as an organism rotting from the inside out, the rot started with the American people. Americans are rotten. We buy things on credit we don’t need, we waste away hours watching reality television. How can I be mad at these billionaire technocrats when we gave them all our money and on credit!
Imagine your body has sepsis and you’re beginning to see necrosis build as we are seeing in this country. Can you fix necrosis with a topical ointment? Does replacing the rotting leg remove the sepsis? No you have get antiobiotics flowing through the whole blood system. America flows upward, your community decides who represents your state, which decides who represents you federally which decides yadda yadda. Where do you think these politicians come from? They start at the state level. A future president is likely right now in a state congress. You aren’t vetting those people and you are surprised when the chaff drifts to the top when you never separated it from the wheat?
Very insightful!
Constructive feedback: holy hell turn the music down
good note and we'll look into it.
These people in general, what they are after is not "free speech", but "consequence free speech".
"You'll never make me call it 'X', that's a letter, not a name": Proceeds to call it 'X' after calling it Twitter throughout the video.
Everyone, everywhere has free speech. That said, and obviously, everyone, everywhere has to deal with the consequences of what they say.
I love how the defense against free speech is always about being able to say racist things.
It's key to being able to speak freely to power.
For instance, in America we can say our president looks like Winnie the Pooh without repercussions.
trump wants to punish people who say thing against him -
The cover clip you did for the flat earth conspiratorial comment is actually from a video that points out the origins and problems and debunks flat earth conspiracy theory.
This video really gave me a craving for Outback Steakhouse.
Use code WISECRACK at the checkout of Outback for 20% off a confused look on your server's face.
This is the most brutal takedown of Outback Steakhouse and I’m here for it.
Great video!!
"If it's legal to say" okay. but I got banned for saying cis.. ..about myself.
I'm cis lmao.
this is the deal. moderators are out of control out on the Web.
I'm no fan of the "cis" thing, but, I am for free speech, so if you got banned on X for calling yourself cis, that's crazy and stupid. They say that you should know for what reason you get banned, or suspended, I would love to see a pic of the reason you got suspended, and if it's the cis thing, you should get reinstanted promptly. I myself got suspended for saying a "bad word" once and I just contacted them back, pointing out the context of the "bad word" and got promptly unsuspended, so, try that?
Nah dude you're a regular person who believes in basic biology but implements the silly change in language in order to normalize those types of people that believe in delusion. I'd personally say that it's a overcomplication of language to create the illusion that the basic knowledge of biology has changed and normalizing individuals like the trans woman that sexually assaulted a baby at a daycare is a women then why did that person not face jail time due to identifying as a trans woman and not a cis woman which implies that trans women are not cis women which implies that trans women aren't women and that real women don't get any additional protection when commiting a crime as they are just cus women which means they are just humans that give birth and that's it but if you identify as trans you will get protection and attention and support from media. Just like with the boy who was let into the locker room for identified as trans who graped Scott Smith's daughter but was not punished and instead protected by police who simply moved him to another school where he got away with graping another minor in the girl's locker room at that school. Sorry didn't mean to say all that but just wanted to say that changing language and calling normal people a word that is supposed to make them be just a human with one function actually states that trans people are still the way God made'm despite the mutilation and unnatural hormone pumping so that's probably why you can get banned for saying it cause it's like saying normal people aren't special and trans women means women not a cis woman so he's not actually women but in truth remains a man. But if ya call me one of the words that end with phobic or ist that's fine I'll keep relying on the GOAT Jesus to keep stating the facts of normal people being called normal people that will always be what they are and not what they will never be and praying for everybody regardless 👍
Nah dude you're a regular person who believes in basic biology but implements the silly change in language in order to normalize those types of people that believe in delusion. I'd personally say that it's a overcomplication of language to create the illusion that the basic knowledge of biology has changed and that men and women do not have differences or now have the ability to not have differences but if that were the case then there wouldn't be a need to add the trans or cis to the word women as it insinuates that that differs from regular women and how they are treated which is evident with the normalization individuals like the trans woman that sexually assaulted a baby at a daycare is a women then why did that person not face jail time due to identifying as a trans woman and not a cis woman which implies that trans women are not cis women which implies that trans women aren't women and that real women don't get any additional protection when commiting a crime as they are just cus women which means they are just humans that give birth and that's it but if you identify as trans you will get protection and attention and support from media. Just like with the boy who was let into the locker room for identified as trans who graped Scott Smith's daughter but was not punished and instead protected by police who simply moved him to another school where he got away with graping another minor in the girl's locker room at that school and the recent planet fitness situation where the women reporting a dude shaving in front of a 12 year old girl was the one that was punished or the fact that they covered up a dude who called himself a trans woman being allowed to expose himself to minors and employees in the women's showers as they did not report him based in the fact that he added the fact that he suddenly and instantly realized he changed his identity and gender so he called himself a transwoman so he could be allowed to do whatever he wanted without being reported on or punished. Those who do not have those trans identities but call themselves cis, which again normalizes a slur toward normal people and highlights trans not actually being the opposite gender, would more than likely face punishment. Sorry didn't mean to say all that but just wanted to say that changing language and calling normal people a word that is supposed to make them be just a human with one function actually states that trans people are still the way God made'm despite the mutilation and unnatural hormone pumping so that's probably why you can get banned for saying it cause it's like saying normal people aren't special and trans women means women not a cis woman so he's not actually women but in truth remains a man. But if ya call me one of the words that end with phobic or ist that's fine I'll keep relying on the GOAT Jesus to keep stating the facts of normal people being called normal people that will always be what they are and not what they will never be and praying for everybody regardless 👍
Nah dude you're a regular person who believes in basic biology but implements the silly change in language in order to normalize those types of people that believe in delusion. I'd personally say that it's a overcomplication of language to create the illusion that the basic knowledge of biology has changed and that men and women do not have differences or now have the ability to not have differences but if that were the case then there wouldn't be a need to add the trans or cis to the word women as it insinuates that that differs from regular women and how they are treated which is evident with the normalization individuals like the trans woman that sexually assaulted a baby at a daycare is a women then why did that person not face jail time due to identifying as a trans woman and not a cis woman which implies that trans women are not cis women which implies that trans women aren't women and that real women don't get any additional protection when commiting a crime as they are just cus women which means they are just humans that give birth and that's it but if you identify as trans you will get protection and attention and support from media. Just like with the boy who was let into the locker room for identified as trans who graped Scott Smith's daughter but was not punished and instead protected by police who simply moved him to another school where he got away with graping another minor in the girl's locker room at that school and the recent planet fitness situation where the women reporting a dude shaving in front of a 12 year old girl was the one that was punished or the fact that they covered up a dude who called himself a trans woman being allowed to expose himself to minors and employees in the women's showers as they did not report him based in the fact that he added the fact that he suddenly and instantly realized he changed his identity and gender so he called himself a transwoman so he could be allowed to do whatever he wanted without being reported on or punished. Those who do not have those trans identities but call themselves cis, which again normalizes a slur toward normal people and highlights trans not actually being the opposite gender, would more than likely face punishment. Sorry didn't mean to say all that but just wanted to say that changing language and calling normal people a word that is supposed to make them be just a human with one function actually states that trans people are still the way God made'm despite the mutilation and unnatural hormone pumping so that's probably why you can get banned for saying it cause it's like saying normal people aren't special and trans women means women not a cis woman so he's not actually women but in truth remains a man. But if ya call me one of the words that end with phobic or ist that's fine I'll keep relying on the GOAT Jesus to keep stating the facts of normal people being called normal people that will always be what they are and not what they will never be and praying for everybody regardless 👍
This was a great discussion of this topic! Excellent food for thought, with well organized ideas IMO, which is hard since, personally, this topic has me impaled (can I even say impaled in YT comments?) on proverbial fence posts. I suppose disinformation (i.e. people lying?) can't go away, but not allowing profiteering from misinformation can't be a bad starting point for addressing this... Happy Friday Wisecrack team.
Thanks and appreciate it, hope you have a great Friday too!
Musk is a modern day, real life Music Man aka Harold Hill. Throw in a little Bernie Madoff, PT Barnum, and Elizabeth Holmes and you have perfect replica of Elon Musk.
He lacks the charisma. He's Edison, but with less charm.
I would say he is Patrick Bateman.
@@BugsAGD
He's too black to be Bateman.
"4Chan has rules"
Fun fact 4Chan also has anti-racism in their rules
Its similar to Twitch in a way that it simply doesn't enforce a lot of rules, less in blue boards and less per boards
Speaking as a left-libertarian, this video is the single best example of the absolute contempt of the leftist intelligentsia for regular people I have ever seen. Democracy is not simply one idea for how to create a just society, it is the only just society which can exist. For I believe that any state which imposes laws on individuals who do not have a say in the policies of that state is fundamentally illegitimate.
Define a regular person.
@@iExploder Why? They never used that phrase.
TL;DR, we should all be entitled to the right of free speech, as long as we use that right with a sense of responsibility.
ye
This was written by Henry after having to deal with that live stream comment section
So my problem with free speech in America is this: you're not allowed to lie about or threaten another individual. Unless you do it to a million individuals at a time, then it's completely fine.
Two things of note:
1. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.
2. The Paradox of Tolerance is something we should all familiarize ourselves with.
I literally hear the paradox of tolerance everytime a leftist talks about elon. It's theirprogrammed NPC response.
@@yol_nMaybe because it's a good argument?
@@yol_n But the real question is, do you understand it? You can disagree with the idea, but I’d love to hear a counterpoint if you have one.
@@yol_n…..what exactly do you think this is?
Wait. Are you lost?
Do you need an adult?
@@yol_nare you saying it’s NOT okay to want to curb your Elon like I’m in American History X whenever he opens his mouth about anything, at all, ever?
I should be okay with him when he spews hatred so appalling that no human being should be allowed to roam in society with the attitudes and beliefs he arms himself with?
Because you’re wrong.
Free Speech is not simply an imperfect means for generating a safe and just society. Free Speech is an end in and of itself without which a society is not safe and just.
Should limits be placed on free speech? Should citizens be emboldened to defraud and utter death threats with abandon? And if so, what is the tangible value add of such behaviour to public discourse?
Nothing is an end in and of itself except for the preservation of human dignity. There are plenty of ways that absolute free speech can violate that most basic value.
@@Crazy_Diamond_75Perhaps you mean nothing should be an end in and of itself except for the preservation of human dignity, but I don't subscribe to that.
@@iExploder I'm not saying it should be pushed to the absolute limit, such as in the cases you've presented. Free speech, safety, justice, happiness, prosperity etc. are all valuable ideals to strive towards, none of which should be held as the only ideal in a society. If pursued effectively each of these ideals can support the expansion of the others, but they each have their limits where the benefits outweigh the costs in other areas. I'm simply objecting to the frame in which free speech is placed in a subordinate position to other values.
Lesson I was taught young was "With freedom comes responsibility", yes it does sound a lot like "With great power comes great responsibility." The problem with today's society is that the world is full of irrational and irresponsible people that do not know what the power their words hold. "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This has been proven to be utter bull.
Yes! This! "Talk is cheap" is an excuse to verbally abuse and harass others with death threats, vicious lies, false advertising, and ethnic slurs.
What if my words make you pick up a stick or vice versa? Words can definitely get your bones broken. But that's absolute freedom of speech for ya.
“Stick and stones may break my bones but that shit really hurt me 😢”
@@NWPaul72I always assumed that the point of the phrase was you shouldn’t take what people say - no matter how harsh - to heart. I can talk shit about your passed mom but at the end of the day it will still be your fault for turning to violence.
God, I wish we had these kinds of discussions more
@@Stryfe52 some people need to learn that what you say possibly come with harsher consequences. I'd wager majority of mass shootings have originated with something someone said.
the background music in the video is the sort of thing i vibe with and had to do a double take and pause you to make sure i didn't have a music player going at the same time lol
Why do "free market of ideas" people forget that free markets only work effectively when there are strict rules about truth and accuracy.
"but free means no limits!"
Amen
what the fuck commie? Unfuck your head
Free means without censorship and with inclusion, everyone has a voice. The problem with truth is that each person has a viewpoint derived from many different streams of information. Truth refers to factual events but the causes and effects of those events are conjectural and multiple.
@@fredwelf8650 that’s the trick.. free became free when they realized no one knew what it meant and people in the name of safety would derived the wrong interpretation.. but fuck it. Those of us who get the joke laugh and exploit it bc “we are being fair”. The gift came in too late. Late enough for the average person to misinterpret it and early enough for us to get it to capitalize on it. You’re welcome algorithm. That’s something else for you. Just send me the damn fucking ticket and show me you are what I think you are
People like Elon Musk and other techbros are cosplaying the roles of a philosopher, critical thinkers etc, because we as a society are beginning to realize the importance of humanities in the age of post-truth, also money is being made in the market place of ideas. They want their cut.
But, the thing is these tech bros dont have a clue about how to do philosophy, or understand epistemology, sociology, psychology etc. So they end up looking like fools when they talk about these subjects.
To them its all "woke' DEI' 'CRT' etc.
Those three deserve their hate.
"Was Free Speech A Mistake?"
Ahh, good ol Betteridge's law of headlines
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
"which of these politicians stands up for baby seals?"
"no"
@@dibadu234still true tho
As a braziliam who has seen the bad of both dicatorship and democracy: although free speech could be misused by uneducated or greedy individuals it's still far better to reserve that as an individual right than delivering it on a golden plate for a group of selected politicians that won't necessarily view their own people wellbeing in the first place, especially if they are corrupted, which unfortunately all of them are, being they more or less in some countries.
This subject becomes even more fragile if we take how people are more sensitive nowdays and ruining people's lives out of simple misunderstandings. Free speech should be viewed as a right that comes with its good and bad sides.
Even so, free speech in any country doesn't mean you can simply say anything without paying the price for it, that's why suing and arresting are there for. You are even free to steal and kill, but you are also responsible for carrying the consequences of your actions. The same is applied for your speech.
This comment is worth more than the video.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from societal consequences
Thanks! I'm seeing this trend in USA trash talking free speech and these ppl don't have ANY idea of the negative consequences that could bring.
Exactly, but according to Wisecrack that's not the case and free speech should be controlled by a selected group of people.
It's not speech that is the real problem. It's people
hush now, not everyone believes people have free will and act on what they desire
@@Dutchman451 We don't have free will, that's just a fact, but hey, if you have some evidence counter to that, please share.
lol! So true. Educating humans is more effective way than any other system of rules backed by threats & whatnot.
Idk why i expect this channel to ever take a position that isn't neoliberal.
Because they're obviously biased and with never look up any sources that counter their arguments. This dude is a joke of a philosopher. He's a simping beta communist at best.
“Giving the illusion that an idea is worthy of debate simply because it has high engagement”
“Just gonna say controversial stuff to get money”
Looks at the title of the video again
I appreciate Wisecracks right to make videos on whatever they want. I also miss when they were more balanced
I guess the difference would be that the posts that do it to get engagement are vapid and dumb and this is a 20 minute video that digs into the issues with research and the exploration of big ideas? So even if the spicy title gets you in the door, once you're in we're not just throwing BS at you.
*looks at the content of the video
@@davidhochstetler4068 How is looking at what some of the most influential Greek philosophers said about speech and democracy not balanced?
@@WisecrackEDU I guess in principal I agree with you,. But then again, are you the ultimate arbiter as to what correctly engages with big ideas and what is just vapid and dumb? A lot of bias just revealed in that statement right there. I'm a long time subscriber, but not anymore, though I'm sure that won't mean much to you as you gain more viewership by appealing to the status quo. This used to be a channel that would challenge the popular narrative, but who's content now boils down to the simple equation of "Liberal= Good, Conservative=Bad" which has become nauseating and tired ( even to a left leaning person such as myself). As much of your content critiques capitalist culture, you still are content creators, on a privately media platform, and have progressively capitulated to common views and taste to appease the majority of potential views, in order to increase the views, and therefore increase you ad revenue. The old saying is true then, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
I wonder if it would possible to structure social media so that it encouraged good conversation and encouraged the kinds of virtue needed for democracy to work. The first step would be taking it out of the hands of for-profit entities. If it was seen as a public utility, how would the technology change? Could we have algorithms that promote thoughtfulness, kindness, compassion, and polite debates done in good faith?
What a controversial title 😮
Anddddd it’s changed
@@davidhochstetler4068What was it originally?
@@JohnaldV why free speech hurts democracy
We need more assemblies of 20-100 people to deliberate decisions, just like we use juries in the courts. A group of laymen taking the time to discuss a decision will still be flawed and prone to error, but they won't have an incentive to promote their own power, any more than a juror gets to dominate the legal system. It also provides us with a huge incentive to make sure our population (out of whom these assembly members would be drawn) is politically and critically educated. This is much closer to true democracy than the kind where a rotating circuit of elite gets nominal support from the occasional vote.
There has never been absolute free speech...ever. If you consider power dynamics there have never been a capitalist free market...ever. You can be absolutely free, or you can have a functional society. You can't have both.
Money is coerced into use through the same forces that the boundaries of speech are. Free speech, for whatever that means, has to be defined and enforced the same way blasphemy laws are. Absolute free speech contradicts the legal and market system by making fraud and slander on equal footing with investigation, objectivity and other honest pursuits that hold a non-autocratic society together. Democracy cannot live in a space where the criminals tame the legal institutions and make the laws. That's all speech online is being used for in the current model, to disconcert, confuse, slander, lie and undermine our more cooperative tendencies. Speech is being curated and targeted to manipulate groups in ways our founders never could have foreseen. Ultimately what really matters is the ability to openly criticize our leaders and to have a variety of media outlets and journalists to investigate, curate and collect our thoughts for us without retaliation. As long as that is not directly undermined, I think the current sick models of social media will be dropped eventually although I see people stay on Twitter even when it's blatantly manipulated to shove undesirables off into one corner of the internet while openly promoting not-C conspiracies all over the site.
I once posted "Real alcoholics use mouthwash..." as a Facebook status.
“Build a society with healthy speech” seems very much an euphemism for “controlled speech” because it’s impossible to agree on what healthy means.
I miss Jared…
How bout don’t spread hate towards marginalised community’s
I was glad to see the raw dome on Wednesday. Hopefully that's a weekly occurrence. Love the streams
Bless you.
If a robust case for Free Speech were made loudly and continuously in a public forum so as to drown out all other speech, or repeatedly cut and pasted into a forum online, those drowned out have no free speech. On the other hand, if the Free Speech advocate is stopped, is his freedom compromised? A solution might be to let everyone have their say in turns.
Round Robin Speech.
Great video! Clear, compelling, and most of all, true!
For the record there is nothing Australian about Outback Steakhouse :P
It's created a generation of Americans who think that every meal in Australia is a steak with shrimp on the side and a fried onion.
@WisecrackEDU any country where that's a regular, ship me there post haste.
@@WisecrackEDU I'm sorry to inform you Aussies call shrimp "prawns" and we do normal things with normal sized onions 😛
@@anwyll You deserve better than Outback Steakhouse.
Freedom is only as valuable as what you do with it.
The entire concept of free speech exists to protect unpopular opinions. If you disagree, you don't believe in free speech, you believe in allowed speech.
exactly. Its weird to me that a leftist of all
people would be against it, since leftist ideas are often the underdog ideas and that free speech protects the most
Media need to have proper nutral oversight, keeping things truthful similarly to the idea behind peer review, but for that, you'd need to prevent toxic discorse hitting the public, and that's practicly impossible
I notice many who gripe about a lack of free speech actually have a problem with speech free from criticism.
I notice many who gripe about a lack of speech free from hate actually have a problem with criticism
@@TheSundayShooterI notice those saying people have a problem with criticism confuse actual criticism with using slurs, insults, and dehumanizing language.
silencing is not criticism.
@@jeanivanjohnson silencing by whom?
@@phleef i would told you if i could
Haven't finished the video yet but so far this script is very punchy and I like the background music. Well-produced!
The importance of free speech is not based on the value or accuracy of what is said, on the contrary, free speech is important because it gives people a way to verbally fight against totalitarian rule without having to resort to a physical revolution. Certainly censorship is an essential ingredient needed to successfully form a totalitarian dictatorship. That's why our first president, George Washington warned, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
The people at Wisecrack still believe we live in a democracy. That's awesome, I want some of that copium
Oh I get now start a #payteachersmore and also start a #defundthemilitaryallovertheworld
Banning hate speech bans the abilty to know when the conditions of life can lead to people hating other groups so you never correct for those eras. Such as over favoring a group of people to the point they enact violence against others simple because they belong to a group.
The presupposition of banning and curtailing speech is one persons sense of justice looks like to another just power hungry greed. People are far to willing to ascribe psychopathic tendencies to their opponents rather then genuinely felt sense of justice.
In Jonthan Haidts examination of morality he found that left people only exhibit 2 morals where as Right exhibit 5 morals. The left cant fathom moral impulses of the right and ascribe selfishness to the right cause it does value anything the right values. And the right sees the left as either stupid or morally insufficient.
Also nobody thinks their side has bad actors. The reality is all sides do and that is the game we play.
Why would anyone that wants real debate do that in public on the internet? That's never how good debates were started in meatspace so what magic would make it work in cyberspace?
It's much better to just write a 2 sentence idea on public websites and then go back to private discord/reddit groups where people are vetted before joining and moderation is enforced -- you know -- similar to real life. If I want a real debate on, how much gun control is a good amount, I don't scream on the streets -- I talk to people I know that span a variety of views.
Thank you for the subtitles!!
if speech isn't important to you, why censor them?
If speech _is_ important, why do so many use it irresponsibly?
@@Crazy_Diamond_75 hurt feelings is not valid
Let's remember that aristotle was not a democrat. He was, explicitly, monarchist, that the best system was that the someone was trainned since birth to rule. He Said democracy hás failed.
It is not undemocratic nor anti-free speech to suppress or silence that speech that would take freedoms or democratic rights from others (hate speech, hate figures, hate groups, etc). The paradox of tolerance!
I disagree. I think that should someone with a platform lie or defame, the government should be responsible to counter that information, not suppress it. If it's gov't secrets, they shoulda got 'im before he left the building.
@@NWPaul72 oh yeah I agree there. I don’t think the government should do much in the way of censorship at all, rather, it should be incumbent upon the polity as a whole to deplatform speech that is widely seen as hateful or violent. We’ve seen deplatforming work on people like Andrew Tate and Alex Jones before
Yeah it is. Don't we advocate for men not being able to protect humans when they're in the womb of women? While simultaneously doing nothing about the fact that men have to pay child support even if they've been raped by women? Don't we advocate for women having positions of power that can control War decisions despite the fact that they do not have to sign up for the draft and only males and trans women do.
The left has no problem taking the right others away and they still call it free speech.
“It’s not anti-free speech to suppress or silence speech”
You do not believe in free speech
How does speech take away rights? What constitutes hate speech? Or hate figures? Or hate groups? You guys never think 3 steps ahead of the ideas you propose
@@StephenGleason0 wait but you missed the last half of my sentence. I’m saying it’s PRO free speech to silence speech that would threaten taking free speech or right from others. For example, I think it’s totally fine to silence Nazis, because they would take speech and other rights from all kinds of people.
It’s like being pro-peace. You can fight a war against a major power that threatens peace while being pro peace, because you have to defend it
Johnathan Haidt would be a great guest to discuss Social Media
Today's Fact: In 2014, a man named Eric Garner died in New York City after being put in a chokehold by a police officer; years earlier, he had worked with the same officer to break up a fight in the same spot.
From choker to chokee
@@lukidjanothat's a completely inappropriate way to characterize this. He was a real person. He's dead. Have some respect. He did nothing wrong.
@@zenleeparadiseWell no matter if he did something wrong - we kind of agree in the western countries, that the death penalty is obsolete and does not work in combination with human rights…. Oh sorry, it was in the US? Yea ignore that - does not extend to third world countries.
@@MetallicReg what are you even trying to say? This is incoherent gibberish that has nothing to do with the comment you're replying to.
@@johnmclaughlin4802bullshit. Disproven and pathetic lie. Fucking hell how stupid do you have to be to believe this shit? Probably as worthless and stupid as you have to be to be a racist bootlicker
The obsessive-compulsive nature of social media is exactly why I've hated it from the start.
The comparison to slot machines/gambling is more than apt.
I think the digital town square idea is fundamentally flawed in its current implementation. In a physical town square you need to take ownership of your actions and risk real consequences ranging from a warning to jail time, while in a digital town square you're anonymous and the worst punishment you can suffer is having your account suspended, which can be undone in 5 minutes by making another account.
In a true digital town square you should:
- be able to say anything without being silenced
- be identifiable, so you can be held accountable, socially or legally, for anything you say
The flip side is that a physical town square might privilege the loud, the popular, or the intimidating folks. The social consequences you’re talking about mean that unpopular ideas might not get aired - even if they’re better supported by data. It can also mean people judging ideas based on the physical appearance of the speaker. So all the usual biases and prejudices influence which ideas get promoted.
Once upon a time there were "Speaker Corners" in such places as 125th street and Lenox Ave in Harlem where anyone could get up on a soap box and speak. People like Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey gained followers from such. I believe that in London they have the same thing (although I don't recall specifically where in that city.)
That might be in line with what you speak of.
It also assumes that the audience recieving the speech is perfectly rational, can’t be manipulated and that the best idea therefor will always win out. That is extremely extremely naive, and never happens. Most people are deeply irrational. Conservativism and fascism grows rapidly exactly because it appeals to insecurity and fear and turns people against each other and their own interests. The compelling ideas in a public forum are those delivered by a charismatic and skilled rhetorician who knows consciously or not what people are afraid of. Even ads appeal to these emotions.
So what actually happens in an unmoderated public forum is that those with the most irrationally compelling ideas, often delivered charismatically and even with a money backed megaphone or stage, win out. While the actually good ideas are left in the margins, desperately trying to mediate and prevent the harm of the populist speaker.
This is an ever looming flaw of democracy as well. Plato thought democracies would always be hijacked by demagouges who turn into tyrants. To protect democracy, we must not only protect the univeral right to speak, but also what quality og speech is productive and should be promoted. The forum should have rules, in other words, rules that must be enforced. Or else we have Hitlers and the like constantly and consistently commiting mass atrocities, rampant fascism, maybe even the very destruction of the eco system, like we see today. People who lie, harass, misrepresent should be punished and disallowed to speak until they can provide an actual good faith, honest, justified argument. Something I have never ever seen from the conservative right.
@@catsmom129 With the exception of "loud," those apply just as much to our digital space as well.
As an Australian, the only thing more concerning about absolute free speech in 2020s is the absolute oxymoron of Outback Steakhouse. There are no steakhouses in the outback. Just pubs that will sell you a steak… probably for $40 these days (chips extra).
Let Gina back on the Mandalorian and make her character a trans woman tbh. I don't know who wins from that compromise but it would be extremely funny.
Pedro allowed back?
What am i only allowed to say thanks to free speech?
The best pizza topping is banana.
I am an in actual Awe and shock that this guy who I used to love watching and listening to is actually advocating against free speech. Moderation is censorship, because ultimately someone is deciding what needs to be moderated and what doesn't. there is no answer that doesn't exist in tension around this subject. As an American though, a persons right to feel comfortable does not exceed my right to free speech and that is the way it should be.
Context matters. A private group or forum can decide what their purpose is. They can say our house our rules. You’re still free to express yourself outside of that group. But if you come into a feminist club saying all women are evil, they have a right to kick you out.
When it comes to large social media companies, I generally think it’s better to combat misinformation by pairing it with other information or context. Like when RUclips adds a link to the CDC on anything involving COVID. It’s not stopping free speech; it’s just letting people know that the information is contested, or not shared by mainstream science, or what have you.
Right but just because you speak doesnt mean it has value or is reasonable.
So if you were to go around accusing minorities of going after women and children without any evidence to back you up, that should be perfectly okay?
Free speech doesn't work when the populace isn't educated sufficiently, and the US certainly isn't. It just serves to sow more confusion and falsehoods.
he is not doing that - go away
I took a class from Prof. Ming Francis at UW! She's amazing. So cool to see her mentioned here.
The Venn Diagram of "free speech absolutists" and "people who want to use slurs" is a circle.
I feel Freespeech done a lot of good than bad. Without Freespeech, a lot of progressive changes we taken to granted wouldn't happen as fast aswe have right now. Feminism, Race relations, LGBTQ rights, would still be extremely censored because it disrupts the status quo by traditionally religious society. And i fear that if freespeech gets removed, how long will we able to retain the rights and freedoms we gained over the years. Like how RvW got overturned a couple of years ago. How would women get that right for abortion back? If feminism gets censored and Freespeech isn't there to uncensored it, it would be impossible and would be easier to just accept that right is gone.
Freespeech is a 2-way street. Someone can scream out anti and hateful things, but also someone with the same right can scream out pro and supportive thing to counter the hateful speech. Resorting to censorship is leaving the opportunity to have the supportive stiff censored while the hateful speech run free. It takes a political document to change everything.
I rather be called hateful names and able to keep my rights and freedoms, than having a chance that it get sripped away without a way to fight it.
free speech had nothing to do with progress - people lost their lives for all the progress we have made - free speech does not do anything for progress -
The "intolerant" in Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance refers to BOTH the free speech absolutists and the moral busybodies.
Moral busybodies?
@@zacharybosley1935 silencing others voicing different opinions, even objectively harmful ones, is a form of puritanical intolerance.
Being opposed to them should be encouraged, but silencing them is counter productive.
Sunlight is a disinfectant, figuratively, and ideas suspected of wrongness should be publicly tested, not relegated to darkness, as it can flourish and grow in secret.
Outback out here catching strays😂
Funny seeing all these comments who clearly never watched the video. I guess the clickbaity title did too good a job.
It's very funny. As many of them are mad at things that don't even come up in the video.
Judging how many people saw the title and are like "yeah! Free speech is stupid and we need to censor it", the clickbait worked in the wrong direction.
@@xandercruz900 That's what I'm saying. The point of the clickbait is to drive engagement. People getting mad and commenting only boosts the video in the algorithm lol
i, on the other hand, caught every outback steakhouse reference
@@ashvioit’s reasonable to dislike this video because it’s trash. Free speech isn’t something that the powerful lend to the masses like Elon Musk or any other technocrat. Free speech is a right that has to be protected from authoritarians that want control over acceptable speech. The central problem to solve isn’t democracy, free speech etc. it’s authoritarianism - which Plato felt grew naturally out of democracy. Which is why today we are a republic and not a democracy. However the challenge of this video that free speech is ‘bad for democracy’ is a severe bastardization of Plato - especially considering the section used in this video is about Socrates execution which happened as a result of his lack of free speech. It’s a tragic scene, authoritarians usurped power and when they couldn’t constrain the Socrates from saying what he wanted, they put him to death. Plato was upset that in democracy anyone could get power, not that speech lead to authoritarians….
Hypothetical what if: What if we had a society where those who run for political office must register to run 5-10 years in advance. Every election cycle, we take the time not only to vote for those soon to be in power, but have an official "mock vote" for those future elections (no campaigns). Winners would be announced. Over the years, we can take a look at the behaviors of those who will find themselves on the ballot, and better assess their character.
My theory is, it's a lot harder to keep up appearances and lie your way into office over a course of many years, rather than the 8-12 months of ads, rhetoric, and empty promises.
It's not hard when you have an entire team dedicated to cultivating your public image. Don't forget, may members of the senate have been public figures for decades. And they keep up appearances basically that entire time.
Hatespeech is subjective, thusly it is a part of free speech.
If you think hate speech is real and shouldnt be covered by free speech, say goodbye to flag burning, protests, political satire, any jokes about anyone. Your jokes now all have to he Flanders approved.
All your content in general has to be Flanders approved.