At least in the US, it’s important to remember that the First Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law…”
People aren’t free from repercussions and consequences if they say dumb shit. That’s the important distinction that more people should understand.
also
Popper did not advocate for pre-emptive censorship or deplatforming of fringe ideas themselves.
The paradox applies specifically to ideologies that seek to disallow debate entirely and dismantle open, democratic institutions.
not all “bigots” are against debate or democratic institutions.
also being any <pejorative> is subjective
As per the Oxford learners dictionary a bigot is per definition someone unwilling to debate.
but according to guardian, “Bigotry” is really just a name for any opinion with which you happen to disagree.
and in your link “debate” is not mentioned
but according to guardian, “Bigotry” is really just a name for any opinion with which you happen to disagree.
Wow you totally misrepresented that link.
-
The linked article isn’t even about the meaning of the word bigot, its a debate between two people about whether a politician should use the word bigot.
-
One of the debaters asserts that “Bigotry is really just a name for any opinion with which you happen to disagree.” which is his personal opinion, not a statement by The Guardian.
-
The assertion is never supported, contradicts the dictionary, and isn’t shared by the other debater in the article.
-
Going by your name I assume English is not your first language.
[A bigot is someone] who will not listen to or accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees
To have a debate both parties have to listen to each other. They exchange arguments in favor of their point of view and in the best case one side convinces the other of their own point of view. That is not possible with someone unwilling to listen to or accept opinions of other people.
If you require a universally agreed upon legal definition of what is right or wrong you might do well reading some books on philosophy. Or pickup a random religious text and live by it if that’s what you prefer.
There is no universally agreed-upon legal definition of “right” or “wrong.”
That’s exactly my point and the reason I think your reliance on a “universally agreed legal definition” is useless.
You’re asking this because provocative “free speech” is now strongly correlated with engagement, thanks to social media.
Free speech is a right. But warping public discussion is not.
This kind of thing has always been a danger (see: Nazis rose to power on populism), but modern social media has definitely crossed a red line.
Everyone is free to speak and say anything they want to say. Nobody has ever promised that their speech would also be free of consequemces. That’s the part most people misunderstand.
This is part of why hate speech should be legal. Its not illegal to have shitty opinions and beliefs, so long as you don’t act on them beyond that. I’m also concerned with the governing body deciding what hate speech is. What if “support trans rights” or “end genocide” gets classified as hate speech? As much as it sucks IMO its easier to just let all hate speech be legal and we try to build a social system where that noise just gets drowned out by more positive speech.
Should we have empathy and allow free speech for anti-intellectuals who are rooted in beliefs that stem from personal fears and prejudices rather than any actual metric?
It’s neat that this doesn’t even have to be a hypothetical. Just take a look at the U.S to see how that’s currently going for us.
