Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-10-2019, 05:46 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 02:18 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't think anyone here is demanding that government subsidize all speech.

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.
This is seen by some commentators here as condoning—even by implication—her constant homophobic and
same-sex marriages and adoption slurs as being acceptable as public commentary. This by a person who, unlike
others, has a readily accessible stage from which to deliver this offensive drivel, and to a wide audience.

Simply because she can serve and return a ball with skill a bit better than that of average players doesn't accord
her the "right" to disparage other members of society—based solely on their gender or sexuality.

I note also that Court publicly supported apartheid in South Africa, and said of Martina Navratilova; "a great player
but I'd like someone at the top who the younger players can look up to. It's very sad for children to be exposed to
homosexuality".  (Both opinions from the 1970s.)

—How would this speech by the Minister for Sports go down...
[Image: margaret-court.jpg]

"I'd like to welcome Margaret to this 50th Anniversary celebration of
her Grand Slam wins, and although she has a head like a fossilised
turtle, [crowd laughs] and is a long-term homophobe, I'm sure we all
extend our appreciation of her outstanding tennis career, particularly
as a proudly cis-gendered person".

You're either using the phrase "government subsidize all speech" so loosely that it no longer has any real meaning, or else you're trying to equate two things that aren't at all equal.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-10-2019, 05:46 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 02:18 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't think anyone here is demanding that government subsidize all speech.

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.

I'm not sure how this is germane to my point.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I found interesting article* today and given it pertinence to the subject I decided to share parts of it:

Do anti-fascist activists agree that obstructing fascists in public gatherings is a violation of their freedom of speech?

Classical liberalism treats freedom of speech as the central dogma of its supposedly "neutral" ideology. That is why the discussion revolves around the legitimacy of the "universal" principle that society should not restrict political expression. If one understands this principle as a value rather than a legal provision, it is clear that anti-fascism opposes its absolutist forms (e.g. saying that any limitation of speech is a mistake). Instead, many anti-fascists formulate a non-liberal thesis: "No freedom of speech for fascists. From their perspective, the priority is the security and prosperity of marginalized groups. As Joe, an activist at the Raleigh-Durham General Defense Committee, argued, "the belief that freedom of speech is the most important thing we should protect can only be proclaimed by someone who thinks that life is like a meeting room. Not allowing fascists to speak often means violating their freedom of speech, but it is justified by the role they play in the political struggle against fascism.

No matter how anti-fascist define themselves, they undoubtedly value a free and open exchange of ideas - they simply draw the line between those who use this freedom to promote genocide or deny humanity to someone.

It is worth noting, however, that the majority of those who oppose restrictions on speech for political reasons are not absolutists in freedom of speech at all. Everyone has their own exceptions to the rule: obscenity, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, censorship of the press during the war or the imposition of restrictions on people in prison. If we reformulate the terms of the discussion to take account of these exceptions, we will see that many Liberals are in favor of restricting the freedom of speech of working class teenagers imprisoned for possession of drugs, but do not want to restrict what the Nazis say. It does not bother many people that the police, by hunting for people who do not have a residence permit, are invalidating their freedom of speech and, at the same time, strengthening the discourse of the Ku Klux Klan by protecting it. Many support a reduction in cigarette advertising, but not in advertising that promotes the superiority of the white race.

These are all examples of restrictions on freedom of expression. The only difference is that liberals regard their restrictions as apolitical, while anti-fascists openly accept a political rejection of fascism. In fact, the liberal criteria for restricting freedom of expression are imbued with the ubiquitous logic of capital, militarism, nationalism, colonialism and institutional racism. Whenever one or more of these factors limits the ability of a human being to express himself, it is a political matter.

Instead of reducing the complicated discussion to Manichean juxtapositions of the supposedly 'for' and 'against' factions, it makes much more sense to compare the competitive criteria for restricting freedom of speech, taking into account the public interest. The claim that anti-fascist people are "against freedom of speech" is false and imprecise when no one really lives up to the absolute standard by which they are judged. In turn, a society that seeks to create anti-authoritarianism would provide far more opportunities for free self-expression for far more people than the status quo defended by their liberal critics.

Does not preventing fascists from speaking out destroy freedom of expression so that it harms the left rather than the right?

If we understand non-voting as a legalistic tendency to support a ban on criticizing the government, then yes. For example, the Public Order Act in the UK was used against the National Front, but also against the miners on strike between 1984 and 1985. Continental European countries, such as Germany, have rights against the negatives, but at the same time they often restrict the revolutionary language on the left. This is why German anti-fascist politicians consider the state authorities to be an enemy, not an ally, and seek to neutralize fascists through direct action rather than through state aid.

In any case, whatever the Left thinks, the historical facts clearly show that the State will find an excuse to intervene if it needs it. When the radical left was threatening the interests of the elites, it was being repressed and will continue to be repressed in the future - that is as clear as day. One could argue that, as persecution grows, militant anti-fascism destroys popular support for the Left. However, the anti-fascist argument is that this is not primarily about a strategy of non-voting. It is fundamental to understand fascism as a political enemy with which we cannot coexist in public space.

Silencing the Nazis makes you no better than a Nazi!


Since historically the Nazis and other fascists are known for silencing and censoring the events of their left-wing opponents, some believe that anyone who tries to prevent a political meeting, even if it is a Nazi meeting, is a Nazi himself. Fascists are also known for being nationalists, starting wars and building prisons: does that mean that anarchists can accuse liberals, who are also famous for that, of being fascists? Obviously, ideology cannot be defined solely on the basis of one of its characteristics. Although liberals support the violation of freedom of expression much more than most anti-fascists, they imagine themselves as guardians of freedom, and therefore attack the non-liberal policy of anti-fascist, dressing it in the non-liberal policy of fascism.

If your main objection to Nazism is that the Nazis block assemblies of their opponents, it says more about your political views than about the views of those you criticize. Antipascists do not oppose fascism because it is non-liberal in the abstract, but because it promotes racism, heteronormative patriarchalism, extreme nationalism, authoritarianism and genocide.


*Actually an excerpt from Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Very well written, and mirrors much of my thoughts, particularly about *absolute* free speech being a red herring (am i repeating myself? Blush ).

However the author is making a big mistake, one very common (amongst the antifa): He equates being anti-fascist with being on the far left. He is trying to monopolize anti-fascim for the far left. Probably because he is far left ideologically himself, and the antifa movement in general always was strongly far left/anarchist. Anti-fascism is like atheism: You are just against fascim, it does not tell what you are for.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
The following 1 user Likes Deesse23's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-10-2019, 05:58 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 05:46 PM)SYZ Wrote: In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, payMilo Yiannopoulos
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win...

You're either using the phrase "government subsidize all speech" so loosely that it no longer has any real meaning, or else you're trying to equate two things that aren't at all equal.

The Australian government is effectively enabling this woman to magnify the reach of her offensive "platform" of
homophobia by using taxpayer (my) dollars.  That's why I used the phrase "in the case of Margaret Court"
in my comment.  I wasn't suggesting in any way that government subsidise "all speech", as you've claimed.

Would you be happy if the government provided the UK neo-Nazi and white nationalist Milo Yiannopoulos  with
an all-expenses paid tour to the US courtesy of the taxpayer?

The State of Victoria needs to leave Court stewing in her own Pentecostal cult's church, tucked out of sight, and
unrecognised in some quiet corner of the Western Australian boondocks.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-10-2019, 07:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 05:46 PM)SYZ Wrote: In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.

I'm not sure how this is germane to my point.

It was just a loose connection to governments subsidising any speech by private
individuals with a particularly offensive axe to grind.    Like Margaret Court.

Court is now saying that if the government doesn't fund her trip, she's not gonna
attend the 2020 Open in Melbourne.  Well, boo-fucking-hoo.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
As far as I can see, it doesn't appear that the government is subsidizing speech in the case of Margaret Court, and you were responding to Thump's comment about "government subsidize all speech," which is why it was in quotes. I assumed you would be smart enough to figure out that I was referring to your apparent suggestion that the government was subsidizing Margaret Court's speech, but I guess I was wrong. You've got an extremely loose definition, as noted. I doubt your example would pass court muster. Do you have a similar example where your court has held that similar things are "speech" such that I can conclude that your example isn't the pure bollocks that it appears to be?

You and Szuchow seem to have the same problem in that many of your examples of "speech" don't appear to be verifiable examples of speech. The article Szuchow posted appeared to have the same problem, and the author's phrasing and reaching was so extreme that I couldn't even figure out exactly what the author was referring to in most cases. Non-voting is speech? My ass. Tonight I'll not be figure skating, growing peas, or performing the Nutcracker Suite. I guess I'm just mouthy that way.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-11-2019, 07:58 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 07:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 05:46 PM)SYZ Wrote: In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.

I'm not sure how this is germane to my point.

It was just a loose connection to governments subsidising any speech by private
individuals with a particularly offensive axe to grind.    Like Margaret Court.

Was she scheduled to speak at any functions for the ceremony? I could see that as possibly subsidizing her speech. But if she wasn't scheduled to speak, then there's no speech to subsidize. Comping her air tickets and other goodies may send a message of approval for her views, but if they're not underwriting her expression of her views but only her attendance fees, it isn't a subsidy, but rather, a gift.

(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "Everyone has their own exceptions to the rule: obscenity, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, censorship of the press during the war or the imposition of restrictions on people in prison."

Well, duh. All rights have restrictions.

(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "If we reformulate the terms of the discussion to take account of these exceptions, we will see that many Liberals are in favor of restricting the freedom of speech of working class teenagers imprisoned for possession of drugs, but do not want to restrict what the Nazis say."

If we reformulate the terms of the discussion a little further, we can say that anti-fascists want to act like Fascists but be treated differently.

(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "Many support a reduction in cigarette advertising, but not in advertising that promotes the superiority of the white race."

Ad homeneim. Can he define "many"? Probably not, which renders this point a broad-brush as well.

(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "These are all examples of restrictions on freedom of expression. The only difference is that liberals regard their restrictions as apolitical, while anti-fascists openly accept a political rejection of fascism."

I'm anti-fascist as well. I just don't think it's appropriate for me to act like a fascist while being anti-fascist. It smacks of hypocrisy and gives the fascists a legitimate talking point about persecution.

It reminds me of the American officer who explained that "we had to destroy the town in order to save it."

Something about gazing into an abyss comes to mind as well.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(Yesterday, 01:21 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "Everyone has their own exceptions to the rule: obscenity, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, censorship of the press during the war or the imposition of restrictions on people in prison."

Well, duh. All rights have restrictions.

That's why I don't have issue with restricting fascists "right" to spread hatred.

(Yesterday, 01:21 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "If we reformulate the terms of the discussion to take account of these exceptions, we will see that many Liberals are in favor of restricting the freedom of speech of working class teenagers imprisoned for possession of drugs, but do not want to restrict what the Nazis say."

If we reformulate the terms of the discussion a little further, we can say that anti-fascists want to act like Fascists but be treated differently.

There is no shortage of voice claiming exactly that (in Poland at least). I guess lessons that history impart are fleeting.

Also I gotta say that relabeling antifascists as fascists is probably one of greatest victories that bunch of losers making up modern fascists ever achieved.

(Yesterday, 01:21 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "Many support a reduction in cigarette advertising, but not in advertising that promotes the superiority of the white race."

Ad homeneim. Can he define "many"? Probably not, which renders this point a broad-brush as well.

I don't know as I quoted part of what was already only excerpt. 

(Yesterday, 01:21 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 09:31 AM)Szuchow Wrote: "These are all examples of restrictions on freedom of expression. The only difference is that liberals regard their restrictions as apolitical, while anti-fascists openly accept a political rejection of fascism."

I'm anti-fascist as well. I just don't think it's appropriate for me to act like a fascist while being anti-fascist. It smacks of hypocrisy and gives the fascists a legitimate talking point about persecution.

It reminds me of the American officer who explained that "we had to destroy the town in order to save it."

Something about gazing into an abyss comes to mind as well.

Seems that we fundamentally disagree as I don't agree that wanting to curtail "right" of fascists to incite hate equal acting like fascist. As you said in the beginning of the post All rights have restrictions. Rights of fascists should not be exception. 

I see no need to clarify my position further, though as I wrote enough to make it abundantly clear.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)