[jmfayard]

> Objectivity means 5 minutes for the Jews and 5 minutes for Hitler

Jean Luc Godard thought he was making fun of idiots when he wrote that in an unrelated context, but he was actually describing a mainstream US dogma.

There is no reason why every topics must have "both sides". The number of valid sides can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 7 or 42.

[DuskStar]

5 minutes for each is better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else.

And just about everyone thinks they're the oppressed ones, and includes it in their messaging. Including literally Hitler. (His being thrown in jail is arguably the best thing that could have happened to the Nazis in the mid 20s IIRC)

[dreamcompiler]

> And just about everyone thinks they're the oppressed ones

An important point. True oppressors tend to view a move toward equality as oppression of themselves and they fight it hard for that reason.

[Defletter]

> 5 minutes for each is better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else.

But therein lies the assumption.

[jmfayard]

Yep, assuming there are two equally valid positions for everything, because they have a two-party system, so there must be for every topic a GOP side and a Democrat side. Never mind that both parties have often similar bad policies on any topic, in which case you fool yourself believing to be objective while you are only repeating bipartisan dogma.

"Better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else". No, the critics of two-party systems don't want a single party system like Soviet Russia. They want multipartism.

And science has sometimes settled on only one theory. And in other times may have four different competing hypotheses. And other times just no idea whatsoever.

The positive side of both-sideism is that it's very easy. Count the number of sides being presented. Complain if it's not two. Being very lazy myself, I value that.

[Defletter]

I hold the opinion that slavery is bad. I think books that advocate for slavery are abhorrent. I guess the next step really is Soviet Russia. Well done you for pointing that out.

[salawat]

And who gets to decide who gets none? Because I assure you, the same people crying out now that it's "totally okay to cut out one 'side' of something", are the same people who in an environment with a non-agreeable majority insist on the sanctity of the minority position, and that the majority be forced to at least recognize and incorporate parts of it's viewpoint in terms of making concessions for the sake of representing everyone.

This is the structural issue that underpins the criticality of active non-optimization through not engaging in the active suppression of bad ideas, but in the reiteration that bad ideas exist, and here's why they are classed as bad ideas.

It may not be popular, but I'm not kicking the Neo-Nazis off the stage to satisfy some thought by an accidental current majority, because that would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (equal opportunity, free access to information, aid for those in need, equality under the law, right to autonomy, safety from foreign influences, effective representation, a government constrained by a mandate it conduct business through due process, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), heaven forbid, should it ever become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events, would be similarly revoked of it's time in the air, and rightly so, as I very clearly communicated how I wished to be treated by reserving the right to silence in a position of power. I have faith that no matter how much what I value gets attacked by bad ideas, it'll always tend to come out on top, and produce better outcomes in the long run.

I'm sorry. I'm not willing to sacrifice the moral or pragmatic high ground here, because someone can't relegate some rambling to the mental bit bucket, or has such a small mind as to be deluded into thinking that Liberty should by definition only empower things they like.

I may not agree at all with the repugnants, but I will fight to the death for them. Someone's gotta be there. If no one is, then we've already given in to might makes right. If there is at least one principled person though; one spark, there is still hope for the downtrodden and the damned, to whom I refuse to deny the right to the pursuit of their happiness; even if there is a status quo that renders the legs they need to achieve it incredibly unlikely. They have the right to champion their own cause.

[jmfayard]

> And who gets to decide who gets none?

For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda) or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented.

Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window.

> That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events

That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy. Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth.

Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free'

I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws.

[salawat]

>That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy.

It does huh? When I was growing up, I'd chance upon some people with thoroughly unpleasant opinions. Everyone in the neighborhood knew about them. Everyone ignored them. Nowadays, you've got mobs coordinating amongst one another to inflict harm on someone over a disagreeable worldview.

So no, that it exists only in my mind is, and always will be hogwash. Once again, it takes someone principled to stare down the angry mob and say "not one step further, y'all cool it."

I'm absolutely fine with doing away with NDAs as a recognized legal instrument to be quite honest. The conscience of good men being burdened or weighed down when justice demands one speak out is one of the legal system's longest standing shames in my opinion.

Libel reflects more on the character of the Libeler than of the Libeled, and the truth is a foolproof remedy, which makes it obvious to everyone who the fool/scoundrel in the room is. If anything, one can have Libel laws utilized as a powerful tool of oppression, particularly when wielded by those with disproportionate power or means at their disposal.

That Liberty invites the possibility of poor behavior or the actual exercise of freedoms unencumbered by threat of a nebulous System is a fear I am 100% familiar with, and okay with. It's worth it. There are more people on Earth looking to place fetters on everyone else that I don't see any reason to encourage anyone to do so no matter the convenience.

>Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'.

Congratulations. You just made my point why a library is best served in stock books that it's community may not like, in the interests of creating availability for the reader that just might need it! Or why free speech absolutism is the most prudent treatment of speech! Anything less is one person treading on another's freedom.

Good of the goose, good of the gander. You don't get to silence one group, (your freedom) because (your freedom) stops where their freedom begins. You may think it's a good idea. They may be really annoying to you. But just as you get to voice your bit, they get theirs. Anything else is self-referential inconsistency, to which the punishment is beatings with an organic carrot. No exceptions.

[Dalewyn]

On the subject of "the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins", what's happened to the Jamestown library is two rights colliding head on:

* The right of the library to freely collect and exhibit whatever information it pleases, a freedom of expression.

* The right of the taxpayers to freely decide how their tax dollars are spent, a freedom of association.

The library absolutely has their right to free expression, but so long as they use public money to operate, that right to free expression ends where the taxpayers' right to free association begins.

In this particular case, both rights were exercised and respected. The library is still free to collect and exhibit as it pleases, but not on the dime of taxpayers; and taxpayers no longer have to pay for a library they are not satisfied with.