Originally Posted by
numerosdecimus
Spare me the arbitrary use of the term "straw man". If you didn't like by opinion just say it directly, instead of throwing a curve ball. Second, I did not give any opinion towards anything in your opening post, I merely exposed my opinion concerning the concept of consequences towards speech.
The term "left" is a simplification. The true contrast in political theory is between liberty and state dominance. If you tend towards a libertarian mindset, then I assume you're aware of the N.A.P. (non agression principle).
The means the "left" (totalitarians) use to counter the opinions they don't like, openly violate the N.A.P.. As a consequence, the only acceptable act that can be taken towards an opinion that is not shared is discrimination. Wether GRRM is left or not is irrelevant to me. The terms left and right are very imprecise by nature. What matters to me is what people say and the direct implication what come with those statements.
It's not about liking anything. It's about methods. The ends are defined by the means. If among the used methods when dealing with opinions that aren't shared is violence, political persecution, then those are not acceptable and are a violation of the N.A.P.
Discrimination is the answer, voluntary acceptance. And no, there absolutely can not be political and legal consequences for speech, otherwise you open a pandora's box, where the state gains the legal power to persecute at their discretion, which eventually they will direct it to anyone at their convenience, this has been shown repeatedly through history, especially in the 20th century. The founding fathers of the USA knew of this, and that's why they created the first amendment.
Speech does not impact human rights of another. Actions do. Tyrannies have always used this reasoning to promote and justify political persecution.
Take for instance the intersectionality/lgbtq+ narrative, where "words are violence". They claim using the wrong pronouns is an act of violence and a violation of human rights. First of all, to claim such a thing would imply that the other party would have to be forced to act and say in accordance with the design of the lgbtq+, and it is the other party, ironically, who would have their human rights violated through coercion. It is within the other party right's to refuse to use the pronouns the lgbtq+ lobby wants to force on others. Ultimately, the objective of forcing speech practices through pronouns is an exercise in domination and power by the lgbtq+ lobby, who are essentially closet totalitarians (or at least useful tools for totalitarian powers).
It is irrelevant if the lgbtq+ person is "assaulted" or "damaged" or has evaluated another's speech as "hate speech". First of all, the term "hate speech" is entirely subjective, and it does not say absolutely anything about the nature of the speech professed by the other, but rather the subjective and emotional reaction of the one who heard it, the "hot potato" or proof of burden so to speak is on the person who is making the accusation, and it's a subjective accusation, which does not hold in any honest court with a objective legal system. Under the lgbtq+, anything could by convenience and arbitrarily be defined at some point as "hate speech".
Take another example, holocaust denial. The holocaust happened, yet there are some people who downplay it or have a different political view. The danger comes not from those people stating their views, but in attributing the state speech laws, such as in Germany, where abuses by the state become inevitable, and the parameters of what becomes defined as acceptable speech change over time. Once you give the tools to the state, everything becomes at risk.
Take a third example, Antifa and their opinions on reshaping society. In my view their political and socio-economical view are abominable, and rest assured that if they acted the way they do now during any other time in history they would have been violently crushed by the regime or society in place and called out for the dishonest, hipocritical, and cowardly civilizational parasites that they are. Antifa and the totalitarian movement behind them wish to deny others their right to live by their own terms, and the only reason why they are able to freely roam the western countries and spread chaos and destruction is because the west is detached from its moral roots and the main principles which define the civilization.
As Aristotle once said: “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.”
However, under no circumstances must Antifa be denied their right to peacefully express their opinions, because of this primary reason:
Tyrannies and totalitarian mindsets are (such as fascism, socialism and all its variations), from a philosophical and moral standpoint, weak, and do not hold against scrutinous analysis. The proponents of these ideologies know this, and know that in open, honest, public discourse their ideals would not hold ground and be openly rejected, hence they resort to violence.
This method is objectively wrong, and must not be followed by those who believe in liberty and freedom. In fact, open discourse must be actively promoted because open discussion of ideas is the best tool towards ideologies which are arbitrary, which aim to dominate and rule over others.
The flaws in such ideologies are openly exposed, and a voluntary rejection of such ideas happens in general through out the entire society. This in turn creates a strong immune system, thanks to the fundamental moral principles practiced by such a society, against parasitic, pervasive, totalitarian mindsets.
That and the golden rule must be always followed (a heritage of Christian tradition), don’t do onto others what you don’t want to be done towards yourself. By promoting universal unrestricted free speech without political consequence, you are in turn, first and foremost, protecting yourself.
(edited. spelling mistakes)