Fear and Freedom of Expression

Post Reply New Topic

Dictators want absolute control and this includes silencing opposition.

The freedom to criticize dictators should always be upheld.

The problem here is that most North Koreans probably don't even like this guy. They have to force themselves to believe they like him in order to survive. He's similar to Hitler. Standing up against dictators is always commendable.

Same actually holds true for a lot of Muslims. Many Muslims don't actually support the more more militiant aspects of Islam. They stay silent out of fear. There is a fine line.

It's irrelevant to my point whether or not you're with the moderators. You don't get my point.

I learned many uses ago once someone starts to attack your character rather than your idea you have already won. They are too small minded to come up with an actual argument, thus, there is no point in continuing a debate with them.

I believe the majority of people do not believe in the freedom of expression nor speech as most people have too much ego to have any idea dare to challenge them. For example, early this year Canada banned any debate on the internet if suicide is a useful solution and during that same week the attack in paris happens where they seem to champion the freedom of expression. Hence, people want to protect their egos first and whatever half or non truths they believe in and wish to hind themselves from reality.

Brilliant Orangez, I've thought much the same for a long while. In the persons head they hold on to a certain belief and they want to bring that into the real world, so they gain positive feelings like being better than the other guy and that applies everywhere. Like the gun debate in the U.S., where on both sides they assume that once you've educated yourself that you will come over to their respective opinion and that the other side is just irrational.
So I think its quite natural that people just want to tear each other down instead of arguing the ideas because thats not why they were interested in the conversation in the first place. They went to taco bell to order ribs.

The taco bell is the good feelings of importance and such, while the ribs are the discussion of the idea itself and the changes involved. Few want the ribs because you have to consider others opinions rather than your own emotions and it requires curiosity, so the censorship idea is always more agreeable than having to accept that not only were you wrong but that you don't get taco bell. But you do get something, and that ribs.

^this is from page one. Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom to express yourself. Being expected not to swear in a sombre environment is not a violation of one's rights, for example. But it is an example of group pressure.

Might in the sense of majority rule seems applicable. But the alternative is no rules at all. I prefer some order over chaos even if I don't always agree with its tenets.

I spent my teen years being taught - harshly, brutally, forcefully, coercively, and entirely legally - that freedom of expression has limits, and that any such limits can be arbitrarily imposed by anyone with the power needed to do so.

I believe in freedom of expression only for those who support such freedom without limit or qualification. Everyone else believes limits are acceptable, they only bicker over where the limit should be. To them, I say that the limit is they should say nothing, ever.

If you don't respect my right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I don't respect your right to continue living. Let alone to practice quasi-'free' speech.

I disagree with the first part. That's what I meant by might is right. It's always present in a group but is usually not something we think about, it's taken for granted, is very subtle etc. Group pressure in my view is a manifestation of might is right. Any fear of any kind for what will happen if you say a certain thing is conditioned in you in some way. Laws are just ink on paper unless it's backed up with money to pay for enforcement. Most of population control is much more subtle than police physically intervening. For example there are way too few policemen to enforce laws if everybody all of sudden decided to disregard certain laws all at once. The same mechanism as in group pressure is at work, conditioned fear. As for no rules at all, that's not what I advocate. Nor do I think it's possible, and that was my point. My point was not that anyone should be able to say anything, but that the whole notion of free speech is a mind trick, just another example of mass control.

I agree with you except for this ^ I think the motivation is not fear but rather the benefits of group cooperation. There is cost, but there are things to be gained by group belonging such as increased security and charity.

Yes but I think that boils down to fear still. Fear of being alone, fear of freezing, fear of illness etc. But on a more direct level, fear of making a fool of yourself. We don't even think about it that's how remote it is, how subtle, but it's still there in the background silent, on autopilot. In my view.

Fear of being alone can be overcome. Fear of illness and freezing are reasonable and group cooperation has helped to deal with them. Fear of making a fool of oneself sometimes can't be avoided, but it can be learned from. I think autistic people are more sensitive to this because we spend such energy to act correctly. When we srew up its like a failure. For me anyway.