Curved_Sw0rd
Just Like That Bluebird
Count Dankula is a rather avid advocate for Freedom of Speech, after all, he knows firsthand how it feels to get punished by the government for his words, yeah? And this video here is him tackling ten common arguments against Free Speech. Be warned, Dank is a memelord, and is quite edgy when he wants to be.
To list off each argument:
1. "You are defending racists, therefore you are a racist." This is standard poisoning the well, so to speak. Dank's response is: "Support is Not Agreement."
2. "Criticism is Not Anti-Free-Speech" It speaks for itself, really. Though Dank mentions it it often the case that those who complain loudly against criticism are often those who are trying to make the Free Speech advocate out to be a hypocrite.
3. "You Just Want Freedom from Consequences." No one is unaware that actions, including speech, have consequences. It should go without saying. What the advocate rallies against is the absurd punishments that extend beyond what's reasonable, such as doxxing, cancelling, legal and financial repercussions.
4. "The But." "I'm in favor of Free Speech, but..." Then are you really?
5. "Mr. Fascist, save me from the Fascists." Imagine hating Trump and the GOP with a passion, thinking them literal fascists, while wanting a law limiting speech to pass their collective desks. Dank can't understand it, and I imagine he's not alone.
6. "Oh Irony" More of an aside, but Dank raises the point that suppressing speech is quite Fascistic, and that turning towards the government to protect you, when it's the government that will harm you if it becomes fascist is quite silly.
7. "Victim 180." Authoritarians getting hit by the same Hate Speech rules and whining about it, only to turn around when they get help, having not learned the lesson.
8. "You May Remain Offended." It speaks for itself. There is no right to not be offended. Full stop.
9. "The Empty Room Fallacy." The fallacy is "Well just because you can't use any platforms or stay things in public, you can say it in an empty room, therefore, you still have free speech." Which is absurd. The purpose of speech is to communicate with other people. Without access to other people, you're not speaking freely.
10. "Private Companies Can Do What They Want." While it's true in a vacuum, it's accompanied by a lot of hypocrisy. It's easy to side with a company when they are on your side. And easy to ignore this argument when a company stops following the authoritarian's views.
There's more to the video, including some extended thought on Freedom of Speech, but what I want to ask is, are there any other arguments against Freedom of Speech that you see often? And how would you take those arguments apart?
To list off each argument:
1. "You are defending racists, therefore you are a racist." This is standard poisoning the well, so to speak. Dank's response is: "Support is Not Agreement."
2. "Criticism is Not Anti-Free-Speech" It speaks for itself, really. Though Dank mentions it it often the case that those who complain loudly against criticism are often those who are trying to make the Free Speech advocate out to be a hypocrite.
3. "You Just Want Freedom from Consequences." No one is unaware that actions, including speech, have consequences. It should go without saying. What the advocate rallies against is the absurd punishments that extend beyond what's reasonable, such as doxxing, cancelling, legal and financial repercussions.
4. "The But." "I'm in favor of Free Speech, but..." Then are you really?
5. "Mr. Fascist, save me from the Fascists." Imagine hating Trump and the GOP with a passion, thinking them literal fascists, while wanting a law limiting speech to pass their collective desks. Dank can't understand it, and I imagine he's not alone.
6. "Oh Irony" More of an aside, but Dank raises the point that suppressing speech is quite Fascistic, and that turning towards the government to protect you, when it's the government that will harm you if it becomes fascist is quite silly.
7. "Victim 180." Authoritarians getting hit by the same Hate Speech rules and whining about it, only to turn around when they get help, having not learned the lesson.
8. "You May Remain Offended." It speaks for itself. There is no right to not be offended. Full stop.
9. "The Empty Room Fallacy." The fallacy is "Well just because you can't use any platforms or stay things in public, you can say it in an empty room, therefore, you still have free speech." Which is absurd. The purpose of speech is to communicate with other people. Without access to other people, you're not speaking freely.
10. "Private Companies Can Do What They Want." While it's true in a vacuum, it's accompanied by a lot of hypocrisy. It's easy to side with a company when they are on your side. And easy to ignore this argument when a company stops following the authoritarian's views.
There's more to the video, including some extended thought on Freedom of Speech, but what I want to ask is, are there any other arguments against Freedom of Speech that you see often? And how would you take those arguments apart?