Wildly unpopular ideas can gain a lot of support by starting out directed at those most perceive as their enemies. If the FBI just came out and said, "We're going to monitor everyone's cellphone and internet traffic" there would be zero support. However, if they say they're starting a revolutionary surveillance program targeting child porn and terrorism they suddenly find themselves with widespread support. The Trojan Horse is still an effective strategy.
Back in the day when Reddit was free speech they brought Ellen Pao on board and she started out by banning subs like /r/jailbait. She was smart. She knew it was an easy target that nobody could really object to. Nobody significant could come out and say "we support people's right to look at sexually suggestive pictures of underage girls" even though it was completely legal. Anybody who saw the writing on the wall and objected was labeled a pedophile. She knew damn well that's what would happen. She started there because she knew it would be accepted. Acceptance of the principle is the biggest hurdle. Once the principle is accepted, changes to its application are seen as small things and almost always face little opposition.
Don't feel superior, because even most people on voat and poal are susceptible to this subversion. Check out how many people say they are for free speech but then also say we should kill or imprison communists. That kind of thinking is like the recovering alcoholic who says "I can drink beer because it's not real alcohol." Freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech if there are things you're not allowed to say. Freedom of religion isn't free if there are religions you're not allowed to believe. Until you're ready to fight for the principle of freedom, which means defending the freedom itself no matter who is exercising it, you don't really support freedom.
In your utopia maybe. In reality the freedom you give to those that aren't on the same civilised page as you, will use it to fuck you up and conquer your stuff.
And therein lies the rub. Communists will use freedom of speech to divide the people and conquer. So defending the principles of freedom also means understanding that we may have to fight against speech that is undesirable because of the intended outcomes of that speech.
Maybe that is a circular argument but at some point those who wish to live in a free society have to take a stand against those who would use their freedoms against them.
Exactly. Like e.g. there are parts in the world where you can leave your house and your car open, and nothing will happen. While there are parts where your sandwich will get stolen if you leave it unattended for a second. How did people in both examples get where they are? Sure the safe society didn't embrace people who came in and steal and fuck thjngs up.
Speech or religious beliefs can't conquer anything.
Oh yes they can. As soon as they get in conflict with somebody elses free speech or religious beliefs, the conquering starts.
(post is archived)