Unless you’re taking the stance that free speech as a concept applies only to the government, then it’s definitely not orthogonal.
Almost all moderation concerns are obviously restrictions on free speech, it’s just that for several reasons people have started to shrink “speech” into “political speech within some Overton window”
For some obvious examples of typical moderation that conflicts with pure free speech , consider amoral speech like abuse material, violent speech like threats, and economically harmful speech like fraudulent advertising or copyright violations.
Extending these to things like hate speech, bigotry, pornography, etc are all moderation choices that are not orthogonal to free speech.
It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant. In practice, "the intolerant" lines up exactly with "my outgroup that I dislike", and that is exactly who you get points for tolerating.
Now if tolerance isn't supposed to be a virtue and you aren't supposed to get brownie points for being tolerant, then fine whatever. But that isn't how people act when they misuse the paradox of tolerance, they are still looking to get brownie points while just hating on their enemies just as humans have for millennia.
You recognize there's a wide gulf between "things I disagree with and tolerate" and "things like hate speech that should not be tolerated under any circumstances" right?
Like, I strongly disagree with the Biden-style Democrat. I think they are nonsense garbage centrists with nothing worthwhile to say and weak spines. But I tolerate them coming in and saying things like, "We should means test food stamps!" I also tolerate the absurd notion that somehow, Biden-style Dems are "the far left". I think it's hilariously uneducated, but I tolerate it.
I do not tolerate people coming in with sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic rhetoric. It's unacceptable. I will shut down, block, kick, ban or otherwise remove it without any questions.
This is kind of difficult to do in a vacuum; let's assume those are the only comments that these accounts have posted.
"sorry, but no to all of this: males cannot be lesbians" banned for transphobia for misgendering the second poster. Clear cut, get the fuck out if here.
Yep, this is pretty easy. No one ever has to say yes to an arbitrary sexual partner -- if you don't want a penis in your sexual life, rad, feel free to express that preference.
I'll disagree, I'm here for all stripes, and I guess I'd consider the vomit emoji to be way ruder than necessary for expressing a simple personal preference, but I'd tolerate that opinion being posted somewhere.
Denying trans people exist is transphobic. It's a ban in my book. If someone says, "I'd like to learn more about the differences between sex and gender... because they seem the same to me" I'm happy to spend basically infinite time teaching/explaining/dialoging. But if you come out with "only two genders" and "lesbians cannot have penises" I'm done conversing and you can get sent packing.
I'm not open to the idea that trans people are an illness any more than I'm open to the idea that gay people are an illness. No time or space in my life for that hate.
> No-one in that conversation denied the existence of anyone.
Then go on to deny the existence of trans folks. I ain't going to reply to all your hateful nonsense. Yours is the opinion that crosses over from "I don't want to hang out with trans people" to "I deny trans people", and I don't have to tolerate hateful people.
>It actually is, insofar as the tolerant expect to get kudos for being tolerant.
You're arguing with a strawman. I just want to have a civil discussion without it degrading into racial slurs as the bare minimum. Personal attacks in general should be discoraged, but I've been around a while and my standards are low.
The psychological question of morals and tolerance doesn't seem to amount to much. I don't think anyone would ever claim the internet is full of moral actors. but sure. The ability to accept and consider multiple viewpoints is a good moral to strive to.
Hence, the paradox of tolerance: in that you must reject concepts that overall limit your ability to empathize and expand your viewpoints. dismissing information because of superficial physical features of the speaker is simply ignorant.
Almost all moderation concerns are obviously restrictions on free speech, it’s just that for several reasons people have started to shrink “speech” into “political speech within some Overton window”
For some obvious examples of typical moderation that conflicts with pure free speech , consider amoral speech like abuse material, violent speech like threats, and economically harmful speech like fraudulent advertising or copyright violations.
Extending these to things like hate speech, bigotry, pornography, etc are all moderation choices that are not orthogonal to free speech.