PETER: You're not a total piece of...
Free speech.
The freedom to say whatever you want.
Sounds like a pretty simple concept,
right? I'm reasonably sure that you use
the internet, though, so you probably know
that it isn't.
The internet is essentially just a really long and annoying debate about free speech.
Oh sure, there are recipes and photos of
your relatives, but neither are
inherently combative or competitive
enough to be that interesting.
Yeah, that recipe for anarcake is a
big "f&#^ you" to the baking establishment
and who can resist your cousin's
backyard wrestling tournament facebook
albums, but I mean, really.
For one, the reasons you like those
photos are maybe a little mean-spirited,
and anarcake is, well, just a normal
cake with the letter A and a circle
around it in frosting.
The point is, if it's not people arguing
over whether or not they're allowed to
say something...
Well, it's just not the internet. But what
are those people arguing about?
Well, there are two types of people in
this world. Oh yeah! Buckle-up, Bucko!
We'r doing one of these! Those who claim that they would die to protect your right to
say something they disagree with... and
those who aren't lying. Would I die so
that some racist assholes to get
together and talk about killing n...
neighbors? Neighbors who are black?
You know what. No. No, I wouldn't. Yeah. And I'd be willing to bet that racists
probably wouldn't voluntarily die for
anyone to be able to say that they're soulless,
bigoted pieces of shit.
They like to say that they would, but i'm
pretty sure if the situation actually
came up, they'd give the equivalent of the
fake-out handshake. Oh, oops!
You thought we were okay, didn't you?
No, no. We were pretending we die so you
can disagree with us specifically so we
could disagree with you!
It's called the bluff - and it's protected
under free speech. But do you know
what else is protected under free speech?
Calling bluffs.
If someone has a problem with the idea
a person of a different race, gender
identity, or other marginalization vector
is considered to be their equal,
that would imply that they don't think
that everybody deserves equal rights.
They don't think free speech applies to
everyone which means that free speech is
not free.
[IN SOUTHERN ACCENT] No shit, free speech isn't free! Freedom isn't free
cost a whole bunch troops their lives
and we fought for it! [IN MIDWEST ACCENT] That's not what I
mean.
What I'm saying is that free speech cost
something, and that is not monetary
capital, but instead,
social capital. A lot of people think of
capitalism is our monetary or economic
system, but if you observe our social
system, and the way that we value people
and what they can bring to the table,
you might notice some similarities. I
believe the fact that we've set
everything up this way is one of the
biggest mechanisms for enforcement of
inequality or discrimination.
Both you and the things that you're
saying have to have a certain status in
order to be protected, at least in the
eyes of these folks, and these folks, and
these folks, and the problem is that nine
times out of ten, these people think that
if you're attacking the use of the
n-bomb you're attacking free speech
itself. But what has the N-word, the B-word,
the T-word, the whatever. Who cares what word we're even talking about; what has that
word done in the past? Have those words
ever been used as a tool to discount and/or
erase the opinions of the people that
they're describing? Which, might I add, are
things that are covered by theoretical
free speech.
If you answered no, then f#&% you it's
time for you to just hit the dislike
button and figure out some way to call
me a "cuck" in the comments section...
Thanks. You spent your time here you made me some money I'll see you.
However, if you answered yes, I'd like to
congratulate you on the realization that
words have power.
It's completely impossible for a single
person to observe the entire world.
That's why to see something that they're
unable to see they, have to have
describe to them. And "described" doesn't just mean words; it can also mean photos or
a report, or a documentary, and even fiction
when used in certain contexts, and that
description is never objective. For
instance, let's say you want to read
about an exotic locale. You could do that
neither a history book,
or in a travel guide.
Now you know the difference between
these two things, because one is very
clearly trying to sell you on something:
a dream vacation, whereas the history
book is... selling you on imperialism!
[LAUGHS] the point is they're both trying to sell you on something.
There's no such thing as objectivity.
So words have power. And I don't mean in
their itunes library, I mean the actual
definition of the word "power."
How though? It's just words. Reals before
feels right?
Sticks and stones can break my bones but
words can never blah blah blah blah.
The only reason that words have power is
that some people can use words to exert power.
Boom.
I made that specific boomsound because i
have academic evidence to back me up on
this. Research conducted by Laura Beth
Nielsen led her to the conclusion that
she states in this essay, "Power and
Public Reactions Responses and
Resistance to Offensive Public Speech." Which, we'll talk about in a second but there
is no curiosity gap in that title!
Laura, do you actually expect people to
read this with a title like that?
Here, let me just get that a little bit
more and clickbaity, and there we go!
Much better!
Wait, wait. Let's make Donald Trump's name red.
Oh perfect. Also, Laura, your name is not
gonna work. Let's just use the first and
second letter from all three of your
names, and oh yeah, people will read this.
People will read this. So LaBeNi went
out of her way to look in all this and
she found a lot of legal scholars
advocate unfettered free speech. And you
know what? I'm going to take LaBeNi
at her word, 'cause she went a little bit
overboard with the citations, here.
These legal scholars claim the
individuals who are offended or harmed
by speech can and should counter these
effects with various types of
"more speech," which if you
translate into normal English, means
"defend yourself."
But LaBeNi spent a shitload of her time
interviewing a hundred people and found
that almost no one does that.
In fact, she found that when people are
targeted they typically do nothing,
laugh it off, ignore it, or leave. The
impression that she got by talking to a
lot of people is that they're unwilling
to engage in counter speech because
they're fearful for their safety.
For instance, a 21-year-old Filipino
woman was afraid to respond to somebody
implying that she was literally not a
human being and a 44-year-old
African-American man, a stockbroker - a man of some power, at least by capitalistic
societal standards - responds to racist
comments positively, because he's afraid
of what will happen if he does otherwise.
So, if the remedy for hate speech is more
speech, but people are afraid to engage
in more speech, because the people
spewing the hate speech are more likely
to be violent. Let's be honest, somebody
on the train saying rainbows are nice
and kitties are cute are much less
likely to kill you.
Not that there are zero stabby ,folks out
there who like kitties a lot
it's just the guy screaming hate
speech is a little more obviously
threatening. And if that threat prevent
someone from speaking,
that's a form of censorship. Now is it
official censorship? No, the government
is not doing it to them, but a private
party is. An individual absolutely has
the ability to sense for someone else.
But let's just go ahead and establish
this: if somebody asks you not to say
something racist,
it's not them censoring you. Now on the
other hand, if somebody says "if you don't
shut up I'm going to punch you in the
face," and the person shuts up,
it was a threat that made them shut up.
Hate speech automatically feels like a threat.
It automatically makes violent
implications.
So really, is it free speech if the thing
that you're saying limits other people's
free speech?
A big reason you keep your kids home
from school when they're sick is because
the other kids aren't sick. If you did
send your kid to school,
you're essentially choosing to make all
of the other kids sick.
So why the hell do people think hate
speech is part of free speech?
If one word goes in and gets all the
other words sick, what's the point of
letting the other word in?
UGH! But me saying something can't stop
anyone else from saying something, that's
not how anything works! And I know how
everything works!
Have you ever had lots of people hate
you?
Now this may come as a shock to you, but
I have. And where it's "cuck" now, it used to
be "beta" or "sjw," and before that it was
"liberal." I've had a great many people
directing specific hatred at me. But if
you haven't, I would suggest that maybe
you don't understand exactly what
happens when people hate you. Now the
type of hatred that I experienced was
not systematic. People thought that I
made up a girlfriend. And that's a
ridiculous reason to hate somebody.
COWBOY: I hear you're lying about something in your life.
Well, that's the first time that's ever happened.
No one else in the world ever has.
You know we do to folks like it y- Actually, you know what? I don't even know what we...
do to folks like you. Um, have a duel...
I guess? Does that sound ok? All right, I'll see you there there, it's a plan.
Constant insults threats attempts to be pushed to suicide, being the subject of a bunch of
youtube videos with the goal of
destroying your reputation, because if
somebody can google you and some crazy
bullshit comes up,
good luck getting a job.
The list goes on. I have that for
something people perceive me for
having done...
people who are socially and economically
marginalized due to their identity
have that because they exist.
That's all. Just existence. Out of those two, which do you think is worse?
I'll give you a hint: it's not the one I
experienced. So what happens when a
person says anything with that hanging
over their head?
It's discounted and they're attacked. It
doesn't matter what they're saying, even
if it's the most logical, rational, wonderful, absolutely fantastic thing
that's ever been said, they could be
verbally or even physically beat up for
it. Because let's remember, people do act
like this
offline. Do you think people weren't
silencing others
before the internet happened?
On, no. How many black people have been
killed for being black?
How many gay people have been killed for
being gay? Trans? Bisexual? Non-binary?
Genderqueer?
Name something. Somebody has been killed for it because they are it. Now please
bear in mind that that only applies to
organic identities and not cultivated
ones like Star Wars fan or gamer.
Yes, there's a lot of hatred spewed
around over sci fi and video games but it's
not the same thing. [GAMER] I used to identify as a gamer before I realize that I'm gamerfluid.
Sometimes in casual, sometimes
I'm hardcore, but I'm always oppressed.
Yeah, the point is consumption is not an
identity, and please don't ever say
anything like that.
It's ridiculous. Genderfluid being an
identity and gamer fluid being like a
jar of piss that somebody leaves on
their desk because they can't leave fucking
Battlefield for 5 seconds.
I just really want to know if these
types think that people are able to
speak freely who are literally
threatened for and by the idea of
identifying themselves. Like, that's such
a basic thing and they can't do that.
Because not only do people talk
violently about people who identify the
way they do, but there's historic
precedent of people acting violently
towards people who identify the way they
do.
If everyone were allowed to speak freely
would people get killed for revealing
exactly what they are?
No! No! No! But go ahead and ask a free
speech advocate who should have free
speech. Go on.
The answer, assuming they're following the script that ensures they don't sound bigoted
in any way, is everyone. But if some people
out there, even a small percentage, are
killed for just saying what they are,
meaning they often censor their own
speech in order to avoid being killed,
that's not f#&$ing free speech you might
say "okay, well, I'm not bigoted and I
think that everybody should be able to
say everything, including all that
horrible stuff they're always telling us
not to say, because, well, I just don't
believe it silencing anybody."
Okay, great, that's fantastic, you're not a
total piece of shit.
That being said, you're supporting total
pieces of shit.
If you think that people should be able
to say things that definitely do stop
other people from saying things, you're
not advocating free speech.
You're advocating hierarchy. And if
you're advocating hierarchy that
discriminates based on identity,
frankly it doesn't really matter if
you're a shitbag or not, you're giving
the shitbags power. And when you came in
did you not see the sign over there? It
says "don't give the
shitbags power" don't do it. When they're
protected in their ability to say "shut
up, be normal,"
with the implication that they're ready
to enforce this, and the people who
aren't "normal" can't say
who they are - or rather can but may see
some sort of lethal consequences for it -
calling that situation free speech is
incredibly disingenuous.
If you're creating or supporting a
threatening environment for people who
are different than you, expressing things
that really don't hurt anyone in any way,
then your actions say that you don't
honestly believe in free speech. You
believe in the idea that, whoever you are,
that gives you the right to do whatever
you want to do, to say whatever you want
to say. But that other people,
depending on who they are
shouldn't be saying certain things. To mmake that more clear, the things that you
want to be able to say harm them, but the
things that they want to be able to say
literally have nothing to do with you.
The things they want to say will remain
entirely within their personal bubble.
The things that they want to say have no
effect on your life or really anyone's
life other than their own.
So does that mean that some words are
some speech should be outlawed?
That's a tough question, because frankly
if your goal is unfettered free speech,
that's, well, that's fettering but what
people who say things that silence
others are doing is also fettering.
So what we put ourselves into, is a
problem of circular logic. I'd argue
that problem indicates that there is
really no such thing as unfettered free
speech. And I know you're probably going
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whao!
What are you doing here bud?
Free speech is too subjective to use as
a systematic basis for society.
Too many people think too many different
things about it. Some people think it
means they should just be able to say
what they want to say and others know
that that's damaging to their ability to
live a normal life, whatever that could
mean to them. What we need to start
looking at is a way to apply the concept
of freedom of speech while legitimately
considering other's abilities to express
themselves as well. Just being able to
spew out whatever by all comes into your
mind and ignore the rights of the people
that puke lands on is not necessarily
free speech. Like, technically, right now
you're allowed to dump a bucket of paint
over a skyscraper.
But  should you be? Like, you're throwing
paint over a balcony. It probably will
land on someone but frankly if you do
that,
f#&$ you. Like I said, I think sometime
soon we're going to realize that the
words "unfettered free speech" are a
paradox.
It's not a thing that actually exists
anywhere. When the law of the land is
that you can say and do whatever the
hell you want, someone is going to
respond to that with "I want to stop
others from saying and doing whatever
the hell they want." And those people
whose words and actions are attempting
to net a loss of freedom for everyone or
anyone else are not concerned with freedom...
at all.
What they're concerned about is
supremacy, the state or condition of
being superior to all others in
authority power or status
And you know what?
That's really just the opposite of
freedom isn't it?
How about this? The vast majority of
behavior is acceptable,
except for behavior that harms people
that aren't harming anyone else. And I
realize that harm means different
things to different people but here's
what I mean: if somebody tells you that
you can't shove a harpoon through
someone's face,
that's not them harming you. However, if
you're going around and shoving harpoons
into people's faces or you're doing and
saying everything you can in order to
make somebody's lifestyle illegal,
You have no place in a civilized free
society please sit in a catapult that we
may fling you into the ocean.
I'm sure that some day as a society will
all be able to understand and interpret
this kind of nuance, but until then
go f@&$ yourself f#&^ you you f@%#ing
f*@&
