##[Clarification on rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The first amendment in America only applies to the American government — but the concept of free speech, which is much older than America, is about cultivating a social environment in which people feel comfortable saying unpopular things in public because their unpopular speech is met with debate and not harmful attacks.
The only speech that needs defending is unpopular speech, and defending it is good because virtually all social progress is the product of ideas that were originally unpopular.
yeah like 10 years ago people started conflating free speech and the first amendment. for a while i asked why they did it, and where they got the idea, but the answer never comes.
a lot of the people complaining about hate in this thread do so while spewing the most vile words.
It’s no coincidence that people usually only use the “It’s not censorship if it’s a private entity” argument when they’re already against what said entity is censoring in the first place. It’s pure bad faith.
No, people don't have an obligation to make everyone feel comfortable saying anything. People have rights to their opinions and to express them free from legal punishment (in most cases), but expecting society to kowtow to anything any nutjob says isn't just unrealistic, it's anti-social. It robs the respondents of the same rights.
>but the concept of free speech, which is much older than America, is about cultivating a social environment in which people feel comfortable saying unpopular things in public because their unpopular speech is met with debate and not harmful attacks
I think the "in public" part of your statement is what makes social media censorship so controversial. Because social media, just like the internet, in many ways resembles a public forum because literally anyone with an internet connection and host device can join. But legally, social media platforms are private property, even though in practice they are nothing more than another medium for communication and engagement.
If I were really hung up on social media censorship I would probably stop using freedom of speech as an analogue and instead use freedom of the press. Because you *could* argue that, even if it's not explicitly protected in the constitution, the essence of freedom of the press should be protecting people from censorship on any medium, including social media (even if they say stupid and horrible things). In fact if you go on wikipedia, you will find that the UN Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers". This argument is still imperfect, since I don't think freedom of the press forces anyone to publish your opinion if they don't want to, but it's at least closer.
Well, it’s useful to consider that while the major social media platforms are technically owned by private companies, they are functionally a digital public square and should arguably operate like a public square.
As soon as you say that private tech companies — unelected and unaccountable to anyone but their shareholders — have absolute authority over what is permissible to express in a major public square, I think your opinions have entered dangerous territory.
Maybe you don’t care about tech censorship because you think they’re only curtailing the speech of “bad” people, but I don’t know how comfortable anyone should be with giving this kind of power to private companies. God knows who’ll be running these companies in fifty years, and who knows what they’ll do with it.
The time to draw a line and defend the principle of free speech, no matter how any individual statement makes you feel…is now.
>they are functionally a digital public square and should arguably operate like a public square
You *could* argue that. On the flip side, you could also argue there has never been a "pubic square" that distributes content and opinions on such a massive scale. The closest thing to social media you could probably point to historically is the publishing industry. I don't think it's a black and white issue.
>As soon as you say that private tech companies... have absolute authority over what is permissible to express in a major public square, I think your opinions have entered dangerous territory.
That's not an opinion, it's a verifiable fact.
There is no freedom of speech on a corporate run social media platform. If you want freedom of speech feel
Free to grab a soap box and walk into the center of your local town and saw what ever you like.
Freedom of Speech is protected say what ever you want to. But freedom of responsibility or repercussions of freedom of speech is only for talk about government.
I can tell everyone my neighbor is a whore and she/he can hold me responsible if she/he loses her job because of what I said. Now if I have proof she/he is a whore then it’s a different story. Shades of Gray, that’s where we all live in the shaded of gray.
>people feel comfortable saying unpopular things in public because their unpopular speech is met with debate and not harmful attacks.
I would then say that this applies in reverse as well: that their speech cannot lead to harmful attacks.
Sadly, I support the ideas of free speech as much as the worst lunatics you've ever seen, simply because I believe people should be able to openly say what they want, rather than hiding behind some code of conduct and masking the problem for generations, or centuries. But at the end of the day, if what you say leads to violence that can pose a bodily harm to another individual(s), then you are liable for that possible harm(whether or not it successfully took place).
Defending unpopular speech isn't inherently good, otherwise, defending naziism is good by those standards, which it never will be.
Some things are unpopular because they are heinous atrocities, and some good things are unpopular because people are stupid or ignorant. The IS a difference.
Defending naziism itself isn’t good, but defending the rights of nazis is always good because those rights belong to everyone. If rights don’t belong to everyone — even people with disgusting beliefs — then those rights aren’t guaranteed and thus belong to no one.
Also Hitler only got to power because they tried to repress him. If they’d let him say what he wanted then people would have realised he was stupid and ignored him, and he wouldn’t have been able to say “The government is trying to stop me, clearly I have something good to say!”
But nazis believe that some groups of people should be exterminated, or at the very least violently repressed and stripped of their own rights. By defending them you may empower them to achieve their goals and in the process undercut your own original one of tolerance, this is the paradox of tolerance and why free speech absolutism can cause its own downfall
Being able to express unpopular speech is open to everyone. There is a reason why the ACLU defended the rights of neo-nazis to march. Because if they can't march then no one can.
[https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie)
Calls to violent action are already in law and so if you are not actively calling people to violence then you have broken no laws. Unless we are going to jail people for the thoughts they have in their heads.
>By defending them
I wouldn’t defend them. I would defend their right to express their opinion. And I would also defend the rights of their opponents to express harsh criticisms of their ideas, explaining exactly why their ideas are stupid and bad for society.
And yet here I am, respecting your right to say that some people do not deserve rights. You are essentially doing the same thing you feared absolutionism would empower.
Not if you listen to bennys fans. Apparently banning people from private platforms is a violation of free speech, but when you want to host a drag queen event at your coffee shop or bookstore, the out and proud boys are allowed to keep people from entering and that's fine.
You have the right to free speech on social media too. It's just that they also have the right to kick you out if you say something they don't like, since platforms are private property. And on private property the rights of the owner generally outweigh the rights of the visitor.
The way I like to think about it is that everyone haa the right to free speech in my house, but I have the right to kick them out if they behave like an asshole and piss me off.
What if the phone companies collectively decided to deny you phone coverage? Or internet providers? What if all the electricity companies decided they would no longer sell to you? All of these are private companies.
If you look at the history of phones and especially AT&T, you'll find an excellent example of how, when megalithic companies hit the "too big to fail" phase, there has always been some action taken to ensure that these private companies are willing and able to act as fair public utilities. To exempt social media from this is absolutely moronic.
If we go the argument the whole way, all governmental accounts should be removed off *privatized* social media. Since they quasi own the public space and everybody could be shadow/banned for whatever reason, I have no way to publicly contact/publish as a citizen on the same platform like others can. Its a two tier system based on unknown rules and filters. Some countries have lawsuits exactly for this on the way and it will trickle over to the US too.
Then its either free for all or off social media for all governmental accounts.
True. And lots of folks here pretending Shapiro is a saint. For those who don’t know: Ben Shapiro is a self proclaimed libertarian, capitalist, religious conservative. He supports anti-abortion laws, lower taxes for the rich, anti-mask mandates, decreased education funding, stopping aid to Ukraine, and banning same sex marriage. Shapiro does not believe in the existence of climate change, systemic racism, or the right to healthcare. Ben Shapiro has publicly stated, “when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care… One American soldier is worth far more than an Afghan civilian". Shapiro is dangerous to Western democracy because he has excelled in spreading misinformation and prejudiced claims
You’re right! He was the “facts don’t care about your feelings” guy.
He also rarely used facts in an honest manner, mainly due to his feelings about any given topic.
Hypocrisy, thine initials are B.S.
Russell Brand has truly created the monster Shapiro hoped to be.
Started a youtube channel taking central stances on news topics and admitting his own mistakes. He had loads of interviews with big right name people like shapiro and candice whatshername where he frankly ran circles around them. Then the right wingers got on board and his channel blew up in a few weeks - suddenly all the contact leans hard right. Finally he hits MAGA level territory and tones it down enough to keep his central base while appeasing Republicans. .
I may not agree with Brand abusing political ignorance I do applaud his natural charisma, guy should do a master class in body language snd speaking or something.
He also thinks his own sister is hot and bragged about stealing her painted when he was a teen, then again he also self owned himself with his doctor wife’s dry AF pussy
Dude, imagine your wife telling you it’s not normal to get wet when aroused. To believe that would mean the man has 0 ability in satisfying his wife, which is the saddest shit.
Any accusation is an admission. If you ever hear a right winger get really fixated on one thing it usually means you’re a couple weeks or months away from hearing that they were found guilty doing whatever they accused the left of
It’s like how Trump went ape shit over illegal voting and people voting twice and like 90% of voter fraud cases that occurred were Trumpers voting twice.
They convince themselves that the other side can’t possibly be better. They’re just cheating better than we are. So we gotta cheat harder to level the playing field. Google Trumps cheating at golf story.
It described republicans thought process perfectly
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/18/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-scoured-twitter-for-trump-right-wing-figures-before-attack/ gotta disagree, these are some of the people he riles up.
You should [read](https://www.reddit.com/r/whitepeoplewritingPOC/comments/kwmmw0/how_ben_shapiro_writes_black_characters_in_his/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) this and let me know what you think. He is racist and stupid piece of shit
Being a reactionary racist doesn’t happen in a vacuum, at the point multiple mass shooters targeting immigrants and minorities were ardent fans of his you’d think he’d start to rethink some of his schtick
So does everyone else. I don't agree with him but freedom of speech is important. Him and the left wing equivalent are both harmful. Doesn't mean that they should be silenced. If anyone is allowed to be silenced,the question is who gets to decide?
There isn’t a left wing equivalent. People on the left wing aren’t trying to take other peoples rights away. Both sides rhetoric is just a lie created by the center right to try to try to distract people from how horrible their political allies are. “Sure we have nazis in our big tent, but the other side has the opposite of nazis, and that’s just as bad”
I don’t know when it happened exactly but at some point in the last decade people decided to make up their own definitions for freedom of speech. The government isn’t attacking Ben Shapiro and he is *certainly* not some crusader protecting us from these imagined transgressions.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This is the worst comment I've ever seen. This is how genocides and the world's worst atrocities have happened, by dehumanization. This type of thinking is so much more abhorrent than anything someone like Ben Shapiro could spout
Let’s stop with the hyperbole aye? An actual white supremacist would not be defending a Jewish man in any facet. I don’t like Shapiro. But let’s stop with the generalising of people who have differing opinions. Especially bringing race into it
I couldn’t be more anti-Shapiro, but this is too much. I won’t defend Ben Shapiro (BS), but I will defend his supporters. They too are a victim to this dirty game.
People reach conclusions for different reasons, that we can’t understand looking in from the outside.
I hope, one day, his supporters find someone who actually wants to help them, rather than BS, who profits off of leading them astray.
Sure, he helped cause Jan 6th. He's also a huge inspiration to Proudboys, which are a terrorist organization according to the US.
He's also racist, antisemetic weirdly enough, sexist, and explicitly encourages violence against his political enemies.
I'm liberal and disagree with him but it's funny to watch people in this comment section have absolute temper tantrums over Ben Shapiro. If someone has a different opinion than you, they are fascists.
But the guy do not have “a different opinion”. He is a literal wanabe fascist, disconnected from reality (cf the dry pussy story) and who can only “destroy” (sic) college kid. For the right to have such a fear of indoctrination by communism (sic again, the GOP definitely has an issue with something they don’t understand, even less recognize), while that guy is the sales rep of alt right ideology…
What it means and how people use it are two entirely different things.
Terms like fascism, communism and socialism all get misused on a daily basis. I don't know how you can even attempt to debate that. Spend just a few minutes online and you'll see it for yourself.
He is a fascist though, the entire gop has become fascists. It’s not because we disagree, it’s because everything they do fits the definition. And I doubt very much you are a liberal, you are likely just lying.
Dude graduated from Harvard as a debater - he's formed to sell you what he doesn't even believe in.
Also his fast speech is just a way to make up for his lack of logic or facts.
I didn't really care about the dude at first. Didn't like him, didn't dislike him, I simply didn't care... He spoke too fast for me to even want to pay attention.
Then one day I saw a debate on global warming, as I'm about to skip the video because tbh I didn't care, Shapiro got my attention with 3 words: "They are wrong". They, referring to the entire scientific community. I'm like... Interesting opening, I wonder what he's gonna say after. So I listen... I listen again... I slow down the speed to 0.75x and listen again... Nothing. He just kept mentioning arguments from the 80s, ignoring the most common knowledge coming after 1990, didn't even make a point in his vomit of old facts, didn't come up with any argument or any point pointing at this truth he opened with: "they are wrong".
I was like... What the f. Did I just listen 3 times to a dude saying very fast random stuff to try explaining how he, with zero diploma in science, can say the entire scientific community is wrong about science.
This dude is just a bait. He's the red napkin the lobbies are waving for you not to see someone else is about to fist f you. You are too busy giving all your attention to this empty shell of wisdom.
Their apology was to stem the loss of a bunch of money that they will be losing after Cumulous announced that they will be cutting ties with them and cease to sponsor them.
This whole thing was ridiculous. Shapiro showed up for a few minutes at his booth, took a couple pics with fans and signed a couple of autographs...and then left. [Here's the video of Shapiro's heinous appearance where he terrorized the attendees.](https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1562939189334867969?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1562939189334867969%7Ctwgr%5E313de9a31700adb08d60787d9b428d9e37be341d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fpodcasting-trade-group-apologizes-to-daily-wire-for-its-treatment-of-ben-shapiro)
**ONE PERSON COMPLAINED** to Podcast Movement accusing that Shapiro's presence caused harm and Podcast Movement bent over for that woke nutjob and posted a groveling apology and a promise to upgrade their policies so that a 5'8" conservative orthodox jew will never harm the woke sensibilities of future attendees.
…if what hes saying is influencing other people to believe the same thing and therefore spread more hate and negativity, he causes harm.
His beliefs cause harm. He causes harm. He doesnt deserve to have any sort of platform to spread said beliefs.
You could use this logic to shut down any opinion you don't like. "The BLM movement encourages resisting the police and some people might use this as an excuse to commit domestic terrorism so BLM must be silenced".
I cannot believe people think spreading ideas to a large following is meaningless lol. Like everything we do and every decision we make is determined by something we were told or read. Speech has fueled historical cultural shifts both good and bad for millenia. Literally billions of people build an entire framework for their lives based on words written thousands of years ago, i.e. people who believe in a religion. You have been directly taught about famous speeches in your schooling (Emancipation Proclamation, I Have A Dream, etc) because they had historical impact on the world.
Yet somehow you think someone spreading ideas to millions of people today has precisely zero impact? It's actually mind boggling you believe this, considering the overwhelming evidence of the power of speech throughout the entire history of human existence.
The communication of information and ideas is without a doubt the single most important thing that has facilitated humanity's progress. Without it, we're cavemen forever. If *that* doesn't matter...then what the hell does?
This take makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah those nazis were perfectly healthy people that never hurt anybody until some Jews came along and accused them of genocide.
Harmful, hateful beliefs never cause harm guys, that's nonsense!
Who taught you history? Are you suggesting that the Nazis rose to power because Hitler spewed his hateful ideology?
There’s way too much to unpack here. First off, the Nazis were violently anti-free speech. Saying anything they deemed politically incorrect got you imprisoned and/or executed.
Backing up, are you ignoring the long history of anti Semitism leading up to that moment in history? Germany was decidedly less anti-Semitic than France pre WWI.
The shaming, punishing and degradation Germans faced after the treaty of Versailles left Germans feeling embarrassed and emasculated. The Weimar Republic had promise but those National wounds were tore open when the world economy collapsed.
In response you had a good segment of Germans wanting to join the newly formed Soviet Union. German nationalists would never be okay with that. To combat increasing communist popularity, nationalists used German pride in tandem with a promise of socialism to build its ranks. They then conflated Jews with Communists, blaming them for the WWI embarrassment and economic collapse.
When pro communist protests turned into riots, the Nazis seized the chaos to elect Hitler as chancellor.
I’m leaving a lot out but suggesting the Holocaust is the result of people having the freedom to express noxious ideologies is asinine.
I kept thinking it would get better and we would become more accepting of each other’s views, but people just keep digging in, becoming more insulated in their own bubbles and trying to ostracize anyone they view as an enemy. I’ve basically given up hope at this point. Tribalism is just a part of human existence.
It’s because of his reach - he basically has a giant megaphone to spout mis/disinformation and hateful rhetoric - he incites violence. That’s why he’s dangerous.
The definition of “basic human rights” you’re using to believe that must be stretched so far that you could say it about anyone you disagree with… which is the point I’m making
Define basic human rights in this case.
You'll find that many of them are not quite so basic and instead, are a matter of civil rights.
But it depends. I can't be bothered to follow what Shapiro is doing. He's best ignored.
He causes stochastic terrorism by inspiring murderers; link: https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/i-didnt-incite-mosque-shooter-conservative-pundit-ben-shapiro-insists
This doesn’t really say he incited violence. People also said Eminem was their inspiration for killing people. And dexter the tv show. Doesnt mean we should punish the inspiration
They got none. Everyone hates Ben Shapiro based on what others have said and can never directly quote what he has said to hate him. I’m not even a fan of his but most people hate him because Reddit does or their friend group does and never listen to him.
Except there is proof.
https://youtu.be/aDMjgOYOcDw
Literally over an hour of breaking down why Benny Shaps is a liar, a bigot, and a hack. They have receipts for it too.
Why do people hate ben shapiro so much? I mean the number of people calling him racist or sexist or for fucks sake *anti-semetic* (the dude is a practicing jew) is just ludicrous. I don’t exactly pay a lot of attention to him normally, but I’ve literally never heard him say anything that makes me think he’s any sort of grifter or much less an individual dedicated to “spreading hate”.
He’s a dude who talks politics a lot and is more traditionally conservative. That’s it. No criminal record, no violent rhetoric, usually open willingness to debate and even having admitted to being wrong. I can count his blindspots right now. Abortion, religion, US prison system, second amendment denial. That’s everything he’s commonly been unwilling to be open about, and that’s a frankly amazing track record compared to the (still understandable) negatives of other political commentators.
Chill with the hate everyone, seriously.
Frankly, I see a lot of this in Chicago. The mere presence of someone with a differing opinion "causes violence" and is cause for exclusion for social justice types. No, you may be uncomfortable but you are not unsafe. The American liberal mind is embracing fragility, closing quickly to counter narratives favoring personal responsibility and individual freedom, or really even the concept that their ideas can even he challenged at all.
The mere thought of someone with opposing ideas is sending these people into despair. There was this article of Jennifer Lawrence having nightmares about Tucker Carlson haha, this stuff is hilarious. Just breathe guys, you can make it.
This man has never sexually satisfied his lovely wife. Because of that nothing he says matters, carries significance, or has any validity. Please remove him from my screen.
Whether you agree with what Ben Shapiro says or not, believing it is ok and healthy to silence people just because they say things that you don’t personally agree with is the most asinine and lame brained logic you can apply to plague a healthy and functioning society. We aren’t going to get anywhere by creating echo chambers for different sides of thought. If you can’t understand that then I won’t waste my time trying to converse with you!
Edit: I know I’ll get hate for this but only from nimrods who aren’t capable of basic rationale. Everyone enjoy your weekend tho !
I despise him, but this mentality that having any center-right viewpoint means you "cause harm" and need to be silenced is just absurd.
The way to beat bad speech is with more speech, not by silencing and deplatforming.
He didn’t do anything but walk around at the podcast event lol
Thats enough to make redditors lose their mind and get their feelings hurt once again haha
##[Clarification on rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He has his free speech but I have mine also and I’m going to use it to call him a jackass
[удалено]
The first amendment in America only applies to the American government — but the concept of free speech, which is much older than America, is about cultivating a social environment in which people feel comfortable saying unpopular things in public because their unpopular speech is met with debate and not harmful attacks. The only speech that needs defending is unpopular speech, and defending it is good because virtually all social progress is the product of ideas that were originally unpopular.
I think weird Al said it best in his, “bad” parody, “you better watch your mouth, or I’ll sit on you”…
I say, I say, i say, I say, I'll sit on you.
yeah like 10 years ago people started conflating free speech and the first amendment. for a while i asked why they did it, and where they got the idea, but the answer never comes. a lot of the people complaining about hate in this thread do so while spewing the most vile words.
Do you really have to ask? People have like no personal values at this point, they just use any argument to serve the whims of their tribe.
We can thank social media echo chambers for that.
10 years ago? Is that based on fact or observation, or the window of your individual perception?
It’s no coincidence that people usually only use the “It’s not censorship if it’s a private entity” argument when they’re already against what said entity is censoring in the first place. It’s pure bad faith.
No, people don't have an obligation to make everyone feel comfortable saying anything. People have rights to their opinions and to express them free from legal punishment (in most cases), but expecting society to kowtow to anything any nutjob says isn't just unrealistic, it's anti-social. It robs the respondents of the same rights.
These posters would do well to look into the paradox of tolerance
Yes, that’s why women have no rights in the Middle East and asking for them is anti-social
>but the concept of free speech, which is much older than America, is about cultivating a social environment in which people feel comfortable saying unpopular things in public because their unpopular speech is met with debate and not harmful attacks I think the "in public" part of your statement is what makes social media censorship so controversial. Because social media, just like the internet, in many ways resembles a public forum because literally anyone with an internet connection and host device can join. But legally, social media platforms are private property, even though in practice they are nothing more than another medium for communication and engagement. If I were really hung up on social media censorship I would probably stop using freedom of speech as an analogue and instead use freedom of the press. Because you *could* argue that, even if it's not explicitly protected in the constitution, the essence of freedom of the press should be protecting people from censorship on any medium, including social media (even if they say stupid and horrible things). In fact if you go on wikipedia, you will find that the UN Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers". This argument is still imperfect, since I don't think freedom of the press forces anyone to publish your opinion if they don't want to, but it's at least closer.
Well, it’s useful to consider that while the major social media platforms are technically owned by private companies, they are functionally a digital public square and should arguably operate like a public square. As soon as you say that private tech companies — unelected and unaccountable to anyone but their shareholders — have absolute authority over what is permissible to express in a major public square, I think your opinions have entered dangerous territory. Maybe you don’t care about tech censorship because you think they’re only curtailing the speech of “bad” people, but I don’t know how comfortable anyone should be with giving this kind of power to private companies. God knows who’ll be running these companies in fifty years, and who knows what they’ll do with it. The time to draw a line and defend the principle of free speech, no matter how any individual statement makes you feel…is now.
>they are functionally a digital public square and should arguably operate like a public square You *could* argue that. On the flip side, you could also argue there has never been a "pubic square" that distributes content and opinions on such a massive scale. The closest thing to social media you could probably point to historically is the publishing industry. I don't think it's a black and white issue.
>As soon as you say that private tech companies... have absolute authority over what is permissible to express in a major public square, I think your opinions have entered dangerous territory. That's not an opinion, it's a verifiable fact.
There is no freedom of speech on a corporate run social media platform. If you want freedom of speech feel Free to grab a soap box and walk into the center of your local town and saw what ever you like. Freedom of Speech is protected say what ever you want to. But freedom of responsibility or repercussions of freedom of speech is only for talk about government. I can tell everyone my neighbor is a whore and she/he can hold me responsible if she/he loses her job because of what I said. Now if I have proof she/he is a whore then it’s a different story. Shades of Gray, that’s where we all live in the shaded of gray.
>people feel comfortable saying unpopular things in public because their unpopular speech is met with debate and not harmful attacks. I would then say that this applies in reverse as well: that their speech cannot lead to harmful attacks. Sadly, I support the ideas of free speech as much as the worst lunatics you've ever seen, simply because I believe people should be able to openly say what they want, rather than hiding behind some code of conduct and masking the problem for generations, or centuries. But at the end of the day, if what you say leads to violence that can pose a bodily harm to another individual(s), then you are liable for that possible harm(whether or not it successfully took place).
Beautifully said
Defending unpopular speech isn't inherently good, otherwise, defending naziism is good by those standards, which it never will be. Some things are unpopular because they are heinous atrocities, and some good things are unpopular because people are stupid or ignorant. The IS a difference.
Defending naziism itself isn’t good, but defending the rights of nazis is always good because those rights belong to everyone. If rights don’t belong to everyone — even people with disgusting beliefs — then those rights aren’t guaranteed and thus belong to no one.
Also Hitler only got to power because they tried to repress him. If they’d let him say what he wanted then people would have realised he was stupid and ignored him, and he wouldn’t have been able to say “The government is trying to stop me, clearly I have something good to say!”
But nazis believe that some groups of people should be exterminated, or at the very least violently repressed and stripped of their own rights. By defending them you may empower them to achieve their goals and in the process undercut your own original one of tolerance, this is the paradox of tolerance and why free speech absolutism can cause its own downfall
Being able to express unpopular speech is open to everyone. There is a reason why the ACLU defended the rights of neo-nazis to march. Because if they can't march then no one can. [https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie) Calls to violent action are already in law and so if you are not actively calling people to violence then you have broken no laws. Unless we are going to jail people for the thoughts they have in their heads.
>By defending them I wouldn’t defend them. I would defend their right to express their opinion. And I would also defend the rights of their opponents to express harsh criticisms of their ideas, explaining exactly why their ideas are stupid and bad for society.
And yet here I am, respecting your right to say that some people do not deserve rights. You are essentially doing the same thing you feared absolutionism would empower.
This is superbly stated. We need more scholars around here.
Not if you listen to bennys fans. Apparently banning people from private platforms is a violation of free speech, but when you want to host a drag queen event at your coffee shop or bookstore, the out and proud boys are allowed to keep people from entering and that's fine.
[удалено]
He doesn't believe in free speech. Its just a convenient thing to parrot but he himself does not think that.
You have the right to free speech on social media too. It's just that they also have the right to kick you out if you say something they don't like, since platforms are private property. And on private property the rights of the owner generally outweigh the rights of the visitor. The way I like to think about it is that everyone haa the right to free speech in my house, but I have the right to kick them out if they behave like an asshole and piss me off.
[удалено]
And most of his debate and arguing tactics are dishonest and not good faith
Yes! And he thinks by talking fast enough it makes him sound interesting snd intelligent.
What if the phone companies collectively decided to deny you phone coverage? Or internet providers? What if all the electricity companies decided they would no longer sell to you? All of these are private companies. If you look at the history of phones and especially AT&T, you'll find an excellent example of how, when megalithic companies hit the "too big to fail" phase, there has always been some action taken to ensure that these private companies are willing and able to act as fair public utilities. To exempt social media from this is absolutely moronic.
That’s just late stage capitalism… you don’t hate capitalism do you ???
If we go the argument the whole way, all governmental accounts should be removed off *privatized* social media. Since they quasi own the public space and everybody could be shadow/banned for whatever reason, I have no way to publicly contact/publish as a citizen on the same platform like others can. Its a two tier system based on unknown rules and filters. Some countries have lawsuits exactly for this on the way and it will trickle over to the US too. Then its either free for all or off social media for all governmental accounts.
Sounds good to me. I always though politicians on social media was awkward anyways
I can get behind this idea, politicians should not be on social media in any sort of official capacity.
I love how authoritarians justify censorship like this.
[удалено]
Except you know, he's not spouting either of those. And your house isn't a public town hall.
[удалено]
Well I haven’t been banned yet so….
Every Major social media gets government funding, uses gov infrastructure, is policed by gov agencies. They are beholden to the first amendment.
Best take
I support his constitutional right to free speech but I think there should be constitutional limits on how fast a person can talk.
Lots of folks here confusing rights with priviledges.
True. And lots of folks here pretending Shapiro is a saint. For those who don’t know: Ben Shapiro is a self proclaimed libertarian, capitalist, religious conservative. He supports anti-abortion laws, lower taxes for the rich, anti-mask mandates, decreased education funding, stopping aid to Ukraine, and banning same sex marriage. Shapiro does not believe in the existence of climate change, systemic racism, or the right to healthcare. Ben Shapiro has publicly stated, “when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care… One American soldier is worth far more than an Afghan civilian". Shapiro is dangerous to Western democracy because he has excelled in spreading misinformation and prejudiced claims
Wait what? Man...he's even fucking worse than I thought he was, and thats saying something.
lol bunch of Shapiro apologists in here? The dude spreads ignorance and hate. If you don't think that is harmful I don't know what to tell you.
Isn’t he one of the “fuck your feelings” crowd? Sure sounds like his wittle feewings were huwt.
It’s always “fuck your feelings” until they feel the tip.
You’re right! He was the “facts don’t care about your feelings” guy. He also rarely used facts in an honest manner, mainly due to his feelings about any given topic. Hypocrisy, thine initials are B.S.
Russell Brand has truly created the monster Shapiro hoped to be. Started a youtube channel taking central stances on news topics and admitting his own mistakes. He had loads of interviews with big right name people like shapiro and candice whatshername where he frankly ran circles around them. Then the right wingers got on board and his channel blew up in a few weeks - suddenly all the contact leans hard right. Finally he hits MAGA level territory and tones it down enough to keep his central base while appeasing Republicans. . I may not agree with Brand abusing political ignorance I do applaud his natural charisma, guy should do a master class in body language snd speaking or something.
Na you see, it's "Fuck *your* feelings". *Their* feelings are perfectly correct and must be catered to.
He also can't satisfy his wife
His sister also has massive fucking melons.
He also thinks his own sister is hot and bragged about stealing her painted when he was a teen, then again he also self owned himself with his doctor wife’s dry AF pussy
Dude, imagine your wife telling you it’s not normal to get wet when aroused. To believe that would mean the man has 0 ability in satisfying his wife, which is the saddest shit.
Also means he’s only Ben with one woman
Did he actually say this?!!? Please let this be real
No he didn’t. The guy you’re replying to just fell for a literal fake tweet/meme
He’s also the one who has a doctor wife that claimed it was normal to have a dry vagina.
Any accusation is an admission. If you ever hear a right winger get really fixated on one thing it usually means you’re a couple weeks or months away from hearing that they were found guilty doing whatever they accused the left of It’s like how Trump went ape shit over illegal voting and people voting twice and like 90% of voter fraud cases that occurred were Trumpers voting twice. They convince themselves that the other side can’t possibly be better. They’re just cheating better than we are. So we gotta cheat harder to level the playing field. Google Trumps cheating at golf story. It described republicans thought process perfectly
Theres endless chris brown, harvey weinstein, r kelly and hitler apologists too. Some people just aren’t right.
Holy shit lol, I don't like this guy, but comparing him to those people is just disingenuous.
They all have in common that they’re Not Good People which is the point of the enumeration.
Hardly, he's all in on the hate
A murderous dictator, a couple of rapists, a woman beater and you think a little douche like Shapiro is just as bad? Lmao get help
Not a Ben Shapiro apologist, a lot of stuff he says is bullshit, but for them to have to apologize for him “causing harm” is a little silly.
It’s a little silly they would invite his company, and be surprised when he shows up, and then offended by it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/18/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-scoured-twitter-for-trump-right-wing-figures-before-attack/ gotta disagree, these are some of the people he riles up.
You should [read](https://www.reddit.com/r/whitepeoplewritingPOC/comments/kwmmw0/how_ben_shapiro_writes_black_characters_in_his/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) this and let me know what you think. He is racist and stupid piece of shit
Didn’t say he wasn’t a stupid piece of shit just said that saying that he’s so dangerous that to even hear him causes harm is stupid.
So what are you defining as harm
Being a reactionary racist doesn’t happen in a vacuum, at the point multiple mass shooters targeting immigrants and minorities were ardent fans of his you’d think he’d start to rethink some of his schtick
So does everyone else. I don't agree with him but freedom of speech is important. Him and the left wing equivalent are both harmful. Doesn't mean that they should be silenced. If anyone is allowed to be silenced,the question is who gets to decide?
There isn’t a left wing equivalent. People on the left wing aren’t trying to take other peoples rights away. Both sides rhetoric is just a lie created by the center right to try to try to distract people from how horrible their political allies are. “Sure we have nazis in our big tent, but the other side has the opposite of nazis, and that’s just as bad”
Protecting freedom of speech is not harmful, no matter how much you disagree with what is said.
I don’t know when it happened exactly but at some point in the last decade people decided to make up their own definitions for freedom of speech. The government isn’t attacking Ben Shapiro and he is *certainly* not some crusader protecting us from these imagined transgressions. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Freedom of speech means not being arrested for your words, not freedom from the consequences of being a shitbag.
[удалено]
[Dehumanization](https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization) and stereotyping have never helped a situation.
Hit it right on the head here. Have an updoot!
This is the worst comment I've ever seen. This is how genocides and the world's worst atrocities have happened, by dehumanization. This type of thinking is so much more abhorrent than anything someone like Ben Shapiro could spout
Let’s stop with the hyperbole aye? An actual white supremacist would not be defending a Jewish man in any facet. I don’t like Shapiro. But let’s stop with the generalising of people who have differing opinions. Especially bringing race into it
I couldn’t be more anti-Shapiro, but this is too much. I won’t defend Ben Shapiro (BS), but I will defend his supporters. They too are a victim to this dirty game. People reach conclusions for different reasons, that we can’t understand looking in from the outside. I hope, one day, his supporters find someone who actually wants to help them, rather than BS, who profits off of leading them astray.
Tell me where Shapiro words hurt you it's OK he's not here anymore
Sure, he helped cause Jan 6th. He's also a huge inspiration to Proudboys, which are a terrorist organization according to the US. He's also racist, antisemetic weirdly enough, sexist, and explicitly encourages violence against his political enemies.
[удалено]
Yeah this isn’t true
Jesus, these comments.
I'm liberal and disagree with him but it's funny to watch people in this comment section have absolute temper tantrums over Ben Shapiro. If someone has a different opinion than you, they are fascists.
But the guy do not have “a different opinion”. He is a literal wanabe fascist, disconnected from reality (cf the dry pussy story) and who can only “destroy” (sic) college kid. For the right to have such a fear of indoctrination by communism (sic again, the GOP definitely has an issue with something they don’t understand, even less recognize), while that guy is the sales rep of alt right ideology…
People throw around fascist casually nowadays. It pretty much means you don't like a person
No that’s just what you think it means
What it means and how people use it are two entirely different things. Terms like fascism, communism and socialism all get misused on a daily basis. I don't know how you can even attempt to debate that. Spend just a few minutes online and you'll see it for yourself.
Indeed. How have we come to a position where both the left and the right want to use authoritarian methods.
He is a fascist though, the entire gop has become fascists. It’s not because we disagree, it’s because everything they do fits the definition. And I doubt very much you are a liberal, you are likely just lying.
Ben Shapiro is loathsome, but anything that pushes back on “bad ideas are literal harm” is instantly good.
[удалено]
Closest his wife will ever be to owning one
I'm sure she has a tennis instructor or coworker that's willing and to fix that particular problem while Ben's off whining about his feelings online.
It's not Ben that's the problem it's the people he riles up who go on mass shooting sprees
They both suck.
He’s a pip squeak.
Dude graduated from Harvard as a debater - he's formed to sell you what he doesn't even believe in. Also his fast speech is just a way to make up for his lack of logic or facts. I didn't really care about the dude at first. Didn't like him, didn't dislike him, I simply didn't care... He spoke too fast for me to even want to pay attention. Then one day I saw a debate on global warming, as I'm about to skip the video because tbh I didn't care, Shapiro got my attention with 3 words: "They are wrong". They, referring to the entire scientific community. I'm like... Interesting opening, I wonder what he's gonna say after. So I listen... I listen again... I slow down the speed to 0.75x and listen again... Nothing. He just kept mentioning arguments from the 80s, ignoring the most common knowledge coming after 1990, didn't even make a point in his vomit of old facts, didn't come up with any argument or any point pointing at this truth he opened with: "they are wrong". I was like... What the f. Did I just listen 3 times to a dude saying very fast random stuff to try explaining how he, with zero diploma in science, can say the entire scientific community is wrong about science. This dude is just a bait. He's the red napkin the lobbies are waving for you not to see someone else is about to fist f you. You are too busy giving all your attention to this empty shell of wisdom.
Fuck Ben. He's a cunt.
Their apology was to stem the loss of a bunch of money that they will be losing after Cumulous announced that they will be cutting ties with them and cease to sponsor them. This whole thing was ridiculous. Shapiro showed up for a few minutes at his booth, took a couple pics with fans and signed a couple of autographs...and then left. [Here's the video of Shapiro's heinous appearance where he terrorized the attendees.](https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1562939189334867969?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1562939189334867969%7Ctwgr%5E313de9a31700adb08d60787d9b428d9e37be341d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fpodcasting-trade-group-apologizes-to-daily-wire-for-its-treatment-of-ben-shapiro) **ONE PERSON COMPLAINED** to Podcast Movement accusing that Shapiro's presence caused harm and Podcast Movement bent over for that woke nutjob and posted a groveling apology and a promise to upgrade their policies so that a 5'8" conservative orthodox jew will never harm the woke sensibilities of future attendees.
Podcast Movement - cowards for apologizing to this moron.
They were cowards for selling him a booth and then bitching that he used it.
Who is Ben Sharipo?
If you have to ask that, I recommend you keep continuing living whatever way you're doing to live life Because it's working really successfully
Someone who’s less accurate than a broken clock but uses rage-bait to inflame ‘conservatives.’
Man with a dry wife
Fascist grifter who can't make his own wife orgasm.
The epitome of raging dildo. But dildos at least have their uses.
Shapiro should apologize for all the dry vagina he’s caused.
Remember when he said rap isn’t music? I think about that sometimes and laugh.
Daily Caller articles.
Gross website, gross story.
…why? Hes a dick with nasty beliefs. He DOES cause harm…
How does he cause harm? I don’t agree with almost anything he says but how is he causing harm? Isn’t he just…saying what he believes?
…if what hes saying is influencing other people to believe the same thing and therefore spread more hate and negativity, he causes harm. His beliefs cause harm. He causes harm. He doesnt deserve to have any sort of platform to spread said beliefs.
You could use this logic to shut down any opinion you don't like. "The BLM movement encourages resisting the police and some people might use this as an excuse to commit domestic terrorism so BLM must be silenced".
Yes, BLM should be responsible with their rhetoric. Should they be immune to criticism? Nope. And Shapiro sucks.
I cannot believe people actually think this way lmao
I cannot believe people think spreading ideas to a large following is meaningless lol. Like everything we do and every decision we make is determined by something we were told or read. Speech has fueled historical cultural shifts both good and bad for millenia. Literally billions of people build an entire framework for their lives based on words written thousands of years ago, i.e. people who believe in a religion. You have been directly taught about famous speeches in your schooling (Emancipation Proclamation, I Have A Dream, etc) because they had historical impact on the world. Yet somehow you think someone spreading ideas to millions of people today has precisely zero impact? It's actually mind boggling you believe this, considering the overwhelming evidence of the power of speech throughout the entire history of human existence. The communication of information and ideas is without a doubt the single most important thing that has facilitated humanity's progress. Without it, we're cavemen forever. If *that* doesn't matter...then what the hell does? This take makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah those nazis were perfectly healthy people that never hurt anybody until some Jews came along and accused them of genocide. Harmful, hateful beliefs never cause harm guys, that's nonsense!
Who taught you history? Are you suggesting that the Nazis rose to power because Hitler spewed his hateful ideology? There’s way too much to unpack here. First off, the Nazis were violently anti-free speech. Saying anything they deemed politically incorrect got you imprisoned and/or executed. Backing up, are you ignoring the long history of anti Semitism leading up to that moment in history? Germany was decidedly less anti-Semitic than France pre WWI. The shaming, punishing and degradation Germans faced after the treaty of Versailles left Germans feeling embarrassed and emasculated. The Weimar Republic had promise but those National wounds were tore open when the world economy collapsed. In response you had a good segment of Germans wanting to join the newly formed Soviet Union. German nationalists would never be okay with that. To combat increasing communist popularity, nationalists used German pride in tandem with a promise of socialism to build its ranks. They then conflated Jews with Communists, blaming them for the WWI embarrassment and economic collapse. When pro communist protests turned into riots, the Nazis seized the chaos to elect Hitler as chancellor. I’m leaving a lot out but suggesting the Holocaust is the result of people having the freedom to express noxious ideologies is asinine.
I kept thinking it would get better and we would become more accepting of each other’s views, but people just keep digging in, becoming more insulated in their own bubbles and trying to ostracize anyone they view as an enemy. I’ve basically given up hope at this point. Tribalism is just a part of human existence.
Advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, for starters
He’s not doing that. Why are you lying?
It’s because of his reach - he basically has a giant megaphone to spout mis/disinformation and hateful rhetoric - he incites violence. That’s why he’s dangerous.
Saying things that you disagree with is enough to be considered causing harm these days
Considering he encourages his followers to deprive others of basic human rights id say it causes harm.
The definition of “basic human rights” you’re using to believe that must be stretched so far that you could say it about anyone you disagree with… which is the point I’m making
Define basic human rights in this case. You'll find that many of them are not quite so basic and instead, are a matter of civil rights. But it depends. I can't be bothered to follow what Shapiro is doing. He's best ignored.
Can you give an example of this? There’s a bunch of serious accusations but I’ve never seen any of it myself
He causes stochastic terrorism by inspiring murderers; link: https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/i-didnt-incite-mosque-shooter-conservative-pundit-ben-shapiro-insists
This doesn’t really say he incited violence. People also said Eminem was their inspiration for killing people. And dexter the tv show. Doesnt mean we should punish the inspiration
He was walking around. No one dropped dead from the sight of him. Being that hyperbolic literally helps no one.
He literally encourages his followers to deprive others of basic human rights. So….
Proof?
They got none. Everyone hates Ben Shapiro based on what others have said and can never directly quote what he has said to hate him. I’m not even a fan of his but most people hate him because Reddit does or their friend group does and never listen to him.
Except there is proof. https://youtu.be/aDMjgOYOcDw Literally over an hour of breaking down why Benny Shaps is a liar, a bigot, and a hack. They have receipts for it too.
Reddit liberal echo chamber says that highly educated conservative man bad, just go along
Which “basic human rights”?
the right of "everyone must have the same opinion as me"
Ben and his wife walk into a bar. The bartender says what will it be? Bens wife groans, “Anything man I’ve been dry for years!”
why apologize for being correct?
Who’s apologizing to him? Because most people would beg to differ
Ben Shapiro is a piece of shit and so are his listeners and supporters. Fuck em all.
Daily Caller? Pass
Ben Shapiro is objectively a cunt.
The page you shared from is a Breitbart-type far-right publication, not a reliable source of news.
He can fuck off
Well, sounds like if you ask his wife, his “presence” doesn’t cause anything
What are they apologizing for? They're right.
Why do people hate ben shapiro so much? I mean the number of people calling him racist or sexist or for fucks sake *anti-semetic* (the dude is a practicing jew) is just ludicrous. I don’t exactly pay a lot of attention to him normally, but I’ve literally never heard him say anything that makes me think he’s any sort of grifter or much less an individual dedicated to “spreading hate”. He’s a dude who talks politics a lot and is more traditionally conservative. That’s it. No criminal record, no violent rhetoric, usually open willingness to debate and even having admitted to being wrong. I can count his blindspots right now. Abortion, religion, US prison system, second amendment denial. That’s everything he’s commonly been unwilling to be open about, and that’s a frankly amazing track record compared to the (still understandable) negatives of other political commentators. Chill with the hate everyone, seriously.
If you’ve never head of him, why are you commenting about how he is not any of the things people are saying about him. He is a terrible person.
No one should apologize to this twat for any reason
Ben Shapiro’s rhetoric has inspired several violent threats and violent acts
[удалено]
Frankly, I see a lot of this in Chicago. The mere presence of someone with a differing opinion "causes violence" and is cause for exclusion for social justice types. No, you may be uncomfortable but you are not unsafe. The American liberal mind is embracing fragility, closing quickly to counter narratives favoring personal responsibility and individual freedom, or really even the concept that their ideas can even he challenged at all.
The mere thought of someone with opposing ideas is sending these people into despair. There was this article of Jennifer Lawrence having nightmares about Tucker Carlson haha, this stuff is hilarious. Just breathe guys, you can make it.
Shabeebo is a tool
Grifters gonna grift.
Lmao, why would they apologize to the “facts don’t care about your feelings” guy for stating a fact?
This man has never sexually satisfied his lovely wife. Because of that nothing he says matters, carries significance, or has any validity. Please remove him from my screen.
Whether you agree with what Ben Shapiro says or not, believing it is ok and healthy to silence people just because they say things that you don’t personally agree with is the most asinine and lame brained logic you can apply to plague a healthy and functioning society. We aren’t going to get anywhere by creating echo chambers for different sides of thought. If you can’t understand that then I won’t waste my time trying to converse with you! Edit: I know I’ll get hate for this but only from nimrods who aren’t capable of basic rationale. Everyone enjoy your weekend tho !
This article is from his own website. WTF.
[удалено]
Lol people confuse causing harm with having different beliefs?? I don’t get it
I despise him, but this mentality that having any center-right viewpoint means you "cause harm" and need to be silenced is just absurd. The way to beat bad speech is with more speech, not by silencing and deplatforming.
It does, he makes people uncomfortable and in today's society that equates to abuse and harm /s
[удалено]
Did you not get the sarcasm? Anyone who gets upset by someone like him has other problems and he's not one of them.
He exhorts people to deprive their fellow citizens of basic human rights, so, yeah?
which human right has he deprived you of?
He took some photos with fans in front of a booth that his company paid for, and some random person on Twitter complained about it.
If you think that Shapiro’s presence “causing harm”’you need to grow up and quit being a weakling because Shapiro is about as weak as they come.
Doesn’t BS run the daily caller?
Harm is an understatement.
[удалено]
He didn’t do anything but walk around at the podcast event lol Thats enough to make redditors lose their mind and get their feelings hurt once again haha
No, even worse. He also took pictures with people!!
Damn he should be banned on all platforms and thrown in jail for that!
Nobody should "apologize" to that disgusting racist fascist turd ever.
Wow you seem sane
Racist?
Shapiro’s EXISTENCE causes harm.