And speaking of "minority groups", at least on the net, what about conservatives?
Conservatives aren't an underrepresented or disempowered group (the relevant sense of "minority"), even on the net.
They are a group with disproportionate power (rooted in disproportionate economic power, extending to political and social domains), many of whose members have, or effect for propaganda purposes, an (unjustified) sense of persecution.
Society does coalesce into like-minded groups, usually with different ideological trends than the larger society as a whole. Either we can try to analyze treatment of X in subgroup Y, for any X, or we've set ourselves up for dead end reasoning with the outcomes predetermined. That doesn't mean X1 is the same as X2 on any axis. The strong point found in a slight rework of the grandparent's point is that for a large number of communities on the internet conservatives are the minority group. The bifurcation along the left-right axis is one, if not the most, visible splits on the internet that websites fall on one side of.
Also, persecution complexes are not unique to the empowered, it's just a fools errand (and asking for a flame war) to try and engage in well intentioned discussion to untangle actual persecution from perceived persecution among dis-empowered groups.
Regardless, silencing or demonizing any group is wrong.
I find this blanket generalization hard to accept.
There's a group of parents who try to cure their children's autism by making them drink diluted chlorine bleach and giving them enemas of the same stuff. They get their advice from a couple who make money from the sale of books, supplements and services related to this horribly misguided and abusive practice. Would it be wrong to try to silence the perpetrators?
There's a group of parents who try to cure their children's autism by making them drink diluted chlorine bleach and giving them enemas of the same stuff.
That's a crime. Full stop. Those parents should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.
They get their advice from a couple who make money from the sale of books, supplements and services related to this horribly misguided and abusive practice. Would it be wrong to try to silence the perpetrators?
YES IT WOULD! (I wish I could make this larger, bold, blinking, and shouting.) Writing that one should do something stupid and dangerous is not a crime, otherwise half of the clickbait articles on the web would result in jail time for the posters.
Thoughts, in and of themselves, don't MAKE people do anything. The person hearing them always has a choice.
Now if you want to make it illegal to SELL their supplies because they're a risk to public health then go right ahead. A restriction on commerce is not a restriction on speech. We criminalize representing oneself as a doctor if you're not. What you're not allowed to do is shut someone up if you don't like what they're saying.
Under what principle would you allow silencing, removing the ability of these people to speak, that includes them but not your favored tiny or not so tiny groups?
I find it disconcerting that many self-identifying 'liberal' groups advocate for the anti-liberal restrictions of speech codes. If you are not for free expression, everybody's, not just the ones you agree with or approve of, then you do not hold liberal views and are not a liberal.
That's because these people were never liberals. After they "used up" the word progressive, they stole liberal from the "classical liberals", somewhat akin to today's libertarians ... and now they've pretty much used up "liberal", and many are recycling the word progressive.
Comments
Conservatives aren't an underrepresented or disempowered group (the relevant sense of "minority"), even on the net.
They are a group with disproportionate power (rooted in disproportionate economic power, extending to political and social domains), many of whose members have, or effect for propaganda purposes, an (unjustified) sense of persecution.
Persecution complexes are a red herring.
Society does coalesce into like-minded groups, usually with different ideological trends than the larger society as a whole. Either we can try to analyze treatment of X in subgroup Y, for any X, or we've set ourselves up for dead end reasoning with the outcomes predetermined. That doesn't mean X1 is the same as X2 on any axis. The strong point found in a slight rework of the grandparent's point is that for a large number of communities on the internet conservatives are the minority group. The bifurcation along the left-right axis is one, if not the most, visible splits on the internet that websites fall on one side of.
Also, persecution complexes are not unique to the empowered, it's just a fools errand (and asking for a flame war) to try and engage in well intentioned discussion to untangle actual persecution from perceived persecution among dis-empowered groups.
Regardless, silencing or demonizing any group is wrong.
I find this blanket generalization hard to accept.
There's a group of parents who try to cure their children's autism by making them drink diluted chlorine bleach and giving them enemas of the same stuff. They get their advice from a couple who make money from the sale of books, supplements and services related to this horribly misguided and abusive practice. Would it be wrong to try to silence the perpetrators?
That's a crime. Full stop. Those parents should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.
YES IT WOULD! (I wish I could make this larger, bold, blinking, and shouting.) Writing that one should do something stupid and dangerous is not a crime, otherwise half of the clickbait articles on the web would result in jail time for the posters.
Thoughts, in and of themselves, don't MAKE people do anything. The person hearing them always has a choice.
Now if you want to make it illegal to SELL their supplies because they're a risk to public health then go right ahead. A restriction on commerce is not a restriction on speech. We criminalize representing oneself as a doctor if you're not. What you're not allowed to do is shut someone up if you don't like what they're saying.
Under what principle would you allow silencing, removing the ability of these people to speak, that includes them but not your favored tiny or not so tiny groups?
I find it disconcerting that many self-identifying 'liberal' groups advocate for the anti-liberal restrictions of speech codes. If you are not for free expression, everybody's, not just the ones you agree with or approve of, then you do not hold liberal views and are not a liberal.
That's because these people were never liberals. After they "used up" the word progressive, they stole liberal from the "classical liberals", somewhat akin to today's libertarians ... and now they've pretty much used up "liberal", and many are recycling the word progressive.