LogicalFallacy

Petition to bar Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux from entering NZ

Recommended Posts

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12083988

 

This of course leads back to our discourse on tolerance and free speech.

 

Free speech for me but not for thee.

 

Disagree largely with her views, but I think we'd share some common ground on issues regarding Islam.

 

It comes back down to should we be barring people from speaking, and thus taking away the right of people to hear them? Do the people wanting to bar this really think that people who would go and listen and already agree will suddenly have less harmful ideologies?

 

Or is this the sort of thing that is justified at being barred in order to prevent giving legitimate voice to potentially harmful ideologies?

 

[Edit] I'm going to quote something I just read from @Daffodil that I think is relevant here:


 

Quote

 

"And anyway, wouldn't you prefer to know who these people are and expose their ignorance to the intelligent around them?  Would you prefer that they remain secret, allowing their hatred to fester being closed doors?  That exposure allows the rest of us to explain why these ideas are wrong and detrimental.  More people get educated that way than if they are forced into silence and everyone relaxes into a dangerous complacency. 

 

Your definition is ok, but leaves a lot to be desired.  "Or speech that causes some group to be afraid or angry . . ."  So it should be other people's responsibility to monitor/manage my feelings?  Nope! "

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



IMO suppressing or sanctioning "free speech" allowed for Trump to take the White House so commandingly and led to the rise of the "Alt-RIght".  I don't think Americans really knew how much racism existed all around the country until Trump kind of allowed them to voice their opinions so loudly.  There's still a backlash against them, including the whole "is it okay to punch a Nazi" thing, but if they'd been able to speak freely this whole time they could have been countered much better and I personally believe that race relations would be better instead of simply repressed.

 

...and I'm of my soapbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I say let people try to go to any fictional places they care to go.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I say let people try to go to any fictional places they care to go.

 

          mwc

 

 

Does this include the fictional reality inside your head that has a world without NZ? 🤣

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Does this include the fictional reality inside your head that has a world without NZ? 🤣

     I was at the Pacific Ocean yesterday.  From a nearby hill I saw an island.  I was all excited that I had finally spotted the mythical New Zealand.  As it turned out it was simply one of the Channel Islands.  Another letdown.  But my research continues.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who signs that petition and if the NZ government actually bans them from entering just gives them more credibility.  It also shows how much manufactured outrage over words said that harm nobody has led people to extreme of hypersensitivity. My my, such silliness.  :ph34r:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear to god, those millennials governing the fictional Island of New Zealand are in dire need of a reality check! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got an error 404 on that page. Probably the leftists blocking free speech. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a Wahhabi preacher who wanted to potentially recruit followers among your population asked to come to your country to speak, would you unequivocally let him in?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a difference between ISIS and a couple of right-wing wing nuts.  Southern and Molyneux aren't really a danger to anyone bodily, though as one Muslim said they would just show up to the venue and insult them, and that's an abuse of freedom of speech.  Preaching about killing people or on the behalf of people who do kill people often and horribly just aren't in the same weight class.

 

FoS sometimes makes people uncomfortable and sometimes it insults people.  I know I'm insulted on occasion, especially by ignorant people making ignorant claims for the sake of comedy.  I can't stop them, and if were in my power I wouldn't, because at the end of the day it's all pretty harmless.  On the other hand, even the Alt-Right and the KKK and the White Nationalists aren't advocating wholesale murder at their rallies.  It's not nice and it's often insulting, but then again, so are so many people on the left, they just get away with it more due to "progress" or such thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 1989 said:

I think there's a difference between ISIS and a couple of right-wing wing nuts.  Southern and Molyneux aren't really a danger to anyone bodily, though as one Muslim said they would just show up to the venue and insult them, and that's an abuse of freedom of speech.  Preaching about killing people or on the behalf of people who do kill people often and horribly just aren't in the same weight class.

 

FoS sometimes makes people uncomfortable and sometimes it insults people.  I know I'm insulted on occasion, especially by ignorant people making ignorant claims for the sake of comedy.  I can't stop them, and if were in my power I wouldn't, because at the end of the day it's all pretty harmless.  On the other hand, even the Alt-Right and the KKK and the White Nationalists aren't advocating wholesale murder at their rallies.  It's not nice and it's often insulting, but then again, so are so many people on the left, they just get away with it more due to "progress" or such thing.

Southern and Molyneux teach that there a slow rolling white genocide going on at present with a secret plot to destroy Western civilization.  If you think such beliefs have no risk to anyone bodily, I have a history book for you to read.

 

If you don't count 9/11 there have been far more extremist killings in the US from white supremacists over the past few decades than Islamist.  I dont know how in this "free speech" debate that these views which teach white nationalism or even Nazism that these people don't represent any physical or existential threat to society.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, if it's out there, people can react to it.  If it's underground, then people can't.  Without challenging their ideas they just pick up membership and resentment, which is a great formula for impending violence.  Even if they are driven underground, they can still reach interested parties via the internet, like ISIS does.  Better to have it out in the open where we can keep an eye on it better.  Also, giving them the freedom to speak means that they can't use censorship as a point of martyrdom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found an opinion piece on this issue - fairly well balanced and goes deeply into our favourite subject - free speech.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12087997

 

My views actually largely agree with Simon's. He's makes a good point that free speech should be made in good faith, or bad faith even, but not deliberate attempts to provoke reactions.

 

And I see the Auckland Council agrees with TS's view that one shouldn't offer their property for potentially damaging speech.

 

They were banned from Australia, but it seems that's been lifted. No idea if their tour is going ahead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I found an opinion piece on this issue - fairly well balanced and goes deeply into our favourite subject - free speech.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12087997

 

My views actually largely agree with Simon's. He's makes a good point that free speech should be made in good faith, or bad faith even, but not deliberate attempts to provoke reactions.

 

And I see the Auckland Council agrees with TS's view that one shouldn't offer their property for potentially damaging speech.

 

They were banned from Australia, but it seems that's been lifted. No idea if their tour is going ahead. 

People are looking at this like it is all the Left, this is more so a change in thinking across the board on how people interact with how ideas spread in a society.  It turns out these guys are not practicing free speech in good faith, but as a Trojan horse for their authoritarian worldview.  While I don't think it should be banned outright, I think private establishments should give it a platform and I agree in part with countries that don't want these people to be spreading their ideologies in their country.  I think banning them has in turn also served to further their cause.  Some kind of middle ground is needed and I think the American model has the answer, but not in the way it is portrayed to be an absolute for all contexts like Conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the internet out there doing the internet thing people can find nearly anything or anyone that they agree with, unless the country in question blocks parts of the internet off from the country.  By denying people entry to private venues to speak or debate, well, there's YouTube for that and no one to counteract their arguments.  If they're so popular with the segment of the population they're trying to reach then the government can bring their own experts via the news networks to counteract their message.

 

Whether Right-wing speakers are using free speech as a vehicle to eventually dismantle it, and I have no doubts they are, the idea should still be out there, IMO, especially if invited to a private venue (yes, I know I'm repeating myself).  If the owner doesn't want them there, kick them out.  Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be heard, just that you're free to say it.  I'll admit that there should be some limits, and we in America have them, like calling in false (or real) terroristic threats.  Also, if someone threatens someone else with bodily harm and that threat is considered credible, and order of protection can be issued for the presumptive victim.  It won't stop the truly dedicated, but I don't know what would short of locking up pretty much everyone.

 

Sorry if this seems disjointed, I'm not at my best here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now