The End of History

[Josh]

Catch up with the conversation Josh. We are talking about how so much talk of political violence or violent speech ends up leading to actual political violence, especially when less than stable individuals live their lives steeped in it on social media.

Speech does have consequences and violent speech can and does lead to actual violence.

I think free speech is pretty important. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say. It is our right not to listen.

I also think violence is bad, but violence is violence. Speech is not violence.

[Ken]

Catch up with the conversation Josh. We are talking about how so much talk of political violence or violent speech ends up leading to actual political violence, especially when less than stable individuals live their lives steeped in it on social media.

Speech does have consequences and violent speech can and does lead to actual violence.

I think free speech is pretty important. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say. It is our right not to listen.

I also think violence is bad, but violence is violence. Speech is not violence.

So, if a group of people decided to start spreading misinformation about Holdeman Mennonites. Say that Holdeman Mennonites...

• Engage in blood rites in which they kill and use the blood of other Christians for ritual purposes (blood libel)
• Are part of a secret economic group that controls the political world order
• Only do business with their own kind and discriminate against non-Holdemans
• Depict Holdemans as vermin or reptiles in drawings
• Have dual loyalties and are not patriotic Americans
• Are greedy by nature
• Spread diseases
• Are part of a satanic cabal of pedophiles
• should be exterminated

[all of which are actual anti-semitic and racist tropes spread about Jews by the way]

And then social media engines through their algorithms start to spread and amplify these lies so that people who don't know or have ever even met a Holdeman Mennonite start reading one lie out of curiosity and then fall deeper and deeper into an increasingly violent and extreme version of these lies on Facebook and YouTube and other social media sites. So that someone who might be curious about Holdemans finds themselves falling into an endless rabbit hole of hatred and violent speech towards Holdemans.

You would be just fine with that because it is all constitutionally protected free speech?

And you would not at all be concerned that some unstable individual already predisposed to violence who gets caught in such a net might decide to target Holdemans?

And do you truly believe that violent hate speech never leads to violence? Despite the examples of Rwanda, Palestine, Nazi Germany, the Jim Crow South, and everywhere else in history where violent extremists have used SPEECH to exhort their followers to commit acts of violence?

[temporal1]

I think free speech is pretty important. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say. It is our right not to listen.

I also think violence is bad, but violence is violence. Speech is not violence.

Probably the very best and most effective defenders of violent speech, including words+portrayal of extreme violence and extreme pornography, would be hollywood+related, includng music and video games, supposedly “entertainment” for big profit.
In my lifetime, i’ve witnessed various attempts to restrain it, without much success. LOBBIES AT WORK. $$$$
(hollywood, and contact sports are courted in the U.S. White House, and, definitely in the “news” and “entertainment” industries.)

Lobbyists will go to their literal deaths swearing there is no correlation between what they’re selling and violence. $$$$

As you say, it’s up to consumers to choose not to listen/view.

Presently, i’ve heard about DRILL RAP MUSIC, which is being blamed for real life gang violence and murders.
i haven’t listened or read lyrics. not something i hanker for. I PRAY.

Partisan political squabbling over relatively trivial accusations pales in comparison. Esp in a few extra-heated days before an election.
Some seem convinced a few swing votes may be lost or gained in the last hours.

Unfortunately, many are convinced they want to, and can, SPECIALLY RESTRICT/SILENCE political conservatives. (Talk about hate!)
Give them credit: they’re doing their level best to accomplish this.

Possibly, Elon Musk+Twitter may be ‘way more important to our U.S. system of gov than could have been imagined.

i’m not a twitter user, i’ve avoided it as much as possible. i’m now watching with interest.
He’s making it appear “easy” and “a lark.” In fact, this might be a monumental move for the quality of everyday life.
We’ll see. “We” may have dodged a bullet without realizing.

So far, i’m not aware of E Musk using coarse language, violent or profane language. (His opponents use plenty.)

mike shared a good example:

Twitter is kind of funny these days.

[Josh]

Catch up with the conversation Josh. We are talking about how so much talk of political violence or violent speech ends up leading to actual political violence, especially when less than stable individuals live their lives steeped in it on social media.

Speech does have consequences and violent speech can and does lead to actual violence.

I think free speech is pretty important. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to say. It is our right not to listen.

I also think violence is bad, but violence is violence. Speech is not violence.

So, if a group of people decided to start spreading misinformation about Holdeman Mennonites. Say that Holdeman Mennonites...

• Engage in blood rites in which they kill and use the blood of other Christians for ritual purposes (blood libel)
• Are part of a secret economic group that controls the political world order
• Only do business with their own kind and discriminate against non-Holdemans
• Depict Holdemans as vermin or reptiles in drawings
• Have dual loyalties and are not patriotic Americans
• Are greedy by nature
• Spread diseases
• Are part of a satanic cabal of pedophiles
• should be exterminated

[all of which are actual anti-semitic and racist tropes spread about Jews by the way]

And then social media engines through their algorithms start to spread and amplify these lies so that people who don't know or have ever even met a Holdeman Mennonite start reading one lie out of curiosity and then fall deeper and deeper into an increasingly violent and extreme version of these lies on Facebook and YouTube and other social media sites. So that someone who might be curious about Holdemans finds themselves falling into an endless rabbit hole of hatred and violent speech towards Holdemans.

You would be just fine with that because it is all constitutionally protected free speech?

And you would not at all be concerned that some unstable individual already predisposed to violence who gets caught in such a net might decide to target Holdemans?

And do you truly believe that violent hate speech never leads to violence? Despite the examples of Rwanda, Palestine, Nazi Germany, the Jim Crow South, and everywhere else in history where violent extremists have used SPEECH to exhort their followers to commit acts of violence?

Yes, I believe in free speech. An Internet search about Holdeman Mennonites turns up lots of websites of people who hate Holdemans, or else have very very negative things to say about them, including that they are:

- a cult
- rapists and sexual abuses
- condoning wife beating and physical abuse
- abusing their children
- have false doctrine
- are not Christians
- will take advantage/defraud non-Holdemans in business deals

I support free speech. No, I don’t think the right answer is censorship of those websites, dedicated forums, or forum posters.

An unstable individual is an unstable individual. Perhaps they should be shielded from the entire Internet?

[ohio jones]

Truth does not need a bodyguard.

[MaxPC]

Truth does not need a bodyguard.

Indeed.

Yes, I believe in free speech. An Internet search about Holdeman Mennonites turns up lots of websites of people who hate Holdemans, or else have very very negative things to say about them, including that they are:

- a cult
- rapists and sexual abuses
- condoning wife beating and physical abuse
- abusing their children
- have false doctrine
- are not Christians
- will take advantage/defraud non-Holdemans in business deals

I support free speech. No, I don’t think the right answer is censorship of those websites, dedicated forums, or forum posters.

An unstable individual is an unstable individual. Perhaps they should be shielded from the entire Internet?

Likewise. Additionally: Jesus, the Son of God, who raised Lazarus from the dead and conquered death itself, did not silence His own critics nor detractors. God does not force us to comply in our speech, actions or beliefs. God respects our free will.

If the creator of the universe respects our free will, it is not difficult to see that in seeking to be like His Son that we too, should respect free will and its expression in free speech.

[ken_sylvania]

Truth does not need a bodyguard.

Are you sure? Why did the apostle Paul dedicate so much of his life and energy to the "defense of the Gospel."

[Ken]

Truth does not need a bodyguard.

We aren't talking about truth but rather the metastasis of malignant lies.

[Josh]

Truth does not need a bodyguard.

We aren't talking about truth but rather the metastasis of malignant lies.

Lots of people tell lies, such as:

- Men can get pregnant

- A man becomes a woman simply by saying he is, and then he must be allowed to use the women's bathroom

- Our great-great-great-great-great...grandparents were monkeys

- A man can marry another man

- To achieve peace, we need to go to war

- COVID vaccines prevent transmission

The above are all lies. Do you think they should be censored and your free speech rights to say them restricted?

[ohio jones]

Truth does not need a bodyguard.

Are you sure? Why did the apostle Paul dedicate so much of his life and energy to the "defense of the Gospel."

Well, he did say this:

We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed.

... so I guess that left him playing defense. But even in that role, I think he focused more on proclaiming truth (as in his speeches in Acts 22-26) than attacking error.


-----

We aren't talking about truth

qft