I question how accurately using a survey alone really answers this question. Some people would never admit(or even think) they're against free speech--at least until they see speech they deem too dangerous to be allowed. We have seen this on college campuses lately. We've seen this during the 'War on Terror'. It's the same result even if their initial beliefs are different.
John Stuart Mill recognised over 150 years ago that free speech was only free if it was honest, good faith, polite discourse. Allowing it to descend into lies and ad hominems only benefits the elite who have the greatest resources to shout down dissent, in which case it's not really free if you're setting it up to favour one side. Not unsurprising Boomers would prefer the system that benefits them.
And every time someone voices your/his very reasonable point a whole group of people invoke near solipsism and "But WHOSE truth" the people making this statement are usually either boosters for obvious liars (who complained about community notes and other annotation tools) or are are weaponized pendants (outside the areas they personally rely on for income) to the point of understanding nothing.
I guess we should attempt nothing and just embrace 60% of people being convinced there is no facts or evidence for a universe older than 6k years (not to attack religion), lets just embrace the impossibility of knowing.
It's all just weaponized mendacious stupidity where people ignore history and people completely forget about relying on doing bank transactions or the fact that we have working chain of custody processes/systems.
I don't think it is about being anti free speech, but rather there exists such extreme evils in our society that sometimes necessitate action, in the view of some.
Definitely my take-away as well. I think the paradox of tolerance is just being understood more as they grow up in these conditions. You have people advocating for eradication of entire populations, some are going to see that as worth stopping at all costs.
this is just a measure of fear of reprisals against the indivual bieng questioned,virtualy, online, where one group has faced the consequences of mouthing off, in person, and the other never has
lets run this again, with ME asking the questions, wearing my full motherfucker regailia with whatever the last impliment I was useing in my hand, right up close where they can SMELL just how fucking tweeky I am
after 10 days in the woods.
We've had decades of failed 'sit down and talk it out.' When do we recognize that it's a failed strategy like lowering taxes or communism? Like these, proponents will inevitably claim we haven't tried it hard enough. That's why it doesn't pass the sniff test.
I question how accurately using a survey alone really answers this question. Some people would never admit(or even think) they're against free speech--at least until they see speech they deem too dangerous to be allowed. We have seen this on college campuses lately. We've seen this during the 'War on Terror'. It's the same result even if their initial beliefs are different.
It’s because younger people are more emotional and extreme. Nothing to do with “Gen Z”.
John Stuart Mill recognised over 150 years ago that free speech was only free if it was honest, good faith, polite discourse. Allowing it to descend into lies and ad hominems only benefits the elite who have the greatest resources to shout down dissent, in which case it's not really free if you're setting it up to favour one side. Not unsurprising Boomers would prefer the system that benefits them.
And every time someone voices your/his very reasonable point a whole group of people invoke near solipsism and "But WHOSE truth" the people making this statement are usually either boosters for obvious liars (who complained about community notes and other annotation tools) or are are weaponized pendants (outside the areas they personally rely on for income) to the point of understanding nothing.
I guess we should attempt nothing and just embrace 60% of people being convinced there is no facts or evidence for a universe older than 6k years (not to attack religion), lets just embrace the impossibility of knowing.
It's all just weaponized mendacious stupidity where people ignore history and people completely forget about relying on doing bank transactions or the fact that we have working chain of custody processes/systems.
I don't think it is about being anti free speech, but rather there exists such extreme evils in our society that sometimes necessitate action, in the view of some.
Definitely my take-away as well. I think the paradox of tolerance is just being understood more as they grow up in these conditions. You have people advocating for eradication of entire populations, some are going to see that as worth stopping at all costs.
I think it's less about the extremity of evil and more about lacking the means to get rid of it in a more civil manner.
"when the game is rigged its justified to flip the table"
It is tho’ Naive not to
bullshit
this is just a measure of fear of reprisals against the indivual bieng questioned,virtualy, online, where one group has faced the consequences of mouthing off, in person, and the other never has
lets run this again, with ME asking the questions, wearing my full motherfucker regailia with whatever the last impliment I was useing in my hand, right up close where they can SMELL just how fucking tweeky I am after 10 days in the woods.
whats that?, cat got your tounge?
We've had decades of failed 'sit down and talk it out.' When do we recognize that it's a failed strategy like lowering taxes or communism? Like these, proponents will inevitably claim we haven't tried it hard enough. That's why it doesn't pass the sniff test.