[H]

Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).

It's also (seemingly) essential to whatever we want to call it, liberty, freedom, efficacy, etc.

The thing is, and too many people seem to have a very hard time understanding this practically, that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence or freedom from responsibility for speech.  Also, it doesn't guarantee a forum; for example, the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire).  No one says you can't say the word "fire," however, you can't yell it in a place that where doing so would cause a danger.  In the same way, not speaking of "danger" however but perhaps more abstractly of "harm," no one is "entitled" to have their videos hosted by say, Facebook or YouTube.

[Wilshire]

Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!

[TaoHorror]

Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!

I'm not "sticking up" for Harris - I'm neutral to him ( like some stuff, some I don't ), but I think he was referring to violent speech, not simply people who believe in Shariah Law, for example ( although I would gather he would fret over that line ). I agree with you, if he said this, it's a mistake of intellect and argumentation. If I'm right, he should make it very clear that he's referring to violent speech ( and even then, I would have to think it through more to determine if I agree or not, as you say, very dicey logic we're dealing with here ). If someone is directing those who are oppressed should violently attack their oppressors, there are some contexts where it would be legitimate to kill said director.

[H]

Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!

Well, I really don't know much about Harris, in reality either.  From what I have seen, he is generally pretty smart.  So, chances are good that if he said something, he had a definite agenda in doing so.  I mean, the little I have read from him makes it seem that he likes to take some hard-line objectivity stance and then back it up with "scientific" rationale.  Possibly a noble endeavor, but flawed all the same...

Taken in isolation, it probably is true, that some ideas are so detrimental to have and to hold that it would be best that those that hold them simply did not exist.  The issue of course is, who gets to be the arbiter of that?  What is the threshold criterion for expunging such?  The problem comes in the humans are irredeemably (yes, I mean that literally) biased.  That includes humans engaged in science.  So, I'd distinctly reject the idea that science could or should be the arbiter.  So, then, we are back in the lurch for how we could know what is "too dangerous" and what isn't.

I believe the Harris is firmly against any sort of "transcendental" ideas.  While objectively factual, you are going to be missing something with that kind of hard line.

[themerchant]

Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).

It's also (seemingly) essential to whatever we want to call it, liberty, freedom, efficacy, etc.

The thing is, and too many people seem to have a very hard time understanding this practically, that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence or freedom from responsibility for speech.  Also, it doesn't guarantee a forum; for example, the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire).  No one says you can't say the word "fire," however, you can't yell it in a place that where doing so would cause a danger.  In the same way, not speaking of "danger" however but perhaps more abstractly of "harm," no one is "entitled" to have their videos hosted by say, Facebook or YouTube.

Free speech is essentially the government cant prosecute you for the content of what you say generally. It's not people have to employ you regardless of what crazy shit you say.

Folk like to stand behind a shield that only exists in their mind.

[themerchant]

He didn't even do his own experiments from which his phd is based on. I consider him pretty useless, but his politics are so opposed to mine and he advocates for so much violence that I probably can't judge him objectively on other subjects.

I just have a problem with folk who advocate fighting for some cause but then won't join up to fight themselves. All around my locality families have ancestors who walked to Spain in the 1930's to fight Franco and Fascism a lot didn't come back. Scottish volunteers made up 25% of the total numbers of the international brigade.

I just don't like the dude. I'm very biased.

[Wilshire]

I just don't like the dude. I'm very biased.

Hey at least you're aware. 90% of the time most people don't get that far.