Why do liberals and Centrists love the marketplace of ideas so much? It's goes against a lot of historical facts and fetishizes free speech to the point some of these people call themselves free speech Fundamentalists.
Muh Free market of ideas
It's a meme, or to use the stirnerite meme, a spook. A simple platitude for Libs to reduce their arguments down to without the need to actually define or qualify them
Because if you keep your arguments within the realm of "I believe in the free flow of ideas within free speech", then you can easily claim to be open minded and enlightened while having to do no actual logical reasoning due to the fact that you can fall back on "well I disagree with you but I will protect your right to say it."
they only use it to bash ideas they don't like
It's an easy thing to champion when you don't really give a shit about anything.
Because if there are only opinions and no truths you can't be wrong while privately thinking that you are the chosen one.
If you really believe in a liberal worldview and find yourself in a pribeliged position socially and economically (or perceive that you are on the cusps of attaining it), it makes a lot of sense. Double points if you are blind to the way money amplifies the power of opinions.
If you can think like that, favouring free speech makes sense. If everyone feels safe to say what comes to mind, at least you'll know what your enemies might be thinking, things like that.
Because it makes it seem like liberalism is objectively superior to other ideologies and naturally rose to its hegemonic status that has nothing to do with all the violence perpetuated by the system (which, by the way, doesn't exist).
Another thing I hate is when they claim to be "the rational" choice, like everyone who disagree with them is actually mentally ill.
I d e o l o g y
This thread (and many before it) demonstrate that when you keep hating on liberals without qualification, you'll only attract authoritarians. Who also hate them, albeit for different reasons, and mistakenly believe they're in good company.
Liberalism is somewhat predicated on the idea that it can resolve anything peacefully if everyone is willing to play along to certain rules, as if they're all rational open minded people they could simply compromise or find out if one side is wrong so that they may reach the truth.
Oh hell, any "good" anarchist is authoritarian. The word is utterly meaningless when it comes to politics. Everyone has a vested interest in having their ideology "the chosen one".
That's why it's always so funny seeing Liberals whinge about "authoritarianism," when violence is done everyday to defend Liberal governments the world over. It's stupid to argue based on their definitions of things.
What a surprise.
Because they are right.
I don't have so much faith in anything
that I would ban criticism of it.
Because under this free market of ideas, innovation comes up more frequently.
It is a fact that in a controlled environment, new ideas may sometimes be judged unworthy or bad without being tried.
Reminder that the Byzantine emperor thought the guy who made the biggest gun was a scam artist, no such thing is possible, fuck off. Then he sold his gun to the Turks and they used it to break the walls of Constantinople.
An established intellectual aristocracy of sorts becomes conservative over time, and ignores innovation.
Criticism is pointless. You can criticize the liberal state every day and it'll change nothing. Words don't change the world, only action does. That's why freedom of speech is championed so, it's an excellent way to get people to relieve their frustrations in a pointless way.
You can't take meaningful action against the world if you don't know what's wrong with it specifically. Without critique there's no basis for action.
Oh, look, another authoritarian piece of subhuman garbage trying to abuse the word "market" in "free marketplace of ideas" to pretend that free speech is somehow right-wing. This is "'dictatorship of the proletariat' means literal totalitarian rule by the inner vanguard party, rather than simply referring to true democracy"-tier.
Oh, here it comes:
This is so incredibly retarded. How is it you think that making it 100% legal for the rich and powerful to simply criminalize opinions that disagree with the speech codes they would instantly have the greatest leverage over, would be an improvement over the status quo? And I don't mean "muh accelerationism", that could argue for anything up to legalized slavery.
Further, can anyone seriously say that allowing censorship even under a socialist order where porky has been deposed, wouldn't have a horribly corrosive effect on society and government compared to free speech?
This board is absolutely hilarious.
see the pic in
hope you get shot you prick
randalls original comic is so retarded. it was done in response to the CEO of firefox resigning after it was discovered he donated to an anti gay marriage campaign. His comic conflates free speech to the protection enumerated by the 1st amendment, when obviously is a concept that extends beyond that. For example, in California (and every decent country), where the CEO of firefox worked, the law protects employment due to political speech, No one may be fired, demoted, or pressured to resign due to political affiliations. So not only is Randall a neoliberal hack, not only his is comic intellectually wrong, it's fundamentally legally wrong as well. The comic is literally worthless.
I'm instantly suspicious when I hear market terms applied to anything outside of an actual fucking market.