/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3686567]

Does /lit/ support free speech? Including free speech of people who disagree with your beliefs/views?

[Anonymous No.3686570]

>not literature

[Anonymous No.3686571]

>>3686570
Of course it is. I'm referring to books or any other literature that disagree with society, and this of course spills into other views and beliefs.

[Anonymous No.3686574]

>>3686570

[Anonymous No.3686577]

What your favorite book op?
I

[Anonymous No.3686588]

>>3686577
Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn rand.

[Anonymous No.3686589]

This is probably coming from the /pol/ thread here >>>/pol/3193876.

Sage hide and move along.

[Anonymous No.3686594]

>>3686589
Oops >>/pol/3193876

[Anonymous No.3686599]

No, I don't agree with free speech.

If someone is publicly announcing something that will harm or severely disadvantage me, I want to shut them up.

[Anonymous No.3686600]

>>3686589
Goddamn keep fucking it up.

>>>/pol/13193876

[Anonymous No.3686602]

>>3686571

That's called "freedom of the press."

[Anonymous No.3686604]

>>3686589
But are you 100% sure?

Anyway what if I was from /pol/? Can't we have a mature discussion?

You hate free speech, don't you?

[Anonymous No.3686609]

>>3686599
That falls in line with threats of violence, which is illegal for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.3686612]

I guess I do. However, if I'm the leader of the government, and someone starts saying things that are not just harmful to me, but harmful to humanity, and then if people actually start listening to this moron, then yes I might do something about it.

[Anonymous No.3686617]

>>3686567
I'm all for freedom of speech as long as I have the freedom to kick someone in the face if they insult me.

[Anonymous No.3686630]

>>3686617
But that's not justified. It would be justified to insult them back to the same extent. An eye for an eye.

>>3686612
Even if what the person claims is true?

[Anonymous No.3686646]

I don't know, OP, do you believe that someone has the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater if the resulting stampede would kill numerous people in the crush to get out?

Do you believe that the freedom of speech of the man shouting (knowingly lying) is worth more than the people who would be killed as the result of his actions?

[Anonymous No.3686659]

We apparently can discuss philosophy, this is a philosophical question. Carry on.

[Anonymous No.3686663]

>>3686567

Is this thread about literature?

No?

Then fuck off. And fuck /pol/. I hate mullets.

[Anonymous No.3686664]

Why does /lit/ hate Ayn Rand? She's one of the best authors of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.3686670]

>>3686577
Das Kapital by Marx.

[Anonymous No.3686678]

>>3686567
I believe that speech is not something we should take lightly. It should not come freely but with deliberation and weight.

I say, let loose the censors, then we will see what of the dime-store anarchists has true conviction of his ideals. Then we'll see what things matter enough for a man to stand up for them, instead of sitting back in a comfortable armchair.

When speech is free, we cannot truly say anything. Free speech is the hyperreal.

[Anonymous No.3686765]

I've been speaking free all my life. Society rewarded me with an income for it.

[Anonymous No.3686796]

>>Does /lit/ support free speech? Including free speech of people who disagree with your beliefs/views?

Yes, and as far as I'm concerned both of those things are the same. We'll both say what we think and we can discuss or argue if we need to; and it's possible that we may disapprove of each other's attitudes, but that's the way it goes.

Over time I have met a few people who seem to think that "free speech" means "I will say what I want and no-one else can object or respond or ask me to explain or justify my views because that's infringing on my free speech," which I find baffling and pretty childish.

[Anonymous No.3687972]

>>3686630
If it was a criticism of my government, then it wouldn't be true.

[Anonymous No.3687982]

>>3686796
>Over time I have met a few people who seem to think that "free speech" means "I will say what I want and no-one else can object or respond or ask me to explain or justify my views because that's infringing on my free speech," which I find baffling and pretty childish.

This. Free speech surely includes, you know, the right to object - even loudly, and even en masse - to someone else's use of free speech - not on the grounds of their right or ability to say it, but certainly on the content of what they say.

[Anonymous No.3687986]

>>3686796
Those people are usually Republicans or Libertarians

[Anonymous No.3688012]

>>3686609
>adverse to violence

might makes right in these hyper subjective times, silence by death is still silence, you've won nothing when the battle is over who can impose the most power upon the other when you're standing for subjective stuff that doesn't impose itself naturally. you can't game you get washed and that's that

free speech is cool and always produces the most vibrant culture but what is and what isn't is a product of force and force is okay as long as you don't delude yourself about things

trying to digest and humanize things is stupid, society is natural because it exists, it is a product of our inherent character as socially pressured yet creative beings

[Anonymous No.3688020]

>>3686567
No, why would I? You're acting like I've never read the history of Weimar Germany.

[Anonymous No.3688024]

>>3688012
Gramsci, mate, Gramsci

[Anonymous No.3688025]

>>3686612
>harmful to humanity

you have so much blood pumping through you

you will never be free, you are the product of so many minor conquests and brutalizations and terrors inflicted as man worked himself out across dozens of millennia, you are and always will be a terror and a silencer, you are a creature of brutal conquest and exclusion in the name of life, this is what the universe wants

[Anonymous No.3688029]

>>3687986
>hurpa derpa

[Anonymous No.3688161]

>>3686602
/thread

Delete and try again, OP.