A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.
Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently.
You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.
While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.
The examples you're listing aren't just words. They're actions.
I could say I'm going to deny your health insurance, or deny entry of your type to my group, or sue you for something. But notice how me saying any of these things don't actually have any immediate effect on you, because I don't control your health insurance or moderate a group you want to be in, or know who you are to sue you.
I can use words to convince people who do control those things to do things to you, but you can convince them not to, and convince others to do the same thing to me. The value of free speech is in replacing these conflicts that would otherwise be physical violence with words. Human nature didn't change. We still fight all the time, but with words.
They're words with consequences, backed by law and the freedom of companies doing all they're permitted to do; but fundamentally just words. Contracts are just words, but words with meaning and power, because we all agree to play by those rules.
>You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.
None of these is "just words" lol. The words just convey something that will or won't be done. All of these examples are overly dramatic too. I too wish I lived in a world where nobody could tell me "no" but that'll never happen. If someone has lots of money and you don't, they probably won't sue you. Especially for a petty reason. There's not enough to gain from that.
>While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.
Violence is physical. People are only trying to claim a connection because they want to censor their enemies using one of the exceptions to free speech, which is when there is threat of imminent violence. As nasty or unpleasant as words may be, they bear no resemblence to actual violence. And no, you don't get to censor people because they say stuff that you feel bad about. The whole point of free speech is to allow the expression of unpopular and unpleasant words. Please get your language right and stop trying to gaslight the rest of us into a censorship program. Thank you for your attention to this matter lol
>If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest themselves in reality.
What does this mean? That if people aren't able to express or relieve themselves of some horrible act then some people will be more likely to do something bad?
Like if a person can't be racist against Muslims on Facebook (due to it being illegal) they will be more likely to harm Muslims physically?
> But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence.
No this is bullshit. The Nazis didn't kill the jews because they couldn't say mean things about them. The Nazis didn't purposely target trans people and gay people and mentally challenged people and political opponents because they couldn't slag them publicly.
Germany did not become Nazis because of any lack of free speech. People were talking about how horrifying the Nazis were right up until they were put in camps.
Christ.
The Civil War didn't happen because people weren't able to say black people are lesser (which they were always able to say and still are)
This take is detached from history.
How much violence did Native Americans avoid by getting to say how awful they were being treated? They were never muzzled, so why did they still end up basically ethnically cleansed?
These are examples of minorities being oppressed through physical violence. Minorities are still oppressed in democratic societies today because a democratic society by definition prioritizes the majority's interests.
The difference is oppression used to be physical and involved a lot of killing, now it is done through non-violent means through words. That's what I meant by words replacing violence.
No, that oppression definitely involved plenty of words before. The natives were "savages" and "in the way" and "weren't using the land" we said.
Southern preachers insisted that being enslaved was the black man's rightful place, as god intended, because they were naturally less intelligent and "savage" and needed good guidance from the white man.
I'm tired, after hundreds of years, of people still insisting "no no no, just a little more information freedom and humans will magically fix all their natural biases and magically stop acting like humans and magically stop believing what is comfortable instead of what is provably correct"
It's absolutely good to be much closer to the "Freer" side of that spectrum than the "government enforced muzzle" side, but I'm so tired of people insisting that we can't possibly wiggle around a little bit on the spectrum to find maybe a better place.
Oppression does not come from what laws you have. Oppression comes from how power works. It doesn't matter what laws you have on the books if you put people in charge who do not give a shit about them. It doesn't matter if you have the first amendment if you elect enough people to just disregard it and even change it if you want.
Rules aren't real. Rules don't matter unless you can enforce them. If you allow oppressive people into power, it doesn't matter how many times you write "don't oppress people"
What oppression has free speech demonstrably stopped?
> I'm tired, after hundreds of years, of people still insisting "no no no, just a little more information freedom and humans will magically fix all their natural biases and magically stop acting like humans and magically stop believing what is comfortable instead of what is provably correct"
But we are fixing our natural biases over time to get to the technological civilization we have today. Our beliefs align better with reality today than 500 years ago. That's why we can build computers which we're using to talk right now, but couldn't 500 years ago. Everybody is better off compared to 500 years ago. Information sharing accelerates this process.
> What oppression has free speech demonstrably stopped?
Free speech doesn't stop oppression, it replaces violence. Oppression is in human nature, or rather, in nature in general. When two individuals that share a local region of reality have misaligned wishes, they interfere with eachother. But how they interfere matters. Free speech changes the method of interaction, but not the essence of competition.
Two perfectly rational people can agree on a shared model of reality yet not agree on what actions to take next. People, although more similar than different, have different preferences. A modern democratic society simply places the majority's wishes first and oppresses minorities non-violently. It allows open negotiation to balance these wishes without resorting to violence.
Attacking one of the essential pillars of this society doesn't stop oppression, it just risks bringing back a worse form of it.
> If the regime is able to do this because of speech
Okay but that's a big "IF". I suspect a regime attempting to do that might be promulgating a significant amount of propaganda, but I doubt that they're able to be oppressive "because of speech".
What about loss of upward mobility for the middle class, or loss of living wages, mismanaged public institutions, corruption, bribery, collapse of democratic process?
All of this enables or sustains oppressive regimes and doesn't require any kind of speech from citizens. And without these kinds of serious problems, citizens barking nonsense won't result in much. Hindering free speech only makes it easier for a regime to continue to exacerbate these serious problems and continue oppression without being called out.
