A little late, but here is my take on free speech and Nazis.....I fully support the right to free speech, EVEN for Nazis....Why? If they dont have the confidence to speak freely without being punished for the act of speech, then how will we identify and stalk them? If they want to reveal themselves with speech, let them. Then they will come under scrutiny and we can attack them on a different basis, but if we punish the speech itself then how will we track them?
The liberation of the many will, lets be honest, be profoundly oppressive for today's present elites. The fact is with a system change there will clearly be people that want things to go back to the way they were. How do you square this with freedom of speech? If someone begins rallying ex-capitalists to the cause of abolishing anarchy they will have to be dealt with. That is, the commune/collective/whatever would have to repress their freedom of speech. What are your thoughts?
my initial thoughts are that youre a complete fucking moron, or youre still in high school. why bother to abolish the state if youre going to have to organize the use of force for the curtailment of individual freedom?
The freedom of speech issue is interesting and I think i think there are two issues for anarchists to discuss; whether we should support freedom of speech under present conditions (somewhat reformist and a bit of a waste of time imo) and whether a libertarian society would endorse freedom of speech.
The second issue is actually hardly that clear, I think, especially when we consider the realities of a revolutionary upheaval,
LM has a tendency to expound on things he disagrees about. We do this shit all the time on stickam, and it makes for good debates. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for the best videos.
If you get the chance to do future interviews, I would recommend avoiding the topics you disagree about. The conversations can last for hours. :)
Great interview!!! You're doing a great work and it's a good answer to those haters who say that you're not open for conversation with people that disagree with you in some points.
But hum.. are you drinking an empty glass at some point?¿? :P
I think Laughingman's position on the media is not well grounded. The issue in this case really isn't freedom of speech.... the corporate media is an institution that acted as an arm of the state leading up and during the war. It did so in a systematic faction, and certainly contributed to making the invasion possible.
Freedom of speech should be protected for individuals, but not for entities like corporations (like the media) or the state,.
And he cited Chomsky's position on freedom of speech more than once, but ignores Chomsky's media analysis, which stands separate (as it should), and does hold the media (and the intellectual culture as a whole) partly responsible for the various atrocities committed by the US and other powers.
I always took the unconditional position that free speech must apply to views you abhor, but I've come to understand that it's not quite so simple. If workers control the means of production and distribution, as they should, then they're not going to want to produce or distribute paper, etc., to anti-worker publications. Those who hold anti-worker views are entitled to rant and rave on the street corner, but they can't compel workers to provide them with the means to spread those views.
We are and should be responsible for what we do not do. Unless you want to argue that all the people in Nazi Germany didn't have any responsibility. I can certainly understand why people choose for acquiescence given the circumstances. However in my opinion we should always push the limits of what we feel we should do, regardless of the social context that exists. It's the scariest human feature, the way people see all these terrible things happening and do not act according to their principles.
I don't agree with the statement "people aren't responsible for what they don't do", with that thought none of the despots and tyrants such as Hitler or Bush would be responsible for what other people did under their leadership and commands.
While I'm sympathetic to both sides, an issue arises for me that so much of Western discourse could be construed - and not even that far - as being incitement to mass killing. Given that much of Western, especially American, political discourse has reached a consensus on a certain corporate-state military apparatus that routinely destroys populations all over the world, one could argue that anyone participating in that is responsible for that scale of mass killing.
Yeah he seems 100% more alive when he interviews people doesnt he? During monologues he seems exasperated haha. He should do more interviews/friendly debates.
Great vid as always. Thatnks to your vids ideas that I had never considered entered my thoughts thanks for that. As for the drink thing, I could care less, you could be juggling for all I care. This is'nt CNN or Fox, where emphasis is on showmanship rather than straight facts and contructive dialog.
I'm relying on a distinction between speech and other types of action, however a reasonable case may be made that speech and communication is just as valid an "action" as any other type.
Yeah, the drink was a bit distracting, but other than that the interview was excellent. You were able to keep it moving along nicely and then wrap it up well. Is there a part 2?
Anyway, good video with two very smart guys. And I didn't find the drinking distracting at all. That guy who kept coming up to you on the street while you were reading- now that was distracting. But it was also pretty funny.
A little late, but here is my take on free speech and Nazis.....I fully support the right to free speech, EVEN for Nazis....Why? If they dont have the confidence to speak freely without being punished for the act of speech, then how will we identify and stalk them? If they want to reveal themselves with speech, let them. Then they will come under scrutiny and we can attack them on a different basis, but if we punish the speech itself then how will we track them?
roguedjinn 8 months ago
Im in Santa Cruz. Are you local?
roguedjinn 8 months ago
lol, he doesnt make eye contact atall.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
you guys need to sit down
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
Drink away, good interview. Do you guys still drink fluoride...it doesn't seem like it....
ksquared83 1 year ago
The liberation of the many will, lets be honest, be profoundly oppressive for today's present elites. The fact is with a system change there will clearly be people that want things to go back to the way they were. How do you square this with freedom of speech? If someone begins rallying ex-capitalists to the cause of abolishing anarchy they will have to be dealt with. That is, the commune/collective/whatever would have to repress their freedom of speech. What are your thoughts?
Olly420 2 years ago
@olly420
my initial thoughts are that youre a complete fucking moron, or youre still in high school. why bother to abolish the state if youre going to have to organize the use of force for the curtailment of individual freedom?
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
The freedom of speech issue is interesting and I think i think there are two issues for anarchists to discuss; whether we should support freedom of speech under present conditions (somewhat reformist and a bit of a waste of time imo) and whether a libertarian society would endorse freedom of speech.
The second issue is actually hardly that clear, I think, especially when we consider the realities of a revolutionary upheaval,
Olly420 2 years ago
It is somewhat strange and ironic that Mr.1001nights is making what is essentially a conservative argument.
DeraJa 2 years ago
the glass is empty, stop drinking out of it.
DeraJa 2 years ago 2
the main topic is an interesting question.
Perhaps we just need more effort from people to debunk wrong claims? Increased Communication?
Thats what you guys work for correct?
CypherSystem 2 years ago
Great interview. Love the tee shirt!
porkchopexpress07 2 years ago
mr1001nights, the left hand of lenin! -)
kaufmann789 2 years ago 5
FUCK YEAH
BETTER DEAD THAN RED!
Lamnont 2 years ago
That can be arranged.
Arkinight 2 years ago 2
LM has a tendency to expound on things he disagrees about. We do this shit all the time on stickam, and it makes for good debates. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for the best videos.
If you get the chance to do future interviews, I would recommend avoiding the topics you disagree about. The conversations can last for hours. :)
Sepero1 2 years ago
Great interview!!! You're doing a great work and it's a good answer to those haters who say that you're not open for conversation with people that disagree with you in some points.
But hum.. are you drinking an empty glass at some point?¿? :P
JayDee2k9 2 years ago
Great job, guys. I'm going to wait and watch the other before I really comment.
buddhagem 2 years ago
I think Laughingman's position on the media is not well grounded. The issue in this case really isn't freedom of speech.... the corporate media is an institution that acted as an arm of the state leading up and during the war. It did so in a systematic faction, and certainly contributed to making the invasion possible.
Freedom of speech should be protected for individuals, but not for entities like corporations (like the media) or the state,.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
And he cited Chomsky's position on freedom of speech more than once, but ignores Chomsky's media analysis, which stands separate (as it should), and does hold the media (and the intellectual culture as a whole) partly responsible for the various atrocities committed by the US and other powers.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
I always took the unconditional position that free speech must apply to views you abhor, but I've come to understand that it's not quite so simple. If workers control the means of production and distribution, as they should, then they're not going to want to produce or distribute paper, etc., to anti-worker publications. Those who hold anti-worker views are entitled to rant and rave on the street corner, but they can't compel workers to provide them with the means to spread those views.
DummyMagnet 2 years ago 6
We are and should be responsible for what we do not do. Unless you want to argue that all the people in Nazi Germany didn't have any responsibility. I can certainly understand why people choose for acquiescence given the circumstances. However in my opinion we should always push the limits of what we feel we should do, regardless of the social context that exists. It's the scariest human feature, the way people see all these terrible things happening and do not act according to their principles.
Cosbibi 2 years ago
"We are and should be responsible for what we do not do...However in my opinion we should always push the limits of what we feel we should do"
Couldnt agree more. We agree on everything, its annoying. :)
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
I don't agree with the statement "people aren't responsible for what they don't do", with that thought none of the despots and tyrants such as Hitler or Bush would be responsible for what other people did under their leadership and commands.
josealonsoleon 2 years ago
While I'm sympathetic to both sides, an issue arises for me that so much of Western discourse could be construed - and not even that far - as being incitement to mass killing. Given that much of Western, especially American, political discourse has reached a consensus on a certain corporate-state military apparatus that routinely destroys populations all over the world, one could argue that anyone participating in that is responsible for that scale of mass killing.
jammoexii 2 years ago
good stuff...You're a very good interviewer mr1001
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
Agreed, I like these last few videos a lot! In your monologues you always have this annoying sigh :D. Mr1001- Chomsky interview incoming?
Cosbibi 2 years ago
Buddhagem interviewed Chomsky on May Day, I will post it soon. :) cheers
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Oh shits! Badass...cant wait.
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
Great news
JayDee2k9 2 years ago
Yeah he seems 100% more alive when he interviews people doesnt he? During monologues he seems exasperated haha. He should do more interviews/friendly debates.
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
clash of the titans, lol
free484 2 years ago
Great vid as always. Thatnks to your vids ideas that I had never considered entered my thoughts thanks for that. As for the drink thing, I could care less, you could be juggling for all I care. This is'nt CNN or Fox, where emphasis is on showmanship rather than straight facts and contructive dialog.
Suorrel 2 years ago 3
only action violates freedom, not speech
suppress and prevent only harmful action
I'm relying on a distinction between speech and other types of action, however a reasonable case may be made that speech and communication is just as valid an "action" as any other type.
JTravisRolko 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
anarchist community isn't that a contradiction in terms
alienraven 2 years ago
how do you figure? a community is a voluntary asociation of people with a common goal.
fede2 2 years ago
wsup. i wanna meet up with you guys sometime! :]
rlvowell 2 years ago
Yeah, the drink was a bit distracting, but other than that the interview was excellent. You were able to keep it moving along nicely and then wrap it up well. Is there a part 2?
rubbleofempires 2 years ago
"HA"
KenCat1337 2 years ago
Anyway, good video with two very smart guys. And I didn't find the drinking distracting at all. That guy who kept coming up to you on the street while you were reading- now that was distracting. But it was also pretty funny.
McCainTheTurdburglar 2 years ago 4
Drinking in the middle of an interview?
careful about that stuff for future videos.
AndyMH182 2 years ago
thanks, I always try to be careful about what I drink
mr1001nights 2 years ago
haha, just saying that it was rather distracting.
AndyMH182 2 years ago
yep, a bit distracting.
taliajazel 2 years ago
Would be funny if he did a spit take.
Wonder what Laughing Man would think of the djs at Radio Rwanda and RTLM?
McCainTheTurdburglar 2 years ago 3