Against Xkcd 1357 (2020)

How should someone be treated who has made it clear that they will never follow the Golden Rule, no matter how they're treated? Because that's the situation we appear to find ourselves in.

I find it useful, although not particularly encouraging, to think in terms of the Prisoners' Dilemma. In theory, initial co-operation followed by judicious application of the golden rule will lead to both parties converging on the best outcome. But if one party makes it clear that they will always betray the other (and demands that the other stay silent, in order to give the first party their desired better outcome) how should the other respond?

Sure, cooperation (silence) is objectively the better choice. But once you are confident it will always be met with betrayal, what does the correct or best action become?

And that's setting aside the inherent quality of the speech in question. "Drinking bleach is awesome and you should chug as much as possible as soon as you get home," and "washing your hands is good and should be done frequently" are not equivalent, nor should they be treated as such.

There are no ideas in that "article" at all. It's a complaint list, and it's not even clear what the complaint is about. The only positive comparison is to the "moral" lives of rural Indians, Hondurans, and Somalians -- who are known to be some of the poorest people in the world and living under great suffering. This fact is not conveyed by the author but rather conveniently overlooked.

Blame me for thinking correlation equals causation in this case, but the prima facie evidence is overwhelming that democratic societies which encourage a free market and free speech do have better standards of living for their citizens. Despotism and totalitarian rulemaking from above, including rules about speech, have proven again and again to lead to desperate poverty and economic ruin. Free speech and free business go together, hand-in-hand.

I would not, for a second, want the US to become like China or Russia where the state decides which speech must (and, obviously, what must not) be carried by publishers, media, and artists. But freedom of speech goes both ways. In other words, every person and every business must also have the right to not speak if they choose not to, as illustrated in the XKCD comic. A newspaper or website is not compelled to address the latest lunatic cause or non-scientific theory, nor to give it coverage. The owners of that media, as free individuals, must choose which speech they want to hold up and convey and which they deny or ignore.