DuckDuckGo gives me plenty of results for articles, but if I switch to an image search I get âSorry, no results here.â
Firefox on Windows 10, Spectrum Broadband.
7 Likes
I did the same search; same results. My next search term was âassholes!â
7 Likes
I did the search you suggested, neglected to turn safe search back on. I have regrets.
13 Likes
Same for me on Firefox for desktop. Very funky.
ETA: Putting in âtank man chinaâ shows the image though.
5 Likes
Your timezone places you in Europe somewhere?
3 Likes
Not this week. Opposite side of the world.
1 Like
I never turned off safe search just in case âtank manâ itself returned regrettable results. 
6 Likes
Found him on Bing, but it took a few tries:
Man in Tiananmen Square China
pulled him up for me.
5 Likes
just in case âtank manâ itself returned regrettable results.
tank man married tub girl.
1 Like
I think Iâll watch Tank Girl tonight.
9 Likes
Not only do I get the tank man picture when I search Tank Man, when I search âTiananmen Squareâ the first hit is the wikipedia article on the protests with Tank Man being a subheader. Not sure whatâs going on with others.
5 Likes
For me, at least, the context in which the expression is used is relevant.
If on one hand the user is specifically referencing the fact that the Supreme Court (Justice Holmeâs in particular) used the phrase to excuse unjust punishment of an anti-war protestor to claim that the US government recognizes limits on protected speech, then that decision by the White court matters, as does the later narrowing of the precedent by the Warren court to incitement of imminent lawless action. Misunderstanding the law helps no one, and this is what former federal prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney Ken White (AKA Popehat) pushes back against. For me that doesnât make him a First Amendment fanatic, but YMMV.
If on the other hand the user is simply using the expression as a shorthand for Karl Popperâs quite reasonable Paradox of Tolerance, then bringing up the historical context of the SCOTUS decisions is irrelevant, because the expression has evolved to mean something else in that context.
People use it both ways, and often conflate the two, especially on Twitter where nuance goes to die. In this instance I disagree with Ken White because in my estimation President Biden was using it in the Popperian sense. But the President hasnât been very clear on that and I would love to see him use the bully pulpit to make that distinction, because it would be more useful than anything else so far in conveying the contextual distinction to those who arenât aware of it and rebuking bad faith bears who are but deliberately conflate the issue.
7 Likes
Ask them if they would yell âBomb!â whilst on an airplane, and maybe that analogy will resonate betterâŚ
15 Likes
There is an idea that mobs and crowds cause otherwise rational individuals to lose their minds, and become part of something savage, and vicious, and dangerous.
There is also the idea that free speechâs role in a free society is about letting people have access to evidence and new ideas that can be mulled over, examined critically, and either discarded or integrated into oneâs consciences according to their merit.
When the expression âFIREâ, is shouted in a crowded theater, people can panic, and act on instinct, rather than critically examining the available evidence and choosing the most rationale course of action.
so a great many free speech claims were examined on whether they are designed to appeal to logic and reason or whether they appealed to baser, perhaps even prurient interests. I think that this was what Holmes was attempting to setup-- is it persuasive speech or an emotional, appeal to the âmobâsâ rumored propensity for violence.
Or it could be that Holmes was completely on the wrong track, even considering later decisions like Whitney Abrams and Gitlow.
As for Popper, he may have clarified things in later pieces, but perhaps it is wiser to start with disarming right wing paramilitaries and using the principles of piecemeal social engineering, find an acceptable compromise more firmly delineating âfree speechâ and âspeech brigaded with action.â
3 Likes
Thatâs a great idea. Iâm going to start using that analogy.
9 Likes
There is an idea, but like many social theories, itâs a model that often gets proffered as natural law whereby it becomes a version of the sheeple fallacy ignoring the agency and complex dynamics of those with whom those proffering it disagree. In other words, in practice itâs routinely used by supercilious bad faith bears to imply that âthose liberalsâ are too dumb to be trusted to think for themselves.
If anyone thinks Iâm exaggerating, google the fascistic Newspeak jackasses who bloviate under the bullshit banner of the âDark Enlightenmentâ. I wonât link to them however because frankly Iâve scrapped better things off the sole of my shoe.
7 Likes
i took a couple of ed. psych. courses on my way to becoming a teacher. one of my profs said the best way to understand mob psychology was to take the average i.q. of the crowd and then divide that by the number in the crowd. iâm not sure whether she was far off the mark. certainly being part of a group can provide reinforcements which normalize transgressive behaviors which makes it easier for someone to do things as part of a group that they might not have done had they been in an individualized setting. nevertheless, i still find it unlikely that, even with the encouragement and reinforcement of a crowd, someone is going to do something in opposition to their internal beliefs.
11 Likes
The thing that I donât like about all these references to the Holmes case is that I just donât really believe that the phrase has some important, lasting tie to that case. Itâs weird to me that people attribute those words to that particular judge. I realize that judge wrote those words down in a decision, but why would we be confident it wasnât a phrase that was around before that?
I donât live in America. Iâm not âprotectedâ by the first Amendment. If you yelled âfire!â in a crowded theater in Canada and there was a panic and someone died, you may well be charged with manslaughter. Thatâs true regardless of what some judge wrote in said in America in 1919.
I donât think that âfire in a crowded theaterâ has some special connection to bad slippery slope arguments either. People make bad slippery slope arguments about everything.
I feel like Iâm saying, âStrike while the iron is hot!â and someone else is saying, âHey, over 100 years ago, in a ruling that was basically overturned more than 50 years ago, a judge in America used that phrase as part of a fallacious argument to justify something bad, so you really shouldnât say that.â My reaction is to screw up my face at them and wonder what the hell they are on about.
13 Likes
I think because sometimes - maybe not most of the time, but not a trivial fraction either - folks in the US in particular are using the expression as an illustration of the SCOTUS putting an explicit limit on protected speech which implies Holmeâs usage, which creates either inadvertent or deliberate confusion about where the SCOTUS actually stands. And again, other times theyâre often just using it as generic expression, which is why for me the context of usage matters. But I can absolutely see that this would be odd and even bizarre to those outside the US. For that matter, itâs odd and bizarre to many of us in the US.
I agree entirely. The vast majority of slippery slope arguments are complete bullshit and this case is no exception.
6 Likes
Statistically speaking, this feels off the mark. Prone to being skewed by outliers. Also, IQ is already relative (a quotient, and a moving average as such).
Psychologically speaking, this also feels off the mark. IQ tests are quite specific to measuring cognitive abilities, i.e. testing problem solving skills in a very narrow field of cognition.
Aggressive behaviour, sometimes arises in otherwise rational individuals. What @jerwin said above was pointing to groups, but even a group of very rational and intelligent individuals can do terrible things. My take would be: IQ has nothing to do with this.
1 Like
