I’m with you that the personal attack was rude, and he likely lost support for his side on that issue by including it.
But I don’t agree that the effect extends to lost support for free speech in general. It is commonly understood that rude speech is the most important kind of speech to defend, since it is the “front line” where the forces opposing free speech are most active.
Dave is surely aware of this too. He says rude things all the time, probably intentionally, because when documented they become fortifications which are actually harder to break through. I’m pretty sure he has outright declared an intention to get things wrong sometimes, but I can’t find the quote.
Sure (and good points), but in the context here - quoting Chappelle on civil discourse and free speech I think it's important to question the consistency when such uncivil jibes are aimed from a position of power at a hate figure.
In context, the phrase “civil discourse” has an alternative meaning that you arrive at by substituting the first dictionary definition of the word “civil”:
> 1. relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters.
It’s a brilliant argument that works on two levels: violence is the only alternative to free speech, and raw and ugly honesty can lead to greater understanding.
But I don’t agree that the effect extends to lost support for free speech in general. It is commonly understood that rude speech is the most important kind of speech to defend, since it is the “front line” where the forces opposing free speech are most active.
Dave is surely aware of this too. He says rude things all the time, probably intentionally, because when documented they become fortifications which are actually harder to break through. I’m pretty sure he has outright declared an intention to get things wrong sometimes, but I can’t find the quote.