5 ms·

I have nothing against books and I'm firmly against censorship. I've read about half of Mein Kampf myself, only because of curiosity. However, when it comes to

I have nothing against books and I'm firmly against censorship. I've read about half of Mein Kampf myself, only because of curiosity. However, when it comes to extremists, I think you're wrong. You see, this is a war of attrition they are playing, bringing forth the same arguments, discussing the same hateful ideas, only packaged differently, over and over again. And you see, the moderates, the liberals, the ones combating such ideas, get tired and move on, or are silenced through harassment. There is no useful dialog one can have with a far right supporter. And you think debates are healthy, yet they wouldn't give you that privilege if they were in power. The irony being that the liberties we liberals believe in are being used against us.

A_COMPUTER 11y ago
You're not wrong, but you've got a political blind spot if you don't think there are people on the left that do the same thing re. repackaging and resubmitting ideas, or if you don't see the contingent of the left that is against free speech.
- bad_user 11y ago
  I'm not sure what the "left" or "right" are these days. Certainly these definitions have changed in such a way as to leave the impression that there's only one axis and that there are only 2 sides. I have plenty of ideas and beliefs that now would fall on the right of the political spectrum. I don't deny that there are people on the "left" going against free speech. As somebody born under communism, I have a similar level of disdain for extremists of all colors. That said, you know that old saying "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins"? Well, I think this also applies to freedom of speech. No freedom should be absolute, not when it goes in conflict with other human rights that are just as important, like the right for fair treatment and for being innocent until proven guilty. This is why the constitution of many countries, including my own, grants the freedom of speech only for as long as it's not hate speech targeted at groups based on race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. And I happen to agree with that.
- xzi 11y ago
  There's part of the Right which is against free speech too. Has been for decades. All those campaigns against "immoral" literature, movies, music, television. The "Watch what you say" Bush Administration. The Republican-led state governments who prevent their own scientists from talking about climate change. The right-wing religious colleges which police not only what is said and done on campus, but also heavily regulate off-campus behavior as well. Even the heavy censorship and downvoting in online right wing communities and subreddits. Why these groups get a free pass from many people who yell at the left about free speech, I'll never understand. Maybe the response will be something along the lines of "The Right is so big and covers so many people you can't blame all of them." But you could say the same about the Left. Covers many, many ideologies and sub-ideologies.
  - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
    Generally nobody has to be reminded that many on the right aren't fans of free speech. But people have to be constantly reminded that there are people on the left that aren't fans of free speech.
  - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
    Of course, there are opponents of free speech on the left and the right. There are also proponents of free speech on the left and the right. And when speaking strictly of the US political spectrum, it's fair to say that the neither side is more opposed to speech than the other.
JamilD 11y ago
And who gets to define who has ideas that are unacceptable anyway? Who gets to accuse ideology x of "repackaging and resubmitting ideas"? Whose speech do we shut down, and whose do we allow? > And you think debates are healthy, yet they wouldn't give you that privilege if they were in power. So we deny them the privilege of debate, because we're afraid that if they get into power, they'll deny us the privilege of debate?
- bad_user 11y ago
  Oh, that's simple, unacceptable ideas are the ones that have historically led to genocide and hate speech qualifies.
  - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
    Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide? Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians? If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned? What if some religious ideologues got control of the government and used hate speech laws to band criticism of religion? Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn? I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country.
    - bad_user 11y ago
      Oh come on, is that the best straw man you're capable of? Surely can do better than that. > "Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide?" Genocide is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. I don't think the definition is subjective in any way. > "Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians?" I don't know much of US's history, but there are scholars that believe the decline in population of American Indians was genocidal. > "If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned?" What is this "ideological basis of America" that you're referring to? Is it the US constitution? Does the US constitution invite to racism and genocide of American Indians? Are you seriously going to argue that genocide is a matter of interpretation in the Nazi propaganda? > "Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn?" Abortion isn't genocide by definition. > "I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country." Really? Because that's the whole point of having a government and by having a government you've already lost that battle. And if you're an anarchist, your energy isn't spent where it should be.

A_COMPUTER 11y ago

You're not wrong, but you've got a political blind spot if you don't think there are people on the left that do the same thing re. repackaging and resubmitting ideas, or if you don't see the contingent of the left that is against free speech.

bad_user 11y ago
I'm not sure what the "left" or "right" are these days. Certainly these definitions have changed in such a way as to leave the impression that there's only one axis and that there are only 2 sides. I have plenty of ideas and beliefs that now would fall on the right of the political spectrum. I don't deny that there are people on the "left" going against free speech. As somebody born under communism, I have a similar level of disdain for extremists of all colors. That said, you know that old saying "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins"? Well, I think this also applies to freedom of speech. No freedom should be absolute, not when it goes in conflict with other human rights that are just as important, like the right for fair treatment and for being innocent until proven guilty. This is why the constitution of many countries, including my own, grants the freedom of speech only for as long as it's not hate speech targeted at groups based on race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. And I happen to agree with that.
xzi 11y ago
There's part of the Right which is against free speech too. Has been for decades. All those campaigns against "immoral" literature, movies, music, television. The "Watch what you say" Bush Administration. The Republican-led state governments who prevent their own scientists from talking about climate change. The right-wing religious colleges which police not only what is said and done on campus, but also heavily regulate off-campus behavior as well. Even the heavy censorship and downvoting in online right wing communities and subreddits. Why these groups get a free pass from many people who yell at the left about free speech, I'll never understand. Maybe the response will be something along the lines of "The Right is so big and covers so many people you can't blame all of them." But you could say the same about the Left. Covers many, many ideologies and sub-ideologies.
- A_COMPUTER 11y ago
  Generally nobody has to be reminded that many on the right aren't fans of free speech. But people have to be constantly reminded that there are people on the left that aren't fans of free speech.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  Of course, there are opponents of free speech on the left and the right. There are also proponents of free speech on the left and the right. And when speaking strictly of the US political spectrum, it's fair to say that the neither side is more opposed to speech than the other.

JamilD 11y ago

And who gets to define who has ideas that are unacceptable anyway? Who gets to accuse ideology x of "repackaging and resubmitting ideas"? Whose speech do we shut down, and whose do we allow? > And you think debates are healthy, yet they wouldn't give you that privilege if they were in power. So we deny them the privilege of debate, because we're afraid that if they get into power, they'll deny us the privilege of debate?

bad_user 11y ago
Oh, that's simple, unacceptable ideas are the ones that have historically led to genocide and hate speech qualifies.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide? Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians? If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned? What if some religious ideologues got control of the government and used hate speech laws to band criticism of religion? Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn? I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Oh come on, is that the best straw man you're capable of? Surely can do better than that. > "Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide?" Genocide is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. I don't think the definition is subjective in any way. > "Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians?" I don't know much of US's history, but there are scholars that believe the decline in population of American Indians was genocidal. > "If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned?" What is this "ideological basis of America" that you're referring to? Is it the US constitution? Does the US constitution invite to racism and genocide of American Indians? Are you seriously going to argue that genocide is a matter of interpretation in the Nazi propaganda? > "Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn?" Abortion isn't genocide by definition. > "I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country." Really? Because that's the whole point of having a government and by having a government you've already lost that battle. And if you're an anarchist, your energy isn't spent where it should be.