5 ms·

The Seductive Appeal of the “Nazi Exception”

61 points by user982 9y ago

carsongross 9y ago
Even the language is insane: is there a "Commie Exception" we are considering too? Certainly communists objectively killed more people than nazis in the last 100 years.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Well of course these students and their professors aren't going to advocate for limiting their own speech ;) In all seriousness though, there seems to be no attempt whatsoever at restricting "dangerous" speech coming from leftists by these people, so that alone ought to make it clear they aren't making a logical argument. It's emotions and regurgitation. Basically the same thing as the worst of the alt-right. A good example of how absurd their criteria is too: At Norte Dame they're attempting to prevent the Vice President from speaking at their commencement because they claim he makes them feel unsafe.
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    You say that as if the Vice President weren't a driving force behind the very bigotry and discrimination that makes people feel unsafe. This is a man who passed a law forcing women in Indiana hold funerals for their miscarriages. Edit: didn't realize they didn't have to attend and pay for the funerals themselves (addressed below; comment left in its original state for context).
    - jrs95 9y ago
      That is not what that law did, although there are a lot of memes like this that have been making Pence out to be a boogeyman that he is not. http://www.snopes.com/pence-law-forcing-fetus-funerals/ http://www.snopes.com/pence-law-forcing-fetus-funerals/
      - jakelazaroff 9y ago
        "Mostly false" is misleading; the only way in which the law differs from my summary is that women are not required to hold the funerary rites themselves: > The law, which was passed by the Republican-heavy state legislature, does require that aborted or miscarried fetuses be buried or cremated. It also requires that women involved in these cases be given the chance to decide how this is carried out. > However, it did not require the women involved to be present during — or to pay for — the disposal of the material. Instead, that fell to the facility in which the miscarriage or abortion took place: It's also worth noting that the law was struck down by a judge before it could take effect, lest anyone think this law was a reasonable or even legal.
        valuearb 9y ago
        Yea, you were misleading.
    - hyperdunc 9y ago
      The Vice President holds despicable views, but cowardice is not a suitable response. Better to face his ideological nonsense head on with strong arguments.
      - jrs95 9y ago
        I completely agree. That's what ought to be done whenever there's a speaker one doesn't agree with.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  Just for reference, how many people has capitalism "objectively" kill?
lebrad 9y ago
While I don't disagree with the point of the article, it seems that shooting down a bunch of undergrad student newspaper columns is needlessly punching down. When I was an undergrad, reading the daily student paper was a way to enjoy a parade of knee-slapping unintentional comedy and breathtakingly embarrassing writing.
- gumby 9y ago
  Agreed, but plenty of countries have these rules in law (you can maybe justify why Germany and Austria do, but not the rest of Western Europe). The US does too, but not explicitly, they are structured into in crimes of violating peoples' civil rights. It's one of the great things about the USA that they at least have a determined effort to try to live up to embracing free speech. That's very difficult in practice
- sooheon 9y ago
  This isn't punching down because universities are breeding grounds for future ideologies. What is laughable to you and me is being taken seriously by university administrators, whether by agreement or fear of backlash. Open ridicule is how you deal with inane ideas, the far left deserve much more of it.
jakelazaroff 9y ago
Generally speaking, there are two avenues people have to change quote-unquote undesirable behavior: legally and socially. Legally, we should vociferously oppose any restrictions on speech, including hateful speech. This is a pretty banal point; most people not to the far left or right can agree on it. Socially, I think it's pretty clear that we need not tolerate a lot of speech that should be legal. Milo Yiannopolous is free to spew his garbage, but we have no obligation to hear him out, or let him speak at our schools or events. Freedom of speech does not mean we have an obligation to let people who mean harm speak unencumbered. We should protest and block them however we can.
- jrs95 9y ago
  That may work in theory, but it depends on people being rational actors when they aren't. This being politics, it's driven a lot more by emotions and what's fashionable than it is reason, which ought to be the primary domain of a university. And the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable is being determined by people who as a group have significant biases. That is detrimental to an open debate and exchange of ideas. I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Right now, speakers who have already been invited are being shut down with violent protests which are met with little to no disciplinary action from the school.
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    > I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. "But who says what ideas are clearly bad?" We all do! Neil Gaiman has a great essay called "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?"[1] in which he says: > The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. The difference here is that my opinion is a scalpel. Everyone's is! There's no obligation for me to treat Milo Yiannopolous and Geraldo Rivera the same, even though they both have political opinions that fall far to the right of mine. One of them is indefensible, and it's not at all hypocritical or unrealistic for me (and millions of other people) to try to take only that one out. [1] http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html?m=1 http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...
cairo_x 9y ago
Yes, punching Nazis in the face (who are nationalist, woman hating white supremacists) should be illegal. Antifa knows this, and takes measures to evade the law. Hate speech laws are a separate issue, and no, they are not the end of the world. There are many countries with hate speech laws, some reasonable, others extremest. The author makes many assumptions and selective interpretations. Punching a nazi in the face is a crime of passion I deeply sympathize with. I don't think it should be legal, but confronted by nazi salute I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same.
- jrs95 9y ago
  They'd like to be punched, it benefits their arguments. It'd be better to belittle them. If you're lucky, maybe someone gets a picture of them taking a swing at you instead :)
- carsongross 9y ago
  Apparently, Hitting (maybe) nazis (dunno, he looks pretty normie to me) in the head with a bike lock is the current state of political dialog in the US: https://twitter.com/BakedNorwegian/status/854271948523810817 https://twitter.com/BakedNorwegian/status/854271948523810817
headcanon 9y ago
Reminds me of this excerpt from A man for all seasons[1]: Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. [1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt
- confounded 9y ago
  Ah, good ol' unbiased, unchanging, divined law. Good job it's never been changed to favor ordinary people as the result of protest or disregard, or to centralize power as the result of corruption. I think I'll be spending this year's EFF and ACLU dues on a new armchair.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    I think you somewhat missed the point of the passage. It says nothing of unchanging divine law--it explicitly claims law is man-made, and it serves to protect men from forces more evil than they. Whether it's imperfect at any given time and amenable to improvement is not a point anyone would reasonably contend.
- cairo_x 9y ago
  There's a conflation of liberal resistance movements and antifa going on here. I don't think Antifa expects any law to support punching Nazis in the face, or is pushing hate speech laws. As far as I can see, antifa is in defiance of the law, not directly attacking it. Also it is not a wishful template for a communist police force. I believe it's based on blackbloc, an anarchist self organized mob. These anarchist mobs existed under communism too. Stalin sent them to the Gulag and Hitler sent them to work and concentration camps. People called them cowards then, too. Anarchist mobs have been around forever. It's when they attack the side in power that people really get super outraged.
confounded 9y ago
In these debates I always struggle with the idea that free speech exists in the first place. Taking the Wikipedia definition: > Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. We all know that this isn't true in almost any country with the resources for mass surveillance. People get put on watch lists and interrogated at airports for years because of their beliefs or circumstances. What people often seem to mean is speech free of social consequences. For example, I should be able to say that your wife is ugly, and then be outraged (and tout myself as a victim) when your drink is in my face. This is simply childish entitlement.
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  >when your drink is in my face That's assault. One could quite easily say that demanding the ability to hit people with something because you don't like what they say is "childish entitlement." There's a reason why public protests are governed around "touching/hitting an opponent" as the line to not be crossed, and why pepper-spraying someone is for self-defense and not for disagreement. "Social consequences" should mean disassociation or loss of reputation -- not physical attack. It's a dangerous precedent to allow the state to lose that monopoly on the use of physical violence; that way lies lynch mobs. As to your point about surveillance states and ideological watchlists, I agree with you that those are often violations of the principle of free speech. I'd rather argue against those rather than use them as precedent to throw the whole thing away.
anon263626 9y ago
The fundamental failure of most SJW and some populist attitudes: committing varying levels of disproportionately evil behaviors in the name of self-righteousness, when a decent person aims to be relatively consistent no matter what other people do. Chris Hedges was shoutted down for opposing the Iraq war, and Phil Donahue push out of mainstream media.

61 points by user982 9y ago

Even the language is insane: is there a "Commie Exception" we are considering too? Certainly communists objectively killed more people than nazis in the last 100 years.

jrs95 9y ago
Well of course these students and their professors aren't going to advocate for limiting their own speech ;) In all seriousness though, there seems to be no attempt whatsoever at restricting "dangerous" speech coming from leftists by these people, so that alone ought to make it clear they aren't making a logical argument. It's emotions and regurgitation. Basically the same thing as the worst of the alt-right. A good example of how absurd their criteria is too: At Norte Dame they're attempting to prevent the Vice President from speaking at their commencement because they claim he makes them feel unsafe.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  You say that as if the Vice President weren't a driving force behind the very bigotry and discrimination that makes people feel unsafe. This is a man who passed a law forcing women in Indiana hold funerals for their miscarriages. Edit: didn't realize they didn't have to attend and pay for the funerals themselves (addressed below; comment left in its original state for context).
  - jrs95 9y ago
    That is not what that law did, although there are a lot of memes like this that have been making Pence out to be a boogeyman that he is not. http://www.snopes.com/pence-law-forcing-fetus-funerals/ http://www.snopes.com/pence-law-forcing-fetus-funerals/
    - jakelazaroff 9y ago
      "Mostly false" is misleading; the only way in which the law differs from my summary is that women are not required to hold the funerary rites themselves: > The law, which was passed by the Republican-heavy state legislature, does require that aborted or miscarried fetuses be buried or cremated. It also requires that women involved in these cases be given the chance to decide how this is carried out. > However, it did not require the women involved to be present during — or to pay for — the disposal of the material. Instead, that fell to the facility in which the miscarriage or abortion took place: It's also worth noting that the law was struck down by a judge before it could take effect, lest anyone think this law was a reasonable or even legal.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        Yea, you were misleading.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    The Vice President holds despicable views, but cowardice is not a suitable response. Better to face his ideological nonsense head on with strong arguments.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      I completely agree. That's what ought to be done whenever there's a speaker one doesn't agree with.
Can_Not 9y ago
Just for reference, how many people has capitalism "objectively" kill?

lebrad 9y ago

While I don't disagree with the point of the article, it seems that shooting down a bunch of undergrad student newspaper columns is needlessly punching down. When I was an undergrad, reading the daily student paper was a way to enjoy a parade of knee-slapping unintentional comedy and breathtakingly embarrassing writing.

gumby 9y ago
Agreed, but plenty of countries have these rules in law (you can maybe justify why Germany and Austria do, but not the rest of Western Europe). The US does too, but not explicitly, they are structured into in crimes of violating peoples' civil rights. It's one of the great things about the USA that they at least have a determined effort to try to live up to embracing free speech. That's very difficult in practice
sooheon 9y ago
This isn't punching down because universities are breeding grounds for future ideologies. What is laughable to you and me is being taken seriously by university administrators, whether by agreement or fear of backlash. Open ridicule is how you deal with inane ideas, the far left deserve much more of it.

jakelazaroff 9y ago

Generally speaking, there are two avenues people have to change quote-unquote undesirable behavior: legally and socially. Legally, we should vociferously oppose any restrictions on speech, including hateful speech. This is a pretty banal point; most people not to the far left or right can agree on it. Socially, I think it's pretty clear that we need not tolerate a lot of speech that should be legal. Milo Yiannopolous is free to spew his garbage, but we have no obligation to hear him out, or let him speak at our schools or events. Freedom of speech does not mean we have an obligation to let people who mean harm speak unencumbered. We should protest and block them however we can.

jrs95 9y ago
That may work in theory, but it depends on people being rational actors when they aren't. This being politics, it's driven a lot more by emotions and what's fashionable than it is reason, which ought to be the primary domain of a university. And the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable is being determined by people who as a group have significant biases. That is detrimental to an open debate and exchange of ideas. I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Right now, speakers who have already been invited are being shut down with violent protests which are met with little to no disciplinary action from the school.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  > I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. "But who says what ideas are clearly bad?" We all do! Neil Gaiman has a great essay called "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?"[1] in which he says: > The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. The difference here is that my opinion is a scalpel. Everyone's is! There's no obligation for me to treat Milo Yiannopolous and Geraldo Rivera the same, even though they both have political opinions that fall far to the right of mine. One of them is indefensible, and it's not at all hypocritical or unrealistic for me (and millions of other people) to try to take only that one out. [1] http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html?m=1 http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...

cairo_x 9y ago

Yes, punching Nazis in the face (who are nationalist, woman hating white supremacists) should be illegal. Antifa knows this, and takes measures to evade the law. Hate speech laws are a separate issue, and no, they are not the end of the world. There are many countries with hate speech laws, some reasonable, others extremest. The author makes many assumptions and selective interpretations. Punching a nazi in the face is a crime of passion I deeply sympathize with. I don't think it should be legal, but confronted by nazi salute I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same.

jrs95 9y ago
They'd like to be punched, it benefits their arguments. It'd be better to belittle them. If you're lucky, maybe someone gets a picture of them taking a swing at you instead :)
carsongross 9y ago
Apparently, Hitting (maybe) nazis (dunno, he looks pretty normie to me) in the head with a bike lock is the current state of political dialog in the US: https://twitter.com/BakedNorwegian/status/854271948523810817 https://twitter.com/BakedNorwegian/status/854271948523810817

headcanon 9y ago

Reminds me of this excerpt from A man for all seasons[1]: Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. [1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt

confounded 9y ago
Ah, good ol' unbiased, unchanging, divined law. Good job it's never been changed to favor ordinary people as the result of protest or disregard, or to centralize power as the result of corruption. I think I'll be spending this year's EFF and ACLU dues on a new armchair.
- sooheon 9y ago
  I think you somewhat missed the point of the passage. It says nothing of unchanging divine law--it explicitly claims law is man-made, and it serves to protect men from forces more evil than they. Whether it's imperfect at any given time and amenable to improvement is not a point anyone would reasonably contend.
cairo_x 9y ago
There's a conflation of liberal resistance movements and antifa going on here. I don't think Antifa expects any law to support punching Nazis in the face, or is pushing hate speech laws. As far as I can see, antifa is in defiance of the law, not directly attacking it. Also it is not a wishful template for a communist police force. I believe it's based on blackbloc, an anarchist self organized mob. These anarchist mobs existed under communism too. Stalin sent them to the Gulag and Hitler sent them to work and concentration camps. People called them cowards then, too. Anarchist mobs have been around forever. It's when they attack the side in power that people really get super outraged.

confounded 9y ago

In these debates I always struggle with the idea that free speech exists in the first place. Taking the Wikipedia definition: > Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. We all know that this isn't true in almost any country with the resources for mass surveillance. People get put on watch lists and interrogated at airports for years because of their beliefs or circumstances. What people often seem to mean is speech free of social consequences. For example, I should be able to say that your wife is ugly, and then be outraged (and tout myself as a victim) when your drink is in my face. This is simply childish entitlement.

DanAndersen 9y ago
>when your drink is in my face That's assault. One could quite easily say that demanding the ability to hit people with something because you don't like what they say is "childish entitlement." There's a reason why public protests are governed around "touching/hitting an opponent" as the line to not be crossed, and why pepper-spraying someone is for self-defense and not for disagreement. "Social consequences" should mean disassociation or loss of reputation -- not physical attack. It's a dangerous precedent to allow the state to lose that monopoly on the use of physical violence; that way lies lynch mobs. As to your point about surveillance states and ideological watchlists, I agree with you that those are often violations of the principle of free speech. I'd rather argue against those rather than use them as precedent to throw the whole thing away.

anon263626 9y ago

The fundamental failure of most SJW and some populist attitudes: committing varying levels of disproportionately evil behaviors in the name of self-righteousness, when a decent person aims to be relatively consistent no matter what other people do. Chris Hedges was shoutted down for opposing the Iraq war, and Phil Donahue push out of mainstream media.