5 ms·

Then we took away their easy access to propagandize hate and they stopped coming for us.

• SirLJ 9y ago
  And then google came for you...
  • intortus 9y ago
    If you expect other people to rally behind nazis you're going to need to invest a lot more effort.
    • SirLJ 9y ago
      You are either for free speech and net neutrality or against it, you can't have it both ways and choose who can speak freely and who cannot...
      • intortus 9y ago
        Hate speech excludes other people's freedom of speech (and physical welfare).
        • SirLJ 9y ago
          So your solution is to hate them and exclude their freedom of speech (and physical welfare) - as you've put it above?
          • intortus 9y ago
            Their "freedom of speech" impinges upon the rights and freedoms of others. Their position forces a choice of one side or the other. I choose to "oppress" nazis.
            • SirLJ 9y ago
              So you are not that different then...
      • ue_ 9y ago
        >you can't have it both ways and choose who can speak freely and who cannot... Why not, exactly? I hear that people say "it's a slippery slope", or "who decides?" as if this puts an end to the argument. It doesn't. If one can formulate a set of rules and further judge on a case-by-case basis, there is little ambiguity left. I am against giving people who advocate or defend genocide or killing people for their ideas/race/etc. a platform to speak on. There's nothing ambiguous about this. You won't find me "defending to the death" the right for people to advocate killing of my friends.
    • 1337biz 9y ago
      Following the other poster I am really curious - are your against free speech? If so okay, no place to argue here.
      • intortus 9y ago
        Freedom of speech doesn't override the immediate harm of hate speech. If all you care about is the utterance of words, great, but we can't (and don't) decide policy based on one dimension.
        • KekDemaga 9y ago
          Define hate speech for us please.
      • ue_ 9y ago
        I'm against free speech in certain circumstances; free speech is idealistic, for it assumes Bad Ideas will be shot down in fair public debate, and people are rational. When people say things along the lines of "I don't like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it", they're really saying that they don't care about the consequences that may come of that speech out of principle. It's a very reductionist mindset. This is a fantasy, and I think a level of control is needed to stop the rousing of genocidal ideology propagated through rhetoric and providing its proponents platforms to speak on.
        • programmarchy 9y ago
          > Communist Why am I not surprised to see this in your profile. Communists killed many millions more than national socialists and is also a genocidal ideology, propagated by rhetoric. It's absurd to think you have any moral high ground over Nazis. Shouldn't your speech also be shut down according to your own logic? > I'm against free speech in certain circumstances; free speech is idealistic, for it assumes Bad Ideas will be shot down in fair public debate, and people are rational. So bottom line, you don't believe in free speech. You seem to believe a central authority must dictate which speech is free and which is not. Presumably this authority will be more rational than "the people" you mistrust to uphold a fair public debate. Absolutely horrific.
• peterwwillis 9y ago
  You do realize that's not the point, right?
• emeraldd 9y ago
  The tools we used were turned on us and now there are only the silent and those tell everyone what to think.
• yk 9y ago
  Who is "we"? The guys with the power to take away access to the means to spread information? Who is "they"? The guys the people in power didn't like?