4 ms·

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 ra

by 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.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >Communists killed many millions more than national socialists and is also a genocidal ideology Sorry, but you're wrong. The Nazi ideology hinges on the idea of forceful removal and killing "inferior" people. The Communist ideology does not; I'm not responsible for the actions of what other people do in the name of Communist ideology. I subscribe to the works of Marx, Engels and the social anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon); if you can find any intention of genocide in there, I'll agree with you. >Shouldn't your speech also be shut down according to your own logic? No, because I'm not advocating harm or killing, only the potentially forceful removal of private property from landowners and capitalists. >You seem to believe a central authority must dictate which speech is free and which is not. No, the community should be able to regulate itself if sufficiently advanced. There may be a transitionary period in which an authority which suppresses certain speech or actions may exist, though I don't support its permanent existence.
  - SirLJ 9y ago
    > No, because I'm not advocating harm or killing, only the potentially forceful removal of private property from landowners and capitalists. Unbelievable!
    - ue_ 9y ago
      What is unbelievable? That a Communist is in favour of the abolition of private property?
      - SirLJ 9y ago
        How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
throwaway7312 9y ago
> 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. The Nazis you dislike would agree with you, and tell you we need to outlaw the speech of what they believe to be hateful open borders communists who, to their minds, promulgate the genocide of the white race. The world has a long history of those who push for the restriction of speech ending up on the receiving end of restriction of speech. One good turn, history tells us, very often deserves another.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >The Nazis you dislike would agree with you The fact that other people would also like to censor some speech in other circumstances is irrelevant to me. >open borders communists who, to their minds, promulgate the genocide of the white race. What's in their mind is irrelevant. I'm clearly not advocating genocide, it's not my business if they see it that way, they ought to educate themselves. There's a clear difference between advocating that the workers of the world unite and advocating killing Jews. As it also turns out, the Nazis would kill Jews whether or not the workers agreed with it, you can't say the same about any of my actions. >The world has a long history of those who push for the restriction of speech ending up on the receiving end of restriction of speech. I agree, so it must be done carefully; there's no causation, merely there might be correletaion between these two groups.
  - SirLJ 9y ago
    What exactly is the difference between the Nazis and the Commies (responsible for the death of millions in USSR, China and across the world - death camps, labor camps, starvation, cultural revolutions, terrorism...)
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Killing has nothing to do with Communism. I don't defend those who have killed in its name, and I don't want to do the same as them. As far as I know, Nazism requires forceful removal or killing of people. This is the difference.

by ue_ 9y ago

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.

ue_ 9y ago
>Communists killed many millions more than national socialists and is also a genocidal ideology Sorry, but you're wrong. The Nazi ideology hinges on the idea of forceful removal and killing "inferior" people. The Communist ideology does not; I'm not responsible for the actions of what other people do in the name of Communist ideology. I subscribe to the works of Marx, Engels and the social anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon); if you can find any intention of genocide in there, I'll agree with you. >Shouldn't your speech also be shut down according to your own logic? No, because I'm not advocating harm or killing, only the potentially forceful removal of private property from landowners and capitalists. >You seem to believe a central authority must dictate which speech is free and which is not. No, the community should be able to regulate itself if sufficiently advanced. There may be a transitionary period in which an authority which suppresses certain speech or actions may exist, though I don't support its permanent existence.
- SirLJ 9y ago
  > No, because I'm not advocating harm or killing, only the potentially forceful removal of private property from landowners and capitalists. Unbelievable!
  - ue_ 9y ago
    What is unbelievable? That a Communist is in favour of the abolition of private property?
    - SirLJ 9y ago
      How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

throwaway7312 9y ago

> 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. The Nazis you dislike would agree with you, and tell you we need to outlaw the speech of what they believe to be hateful open borders communists who, to their minds, promulgate the genocide of the white race. The world has a long history of those who push for the restriction of speech ending up on the receiving end of restriction of speech. One good turn, history tells us, very often deserves another.

ue_ 9y ago
>The Nazis you dislike would agree with you The fact that other people would also like to censor some speech in other circumstances is irrelevant to me. >open borders communists who, to their minds, promulgate the genocide of the white race. What's in their mind is irrelevant. I'm clearly not advocating genocide, it's not my business if they see it that way, they ought to educate themselves. There's a clear difference between advocating that the workers of the world unite and advocating killing Jews. As it also turns out, the Nazis would kill Jews whether or not the workers agreed with it, you can't say the same about any of my actions. >The world has a long history of those who push for the restriction of speech ending up on the receiving end of restriction of speech. I agree, so it must be done carefully; there's no causation, merely there might be correletaion between these two groups.
- SirLJ 9y ago
  What exactly is the difference between the Nazis and the Commies (responsible for the death of millions in USSR, China and across the world - death camps, labor camps, starvation, cultural revolutions, terrorism...)
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Killing has nothing to do with Communism. I don't defend those who have killed in its name, and I don't want to do the same as them. As far as I know, Nazism requires forceful removal or killing of people. This is the difference.