4 ms·
> violence is their core value. There are many groups which are accused of having violence as their core value. e.g. The Nazi attacks on the Jews, who were al
by adekok 9y ago
> violence is their core value.
There are many groups which are accused of having violence as their core value.
e.g. The Nazi attacks on the Jews, who were alleged to be dedicated to the destruction of the Aryan race. That allegation was used as justification for "self defense", and attacking all Jewish people.
I understand where you're coming from, but we've seen what happens when people start picking and choosing which speech is allowed, and which is forbidden. The end result is the violence and genocide that they claim to hate.
- SwellJoe 9y agoReally? You're now saying people who oppose literal, self-proclaimed, Nazis, are just like Nazis. That takes incredible mental acrobatics.
- adekok 9y agoWhat takes incredible mental acrobatics is the ability to read what I said, and not understand simple English. You apparently believe that it's OK to suppress the speech of "bad people". My point is that such suppression is, in fact, similar to all oppressive regimes. The reason the Nazis were bad is not just the genocide they committed, but the reasons behind the genocide. The idea that we can "get" the bad people has been used to justify all kinds of atrocities, world-wide. Anyone who honestly opposes the "bad people" like Nazies should denounce their tactics. All of their tactics. Not just the violence, but the underlying idea that there are "bad people", who deserve all possible punishment, no matter how nasty or evil.
- SwellJoe 9y agoOK, so we're re-litigating the paradox of tolerance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) Let's figure out where the line is for you. Do you believe Al Qaeda should be able to obtain permits and police protection to hold rallies across the country to recruit people to their cause?
- adekok 9y agoSince we're doing stupid questions: Do believe that free speech should be suppressed, simply because you don't like the people? Or you don't like the topic of their speech? a) yes - you don't believe in free speech b) no - you do believe in free speech I live in Canada, which had the concept of "hate speech", that you apparently are in agreement with. It got repealed because it was stupid, abusive, and being abused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada So you can deny history, as you seem intent on doing, or you can learn from history.
- SwellJoe 9y agoI gave a concrete example, you've asked a hypothetical. I believe in and have activated (actual feet-on-the ground, talking to reps, writing letters, teaching free classes on encryption, etc., real activist shit) for free speech for decades. I also believe in and will activate for a world free of Nazis. There is no conflict there, and I'm completely comfortable with my position on both free speech and opposing Nazis in every way possible. You still haven't answered my question: Do you believe Al Qaeda, not some amorphous blob of "free speech", should be able to obtain permits and police protection to hold recruiting rallies across the US? This isn't about whether I "like" or "dislike" certain speech, this is about known terrorist organizations recruiting with the consent and participation of our government. I live in the US, where the stakes are real. White supremacy has a long, deadly, history in my country. You have your own white supremacist problem in Canada (and some of them came to the US for the Unite the Right rally), but it may not currently be an existential threat to your democracy. It is exactly that, right now, here in the US.
- adekok 9y ago> I gave a concrete example, you've asked a hypothetical. And... I'm done. You're not arguing from a position of honest discourse.