5 ms·

> Either a country accepts this within its legal framework and has e.g hate speech laws (e.g Germany) or it doesn't (e.g US), but in the latter case as being "o

> Either a country accepts this within its legal framework and has e.g hate speech laws (e.g Germany) or it doesn't (e.g US), but in the latter case as being "outside" the law - and it must be met with force outside the law. Or it could, you know, not be met with force outside the law, because we live in a civil society where people are free to think independently and express themselves, and we have laws against assaulting people. Call me crazy. I don't know when in my lifetime liberals pulled this 180 on freedom of speech, but seriously, it's causing me to do the hardest 180 of MY life right the fuck into being a conservative after spending the first 30 years of my life as a liberal. What you just wrote is one of the craziest things I've ever read. You're directly calling for and praising violence against people based on their ideas and beliefs and how they choose to non-violently express them. Just 10 years ago you'd be booed by every liberal in the nation and rightfully regarded as an anti-intellectual, a book burner, or a fascist. My whole life, liberals were so proud to declare that they defend their opposition's right to speech even though they don't agree with it. When did this change?

Broken_Hippo 9y ago
"When did this change?" When we grew up and realized that no, people really shouldn't be marching the street calling for genocide or calling for other groups to be treated as animals. When we realized it is bad to harass others, by surrounding them with torches and yelling racist slurs or by burning freaking crosses in someone else's yard. When we realized that we don't actually want to spread hate and convince others to think the same. This won't stop folks from thinking this or spreading it to some extent, but there isn't a reason we have to give them space in the public sphere, with marches on public roads obviously meant for everybody, regardless of background. Nor does an employer have any need to respect the right of their employee to spread hate, a web hosting service to host the websites, and other such things. Another thing we've realized as we've grown up is that one cannot both protect freedom of speech like this and have any true means of actually overcoming it. This puts actual goals like equality and a more fair society at risk. And above all, it changed when folks re-thought "Fuck Nazis and Fight them". Of course, this is all just speaking from the top of my head and nothing in here is known fact without someone factchecking it, as I have not.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  You fight bad ideas with reason and persuasion. Period. If someone does something illegal, you get the authorities involved. Speech is protected, even "offensive" speech. Civics 101.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    How far has that gotten? Seriously. Trying to compromise with a nazi is like agreeing to putting a kitten in the blender at half speed instead of full speed. These aren't folks that reason and persuasion is working for, as they think they are reasonable.
    - throwaway0255 9y ago
      Have you considered the fact that most of our great-grandparents who defeated the nazis also hold positions on foreign policy and social issues that would likely cause them to fall under your definition of "nazi"?
      - dTal 9y ago
        The "Nazis" in the Charlotteville incident were literally waving Nazi flags, throwing Hitler salutes, and shouting "Heil Trump". I don't think your definition needs to be overbroad to include that.
      - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        So? You do realize that WWII was quite some time ago and society has changed since then. We also had African-Americans fighting, who went back to a segregated society. Women weren't their own person - heck, in the 70's women generally couldn't get a credit card without male approval. Oddly enough, the US also turned away Jewish refugees before we got involved in the war. I think these things were as wrong then as they are now, we've just updated the laws and society to show this. So yes, of course some of the views from the 40's are going to be evil, crass views today. And yes, if someone hasn't updated their social views from the 40's or 50's, I'm gonna keep my distance. It isn't like we'd ever get along anyway - I'm a boyish bisexual woman, an immigrant (In norway, from the US), someone that dates outside of her "race" and can easily be called a "sand nigger" if I have too much of a tan. But overall, they were fighting a greater evil compared to the times. It doesn't matter if their views are now considered outdated, they were doing the right thing for the time.
throwaway2220 9y ago
> I don't know when in my lifetime liberals pulled this 180 on freedom of speech When they collectively came to realize that the evidence doesn't support some of their most cherished beliefs, including black-slatism, and they could no longer prevail in open debate.
alkonaut 9y ago
> Or it could, you know, not be met with force outside the law, because we live in a civil society where people are free to think independently and express themselves, and we have laws against assaulting people. This is of course the ideal, and works in most situations. That doesn't work though. You can't reason with intolerance. This is the age old paradox of tolerance: how can you be tolerant and not tolerate intolerance? The answer is you cannot and must not. You must resist intolerance and those that seek to end the open society Violence must as always be a last resort of course.
- hartator 9y ago
  Violence is never a resort in a discussion.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Discussion is rarely an alternative against intolerance either. That's the paradox of intolerance. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) The notion that all speech is protected and all opinions can be listened to and met with other opinions is cute but unfortunately naive. I prefer non violent protest of course, but these are often violent people and if you deny them their platform there will undoubtedly be violence. It's an acceptable side effect, not a goal in itself.
    - aaronblohowiak 9y ago
      As noted in the link you posted, the "paradox of tolerance" is controversial and not a fact. intolerance of intolerance is unjust.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        Of course it's not a fact, it's a philosophical idea (originally by Popper?). And of course it's controversial, especially in the US where 100% freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. But it's not that far fetched to think that the options are nearly free speech forever, versus completely free speech for a while. It does hinge on the premise that speech is such a powerful tool that it can be used to remove fundamental freedoms. That's also just a hypothesis.
Toboe 9y ago
>My whole life, liberals were so proud to declare that they defend their opposition's right to speech even though they don't agree with it. When did this change? Most likely at some point the perception went from the danger being 'offense' or maybe delays in bettering society ("if we keep explaining how gay marriage hurts nobody and helps parts of society, people will eventually come around, just gotta keep arguing!") to the danger being literally people dying ("They killed 1 counter protester, injured 19 and marched past a synagogue, hurling anti-semitic slurs... What are they going to do next?")

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

"When did this change?" When we grew up and realized that no, people really shouldn't be marching the street calling for genocide or calling for other groups to be treated as animals. When we realized it is bad to harass others, by surrounding them with torches and yelling racist slurs or by burning freaking crosses in someone else's yard. When we realized that we don't actually want to spread hate and convince others to think the same. This won't stop folks from thinking this or spreading it to some extent, but there isn't a reason we have to give them space in the public sphere, with marches on public roads obviously meant for everybody, regardless of background. Nor does an employer have any need to respect the right of their employee to spread hate, a web hosting service to host the websites, and other such things. Another thing we've realized as we've grown up is that one cannot both protect freedom of speech like this and have any true means of actually overcoming it. This puts actual goals like equality and a more fair society at risk. And above all, it changed when folks re-thought "Fuck Nazis and Fight them". Of course, this is all just speaking from the top of my head and nothing in here is known fact without someone factchecking it, as I have not.

chrisco255 9y ago
You fight bad ideas with reason and persuasion. Period. If someone does something illegal, you get the authorities involved. Speech is protected, even "offensive" speech. Civics 101.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  How far has that gotten? Seriously. Trying to compromise with a nazi is like agreeing to putting a kitten in the blender at half speed instead of full speed. These aren't folks that reason and persuasion is working for, as they think they are reasonable.
  - throwaway0255 9y ago
    Have you considered the fact that most of our great-grandparents who defeated the nazis also hold positions on foreign policy and social issues that would likely cause them to fall under your definition of "nazi"?
    - dTal 9y ago
      The "Nazis" in the Charlotteville incident were literally waving Nazi flags, throwing Hitler salutes, and shouting "Heil Trump". I don't think your definition needs to be overbroad to include that.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      So? You do realize that WWII was quite some time ago and society has changed since then. We also had African-Americans fighting, who went back to a segregated society. Women weren't their own person - heck, in the 70's women generally couldn't get a credit card without male approval. Oddly enough, the US also turned away Jewish refugees before we got involved in the war. I think these things were as wrong then as they are now, we've just updated the laws and society to show this. So yes, of course some of the views from the 40's are going to be evil, crass views today. And yes, if someone hasn't updated their social views from the 40's or 50's, I'm gonna keep my distance. It isn't like we'd ever get along anyway - I'm a boyish bisexual woman, an immigrant (In norway, from the US), someone that dates outside of her "race" and can easily be called a "sand nigger" if I have too much of a tan. But overall, they were fighting a greater evil compared to the times. It doesn't matter if their views are now considered outdated, they were doing the right thing for the time.

throwaway2220 9y ago

> I don't know when in my lifetime liberals pulled this 180 on freedom of speech When they collectively came to realize that the evidence doesn't support some of their most cherished beliefs, including black-slatism, and they could no longer prevail in open debate.

alkonaut 9y ago

> Or it could, you know, not be met with force outside the law, because we live in a civil society where people are free to think independently and express themselves, and we have laws against assaulting people. This is of course the ideal, and works in most situations. That doesn't work though. You can't reason with intolerance. This is the age old paradox of tolerance: how can you be tolerant and not tolerate intolerance? The answer is you cannot and must not. You must resist intolerance and those that seek to end the open society Violence must as always be a last resort of course.

hartator 9y ago
Violence is never a resort in a discussion.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Discussion is rarely an alternative against intolerance either. That's the paradox of intolerance. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) The notion that all speech is protected and all opinions can be listened to and met with other opinions is cute but unfortunately naive. I prefer non violent protest of course, but these are often violent people and if you deny them their platform there will undoubtedly be violence. It's an acceptable side effect, not a goal in itself.
  - aaronblohowiak 9y ago
    As noted in the link you posted, the "paradox of tolerance" is controversial and not a fact. intolerance of intolerance is unjust.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Of course it's not a fact, it's a philosophical idea (originally by Popper?). And of course it's controversial, especially in the US where 100% freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. But it's not that far fetched to think that the options are nearly free speech forever, versus completely free speech for a while. It does hinge on the premise that speech is such a powerful tool that it can be used to remove fundamental freedoms. That's also just a hypothesis.

Toboe 9y ago

>My whole life, liberals were so proud to declare that they defend their opposition's right to speech even though they don't agree with it. When did this change? Most likely at some point the perception went from the danger being 'offense' or maybe delays in bettering society ("if we keep explaining how gay marriage hurts nobody and helps parts of society, people will eventually come around, just gotta keep arguing!") to the danger being literally people dying ("They killed 1 counter protester, injured 19 and marched past a synagogue, hurling anti-semitic slurs... What are they going to do next?")