4 ms·

"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 t

"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.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    How far do you need to go? Mind control until everyone thinks exactly as you do? You can't change peoples minds by restricting their speech. Those people will always exist, some will change over time. In the mean time let them out themselves.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Their speech is protected as legal (in the US, might vary elsewhere). What I was getting at is that their platform is not guaranteed. They must be shut down, their speech drowned. Non-violent protest as long as possible, violent only as a last resort. But you don't let nazis speak and shrug and say "it's their right, let's hear them, try to convince them they are wrong".
  - throwaway0255 9y ago
    We live in a country where people will label you a nazi for thinking voters should have to provide ID, or that we should enforce border laws or have a border at all, or that capitalism is preferable to socialism. This is precisely WHY we have freedom of speech as an absolute in this country. Because once you empower people to attack hate speech, the definition of "hate speech" will invariably be expanded and abused in ways that are totalitarian and fascistic, which is EXACTLY what we're seeing from the left today. It's why every time I respond to people like you, they post openly and I'm forced to use a throwaway. It's reverse McCarthyism. You probably think that's progress too, but you didn't convert me or anybody else, you just made us go into hiding. But we can still vote while we're hiding. I didn't vote for Trump, but I will vote for a thousand Trumps before I give up freedom of speech in America. If we don't have that in America then it's all for nothing. As long I keep reading this garbage from people on the left, I'll happily be a single-issue voter.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Unless they are literally calling for imminent violence against other human beings, it is their right to protest. It's your right to counter-protest all the same. But it's not your right to get violent. Ever. Only in self-defense. What the hell happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      I never said it was counterprotester's "right" to intervene physically. I do argue it's in rare cases the right "right" to do. My point is that if left unrestricted, free speech kills itself. Those who speak against it can end it without ever doing anything violent. You can't wait for something illegal to intervene. I'm not saying it's somehow "wrong" to have a 1st amendment style law as in the US - I'm saying it doesn't matter. When people speak against the open society and people's equal value, society will try to stop them. If it's in the law as in Germany then those that intervene have police uniform. When it's not law, those who intervene don't have police uniforms, and do formal "right" to do it. Third option where nazis speak freely and people listen and then meet their opinions with their own? Not happening, anywhere.

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.
- valuearb 9y ago
  How far do you need to go? Mind control until everyone thinks exactly as you do? You can't change peoples minds by restricting their speech. Those people will always exist, some will change over time. In the mean time let them out themselves.
alkonaut 9y ago
Their speech is protected as legal (in the US, might vary elsewhere). What I was getting at is that their platform is not guaranteed. They must be shut down, their speech drowned. Non-violent protest as long as possible, violent only as a last resort. But you don't let nazis speak and shrug and say "it's their right, let's hear them, try to convince them they are wrong".
- throwaway0255 9y ago
  We live in a country where people will label you a nazi for thinking voters should have to provide ID, or that we should enforce border laws or have a border at all, or that capitalism is preferable to socialism. This is precisely WHY we have freedom of speech as an absolute in this country. Because once you empower people to attack hate speech, the definition of "hate speech" will invariably be expanded and abused in ways that are totalitarian and fascistic, which is EXACTLY what we're seeing from the left today. It's why every time I respond to people like you, they post openly and I'm forced to use a throwaway. It's reverse McCarthyism. You probably think that's progress too, but you didn't convert me or anybody else, you just made us go into hiding. But we can still vote while we're hiding. I didn't vote for Trump, but I will vote for a thousand Trumps before I give up freedom of speech in America. If we don't have that in America then it's all for nothing. As long I keep reading this garbage from people on the left, I'll happily be a single-issue voter.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  Unless they are literally calling for imminent violence against other human beings, it is their right to protest. It's your right to counter-protest all the same. But it's not your right to get violent. Ever. Only in self-defense. What the hell happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    I never said it was counterprotester's "right" to intervene physically. I do argue it's in rare cases the right "right" to do. My point is that if left unrestricted, free speech kills itself. Those who speak against it can end it without ever doing anything violent. You can't wait for something illegal to intervene. I'm not saying it's somehow "wrong" to have a 1st amendment style law as in the US - I'm saying it doesn't matter. When people speak against the open society and people's equal value, society will try to stop them. If it's in the law as in Germany then those that intervene have police uniform. When it's not law, those who intervene don't have police uniforms, and do formal "right" to do it. Third option where nazis speak freely and people listen and then meet their opinions with their own? Not happening, anywhere.