3 ms·

This is part of the problem with these debates that I've noticed: it's an attempt on the one hand to carry on the debate purely in terms of free speech, abstrac

This is part of the problem with these debates that I've noticed: it's an attempt on the one hand to carry on the debate purely in terms of free speech, abstracted from the contents of any particular ideology. And yet, part of what makes you "wrong" to oppose speech of particular groups is that you are just as bad as them. That's a judgment of the "wrongness" of a particular ideology, being directly appealed to, to justify a position on free speech. For some reason that's supposedly not a slippery slope toward widening the scope of "free speech" to include things destructive of democracy.

uoaei 9y ago
Funny how the "slippery slope" argument seems to only get used by people resorting to false equivalencies immediately upon commencement of discussions on this topic.
- glenstein 9y ago
  Right, this is precisely my point. I can't count how many times I've seen people defending hate groups resort to slippery slopes and false equivalences. If you don't give hate groups unrestricted access to audiences, they claim 1984 is supposedly right around the corner. But if you confront them with the slippery slope of equal logical validity which supports the opposing argument, suddenly they're mindful of the dangers of slippery slope arguments.
Thisisdense 9y ago
Well, Hitler was elected democratically. So as far as I can see, being anti-nazi was poorly seen and unpopular in 1933. And that's why free speech is important. So that the few can still speak and be heard. The majority can be wrong, and single-minded conformism can be both wrong and violent. It's not just a nazis problem (which is just a contraction of National-Socialist). Schindler was a Nazi.
thescribe 9y ago
If democracy can't stand up to a laughable idea then it was a nice run. If we start taking away fundamental human rights the moment we hear some words we don't like, they probably deserve to destroy our democracy.

uoaei 9y ago

Funny how the "slippery slope" argument seems to only get used by people resorting to false equivalencies immediately upon commencement of discussions on this topic.

glenstein 9y ago
Right, this is precisely my point. I can't count how many times I've seen people defending hate groups resort to slippery slopes and false equivalences. If you don't give hate groups unrestricted access to audiences, they claim 1984 is supposedly right around the corner. But if you confront them with the slippery slope of equal logical validity which supports the opposing argument, suddenly they're mindful of the dangers of slippery slope arguments.

Thisisdense 9y ago

Well, Hitler was elected democratically. So as far as I can see, being anti-nazi was poorly seen and unpopular in 1933. And that's why free speech is important. So that the few can still speak and be heard. The majority can be wrong, and single-minded conformism can be both wrong and violent. It's not just a nazis problem (which is just a contraction of National-Socialist). Schindler was a Nazi.

thescribe 9y ago

If democracy can't stand up to a laughable idea then it was a nice run. If we start taking away fundamental human rights the moment we hear some words we don't like, they probably deserve to destroy our democracy.