4 ms·

> It’s not guaranteed by the First Amendment that people can’t be fired or blacklisted for their opinions, but when Communists were blacklisted from the film i

> It’s not guaranteed by the First Amendment that people can’t be fired or blacklisted for their opinions, but when Communists were blacklisted from the film industry, that was seen as a disgrace—despite the fact that, in the 1950’s, the activities of the Communist Party were a much greater threat to American (and, in general, Western) society and values than the kinds of things people get in trouble for saying now. They still are, for that matter. People today seem to be extremely worried about the so-called "KKK" and "Nazi" groups, most of which consist of about five yokels meeting in somebody's garage. They're nasty pieces of work on an individual basis, certainly, but hardly an existential threat to the country as a whole. There haven't been any real Nazis in close to 70 years, and there hasn't been a real KKK for about a hundred. Communists, on the other hand, not only racked up a far higher body count than Nazis and the KKK combined, they still control entire countries, with standing armies and nuclear weapons. If we're going to start ejecting people from the public sphere on the basis of their ideas being dangerous, pragmatism would seem to dictate that we start with Marxists.

nv-vn 9y ago
I agree with your overall point, but this tactic seems almost as disingenuous as the other side. I don't think we should be equating speech with body counts, even if it was the same view that brought about both. Though this is a good example of why the argument for hate speech laws doesn't make sense, I think it's important to preface it as such or else your comment comes across as the same kind of attack that Sam A is criticizing.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  > I agree with your overall point, but this tactic seems almost as disingenuous as the other side. I don't actually advocate that Marxists be ejected from the public sphere. I'm merely pointing out that if we are going to start ejecting people for "dangerous speech", they are the obvious first candidates.
evanlivingston 9y ago
Nah, just nah. You're conflating violence enacted by the state with the political philosophy the state uses to remain come into and remain in power. If you're going to blame the Khmer rouge on communism, then you also need to factor in the conflict in the middle East, American Indian genocide, slavery and more and attribute that to capitalist philosophy.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  > If you're going to blame the Khmer rouge on communism, then you also need to factor in the conflict in the middle East, American Indian genocide, slavery and more and attribute that to capitalist philosophy. No, actually, I don't "need" to do that. Communists have murdered more people than any other single group in the history of the world. Sorry, but they have. The Middle East has been a bloodbath since the dawn of recorded history, and likely before. "American Indian genocide" had nothing to do with capitalism per se, nor does slavery have any connection whatsoever with a free market. It is, in fact, quite antithetical to it.
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    sure, you don't need to do that, but it's disingenuous if you don't and reveals a biased interpretation of history. Communist _regimes_ have killed a a lot of people. I'm not sure why the American Indiana genocide is in quotes. As if there weren't policies at the federal and state level that promoted the theft of land from the original inhabitants and the ensuing displacement and murder of them? You're corroborating my point that those violent acts weren't expressly mandated by the underlying political philosophy but were instead carried out via the state powers who latched onto those philosophies in order to gain populist support for the policies that would ensure their power.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "Communist _regimes_ have killed a a lot of people." And Nazi _regimes_ have killed a lot of people. So you're saying that Nazis are okay, then? "I'm not sure why the American Indiana genocide is in quotes." Because most of the Indians were killed by diseases, not by deliberate genocide. Most of them died without ever seeing a white person (e.g., the former inhabitants of some of the Missisippian culture cities). There were certainly genocidal incidents, some of which were horrifying, but that's not what caused the large-scale depopulation. In any case, that had little or nothing to do with "capitalism". The colonization of the Americas (and, indeed, much of the world) was primarily driven by mercantilism, not capitalism. I'm trying really hard not to sound condescending here, but do you even know what "capitalism" means? It doesn't just mean "not communism". Besides, my argument had to do with current threats, not things that happened hundred of years ago. That Nazis (the real ones) no longer pose a threat while Communists do was the whole point. Can you name a Nazi regime that is constantly threatening to launch ICBMs at the United States, as North Korea does on a seemingly daily basis?

nv-vn 9y ago

I agree with your overall point, but this tactic seems almost as disingenuous as the other side. I don't think we should be equating speech with body counts, even if it was the same view that brought about both. Though this is a good example of why the argument for hate speech laws doesn't make sense, I think it's important to preface it as such or else your comment comes across as the same kind of attack that Sam A is criticizing.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
> I agree with your overall point, but this tactic seems almost as disingenuous as the other side. I don't actually advocate that Marxists be ejected from the public sphere. I'm merely pointing out that if we are going to start ejecting people for "dangerous speech", they are the obvious first candidates.

evanlivingston 9y ago

Nah, just nah. You're conflating violence enacted by the state with the political philosophy the state uses to remain come into and remain in power. If you're going to blame the Khmer rouge on communism, then you also need to factor in the conflict in the middle East, American Indian genocide, slavery and more and attribute that to capitalist philosophy.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
> If you're going to blame the Khmer rouge on communism, then you also need to factor in the conflict in the middle East, American Indian genocide, slavery and more and attribute that to capitalist philosophy. No, actually, I don't "need" to do that. Communists have murdered more people than any other single group in the history of the world. Sorry, but they have. The Middle East has been a bloodbath since the dawn of recorded history, and likely before. "American Indian genocide" had nothing to do with capitalism per se, nor does slavery have any connection whatsoever with a free market. It is, in fact, quite antithetical to it.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  sure, you don't need to do that, but it's disingenuous if you don't and reveals a biased interpretation of history. Communist _regimes_ have killed a a lot of people. I'm not sure why the American Indiana genocide is in quotes. As if there weren't policies at the federal and state level that promoted the theft of land from the original inhabitants and the ensuing displacement and murder of them? You're corroborating my point that those violent acts weren't expressly mandated by the underlying political philosophy but were instead carried out via the state powers who latched onto those philosophies in order to gain populist support for the policies that would ensure their power.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Communist _regimes_ have killed a a lot of people." And Nazi _regimes_ have killed a lot of people. So you're saying that Nazis are okay, then? "I'm not sure why the American Indiana genocide is in quotes." Because most of the Indians were killed by diseases, not by deliberate genocide. Most of them died without ever seeing a white person (e.g., the former inhabitants of some of the Missisippian culture cities). There were certainly genocidal incidents, some of which were horrifying, but that's not what caused the large-scale depopulation. In any case, that had little or nothing to do with "capitalism". The colonization of the Americas (and, indeed, much of the world) was primarily driven by mercantilism, not capitalism. I'm trying really hard not to sound condescending here, but do you even know what "capitalism" means? It doesn't just mean "not communism". Besides, my argument had to do with current threats, not things that happened hundred of years ago. That Nazis (the real ones) no longer pose a threat while Communists do was the whole point. Can you name a Nazi regime that is constantly threatening to launch ICBMs at the United States, as North Korea does on a seemingly daily basis?