4 ms·

> criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas i wonder... is that actually something that works? or does it just mean fascist ideas gain a more p

by abiox 9y ago

> criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas i wonder... is that actually something that works? or does it just mean fascist ideas gain a more polite presentation?

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
The thing is it does work. Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. It's the difference between having to enumerate all the people the mob think should be dead (which ironically is probably a collection of disjointed sets) vs just waving a flag and gathering all that hate anyone. By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The question is whether it doesn't just mean that new icons are created - or old ones repurposed.
- abiox 9y ago
  > Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. it seems to me it would do the opposite. it simply requires that one pursue the same goal in a more polite manner, to avoid being put in prison for one's words. ideas and intents can be rendered in a vast array of ways. > By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point. i don't see how. all this means is that people will use allusions, metaphors or otherwise use substitutes for that 'icon', whatever it is. or even just endorse similar policies, concepts or other things. or instead of being against x, they'll be for y. etc. the real way to "stop" ideas (rather, the way to sway the majority of people) is showing why an idea isn't great and presenting a better idea. with logic and reason.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
    - abiox 9y ago
      > Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. you don't need to convince every single person. that's unrealistic for basically any position. it also seems to me that 'bigot' is on the road to becoming a thought-terminating cliche (if it isn't that already). it's seems like a label some slap on others they disagree with so that they can 'free themselves' of understanding the mechanics of the other position; even as doing so provides the tools to better counteract it. some people do (poorly) 'reason' themselves into bad ideas, even 'the good guys'. often it's because of bad or incomplete data, incorrect assumptions, or one of the increasingly well known logical fallacies we see on a site like yourlogicalfallacyis.com.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    This is incorrect. Logic and reason have value, of course, but most people are emotional animals rather than pure rationalists. The trick of political demagoguery is is to activate those emotions and then rhetorically direct them. This is why laws against incitement and suchlike generally require the potential harm to be imminent. It's one thing for someone to say 'really, I think out_group_X bears liability for certain faults of society,' which is unpleasant to hear but not directly threatening insofar as it's refutable. It's another to be at the locus of a mob with people stating their intention to kill you in the immediate or near future.
    - abiox 9y ago
      > Logic and reason have value, of course, but most people are emotional animals rather than pure rationalists. there isn't an either/or situation... people are both. and people must obviously be sufficiently rational, a sufficient amount of the time, because civilization exists and society progresses. you don't get to the moon and back if your species is nothing but bloody barbarians. > incitement this discussion seems to veer all over the place. fascism, hate speech, incitement, etc. are all different things, but also have a variety of definitions; often so fuzzily defined that two identical acts could be read differently by two different judges. 'hate speech' (whatever that really means) is largely legal in the US, but incitement that demonstrates imminent harm is not. even with legal hate speech, the US isn't a genocidal warzone. because that's not how genocide works.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        It is an either/or situation. I said people are emotional animals rather than pure rationalists, who would by definition not be subject to irrational impulses. It is not a contrast between pure rationality or irrationality, but pure rationality vs partial rationality. I'm not sure what point the rest of your comment is seeking to make, other than that you don't like my point of view.
        abiox 9y ago
        then it seems like word games around a useless dichotomy. if "emotional animals" includes rationality then my point stands. based on how you seem to be stressing the words, i don't know what "pure rationalists" is supposed to mean. > I'm not sure what point the rest of your comment is seeking to make, other than that you don't like my point of view. you blithely inserted another concept to the thread, which is what prompted my comment. your point of view isn't clear enough for me to have formed much of an opinion.

by abiox 9y ago

> criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas i wonder... is that actually something that works? or does it just mean fascist ideas gain a more polite presentation?

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

The thing is it does work. Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. It's the difference between having to enumerate all the people the mob think should be dead (which ironically is probably a collection of disjointed sets) vs just waving a flag and gathering all that hate anyone. By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point.

icebraining 9y ago
The question is whether it doesn't just mean that new icons are created - or old ones repurposed.
abiox 9y ago
> Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. it seems to me it would do the opposite. it simply requires that one pursue the same goal in a more polite manner, to avoid being put in prison for one's words. ideas and intents can be rendered in a vast array of ways. > By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point. i don't see how. all this means is that people will use allusions, metaphors or otherwise use substitutes for that 'icon', whatever it is. or even just endorse similar policies, concepts or other things. or instead of being against x, they'll be for y. etc. the real way to "stop" ideas (rather, the way to sway the majority of people) is showing why an idea isn't great and presenting a better idea. with logic and reason.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. you don't need to convince every single person. that's unrealistic for basically any position. it also seems to me that 'bigot' is on the road to becoming a thought-terminating cliche (if it isn't that already). it's seems like a label some slap on others they disagree with so that they can 'free themselves' of understanding the mechanics of the other position; even as doing so provides the tools to better counteract it. some people do (poorly) 'reason' themselves into bad ideas, even 'the good guys'. often it's because of bad or incomplete data, incorrect assumptions, or one of the increasingly well known logical fallacies we see on a site like yourlogicalfallacyis.com.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  This is incorrect. Logic and reason have value, of course, but most people are emotional animals rather than pure rationalists. The trick of political demagoguery is is to activate those emotions and then rhetorically direct them. This is why laws against incitement and suchlike generally require the potential harm to be imminent. It's one thing for someone to say 'really, I think out_group_X bears liability for certain faults of society,' which is unpleasant to hear but not directly threatening insofar as it's refutable. It's another to be at the locus of a mob with people stating their intention to kill you in the immediate or near future.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > Logic and reason have value, of course, but most people are emotional animals rather than pure rationalists. there isn't an either/or situation... people are both. and people must obviously be sufficiently rational, a sufficient amount of the time, because civilization exists and society progresses. you don't get to the moon and back if your species is nothing but bloody barbarians. > incitement this discussion seems to veer all over the place. fascism, hate speech, incitement, etc. are all different things, but also have a variety of definitions; often so fuzzily defined that two identical acts could be read differently by two different judges. 'hate speech' (whatever that really means) is largely legal in the US, but incitement that demonstrates imminent harm is not. even with legal hate speech, the US isn't a genocidal warzone. because that's not how genocide works.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      It is an either/or situation. I said people are emotional animals rather than pure rationalists, who would by definition not be subject to irrational impulses. It is not a contrast between pure rationality or irrationality, but pure rationality vs partial rationality. I'm not sure what point the rest of your comment is seeking to make, other than that you don't like my point of view.
      - abiox 9y ago
        then it seems like word games around a useless dichotomy. if "emotional animals" includes rationality then my point stands. based on how you seem to be stressing the words, i don't know what "pure rationalists" is supposed to mean. > I'm not sure what point the rest of your comment is seeking to make, other than that you don't like my point of view. you blithely inserted another concept to the thread, which is what prompted my comment. your point of view isn't clear enough for me to have formed much of an opinion.