5 ms·

> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. It's more important and wide than "I don't want to be their fri

> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. It's more important and wide than "I don't want to be their friends"... How can you attack ideas if they aren't brought out into the open? How can you convince the racist? Or the people that have those thoughts but don't mention them? They corner stone of freedom is discussing ideas. I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. Cowards hide from ideas and words. It takes strength to fight them head on and out in the open.

fao_ 9y ago
> I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. While this idea is admirable, fascist/Nazi dialogue has shown again and again that fascists are not interested in "fair" debate. All they want is a larger audience so they can pass on their views -- and look at America. Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of people debating Richard Spencer[0], Steve Bannon[1] and Milo Yiannopoulos[2] has stopped the spread? No! In fact, it has enabled them to spread their sources of propaganda further into the world. Now even centrist friends of mine are linking to Breitbart as if it is a valid source of information[3]. Some viruses and infections you can only kill through isolation. Fascism is one of them. [0]: In case that you have any doubt that Spencer is a Nazi: Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. -- Richard Spencer, "Is Black Genocide Right?" (2012) (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer) [1]: Bannon has voiced support for UKIP and Front National. The former is an close offshoot of Britain First, one of whom murdered a British politician a year or so ago (He had a golden eagle statue and a shrine to Nazi literature). The latter was literally founded by a member of the SS, Pierre Bousquet. FN has also been known to murder French politicians. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon) [2]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos [3]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com
- baud147258 9y ago
  > FN has also been known to murder French politicians. Do you have any sources on that? With all the things the media in France is saying about the FN, I don't think they would have missed something so important.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Front_National https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Front_National Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the racist murders committed by some members (see Brahim Bouarram thrown in the Seine, and Ibrahim Ali, shot), the FN continued its progress and even managed to gain some towns in 1995, such as Toulon and Orange, where, once more, such mayors managed to show their crass incompetence[3] and got booted in 2001 by the electors. Source for Brahim Bouarram mentioning FN: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/paris-crowds-gather-mark-killing-brahim-bouarram-170501205916744.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/paris-crowds-gather-m... On May 1, 1995, skinheads rallying with the far-right National Front (FN) threw Brahim Bouarram, a 29-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent, into the River Seine and disappeared into the crowds. [...] At the time of Bouarram's death, Jean-Marie Le Pen described the incident as "minor". [...] "The FN is an anti-Semitic, racist, xenophobic party," said Abdallah, also of the ATMF. "The normalisation of the ideas of the NF is worrying us. Even more so, it scares us that a large proportion of the army, gendarmerie and police vote for Marine Le Pen. We are scared for our kids who have brown, black and Arab faces when they get stopped by the police." Source for Ibrahim Ali mentioning FN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ibrahim_Ali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ibrahim_Ali Root Source for Ibrahim Ali mentioning FN: https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/france-shooting-attacks-idAFL6E8EK6OY20120320 https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/france-shooting-a... [Ibrahim Ali] was walking with a group of ten other young men in Marseilles' XVth arrondissement, when they encountered three supporters of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National party, armed with guns, who had been posting campaign signs nearby. The latter group opened fire on them. Ibrahim Ali was shot in the back.
    - baud147258 9y ago
Retra 9y ago
>How can you attack ideas if they aren't brought out into the open? You attack ideas by suffocating them, not by repeating them. Children learn words by hearing them spoken. Nothing more needs to happen; the brain is quite good at drawing the intended implications out. To promote an idea, you need only put it in people's heads over and over again. The major problem with hate speech laws is trying to separate propaganda from education or intellectual discussion from dogmatic bigotry. It is trivial to mask one as the other and vice versa. And while an honest and critical person can make a good distinction in narrow contexts, nobody has been able to do it effectively on a cultural scale.
- InternetUser 9y ago
  > To promote an idea, you need only put it in people's heads over and over again. As a voracious consumer of news, I spent hundreds of hours from summer 2015 to November 2016 having my mind exposed to headlines, articles, images, and videos on TV (both on TV news programs and late-night comedy shows), and on news websites (NYT, WaPo, Yahoo, MSN), and on social media (in 'Trending' sidebars of Facebook and Twitter) telling me that Trump is a crazy, racist, misogynistic, fascist maniacal idiot who is totally unqualified to be president, and whom "everyone" hates except for white racists and uneducated rednecks. Well, it didn't convince me, and didn't convince a majority of voters in 30 other states. That being said, I'm very open to consuming just as much anti-Trump and pro-Democrat content as soon as the Democratic primary begins in early 2019, or even before then. Maybe I can be persuaded that time around.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
There is also issues with what is discriminatory/hateful language. If I point out that the vast majority of criminals are men, that is simple fact. If I suggest it might be because of something related to being male, few would call that hate speech and few would bring up alternatives such as bias in the legal system. Only when I get to the point of saying all males should be treated as criminals will I get significant push back of people saying that I'm wrong. Now, replace gender with some other demographic, and people become much more hostile to my points, and I am considered to be dancing much closer to the line of hate speech. What about if I have legitimate criticism? There are many legitimate criticisms of some sects of different religions. If I happen to speak to broadly, say using Christian or Protestant when I'm really talking about Calvinist, should that really count as hate speech? Or should someone ask if I'm really generalizing the larger group and give me a chance to qualify which subsection I'm speaking about?

fao_ 9y ago

> I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. While this idea is admirable, fascist/Nazi dialogue has shown again and again that fascists are not interested in "fair" debate. All they want is a larger audience so they can pass on their views -- and look at America. Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of people debating Richard Spencer[0], Steve Bannon[1] and Milo Yiannopoulos[2] has stopped the spread? No! In fact, it has enabled them to spread their sources of propaganda further into the world. Now even centrist friends of mine are linking to Breitbart as if it is a valid source of information[3]. Some viruses and infections you can only kill through isolation. Fascism is one of them. [0]: In case that you have any doubt that Spencer is a Nazi: Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. -- Richard Spencer, "Is Black Genocide Right?" (2012) (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer) [1]: Bannon has voiced support for UKIP and Front National. The former is an close offshoot of Britain First, one of whom murdered a British politician a year or so ago (He had a golden eagle statue and a shrine to Nazi literature). The latter was literally founded by a member of the SS, Pierre Bousquet. FN has also been known to murder French politicians. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon) [2]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos [3]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com

baud147258 9y ago
> FN has also been known to murder French politicians. Do you have any sources on that? With all the things the media in France is saying about the FN, I don't think they would have missed something so important.
- fao_ 9y ago
  > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Front_National https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Front_National Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the racist murders committed by some members (see Brahim Bouarram thrown in the Seine, and Ibrahim Ali, shot), the FN continued its progress and even managed to gain some towns in 1995, such as Toulon and Orange, where, once more, such mayors managed to show their crass incompetence[3] and got booted in 2001 by the electors. Source for Brahim Bouarram mentioning FN: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/paris-crowds-gather-mark-killing-brahim-bouarram-170501205916744.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/paris-crowds-gather-m... On May 1, 1995, skinheads rallying with the far-right National Front (FN) threw Brahim Bouarram, a 29-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent, into the River Seine and disappeared into the crowds. [...] At the time of Bouarram's death, Jean-Marie Le Pen described the incident as "minor". [...] "The FN is an anti-Semitic, racist, xenophobic party," said Abdallah, also of the ATMF. "The normalisation of the ideas of the NF is worrying us. Even more so, it scares us that a large proportion of the army, gendarmerie and police vote for Marine Le Pen. We are scared for our kids who have brown, black and Arab faces when they get stopped by the police." Source for Ibrahim Ali mentioning FN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ibrahim_Ali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ibrahim_Ali Root Source for Ibrahim Ali mentioning FN: https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/france-shooting-attacks-idAFL6E8EK6OY20120320 https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/france-shooting-a... [Ibrahim Ali] was walking with a group of ten other young men in Marseilles' XVth arrondissement, when they encountered three supporters of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National party, armed with guns, who had been posting campaign signs nearby. The latter group opened fire on them. Ibrahim Ali was shot in the back.
  - baud147258 9y ago

Retra 9y ago

>How can you attack ideas if they aren't brought out into the open? You attack ideas by suffocating them, not by repeating them. Children learn words by hearing them spoken. Nothing more needs to happen; the brain is quite good at drawing the intended implications out. To promote an idea, you need only put it in people's heads over and over again. The major problem with hate speech laws is trying to separate propaganda from education or intellectual discussion from dogmatic bigotry. It is trivial to mask one as the other and vice versa. And while an honest and critical person can make a good distinction in narrow contexts, nobody has been able to do it effectively on a cultural scale.

InternetUser 9y ago
> To promote an idea, you need only put it in people's heads over and over again. As a voracious consumer of news, I spent hundreds of hours from summer 2015 to November 2016 having my mind exposed to headlines, articles, images, and videos on TV (both on TV news programs and late-night comedy shows), and on news websites (NYT, WaPo, Yahoo, MSN), and on social media (in 'Trending' sidebars of Facebook and Twitter) telling me that Trump is a crazy, racist, misogynistic, fascist maniacal idiot who is totally unqualified to be president, and whom "everyone" hates except for white racists and uneducated rednecks. Well, it didn't convince me, and didn't convince a majority of voters in 30 other states. That being said, I'm very open to consuming just as much anti-Trump and pro-Democrat content as soon as the Democratic primary begins in early 2019, or even before then. Maybe I can be persuaded that time around.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

There is also issues with what is discriminatory/hateful language. If I point out that the vast majority of criminals are men, that is simple fact. If I suggest it might be because of something related to being male, few would call that hate speech and few would bring up alternatives such as bias in the legal system. Only when I get to the point of saying all males should be treated as criminals will I get significant push back of people saying that I'm wrong. Now, replace gender with some other demographic, and people become much more hostile to my points, and I am considered to be dancing much closer to the line of hate speech. What about if I have legitimate criticism? There are many legitimate criticisms of some sects of different religions. If I happen to speak to broadly, say using Christian or Protestant when I'm really talking about Calvinist, should that really count as hate speech? Or should someone ask if I'm really generalizing the larger group and give me a chance to qualify which subsection I'm speaking about?