5 ms·

While I do agree with your stated premise, I disagree with the notion that agreeing with the premise forces me to choose between McCarthy and Stalin. My counte

While I do agree with your stated premise, I disagree with the notion that agreeing with the premise forces me to choose between McCarthy and Stalin. My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. It's my impression that people advocating socialist policies (or any policy not strictly capitalist) were also targeted. I feel I can object to this, while also objecting to horrors wrought by Stalin. I'm not advocating the censorship of conservative views in general, just the murderous views expressed by a small faction. As a personal side note, I've been enjoying this discussion with you. If you are interested in keeping it up, I'll reply sometime in the morning EST.

stale2002 8y ago
> My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. Indeed. Which has a lot a parallels to the current political witch hunts going on today, regarding right wing views.
philwelch 8y ago
> My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. Well, maybe. It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA, which was directly bankrolled from Moscow. Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch hunt”. The main reason the various bans on political parties in Europe haven’t devolved into witch hunts is because the bans are in name only. The former communist states in Europe tended to ban the communist party, which immediately went back into business under another name, and no one cared. And, sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably even more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about being fascists. At that point you’re just tabooing words and symbols. If you followed the same policy in the US, you wouldn’t actually end up censoring any KKK or neo-Nazis, because they would just rebrand as “pan-European nationalists” or something and pursue the same platform. It’s most reasonable to set that bar, if it must be set, at direct and unambiguous incitement of violence, which would not include things like flying swastika flags. Communist Party USA was never banned, unlike Nazi, fascist, and communist parties across Europe, and I agree with that policy. The marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is much smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever allowing or normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And honestly, neo-Nazis are an even bigger joke. Any ideology that’s unpopular enough to ban isn’t popular enough to represent a real threat. The people banning it, though—they’re the ones to keep an eye on. Antifa literally march down the street wearing black shirts and beating up people they perceive as enemies, and they don’t see the irony in that. Sure, they should go to jail as soon as they lay hands on anyone, just like anyone else should, but I’m not going to begrudge their right to wear ridiculous black outfits and wave black-and-red flags around, and they’re a lot more likely to end up sending folks to death camps than those neo-Nazi clowns.
- nepeckman 8y ago
  > Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch hunt”. I'm honestly surprised to see Jones and Damore mentioned in the same sentence. Jones deliberately spreads misinformation and personally response for directing a lot of hatred and harassment towards innocent people. Damore just published some unpopular (and in my opinion, harmful) views. I lean far left, and even I think that situation was mishandled. > It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist: Scholar Thomas Doherty describes how the HUAC hearings swept onto the blacklist those who had never even been particularly active politically, let alone suspected of being Communists: "On March 21, 1951, the name of the actor Lionel Stander was uttered by the actor Larry Parks during testimony before HUAC. "Do you know Lionel Stander?" committee counsel Frank S. Tavenner inquired. Parks replied he knew the man, but had no knowledge of his political affiliations. No more was said about Stander either by Parks or the committee – no accusation, no insinuation. Yet Stander's phone stopped ringing. Prior to Parks's testimony, Stander had worked on ten television shows in the previous 100 days. Afterwards, nothing." > And, sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably even more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about being fascists. This is speculation. I'm aware that these groups will continue rebranding and resurfacing, but I don't think a passive approach is effective here. I think a perfect example of this is the Unite the Right rally 1 year ago, vs the reunion this past year. After the events a year ago, many white supremacists were doxxed, shamed, and fired. This year, no one came out to the reunion. If the rally a year ago was a success, do you think that would be the case? I think its reasonable to expect that more people would come out for the event, embolden by previous successes. I know that all the people involved in the rally last year are still white supremacists. My concern is them indoctrinating more members and growing in power. And I think passively letting them have a platform enables them to reach more people, embolden more people, and generally grow in strength. > The marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is much smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever allowing or normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And honestly, neo-Nazis are an even bigger joke. Sure, they may be a joke now. But they are less of a joke now than the were 10 years ago. They have a larger microphone, and while I can't speak for enrollment numbers, the members they have are more active and more visible. They have someone in office that they view as "their guy". By letting them have their platform, we risk letting them grow more. And that is not a marginal risk to me. For me, the marginal risk is that we will ban a non-murderous ideology. I see that both less likely, and safer for me personally, than the alternative.

stale2002 8y ago

> My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. Indeed. Which has a lot a parallels to the current political witch hunts going on today, regarding right wing views.

philwelch 8y ago

> My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. Well, maybe. It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA, which was directly bankrolled from Moscow. Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch hunt”. The main reason the various bans on political parties in Europe haven’t devolved into witch hunts is because the bans are in name only. The former communist states in Europe tended to ban the communist party, which immediately went back into business under another name, and no one cared. And, sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably even more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about being fascists. At that point you’re just tabooing words and symbols. If you followed the same policy in the US, you wouldn’t actually end up censoring any KKK or neo-Nazis, because they would just rebrand as “pan-European nationalists” or something and pursue the same platform. It’s most reasonable to set that bar, if it must be set, at direct and unambiguous incitement of violence, which would not include things like flying swastika flags. Communist Party USA was never banned, unlike Nazi, fascist, and communist parties across Europe, and I agree with that policy. The marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is much smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever allowing or normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And honestly, neo-Nazis are an even bigger joke. Any ideology that’s unpopular enough to ban isn’t popular enough to represent a real threat. The people banning it, though—they’re the ones to keep an eye on. Antifa literally march down the street wearing black shirts and beating up people they perceive as enemies, and they don’t see the irony in that. Sure, they should go to jail as soon as they lay hands on anyone, just like anyone else should, but I’m not going to begrudge their right to wear ridiculous black outfits and wave black-and-red flags around, and they’re a lot more likely to end up sending folks to death camps than those neo-Nazi clowns.

nepeckman 8y ago
> Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch hunt”. I'm honestly surprised to see Jones and Damore mentioned in the same sentence. Jones deliberately spreads misinformation and personally response for directing a lot of hatred and harassment towards innocent people. Damore just published some unpopular (and in my opinion, harmful) views. I lean far left, and even I think that situation was mishandled. > It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist: Scholar Thomas Doherty describes how the HUAC hearings swept onto the blacklist those who had never even been particularly active politically, let alone suspected of being Communists: "On March 21, 1951, the name of the actor Lionel Stander was uttered by the actor Larry Parks during testimony before HUAC. "Do you know Lionel Stander?" committee counsel Frank S. Tavenner inquired. Parks replied he knew the man, but had no knowledge of his political affiliations. No more was said about Stander either by Parks or the committee – no accusation, no insinuation. Yet Stander's phone stopped ringing. Prior to Parks's testimony, Stander had worked on ten television shows in the previous 100 days. Afterwards, nothing." > And, sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably even more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about being fascists. This is speculation. I'm aware that these groups will continue rebranding and resurfacing, but I don't think a passive approach is effective here. I think a perfect example of this is the Unite the Right rally 1 year ago, vs the reunion this past year. After the events a year ago, many white supremacists were doxxed, shamed, and fired. This year, no one came out to the reunion. If the rally a year ago was a success, do you think that would be the case? I think its reasonable to expect that more people would come out for the event, embolden by previous successes. I know that all the people involved in the rally last year are still white supremacists. My concern is them indoctrinating more members and growing in power. And I think passively letting them have a platform enables them to reach more people, embolden more people, and generally grow in strength. > The marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is much smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever allowing or normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And honestly, neo-Nazis are an even bigger joke. Sure, they may be a joke now. But they are less of a joke now than the were 10 years ago. They have a larger microphone, and while I can't speak for enrollment numbers, the members they have are more active and more visible. They have someone in office that they view as "their guy". By letting them have their platform, we risk letting them grow more. And that is not a marginal risk to me. For me, the marginal risk is that we will ban a non-murderous ideology. I see that both less likely, and safer for me personally, than the alternative.