7 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance_and_freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance...

• jamsch 7y ago
  In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.
  • WAHa_06x36 7y ago
    Same "mental gymnastics" that were used to go to war against nazis in WW2, yes. Was that wrong?
    • kaolti 7y ago
      I rephrased this quite a few times, but I can't put this any other way: You are delusional.
      • WAHa_06x36 7y ago
        Not even a little. If you actually have an argument, do make it.
        • kaolti 7y ago
          Fair enough. Do you not see the problem with a monopoly deciding what is and isn't okay to say? You're comparing people who comment on websites to nazis? Did you not get the memo about the media calling everyone they don't like a nazi - including Pewdiepie? Do you really think these companies have YOUR best interest at heart instead of just siding with the political views of their shareholders?
          • zimpenfish 7y ago
            > including Pewdiepie? I think one Nazi-related mistake might be forgiveable. When it keeps happening, well, you've got to start thinking the tar on the brush is from the same pot.
          • WAHa_06x36 7y ago
            I am calling nazis nazis. Gab has a very large population of actual nazis. It also is the home of people who go shoot up large crowds of people for having the wrong religion. I feel pretty confident in calling these people bad names.
            • DuskStar 7y ago
              I feel rather confident in saying that Gab does NOT have a very large population of actual nazis when using sane definitions for 'very large' and 'nazis'. Let's say... 10k and unironic 'Sieg Heil!'. Or, really, anywhere close to that. But if you use the media/leftist definition of 'nazi', which seems to be 'anyone to have ever made a politically incorrect joke or to have associated with the same', then OF COURSE you'll find a very large population of nazis. But you'll find that anywhere.
              • belltaco 7y ago
                There are actually very few jokes on Voat or Gab. Also, neo-Nazis are different from actual Nazis.
          • untog 7y ago
            Firefox and Chrome can't both be a monopoly.
            • Ygg2 7y ago
              Chrome is a monopoly. Firefox is just a backbench player at this point.
              • 7y ago
    • Ygg2 7y ago
      If you think the current crop of neo-nazis has the same clout and power as the WW2 ones, I have several bridges to sell you.
    • ShrinkingWild 7y ago
      I think the main difference here is that the nazi's were actually doing bad things as well as saying bad things. In this case, bar the rare exception by individuals, these are people who are vocal that they think they're superior based on a superficial biological trait and nothing more.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • dkns 7y ago
        Nazis started with just saying bad things as well.
        • ShrinkingWild 7y ago
          Nazis also drank water and some probably even had pets. A lot of things started because people have said bad things, a lot of things also haven't started even though some people said bad things. The problem is something has to start and in order for that to happen, action has to be taken. Taking action based on the fact that some bad people one time said the same things is a bad idea, you're initiating the actions and inevitably they'll respond with more than just the words they started with.
    • repolfx 7y ago
      The USA didn't go to war against the Nazis until they had gone well beyond even the most terrible actions, let alone speech. Almost all of Europe had already been conquered, the last holdout in the UK was getting pounded daily and the US still didn't join until attacked directly. The core difference between then and now is that America of the mid 20th century didn't believe ideas were inherently dangerous - even the communist threat led to at worst the McCarthy hearings which are universally regarded now as a stain on America's history. What we see today is lots of Valley Ivy League graduate types who are convinced that reading a few tweets of the wrong kind wipes people's brains and literally turns them into the third Reich, in ways that nobody can stop or control. But there's no evidence for this viewpoint, and arguably it just led to the largest and craziest conspiracy theory in American history (the idea that Trump is a Russian spy).
• Ygg2 7y ago
  It makes perfect sense. If you create tools to ban certain types of speech, say intolerance of homophobia, what happens when a homophobe acquires those tools? Because any tool will be eventually misused and abused.
  • WAHa_06x36 7y ago
    What "tools" do you need to "create" to "ban certain types of speech"? What does that even mean? You don't need tools to kick nazis off your platform. And who cares what homophobes do on their platforms? Don't use them.
    • Ygg2 7y ago
      Laws and practices that help you exclude certain opinions. Like for example in this case the Mozilla Acceptable Use Policy. Change a few words, add some statements, and it can be used against Antifa. Homophobes were just an example, you can substitute with Nazis or others.
      • WAHa_06x36 7y ago
        Then don't change it.
        • deleted 7y ago
          [deleted]
        • DuskStar 7y ago
          When you start summoning demons, you don't always get to choose who the demon decides to eat... Oh, you might get to point it in the direction of your enemies to begin with, sure. But eventually it'll start eating people you like, and by that point it'll have grown far too large to control.
      • saithir 7y ago
        You don't even need to change anything. The article already mentions promoting violence was one of the reasons. So yes, the whole point of Antifa is already unacceptable by that policy.