6 ms·

>I don't know anyone who wouldn't be afraid of a Nazi-style dictatorship Do you believe that if people with ideas that you consider to be Nazi-like are allowed

>I don't know anyone who wouldn't be afraid of a Nazi-style dictatorship Do you believe that if people with ideas that you consider to be Nazi-like are allowed participate in the public debate as freely and meaningfully as everyone else (e.g. by using electronic services regularly available to everyone else), a Nazi-style dictatorship is likely to come about?

claudiawerner 7y ago
No, I don't, but I do think it increases its chances of happening - and there is historical precedent for it. For that reason, I sit somewhere between Popper's paradox of tolerance on these matters (and I go further than him), Sartre's notes on anti-semitism, and Marcuse's criticism of simple plurality as a substitute for educated and rational thought. To be clear, I don't advocate for censorship of ideas that I simply "don't like". That's not a sufficiently rigorous standard. Ideas which advocate for targeting marginalized groups, or entire groups of people for ideas they have no control over, are fair game, in my opinion. I don't pretend to have no bias in my answer to that question. I am biased, and others have their own biases. I draw the line where I want to draw it, with no concern for pretending to derive it from first principles.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  To get this straight, you are stating that you believe it is in your interest for certain other people who live in the same society as you to be prohibited from attempting to further their own interests by freely and meaningfully participating in the public political debate to the same degree that you and others in your society are able. Do you think that's going to end well? How do you expect those people to feel about you? There is a very good reason why societies have protected the right to political speech, and it is to prevent the inevitable conflict that arises when some people in society feel that the rest of society is preventing them from attempting to further their own interests in the same capacity that other groups are able. In the case of political speech that you consider Nazi-style, your rationale is that you believe it will make an event you consider to be unlikely become even less likely. You believe it will have a sufficiently large influence on the likelihood to make it worth bearing the consequences of telling people in your society that they cannot participate in the public political debate as freely and meaningfully as others. Why do you believe it would make that event less likely? And why do you believe it would reduce it enough to justify the risk?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      Thank you for the candid reply. It sounds to me like you have no desire to share a society with people that hold the views you describe, and would rather kill them or expel them over their ideas than share your society with them and grant them the same ability and freedom as others to participate in the public political debate. Would you agree with that? >when those certain other people hold views fundamentally incompatible with what we as a society have agreed (whether tacitly or otherwise) are the foundational values of our society Which values are you referring to, out of curiosity?

claudiawerner 7y ago

No, I don't, but I do think it increases its chances of happening - and there is historical precedent for it. For that reason, I sit somewhere between Popper's paradox of tolerance on these matters (and I go further than him), Sartre's notes on anti-semitism, and Marcuse's criticism of simple plurality as a substitute for educated and rational thought. To be clear, I don't advocate for censorship of ideas that I simply "don't like". That's not a sufficiently rigorous standard. Ideas which advocate for targeting marginalized groups, or entire groups of people for ideas they have no control over, are fair game, in my opinion. I don't pretend to have no bias in my answer to that question. I am biased, and others have their own biases. I draw the line where I want to draw it, with no concern for pretending to derive it from first principles.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
To get this straight, you are stating that you believe it is in your interest for certain other people who live in the same society as you to be prohibited from attempting to further their own interests by freely and meaningfully participating in the public political debate to the same degree that you and others in your society are able. Do you think that's going to end well? How do you expect those people to feel about you? There is a very good reason why societies have protected the right to political speech, and it is to prevent the inevitable conflict that arises when some people in society feel that the rest of society is preventing them from attempting to further their own interests in the same capacity that other groups are able. In the case of political speech that you consider Nazi-style, your rationale is that you believe it will make an event you consider to be unlikely become even less likely. You believe it will have a sufficiently large influence on the likelihood to make it worth bearing the consequences of telling people in your society that they cannot participate in the public political debate as freely and meaningfully as others. Why do you believe it would make that event less likely? And why do you believe it would reduce it enough to justify the risk?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    Thank you for the candid reply. It sounds to me like you have no desire to share a society with people that hold the views you describe, and would rather kill them or expel them over their ideas than share your society with them and grant them the same ability and freedom as others to participate in the public political debate. Would you agree with that? >when those certain other people hold views fundamentally incompatible with what we as a society have agreed (whether tacitly or otherwise) are the foundational values of our society Which values are you referring to, out of curiosity?