3 ms·

Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no: <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpop

Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no: <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>> from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literat... Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.

hef19898 6y ago
Saying what stereotypes about jews are is different from pushing these stereotypes as truth.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Both are free speech, right? Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Stating what others historically thought about, in your example jews, has to be ok. How would educate people about anti-semitism if it wasn't? Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      "stating..." - agreed. "promoting..." - agreed. Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Free speech is tricky, and every nation has to find its own balance, its own limits to what is acceptable and what isn't. Being German, I am pretty sensitive with regards to the Holocaust, anti-semitism, Nazi propaganda and, as a logical extension, anti-muslim and anti-lgbtq propaganda. Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.
      - webmaven 6y ago
        > Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him. I think that "disagree" isn't exactly the correct description of someone's stance vis-a-vis hate speech, particularly that which is targeted at them. It has been noted that "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact". For what it's worth, tolerance isn't a suicide pact either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
cortic 6y ago
Yes. And most everything else that isn't evidence of intent to commit a crime (which should probably still be allowed so police can investigate). It singles out an individual to the group as being full or hate and bile, censoring would not disappear the person, it would only force them to be more convincing and manipulative. It would trigger a backlash in which would be a convincing and Thorough retort of the viewpoint, giving good immunity to lurkers in their lives after that should they come across this viewpoint again. It would ensure that a constant evaluation of what is true within society. Without this we really don't know what is true. open discourse has its problems, but its literally our only vehicle from bad ideas to good ideas.
webmaven 6y ago
> Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no: > <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>> > Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it. That may depend on whether you are asking whether it is okay to say, literally, "$GROUP is described as $X", or if you are actually asking if it is permitted to say "$GROUP is $X".

hef19898 6y ago

Saying what stereotypes about jews are is different from pushing these stereotypes as truth.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Both are free speech, right? Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?
- hef19898 6y ago
  Stating what others historically thought about, in your example jews, has to be ok. How would educate people about anti-semitism if it wasn't? Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    "stating..." - agreed. "promoting..." - agreed. Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Free speech is tricky, and every nation has to find its own balance, its own limits to what is acceptable and what isn't. Being German, I am pretty sensitive with regards to the Holocaust, anti-semitism, Nazi propaganda and, as a logical extension, anti-muslim and anti-lgbtq propaganda. Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him. I think that "disagree" isn't exactly the correct description of someone's stance vis-a-vis hate speech, particularly that which is targeted at them. It has been noted that "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact". For what it's worth, tolerance isn't a suicide pact either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

cortic 6y ago

Yes. And most everything else that isn't evidence of intent to commit a crime (which should probably still be allowed so police can investigate). It singles out an individual to the group as being full or hate and bile, censoring would not disappear the person, it would only force them to be more convincing and manipulative. It would trigger a backlash in which would be a convincing and Thorough retort of the viewpoint, giving good immunity to lurkers in their lives after that should they come across this viewpoint again. It would ensure that a constant evaluation of what is true within society. Without this we really don't know what is true. open discourse has its problems, but its literally our only vehicle from bad ideas to good ideas.

webmaven 6y ago

> Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no: > <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>> > Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it. That may depend on whether you are asking whether it is okay to say, literally, "$GROUP is described as $X", or if you are actually asking if it is permitted to say "$GROUP is $X".