3 ms·

A cursory search reveals your characterization to be inaccurate. Note: I had no real interest in this topic until I read your critique which just sounded totall

A cursory search reveals your characterization to be inaccurate. Note: I had no real interest in this topic until I read your critique which just sounded totally outlandish to me. The ONLY people complaining about this limitation are people with terrible motives? No legitimate philosophers, political scientists, free speech activists exist with valid critiques? They're all just evil historical revisionists, eh? Doubtful... Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others.

davorak 6y ago
> Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others. Are these armchair critiques? Or are these people/groups putting in serious effort to change things? That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them.
- saas_sam 6y ago
  Your comment is strange... 1. ephimetheus: The only people who have a problem with these laws are bad people with evil intent 2. me: I just looked and there are a lot of people voicing problems with these laws who are good and have noble intent 3. you: But are they prioritizing the issue enough or are they just saying stuff? ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if people aren't making enough of an "effort" in some way, that their critiques should not be taken seriously? Maybe you're serious, but it sure sounds like an extreme moving of goal posts to me. Presumably I would then link to you some activist group or other pushing to change these laws -- I expect you'd then come back with some variation of "oh well, that's not really trying /hard enough/, look at all the /other things/ they care about more." Just... very strange. If you don't think sticking your neck out as a prominent intellectual like Chomsky or Hitchens to defend neo-nazi's right to lie in the public square.. if you don't think that constitutes a "serious effort" in and of itself, then YES I guess you can go further and look at Human Rights Watch's statements or whatever else. I doubt you will. But maybe other readers of this exchange will leave better for reading my comment here.
  - ephimetheus 6y ago
    Not sure what you dug up, but I’m not aware of anyone with an interest other than proving “see, we weren’t the bad guys”. Since the Holocaust is a historical fact, historians without revisionist goals have no reason to debate its existence. Research into the extent and details of the Holocaust are perfectly acceptable. Side not, the absolute vast majority of German society is on board with this limit of freedom of speech. It’s part of the constitution even.
    - saas_sam 6y ago
      There are several examples under "Commentary" section on the Wikipedia article. This isn't hard, I don't see how you can dig your heels in on this. You really CANNOT fathom how someone would be against strict speech laws for good reasons? Outside your imagination entirely? Come on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
      - ephimetheus 6y ago
        I should have added “in Germany”. Of course it’s not outside my imagination, but I think the idea that freedoms without limits should exist is super misguided and one of the central flaws of American democracy. It’s like allowing someone to claim something that is an absolute fact like the existence of the sun was a lie. But that’s ok because it doesn’t invalidate the unspeakable suffering of millions at the hands of industrialized slaughterers. That’s also why the slippery slope doesn’t apply. The line is clear as can be.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      You fail to make the distinction in holding the opinion and allowing people to have the opinion. I would a tiny minority of people complaining about speech restrictions hold the opinion or even want to make it socially acceptable. Most just argue that people themselves should be the ones to cast the judgement, not Facebook. These are very basic comprehension issues and your insinuation on those that disagree are fairly similar to reasoning you see in plain fascism.
dqpb 6y ago
What exactly does Noam Chomsky say about this?

davorak 6y ago

> Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others. Are these armchair critiques? Or are these people/groups putting in serious effort to change things? That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them.

saas_sam 6y ago
Your comment is strange... 1. ephimetheus: The only people who have a problem with these laws are bad people with evil intent 2. me: I just looked and there are a lot of people voicing problems with these laws who are good and have noble intent 3. you: But are they prioritizing the issue enough or are they just saying stuff? ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if people aren't making enough of an "effort" in some way, that their critiques should not be taken seriously? Maybe you're serious, but it sure sounds like an extreme moving of goal posts to me. Presumably I would then link to you some activist group or other pushing to change these laws -- I expect you'd then come back with some variation of "oh well, that's not really trying /hard enough/, look at all the /other things/ they care about more." Just... very strange. If you don't think sticking your neck out as a prominent intellectual like Chomsky or Hitchens to defend neo-nazi's right to lie in the public square.. if you don't think that constitutes a "serious effort" in and of itself, then YES I guess you can go further and look at Human Rights Watch's statements or whatever else. I doubt you will. But maybe other readers of this exchange will leave better for reading my comment here.
- ephimetheus 6y ago
  Not sure what you dug up, but I’m not aware of anyone with an interest other than proving “see, we weren’t the bad guys”. Since the Holocaust is a historical fact, historians without revisionist goals have no reason to debate its existence. Research into the extent and details of the Holocaust are perfectly acceptable. Side not, the absolute vast majority of German society is on board with this limit of freedom of speech. It’s part of the constitution even.
  - saas_sam 6y ago
    There are several examples under "Commentary" section on the Wikipedia article. This isn't hard, I don't see how you can dig your heels in on this. You really CANNOT fathom how someone would be against strict speech laws for good reasons? Outside your imagination entirely? Come on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
    - ephimetheus 6y ago
      I should have added “in Germany”. Of course it’s not outside my imagination, but I think the idea that freedoms without limits should exist is super misguided and one of the central flaws of American democracy. It’s like allowing someone to claim something that is an absolute fact like the existence of the sun was a lie. But that’s ok because it doesn’t invalidate the unspeakable suffering of millions at the hands of industrialized slaughterers. That’s also why the slippery slope doesn’t apply. The line is clear as can be.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    You fail to make the distinction in holding the opinion and allowing people to have the opinion. I would a tiny minority of people complaining about speech restrictions hold the opinion or even want to make it socially acceptable. Most just argue that people themselves should be the ones to cast the judgement, not Facebook. These are very basic comprehension issues and your insinuation on those that disagree are fairly similar to reasoning you see in plain fascism.

dqpb 6y ago

What exactly does Noam Chomsky say about this?