3 ms·

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 a

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.
  - ephimetheus 6y ago
    I’m very much able to make the distinction, but there are opinions so vile they can’t be tolerated. That’s just a fact. The line is also pretty clear, at least as far as the German law is concerned, so the danger (see slippery slope argument) is well worth the risk. The slippery slope argument is more applicable the other way round: if you tolerate this, it normalizes or rationalizes the Holocaust, and that’s the first step towards another genocide.
Craighead 6y ago
Your comment is... Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
davorak 6y ago
> ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if they are not putting in some serious effort then "That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them." Seeing how I am uninformed on what they have said as of yet I was interested in getting insight into their position and priorities. > That if people aren't making enough of an "effort" in some way, that their critiques should not be taken seriously? They have to prioritize, there is nothing wrong with that. I have to prioritize too. Knowing their priorities is useful information while evaluating their critiques. > 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. There is definitely a difference between writing a critique and working consistently towards changing a law. It has no bearing on the seriousness of their crtique, but it does on the seriousness of their commitment and priorities.

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.
- ephimetheus 6y ago
  I’m very much able to make the distinction, but there are opinions so vile they can’t be tolerated. That’s just a fact. The line is also pretty clear, at least as far as the German law is concerned, so the danger (see slippery slope argument) is well worth the risk. The slippery slope argument is more applicable the other way round: if you tolerate this, it normalizes or rationalizes the Holocaust, and that’s the first step towards another genocide.

Craighead 6y ago

Your comment is... Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

davorak 6y ago

> ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if they are not putting in some serious effort then "That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them." Seeing how I am uninformed on what they have said as of yet I was interested in getting insight into their position and priorities. > That if people aren't making enough of an "effort" in some way, that their critiques should not be taken seriously? They have to prioritize, there is nothing wrong with that. I have to prioritize too. Knowing their priorities is useful information while evaluating their critiques. > 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. There is definitely a difference between writing a critique and working consistently towards changing a law. It has no bearing on the seriousness of their crtique, but it does on the seriousness of their commitment and priorities.