3 ms·

With all due respect your comment history outlines you as a progressive and the first line you have on your profile is "You call it "alt-left", I proudly call i

With all due respect your comment history outlines you as a progressive and the first line you have on your profile is "You call it "alt-left", I proudly call it "Antifa".". Among the many aspects of your faith that I disagree with, one of the most utilised by its followers is its enthusiastic advocacy of false accusations against heretics in the pursuit of attacking them. And so while I don't know anything about qanon or infowars, your bad mouthing them is only lending them credibility; it is also shores up my belief that whatever your implicit definition of "duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts" is, I can assure you, we neither need nor want it.

mschuster91 6y ago
> it is also shores up my belief that whatever your implicit definition of "duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts" is, I can assure you, we neither need nor want it. I'm not just an antifascist, I'm German. My ancestors proved for the rest of the world where a worldview based on lies and hate (and qanon is nothing more than that) will lead. Their history is proof that a society must defend itself or it will collapse.
- textgel 6y ago
  Again, your faith believes false accusations against perceived heretics are acceptable tactics; your word against them is less than empty. Your ancestors and plenty of other examples throughout history are proof where censorship and book burning lead. The principle of sunlight is the best disinfectant has proven time and again to be true and the only people who argue against it are those being shown to be wrong under the light. Yes it permits the odd crazies to exist on the fringe, that's fine; flat earthers anti-vaxers and the rest were pointed at and laughed at long before the recent desperate grab for censorship by authoritarians was made. Open access to information is only a problem in the eyes of those who want to misslead.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    > The principle of sunlight is the best disinfectant has proven time and again to be true and the only people who argue against it are those being shown to be wrong under the light I am a strong advocate for free speech, but I really think it is naive to believe that truth will always win no matter what. History is full of examples where propaganda and lies wins. I am not arguing for censorship, but I am arguing that we need to confront lies and propaganda with more than just platitudes about the truth winning out in the end. The truth needs advocates.
    - textgel 6y ago
      That's a fair point; I know there's a lot of truth in the quote “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” and I've seen plenty examples of major damage caused thanks to the phenomenon (Which has no doubt helped with the arguments advocacating for censorship.) I'd say a couple of things. In a situation where we do have free speech I believe the truth does overall win out in the end; very often it takes a frustratingly long time and often comes too late to repair the damages caused by the lie but I believe that that overall, if you'll excuse the horrendous remark, "the truth does find a way". I also know that the current lies and propaganda we so often see are an absolute stain on these past decades and I'm also in agreement that something needs to be done. Whatever it is however I'd like to see it built on the free speech principle rather than against it, even if the principal isn't without its flaws.
      - cortesoft 6y ago
        One thing I would say is that while it might be true that truth eventually finds a away, the lies can do a lot of damage in the meantime, and can in fact be used to prevent the truth from coming out. For example, take fascist propaganda... the lies are effective, and if left unchecked, can convince people to support fascist leaders, who will then block free speech, preventing the truth from winning out. This is a form of the paradox of tolerance..
        textgel 6y ago
        Perhaps the fixes for the problems we have shouldn't involve some patchwork bodge to the laws that align our principles but should instead start at investigating why we need these bodges in the first place? It's an unthought out idea but between existing slander laws, a reasonable expectation of common sense/reason from your average citizen and a lack of corruption in government; I'm wondering if setting up the systems to ensure those aforementioned areas are solid would take care of the free speech problems for us.

mschuster91 6y ago

> it is also shores up my belief that whatever your implicit definition of "duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts" is, I can assure you, we neither need nor want it. I'm not just an antifascist, I'm German. My ancestors proved for the rest of the world where a worldview based on lies and hate (and qanon is nothing more than that) will lead. Their history is proof that a society must defend itself or it will collapse.

textgel 6y ago
Again, your faith believes false accusations against perceived heretics are acceptable tactics; your word against them is less than empty. Your ancestors and plenty of other examples throughout history are proof where censorship and book burning lead. The principle of sunlight is the best disinfectant has proven time and again to be true and the only people who argue against it are those being shown to be wrong under the light. Yes it permits the odd crazies to exist on the fringe, that's fine; flat earthers anti-vaxers and the rest were pointed at and laughed at long before the recent desperate grab for censorship by authoritarians was made. Open access to information is only a problem in the eyes of those who want to misslead.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  > The principle of sunlight is the best disinfectant has proven time and again to be true and the only people who argue against it are those being shown to be wrong under the light I am a strong advocate for free speech, but I really think it is naive to believe that truth will always win no matter what. History is full of examples where propaganda and lies wins. I am not arguing for censorship, but I am arguing that we need to confront lies and propaganda with more than just platitudes about the truth winning out in the end. The truth needs advocates.
  - textgel 6y ago
    That's a fair point; I know there's a lot of truth in the quote “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” and I've seen plenty examples of major damage caused thanks to the phenomenon (Which has no doubt helped with the arguments advocacating for censorship.) I'd say a couple of things. In a situation where we do have free speech I believe the truth does overall win out in the end; very often it takes a frustratingly long time and often comes too late to repair the damages caused by the lie but I believe that that overall, if you'll excuse the horrendous remark, "the truth does find a way". I also know that the current lies and propaganda we so often see are an absolute stain on these past decades and I'm also in agreement that something needs to be done. Whatever it is however I'd like to see it built on the free speech principle rather than against it, even if the principal isn't without its flaws.
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      One thing I would say is that while it might be true that truth eventually finds a away, the lies can do a lot of damage in the meantime, and can in fact be used to prevent the truth from coming out. For example, take fascist propaganda... the lies are effective, and if left unchecked, can convince people to support fascist leaders, who will then block free speech, preventing the truth from winning out. This is a form of the paradox of tolerance..
      - textgel 6y ago
        Perhaps the fixes for the problems we have shouldn't involve some patchwork bodge to the laws that align our principles but should instead start at investigating why we need these bodges in the first place? It's an unthought out idea but between existing slander laws, a reasonable expectation of common sense/reason from your average citizen and a lack of corruption in government; I'm wondering if setting up the systems to ensure those aforementioned areas are solid would take care of the free speech problems for us.