3 ms·

It's bizarre and terrifying that people somehow associate freedom with fascism. The idea that wanting rights makes someone "alt right" is absolutely insane.

bjustin 6y ago
“Free speech” is used by some people, more often alt-right people than others, to mean freedom from consequences. Even criticism is derided as attacks on the “right” to “free speech”. That’s presumably what the original post mentioning this meant. There is no right to not face consequences from other private citizens for bad behavior.
- philwelch 6y ago
  “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech” —Idi Amin.
  - winston_smith 6y ago
    (wp: "Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is considered one of the most brutal despots in world history")
geofft 6y ago
It would be helpful if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer believe that because universally everyone who cares strongly about it is actually using it as cover for pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society.
- xibalba 6y ago
  > if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. How about the ACLU? Are they fascist? Perhaps you're only seeing alt-right associated with because of the particular filter bubble(s) in which you are located. I strongly encourage you to dig a little deeper, reflect a little more, and think a little harder on this topic. Free speech is the font from which all other rights spring and are defended. It is sacrosanct. Thus, folks like the ACLU try to defend it everywhere for everyone, not just the folks that pass purity tests.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    The ACLU now supports the 1A and the 2A SEPARATELY, but is opposed to having both simultaneously at one event. https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...
  - geofft 6y ago
    The ACLU? The group that sued the city of Charlottesville so that the fascist "Unite the Right" rally could happen in a place that the city said would be hard to maintain order/peace instead of in a nearby park where the city had already issued a permit, as a result of which, the fascists killed someone? Again, I have thought and reflected and dug. I donated to the ACLU for many years. I used to believe that they engaged in a noble cause of protecting the right of people with unpopular opinions to express their unpopular opinions. I used to believe that protecting the rights of the Nazis in Skokie protected all our rights. I now believe that it primarily protects the rights of the alt-right in Charlottesville to demonstrate and to kill, and I now believe that the ACLU's free speech advocacy, however well-intentioned, isn't good for society and leaves us all less free. And the last time they called me to ask if I'd "resume" my membership, I told them they have blood on their hands. If the lawsuit the ACLU filed (Kessler v. Charlottesvile) hadn't happened, the fascists would still have been equally able to express their opinions. The city just wanted the rally in a different spot to reduce the risk of violence. In retrospect, the city was right, the ACLU was wrong, and Kessler got the violence he wanted. I don't think there is any genuine danger (especially thanks to modern communications technology) to the ability of fascists to advocate for fascism, to make sure that the policy proposals of fascism remain known to the general public. What remains is a genuine danger to the ability of fascists to actually engage in fascism, which they call "exercising free speech," and they dupe organizations like the ACLU into helping them with it. (Note I'm not claiming the ACLU is intentionally fascist. Outside of free speech advocacy, they do a lot of effective work to oppose fascism. But on this particular issue, their effect, regardless of intent, is to support fascism, and their notable work is supporting fascists who think their right of "free speech" has been violated.) I intentionally keep my filter bubble quite broad. I read far-right forums and they love free speech. I read centrists and they think free speech is a great idea and will some day defend the. And I see far-left activists who gain nothing from the concept. If you have an example of the font of free speech actually serving to protect any rights beyond the right to enact fascism, I'd be very curious. My position could certainly evolve further, but this is where it is now. (BTW, it took me a long time to reply because HN blocked me with the "You're posting too fast. Please slow down." message, because I got downvoted too much in the last few minutes. If you think free speech is a virtue, please email the moderators and tell them that they should remove that feature and also stop greying out downvoted comments - downvoting for disagreement is explicitly permitted on HN, and the last thing an advocate of free speech would want is unpopular ideas to be literally unreadable! But the fact remains that HN is a better forum than e.g. 4chan because of its censorship mechanisms, and that's in fact one of the things that makes me believe free speech is not a virtue - even though I'm frequently one of the targets of that censorship because I frequently post unpopular ideas. I genuinely believe this community's ability to censor me makes it better.)
vkou 6y ago
Have you considered that some of the ways in which the alt-right demands their rights may be fascistic? Ponder, for instance, the proud boy chant of "Jews will not replace us." Are you going to let that one slide because, well, those folks are just making demands for their rights?
- dahfizz 6y ago
  "Jews will not replace us" is not an appeal to human rights, it's just racist. I don't see the connection you're trying to make. I'm genuinely confused on what your position is. Why do you have an association with freedom and the alt-right? Implicit in that position is that the Democratic left is somehow anti-rights. How can you simultaneously believe that: 1) the alt right champions rights / freedoms. 2) this makes the alt right fascist / authoritarian. 3) your party / alignment / position opposes the alt right, and therefore opposes the freedoms they advocate for. 4) by opposing freedom and human rights, your party is anti fascist. I'm genuinely confused. And why the connection with free speech in particular? The alt right also stages protests alot, do you think protesting is bad?

bjustin 6y ago

“Free speech” is used by some people, more often alt-right people than others, to mean freedom from consequences. Even criticism is derided as attacks on the “right” to “free speech”. That’s presumably what the original post mentioning this meant. There is no right to not face consequences from other private citizens for bad behavior.

philwelch 6y ago
“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech” —Idi Amin.
- winston_smith 6y ago
  (wp: "Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is considered one of the most brutal despots in world history")

geofft 6y ago

It would be helpful if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer believe that because universally everyone who cares strongly about it is actually using it as cover for pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society.

xibalba 6y ago
> if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. How about the ACLU? Are they fascist? Perhaps you're only seeing alt-right associated with because of the particular filter bubble(s) in which you are located. I strongly encourage you to dig a little deeper, reflect a little more, and think a little harder on this topic. Free speech is the font from which all other rights spring and are defended. It is sacrosanct. Thus, folks like the ACLU try to defend it everywhere for everyone, not just the folks that pass purity tests.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  The ACLU now supports the 1A and the 2A SEPARATELY, but is opposed to having both simultaneously at one event. https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...
- geofft 6y ago
  The ACLU? The group that sued the city of Charlottesville so that the fascist "Unite the Right" rally could happen in a place that the city said would be hard to maintain order/peace instead of in a nearby park where the city had already issued a permit, as a result of which, the fascists killed someone? Again, I have thought and reflected and dug. I donated to the ACLU for many years. I used to believe that they engaged in a noble cause of protecting the right of people with unpopular opinions to express their unpopular opinions. I used to believe that protecting the rights of the Nazis in Skokie protected all our rights. I now believe that it primarily protects the rights of the alt-right in Charlottesville to demonstrate and to kill, and I now believe that the ACLU's free speech advocacy, however well-intentioned, isn't good for society and leaves us all less free. And the last time they called me to ask if I'd "resume" my membership, I told them they have blood on their hands. If the lawsuit the ACLU filed (Kessler v. Charlottesvile) hadn't happened, the fascists would still have been equally able to express their opinions. The city just wanted the rally in a different spot to reduce the risk of violence. In retrospect, the city was right, the ACLU was wrong, and Kessler got the violence he wanted. I don't think there is any genuine danger (especially thanks to modern communications technology) to the ability of fascists to advocate for fascism, to make sure that the policy proposals of fascism remain known to the general public. What remains is a genuine danger to the ability of fascists to actually engage in fascism, which they call "exercising free speech," and they dupe organizations like the ACLU into helping them with it. (Note I'm not claiming the ACLU is intentionally fascist. Outside of free speech advocacy, they do a lot of effective work to oppose fascism. But on this particular issue, their effect, regardless of intent, is to support fascism, and their notable work is supporting fascists who think their right of "free speech" has been violated.) I intentionally keep my filter bubble quite broad. I read far-right forums and they love free speech. I read centrists and they think free speech is a great idea and will some day defend the. And I see far-left activists who gain nothing from the concept. If you have an example of the font of free speech actually serving to protect any rights beyond the right to enact fascism, I'd be very curious. My position could certainly evolve further, but this is where it is now. (BTW, it took me a long time to reply because HN blocked me with the "You're posting too fast. Please slow down." message, because I got downvoted too much in the last few minutes. If you think free speech is a virtue, please email the moderators and tell them that they should remove that feature and also stop greying out downvoted comments - downvoting for disagreement is explicitly permitted on HN, and the last thing an advocate of free speech would want is unpopular ideas to be literally unreadable! But the fact remains that HN is a better forum than e.g. 4chan because of its censorship mechanisms, and that's in fact one of the things that makes me believe free speech is not a virtue - even though I'm frequently one of the targets of that censorship because I frequently post unpopular ideas. I genuinely believe this community's ability to censor me makes it better.)

vkou 6y ago

Have you considered that some of the ways in which the alt-right demands their rights may be fascistic? Ponder, for instance, the proud boy chant of "Jews will not replace us." Are you going to let that one slide because, well, those folks are just making demands for their rights?

dahfizz 6y ago
"Jews will not replace us" is not an appeal to human rights, it's just racist. I don't see the connection you're trying to make. I'm genuinely confused on what your position is. Why do you have an association with freedom and the alt-right? Implicit in that position is that the Democratic left is somehow anti-rights. How can you simultaneously believe that: 1) the alt right champions rights / freedoms. 2) this makes the alt right fascist / authoritarian. 3) your party / alignment / position opposes the alt right, and therefore opposes the freedoms they advocate for. 4) by opposing freedom and human rights, your party is anti fascist. I'm genuinely confused. And why the connection with free speech in particular? The alt right also stages protests alot, do you think protesting is bad?