2 ms·
> The idea that the Jewish population was responsible for the harms and ills of pre-WWII Germany was a devastatingly harmful idea. Come to think of it ... If t
by nanis 5y ago
> The idea that the Jewish population was responsible for the harms and ills of pre-WWII Germany was a devastatingly harmful idea.
Come to think of it ... If the pre-WWII harms and ills of Germany did not exist, would the scapegoating have existed? So, is it the idea that one could keep the peace by utterly destroying the enemy _after_ they lost that ought to have been banned?
Fast-forwarding a little bit, even after those particular manifestations had been banned, some Germans continued to kill people whom they considered to be of "inferior" races. Do you attribute the literal roasting of Turks to the idea that luxury on the one side and communism on the other side could magically wash away responsibility for the genocides committed by their ancestors?
I am curious because once we go down the path of blaming "ideas" instead of specific people for specific actions, it all gets pretty funky pretty fast.
It wasn't like the Nazi party was never banned in Germany. Do you take the survival of those ideas despite the various bans since 1923 as proof that banning ideas don't change anything about the people who'll do horrible things?
- ncallaway 5y ago> So, is it the idea that one could keep the peace by utterly destroying the enemy _after_ they lost that ought to have been banned? I wasn't advocating for banning any ideas, but rather than private entities should have the freedom to moderate their platforms. That private entities and persons should be allowed to say: "I won't share this idea". One of the points asserted was that this requires us to agree to the point that "some ideas are harmful". So, I was defending the claim that 'some ideas are harmful'. That is absolutely not the same as defending the claim that 'some ideas should be banned'. Most of the rest of your comment deals with that latter claim, which I don't support and don't claim to. My point wasn't that the idea should've been banned, but rather that the idea was harmful.
- nanis 5y ago> but rather than private entities should have the freedom to moderate their platforms. Do you think the Nazis were able to publish their positions in _Die Rote Fahne_? > One of the points asserted was that this requires us to agree to the point that "some ideas are harmful". Ideas are ideas. Ideas by themselves cannot be harmful. Actions have the ability to cause harm. Well, OK, the idea that large corporations merging their power with the political authority to insulate the population from harmful ideas, well, that idea is definitely harmful because it cannot exist separately from the action of chilling free exchange of ideas.
- ncallaway 5y ago> ...that idea is definitely harmful... This seems like a dramatic concession if you're trying to defend point that there exists no ideas that are harmful.