3 ms·

"I was honestly completely knocked cold fthat you came to the conclusion I was making your argument. The takeaway isn't that hate speech laws work, it's that th

"I was honestly completely knocked cold fthat you came to the conclusion I was making your argument. The takeaway isn't that hate speech laws work, it's that they don't." You've misunderstood. I was previously arguing that they don't work, not that they do work. Read the old post of mine that I linked. "What you advocate is extremely similar and you are oblivious and disconnected to the reality of the similarity between our current censorship laws and those of the Weimar Republic." I outlined the reasons why these are different situations which you haven't addressed in your reply.

notchFilter54 5y ago
>You've misunderstood. I was previously arguing that they don't work, not that they do work. Read the old post of mine that I linked. I'm confused. Are you currently arguing for or against laws against hate speech? I thought you had chosen the previous path (2) which was free speech + private and/or voluntary restrictions. >I was previously arguing that they don't work Did you change your mind? You genuinely believed in free speech 2 months ago and now believe the government can dictate what is "hate speech"? You abandoned your position on free speech due to learning hate speech laws were ineffective in the Weimar Republic, and that led you to decide to be for hate speech laws? If so, something here doesn't add up. The argument I was making when mentioning Weimar Republic was that it was effectively free speech with private and/or voluntary regulation, which was what you chose in path (2). The note about the (largely meaningless) criminality of anti-Semitic speech was a footnote so that I did not inaccurately describe the situation, although as you noted hate speech laws could be used as a tool against the anti-Nazis as much as against Naziism. The note about the anti-semetic law was not in any way a center point of my argument (although it did appear to be one of yours in the 2 month old comment).

notchFilter54 5y ago

>You've misunderstood. I was previously arguing that they don't work, not that they do work. Read the old post of mine that I linked. I'm confused. Are you currently arguing for or against laws against hate speech? I thought you had chosen the previous path (2) which was free speech + private and/or voluntary restrictions. >I was previously arguing that they don't work Did you change your mind? You genuinely believed in free speech 2 months ago and now believe the government can dictate what is "hate speech"? You abandoned your position on free speech due to learning hate speech laws were ineffective in the Weimar Republic, and that led you to decide to be for hate speech laws? If so, something here doesn't add up. The argument I was making when mentioning Weimar Republic was that it was effectively free speech with private and/or voluntary regulation, which was what you chose in path (2). The note about the (largely meaningless) criminality of anti-Semitic speech was a footnote so that I did not inaccurately describe the situation, although as you noted hate speech laws could be used as a tool against the anti-Nazis as much as against Naziism. The note about the anti-semetic law was not in any way a center point of my argument (although it did appear to be one of yours in the 2 month old comment).