5 ms·

I strongly disagree with people who seek to suppress freedom of speech. This is not the hypocrisy that you’re painting it as. I question the motives of anyone

by wredue 3y ago

I strongly disagree with people who seek to suppress freedom of speech. This is not the hypocrisy that you’re painting it as. I question the motives of anyone sympathizing with Nazis as “just a different opinion” Suppressing nazism is not “suppressing freedom of speech”. It is suppressing people who seek to suppress.

bllguo 3y ago
if you claim to support unrestricted free speech then of course this is hypocrisy. how could you possibly argue otherwise? "seeking to suppress" is still a form of speech. you cannot have your cake and eat it too. if you don't support unrestricted free speech that's fine, but don't pretend you do. i personally don't either.
- wredue 3y ago
  people who optionally break the social contract by pushing hate and genocide as an agenda cannot be protected by the social contract. They are the ones who are breaking it. Not me. Therefore, they are the ones who are removing themselves from the protections of freedom of speech.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hattmall 3y ago
[flagged]
- wredue 3y ago
  Freedom is speech protects people from retaliation by the government. It is not and was never meant to protect the infringing upon other people’s right to a good life. Do you have any more alt-right copy pasta bullshit to spread?
  - yesco 3y ago
    I think people who consider Freedom of Speech, the principle, to be exclusively a government thing, are stupider than people who think the right to Free Speech applies to everything. Wonder why this misaligned perspective seems so popular with pseudo-intellectuals these days.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      The grandparent comment explicitly draws a distinction between the social contract and the Constitution, and explicitly points to the Constitution as the mechanism that apparently protects Nazis, specifically pointing out that they aren’t talking about the social contract.
  - EarlKing 3y ago
    The freedom of speech is a guarantee to the people that they may exercise free thought and expression and not be subject to the use of force or fraud against them by any party, whether a state or private actor. The use of force or fraud against someone for speech you dislike does not magically cease to be a civil rights violation by virtue of being applied to someone you personally dislike. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history is well aware of intrusions by actors public and private to suppress speech that threatened their interests. Put another way: All men have a natural right to the freedom of thought and expression, and no one cares what dead old men thought when they drafted their particular laws. This is about what matters to us here and now. The proletariat has a need for public debate free of interference from the bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie-adjacent. Period. Full stop.
yesco 3y ago
[flagged]
- whatshisface 3y ago
  >Since when did the Nazis become synonymous with being anti-free speech? When they uhh... eliminated free speech in Germany?
- mr_toad 3y ago
  > Since when did the Nazis become synonymous with being anti-free speech? Maybe when they started burning giant piles of books?
  - yesco 3y ago
    Did you read beyond the first sentence of my comment? I feel like I provided enough context for what I was getting at. I just meant that Nazi Germany, in comparison to any other authortarian regime, weren't anything special when it came to censorship, other than the racial focus making them easy to hate. If we are trying to justify censorship as an effort to "protect" Freedom of Speech, then logically we would need to censor the more popular anti free speech political ideologies as well, and with higher priority even! But that wouldn't be free speech anymore would it? The reality of it is that Nazis only get censored because they are unpopular, a dead political ideology. There is no nation that supports it, and none that can defend it, it's an easy target. People who want to censor Nazis aren't doing it to protect Free Speech, they are doing it because they don't like them, the argument is fundumentally dishonest. If you just want to censor people you don't like, then you don't support Freedom of Speech. Just like every other autoritarian regime that banned whatever they disliked. The line is very clear here.
drak0n1c 3y ago
That logic can be used to suppress most other political/religious ideologies and speech. If all it takes to justify censorship is a slippery slope argument that "when XYZ ideology gains enough real following the resulting implementation attempts probabilistically/historically lead to a suppressed society with hateful class division and mass death" -- then everything from Marxist writing to religious proselytizing qualifies for banning too.
chonkerz 3y ago
A number of kiwifarms victims are guilty engaging in speech that the Kiwifarms users disagreed with. So Kiwifarms users launched criminal harassment campaigns and used the forum to coordinate sharing the personal information of these victims. Personal information that has no relevance except to intimidate. And then the owner of the forum comments in these threads actively encouraging the activity. You characterize this as a difference of opinion. Despicable.

by wredue 3y ago

bllguo 3y ago

if you claim to support unrestricted free speech then of course this is hypocrisy. how could you possibly argue otherwise? "seeking to suppress" is still a form of speech. you cannot have your cake and eat it too. if you don't support unrestricted free speech that's fine, but don't pretend you do. i personally don't either.

wredue 3y ago
people who optionally break the social contract by pushing hate and genocide as an agenda cannot be protected by the social contract. They are the ones who are breaking it. Not me. Therefore, they are the ones who are removing themselves from the protections of freedom of speech.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hattmall 3y ago

[flagged]

wredue 3y ago
Freedom is speech protects people from retaliation by the government. It is not and was never meant to protect the infringing upon other people’s right to a good life. Do you have any more alt-right copy pasta bullshit to spread?
- yesco 3y ago
  I think people who consider Freedom of Speech, the principle, to be exclusively a government thing, are stupider than people who think the right to Free Speech applies to everything. Wonder why this misaligned perspective seems so popular with pseudo-intellectuals these days.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    The grandparent comment explicitly draws a distinction between the social contract and the Constitution, and explicitly points to the Constitution as the mechanism that apparently protects Nazis, specifically pointing out that they aren’t talking about the social contract.
- EarlKing 3y ago
  The freedom of speech is a guarantee to the people that they may exercise free thought and expression and not be subject to the use of force or fraud against them by any party, whether a state or private actor. The use of force or fraud against someone for speech you dislike does not magically cease to be a civil rights violation by virtue of being applied to someone you personally dislike. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history is well aware of intrusions by actors public and private to suppress speech that threatened their interests. Put another way: All men have a natural right to the freedom of thought and expression, and no one cares what dead old men thought when they drafted their particular laws. This is about what matters to us here and now. The proletariat has a need for public debate free of interference from the bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie-adjacent. Period. Full stop.

yesco 3y ago

[flagged]

whatshisface 3y ago
>Since when did the Nazis become synonymous with being anti-free speech? When they uhh... eliminated free speech in Germany?
mr_toad 3y ago
> Since when did the Nazis become synonymous with being anti-free speech? Maybe when they started burning giant piles of books?
- yesco 3y ago
  Did you read beyond the first sentence of my comment? I feel like I provided enough context for what I was getting at. I just meant that Nazi Germany, in comparison to any other authortarian regime, weren't anything special when it came to censorship, other than the racial focus making them easy to hate. If we are trying to justify censorship as an effort to "protect" Freedom of Speech, then logically we would need to censor the more popular anti free speech political ideologies as well, and with higher priority even! But that wouldn't be free speech anymore would it? The reality of it is that Nazis only get censored because they are unpopular, a dead political ideology. There is no nation that supports it, and none that can defend it, it's an easy target. People who want to censor Nazis aren't doing it to protect Free Speech, they are doing it because they don't like them, the argument is fundumentally dishonest. If you just want to censor people you don't like, then you don't support Freedom of Speech. Just like every other autoritarian regime that banned whatever they disliked. The line is very clear here.

drak0n1c 3y ago

That logic can be used to suppress most other political/religious ideologies and speech. If all it takes to justify censorship is a slippery slope argument that "when XYZ ideology gains enough real following the resulting implementation attempts probabilistically/historically lead to a suppressed society with hateful class division and mass death" -- then everything from Marxist writing to religious proselytizing qualifies for banning too.

chonkerz 3y ago

A number of kiwifarms victims are guilty engaging in speech that the Kiwifarms users disagreed with. So Kiwifarms users launched criminal harassment campaigns and used the forum to coordinate sharing the personal information of these victims. Personal information that has no relevance except to intimidate. And then the owner of the forum comments in these threads actively encouraging the activity. You characterize this as a difference of opinion. Despicable.