4 ms·

Yeah, no. There was a lot of political violence in proto-democracies, especially around the topic of suffrage. If we just look at "limitation" of women's right

Yeah, no. There was a lot of political violence in proto-democracies, especially around the topic of suffrage. If we just look at "limitation" of women's right to vote - Suffragettes would be called domestic terrorists today. It's not much more than nostalgia to think that in the good old times pens were mightier than sword. The nascent American democracy fought two wars to settle its tensions despite all the wise prose the elite wrote.

Tainnor 3y ago
And in Weimar Germany, there were violent street clashes between Nazis, Communists and the Police, as well as assassinations, attempted coups, etc.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > in Weimar Germany, there were violent street clashes between Nazis, Communists and the Police, as well as assassinations, attempted coups, etc. Thanks for amplifying my point for me. When democracy broke down in those days you needed to pick up sticks, rocks and Molotov cocktails to silence those that disagree with you.. Today you just need to delete their DNS records. """ The most violent element in society is ignorance -- Emma Goldman """ It's not that there was a "golden age" of democracy, just that ways of disrupting the best efforts of reasonable people have changed. Censorship laws directed against "hate speech" and "disinformation" are just new manifestations of ignorance. They are a retreat from rationality. Truth must be fought for with more words, not less, tooth and nail every day, and it's very costly.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    In the aftermath of the breakdown of German democracy and after the Nuremberg trials, Germany passed very strict laws against platforming fascists. How do we square that with the notion that laws against hate speech are a retreat from rationality?
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > In the aftermath of the breakdown of German democracy and after the Nuremberg trials, Germany passed very strict laws against platforming fascists. It's conceivable that those laws were a mistake. As I understand it, in the 1950s and 60s Germany went into a very psychologically "wounded" state, in which a generation felt unable to face the past. Since speaking about it was verboten, the children of that generation had no ground truth, nor any forum in which to seek one, and they were shut down whenever they raised questions. As a result paranoid currents began circulating in the culture of the 70s leading to Baader-Meinhof's Red Army Faction and other outspilling of unresolved guilt, accusation and anger. Of course it's a textbook case of what Freud would have named "repression". > How do we square that with the notion that laws against hate speech are a retreat from rationality? If you accept the premise of necessary of openness and public legibility then it doesn't need squaring. It is the essence of rationality, albeit uncomfortable and costly. So long as apples and oranges are not confused. One responds to speech with speech and to actions with actions. Unfortunately we live in an age best describes as "psychotic" - one strong definition of which is the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Technology plays a major part in this split. We also suffer a highly asymmetrical information-scape in which response to ugly ideas is not always possible. Again this is ironically exacerbated by technology that promised to ameliorate the problem by "connecting us all". In any case, the healthy mind does not mistake expressed feelings, wishes and fantasies or even blustering statements of "intent" (eg. "I'm going to f*king kill my mother in law") from actual reality and actions in the world. In this state of "sanity", free from fear, one is able to engage in reasonable disputation.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        I suspect when Germany exists as an example of a functioning democracy that overtly bans pro-fascist speech and demonstration, the burden of proof is upon the critic to condemn their approach. The leadership of the RAF was eventually imprisoned; using the US's neo-Nazis as a counter-example, I don't think I can accept the assumption that denial of a forum would have stopped the growth of the RAF (America's relatively free platform for overt discussion and support of fascism has certainly done nothing to stop such groups from organizing on that side of the ocean). > In any case, the healthy mind does not mistake expressed feelings, wishes and fantasies or even blustering statements of "intent" (eg. "I'm going to f*king kill my mother in law") from actual reality and actions in the world. I worry this is a no-true-Scotsman statement. How do we square this notion with the events of January 6, 2021 in response to the President of the United States saying "We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore?" Were those who responded to his words with a physical attack on the Capitol building and the people inside of unhealthy mind? And even if they were, should a President bear some manner of responsibility for either the unawareness of who he's talking to or the awareness and lack of care if he agitates that group into violent action?

Tainnor 3y ago

And in Weimar Germany, there were violent street clashes between Nazis, Communists and the Police, as well as assassinations, attempted coups, etc.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> in Weimar Germany, there were violent street clashes between Nazis, Communists and the Police, as well as assassinations, attempted coups, etc. Thanks for amplifying my point for me. When democracy broke down in those days you needed to pick up sticks, rocks and Molotov cocktails to silence those that disagree with you.. Today you just need to delete their DNS records. """ The most violent element in society is ignorance -- Emma Goldman """ It's not that there was a "golden age" of democracy, just that ways of disrupting the best efforts of reasonable people have changed. Censorship laws directed against "hate speech" and "disinformation" are just new manifestations of ignorance. They are a retreat from rationality. Truth must be fought for with more words, not less, tooth and nail every day, and it's very costly.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  In the aftermath of the breakdown of German democracy and after the Nuremberg trials, Germany passed very strict laws against platforming fascists. How do we square that with the notion that laws against hate speech are a retreat from rationality?
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > In the aftermath of the breakdown of German democracy and after the Nuremberg trials, Germany passed very strict laws against platforming fascists. It's conceivable that those laws were a mistake. As I understand it, in the 1950s and 60s Germany went into a very psychologically "wounded" state, in which a generation felt unable to face the past. Since speaking about it was verboten, the children of that generation had no ground truth, nor any forum in which to seek one, and they were shut down whenever they raised questions. As a result paranoid currents began circulating in the culture of the 70s leading to Baader-Meinhof's Red Army Faction and other outspilling of unresolved guilt, accusation and anger. Of course it's a textbook case of what Freud would have named "repression". > How do we square that with the notion that laws against hate speech are a retreat from rationality? If you accept the premise of necessary of openness and public legibility then it doesn't need squaring. It is the essence of rationality, albeit uncomfortable and costly. So long as apples and oranges are not confused. One responds to speech with speech and to actions with actions. Unfortunately we live in an age best describes as "psychotic" - one strong definition of which is the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Technology plays a major part in this split. We also suffer a highly asymmetrical information-scape in which response to ugly ideas is not always possible. Again this is ironically exacerbated by technology that promised to ameliorate the problem by "connecting us all". In any case, the healthy mind does not mistake expressed feelings, wishes and fantasies or even blustering statements of "intent" (eg. "I'm going to f*king kill my mother in law") from actual reality and actions in the world. In this state of "sanity", free from fear, one is able to engage in reasonable disputation.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      I suspect when Germany exists as an example of a functioning democracy that overtly bans pro-fascist speech and demonstration, the burden of proof is upon the critic to condemn their approach. The leadership of the RAF was eventually imprisoned; using the US's neo-Nazis as a counter-example, I don't think I can accept the assumption that denial of a forum would have stopped the growth of the RAF (America's relatively free platform for overt discussion and support of fascism has certainly done nothing to stop such groups from organizing on that side of the ocean). > In any case, the healthy mind does not mistake expressed feelings, wishes and fantasies or even blustering statements of "intent" (eg. "I'm going to f*king kill my mother in law") from actual reality and actions in the world. I worry this is a no-true-Scotsman statement. How do we square this notion with the events of January 6, 2021 in response to the President of the United States saying "We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore?" Were those who responded to his words with a physical attack on the Capitol building and the people inside of unhealthy mind? And even if they were, should a President bear some manner of responsibility for either the unawareness of who he's talking to or the awareness and lack of care if he agitates that group into violent action?