4 ms·

Unfortunately so. It didn't use to be that way - the ACLU used to be so principled that they would defend literal Nazis' rights. But they've fallen a long way s

by bigstrat2003 2y ago

Unfortunately so. It didn't use to be that way - the ACLU used to be so principled that they would defend literal Nazis' rights. But they've fallen a long way since then.

digismack 2y ago
[flagged]
- BitterCritter 2y ago
  This applies to TikTok. We can’t be tolerant of any social media that disallows specific words or groups.
  - knome 2y ago
    The paradox of tolerance specifically states that one must not be tolerant of intolerance. Hence, a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract of leaving alone others whose ways differ from your own so long as they do the same for you. One must not tolerate those that call for violence and subjugation of differing groups, which is almost the exact opposite meaning your comment seems to be implying in my reading of it, instead calling for wholly unfiltered speech by whosoever should deem to speak. Racists and similar hatemongers calling for others to tolerate them while they are screaming for those they disparage to be caste down and out cannot be tolerated in any reasonable forum. As such, any reasonable forum must ban some facets of free speech. That we disallow this power for governments is a reasonable limit on the powers of the elected to rule, lest those powers be abused.
    - SSilver2k2 2y ago
      This is probably the best summary / example I have read on how to explain the paradox of tolerance. Thank you!
      - account42 2y ago
        The problem with this interpretation is of course that it lets you be as intolerant as you want to anyone you decree intolerant. Which is why it is so popular.
  - jahewson 2y ago
    No that would contradict freedom of association. People are free to form closed, self-censoring groups if they choose to. What we want to avoid is the government forcing it on people.
- mingus88 2y ago
  There is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. If you break the contract you are no longer covered by it.
  - raverbashing 2y ago
    Well but that's not how a lot of people interpret it I would very much agree this is the case. But it's not how a lot of people think
  - axus 2y ago
    Tolerance for behavior, as long as we don't disagree with it
    - flir 2y ago
      Assuming that behaviour is intolerance: Yup. It's a peace treaty. Break the peace treaty, and you no longer benefit from the peace treaty.
      - account42 2y ago
        This goes both ways. Call your (relatively moderate) opponents nazis enough and they'll just end up not caring about your viewpoints at all.
    - jahewson 2y ago
      I disagree with that analysis.
  - afiori 2y ago
    I can tolerate everything, except the outgroup of course
- Lammy 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
Aloisius 2y ago
Uh. They still defend the civil rights of neo-Nazis (aren't any actual nazis left), white supremacists, etc.
- echoangle 2y ago
  > neo-Nazis (aren't any actual nazis left) Neo-Nazis are a subset of Nazis though, no?
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    In the sense of an adherent to Nazism, yes, neo-Nazis are Nazis. In the context of "literal Nazis" the ACLU had argued for the rights of - like the German American Bund, which contained actual members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, not exactly.
kjellsbells 2y ago
Agree, but (and yes, whataboutism ahoy!) one can make observations about a similar lack or principle on the right. It always seemed to me that the US was fuzzy when the very clear text of the Constitution rubbed up against the realities of a complex State. For example, - the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be overridden by a compelling national security interest, which is the argument here. But the US has security services, and legitimately there are cases where to allow speech does harm. But if you are going to be honest, shouldnt there be an amendment giving the State an override of 1A? - 2A is infamous, of course, and for the love of $deity lets not discuss it here, but why does "not abridged" get overriden by bans in, say, machine guns, which have been on the books since the Chicago gangster era? Either you abridge or not. Or at least be honest about it . - Some speakers in the covid era made a very strong appeal to personal bodily autonomy when it came to vaccine mandates. Ok, let's follow that. Does it not then also follow that a woman cannot be forced to carry a baby to term? That would seem logical, but the connection is not made. Conversely there is no "commonweal" override written into the Constitution and we are left with random SCOTUS decisions over the last 240 years.
- tom_ 2y ago
  "for the love of $deity lets not discuss it here" - good idea, and why not take your own advice.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be overridden by a compelling national security interest, which is the argument here. No it isn't. The argument here is that it isn't a restriction on speech at all.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content but it's not a 1st Amendment issue? Why are people buying this lame argument?
    - pixl97 2y ago
addicted 2y ago
They would defend the Nazi right to free speech. You seem to be confused between principally defending everyone having the same rights vs defending everything anyone can do. The ACLU defends Nazi’s rights because they believe Nazis should have the same rights as everyone else irrespective of who they are. That doesn’t mean they defend every possible action that can be considered a civil liberty.
- Spivak 2y ago
  Especially when individual liberty is in contention with collective liberty. This is the "hard problem" for organizing a free society. Eliminating traffic laws would make individuals more free in a literal sense, but those rules also make it so people can get from place to place quickly and safely. The liberty interpretation is that what people actually want is to travel, not to drive however they like. So you trade a freedom most people don't miss to enable another. Vaccine mandates are a great example of this contention where under normal circumstances nobody cares about having to get vaccinated but they do care about not getting polio. Covid was strange in that the number of people opposed was significantly larger than I think anyone expected.

Unfortunately so. It didn't use to be that way - the ACLU used to be so principled that they would defend literal Nazis' rights. But they've fallen a long way since then.

digismack 2y ago

[flagged]

BitterCritter 2y ago
This applies to TikTok. We can’t be tolerant of any social media that disallows specific words or groups.
- knome 2y ago
  The paradox of tolerance specifically states that one must not be tolerant of intolerance. Hence, a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract of leaving alone others whose ways differ from your own so long as they do the same for you. One must not tolerate those that call for violence and subjugation of differing groups, which is almost the exact opposite meaning your comment seems to be implying in my reading of it, instead calling for wholly unfiltered speech by whosoever should deem to speak. Racists and similar hatemongers calling for others to tolerate them while they are screaming for those they disparage to be caste down and out cannot be tolerated in any reasonable forum. As such, any reasonable forum must ban some facets of free speech. That we disallow this power for governments is a reasonable limit on the powers of the elected to rule, lest those powers be abused.
  - SSilver2k2 2y ago
    This is probably the best summary / example I have read on how to explain the paradox of tolerance. Thank you!
    - account42 2y ago
      The problem with this interpretation is of course that it lets you be as intolerant as you want to anyone you decree intolerant. Which is why it is so popular.
- jahewson 2y ago
  No that would contradict freedom of association. People are free to form closed, self-censoring groups if they choose to. What we want to avoid is the government forcing it on people.
mingus88 2y ago
There is no paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. If you break the contract you are no longer covered by it.
- raverbashing 2y ago
  Well but that's not how a lot of people interpret it I would very much agree this is the case. But it's not how a lot of people think
- axus 2y ago
  Tolerance for behavior, as long as we don't disagree with it
  - flir 2y ago
    Assuming that behaviour is intolerance: Yup. It's a peace treaty. Break the peace treaty, and you no longer benefit from the peace treaty.
    - account42 2y ago
      This goes both ways. Call your (relatively moderate) opponents nazis enough and they'll just end up not caring about your viewpoints at all.
  - jahewson 2y ago
    I disagree with that analysis.
- afiori 2y ago
  I can tolerate everything, except the outgroup of course
Lammy 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

Aloisius 2y ago

Uh. They still defend the civil rights of neo-Nazis (aren't any actual nazis left), white supremacists, etc.

echoangle 2y ago
> neo-Nazis (aren't any actual nazis left) Neo-Nazis are a subset of Nazis though, no?
- Aloisius 2y ago
  In the sense of an adherent to Nazism, yes, neo-Nazis are Nazis. In the context of "literal Nazis" the ACLU had argued for the rights of - like the German American Bund, which contained actual members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, not exactly.

kjellsbells 2y ago

Agree, but (and yes, whataboutism ahoy!) one can make observations about a similar lack or principle on the right. It always seemed to me that the US was fuzzy when the very clear text of the Constitution rubbed up against the realities of a complex State. For example, - the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be overridden by a compelling national security interest, which is the argument here. But the US has security services, and legitimately there are cases where to allow speech does harm. But if you are going to be honest, shouldnt there be an amendment giving the State an override of 1A? - 2A is infamous, of course, and for the love of $deity lets not discuss it here, but why does "not abridged" get overriden by bans in, say, machine guns, which have been on the books since the Chicago gangster era? Either you abridge or not. Or at least be honest about it . - Some speakers in the covid era made a very strong appeal to personal bodily autonomy when it came to vaccine mandates. Ok, let's follow that. Does it not then also follow that a woman cannot be forced to carry a baby to term? That would seem logical, but the connection is not made. Conversely there is no "commonweal" override written into the Constitution and we are left with random SCOTUS decisions over the last 240 years.

tom_ 2y ago
"for the love of $deity lets not discuss it here" - good idea, and why not take your own advice.
josephcsible 2y ago
> the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be overridden by a compelling national security interest, which is the argument here. No it isn't. The argument here is that it isn't a restriction on speech at all.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content but it's not a 1st Amendment issue? Why are people buying this lame argument?
  - pixl97 2y ago

addicted 2y ago

They would defend the Nazi right to free speech. You seem to be confused between principally defending everyone having the same rights vs defending everything anyone can do. The ACLU defends Nazi’s rights because they believe Nazis should have the same rights as everyone else irrespective of who they are. That doesn’t mean they defend every possible action that can be considered a civil liberty.

Spivak 2y ago
Especially when individual liberty is in contention with collective liberty. This is the "hard problem" for organizing a free society. Eliminating traffic laws would make individuals more free in a literal sense, but those rules also make it so people can get from place to place quickly and safely. The liberty interpretation is that what people actually want is to travel, not to drive however they like. So you trade a freedom most people don't miss to enable another. Vaccine mandates are a great example of this contention where under normal circumstances nobody cares about having to get vaccinated but they do care about not getting polio. Covid was strange in that the number of people opposed was significantly larger than I think anyone expected.