4 ms·

> As history has shown No the hell it didn't. When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? It's quite the contrary, let the bigoted invade publi

> As history has shown No the hell it didn't. When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? It's quite the contrary, let the bigoted invade public space and you end up with a fascist government, like the one currently in the US, who won't give a fuck about your free speech. Paradox of tolerance [1]: > If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. To be clear, are you claiming that the repressive censoring in China started with good intentions and then degenerated, or that free speech absolutism guarantees the perenity of your freedom of speech? Because neither claim is true. An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, as that is the only protection of your free speech. Why respect the free speech of nazis, who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to? > If it is not against the law, it should be up. Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. Siegheiling in public is illegal where I live, and rightfully so if you ask me. There is always a line. The US draws it a CSAM. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
<< When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. << Because neither claim is true. I claim neither though. What I do claim, however, is that playing that game of whack-a-mole is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive. You may be able to pat yourself on the pack and quote paradox of intolerance at people until cows come home, but it won't change that simple reality. And I am ok with that too. Not that long ago, I was a little more annoyed with people devoting their limited lifespans unto that goal. Now I know better. << An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. Correct. << We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, With you so far. << as that is the only protection of your free speech Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. << Why respect the free speech of nazis Because, friend, in the words of one supreme court justice ( and ,I might add, opinion of a fair part of the legal community ) is that it typically is not nice people or nice speech that needs protecting. It is the assholes and the 'bad' speech. But just because they are assholes and 'bad' speech, does not make the rights not apply. Do you understand why? If not, allow me to spell it out for you, because I do feel charitable today. It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. << who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. << Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. You tell me what you think is right. Clearly, it seems you don't like US version of legal speech already.
- thrance 1y ago
  > Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. Please, enlighten me. Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it. > Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. Uh, good for you I guess? But what do you even mean by that? That you are magically immune to censorship? Because you aren't. > You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? You seem oblivious to the very real danger of far right extremism. Being charitable to nazis is how they get into power, and how you actually lose your freedom. Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Tolerating their behavior for too long is how you get masked ICE agents abducting American citizens in broad daylight. > It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. This is simply not true. Look at how hate speech is implemented in European society. There are clear, legal boundaries. Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further. That is the slippery slope fallacy. Policing neonazi activity today doesn't lead to censorship of all political opponents tomorrow. To the contrary, controlling nazi speech and other hateful ideologies helps guaranteeing the perennity of the freedom (of speech, and others) of the rest of the citizenship. If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    << If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange. I am ok with that. << Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it. I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America. << Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Yes, freedom can be dangerous and scary. There are things I wish people did not do, but they do it anyway. As for the contributing, at best I can say that you are not being objective, reasonable or charitable with that statement. << Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? Friend, you misunderstood. Not nazis, you. Hold you to a higher standard. We are expected to be better, because we know better ( or at least we should ). This is also why I am mildly amused, when the first cry I hear from people, when they see something online is to cry for more control of what they can see/say/do. It is beyond ridiculous. << Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further. We absolutely disagree on that point. Your "much further" is already ridiculous. It is simply not factually accurate. Not in the EU. Not in Germany. Not in GB. << Because you aren't. Friend, we disagree. And that is ok. Know that I love you despite your deep character flaws. edit: minor edits for syntax/grammar

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago

<< When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. << Because neither claim is true. I claim neither though. What I do claim, however, is that playing that game of whack-a-mole is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive. You may be able to pat yourself on the pack and quote paradox of intolerance at people until cows come home, but it won't change that simple reality. And I am ok with that too. Not that long ago, I was a little more annoyed with people devoting their limited lifespans unto that goal. Now I know better. << An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. Correct. << We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, With you so far. << as that is the only protection of your free speech Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. << Why respect the free speech of nazis Because, friend, in the words of one supreme court justice ( and ,I might add, opinion of a fair part of the legal community ) is that it typically is not nice people or nice speech that needs protecting. It is the assholes and the 'bad' speech. But just because they are assholes and 'bad' speech, does not make the rights not apply. Do you understand why? If not, allow me to spell it out for you, because I do feel charitable today. It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. << who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. << Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. You tell me what you think is right. Clearly, it seems you don't like US version of legal speech already.

thrance 1y ago
> Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting. Please, enlighten me. Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it. > Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say. Uh, good for you I guess? But what do you even mean by that? That you are magically immune to censorship? Because you aren't. > You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot. Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? You seem oblivious to the very real danger of far right extremism. Being charitable to nazis is how they get into power, and how you actually lose your freedom. Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Tolerating their behavior for too long is how you get masked ICE agents abducting American citizens in broad daylight. > It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own. This is simply not true. Look at how hate speech is implemented in European society. There are clear, legal boundaries. Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further. That is the slippery slope fallacy. Policing neonazi activity today doesn't lead to censorship of all political opponents tomorrow. To the contrary, controlling nazi speech and other hateful ideologies helps guaranteeing the perennity of the freedom (of speech, and others) of the rest of the citizenship. If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  << If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange. I am ok with that. << Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it. I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America. << Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Yes, freedom can be dangerous and scary. There are things I wish people did not do, but they do it anyway. As for the contributing, at best I can say that you are not being objective, reasonable or charitable with that statement. << Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? Friend, you misunderstood. Not nazis, you. Hold you to a higher standard. We are expected to be better, because we know better ( or at least we should ). This is also why I am mildly amused, when the first cry I hear from people, when they see something online is to cry for more control of what they can see/say/do. It is beyond ridiculous. << Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further. We absolutely disagree on that point. Your "much further" is already ridiculous. It is simply not factually accurate. Not in the EU. Not in Germany. Not in GB. << Because you aren't. Friend, we disagree. And that is ok. Know that I love you despite your deep character flaws. edit: minor edits for syntax/grammar