Should there be liberty for the intolerant?

[Bodie]

Are you talking about this?

Lincoln Project members pose as white supremacists at Virginia GOP event

Seems like a pretty clear-cut matter of freedom of speech. No deception, just political theatre.

Do you think context matters and do you condemn false narratives equally?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think context matters and do you condemn false narratives equally?

Answer my question first.

 

[Bodie]

Answer my question first.

Lincoln Project Admits it Sent Fake White Nationalists to Republican Rally | Religious Forums

did that suffice?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lincoln Project Admits it Sent Fake White Nationalists to Republican Rally | Religious Forums

did that suffice?

No, this question:

Why are you opposed to freedom of speech?

 

[Revoltingest]

This old argument goes way back on RF.
One example...
Tolerance/intolerance

I posted it cuz I miss @swamplizard.

 

[Koldo]

I've known nazis who weren't violent, & didn't advocate violence.
(Had one here on RF.)
Those are the traits to make illegal...not membership in a group.
Christianity, Islam, & socialism have left many millions dead,
maimed, tortured, & oppressed. So if we're to ban membership
or symbols of Nazis, why limit it to just this one group?

What do you mean by 'they didn't advocate violence'?
What did they advocate for then? When someone calls oneself a nazi, it entails that they align themselves with the things the nazis have done. It is not like killing jews was an exception done by a rebel group within Nazism, that was the standard practice. The hatred is at its' very foundantion.

Imagine a random dude comes along and say: I don't advocate for violence against @Revoltingest , but we hate you and we want to spread our hatred around to get people to think like us. You think that is alright because no one is being violent and they are not advocating violence. Then one day the group gets big enough to start having political power. They then start creating laws to make your life harder. And then one day they might think they are powerful enough to get away with being violent towards you, so they start to advocate for violence, but then it is too late. They are too powerful, and you are too weak to handle what is coming.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean by 'they didn't advocate violence'?

Exactly that.

What did they advocate for then?

Strong government control.
Nationalism.

When someone calls oneself a nazi, it entails that they align themselves with the things the nazis have done. .

That is your inference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Think more broadly...."left" would include N Korea, USSR, etc.
But the Antifa types also want government to exercise much
control over us, their claims to be "anarchist" notwithstanding.
Fascism / authoritarianism can be left or right.

OK. I don't consider either of those countries liberal. They don't embody the principles that liberals generally advocate. They are about as far as they can be from this liberal.

I think America's conservatives would be more at home with somebody like Putin than its liberals would be. Trump was enamored with the heads of state of each, both authoritarian strongmen. He's not very liberal, is he?

But if all you meant was that there are people with Trumps values, and who Trump envies, that some people call liberals, I'd say that I don't use the word to describe such people. They're reactionary conservatives to me.

Odd thing....
You quoted my post, but RF did not alert me to this.
Its platform is falling down on the job.

Don't blame RF. I posted my response, saw your post, quoted it and added my answer to the previous post, and I guess that left you out of the notification process. Sorry.

 

[Koldo]

Exactly that.

Strong government control.
Nationalism.

That is your inference.

Why call oneself a nazi if one doesn't feel aligned to the main things the nazis have done?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Either I've been spending too much time on Reddit, or there is an uprising in a certain political agenda that I believe would lead us straight to fascism. It's typically known as the "woke culture". I'm sure it's been talked about on here before.

I recently saw a Reddit post where a guy sporting a Swastika on his shoulder got punched in the face by a black guy. Thousands of comments were praising this, and it worries me.

I got into a debate in the thread that followed, I voiced my opinion that physical resentment to nonphysical opinion is exactly what the problem is in society. I argued that attacking these narrow minded sort of people just creates hate all around: 1) The Neo-nazi being attacked is going to be reinforced in his hate people of color because of this experience, 2) Neo-nazi's and other racists and bigots that saw the video are going to have their hate reinforced also. 3) Anti-white racists (which also seems to be a growing thing) are going to have their hate reinforced seeing this "justice" in action. .... etc. ---- A non-violent approach to the Neo-nazi would've spoken more, it would've shown peace from the person of color's side and influenced some bigot opinions to think "PoC aren't so bad", it would've reinforced the idea into some Anti-white racists that peace is a better reaction, etc. The Neo-nazi that was attacked may have been so relieved that he could've become more trusting or accepting of PoC - or not, but whatever the outcome it would've certainly been better than the reinforced hate from being decked in the face.

The debate eventually escalated into freedom of speech, whether or not we should tolerate the intolerant in society. I argued that people shouldn't be attacked for their opinions, they should be kept in check by reason and logic. When the bigoted opinions are no longer willing to meet at the level of reason and become harassment, that's when retaliation is necessary. Simply wearing a Swatsika is NOT harassment.

-----

The main point I'd like to discuss is how important it is to keep freedom of speech truly free. We shouldn't silence anybody for any opinion. Opinions aren't threatening, actions are. If we are to limit what a person is allowed to preach, speak about, believe, then that's the fertile grounds for fascism. If you are familiar with 1984, I think the Thought Police would become a literal thing if we start arresting people for wearing Swatsikas, using wrong gender pronouns, voicing their dislike for homosexuality - just like if we started arresting people for wearing BLM symbols, identifying as non-binary, or voicing their dislike for Christianity. It's all the same.

Unlimited freedom of speech and nonviolent protest is how minorities speak for themselves, and it doesn't matter if these minorities are bigots, everybody deserves the right to stand up for themselves against what they believe is oppression. Once we start silencing people, where does it end? Once Father Government has control over the words we say then the next thing you know we'll be unable to speak against the government at all.

I'm not a very political person, but that's something I know for a fact. We need to stop this censorship crap. We can't be banning stand-up comedians for offending us, we can't be punching people in the face for wearing symbols that offend us, we can't be accusing people of being transphobic or racist for any little thing people say (that's harassment just as much as actual transphobia and racism is). The majority will always speak the loudest, but this doesn't mean the minority should have no say. Are we really becoming better as a society by doing this thing, or just remaining the same but turning the tables?

Just so I'm sure of what you're saying, let me paraphrase:

- someone expresses themselves in a way that demonstrates that they're something other than cishet... their critics should be protected.

- someone expresses themselves in a way that demonstrates they're racist... their critics should be silenced.

Is that a fair restatement of your position?

 

[Revoltingest]

OK. I don't consider either of those countries liberal.

"Liberal" is only part of the "left".
But many liberals tout policies of the worst of the left,
eg, strict speech regulation, socialism, law & order.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why call oneself a nazi if one doesn't feel aligned to the main things the nazis have done?

There is more diversity of thought among
nazis than the WW2 German variety.
One might find kinship & common goals
with some modern flavors.

 

[Kenny]

And certainly the left can be as fascist / authoritarian
as the right. (Left & right....terms with some ambiguity
& intersection, eh.)

yes you can find them everywhere. I think that basically that was my point when they said "the right".

 

[Revoltingest]

yes you can find them everywhere. I think that basically that was my point when they said "the right".

The only group I can think of who's never authoritarian
is us libertarians. We specialize in being the hated fringe.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Just so I'm sure of what you're saying, let me paraphrase:

- someone expresses themselves in a way that demonstrates that they're something other than cishet... their critics should be protected.

- someone expresses themselves in a way that demonstrates they're racist... their critics should be silenced.

Is that a fair restatement of your position?

What I'm mostly arguing against is the idea that we should outlaw the wearing of this symbol, or any symbol for that matter. Or the idea that it's acceptable to get violent against them for wearing a symbol. Now if this person was going around harassing others, visibly bullying, I definitely understand why things would escalate to violence and honestly it was the harassing person's fault for taking it that far.

I think people should be allowed to make jokes about any culture group (white, black, straight, homosexual) if the intent is harmless (stand-up comedy for example), I think people should be allowed to wear what they want (nazi logo, BLM symbols), and I think people should be able to write or read (or voice their opinion in other ways) what they want (again, unless it's blatant harassment). Opinions are harmless as long as they don't escalate to threats or bullying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I'm mostly arguing against is the idea that we should outlaw the wearing of this symbol, or any symbol for that matter.

... or any gender expression?

Or the idea that it's acceptable to get violent against them for wearing a symbol. Now if this person was going around harassing others, visibly bullying, I definitely understand why things would escalate to violence and honestly it was the harassing person's fault for taking it that far.

Do you think there are many people walking around with swastika tattoos visible who don't also harass people? How big is the sliver of the population you're worried about?

I think people should be allowed to make jokes about any culture group (white, black, straight, homosexual) if the intent is harmless (stand-up comedy for example), I think people should be allowed to wear what they want (nazi logo, BLM symbols), and I think people should be able to write or read (or voice their opinion in other ways) what they want (again, unless it's blatant harassment).

So you agree that, say, a trans or non-binary kid shouldn't get harassed for how they look or dress?

Opinions are harmless as long as they don't escalate to threats or bullying.

Well, that's naïve.

 

[JustGeorge]

The trouble with silencing people with crappy opinions is... silencing them doesn't change their opinion. It sits, and festers, and then when they finally find an out for it and other people who share it, we have a situation... well, much of like what's already going on in the US. Nothing will change if we can't talk about it(unfortunately, I think we've gone past the point of talking).

That being said, there should almost be some kind of allowance in the law for someone retaliating against free, but stupid and hostile, speech. Get punched in the face for shouting a racial slur in someone's face? Well, tough patooties. Common sense should dictate that was a poor idea. Actions have consequences.

 

[Secret Chief]

So you can check if you have any kinship with Nazis:

"Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed. Its extreme nationalism originated in pan-Germanism ... which had been a prominent aspect of German nationalism ... from which came the party's underlying "cult of violence"."

- Nazism - Wikipedia

Still, not always authoritarian. Indeed some Neo-Nazis haved moved on from all that boring hatred and violence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Either I've been spending too much time on Reddit, or there is an uprising in a certain political agenda that I believe would lead us straight to fascism. It's typically known as the "woke culture". I'm sure it's been talked about on here before.

I recently saw a Reddit post where a guy sporting a Swastika on his shoulder got punched in the face by a black guy. Thousands of comments were praising this, and it worries me.

I got into a debate in the thread that followed, I voiced my opinion that physical resentment to nonphysical opinion is exactly what the problem is in society. I argued that attacking these narrow minded sort of people just creates hate all around: 1) The Neo-nazi being attacked is going to be reinforced in his hate people of color because of this experience, 2) Neo-nazi's and other racists and bigots that saw the video are going to have their hate reinforced also. 3) Anti-white racists (which also seems to be a growing thing) are going to have their hate reinforced seeing this "justice" in action. .... etc. ---- A non-violent approach to the Neo-nazi would've spoken more, it would've shown peace from the person of color's side and influenced some bigot opinions to think "PoC aren't so bad", it would've reinforced the idea into some Anti-white racists that peace is a better reaction, etc. The Neo-nazi that was attacked may have been so relieved that he could've become more trusting or accepting of PoC - or not, but whatever the outcome it would've certainly been better than the reinforced hate from being decked in the face.

The debate eventually escalated into freedom of speech, whether or not we should tolerate the intolerant in society. I argued that people shouldn't be attacked for their opinions, they should be kept in check by reason and logic. When the bigoted opinions are no longer willing to meet at the level of reason and become harassment, that's when retaliation is necessary. Simply wearing a Swatsika is NOT harassment.

-----

The main point I'd like to discuss is how important it is to keep freedom of speech truly free. We shouldn't silence anybody for any opinion. Opinions aren't threatening, actions are. If we are to limit what a person is allowed to preach, speak about, believe, then that's the fertile grounds for fascism. If you are familiar with 1984, I think the Thought Police would become a literal thing if we start arresting people for wearing Swatsikas, using wrong gender pronouns, voicing their dislike for homosexuality - just like if we started arresting people for wearing BLM symbols, identifying as non-binary, or voicing their dislike for Christianity. It's all the same.

Unlimited freedom of speech and nonviolent protest is how minorities speak for themselves, and it doesn't matter if these minorities are bigots, everybody deserves the right to stand up for themselves against what they believe is oppression. Once we start silencing people, where does it end? Once Father Government has control over the words we say then the next thing you know we'll be unable to speak against the government at all.

I'm not a very political person, but that's something I know for a fact. We need to stop this censorship crap. We can't be banning stand-up comedians for offending us, we can't be punching people in the face for wearing symbols that offend us, we can't be accusing people of being transphobic or racist for any little thing people say (that's harassment just as much as actual transphobia and racism is). The majority will always speak the loudest, but this doesn't mean the minority should have no say. Are we really becoming better as a society by doing this thing, or just remaining the same but turning the tables?

This is just common sense. You can not have freedom of speech for one view and not the other.
The woke are actually the ones leaning towards tyranny.

 

[Secret Chief]

There is more diversity of thought among
nazis than the WW2 German variety.
One might find kinship & common goals
with some modern flavors.

An apologist of Neo-Nazism?