Far too often people forget that Right to Free Speech is not your first right, and it is superseded by other human rights above it.
Your right to Free Speech only applies as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights to safety and freedom from prejudice, hate, harm, etc...
It's not that complicated and yet countless people always fuck something so straightforward up.
It begins with free speech, then you skip a few years and suddenly trans kids are scared for their lives. Speech affects people and has consequence, it is not something to take lightly.
That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened
Let's get some examples there chief.
Link what you think is "fine" and has been labeled hate speech
As a Floridian, the issue is pretty apparent. Conservatives are outlawing the current teachings about race in our schools all under the guise of STOPPING racism.
Under freedom of speech I expect idiotic ideas like this to arise, what's unacceptable is when that free speech is undermined so teachers can't deliver the truth. Never undermine freedom of speech. This is where we end up.
Downvoted solely for use of “cucked”. For fuck’s sake, that word needs to die, not be “reclaimed” or whatever the fuck. It just makes me irrationally angry.
Except black people's lives have been made worse by white people. Where's the lie? White kids are not being taught they're racist. I got a "woke" education and white people were not taught that they're inherently bigoted. In fact, we were taught that anyone can be a bigot, regardless of who they are, and that any category can be used to cause division and hate.
I wish you would take your face out of the slop of lies the right wing media feeds you. It makes me sad.
as a white conservative, I think it's an affront to justice that I can't call black people N****s and have to "respect their rights"!
true freedom is having the right to own people!
Exactly. Nobody is telling white kids they’re racist for existing. That dude just exemplifies the kind of brain rot you get when all your news comes from Breitbart, Fox News, and Facebook memes.
What school is teaching what you said? Are you familiar with actual CRT and where it is applied? Hint: not in grade schools. Nobody thinks white children should be ashamed of their race and vice versa. Giving students an accurate history and equipping them to understand racial issues is vital. Let's not confuse ignorance with innocence.
All righty -- I didn't realize I somehow found myself in a 3 week old thread. In case it happens to anyone else, I'm going to send my reply anyways, but I'm not going to reply directly to him because I see no point in engaging with shithead racists 3-weeks later!
Uh ... 900 uses of racial slurs / racist behavior reported and more than half of them being the N-word ... seems to me like maybe they deserved to taught that they're being racist because ... [shocker] they were being racist!
Also, ONE fucking example of a moderately sized (~435,000) suburb isn't the smoking gun they think it is, even if it turned out to be accurate (which, this isn't).
You'll notice that there is zero proof of what he said, just that right wing whack jobs lost their fucking minds and got stirred into a fury because of the CRT boogeyman.
There have been some laws passed by several states to label criticisms of Israel’s apartheid state as hate speech and outlaw BDS boycotts based on that.
Do not assume the right wing won’t try to turn whatever tactic you find effective against them back at you. That doesn’t mean you should stop using it though; they certainly aren’t going to drop it now that they’ve found a way to wield it.
I specifically said to continue using it. Right wingers using it for right wing goals doesn’t mean that it’s inherently bad or something. Labeling things hate speech is a useful tool, but don’t trick yourself into thinking your opponent can’t use it.
Ah, there it is. At least you're willing to say it and not tiptoe around it like a coward.
The reason the scientific community does not endorse the conservative gender ideology, is because it causes much more direct harm than good to human happiness. If we don't let trans people transition, their lives are so much worse that they are seriously likely to kill themselves. Most of the negative consequences of transition come from bigotry, something that is unequivocally on the bigot, not the trans person. Most people who "detransition" after taking hormones do so because of hate rather than because they realize it wasn't for them.
There is no direct harm caused to people who aren't trans so long as they treat other adults as equals, and let children access the help they need.
Trans people are not more likely to be the perpetrators of violence, they're more likely to be the victims of it. Male predators don't need to pretend to be a woman to get into women's bathrooms or intrude on their spaces. The anti trans rhetoric is based on lies.
The biggest thing you need to recognize about your position is that it helps the insanely corrupt and selfish far right political groups like the American GOP. It is a wedge issue used to promote incompetent rulers who hate anyone that isn't a rich male member of the largest cultural group. Even if you don't believe you hate trans people, your support allows trans people to be legally persecuted for trying to live. I am not exaggerating, trans people are losing lifesaving treatment and being forced from public life, thanks to the refusal of people like you to stand up against the bigots.
You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
Are you all misunderstanding this discussion on puporse? Or do people struggle to understand how replying on Lemmy works? You all are now arguing against me how it's bigoted to misgender someone.
I will put the discussion into this comment again, just because I hope you seriously just lost track of what was said.
Person says:
That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened.
This gets 10 upvotes, 120 downvotes.
Another person answers:
Let’s get some examples there chief. Link what you think is “fine” and has been labeled hate speech
This gets 72 upvotes, 2 downvotes.
The person replies with:
Sure, lets start with having a penis making you a man, and a vagina making you a woman. Referencing indisputable biology has been called both hate and a phobia more times than I can count.
5 upvotes, 42 downvotes.
And now people go on a tangent how it's bigoted, dangerous and wrong to misgender people. How the defintion of words change etc.
Are you all dense or something? That's literally what the person was saying! But by pointing that out you all somehow try to paint the person as bigoted. That's completely besides the point?
Is someone else seeing what's going on here?!
And other words change if they are acceptable or not. In our grandparent's childhoods, it was usual to call a black person a n*****. Now it isn't, and that's a good thing, isn't it?
But that's not the point of the discussion? The person said that things that used to be fine can suddenly be not tolerated. People downvoted the person and claimed that's not true.
It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
Still is fine, you wont go to jail for accidently misgendering someone. At worst you may illicit an awkward cough in the room and maybe someone will take you aside later and be like "bruh they are (other gender) haha" and you would be like "Oh shit! My bad!" and that should typically be the end of it.
I'm a dude with just very long hair, cuz I like its style. I get misgendered all the time from the back, people call me a lady or ma'am all the time.
When they see me up close they often go "Oh geez Im sorry!" and I just laugh and tell them not to worry about it, it happens all the time. Thats about it. Thats the whole interaction.
Thats right, misgendering happens to cis people all the time too, and this type of social interaction is an ancient one that has been around for a millenia.
No one actually gives a shit.
Now if you PURPOSEFULLY misgender someone to try and hurt them...
That is actually a fucking problem and now you are being an asshole. But thats not just for trans folks! That applies to cis people just as much.
Let me ask you this: You walk into a bar with a biker gang, and a big burly dude is in there and you call him a woman, and he informs you sternly (cough) that he is a man, and you keep calling him a lady and are clearly trying to piss him off, you tell me how well that will probably turn out for you.
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.
N***** used to just be the word for black people, coming from the word Latin "niger"([ˈnɪɡɛr]) and meaning the color black, almost every Romance language still uses it, but I would strongly suggest not using it in the USA.
You need to learn that such things are a part of life and you have to deal with it in order to be a member of society. The existence of progress doesn't negate the need for hate speech protection. All societies have to change with time and that's okay.
I think you all forgot the purpose behind policies like freedom of speech and natural rights and that's why you're getting all mixed up.
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.
Language will always be a moving target. If you said "woman used to mean x and now it means y" you'd be fine. The problem isn't that language changes with us, it's equivocation. Using women two different ways in a conversation is a dick move.
Except the person argued about what IS fine, not what WAS considered fine in the past. The person is literally arguing that we ought to be able to misgender people. They claim it is morally righteous to misgender trans people. Their reasoning is that people are only labeling misgendering as hate speech because they disagree with it, not because it is actually hate speech.
I provided good reasons as to why misgendering and promoting the conservative gender ideology that causes it is harmful, debunking their argument that the perspective is being labeled only due to disagreement. Let's look back at their original argument.
That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened.
The argument that hate speech laws could be used frivolously to silence those who disagree is a valid hypothetical concern. Where this person fucks up is by claiming things are already being labeled as hate speech even when they aren't. This is suspect because there aren't many places that seriously outlaw hate speech, and most of those places have yet to overstep the law in any real way.
In places like the US where people are at best, socially shunned for hate speech, it's uncommon for people to falsely claim bigotry on a large scale. Usually when a false claim is made, the falsehood is in the description of events, not the moral principle being applied to.
When another poster pushes back, the person claims the conservative gender ideology isn't hateful and is deemed as such because people disagree with it, and argument I showed to be lacking. It is hateful because it inherently promotes hate and discrimination. You're trying to run interference for the poster by misunderstanding the moral principle that they appealed to.
They did not appeal to the idea that words get changed to make you look wrong for using the old definition. This would be like if "to flame" was understood to mean criticize, but everyone forgot that usage and then you said "we should flame that guy." You meant something reasonable but people didn't understand you. That's what you claim is the problem when you say:
People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
The poster claimed that the old definition is actually good and should still be used. I pointed out how that the old definition is problematic, even by the logic of the past. It excludes and includes people it shouldn't which results in real harm. I laid out the real harm done by those definitions, allowing the poster to make an informed decision on whether to still hold that definition. If they still choose to insist on that old definition that harms a group of people for characteristics they didn't choose, then they are a bigot. Harming a group for innate characteristics is bigotry.
TLDR: You ironically moved the goalposts and misunderstood what the poster was arguing. I did not prove them right in any way.
This is ridiculous, really. It does feel as if you were bots going aggressively off on a tangent with no connection to the content or context.
Or you are simply unwilling/unable to make a distinction between different levels of communication.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech?
That was the topic of the discussion.
To prevent you and others from getting caught up in and endless loop of being triggered, I will provide another example instead:
In the past it was okay to address a woman as "Fräulein X" when she was unmarried. And as "Frau X" when she was married (in German). No one cared about that, now, many people will considered it rude an bigoted and call you a sexist when doing it anyway.
Now that I think about it I feel it's actually quite easy to find a few examples, and the question to the original poster to provide an example was seemingly just bait so you all can get enraged for a bit. And everyone who didn't participate in the overall outrage, you generously consider and treat as a bigot you have to correct as well.
Well... Guess a lot women turn out to be men. We didn't see them carry a child. Perhaps they will carry a child at some point, perhaps they won't. But until then you can't trust a single woman to be a woman until they have born a child in front of you.
You may want to get used to the idea that you've been attracted to men all along. I can help you with your coming out.
Today I learned infertile women are men. Women without children are men. Women who adopted but didn't get pregnant and carry their children are men. Got it.
There is a difference between biological sex (male/female) and social gender (man/woman). Feel free to make this the hill you die on, if you’d like. My hill is the left fawning over tolerance for Islam without understanding that it’s an exclusivist fundamentalist proselytizing religion that has no sizeable liberal movements. There is no version of Islam that is like the Unitarians, UCC, etc where the holy book is understood to be a product of its times. Sufism is close insofar as their mysticism makes them chill, but they’re not universalists. I have no desire to import proselytizing religionists of any culture or creed, and certainly no tolerance for the same.
This is a definition dispute, not biological. Mostly anyway. I could have this conversation with a lot of people and it wouldn't be any sort of hate speech, but it's pretty obvious what you're about here.
So what you're saying is that it's important to instill strong morals and encourage critical thinking in the general populous so that we can recognize the difference between actual hate speech and what is being spun as hate speech in order to further the agendas of those who would oppress us and therefore any action made to suppress public education must be the precursor to a larger scheme to gain control by manipulating the ignorant?
Thats not how Hate Speech works, its explicitly about intent and not the actual words used, at least in Canada.
Canada doesn't specify any specific words that are "banned" or whatever, and the law is explicitly setup to handle that no matter what you do or dont say, all it cares is about the intent behind your words and whether they intended to incite violence/hate.
If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people.
This doesn't seem so much of a liberal thing but a social centrist thing. There's plenty of people on the left that are socialist/communist but don't care as much about social issues. I recall someone arguing that the people who wanted to kidnap Gov Whitmer were experiencing "economic anxiety". You see it too with leftists who float the idea of working with MAGA hats for economic populism.
It's like when people say there's basically only one party or there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. From a purely economic perspective, sure, the differences are rather small. Pretty much just comes down to taxes. But the two parties are polar opposites when it comes to social issues. To say there's no difference is basically ignoring the social aspect.
Enlightened centrist or liberal or apologist, it's just cringe.
You really need someone to explain to you that the guy in the comic is a drawing and is just a fable for making a point, and not a real liberal actually defending real nazis?
The problem is it's not a simplistic line. I strongly disagree with the nazi viewpoint. They also break the social contract so often they've voided all rights to be covered by it. At the same time, some people want to take it too far. There are still later lines we shouldn't cross. (E.g. A mob beating Nazis with baseball bats is never acceptable).
Unfortunately, Nazis like playing games, and trying to mess with the scale of problems. Some people try and step in and "help" without realising that they are dealing with untrustworthy information. This can tie people's minds into an impressive knot, just as they intended.
(E.g. A mob beating Nazis with baseball bats is never acceptable).
real heavy "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." vibes from this.
Endgame for fascists, nazis, authoritarians, etc is violence. Violence against you, me, and anyone else they declare "undesirable"
The only way to defeat them is violence. To protect a civil society and a way of life that allows humanity to blossom in all its various shades and shapes.
You hide behind betters, pretending to have a moral highground because you didnt get the blood on your hands, while benefiting from the blood on everyone elses.
I don't think it's so much violence itself but the threat of violence. Nazis and fascists need to know that if they get violent, we'll return it a hundredfold in kind.
It's kind of like the phrase that a sheathed sword is sometimes enough to keep the peace. The threat of it being used is what keeps people in line. What we need are more visible sheathed swords -- unless of course we need to draw the weapon.
I never said I'm not willing to get blood on my hands. Violence can be required. It's an unfortunate sign though that we have already failed badly. However, if violence is required, it should be controlled, and focused. A mob beating with fists is spontaneous, a mob using baseball bats is a lynching.
The difference between a mob and a militia is in the organisation and responsibilities. A militia has a chain of command, and so someone who can stop things going too far. They can also make sure the actual job is done, rather than straying into mindless violence.
If violence is required, we are morally required to apply it. However, we are also morally required to apply it precisely in controlled amounts, towards the required goal. Otherwise we can easily degenerate into the exact thing we claim to fight.
The other thing to remember is that we can be baited. Mindless violence might feel good, but if it doesn't advance the cause, it's worthless. Even worse, it can justify the actions of the other side, even if the balance is still disproportionate.
The amount of people trying to middleground this shit to advance nazi causes shows you just how fucking good they are at infiltrating discussions to try and shift their bullshit to a more normalized position with this soft hands shit.
Its blatantly black and white. If you arent against it, you are enabling it. Not a lot of things in life are black and white, but this particular instance is. There is no middle ground, no concessions, nothing. Only absolute rejection. Anything less is just is just letting them win and advance.
Someone else being a twat won't make me violate my principles. I'm not good to others because they're good to me. I'm good to others because they're an end themselves, not a means to my ends.
If you are good to nazi's because they are good to you, regardless of what they do to others, Then your principles, and you as a person, are shit, and you should be treated as nothing but an infiltrator for their cause, because that is what you are.
And that's completely your right to do. However, that is not what the tolerance contract covers. It goes beyond what most people would tolerate normally. Also, people cannot both break the social contract, and then insist you hold up the other end.
By example, I've previously had long debates over nazi Germany and Hitler's economic recovery. I would even tolerate Nazis, if they followed the social contract from their side. Unfortunately, the various Nazis groups regularly break that contract. They then try and hide behind it, when others take offence.
Conversely, I also disagree with the "tankies". They tend not to break the social contract however. This gives them the right to reasonable tolerance of them, and their views. They respect others, despite disagreeing with them. They, in turn, gain a level of respect in discussions.
Don't get me wrong, I am tolerant of a lot, from purely moralistic reasoning. The social contract is a larger entity however. It formalises what many of us feel. It also shows us where the lines are, beyond which people are abusing our tolerance. It's the larger social version of our internal morals.
I don't find social contract arguments all that convincing, but we can just pretend my social contract is "no violence or you get fucked" and ignore that. Tankies are way easier to talk to than Nazis, though I don't really find myself talking to nazis often - just run of the mill bigots. Anyone with consistent standards or ethics is fairly easy to talk to, even if we disagree.
In my personal life I tend to take on more than half of the social costs in some friendships and I probably do the same when arguing with certain types of people. I'm more tolerant than I strictly need to be, but I feel like treating people like that is necessary for me.
The social contract concept is over-used by people who try to make it cover too much. It becomes a one-sided contract of adhesion which you're assumed to have agreed to simply by existing. This, however, is simple reciprocation—it's more like a truce than a contract. It would be unreasonable to expect tolerance from others while refusing to grant the same tolerance to them.
Of course there is no obligation to be intolerant just because the other person is; you are free to make a better choice.
There are levels of tolerance in there. E.g. I'm not gay. I have no interest in men. The idea of being sexual with a man is mildly repulsive to me.
With this, the bare minimum of tolerance is not actively working against the existence and legality of being gay.
Next is the "none of my business" level of tolerance. What happens between 2 consenting adults is down to them.
Above that is acceptance. Gay people have developed their own culture and community. While it's not for me, I recognise that its existence and celebration makes our overall culture more dynamic and interesting. It also provides a lot of happiness to others. Accepting and rolling with that provides a lot of positivity to others, without significant cost to me.
However, if I was approached by a gay guy and propositioned, there is no issue with me turning them down. I try and be polite about it, but being firm isn't being intolerant. (Luckily, most gay guys take being rejected a LOT better than some straight guys do).
Going back to your example. Going up to a black guy and expressing that, while you tolerate them not being a slave, you don't agree with it. This is intolerant, it is an incredibly strong dog whistle of your tolerance is forced.
Conversely, if, during a debate on religion and it's effects, you express your view that you accept people are religious, but don't agree with it, that is better. The context is a debate, and you can explain your reasoning better. It also lacks the dog whistle element that makes it bigoted.
I've found crystallising my morals into words and logic is useful. It both makes it easier to explain, as well as finding holes in my views. My moral framework has advanced significantly over my life. At no point did I think I was immoral, however, I have found significant flaws in my viewpoints. I've also found a lot of biases, which I'm mildly horrified that I ever held.
I'm still far from perfect, but aiming that way, as best I can.
It's not a paradox at all if you view society and government as a social contract entered by all parties. The conditions for being protected by the tolerance provided for in the Constitution is that you extend that tolerance to everyone else. The intolerant have breached that contract and are therefore no longer protected by it.
Those who dont abide by it, try to use it as a weapon against those who do, to enable their intolerance to grow and spread.
Those who don't abide by the social contract are a threat to society as a whole, and should not receive its protection.
Because you end up empowering them, and weakening society against them.
Intolerance must be put down, with force. It is not hypocritical. It is not paradoxical. For the garden of tolerance to thrive, the intolerant weeds must be ripped out of the soil and disposed of in such a way that they can not spread their seeds further, because if you don't.. nothing will thrive but the weeds.
Lotta talk in here about free speech that seems to be missing the point.
The right for someone to spew hateful rhetoric freely does not supercede my right not to tolerate it. The first amendment does not give the hate monger, nor the englightened centrist immunity from the social consequences of their public opinions.
When I was growing up it was never about tolerating intolerance. It was about dragging it out into the sunlight so you could kill it. They have a right to say anything they want so we can make an example of them and they don't go into hiding and do dumb shit.
Of course that depended on the mainstream leadership believing in democracy and not leaning into extremism. Because the GOP has switched sides on democracy it's a liability now instead of a strength. A swing too far from the laws of England our founders meant to forestall.
No one ever gets the point until people start getting beaten, threatened, wounded, maimed or killed. They'll keep arguing the details until there is an authoritarian government telling you what you can or can't do or say.
Then everyone stands around wondering how it all happened.
Most regular people I know just want to live life and not really bother with anyone else in a negative way .. in fact most people I've ever known would do something good for the other person if it meant it would help. Most people are just good and have a very good nature.
It's the psychotic few billionaires and millionaires out there that want a world with authoritarian fascist government in power because it means those wealthy few get to keep all their money and if they do get their way, they can exponentially grow the wealth they already have. It's all about money and power.
It's all about a handful of morons who aren't aware of their finite life that believe they can become temporary rulers of the world.
The Mediterranean is full of dead bodies from asylum seekers, but people still bath there.
People will not bathe in a pool, if that pool has a single cadaver in it.
Some might say that it doesn't count because you can't see the bodies in the Mediterranean, but you can in the pool.
but even if the pool has an angle and the corpse obscured behind said angle, people won't swim in it if they are told this in advance.
so clearly there must be some ratio of dead people to water that society sees as acceptable.
so to answer your question, yes, and we haven't reached that point yet, and the right is doing it's best to keep that bar as high as possible.
Usually hunger .... if you look through history, change doesn't happen in societies because people are poor, abused, imprisoned, impoverished or have a lack of luxuries .... change often happens when people go hungry because at that point they all realize that if they have no food, they will die ... and when they can see death, especially their own death, they no longer have anything to lose and will fight for some kind of change ....
And even that want for change is dangerous because it can come in many forms ... good change, bad change, fascist change, socialist change, democratic change, authoritarian change.
in your post the thing I liked the most, the most significant in my opinion, it's
They'll keep arguing the details
this is the sum of all the thread. there's so much on this few words.
in my understanding,vsums up perfectly what I'd describe as the paranoia feeding the knitpicking and the extenuating effort to manage the malice.
thank you
Hate speech is not the same as free speech. Free speech was for reporters to keep them from being jailed so it’s not even applicable for what this guy thinks he’s defending with that phrase.
A comic by Jennie Breeden and Obby from site TheDevilsPanties.com.
The first panel shows a mustached person with short hair wearing a t-shirt and sitting at a laptop. A speech bubble rising from the laptop reads "I just don't think you people belong in our society!"
The second panel shows a different short-haired person wearing a t-shirt, long pants, and sneakers, sitting on a park bench and looking at a mobile phone. A speech bubble from the mobile phone reads "Well, I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it."
The third panel shows both people standing on the side of a street. The first person is holding a Bible and pointing across the road at a group of shadowed people carrying signs with hearts and pride flags. He is speaking to a crowd of people and saying "Your kind is a betrayal to God! You're a drag on the whole country!" To which the second person is shrugging and responding "That's appalling, but we can't have free speech without the free marketplace of ideas!"
The fourth panel shows the first person standing at a lectern and wearing a suit with an American flag behind them and a shadowed crowd in front of them. They are saying "We will stop the woke ideology that's destroying America!". The second person is standing close to the foreground and shrugging, saying "Democracy needs this discourse, so let's agree to disagree."
The fifth panel shows the second person being dragged away by people in uniform while saying "Wait! Where are you taking me? You can't just get rid of me!". The first person is standing between the first person and an open paddy wagon, wearing a black uniform and looking smug as they reply "Let's just agree to disagree."
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
Consider... what went wrong is that no one pushed back on Panel Two using the very same free marketplace of ideas.
Panel One: Fighting for everyone's right to express themselves is fine. Good as it is.
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot's arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot's arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
I can't believe no one thought of this. And here planned parenthood and the grieving families at funerals of vets have just been sitting by listening to the noise.
Calling people out on their BS is the right line to draw for me personally, but I still want that person to have the right to express their opinion. We just need to teach people that it's ok to be wrong as long as you can admit it and learn from it. No idea gets processed until pushed from an opposing party.
Sitting back and doing nothing teaches nothing. Calling it appalling and informing the person why they're wrong is the right step toward change. But if you can't say it in a way that makes them hear you, then you're doomed to have the argument all over again.
I'd say that's tolerating intolerance and is the right thing to do. Once they switch to violence though, remember you have a robust right to defend yourself, your community and your loved ones.
In the Republic, book VIII, Socrates identifies as democracy's leading cause of corruption precisely that thing makes it seemingly so beautiful. In a democracy, citizens become inebriated with freedom (Euleteria). By making it the highest goal, people in a democracy end up leading democracy to its downfall.
If people vote for their own chains in a free and democratic society, they deserve to get what they want. Now whether we still have such a society is debatable. But I still fundamentally believe that any and all forms of censorship are the wrong way to go and will only accelerate the decline into totalitarianism.
Where between "I wouldn't date a trans person because it is against my ideals" (personal preference in partners) and "I wouldn't socialise with a trans person because it is against my ideals" (personal preference in friends) would we draw our boundary? Would it be between these two forms of discomfort,, or would both these ideals be unacceptable, or would both be acceptable?
The issue isn't that such speech should be removed, there is broad agreement there, but where do we start trimming?
Next comes the question, in policing such discourse, what would the cost to privacy be? "Protect the children from the predators" (something everyone can agree with) is already a rallying cry leafing to the erosion of encryption and privacy, shall "stamp out the TERFs" become the next one? Who here remembers what "stopping terrorists" did to privacy?
Overall, I doubt there are many who don't feel open distaste at certain forms of speech, and would rather it not be tolerated. However, the difficulty in where to draw the line, and the fear of the cost such a line would have, is why there is likely more opposition.
I know this is going to be super unpopular, but here I go. Hate speech is free speech. I know that doesn't sound great; but once you start censoring speech for the words alone, it can easily grow out of control and become full censorship.
It is important to remember that free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of your words; nor should it. Also using speech in furtherance of a crime is illegal; as it should be.
So long as you can use your free speech to oppose hate speech, then I would say the system is working. I too wish it wasn't like this; I too wish for world to be free of hate speech; but sadly this is the best we can do to ensure the right people can be heard
But what about the freedom to be free from prejudice and oppression?
This is why there are no easy answers. People do have a right to be free from prejudice and oppression. But the easy answer of ban hate speech will cause censorship to rear its ugly head.
you fight the Nazi, or you help the Nazi, the Nazi has no interest in concessions, or sharing "their" space. If the idea that you can't call for Holocaust 2 electricboogaloo LGBTQ edition scares you, maybe think why it does, and then stop watching Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, or any of the other alt-right media/talking heads.
Defending authoritarianism is not fighting authoritarianism. You can talk like this is about the most extreme possible examples, but it fundamentally is not; this is about people who are fixated on obtaining the power to tell others to shut up, and that doesn't have a line anyone is willing to respect and it isn't limited to one side or the other. You go to panel 4, you're at panel 4. The implication that I must be saying all speech must be permitted, or that I'm defending Nazis by saying this, is false rhetorical framing; valuing free expression and wanting to defend it from people who would see it done away with is not equivalent to that.
Edit: And just to add, it's a terrible assumption that the best/only solution to an environment of increasing violence and hate is to make people stop talking. This is again a product of a fixation on the desire to do that, social media makes you want it, but that doesn't mean it's the place to focus. There are underlying problems that are not words.
If the people who are talking are saying hate-filled, disgusting things: They most certainly do need to shut the fuck up. It's not the only solution to the problem, but it's the first place to start. Don't let that hate take root to begin with, but shutting down the asswipe spewing hateful speech. There is nothing to gain from letting them speak, no validity to their words, and their rhetoric leads to violence so there is no reason not to censor them.
Is that how it works? You hear someone saying something hateful, and then their thoughts and feelings become a part of you like a plant? So we must weed and maintain a sterile environment so only the chosen thoughts and feelings propagate? Which are weeds and which aren't, and who gets to decide? To me this is a deeply dehumanizing metaphor and a path towards controlling human beings by choosing a diet of information and expression for them.
It's fine sometimes to tell a disruptive asshole to go somewhere else because no one wants to to listen to them, or even to do something about groups of people plotting violent acts, but what I object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person's right to collect and curate their thoughts at their own discretion is spat on, and that's what I see in this sort of rhetoric.
If your thoughts include the subjugation or eradication of a group of people and you express these thoughts publicly: You most certainly deserve to be spat upon and shunned. There is no place in a civil, enlightened society for that kind of thinking. Period. Full stop.
You hear someone saying something hateful, and then their thoughts and feelings become a part of you like a plant?
Republicans in the USA right now: WE NEED TO EXTERMINATE THE LGBTQ, THEY ARE ALL PEDOPHILES!!!! Fox/OAN/Tucker/Trump/MTG/etc... told me so.
ya, that is how it works.
and you are here saying you "object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person’s right to collect and curate their thoughts [we need to KILL LGBTQ+ people] at their own discretion is spat on" and wonder why people are calling your position supporting Nazis, I guess it's fine as long as you aren't affected.
and you are here saying you “object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person’s right to collect and curate their thoughts [we need to KILL LGBTQ+ people] at their own discretion is spat on” and wonder why people are calling your position supporting Nazis,
I'm not wondering really. It's conceptual railroading, a lot like "protect the children" or appealing to fear of terrorism as an excuse for attacking civil liberties. You are using the emotional weight of fear/anger at admittedly reprehensible views to force the conclusion "that is how it works"; that is, that people have no agency and words are like a virus for them, with the natural conclusion that what they see or express must be decided for them, which then applies generally. If you don't think that would apply generally, where's the line?
where is the line? how about inciting violence or discrimination against any group / peoples? I think that's a good line to start with.
As for the rest of your statement, you seem to have this unshakable belief that evil is something foreign to most people, that people wouldn't follow along in blaming some minority group and then doing unspeakable things to these groups, you act as if the population has some innate rational firewall protecting them from becoming Nazis, and History has shown us, time and time and time and time and time again that this just isn't true, hell in the USA you burned down entire city districts because the black man was plotting something, sikhs and Muslims got shot in drives after 9/11 because FOXNews decided to spew anti-middleeastern brown people rhetoric, the fucking Nazis, Belgian Congo, Turkey, the English empire, etc... etc... etc... they all started with some people spouting stuff.
That is not saying that Germany is abusing the law, just that they have an ineffective implementation that shitty countries could use as an excuse to enact their own abusive practices.
The United States. Speech that is used to incite violence, commit fraud, or is perceived to be a true threat are not protected under the first amendment.
I don’t know about that. I think the more appropriate stance is that it’s almost impossible to have people appropriately prosecuted when they do violate the law. Federal courts are afraid to be the court that starts the chain reaction of more appropriately defining how violation of the law and prosecution should work.
I said ripe for abuse, not that they will be abused. In any case, I haven't heard of country with hate speech laws that hasn't been abused in some form. Even in America, we don't have those laws, but that hasn't stopped the government from trying.
We don’t have those laws in the form of legislation necessarily in the US but we do have bars on what is covered by the first amendment according to case law.
The US had similar hate-speech rules to that of the rest of Europe, until the US civil rights era presented the court the opportunity to decide whether Martin Luther King's anti-racism speech was, as charged, "hate speech".
Long story short, the court decided that it couldn't define what 'hate speech' was and so decided that it shouldn't be against the law (or that the First should protect it). That's why Nazis are allowed to march and have their rallies protected by the First Amendment, all because southern US states wanted to charge the speakers of anti-white-supremacy with 'hate speech' and that was a quick-and-dirty way to disarm them.
I have no idea what you are talking about, to be honest. Never heard of those.
But Blasphemy is extremely different from Hate. Canada, for example, goes into explicit legal detail on what counts as Hate and constitutes a Hate Crime.
And Blasphemy has nothing to do with that discussion, nor have I ever heard of this concept, so either you are talking about something else entirely, or perhaps you have to link to what you are talking about?
When I look the term "Blasphemy Laws" up, it brings up something that has nothing to do with Hate Crimes. Did you perhaps use the wrong term?
Throwaway's thing seems to be making shallow bad rightwing takes and backing them up with nothing of substance. I don't think they are engaging genuinely.
Pakistan has a one of the more remarkably bad histories with blasphemy laws, if you're looking for examples. I think they're not uncommon in Muslim majority countries. Western nations had similar laws as well, but I think you have to go back a couple centuries to find them.
But the thing is the person I responded to seemed to be talking about some other one, because we are talking about Anti-Hate speech laws, which is definitely not what you just linked to lol
No... one is a law against speech against a large entity of power that holds control of the nation.
The other is a law against speech against fellow specific individuals.
If you are seriously trying to equate "I don't like (religion)" with "I think (group of people) deserve to die", then you are on the wrong side of history mate.
That would be a very bad take and I hope to hell and back again you are smart enough to see the difference between those two.
And by that I mean be socially intolerant of intolerance. Personal morals and actions don't need to and shouldn't be held to the same standard as the US Federal government.
Individuals do have more freedom to discriminate and show "social intolerance", but that obviously doesn't extend to punching people they disagree with. Or violent responses in general.
I'm not morally obligated to debate someone arguing in favor of genocide, for instance. Is it legally assault to punch them, sure. Would I want the government to come in and boot stomp them, probably not. Is punching them morally wrong, nope.
The morals of your actions are for you to decide. It's your conscience. However, if you punched someone over what they said they would be perfectly justified both in defending themselves against your aggression and in punching you right back. At that point you would have no objective rational argument that their defense or retribution was wrong which would not similarly condemn your own actions. You're the one who chose to escalate to violence, not them.
You're right. There's nothing that can be done. Racial slurs and regressive language should be taught in schools because you can't fathom a world that has a slight amount of respect based regulation.
The problem is, if you condemn them back to the shadows and basements, they fester and pass their hatreds down within their in-group. They'll just teach their children "the south with rise again" in private, with no pushback because others don't know it's happening.
At least letting them talk in the name of free speech lets you know who the Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are, instead of having them going back to using toxic, slowly indoctrinating dogwhistles and regrouping.
At the end of the day, secrecy just prolongs and exacerbates problems. We should rise or fall as a society on who we all are, not on the basis of who has the most appealing web of lies. Let the Nazis bury themselves by speaking their fucked up beliefs, because otherwise they'll temper their messaging, which will recruit more people than the horror of their actual endgame.
You wrote three paragraphs to demonstrate how thoroughly you missed the point of this extremely blunt comic. Don’t get mad at me for pointing this out, I’m just exposing my own opinion the to purifying effect of public discourse.
Because I’ve put forth no constructive criticism, I’ve not tried to explain why you’re wrong or justify my own position, nor would I accept any arguments that you put forth to try and explain your position. If I could shout over you, I would do that too. I’m arguing in bad faith. I’m not here to debate you. I’m here to make people think you’re stupid by publicly making fun of you with cheap crowd pleasing rhetoric and imply what you said is wrong because of it. This is the tactic I will use to take control of this country and you seem to think I have a right to use it.
This is the kind of discourse someone attempts when they don't feel they can declare their fucked up beliefs overtly.
I'd rather make them feel like they can declare their fucked up beliefs without hedging or room for doubt, then inform their employer, the businesses that deal with their employer, their family, their neighbors, etc with the receipts.
Oh good, you shouted down a nazi on a street corner ranting about the inferior this and the inferior that. They'll now temper their message, keep their job, and slowly convert the new office runner with terms like "urban" and "not real Americans." congratulations, you've now got a stealth Nazi staying low insidiously making more. Thanks a ton.
What you guys aren’t understanding in this frictionless hypothetical sphere of argument is that a single Nazi, by itself, is not a threat. The problem comes when this Nazi connects with other Nazis. If Nazis can’t publicly be Nazis then finding the other ones to gang up with becomes a lot harder.
That knowledge literally ended the employment of a lot of white supremacists that were filmed in Charlottesville overtly chanting against Jewish people. You see? They were given enough rope, and they hanged themselves, and now those images and reputation can keep others informed about who they are and never to give them an inch.
Free speech is the absence of consequences by the state, but once you know someone is a proud white supremacist, you don't have to keep them employed, or renew their lease, or hire them, or stay married to them, or invite them to your wedding, etc. A known Nazi can suffer social consequences all day and be socially ostracized, if they were emboldened enough to disclose that fact instead of spending their lives infecting people with shit like "I hate urban people in the inner cities." Shit like that can appeal to the weak minded.
It'd obviously be better if the Nazi ideology never surfaced in the first place, but that would require a good level of education, empathy, and social support...or as the right puts it, "leftist woke indoctrination."
Instead you have disingenous discourse defended under the banner of free speech. Fascists have historically used this right as their anchor point to undermine Democratic institutions.
Usually they amplify their racist/hate speech, xenophobic messaging, and nationalistic fervor during times that Democratic institutions are under particularly extreme pressure by natural disasters or domestic/foreign wars. Democratic societies tend to propagate comfortable and idealistic upper/middle class citizens when they're doing well (not under said pressures), often fostering the sentiment for a live and let live philosophy, even for those with dangerous hateful ideologies and rhetoric.
Then, when the Democratic institution is inevitably put under stress by external or internal circumstances, Fascism accelerates and gains momentum in the public consciousness not because they debated better or have genuinely good ideas on how to solve the society's problems, but because they argue that is the only way everyone can survive, when in fact they are usually just narcissistic megalomaniacs who want to control everything and everyone around them, ultimately destroying personal freedoms and diverse communities in the name of moralist, nationalist hegemony.
I don’t believe you can see my reply but counterpoint: reddit and 4chan both went that route and host major nazi ideology funnels. Just like… ban assholes.
Counterpoint to your counterpoint: because they have bigot dens to spew their bile among like minded white nationalists, intelligence agencies now have their names and identities and they're now on lists. They can and have stopped violent actors that were given enough rope to feel safe discussing their plans online instead of being driven to bars and basements to plan out of view.
If you don't give the Nazis the the freedom say "hi im a Nazi" you don't know where the Nazis are, let alone have the means to find out what they're planning.
Now I’m not sure how the partial defederation works… anyway, they move offsite to websites owned by the moderators, in the case of Reddit, so that’s not exactly true. It’s equal parts money-making and radicalization effort and it largely flies under the radar. 4chan, on the other hand, makes as many nutters as it stops. It’s not effective for your mosquito spray to kill 5 mosquitos and create 5 more from the ether.
They're already doing that. It's 2023 ffs. They've been doing this since slavery was abolished. Time to signal to the entire world that it's not fucking okay. Letting Nazis talk has only ever allowed them to plant their insidious misinformation campaigns and gather followers. We don't give Nazis a fucking inch and they are not welcome in the town square. Kill your local Nazi.
I can't name a single Nazi. Even Richard Spencer, the guy whom most people think of as a Nazi, says that he doesn't identify as a Nazi. So, who identifies which people are Nazis and which aren't if they don't self-identify?
But that contained the problem for many, many years. And more times than not when members of the group experienced the real world, their indoctrination fell apart. Being in daylight emboldens them and lets them amplify their message and find like-minded people.
Funny how the "most disenfranchised" always ends up being Nazis and Nazi supporters.
Any time an actually disenfranchised person tries to use their legitimate free speech rights to advocate for their own liberty, it's not considered an action against free speech at all to lock them in a cage, set up free speech zones, or do any number of things to prevent them from voicing their concerns.
I say we give Nazis the same amount of free speech rights as say, communists had in the 50-60s, blacks had before the civil rights act, or Kaepernick had while simply not getting up during the national anthem.
So, let me get this straight. You think hate speech is okay, because the disenfranchised need to express themselves? Why would the disenfranchised need to utilize hate speech to address systemic problems in their society? Surely the recipient of the hate speech is more disenfranchised.
Being allowed to exists IS free speech. The whole LGBT movement exists and spreads via free speech rules.
Plenty of people still think that being gay is immoral. In many places they're still being jailed for "corrupting youth". The only places that see social change are those with strong free speech protections. It's so obvious, it hurts.
The society at large needs free speech protections to show their acceptance of any group. If Nazis are not to be accepted, which I agree with, then the pressure from society will drive that ideology down in popularity. However, the government of any nation will actively resist change to preserve the system of society that is already in place. So, they will actively want to control speech to resist change. Do you want an authoritarian regime? You won't be able to control it.
Being an ass is not against the law. Not every social interaction needs to have a law associated with it. "Free speech is for journalists" is a useless statement. Who defines when you become a journalist? The government?
It's literally up to you to use your words to fight their words. As soon as you try to ban words and speech it will immediately be turned around against you. If you cannot fight their words with your words that's your problem not theirs.
The skill is debate and debunking. It should be fairly simple to show a serial lack of honesty and bullshit. If you can show that then it should be fairly simple to get people to stop listening and disconnect. Calling their words mean will convince no one. Do the work if you care so much.
It's not a debate skill issue, it's an education issue. What bad faith actors do when pretending to debate is just real-time trolling, they're not interested in debate, and debating lends legitimacy to their idiocy. "Don't feed the troll." People need to educated enough that they themselves walk away from disingenuous debates and stop listening.
Watch "thank you for smoking" or read literally anything on persuasive argument. Exposing and publicizing these viewpoints does not make them less popular. Allowing the "alt-right" to have "free exchange in the marketplace of ideas" has only led to there being more Nazis or Nazi adjacent people now than there was before we did that. The "alt-right" isn't even alt anymore, it's the mainstream right-wing position.
People that think "oh well that's only because we haven't had the right argument" are completely ignorant of history. We didn't defeat Hitler in "the marketplace of ideas", and you won't defeat Putin or Trump there either.
Yup. Fascists don't have the skills to argue in good faith, and no one should listen to anything any of them have to say. I hope no one makes that mistake in this thread by listening to you.
"Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
You can try to drop people in little boxes to suit your ideology, but it doesn't work well on me. I've made it a habit to argue with bigots - particularly at work. There's a surprising number of people that sound hateful but are just ignorant and curious.
I haven't defended nazis and I certainly haven't defended genocidal maniacs. Pretty sure I've said humans are humans, even ones with bad ideas and that robust self defense is a basic human right.
He's not advocating for arguing with fascists. He's advocating for validating fascists by hearing them out and treating them as though their shit ideas could ever have merit or that any of them have merit as people.
We've seen what happens when naive people tolerate fascists. You're just trying to make that happen again.
I think you can argue with bigots without validating their ideas. I'm not arguing that you should, but I'm comfortable doing it. I've tried to cultivate a human first perspective of people and I don't think I can pull off violence against someone for their words without damaging the compassion and empathy I try to live by.
I think you can argue with bigots without validating their ideas.
I think none of them will ever deserve an audience for their idiotic fascist bigot nazi ideas. Just because your sympathies lie with them, that doesn't mean everyone else has to enable your bigot buddies to do what you hope they will.
We Germans are doing just fine with laws against certain kind of statements since... y'know.
I don't like the overall trend of restricting certain kinds of language, especially on social media where some concepts are forced to be expressed through some kind of doublespeak to be seen but I think it's fair game to outlaw the denial of the holocaust.
I don’t like the overall trend of restricting certain kinds of language, especially on social media where some concepts are forced to be expressed through some kind of doublespeak
Saying unalive instead of suicide or censoring words like rape to r*pe.
It's mostly on TikTok and YouTube but it spilled into other platforms as well since users are uncertain what they can say sometimes.
Most nationalists (including Nazi) give no flying fucks about a rational discourse. If 2+2=4 hurts their precious fee fees, they say that 2+2=5 and no matter what you say will change it.
Plenty Nazi capitalise on Brandolini's Law. They know that it takes far less effort to utter bullshit than to refute it. In effect this means that people fighting against Nazi discourses through words will, as a group, get tired faster than the ones vomiting the Nazi discourse.
Because of those two factors, while I can certainly understand your point, I think that you're being short-sighted when you say "that's your problem not theirs".
I do agree that there's always a risk that mechanisms used to censor them might get misused against you. However I see this as a second risk that you need to balance out with the first one (the Nazi), and which risk is more relevant is heavily situational.
I'm not a big fan of Poo-per Popper but I think that his paradox of tolerance is spot on about those two things. At least in its original version (not its "Disney version" parroted in social media). I'll abridge it here:
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists.
Emphasis mine. For further context check page 226 of his book. (PDF page 232).
The fact that it takes a lot more energy to debunk a claim is why I said you can take a few and show that they are disingenuous. Spend a bit of energy to show that they always talk bullshit so that they can be proven liars and easily discounted by anybody with a brain. The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They're basically a lost cause. They are few and far between but if people listen to what they say and nobody is around to disprove it or argue against it they gain a bit of power. They haven't created more Nazis so you have the same enemies to fight against. Cut off the head of the snake by showing their claims to be disingenuous and lies.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
Taking a few and showing that they're disingenuous doesn't work well.
For a less rational audience, all that the Nazi need to do is to relabel their discourse; for example saying that they're "the alternative right" instead of "neonazi", or "anti-woke" instead of "alt right". And, for a more rational audience, the nazi can point out that you're generalising an attribute to the group based on properties of a few of them ("ackshyually, that guy is bad, but not all of us are like that!").
In both cases, if you decide to not keep engaging, they can simply claim "see? He was left with no arguments!". And they do this all the time.
The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They’re basically a lost cause.
Fully agree with that.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
I think that our major point of disagreement is if those things are enough to keep the Nazi at bay. I think that often they aren't.
We already have a class of speech called true threats. If it is actionable then it is illegal. If they have concrete plans for it then we have laws that criminalize it. If they're just saying what they want to happen then you can call them monsters and show why what they are saying is wrong and terrible.
If you cannot fight their words with your words that’s your problem not theirs.
People pretend like some perfect argument can defeat Nazis. You cannot fight gut emotions like fear, dread, and hatred with "reasonable" words and "rational" thought.
People aren't rational, and they are easily pursuaded by things other than "the best possible idea selected by an objective evaluation of all available ideas from the marketplace of ideas".
People aren't robots, hatred and fear lean into their base emotions. It's partially why cults exist.
There's never really a perfect argument because we're not beholden to rationality. Utilitarianism comes after treating people well for me, so even if an action would result in a better outcome I may find it unethical.
You might have deluded yourself into thinking fence sitting or becoming a bystander is more ethical but it's often not.
It's usually the easier choice and requires the least amount of effort and immediate danger, which is why most choose it, but that is not at all the same thing as ethical.
If you walk away from the trolley lever, that's still a choice and doesn't save you from the dilemma.
You can. It's just tacit announcement that you're a wishy washy enlightened centrist who couldn't even be bothered to keep up with current events. Caring about things is lame right?
Far too often people forget that Right to Free Speech is not your first right, and it is superseded by other human rights above it.
Your right to Free Speech only applies as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights to safety and freedom from prejudice, hate, harm, etc...
It's not that complicated and yet countless people always fuck something so straightforward up.
It begins with free speech, then you skip a few years and suddenly trans kids are scared for their lives. Speech affects people and has consequence, it is not something to take lightly.
Let's get some examples there chief.
Link what you think is "fine" and has been labeled hate speech
As a Floridian, the issue is pretty apparent. Conservatives are outlawing the current teachings about race in our schools all under the guise of STOPPING racism.
But that's fascists calling reality fake...
We can't take any of them seriously. I didn't think I had to keep pointing that out in 2023.
I meant a rational person declaring something they don't like as hate speech.
Do you understand how crazy it is to say:
Fascists have been trying to do that forever, dont start falling for it now all of a sudden.
Yuuup. Just like they say about liberals calling for the protection of pronouns: "Genders is gender!"
So yeah, sorry, but we have to be VERY careful about any kind of "Free speech, except..." because anyone can fill in that blank.
Don't act like this is some crazy tactic that no one would fall for. There are kids down the street from me RIGHT NOW learning about how slavery is misunderstood and it gave people lots of valuable skills.
ironically, slavery just being misunderstood is due to the "I will defend your right to say ANYTHING crowd"
Under freedom of speech I expect idiotic ideas like this to arise, what's unacceptable is when that free speech is undermined so teachers can't deliver the truth. Never undermine freedom of speech. This is where we end up.
Downvoted solely for use of “cucked”. For fuck’s sake, that word needs to die, not be “reclaimed” or whatever the fuck. It just makes me irrationally angry.
Except black people's lives have been made worse by white people. Where's the lie? White kids are not being taught they're racist. I got a "woke" education and white people were not taught that they're inherently bigoted. In fact, we were taught that anyone can be a bigot, regardless of who they are, and that any category can be used to cause division and hate.
I wish you would take your face out of the slop of lies the right wing media feeds you. It makes me sad.
as a white conservative, I think it's an affront to justice that I can't call black people N****s and have to "respect their rights"! true freedom is having the right to own people!
Cringe: denying you as a white conservatives are a bigot.
Based: proudly boasting that white conservatives are bigots.
Who is telling white kids they're racist? Honestly.
Oh do you mean their ancestors? Because that's kind of a big difference.
Exactly. Nobody is telling white kids they’re racist for existing. That dude just exemplifies the kind of brain rot you get when all your news comes from Breitbart, Fox News, and Facebook memes.
What school is teaching what you said? Are you familiar with actual CRT and where it is applied? Hint: not in grade schools. Nobody thinks white children should be ashamed of their race and vice versa. Giving students an accurate history and equipping them to understand racial issues is vital. Let's not confuse ignorance with innocence.
Dog whistle.
Show me the curriculum that teaches black kids they're victims and white kids that they're all racist.
All righty -- I didn't realize I somehow found myself in a 3 week old thread. In case it happens to anyone else, I'm going to send my reply anyways, but I'm not going to reply directly to him because I see no point in engaging with shithead racists 3-weeks later!
The school he used as an example:
https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/virginia/loudoun-county/loudoun-co-schools-report-nearly-900-racial-slur-and-hate-speech-incidents-this-past-school-year/
Uh ... 900 uses of racial slurs / racist behavior reported and more than half of them being the N-word ... seems to me like maybe they deserved to taught that they're being racist because ... [shocker] they were being racist!
Also, ONE fucking example of a moderately sized (~435,000) suburb isn't the smoking gun they think it is, even if it turned out to be accurate (which, this isn't).
Details on the specific incident they're likely whinging about though:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/partisan-war-over-teaching-history-racism-stokes-tensions-us-schools-2021-06-23/
You'll notice that there is zero proof of what he said, just that right wing whack jobs lost their fucking minds and got stirred into a fury because of the CRT boogeyman.
There have been some laws passed by several states to label criticisms of Israel’s apartheid state as hate speech and outlaw BDS boycotts based on that.
Do not assume the right wing won’t try to turn whatever tactic you find effective against them back at you. That doesn’t mean you should stop using it though; they certainly aren’t going to drop it now that they’ve found a way to wield it.
That's the same as the other example someone gave...
Fascists calling something hate speech so we stop talking about their fascism.
Why does this work on so many people?
What logic are you using that this means we can't use the term "hate speech" anymore?
I specifically said to continue using it. Right wingers using it for right wing goals doesn’t mean that it’s inherently bad or something. Labeling things hate speech is a useful tool, but don’t trick yourself into thinking your opponent can’t use it.
Ah, there it is. At least you're willing to say it and not tiptoe around it like a coward.
The reason the scientific community does not endorse the conservative gender ideology, is because it causes much more direct harm than good to human happiness. If we don't let trans people transition, their lives are so much worse that they are seriously likely to kill themselves. Most of the negative consequences of transition come from bigotry, something that is unequivocally on the bigot, not the trans person. Most people who "detransition" after taking hormones do so because of hate rather than because they realize it wasn't for them.
There is no direct harm caused to people who aren't trans so long as they treat other adults as equals, and let children access the help they need. Trans people are not more likely to be the perpetrators of violence, they're more likely to be the victims of it. Male predators don't need to pretend to be a woman to get into women's bathrooms or intrude on their spaces. The anti trans rhetoric is based on lies.
The biggest thing you need to recognize about your position is that it helps the insanely corrupt and selfish far right political groups like the American GOP. It is a wedge issue used to promote incompetent rulers who hate anyone that isn't a rich male member of the largest cultural group. Even if you don't believe you hate trans people, your support allows trans people to be legally persecuted for trying to live. I am not exaggerating, trans people are losing lifesaving treatment and being forced from public life, thanks to the refusal of people like you to stand up against the bigots.
Has anyone ever told you how unfathomably based you are?
You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
Are you all misunderstanding this discussion on puporse? Or do people struggle to understand how replying on Lemmy works? You all are now arguing against me how it's bigoted to misgender someone.
I will put the discussion into this comment again, just because I hope you seriously just lost track of what was said.
Person says:
This gets 10 upvotes, 120 downvotes.
Another person answers:
This gets 72 upvotes, 2 downvotes.
The person replies with:
5 upvotes, 42 downvotes.
And now people go on a tangent how it's bigoted, dangerous and wrong to misgender people. How the defintion of words change etc.
Are you all dense or something? That's literally what the person was saying! But by pointing that out you all somehow try to paint the person as bigoted. That's completely besides the point? Is someone else seeing what's going on here?!
And other words change if they are acceptable or not. In our grandparent's childhoods, it was usual to call a black person a n*****. Now it isn't, and that's a good thing, isn't it?
But that's not the point of the discussion? The person said that things that used to be fine can suddenly be not tolerated. People downvoted the person and claimed that's not true.
Still is fine, you wont go to jail for accidently misgendering someone. At worst you may illicit an awkward cough in the room and maybe someone will take you aside later and be like "bruh they are (other gender) haha" and you would be like "Oh shit! My bad!" and that should typically be the end of it.
I'm a dude with just very long hair, cuz I like its style. I get misgendered all the time from the back, people call me a lady or ma'am all the time.
When they see me up close they often go "Oh geez Im sorry!" and I just laugh and tell them not to worry about it, it happens all the time. Thats about it. Thats the whole interaction.
Thats right, misgendering happens to cis people all the time too, and this type of social interaction is an ancient one that has been around for a millenia.
No one actually gives a shit.
Now if you PURPOSEFULLY misgender someone to try and hurt them...
That is actually a fucking problem and now you are being an asshole. But thats not just for trans folks! That applies to cis people just as much.
Let me ask you this: You walk into a bar with a biker gang, and a big burly dude is in there and you call him a woman, and he informs you sternly (cough) that he is a man, and you keep calling him a lady and are clearly trying to piss him off, you tell me how well that will probably turn out for you.
What the hell are you talking about?
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.
N***** used to just be the word for black people, coming from the word Latin "niger"([ˈnɪɡɛr]) and meaning the color black, almost every Romance language still uses it, but I would strongly suggest not using it in the USA.
??? So you agree?!
You need to learn that such things are a part of life and you have to deal with it in order to be a member of society. The existence of progress doesn't negate the need for hate speech protection. All societies have to change with time and that's okay.
I think you all forgot the purpose behind policies like freedom of speech and natural rights and that's why you're getting all mixed up.
What the hell are you talking about?
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.
Language will always be a moving target. If you said "woman used to mean x and now it means y" you'd be fine. The problem isn't that language changes with us, it's equivocation. Using women two different ways in a conversation is a dick move.
But I did not say it was a problem that it changes. I pointed out that it did indeed change and for some reason people get triggered by that.
Except the person argued about what IS fine, not what WAS considered fine in the past. The person is literally arguing that we ought to be able to misgender people. They claim it is morally righteous to misgender trans people. Their reasoning is that people are only labeling misgendering as hate speech because they disagree with it, not because it is actually hate speech.
I provided good reasons as to why misgendering and promoting the conservative gender ideology that causes it is harmful, debunking their argument that the perspective is being labeled only due to disagreement. Let's look back at their original argument.
The argument that hate speech laws could be used frivolously to silence those who disagree is a valid hypothetical concern. Where this person fucks up is by claiming things are already being labeled as hate speech even when they aren't. This is suspect because there aren't many places that seriously outlaw hate speech, and most of those places have yet to overstep the law in any real way.
In places like the US where people are at best, socially shunned for hate speech, it's uncommon for people to falsely claim bigotry on a large scale. Usually when a false claim is made, the falsehood is in the description of events, not the moral principle being applied to.
When another poster pushes back, the person claims the conservative gender ideology isn't hateful and is deemed as such because people disagree with it, and argument I showed to be lacking. It is hateful because it inherently promotes hate and discrimination. You're trying to run interference for the poster by misunderstanding the moral principle that they appealed to.
They did not appeal to the idea that words get changed to make you look wrong for using the old definition. This would be like if "to flame" was understood to mean criticize, but everyone forgot that usage and then you said "we should flame that guy." You meant something reasonable but people didn't understand you. That's what you claim is the problem when you say:
The poster claimed that the old definition is actually good and should still be used. I pointed out how that the old definition is problematic, even by the logic of the past. It excludes and includes people it shouldn't which results in real harm. I laid out the real harm done by those definitions, allowing the poster to make an informed decision on whether to still hold that definition. If they still choose to insist on that old definition that harms a group of people for characteristics they didn't choose, then they are a bigot. Harming a group for innate characteristics is bigotry.
TLDR: You ironically moved the goalposts and misunderstood what the poster was arguing. I did not prove them right in any way.
This is ridiculous, really. It does feel as if you were bots going aggressively off on a tangent with no connection to the content or context.
Or you are simply unwilling/unable to make a distinction between different levels of communication.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech? That was the topic of the discussion.
To prevent you and others from getting caught up in and endless loop of being triggered, I will provide another example instead: In the past it was okay to address a woman as "Fräulein X" when she was unmarried. And as "Frau X" when she was married (in German). No one cared about that, now, many people will considered it rude an bigoted and call you a sexist when doing it anyway.
Now that I think about it I feel it's actually quite easy to find a few examples, and the question to the original poster to provide an example was seemingly just bait so you all can get enraged for a bit. And everyone who didn't participate in the overall outrage, you generously consider and treat as a bigot you have to correct as well.
Ah, so when someone transitions from woman to man and have a penis grafted on them, it makes them a man? Good on you to be so progressive.
Well... Guess a lot women turn out to be men. We didn't see them carry a child. Perhaps they will carry a child at some point, perhaps they won't. But until then you can't trust a single woman to be a woman until they have born a child in front of you.
You may want to get used to the idea that you've been attracted to men all along. I can help you with your coming out.
TIL my girlfriend is a man, according to this insane persons views on womanhood
Today I learned infertile women are men. Women without children are men. Women who adopted but didn't get pregnant and carry their children are men. Got it.
See how it's not that cut and dry?
This is the most insane thing I've ever read 😬
There is a difference between biological sex (male/female) and social gender (man/woman). Feel free to make this the hill you die on, if you’d like. My hill is the left fawning over tolerance for Islam without understanding that it’s an exclusivist fundamentalist proselytizing religion that has no sizeable liberal movements. There is no version of Islam that is like the Unitarians, UCC, etc where the holy book is understood to be a product of its times. Sufism is close insofar as their mysticism makes them chill, but they’re not universalists. I have no desire to import proselytizing religionists of any culture or creed, and certainly no tolerance for the same.
maybe you should stop watching conservative media, for example ditch Joe Rogan as a start.
This is a definition dispute, not biological. Mostly anyway. I could have this conversation with a lot of people and it wouldn't be any sort of hate speech, but it's pretty obvious what you're about here.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you've been had. No one is coming to take your precious heteronormativity and matching pronouns away from you.
So what you're saying is that it's important to instill strong morals and encourage critical thinking in the general populous so that we can recognize the difference between actual hate speech and what is being spun as hate speech in order to further the agendas of those who would oppress us and therefore any action made to suppress public education must be the precursor to a larger scheme to gain control by manipulating the ignorant?
Hate speech is hate speech. Doesn't matter if it was being used ironically or to trick people.
Citation needed
Thats not how Hate Speech works, its explicitly about intent and not the actual words used, at least in Canada.
Canada doesn't specify any specific words that are "banned" or whatever, and the law is explicitly setup to handle that no matter what you do or dont say, all it cares is about the intent behind your words and whether they intended to incite violence/hate.
the tolerance paradox
The solution is that it's a social contract. I agree to tolerate your weirdness and quirks. You agree to do the same to myself and others.
By being intolerant (without a good reason), they break the social contract. Therefore they are no longer protected by it either.
Mmmm, milk toast.
This doesn't seem so much of a liberal thing but a social centrist thing. There's plenty of people on the left that are socialist/communist but don't care as much about social issues. I recall someone arguing that the people who wanted to kidnap Gov Whitmer were experiencing "economic anxiety". You see it too with leftists who float the idea of working with MAGA hats for economic populism.
It's like when people say there's basically only one party or there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. From a purely economic perspective, sure, the differences are rather small. Pretty much just comes down to taxes. But the two parties are polar opposites when it comes to social issues. To say there's no difference is basically ignoring the social aspect.
Enlightened centrist or liberal or apologist, it's just cringe.
anyone telling you to defend nazi's isnt a lib.
You'd think that'd be obvious and you wouldnt have to be told that, yet here we are, having to tell you the blatant fuckin obvious.
Oh you sweet summer child.
You really need someone to explain to you that the guy in the comic is a drawing and is just a fable for making a point, and not a real liberal actually defending real nazis?
The problem is it's not a simplistic line. I strongly disagree with the nazi viewpoint. They also break the social contract so often they've voided all rights to be covered by it. At the same time, some people want to take it too far. There are still later lines we shouldn't cross. (E.g. A mob beating Nazis with baseball bats is never acceptable).
Unfortunately, Nazis like playing games, and trying to mess with the scale of problems. Some people try and step in and "help" without realising that they are dealing with untrustworthy information. This can tie people's minds into an impressive knot, just as they intended.
real heavy "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." vibes from this.
Endgame for fascists, nazis, authoritarians, etc is violence. Violence against you, me, and anyone else they declare "undesirable"
The only way to defeat them is violence. To protect a civil society and a way of life that allows humanity to blossom in all its various shades and shapes.
You hide behind betters, pretending to have a moral highground because you didnt get the blood on your hands, while benefiting from the blood on everyone elses.
I don't think it's so much violence itself but the threat of violence. Nazis and fascists need to know that if they get violent, we'll return it a hundredfold in kind.
It's kind of like the phrase that a sheathed sword is sometimes enough to keep the peace. The threat of it being used is what keeps people in line. What we need are more visible sheathed swords -- unless of course we need to draw the weapon.
I never said I'm not willing to get blood on my hands. Violence can be required. It's an unfortunate sign though that we have already failed badly. However, if violence is required, it should be controlled, and focused. A mob beating with fists is spontaneous, a mob using baseball bats is a lynching.
The difference between a mob and a militia is in the organisation and responsibilities. A militia has a chain of command, and so someone who can stop things going too far. They can also make sure the actual job is done, rather than straying into mindless violence.
If violence is required, we are morally required to apply it. However, we are also morally required to apply it precisely in controlled amounts, towards the required goal. Otherwise we can easily degenerate into the exact thing we claim to fight.
The other thing to remember is that we can be baited. Mindless violence might feel good, but if it doesn't advance the cause, it's worthless. Even worse, it can justify the actions of the other side, even if the balance is still disproportionate.
The amount of people trying to middleground this shit to advance nazi causes shows you just how fucking good they are at infiltrating discussions to try and shift their bullshit to a more normalized position with this soft hands shit.
Its blatantly black and white. If you arent against it, you are enabling it. Not a lot of things in life are black and white, but this particular instance is. There is no middle ground, no concessions, nothing. Only absolute rejection. Anything less is just is just letting them win and advance.
Someone else being a twat won't make me violate my principles. I'm not good to others because they're good to me. I'm good to others because they're an end themselves, not a means to my ends.
If you are good to nazi's because they are good to you, regardless of what they do to others, Then your principles, and you as a person, are shit, and you should be treated as nothing but an infiltrator for their cause, because that is what you are.
I'm good to everyone because they're humans. Even pieces of shit.
So you'd be kind and nice to Hitler?
I've actually answered this before. While you guys are arguing over who gets to peel his dick like a banana I'd slit his throat.
That doesn't sound like being good to him.
Whatever you say, Nazi. Enjoy your contemporaries.
And enjoy your day.
And that's completely your right to do. However, that is not what the tolerance contract covers. It goes beyond what most people would tolerate normally. Also, people cannot both break the social contract, and then insist you hold up the other end.
By example, I've previously had long debates over nazi Germany and Hitler's economic recovery. I would even tolerate Nazis, if they followed the social contract from their side. Unfortunately, the various Nazis groups regularly break that contract. They then try and hide behind it, when others take offence.
Conversely, I also disagree with the "tankies". They tend not to break the social contract however. This gives them the right to reasonable tolerance of them, and their views. They respect others, despite disagreeing with them. They, in turn, gain a level of respect in discussions.
Don't get me wrong, I am tolerant of a lot, from purely moralistic reasoning. The social contract is a larger entity however. It formalises what many of us feel. It also shows us where the lines are, beyond which people are abusing our tolerance. It's the larger social version of our internal morals.
I don't find social contract arguments all that convincing, but we can just pretend my social contract is "no violence or you get fucked" and ignore that. Tankies are way easier to talk to than Nazis, though I don't really find myself talking to nazis often - just run of the mill bigots. Anyone with consistent standards or ethics is fairly easy to talk to, even if we disagree.
In my personal life I tend to take on more than half of the social costs in some friendships and I probably do the same when arguing with certain types of people. I'm more tolerant than I strictly need to be, but I feel like treating people like that is necessary for me.
The social contract concept is over-used by people who try to make it cover too much. It becomes a one-sided contract of adhesion which you're assumed to have agreed to simply by existing. This, however, is simple reciprocation—it's more like a truce than a contract. It would be unreasonable to expect tolerance from others while refusing to grant the same tolerance to them.
Of course there is no obligation to be intolerant just because the other person is; you are free to make a better choice.
Honestly these days if you say you tolerate someones ideas, but you don't agree with them, then you are just called a ist word
There are levels of tolerance in there. E.g. I'm not gay. I have no interest in men. The idea of being sexual with a man is mildly repulsive to me.
With this, the bare minimum of tolerance is not actively working against the existence and legality of being gay.
Next is the "none of my business" level of tolerance. What happens between 2 consenting adults is down to them.
Above that is acceptance. Gay people have developed their own culture and community. While it's not for me, I recognise that its existence and celebration makes our overall culture more dynamic and interesting. It also provides a lot of happiness to others. Accepting and rolling with that provides a lot of positivity to others, without significant cost to me.
However, if I was approached by a gay guy and propositioned, there is no issue with me turning them down. I try and be polite about it, but being firm isn't being intolerant. (Luckily, most gay guys take being rejected a LOT better than some straight guys do).
Going back to your example. Going up to a black guy and expressing that, while you tolerate them not being a slave, you don't agree with it. This is intolerant, it is an incredibly strong dog whistle of your tolerance is forced.
Conversely, if, during a debate on religion and it's effects, you express your view that you accept people are religious, but don't agree with it, that is better. The context is a debate, and you can explain your reasoning better. It also lacks the dog whistle element that makes it bigoted.
Basically, context matters, A LOT.
Thanks, really good thinking :)
I've found crystallising my morals into words and logic is useful. It both makes it easier to explain, as well as finding holes in my views. My moral framework has advanced significantly over my life. At no point did I think I was immoral, however, I have found significant flaws in my viewpoints. I've also found a lot of biases, which I'm mildly horrified that I ever held.
I'm still far from perfect, but aiming that way, as best I can.
semantic satiation incoming
Thanks. I need to put my mental dissonance to words.
This comic is a good example of the Paradox of Tolerance. You can't tolerate intolerance.... it does not end well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Tolerance of everything except intolerance, except that of intolerance. "Paradox" resolved.
It's not a paradox at all if you view society and government as a social contract entered by all parties. The conditions for being protected by the tolerance provided for in the Constitution is that you extend that tolerance to everyone else. The intolerant have breached that contract and are therefore no longer protected by it.
Yes, tolerance itself is valued, and if you're not tolerant, you need not be tolerated by others.
Tolerance is a social contract.
Those who dont abide by it, try to use it as a weapon against those who do, to enable their intolerance to grow and spread.
Those who don't abide by the social contract are a threat to society as a whole, and should not receive its protection.
Because you end up empowering them, and weakening society against them.
Intolerance must be put down, with force. It is not hypocritical. It is not paradoxical. For the garden of tolerance to thrive, the intolerant weeds must be ripped out of the soil and disposed of in such a way that they can not spread their seeds further, because if you don't.. nothing will thrive but the weeds.
Lotta talk in here about free speech that seems to be missing the point.
The right for someone to spew hateful rhetoric freely does not supercede my right not to tolerate it. The first amendment does not give the hate monger, nor the englightened centrist immunity from the social consequences of their public opinions.
When I was growing up it was never about tolerating intolerance. It was about dragging it out into the sunlight so you could kill it. They have a right to say anything they want so we can make an example of them and they don't go into hiding and do dumb shit.
Of course that depended on the mainstream leadership believing in democracy and not leaning into extremism. Because the GOP has switched sides on democracy it's a liability now instead of a strength. A swing too far from the laws of England our founders meant to forestall.
No one ever gets the point until people start getting beaten, threatened, wounded, maimed or killed. They'll keep arguing the details until there is an authoritarian government telling you what you can or can't do or say.
Then everyone stands around wondering how it all happened.
Most regular people I know just want to live life and not really bother with anyone else in a negative way .. in fact most people I've ever known would do something good for the other person if it meant it would help. Most people are just good and have a very good nature.
It's the psychotic few billionaires and millionaires out there that want a world with authoritarian fascist government in power because it means those wealthy few get to keep all their money and if they do get their way, they can exponentially grow the wealth they already have. It's all about money and power.
It's all about a handful of morons who aren't aware of their finite life that believe they can become temporary rulers of the world.
Some number of people are getting maimed, wounded, or killed. Do people have a threshold number at which point they decide it's too much?
I like to explain it as such:
The Mediterranean is full of dead bodies from asylum seekers, but people still bath there. People will not bathe in a pool, if that pool has a single cadaver in it. Some might say that it doesn't count because you can't see the bodies in the Mediterranean, but you can in the pool. but even if the pool has an angle and the corpse obscured behind said angle, people won't swim in it if they are told this in advance. so clearly there must be some ratio of dead people to water that society sees as acceptable.
so to answer your question, yes, and we haven't reached that point yet, and the right is doing it's best to keep that bar as high as possible.
I like this explanation too, actually
Never expected to see this joke used in such a way
Usually hunger .... if you look through history, change doesn't happen in societies because people are poor, abused, imprisoned, impoverished or have a lack of luxuries .... change often happens when people go hungry because at that point they all realize that if they have no food, they will die ... and when they can see death, especially their own death, they no longer have anything to lose and will fight for some kind of change ....
And even that want for change is dangerous because it can come in many forms ... good change, bad change, fascist change, socialist change, democratic change, authoritarian change.
in your post the thing I liked the most, the most significant in my opinion, it's
this is the sum of all the thread. there's so much on this few words. in my understanding,vsums up perfectly what I'd describe as the paranoia feeding the knitpicking and the extenuating effort to manage the malice. thank you
Nice, dark touch: The last panel has two people being deported. They seem to form an SS rune.
It also loosely reminds of Niemöller:
Hate speech is not the same as free speech. Free speech was for reporters to keep them from being jailed so it’s not even applicable for what this guy thinks he’s defending with that phrase.
Image Transcription:
A comic by Jennie Breeden and Obby from site TheDevilsPanties.com.
The first panel shows a mustached person with short hair wearing a t-shirt and sitting at a laptop. A speech bubble rising from the laptop reads "I just don't think you people belong in our society!"
The second panel shows a different short-haired person wearing a t-shirt, long pants, and sneakers, sitting on a park bench and looking at a mobile phone. A speech bubble from the mobile phone reads "Well, I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it."
The third panel shows both people standing on the side of a street. The first person is holding a Bible and pointing across the road at a group of shadowed people carrying signs with hearts and pride flags. He is speaking to a crowd of people and saying "Your kind is a betrayal to God! You're a drag on the whole country!" To which the second person is shrugging and responding "That's appalling, but we can't have free speech without the free marketplace of ideas!"
The fourth panel shows the first person standing at a lectern and wearing a suit with an American flag behind them and a shadowed crowd in front of them. They are saying "We will stop the woke ideology that's destroying America!". The second person is standing close to the foreground and shrugging, saying "Democracy needs this discourse, so let's agree to disagree."
The fifth panel shows the second person being dragged away by people in uniform while saying "Wait! Where are you taking me? You can't just get rid of me!". The first person is standing between the first person and an open paddy wagon, wearing a black uniform and looking smug as they reply "Let's just agree to disagree."
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
Consider... what went wrong is that no one pushed back on Panel Two using the very same free marketplace of ideas.
Panel One: Fighting for everyone's right to express themselves is fine. Good as it is.
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot's arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
Exactly. That’s how we were able to nip the whole global warming thing in the bud. Thank god rational arguments always prevail.
I can't believe no one thought of this. And here planned parenthood and the grieving families at funerals of vets have just been sitting by listening to the noise.
Calling people out on their BS is the right line to draw for me personally, but I still want that person to have the right to express their opinion. We just need to teach people that it's ok to be wrong as long as you can admit it and learn from it. No idea gets processed until pushed from an opposing party.
Sitting back and doing nothing teaches nothing. Calling it appalling and informing the person why they're wrong is the right step toward change. But if you can't say it in a way that makes them hear you, then you're doomed to have the argument all over again.
I'd say that's tolerating intolerance and is the right thing to do. Once they switch to violence though, remember you have a robust right to defend yourself, your community and your loved ones.
But then you are called anti islamist or isla mophobic. Yes, i went there.
In the Republic, book VIII, Socrates identifies as democracy's leading cause of corruption precisely that thing makes it seemingly so beautiful. In a democracy, citizens become inebriated with freedom (Euleteria). By making it the highest goal, people in a democracy end up leading democracy to its downfall.
True ca. 2400 years ago; still true today.
The Paradox of Tolerance
What the fuck is wrong with Al Sharpton? He's a real jerk in this comic.
He got tired of trying to do things the right way.
Hey, it's @[email protected]! Nice to see some totally not satanic porn on lemmy!
i (self awarely) disagree
If people vote for their own chains in a free and democratic society, they deserve to get what they want. Now whether we still have such a society is debatable. But I still fundamentally believe that any and all forms of censorship are the wrong way to go and will only accelerate the decline into totalitarianism.
So, how about we agree to disagree, mate? ; )
The poor mod definitely needs an AI to help with moderation.
Intolerating tolerating intolerance
Shout out to Popper.
Let's just murder anyone who doesn't agree with us. This will surely lead to an orderly, civilized society.
another lefty comics on lemmy
Where should the line be drawn?
Where between "I wouldn't date a trans person because it is against my ideals" (personal preference in partners) and "I wouldn't socialise with a trans person because it is against my ideals" (personal preference in friends) would we draw our boundary? Would it be between these two forms of discomfort,, or would both these ideals be unacceptable, or would both be acceptable?
The issue isn't that such speech should be removed, there is broad agreement there, but where do we start trimming?
Next comes the question, in policing such discourse, what would the cost to privacy be? "Protect the children from the predators" (something everyone can agree with) is already a rallying cry leafing to the erosion of encryption and privacy, shall "stamp out the TERFs" become the next one? Who here remembers what "stopping terrorists" did to privacy?
Overall, I doubt there are many who don't feel open distaste at certain forms of speech, and would rather it not be tolerated. However, the difficulty in where to draw the line, and the fear of the cost such a line would have, is why there is likely more opposition.
Someday the meat eaters will realize this applies to animal oppressors as well, but not this day.
People love to forget that free speech was vital for their progressive paradise, it's a cicle
If you implement measures for repressing speech today, those same measures will repress you or what you believe in today
It just takes too long for any one person to notice or care
I know this is going to be super unpopular, but here I go. Hate speech is free speech. I know that doesn't sound great; but once you start censoring speech for the words alone, it can easily grow out of control and become full censorship.
It is important to remember that free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of your words; nor should it. Also using speech in furtherance of a crime is illegal; as it should be.
So long as you can use your free speech to oppose hate speech, then I would say the system is working. I too wish it wasn't like this; I too wish for world to be free of hate speech; but sadly this is the best we can do to ensure the right people can be heard
But what about the freedom to be free from prejudice and oppression?
So are minorities just doomed to be forever targets because of free speech? Because that is the inevitable conclusion of this form of free speech.
This is why there are no easy answers. People do have a right to be free from prejudice and oppression. But the easy answer of ban hate speech will cause censorship to rear its ugly head.
We are waiting for your answer
So what you're saying, is that a black person being shouted "N______" by a white supremacist should do what exactly? Shout back "poopy head!"?
Sounds like you haven't received hate speech in your life.
Yes, of course, this guy is the reason authoritarian dictatorships emerge! Better skip to panel 4 before it happens the wrong way.
you fight the Nazi, or you help the Nazi, the Nazi has no interest in concessions, or sharing "their" space. If the idea that you can't call for Holocaust 2 electricboogaloo LGBTQ edition scares you, maybe think why it does, and then stop watching Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, or any of the other alt-right media/talking heads.
Defending authoritarianism is not fighting authoritarianism. You can talk like this is about the most extreme possible examples, but it fundamentally is not; this is about people who are fixated on obtaining the power to tell others to shut up, and that doesn't have a line anyone is willing to respect and it isn't limited to one side or the other. You go to panel 4, you're at panel 4. The implication that I must be saying all speech must be permitted, or that I'm defending Nazis by saying this, is false rhetorical framing; valuing free expression and wanting to defend it from people who would see it done away with is not equivalent to that.
Edit: And just to add, it's a terrible assumption that the best/only solution to an environment of increasing violence and hate is to make people stop talking. This is again a product of a fixation on the desire to do that, social media makes you want it, but that doesn't mean it's the place to focus. There are underlying problems that are not words.
If the people who are talking are saying hate-filled, disgusting things: They most certainly do need to shut the fuck up. It's not the only solution to the problem, but it's the first place to start. Don't let that hate take root to begin with, but shutting down the asswipe spewing hateful speech. There is nothing to gain from letting them speak, no validity to their words, and their rhetoric leads to violence so there is no reason not to censor them.
Is that how it works? You hear someone saying something hateful, and then their thoughts and feelings become a part of you like a plant? So we must weed and maintain a sterile environment so only the chosen thoughts and feelings propagate? Which are weeds and which aren't, and who gets to decide? To me this is a deeply dehumanizing metaphor and a path towards controlling human beings by choosing a diet of information and expression for them.
It's fine sometimes to tell a disruptive asshole to go somewhere else because no one wants to to listen to them, or even to do something about groups of people plotting violent acts, but what I object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person's right to collect and curate their thoughts at their own discretion is spat on, and that's what I see in this sort of rhetoric.
If your thoughts include the subjugation or eradication of a group of people and you express these thoughts publicly: You most certainly deserve to be spat upon and shunned. There is no place in a civil, enlightened society for that kind of thinking. Period. Full stop.
Republicans in the USA right now: WE NEED TO EXTERMINATE THE LGBTQ, THEY ARE ALL PEDOPHILES!!!! Fox/OAN/Tucker/Trump/MTG/etc... told me so.
ya, that is how it works.
and you are here saying you "object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person’s right to collect and curate their thoughts [we need to KILL LGBTQ+ people] at their own discretion is spat on" and wonder why people are calling your position supporting Nazis, I guess it's fine as long as you aren't affected.
I'm not wondering really. It's conceptual railroading, a lot like "protect the children" or appealing to fear of terrorism as an excuse for attacking civil liberties. You are using the emotional weight of fear/anger at admittedly reprehensible views to force the conclusion "that is how it works"; that is, that people have no agency and words are like a virus for them, with the natural conclusion that what they see or express must be decided for them, which then applies generally. If you don't think that would apply generally, where's the line?
where is the line? how about inciting violence or discrimination against any group / peoples? I think that's a good line to start with.
As for the rest of your statement, you seem to have this unshakable belief that evil is something foreign to most people, that people wouldn't follow along in blaming some minority group and then doing unspeakable things to these groups, you act as if the population has some innate rational firewall protecting them from becoming Nazis, and History has shown us, time and time and time and time and time again that this just isn't true, hell in the USA you burned down entire city districts because the black man was plotting something, sikhs and Muslims got shot in drives after 9/11 because FOXNews decided to spew anti-middleeastern brown people rhetoric, the fucking Nazis, Belgian Congo, Turkey, the English empire, etc... etc... etc... they all started with some people spouting stuff.
So what exactly is the alternative? Pass hate speech laws? Because that is ripe for abuse.
Some countries already have hate speech laws that are limited to inciting violence and they aren't being abused.
That is an inciting violence law.
Name one.
Germany
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/11/un-human-rights-committee-criticizes-germanys-netzdg-letting-social-media
Try again
That is not saying that Germany is abusing the law, just that they have an ineffective implementation that shitty countries could use as an excuse to enact their own abusive practices.
you can't bring facts and actually reading their source to the discussion, you are supposed to just agree!
Here's the thing, I agree that hate speech is bad. But then I look at countries like China and think "I like having freedom of speech".
How about when a republican gets in office, and he gets to define hate speech?
The United States. Speech that is used to incite violence, commit fraud, or is perceived to be a true threat are not protected under the first amendment.
And it is almost impossible to break that law.
I don’t know about that. I think the more appropriate stance is that it’s almost impossible to have people appropriately prosecuted when they do violate the law. Federal courts are afraid to be the court that starts the chain reaction of more appropriately defining how violation of the law and prosecution should work.
Canada.
I said ripe for abuse, not that they will be abused. In any case, I haven't heard of country with hate speech laws that hasn't been abused in some form. Even in America, we don't have those laws, but that hasn't stopped the government from trying.
We don’t have those laws in the form of legislation necessarily in the US but we do have bars on what is covered by the first amendment according to case law.
By your logic we should get rid of traffic laws because we know they are abused.
You realize such laws have existed in most countries for a very long time, right?
Hate speech is illegal in most of the modern world, and has been for quite some time.
The US had similar hate-speech rules to that of the rest of Europe, until the US civil rights era presented the court the opportunity to decide whether Martin Luther King's anti-racism speech was, as charged, "hate speech".
Long story short, the court decided that it couldn't define what 'hate speech' was and so decided that it shouldn't be against the law (or that the First should protect it). That's why Nazis are allowed to march and have their rallies protected by the First Amendment, all because southern US states wanted to charge the speakers of anti-white-supremacy with 'hate speech' and that was a quick-and-dirty way to disarm them.
Yeah, they used to be called Blasphemy laws. Still doesn't make it excusable.
I have no idea what you are talking about, to be honest. Never heard of those.
But Blasphemy is extremely different from Hate. Canada, for example, goes into explicit legal detail on what counts as Hate and constitutes a Hate Crime.
And Blasphemy has nothing to do with that discussion, nor have I ever heard of this concept, so either you are talking about something else entirely, or perhaps you have to link to what you are talking about?
When I look the term "Blasphemy Laws" up, it brings up something that has nothing to do with Hate Crimes. Did you perhaps use the wrong term?
Throwaway's thing seems to be making shallow bad rightwing takes and backing them up with nothing of substance. I don't think they are engaging genuinely.
So most conservatives when pressed on any of their beliefs.
Pakistan has a one of the more remarkably bad histories with blasphemy laws, if you're looking for examples. I think they're not uncommon in Muslim majority countries. Western nations had similar laws as well, but I think you have to go back a couple centuries to find them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan
Apples and fuckin oranges my guy.
Yes I know what that Blasphemy Law is.
But the thing is the person I responded to seemed to be talking about some other one, because we are talking about Anti-Hate speech laws, which is definitely not what you just linked to lol
Boiled down, theyre laws against arbritary speech. Sure they might define it, but those definitions always leave enough wiggle room to abuse.
by that logic, all laws should be abolished because all laws can be used for abuse.
If its either an easily abusable law or no law, Id rather no law.
you know drug laws are easily and constantly abused in America? so you would rather we have dealers selling cocaine to gradeschoolers.
seems legit.
there is nothing like a law that can't be abused, but you huffed too much libertarian glue in the US.
No... one is a law against speech against a large entity of power that holds control of the nation.
The other is a law against speech against fellow specific individuals.
If you are seriously trying to equate "I don't like (religion)" with "I think (group of people) deserve to die", then you are on the wrong side of history mate.
That would be a very bad take and I hope to hell and back again you are smart enough to see the difference between those two.
Punch Nazis is a good start.
And by that I mean be socially intolerant of intolerance. Personal morals and actions don't need to and shouldn't be held to the same standard as the US Federal government.
Individuals do have more freedom to discriminate and show "social intolerance", but that obviously doesn't extend to punching people they disagree with. Or violent responses in general.
I'm not morally obligated to debate someone arguing in favor of genocide, for instance. Is it legally assault to punch them, sure. Would I want the government to come in and boot stomp them, probably not. Is punching them morally wrong, nope.
The morals of your actions are for you to decide. It's your conscience. However, if you punched someone over what they said they would be perfectly justified both in defending themselves against your aggression and in punching you right back. At that point you would have no objective rational argument that their defense or retribution was wrong which would not similarly condemn your own actions. You're the one who chose to escalate to violence, not them.
At least then they're busy fighting me and not furthering the cause of horrific systematic injustices against those that can't defend themselves.
You're right. There's nothing that can be done. Racial slurs and regressive language should be taught in schools because you can't fathom a world that has a slight amount of respect based regulation.
Not have those laws is also abusable
Not as easily by the government
abuse by governemnt, neglect by government. The problems can happen either way but with a change in law at least there is attempt to make it better.
Neglect by the government is a good thing. I think we disagree on a fundemental level.
Sounds like they have some level of knowledge of history and have remotely thought their views through yes.
The problem is, if you condemn them back to the shadows and basements, they fester and pass their hatreds down within their in-group. They'll just teach their children "the south with rise again" in private, with no pushback because others don't know it's happening.
At least letting them talk in the name of free speech lets you know who the Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are, instead of having them going back to using toxic, slowly indoctrinating dogwhistles and regrouping.
At the end of the day, secrecy just prolongs and exacerbates problems. We should rise or fall as a society on who we all are, not on the basis of who has the most appealing web of lies. Let the Nazis bury themselves by speaking their fucked up beliefs, because otherwise they'll temper their messaging, which will recruit more people than the horror of their actual endgame.
You wrote three paragraphs to demonstrate how thoroughly you missed the point of this extremely blunt comic. Don’t get mad at me for pointing this out, I’m just exposing my own opinion the to purifying effect of public discourse.
Maybe they don't agree with the comic.
I think you misinterpreted their post as anger.
No, I anticipated an angry response to providing the kind of discourse they portrayed as necessary.
Why would I be angry about what you said? You're allowed to have a different opinion on how to react to bigots.
Because I’ve put forth no constructive criticism, I’ve not tried to explain why you’re wrong or justify my own position, nor would I accept any arguments that you put forth to try and explain your position. If I could shout over you, I would do that too. I’m arguing in bad faith. I’m not here to debate you. I’m here to make people think you’re stupid by publicly making fun of you with cheap crowd pleasing rhetoric and imply what you said is wrong because of it. This is the tactic I will use to take control of this country and you seem to think I have a right to use it.
This is the kind of discourse someone attempts when they don't feel they can declare their fucked up beliefs overtly.
I'd rather make them feel like they can declare their fucked up beliefs without hedging or room for doubt, then inform their employer, the businesses that deal with their employer, their family, their neighbors, etc with the receipts.
Oh good, you shouted down a nazi on a street corner ranting about the inferior this and the inferior that. They'll now temper their message, keep their job, and slowly convert the new office runner with terms like "urban" and "not real Americans." congratulations, you've now got a stealth Nazi staying low insidiously making more. Thanks a ton.
What you guys aren’t understanding in this frictionless hypothetical sphere of argument is that a single Nazi, by itself, is not a threat. The problem comes when this Nazi connects with other Nazis. If Nazis can’t publicly be Nazis then finding the other ones to gang up with becomes a lot harder.
That's great and all, but knowing who the Nazis are is just step one. Without taking additional steps, that knowledge is useless.
That knowledge literally ended the employment of a lot of white supremacists that were filmed in Charlottesville overtly chanting against Jewish people. You see? They were given enough rope, and they hanged themselves, and now those images and reputation can keep others informed about who they are and never to give them an inch.
Free speech is the absence of consequences by the state, but once you know someone is a proud white supremacist, you don't have to keep them employed, or renew their lease, or hire them, or stay married to them, or invite them to your wedding, etc. A known Nazi can suffer social consequences all day and be socially ostracized, if they were emboldened enough to disclose that fact instead of spending their lives infecting people with shit like "I hate urban people in the inner cities." Shit like that can appeal to the weak minded.
It'd obviously be better if the Nazi ideology never surfaced in the first place, but that would require a good level of education, empathy, and social support...or as the right puts it, "leftist woke indoctrination."
Instead you have disingenous discourse defended under the banner of free speech. Fascists have historically used this right as their anchor point to undermine Democratic institutions.
Usually they amplify their racist/hate speech, xenophobic messaging, and nationalistic fervor during times that Democratic institutions are under particularly extreme pressure by natural disasters or domestic/foreign wars. Democratic societies tend to propagate comfortable and idealistic upper/middle class citizens when they're doing well (not under said pressures), often fostering the sentiment for a live and let live philosophy, even for those with dangerous hateful ideologies and rhetoric.
Then, when the Democratic institution is inevitably put under stress by external or internal circumstances, Fascism accelerates and gains momentum in the public consciousness not because they debated better or have genuinely good ideas on how to solve the society's problems, but because they argue that is the only way everyone can survive, when in fact they are usually just narcissistic megalomaniacs who want to control everything and everyone around them, ultimately destroying personal freedoms and diverse communities in the name of moralist, nationalist hegemony.
That is a myth that too much media falls for, and that fascist groups exploit mercilessly.
They can and do recruit a lot more people by spreading lies about minorities on live TV than whispering it to their buddies in the basement.
I don’t believe you can see my reply but counterpoint: reddit and 4chan both went that route and host major nazi ideology funnels. Just like… ban assholes.
Counterpoint to your counterpoint: because they have bigot dens to spew their bile among like minded white nationalists, intelligence agencies now have their names and identities and they're now on lists. They can and have stopped violent actors that were given enough rope to feel safe discussing their plans online instead of being driven to bars and basements to plan out of view.
If you don't give the Nazis the the freedom say "hi im a Nazi" you don't know where the Nazis are, let alone have the means to find out what they're planning.
Now I’m not sure how the partial defederation works… anyway, they move offsite to websites owned by the moderators, in the case of Reddit, so that’s not exactly true. It’s equal parts money-making and radicalization effort and it largely flies under the radar. 4chan, on the other hand, makes as many nutters as it stops. It’s not effective for your mosquito spray to kill 5 mosquitos and create 5 more from the ether.
They're already doing that. It's 2023 ffs. They've been doing this since slavery was abolished. Time to signal to the entire world that it's not fucking okay. Letting Nazis talk has only ever allowed them to plant their insidious misinformation campaigns and gather followers. We don't give Nazis a fucking inch and they are not welcome in the town square. Kill your local Nazi.
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.
I can't name a single Nazi. Even Richard Spencer, the guy whom most people think of as a Nazi, says that he doesn't identify as a Nazi. So, who identifies which people are Nazis and which aren't if they don't self-identify?
But that contained the problem for many, many years. And more times than not when members of the group experienced the real world, their indoctrination fell apart. Being in daylight emboldens them and lets them amplify their message and find like-minded people.
Free speech is the only tool available to the most disenfranchised and must not be infringed.
Funny how the "most disenfranchised" always ends up being Nazis and Nazi supporters.
Any time an actually disenfranchised person tries to use their legitimate free speech rights to advocate for their own liberty, it's not considered an action against free speech at all to lock them in a cage, set up free speech zones, or do any number of things to prevent them from voicing their concerns.
I say we give Nazis the same amount of free speech rights as say, communists had in the 50-60s, blacks had before the civil rights act, or Kaepernick had while simply not getting up during the national anthem.
Are you completely blind to the fact that free speech is exactly why we no longer have separate water fountains in the US?
So, let me get this straight. You think hate speech is okay, because the disenfranchised need to express themselves? Why would the disenfranchised need to utilize hate speech to address systemic problems in their society? Surely the recipient of the hate speech is more disenfranchised.
I think hate speech is an unfortunate, but acceptable side effect of free speech. It's a net positive.
Being allowed to exist is a much bigger law that overrules freedom of speech.
Plenty of things do, if you commit a crime, you can also still be jailed and that doesn't infringe on freedom of speech.
Being allowed to exists IS free speech. The whole LGBT movement exists and spreads via free speech rules.
Plenty of people still think that being gay is immoral. In many places they're still being jailed for "corrupting youth". The only places that see social change are those with strong free speech protections. It's so obvious, it hurts.
The society at large needs free speech protections to show their acceptance of any group. If Nazis are not to be accepted, which I agree with, then the pressure from society will drive that ideology down in popularity. However, the government of any nation will actively resist change to preserve the system of society that is already in place. So, they will actively want to control speech to resist change. Do you want an authoritarian regime? You won't be able to control it.
Free speech is a tool for Journalists to not get arrested for bringing light to subjects.
The people usually screaming about free speech are just afraid of the consequences of society for being an ass, not jail time.
Being an ass is not against the law. Not every social interaction needs to have a law associated with it. "Free speech is for journalists" is a useless statement. Who defines when you become a journalist? The government?
It's literally up to you to use your words to fight their words. As soon as you try to ban words and speech it will immediately be turned around against you. If you cannot fight their words with your words that's your problem not theirs.
That only works with people arguing in good faith...
Fascists never do that.
Neither do red fascists (aka tankies).
A fascist is a fascist, and 99.9999% lie about if they are.
There's no need to differentiate
In a thread about nazis, you can always count on nazi sympathizers to be like "buh whubbut commies?!?!?"
Sounds like a skill issue.
Skill?? What is this "get on my level" shit? They are trying to kill us.
Even when the phrase is used in gaming, it’s an admission of defeat.
“The game is messed up, but I don’t want to sound wrong.”
There's a big overlap between gamers and fascists, due to Roger Stone and his WOW gold farming days.
It's actually pretty interesting read, but I couldn't find a good article on it now
The skill is debate and debunking. It should be fairly simple to show a serial lack of honesty and bullshit. If you can show that then it should be fairly simple to get people to stop listening and disconnect. Calling their words mean will convince no one. Do the work if you care so much.
It's not a debate skill issue, it's an education issue. What bad faith actors do when pretending to debate is just real-time trolling, they're not interested in debate, and debating lends legitimacy to their idiocy. "Don't feed the troll." People need to educated enough that they themselves walk away from disingenuous debates and stop listening.
You sure like sticking up for nazis.
I don't know what thread you've been reading but I'm sticking up for speech.
But you're talking like debate will make the bigots stop.
Why would I claim the bigots would stop. I only claim that they would fail. They have the right to continue. They have the right to be wrong.
Watch "thank you for smoking" or read literally anything on persuasive argument. Exposing and publicizing these viewpoints does not make them less popular. Allowing the "alt-right" to have "free exchange in the marketplace of ideas" has only led to there being more Nazis or Nazi adjacent people now than there was before we did that. The "alt-right" isn't even alt anymore, it's the mainstream right-wing position.
People that think "oh well that's only because we haven't had the right argument" are completely ignorant of history. We didn't defeat Hitler in "the marketplace of ideas", and you won't defeat Putin or Trump there either.
Yup. Fascists don't have the skills to argue in good faith, and no one should listen to anything any of them have to say. I hope no one makes that mistake in this thread by listening to you.
"Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
L + Ratio + get fucked fascist
You do understand the fascist has a definition right? It's not just an insult you throw at people with ideas you don't like.
By being a fascist apologizer, you’re choosing to side with the fascists.
This is your brain on authoritarianism.
You first. Start speaking out against fascists instead of on their behalf.
Why would you assume that someone in support of arguing with fascists wouldn't argue with fascists?
You can try to drop people in little boxes to suit your ideology, but it doesn't work well on me. I've made it a habit to argue with bigots - particularly at work. There's a surprising number of people that sound hateful but are just ignorant and curious.
I haven't defended nazis and I certainly haven't defended genocidal maniacs. Pretty sure I've said humans are humans, even ones with bad ideas and that robust self defense is a basic human right.
He's not advocating for arguing with fascists. He's advocating for validating fascists by hearing them out and treating them as though their shit ideas could ever have merit or that any of them have merit as people.
We've seen what happens when naive people tolerate fascists. You're just trying to make that happen again.
I think you can argue with bigots without validating their ideas. I'm not arguing that you should, but I'm comfortable doing it. I've tried to cultivate a human first perspective of people and I don't think I can pull off violence against someone for their words without damaging the compassion and empathy I try to live by.
I think none of them will ever deserve an audience for their idiotic fascist bigot nazi ideas. Just because your sympathies lie with them, that doesn't mean everyone else has to enable your bigot buddies to do what you hope they will.
We Germans are doing just fine with laws against certain kind of statements since... y'know.
I don't like the overall trend of restricting certain kinds of language, especially on social media where some concepts are forced to be expressed through some kind of doublespeak to be seen but I think it's fair game to outlaw the denial of the holocaust.
example?
Saying unalive instead of suicide or censoring words like rape to r*pe.
It's mostly on TikTok and YouTube but it spilled into other platforms as well since users are uncertain what they can say sometimes.
There are two important factors here:
Because of those two factors, while I can certainly understand your point, I think that you're being short-sighted when you say "that's your problem not theirs".
I do agree that there's always a risk that mechanisms used to censor them might get misused against you. However I see this as a second risk that you need to balance out with the first one (the Nazi), and which risk is more relevant is heavily situational.
I'm not a big fan of
Poo-perPopper but I think that his paradox of tolerance is spot on about those two things. At least in its original version (not its "Disney version" parroted in social media). I'll abridge it here:Emphasis mine. For further context check page 226 of his book. (PDF page 232).
The fact that it takes a lot more energy to debunk a claim is why I said you can take a few and show that they are disingenuous. Spend a bit of energy to show that they always talk bullshit so that they can be proven liars and easily discounted by anybody with a brain. The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They're basically a lost cause. They are few and far between but if people listen to what they say and nobody is around to disprove it or argue against it they gain a bit of power. They haven't created more Nazis so you have the same enemies to fight against. Cut off the head of the snake by showing their claims to be disingenuous and lies.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
Taking a few and showing that they're disingenuous doesn't work well.
For a less rational audience, all that the Nazi need to do is to relabel their discourse; for example saying that they're "the alternative right" instead of "neonazi", or "anti-woke" instead of "alt right". And, for a more rational audience, the nazi can point out that you're generalising an attribute to the group based on properties of a few of them ("ackshyually, that guy is bad, but not all of us are like that!").
In both cases, if you decide to not keep engaging, they can simply claim "see? He was left with no arguments!". And they do this all the time.
Fully agree with that.
I think that our major point of disagreement is if those things are enough to keep the Nazi at bay. I think that often they aren't.
So when they call for the mass murder of a group of people the only appropriate response is words?
If someone with a lot of followers said that their followers should kill you then the only appropriate response is to tell them not to do that?
We already have a class of speech called true threats. If it is actionable then it is illegal. If they have concrete plans for it then we have laws that criminalize it. If they're just saying what they want to happen then you can call them monsters and show why what they are saying is wrong and terrible.
Ahh man! Where were you in 1933 Germany?
People pretend like some perfect argument can defeat Nazis. You cannot fight gut emotions like fear, dread, and hatred with "reasonable" words and "rational" thought.
People aren't rational, and they are easily pursuaded by things other than "the best possible idea selected by an objective evaluation of all available ideas from the marketplace of ideas".
People aren't robots, hatred and fear lean into their base emotions. It's partially why cults exist.
There's never really a perfect argument because we're not beholden to rationality. Utilitarianism comes after treating people well for me, so even if an action would result in a better outcome I may find it unethical.
But inaction is still a choice that may be unethical or not depending upon the results.
Inaction to you might be me choosing a method I think is ethical but isn't as effective as well.
You might have deluded yourself into thinking fence sitting or becoming a bystander is more ethical but it's often not.
It's usually the easier choice and requires the least amount of effort and immediate danger, which is why most choose it, but that is not at all the same thing as ethical.
If you walk away from the trolley lever, that's still a choice and doesn't save you from the dilemma.
It's not fence sitting. I have a very clear ethical position and I'll argue for it vociferously.
And the closest to moral answer is to kill the one person, but jump in front of the train myself. I don't see much utility in such an extreme example.
I think we've gotten a little vague here.
What's your "ethical position"? Is it to platform Nazis?
Spoken like a true "both sides are bad" type of person.
What's that? A nuanced world view? That's illegal!
If your nuanced world view allows Fascists to spread hate, then it isn't nuanced at all
I had almost forgotten how much I hate political "comics".
You didn't have to click on it, you didn't have to comment.
Neither did you just now
Only one of you is complaining about the post
Apparently you can't be a fence sitter in a politically charged climate...
You can. What you can't do is argue for polite discourse in the face of somebody who wants atrocities.
When exactly does it become intent to harm? When trans care for children and adults was made illegal?
You can. It's just tacit announcement that you're a wishy washy enlightened centrist who couldn't even be bothered to keep up with current events. Caring about things is lame right?