YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech
1y 3mon ago by lemmy.world/u/notsoshaihulud in youshouldknow
Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their "free speech absolutist" postures the moment they think they are in power.
It's insane to me that somehow free speech has been successfully twisted into a dog whistle to basically just spread disinformation, actively call for extermination of minority groups and openly attack and threaten other people. That shit is not free speech those are malicious actions - and they should absolutely not be tolerated under some vague guise of free speech.
Precisely. That's why the most important mantra we can recite is "this is not normal". No matter how normalized it gets, fascism is not normal.
If you pay attention to the reactionaries, they always steal ideas from the left. Fake news, media bias? That's Noam Chomsky. Incels stole the idea of critical examination of gender from feminists. Racists are banning books on the theory that they target people based on their race.
That's why they're called reactionaries. They cannot organize and ideology or a movement except as an opposition to the left dragging society forward. And like anyone motivated by spite and envy, they study us closely.
It is always a little sad and funny to me when they essentially put on a suit made of the hollowed-out skin of a leftist concept. They heard people say "we want to see more women in electoral politics" and so they started running the Sarah Palins and Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world. The point of the ask isn't just to have women - it's to have people who will use their experiences of marginalization to empathize with voters and with other marginalized people, to build coalitions. Not because we wanna see tits on CSPAN.
Which is intensely frustrating for people who actually care about free speech. Can't talk about it without setting off everyone's "that guy is probably a nazi" alarms.
It's absolutely an intentional trap to attempt to get people to support moves against free speech by tainting the concept through negative association.
We shouldn't tolerate hate speech. But I'm concerned about where we end up in a few decades if the concept of free speech keeps the current connotations.
And people might consider even this comment as sealioning or something.
Meanwhile we have people unironically using phrases like unalive and censoring swear words in screenshots so they don't trip the automated content filters on mainstream social media. That should be more concerning than people seem to take it. People joke about "literally 1984", but unalive is blatant newspeak.
This is what the fascists do: hijacking legitimate terms of discourse and abusing them so they become meaningless. It's a deliberate strategy to subvert their opponents' ability to talk about the issue by poisoning the terminology. See also what they've done with "fake news", "critical race theory" and "DEI".
There's never been any actual free speech. There was never free speech for slaves, etc. We're literally barred for saying the state should be overthrown which is probably the most important thing that anybody could say. Legally money is speech and corporations are people. Regular people can say whatever but capital has a nonstop bullhorn into our homes, tvs, radios...
It's a completely meaningless concept.
It’s insane to me
How?
This isn't the first time, won't be the last time.
It's not even a Nazi thing, it's a human thing.
Reddit said you can't say "Luigi had a good idea" so idiots try to find the furtherest they can take it without repurcussions, and when they face repurcossions they screech that their free speech was violated because they were dog whistling to advocate for murder
So people get banned from reddit for it, and come here and they're *still stuck on trying to find the line in every situation so they can put their toes on and screech "freeze speech" like teenagers playing the penis game.
Obviously the people saying "Luigi was right" and the Nazis are different.
But it's the exact same human instinct to push boundaries and see what they can get away with, then claim innocence when faced with consequences. Little kids do it constantly, and with our education system lacking on critical thinking since No Child Left Behind, people aren't learning the critical thinking to internally make the call on what's ok, they just try shit and see if there's negative consequences. That's all that matters: can I get away with saying this.
We just saw it on a national stage where trump kept talking about tarrifs on Canada, he wanted them to engage in a bad faith conversation about fentanyl while his tarrifs were active and free of consequences. Instead Trudeau finally ovaried up and hit back with retaliatory tariffs.
trump got consequences and he'll stop. But if there wasn't he'd have kept pushing it.
Luigi and nazis are not even close to the same thing.
Obviously not, which doesn't matter because the behavior isn't unique to either group:
It’s not even a Nazi thing, it’s a human thing.
I thought that by stating that nice and clear in the beginning would prevent confusions like yours, but I forgot some people read something and instantly forget it.
Just because you make an argument, doesn't make it true. One is a group who came to power through hate and used that power in an attempt to exterminate political enemies, dissidents, and as everyone is well aware, the entirety of the Jewish population. The other is someone who got screwed over by our Healthcare system and decided to do something about it. Comparing the two and saying they are the same is either intentionally disingenuous, or just stupid.
Just because you make an argument, doesn’t make it true
Mate...
I "made an arguement" that it wasn't just Nazis that did this ..
And used an example of people who were not Nazis doing it to show that ..
And you accused me of saying both groups are the same.
After I literally said:
Obviously the people saying “Luigi was right” and the Nazis are different.
You felt the need to say almost verbatim the same thing back to me like it was something I didn't know.
There's not an easier way to explain this, I'm sorry but I'm not helping you anymore.
When our opponents say: "Yes, we used to grant you freedom of opinion", yes. You did, that is no reason why we should do the same to you! Your stupidity need not be contagious to us! [Laughter.] That you have given this to us - that is proof of how stupid you are! [Laughter.]
- Joseph Goebbels
Goebbels must have felt really clever when he killed his children and wife. Right Goebbels?
Goebbels? (Gore)
Oh.
A better fate than what he deserved, IMO.
Unfortunately he was allegedly burned after his death
See? Better than what he deserved.
What's the story here? I thought Goebbels was among those tried at Nuremberg
Search: goebbels death -> Goebbels Wikipedia article:
In the mid-afternoon of 30 April, Hitler shot himself. [...] On the evening of 1 May, Goebbels arranged for an SS dentist, Helmut Kunz, to inject his six children with morphine so that when they were unconscious, an ampule of a cyanide compound could be then crushed in each of their mouths. [...] At around 20:30, Goebbels and [wife] Magda left the bunker and walked up to the garden of the Chancellery, where they killed themselves. There are several different accounts of this event. [I've omitted contradictory claims of how they died and were treated after by SS soldiers] The corpses were then doused with petrol, but they were only partially burned and not buried.
Thank you for that! I know you didn't have to do it, so I want you to know that I appreciate your effort.
I think you confuse him with Göring.
Probably
Reported for untagged gore. Blocked for being a shitbag troll.
Mod here: Nah, that stays up.
You just sear that image into your brain and think about it every time you hear the word Nazi, remember what they did to human beings (even their own).
If you haven't seen them, look up pictures of the holocaust because those horrors should never be forgotten.
To be fair, the gore part I kinda understand. How do I tag a comment with gore? I mean he could have told me himself but he was so scared of what I might reply, he blocked me.
Hide it as a spoiler that is titled what it is and that it has gore.
deep fried goebbels (gore)
Pretend there was gore here
Thx 👍🏿
I completely agree with you. And I want to make one thing clear: I hope Goebbels, or any other Nazis, last hours on earth have been agonisingly painful in every form possible. Seeing them crispy makes me happy.
But, and this is a pretty big but, there are people out there who lost loved ones in fires and stuff like this might trigger them and cause unnecessary pain. While “humans well done” don’t bother me much, there are topics that drive me up the wall especially when it comes out of nowhere.
So while I can at least understand where (whatever his name was, I honest to god already forgot about him) their reaction came from, I also think it is important to show people the horrors of the last century. Because like you already said, politely talking about it in a SFW fashion clearly didn’t work.
You might be interested in History of Everything's video, "How? How educated people commit genocide". It is available for free, uncensored, at his Patreon. This is history that should be remembered, so that it can't be repeated.
Fuck you. This shit is traumatic for me. had family members murdered by the actual Nazis. Blocked you and this shithole community.
You know that's a Nazi in the pic, right?
He doesn’t. But now nobody can tell him. Because he blocked everyone 😔
🤷♂️
Yes, the holocaust was an extremely traumatic event, that's the whole point.
I'm not whitewashing history for you, sorry.
I would have reported the pic for gore, but I think hiding it under spoiler is fair game. What humanity should have learned from this story is that just because ideologies that consider fairness or empathy a weakness might appear viable and effective to grab power quickly, we have plenty of gory evidence that they do lead to the annihilation of millions, including those initially benefiting from them.
A spoiler would be OK by me, but I would still encourage everyone to look at what they did if they have not seen it. Visit a holocaust museum even. Frankly, I don't know that everyone understands, there are an increasing number of people who downplay or outright deny the horrors of World War II and everything that led to it.
Sorry to hear about your family.
If the world is going to blatantly ignore history, then the atrocities should become more abundantly available as a reminder. Censoring history is re-writing it.
I had great uncles and an aunt I never got to meet because of Nazis. This picture is soothing, being a reminder of what happens to all Nazis. They all die. Every single one of them is removed before their time. It's comforting to know that this too shall pass.
Grow up.
That's why we have to treath them the same way they would treath us.
No tolerance for the intolerant in a tolerant society. It has been thought about a lot.
Agreed, but that wasn't what the other comment demanded. If we treat other people like Nazis treat their victims, you are a Nazi yourself.
That Nazis do not get the benefit of the doubt or a public soapbox or platform is something I agree with and hopefully what the other commentator meant instead of executions and ovens. But it is important to not dehumanise Nazis and not stoop to their level. They are all too human, that is the problem.
Read the same story the other day. They missed Hitler's escalation believing he will never lie to such a point, until he did and then it was too late.
If someone has a dictatorship as a goal, you can't just fight under the democratic rules, especially if your system is not bullet proof.
I'm not saying "grab a gun", I'm saying there's not much time to act. Anyway, this gives me some hope:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
True. We should instead just use one bullet for each and be done with them, no point in copying their atrocities.
Remember that smile gave Moscow Mitch gave when they confirmed Trump’s lame duck Supreme Court nominee, despite rejecting Obama’s?
Honestly, the latter is absolutely free speech. They are 100% free to say that shit if they want. They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth, fired from their job, etc.
This is the real takeaway. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything. That's it. You can just say it. It does not protect you from the consequences. It's an important distinction to make, and I'm glad to see other people making that point.
Counterpoint:
You can say anything in an authoritarian state, the consequences are that you'll get disappeared in the night.
Your argument is... valid. Everyone, we've just established worldwide freedom of speech! Put this in the history books!
The argument means that if there are severe systematic consequences to some things you say, then it cannot be considered free speech.
I know, it was a joke. I guess I forgot the /s
Oh, sorry, I'm too depressed from the world situation to see humour in anything..
I'm right there with you, friend. Scary times we're living in, I wish there weren't so many events taking place that'll be in future history books.
I guess the primary difference is between legally free speech versus socially free speech. The argument being that the government shouldn't stop you from slinging slurs, while you have absolutely no right to not be ostracized/shunned/shamed by your fellow man.
I also think while yelling racial slurs should not be illegal, organizing and mobilizing under a racist ideology that promises to eliminate free speech should be criminalized. The tricky part is doing it in a way that won't be abused ie calling things that aren't racist and supremacist ideology those things to criminalize them.
If only there was an art vs porn emergency button encoded into the law. You just know it when you see it and can call things what they are
organizing and mobilizing under a racist ideology that promises to eliminate free speech should be criminalized.
Who's the fascist now, huh??!!!!? \s
100% this. The freedom to say anything also does not entail the right to be listened to. Nobody is required to platform "undesirable" speech. Getting banned from a platform is a perfectly acceptable consequence.
It depends on the source of the consequences.
Social consequences? Completely fine, even desirable.
Legal consequences? This is where trouble starts and freedom of speech is no longer given.
They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth,
I would say that this is wrong. If you get hit in the mouth for something you say, than it's not freedom of speech. It's the law of the strongest.
Example: You wouldn't hit a UFC fighter for something he said to you on a 1 to 1, however you would beat him if you are 10 against him. This is the law of the strongest.
I don't believe in absolut free speech. I think that it needs to have limits in it (very well defined limits), and there should be consequences for certain things. And the consequences need to be enforced in a way to counter them, like for example if you say hate crap then you should be forced to contribute to anti-hate orgs.
My point from a legal standpoint is that 'fighting words' are not protected speech
https://www.thefire.org/news/80-years-ago-supreme-court-introduced-fighting-words
I disagree. Free speech should have limits, like every other freedom, because freedoms oppose each others. Insults, defamation, threats, calls for hatred, lies, … shouldn't be covered by free speech.
Like it or not, that's been the interpretation since the founding of the US. It is not the case in some other countries, but I'm assuming we are talking about the US here. What most people miss is it only restricts the government from punishing your speech, not private entities. Insults, defamation, and lies, are absolutely allowed, but you can be found liable civilly for any damage done by this speech either through punitive damages (lawsuit settlement) or other means, deplatforming, loss of employment, etc.
threats, calls for hatred, are a bit of a gray area. It depends on the severity of the threat, but true threats can be prosecuted.
Hate speech is generally allowed, but if it is inciteful enough to be a true threat, it too can be prosecuted.
If you'd like to read up on true threats, see below:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf
Oh I know more or less how the American law works. But I think it's a bad one, that's all.
I'm French, and in France hate speech is illegal. Negation of crimes against humanity is illegal. Defamation is illegal. And you know what? France is still a free country. Freer even maybe, as our other freedoms and rights (like our rights to live peacefully) are more protected.
Here's what is not free: Fuck zionism.
You might lose your job, be kicked out of school, be deported, kidnapped, tortured, genocided, ethnically cleansed, etc... I'm afraid to even say it semi-anonymous on the internet.
Fascism is incompatible with any kind of freedom. Free speech is co-opted by conservatives and fascists so that they can promote bigotry without consequence. There is no reason that members of the KKK should be legally allowed to recruit people. That should be against the law. It should be against the law to promote xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and queerphobia. The only people who benefit from a system where you can espouse those beliefs without legal consequence are bigots and fascists.
Communal action > government "protections"
Every time.
First thing Free Speech Absolutionist Elon did when taking over Twitter was making it so that cisgender is a slur, but the n-word is not
It's not just nazis but fascists more generally.
Just look at what the zios are doing to anti-genocide resisters.
Zionists & Nazis; Like two peas in a pod.
Wow. Just wow. This makes me sad.
Yeah, especially after he attacked the ADL for so long. Huge disappointment.
The far right are well-practiced at co-opting and twisting concepts. It's classic doublespeak.
It's why you have "Christians" who are staunchly opposed to feeding the hungry, or treating the sick. (See: school lunches.)
It's why "capitalism" now represents the complete lack of meaningful competition, when that competition is the only thing that ever made capitalism worthwhile in the first place. (See: Microsoft getting away scot-free after being found guilty of illegal, anticompetitive business practices all throughout the 90s.)
It's why "free speech" proponents are laser-focused on creating new and terrifying mechanisms for censorship. (See: *gestures widely*)
I could go on.
It's sad how little resistance has been made against this corruption. How easily our natural allies have been turned into our greatest enemies.
Their version of free speech is to prevent you from contradicting the lies they continuously spew and then paint your rebuttal as an attack on their rights to spew them. They’re the victim of leftist propaganda.
Anyone who thinks that Nazis believe in free speech is an idiot.
Right, like, when have they ever believed that?
Well, only their free speech.
Your blasphemous thoughts should be banned, obviously.
No no, we still value free speech, just that yours isn't really speech, it's the woke mind virus. And that needs to be eradicated. So, you see, we're still free speech absolutists!
This is how they trick people.
Indeed, GAB is a great example, their "freeze peach" or banned :)
They only like free speech because it lets them claim to be censored.
The only free speech they like is their own -- unopposed and the only thing heard.
Jean Paul Sarte articulates my feelings on this better than I ever could.
Interesting read.
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 antisemites 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.
This is what we see these days. Trump and his followers lying is normalized, i.e., they are not "obliged to use words responsibly", whereas anybody argues against trumpists is.
They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
This is what changed since then. They no longer fear being seen as ridiculous or stupid. They embrace it.
That's why I claim all conservatives are pig fuckers. I don't care if it's true. It's up to them to argue with me. And they won't do that because they have their full 3" stuck in some pig.
I think they only fear looking weak.
I was looking to jot down that quote. It perfectly encapsulates the shitbags who denies vaccinations or the damage that DOGE is doing to humanity.
Does anyone?
The closest I can think of to “real free speech absolutists” is the old-school doctrinal libertarians. Even they have limits on what they believe should be allowed and specifically state that contracts should be legally enforceable.
Does anyone?
Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.
It's bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.
Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it. Hate groups and vile scum always do that with things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous.
Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it.
Nothing new historically. You don't have to accept their false premises by surrendering ideas to them.
things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous
Free speech is power, not innocuous: authorities fear it. It belongs to the people unless they surrender it.
Used to care about? Only if you let them stop you.
The ACLU are nationalist ideologues who don't believe in anything. There's no objective definition of "civil rights" or even "free speech". They promote the wacky idea that money is speech and corporations are people. They're only "free speech absolutists" for the rich or whatever the system tells them. They're fash enablers.
That's the most delulu & citation-free comment I've read in recent time: good job!
The premise of free expression is that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear, and it's not the role of an authority to decide that for them. Seems you oppose that liberty & want an authority to decide. Isn't there a name for people who oppose freedom & want everyone to obey authority? Aren't there some rather unsavory characters who agree with you? That's some awfully bad company: despite your superficial differences, you're a bit too alike.
yeah it's a philosophical question the answer to which changes with the times (like, does free speech/expression even mean the same thing in the 1700s as in the present era where "speech" is delivered and amplified by machines without even the necessity of direct human involvement).
The ACLU believes money is speech and corporations are people. They're just capitalist/nationalist wackos.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united/
You don't need to be an "absolutist" to believe in free speech. Open exchange of ideas is valuable. Not needing to be suspicious of everyone hiding what they really think out of fear is valuable. Censorship powers are very tempting to abuse and the consequences of their abuse are terrible, therefore they should be strictly limited. Believing in free speech can just be understanding this stuff and having a bias against shutting people up as a go-to solution.
Exactly. The real debate is on which parts should be off limits.
Most people can think of some speech that they consider so horrible that nobody should be allowed to say it.
People often try to hedge that position by arguing that they're not even really infringing on anyone's speech because their form of restriction doesn't meet a sufficient threshold of censorship.
Yes.
Fascist ideologies, like Nazism, are explicitly anti-liberalist. They don't believe in the very concept of liberties. They explicitly write down on paper why they believe democracy and freedom is a failure. So, when you see one pulling the free speech card, they're simply trying to appeal to your beliefs, or society's beliefs, to give themselves a platform. It's inherently insincere, they're mocking you.
Nazis have to act like this. History has shown us, without doubt, how repulsive their plans are both in theory and in practice, so until they have power, they cannot show their true colors. They can't just be honest and play "might is right" yet because communities would just do the right thing and violently extinguish their movement (including, but not limited to, punching them on sight). So they must hide behind society's privileges, the rights and freedoms of liberalism. They can enjoy police protection at protests to save them from the people they work to have killed, they can sue people for collecting intelligence on them and getting them fired, they can just point out liberalist hypocracy if their freedoms are violated, but listen to leaks and how they organize behind closed doors to know that's simply opportunistic cowardice.
"First they fascinate the fools, then they muzzle the intelligent" Bertrand Russell.
A reminder that X is called "the free speech platform" by Elon Musk.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They like free speech that doesn't get them immediately banned, not free speech for everyone else's ideas
Free speech for me, but not for thee!
They believe in ¨I speak¨
Yep, even in the face of genocide.
They believe in free speech only enough to get into power and then remove it.
They abandon their “free speech absolutist” postures the moment
they think they are in power.you ask them why they support malicious advertising, impersonation and pedophilia
Fix'd. Because those things would be protected under "absolute" freeze peach.
Barely anyone truly believes in it. They only care when they need it.
I've been a free speech advocate and activist for years and I helped people that literally wanted me banned 2 months prior for the most nonsense reasons. They didnt care sbout free speech until they stepped over a line - then, free speech was the most important thing in the world.
That's universal for all political alignments btw. It's both fascist clowns or wannabe antifa super soldiers. Both only care about it when it's needed.
What speech were "wannabe antifa supersoldiers" trying to suppress?
There's legitimate benefits to societies disallowing fraud and abusive speech- lies and threats can drown out useful benefits of actual free speech by squelching it.
They didnt care sbout free speech until they stepped over a line
What line? Calling for genocide or calling for its end? Because only the former is actually bad and only the later is actually attacked.
Free speech absolutism enables fascism. So does "both sidesing" fascism.
It's called the paradox of tolerance. There's a cartoon about it because it's kinda 101. Like something that most children understand.
Ah, the paradox of intolerance. The all time favorite argument against free speech.
Free speech absolutism enables fascism.
No, we don't. Ironically, YOU are the ones that enable fascism because you want to lay the foundational laws that a fascist government requires to enact fascism. This is called the "Paradox of Power" (It actually doesn't but it sounds cool). If society is enforcing intolerance toward intolerant views, then whoever holds the power gets to define what "intolerance" is. Now, what this does in reality is that the "ruling ideology", so to speak, can label dissenters as "intolerant" and justify their suppression, which is effectively leading to the very tyranny your principle claims to prevent.
I once heard a very good comparison in a youtube video. Imagine the government is a tank, and that tank is supposed to protect you from the evil fascists. Now, you want it to be strong so it can defend you better against them, so you slap on some more armor, some more weapons, a larger cannon, even more armor until that tank (your government) is an unbeatable killing machine that is deleting fascists left and right. Now, all is good and well - until a fascist gets into the tank. And at that point, he has all he needs, he runs the killing machine and starts enacting fascism - and the reason why he can do that is because you have build the fucking tank. That is what you're doing with the stupid hate speech laws - and that leads me to the second point ...
(drum roll)
... the slippery slope!
As you are not the one in control over the list of things we have to be intolerant against, but the people in power, it is fairly easy for them to extend the list to things they don't like. Funny enough, the soviet union suppressed dissent under the guise of "combating fascism" in the very same way you are arguing here right now. Suddenly, mentioning historic events like tiananmen square is no longer allowed. Or things happen but you don't hear about them, like the "Röhm-Putsch" in 1934 where hitler assassinated hundreds of people that could pose a threat to his power - the event was never reported in the news and nazis justified the suppression and framed it as "necessary to ensure stability and order".
Remember: True tolerance means engaging with differing viewpoints, even uncomfortable ones, rather than preemptively silencing them out of fear.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The evidence is clear when you consider how Twitter is going and with the censorship mentality spreading to other media, like the Reddit bans.
It’s important for everybody to not just assume the people on your own team, or the people that look like you, are being truthful and arguing in good faith.
That goes for everybody, but it seems pretty consistent that you need to me more wary of it as you move towards the conservative end of the scale. And conveniently for those politicians, the citizens on that end of the scale are the worst at cutting through the BS. Arguably that’s what landed them there in the first place!
This video is an oldie but a goodie, and deserves a listen for its analysis of fascist dialogue and how to talk to and about these assholes. A lot of us haven't engaged with this sphere for a long time and this is a good primer on pushing back.
Every single thing a fascist (unless to a fellow fascist) is designed to throw good people off the stink of their despicable beliefs.
Which is why liberalism in a not so democratic country can do little to stop this type of decline. Too non violent, too careful, too scared
Ideally one would vote out authoritarian candidates, but what to do when it’s a taboo to criticize electronic vote counting? Vote counting on electronic platforms run by the very people the liberals oppose? Vote counting supported by a steadfast belief of state governments not being corrupted, and not being in cahoots with the wealthy families running said platforms?
“There are safeguards”, ”I trust in the process”
Then when voting fails what to do but use free speech to oppose what is happening?
“Surely they will allow my voice to rise and be heard and I can use reason”
Yes people will hear you but it won’t do much.
I am a free speech absolutist. Evil people should say what they want to do...so that I can tell them what will happen if they try to ICE my neighbors. 🔫 🩸
The thing about modern discourse on social media platforms like Reddit, is that bigots get to threaten people all they like. If a good person mentions Luigi or what should happen to Musk, they get banned. THIS is the real threat to democracy.
It is best if the bad guys don't work in secret. They should expose themselves to be monsters early and often, with decent folk making it clear that evil positions deserve equally merciless responses. I think part of why the Republicans have been so successful, is because they feel like "winners" to people who value assertiveness. Democrats almost always holds true to decorum and norms - which gives them the impression of being "weak" losers.
Some people vote for the strong, because by extension, it makes themselves feel strong. I think this explains why some people simply never listen to any amount of reason or evidence - they perceive the world through feelings, not thought. This is why "rough" speaking democrats might hold value in our society, because they can speak the same language, while still holding the values of goodness close to their heart.
To put it simply, a lot of Republicans might cease supporting Trump, if the following entered their mind: "They are stronger than me. I don't want to get punched! Let's stay home."
...it isn't terrific, but I think some people are simply biased towards authority. Be it good or evil.
I disagree about private corporations. Money is no different from that of religion, violence, or any other form of power. So long as you have a large monopoly on these things, you can greatly influence people to speak...or silence them. Reddit traditionally served as a public square, but now we see selective speech being forced upon everybody: Musk good, Luigi bad.
It is one thing to control speech within your personal dwelling, but it is quite another when you are in charge of a service. Should you be allowed to ban gay folk from buying cake? Or prevent a black man dating a white girl from dining at a classy restaurant?
Violence has many permutations, and forcing everyday norms is by far the most corrosive to personal identity and the social fabric.
Moderation is when you take down material because the recipient doesn’t want to see it. Censorship is when you take down content because you don’t want the recipient to see it, regardless of how the recipient feels about it. If people think censorship is sometimes justified, they should argue that, and not muddle the picture with moderation.
That’s how it’s being used, yeah. But ideally it shouldn’t be.
Serendipity in my feed.
Is this a "we need to censor them because they don't believe in free speech" kind of a thing?
no. it's a "don't believe them because they are lying" thing.
I see, so we need to stop them from imposing censorship. How are they going to do it though?
The people who enable fascism are not going to stop it.
Jewish attorneys actually advocated for Nazis to be able to have marches. The phone you use has technology aided by Nazis... Anyone hear of Operation Paperclip? Wernher von Braun?
People dressed in Swastikas, speaking or marching are not violent acts themselves, those people may never become violent & may have no intention of being violent.
Most of them don't even believe Hitler murdered a bunch of Jews and that history was written by powerful Jews. It doesn't exactly help when Republicans & Democrats are loyal to Israel over America.
All & all, free speech laws in America are not rights to commit crime. Threats & violence are still criminal, and that goes both ways. Don't punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so... You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I'd suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
If you don't like it then file a lawsuit to change the law & make your case like normal productive people do instead of whining on the Internet about how you don't like things. If you don't like it then share the docket number of the lawsuit you've already filed to show you've done the work like countless people before you did to get the free speech we have today.
I see posts like this all the time, especially now that Trump & Republicans are trying to claim protesting Israel or their actions is antisemitic & should result in deportation. Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel. Weird the people making a big deal about Nazis don't realize the irony.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I’d suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
You are assuming ignorance from others while projecting ideas from other discussions you've had in the past onto my original post. I purposely avoided making any statements on how to approach or resolve the tolerance paradox because it's complicated. Nazis lying about their affinity for free speech isn't.
What else I find weird is that almost the comments like yours appear to be a script where the first thing you do is mention paradox of tolerance. I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response. I guess wrapping counterarguments up into sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.
I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response...sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less. I'm not here to relitigate the limits of free speech no matter how hard you want to steer the discussion in that direction.
On the other hand, if you come to discussions with this many preconceived notions and generalizations wrapped in a metric ton of condescension, then perhaps you might be the driver of your own "statistical bafflement".
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives.
So what? Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they're sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.
The problem isn't free speech. The problem is people who want to take it all away. If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.
Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.
If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.
Look, statements like this are very easy to make but nearly impossible to implement in the era of LLM-powered bots riding the Algorithm. Unless you simply give free rein to the bots, which is often the goal and ultimately eliminates actual humans' free speech. I don't pretend that I have a perfect solution, but there is sufficient historical evidence to point out the threads' original statement on absolutistic terms. For the rest, I've used the word "some" because not everybody has ulterior motives, but the most motivated ones in the present era tend to.
That's just technology & fearmongering. Socrates was critical of writing out of concerns it would deteriorate minds & make superficial thinkers. Critics were concerned the printing press would lead to widespread moral degradation with the abundance of low-quality literature. People criticized television & media for brain rot.
Guess what you're the next iteration of?
Technologies change, yet good principles hold regardless.
You know what you can do with free speech? More free speech. No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms. If people were inclined, they could launch these technologies to counter messages they oppose. People can choose to tune out & disregard expressions. Much more can be done with free speech.
Guess what you’re the next iteration of? Technologies change, yet good principles don’t change with them.
Technologies and ethics continuously change and adapt to new technologies, and I'm not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.
No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms.
The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.
Technologies
yes
and ethics continuously change
no
and adapt to new technologies
Yes. Technology may change, people's awareness & recognition of the application of ethical principles may change, however that doesn't mean the principles themselves change.
In terms of ethical reasoning, the essence of a matter may remain the same regardless of superficial guises (like technology). Adapting to a technology means applying the same general principles to novel, special cases. The principles concern rights & moral obligations people have to each other. Technology isn't essential or relevant: the use of technology to perform an action is irrelevant to whether that action is right or wrong. The principles themselves can be timeless, immutable, and concern only essentials necessary to evaluate actions. Thinking otherwise indicates confusion & someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
I’m not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.
Well, you're wrong. They're ultimately ways of disseminating expression. Just because you think some shiny, new, whizzy bang doodad fundamentally changes everything doesn't mean it does.
It probably indicates lack of historical perspective. These problems you think are new aren't. People have long been complaining about lies spreading faster than truth, the public being disinformed & easily manipulated. In the previous century, the US has been through worse with disfranchisement, Jim Crow, internment camps, violent white supremacy, the red scare, McCarthyism. Yet now contagious stupidity spread through automations is an unprecedented threat unlike the contagious stupidity of the past? Large scale stupidity isn't new. Freedom of speech was essential to anti-authoritarian, civil rights, and counterculture movements.
There's something contradictory about trying to defend liberal society by surrendering a critical part of it.
The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.
Not really. Decentralization is part of the solution.
Some people never liked Twitter.
This reads like arguing for sake of arguing because calling out nazis as liars about their interest in free speech has got to mean abandoning freedom of speech.
application of ethical principles may change
We could go on and on, but this is a nice summary statement here. Thank you.
because calling out nazis as liars about their interest in free speech has got to mean abandoning freedom of speech.
No duh insincere people claiming to advocate for free speech don't really mean it. This isn't exactly new or debatable: what is argued with it is debatable.
Earlier, you write about "statements nearly impossible to implement" & looking for "solutions" as if free speech needs solving. It doesn't. Free speech is its own solution: it means free for speech you dislike and for speech to answer it. There's nothing to solve but a lack of dedication to & endurance of free speech.
application of ethical principles may change
this is a nice summary statement here.
Not to be lifted out of context, "people’s awareness & recognition of" is an important part of that quote.
It doesn't mean their application to the same circumstances changes. What changes is people's awareness/recognition, not that it applies or how (it always applied the moment it was possible to apply). Like finally recognizing equal rights apply to women or minorities. Or that protesting topless is protected speech. Or that free speech applies to communication over new technologies.
If you got that, though, then it's a nice summary.
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less.
You've provided no supporting evidence of this. The loudest, or most successful supporters, appear to have been Jewish attorneys that advocated & won cases on free speech allowing even Nazis to gather, march, speak, etc. Are you suggesting these Jews were actually crypto-Nazis in disguise? Your title indicates you're referring to Nazis in particular.
I know reading comprehension is harder when you've already made up your mind about what I think, but you're better than this. I hope.:)
Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel.
It sounds ironic, but that's only if you adhere to an almost caricature-like (or surface-level) view of what a Nazi is.
Of course, it's better to refer to them as Fascists -- that's the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups. It's just that "Nazi" is the more recognizable term to the layperson.
Fascism is slightly more diverse and thus adds more opportunities for apologists to relativize. Hence the specific choice.
Of course, it’s better to refer to them as Fascists – that’s the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups
Yes, you're right, although on the other hand Nazism and classical fascism are also pretty different despite some surface level similarities. Even the fascist movements at the time struggled to figure out a unified position on racism/anti-semitism, corporatism and state structure.
If you want a few kicks, read what ᴉuᴉʅossnW thought of Hitler before he was pressured into saying nice things closer to WWII. My favorites are "silly little monkey" and "A mad little clown". He was surely regretting their alliance long before he was hanged.
Don’t punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so… You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
It's not legal, and I don't know which judges are more lenient about this kind of thing. But if one can do it without being caught or attacked, like the two people who punched Richard Spenser, then it is an effective way to counter the rise of Nazism. Legality only matters if it's enforceable.
But if one can do it without being caught or attacked, like the two people who punched Richard Spenser, then it is an effective way to counter the rise of Nazism.
All this does is bolster fascism. Punching people for being non-violent fuels their world views, not help them trust yours. Maybe engage in some peaceful discourse. You're actually the one instigating violence here. You have the same attitude of cops shooting unarmed people.