You're confusing inciting violence with free speech.
So wait, when someone says "kill all Jews" that's an idea to be discussed, but when someone says "let's censor people who call for that" that's somehow worse, and not simply also speech you can also discuss?
Has anyone here ever actually been near a group of, say, more than two actual nazi skinheads? Would you discuss their ideas in their basement?
I'm not for censorship either, but I know what would be needed to confront such people -- namely, going past their "ideas" and to the root, their fucked up, impotent personality -- isn't even allowed on HN. If you get personal here, you're gone. So that's laughable from the get go in a way.
Yet if you discuss "ideas" with a Nazi, you're just in endless quick sand. I tried discussing with Nazis, and I'm still up for it (I even tried discussing with pedophiles, but I totally noped out of there because it also achieved nothing and it was even more depressing than the Nazis). But I know the murderous cold that lingers there, and how no Nazi stands on their own. If you win the argument, you get a cold smile saying "just you wait", and that's it. Then you're back to square one. But if you didn't even try that you simply don't know what you're even talking about.
edit: take the guy who murdered one person and wounded 19 severely by driving with their car into protesters. His father died early and his mother didn't know what he was up to. I'll just say, this family could used help 10-15 years ago. I don't know how or by whom, but in a magical fantasy world, that would have been the correct solution -- now you can do nothing, just look at the spilled blood. If you want to prevent more of that, look at the people who are growing up with pain today... but by the time their fist is clenched beyond a point, it will take something special or very big to change them, and otherwise they will just hate or even kill, just dwindle mentally or even suicide. Hitler wasn't random, he's the prototype. Stalin wasn't random, he's the prototype. Mental issues are the problem, fucked up childhoods are the problem, not "ideas". Don't assume everybody is that far gone, but also don't delude yourself thinking this is about ideas. And frankly, too many people here aren't even on to themselves enough to meaningfully look at anyone else's personality, and should deal with their own obedience and hiding behind abstractions first.
They care about power, and they're fueled by hate. Their genius is their ability to use words as weapons, to strike at the weaknesses of a civilization as they are doing now in this free speech 'debate'. They'll use truth, or lies, as needed to get what they want. They're not bound by the usual rules framing debate.
During the Charlottesville attack this weekend, these assholes were all over the internet claiming that the attacker was actually an antifa socialist, doxxing an innocent person in the process. After that turned out to be of course false, did they express shame or regret at their lies? Of course not. They went onto the next justification, claiming that the driver had been 'provoked' into driving into the crowd. Now they have the fringe Alex Jones element claiming that the Nazis at this rally were Jewish actors.
That's what we're dealing with here. People need to get that through their heads and stop thinking that fascists can be reasonable. They're inherently unreasonable and they use that to their every advantage. They're not ashamed of lies, and they will tell different lies and different truths to different people to sow chaos, confusion and inaction amongst those who speak against them.
After they've won, let's see exactly how much they hold up their reverence for free speech as they're claiming to do now. They don't care about free speech. In fact I wouldn't even say they're necessarily against free speech. They don't care about ideas - they'll just kill anyone who gets in their way. They're using our reverence for free speech against us.
In some twisted way you could almost say they really are more evolved. Just as we are able to control animals in large groups by understanding their behavior and manipulating it, fascists dedicate their energies to manipulating human emotions and behaviors, both at the micro and macro level. By driving out all compassion from themselves, they open themselves up to actions and manipulations that most people would be prevented from doing by their human shame.
- Jean Paul-Sartre, Anti-Semite and the Jew
By not letting people fucking recruit en masse, that's how.
> as someone who had multiple family members killed during the holocaust
Did you yourself ever try to actually discuss with actual Nazis, yes or no?
> Saying that the person who had to delete their response because of what "Nazis" said to them is even worse.
What? Where did I say that? I said they deleted their comment, probably because they realized they could be identified. Here's two bits of their comment (I wanted to reply to it that's why I had it open in another tab)
> when you try to discuss with Nazis, they will jump you and beat your ass and give the old college try to killing you if they are given a chance.
Then they describe how they actually had Nazis try that on them, and finally
> That's why I'm entirely and unflinchingly okay with being loud and eating the downvotes and the flags (oh no, downvotes and flags) when these people pop their heads up here. They can't try to kill me here. But they would if they could. Caping up for a societal autoimmune disease, the kind that infects your structures and subverts them so that they can kill you, is profoundly, profoundly unwise.
Your "ancestors" don't give you the right to just go on about how someone is a wuss about "sharing an unpopular opinion" by virtue of making up shit nobody said. And I'm also not trying to "shame" anyone into anything, you're projecting. I'm asking you, did you actually try what you suggest on the real deal, because so far the one person who isn't a virgin agrees with my opinion about sex, so to speak.
That's what I thought.
> Der wahre Grund für die unabwendbare, prinzipielle Überlegenheit aller totalitären Propaganda über die Propaganda aller anderen Parteien oder Regierungen ist, daß ihr Inhalt - jedenfalls für die Mitglieder der Bewegung und die Bevölkerung eines totalitären Landes - nichts mehr mit Meinungen zu tun hat, über die man streiten könnte, sondern zu einem ebenso unangreifbar realen Element ihres täglichen Lebens geworden ist, wie daß zwei mal zwei vier ist. Die Vorteile einer Propaganda, die sich niemals nur auf sich selbst und ihre Argumente verläßt, sondern zu der von vornherein "die Gewalt der Organisation hinzutritt", in der sie durch Gewalt ständig und unmittelbar verwirklicht, was sie sagt, sind so außerordentlich, daß es fast schon eine gefährliche Unterschätzung ihrer Möglichkeiten ist, sie noch mit dem Namen Propaganda zu belegen. Alle bloßen Argumente gegen sie, die ja aus einer Wirklichkeit stammen, welche die Bewegung ohnehin zu ändern verspricht, sind bereits im vorhinein dadurch disqualifiziert, daß die Massen die wirkliche Welt weder akzeptieren können noch akzeptieren wollen. Totalitäre Propaganda ist keine Propaganda im üblichen Sinn und kann daher nicht durch Gegenpropaganda widerlegt oder bekämpft werden. Sie ist Teil der totalitären Welt und wird nur mit ihr zusammen vernichtet.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft", page 537
I'm dog tired, but here's my attempt:
> The real reason for the unavoidable superiority in principle of all totalitarian propaganda against the propaganda of all other parties or governments is, that its content - at least for the members of the movement and the population of a totalitarian country - has nothing to do with opinions about which one could argue, but have become an equally invincible real element of their daily life, just like two and two making four. The advantage of a propaganda which never depends on itself and its arguments, but is ab initio "joined by the violence [or power] of the organization", in which it manifests through violence continually and directly what it claims, are so extraordinary, that it is nearly a dangerous underestimation of its possibilities to still call it propaganda. All mere arguments against it, which stem from a reality which the movement promises to change anyway, are already disqualified because the masses can't and don't want to accept the real world. Totalitarian propaganda isn't propaganda in the usual sense and therefore can't be fought or refuted with counter propaganda. It is part of the totalitarian world and gets destroyed only together with it.
I'm not saying she would support anything else I said, but she did write the above, in a book that should be mandatory reading but is not. Those who have ears and all that. Good night and good luck.
Then you can pretty easily ask: civil rights protests? Using speech--and violence!--but not violating that contract. They tolerate all who extend that contract to them. LGBT activists? Using speech--and violence!--but not violating that contract. They tolerate all who extend that contract to them.
The daily st-literalnazipropaganda-ormer? violating that contract. Suppress it. Destroy it. No platform should allow it. Nazis in Charlottesville shouting "Jews will not replace us"? violating that contract. Suppress them. Make them fear. They do not tolerate all who extend them that contract.
I think that, while tolerance works well as a vague social value, trying to define it and draw a border around what it is or isn't will only result in destroying the rights of one's opposition. The word can be used in a variety of way in a variety of contexts; I would propose that any use of violence against someone for holding another idea is a form of intolerance, and from your comment it clearly seems that you disagree. The only "clear social contract of tolerance" is one that is tainted by everyone's political views. Where you would advocate for the removal of those who stand against LGBT rights, a religious Christian/Muslim/Jew would advocate for the removal of you for denying their right to speak their minds.
...the next word is "that", a qualifier. And that qualifier answers literally all your questions?
There is no successful formulation of absolute free speech, because then you must allow intolerance, which takes over. This isn't a new question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
Let's apply my test: What happens if someone's religion mandates intolerance? Then they are violating the social contract of tolerance--we should not allow that to be done.
> a religious Christian/Muslim/Jew would advocate for the removal of you for denying their right to speak their minds.
They can speak their minds about anything they'd like, so long as they don't advocate for the suppression of the rights of others. That is the thing that is not allowed. Their right includes that qualifier; it is not an absolute right to speak. This qualifier is the safety net that stops a tolerant society from being eaten by intolerance.
(I am not saying that free speech as outlined in the US constitution, for instance, meets this formulation from a legal standpoint; I am saying that social mores do and should, and certainly private speech and private platforms should be formulated in this way.)
And one would posit that you could speak your mind about anything you'd like, so long as you don't advocate for suppressing their rights. From their perspective, what they are doing isn't even suppressing anyone's rights -- in their eyes, their God has mandated that doing so is _not_ a right. Everything is a matter of viewpoint, and in an alternate reality someone would be advocating for you to be silenced on the same basis.
What's your solution?
I gave a nice, uniform principle that allows as much as tolerance as is possible without eroding all of it. Many before me have offered it too. Again, it's not a new idea.
You pick it apart, claiming that in some (specifically intolerant of others) religious person's point of view, their magical god favoritism allows them to stigmatize people, so therefore my principle just doesn't work.
You're right: my principle excludes people. It excludes the intolerant, where intolerance is identified by the simple test I outlined. And that's it. That is all it excludes. It excludes people for their choices to harm others. But your hypothetical (again, specifically intolerant) person's magical god-favoritism instead excludes people for who they are. That's the difference.
So, we as a society can choose one of these ways or the other. And I argue we continue to treat tolerance as a social contract for the simple reason that the other option, free speech absolutism ...breaks. It erodes down to an intolerant society, where a violent few pry away the rights of everyone else. But if you treat tolerance as a social contract, the result is stable.
I hold a bit of a strong view, here. Criminalize actions. In all but the rarest if cases, speech should be protected.
If somebody tells you to go punch a Nazi, they shouldn't get in trouble. You should, if you go punch a Nazi. Not that I like Nazis, but that you shouldn't assault them when they aren't being violent or an immediate threat to your physical safety.
I only think speech should be punished when you can show demonstrable harm. Libel, slander, credible threats, and things like that. Some idiot yelling about gassing Jews isn't a credible threat, even if reprehensible. However, if they happen to have a gas chamber, and amassed a bunch of Jews, that's a credible threat - though I am going to guess their speech is the least of our concerns, if they got that far.
I don't want speech to be illegal, in all but the rarest of circumstances.
You can say that now because you're on the other side of the history.
But put yourself in the dorm room of someone organizing one of the first lunch counter sit-ins. That organizer is using their speech to convince a group of people not to tolerate the segregation that made it illegal for them to sit non-violently in a public place.
Now imagine a potential activist who agrees with your first paragraph hears the speech of this organizer. Do you really think it's clear that potential activist will end up participating in the sit-in?
edit: clarification
Let's see... whose speech is this organizer advocating intolerance against? It appears to be the business owners who say "some people cannot be here, because they are black."
So, the business owners are violating the social contract I outlined: their actions are intolerant. The organizer is, therefore, not breaking the contract.
Someone who followed the principle I argue for would land on the side of the protestors in this case.
Someone has to determine what constitutes 'inciting violence'. There will be some websites that are targetted for shut down while some won't be; there is no way to get around this. What gets targetted will be the ones that go against the group who has the ability to choose the targets (a government agency or perhaps a private ISP).
Second, what stops a false flag from getting a site shutdown? If a site allows comments, a person hostile to the site could post a violent comment, and then you would have justification for shutting the site down.
Third, you will get false accusations. Take, for example, the civil rights movement in the sixties. You don't think state governments in the south wouldn't have accused the various protest groups as inciting violence? It doesn't matter that they were peaceful protests, they would have certainly argued that organizing sit ins and protest marches was a form of violence. While we might say, "Well clearly those were peacful and would be allowed to have their protest", that doesn't mean a court run by that same government wouldn't see differently. You don't think a southern court in the 60s would have sided with the government when they accused the civil rights groups of being violent?
Once you give the government an out to get around free speech requirements, they will take it whenever they can.
The current "out" is to let private companies run the entire infrastructure of speech itself. That's worrying.