> How were they not fascists, for all practical purposes?
What does fascists even mean these days?
Real fascists wounded my grandfather and he pushed them back all the way to Berlin. My teacher wintessed German soldiers raping and dismembering their childhood friend.
It seems these days I see a lot of "everyone I don't like is a fascist". Trump is a fascist, the barista this morning who made me a late instead of a cappuccino is a fascist, etc. Pol Pot committed terrible attrocities that doesn't make him a fascist, he was Communist.
How about literal neonazis waving swastikas, calling for violence to exterminate Jews and blacks? Ones literally identify with Nazi facists.
Do you not accept a line where free speech threatening violence harms other free individuals? This isn't a thought excercise, the Daily Stormer is a group calling for the extermination of people based on race and religion.
"Do you not accept a line where free speech threatening violence harms other free individuals? "
I don't.
I rather have people saying out loud, that they want to kill me, than saying it it in private and then just doing it ... so I - and others (like police) know whats going on, and can prepare for them.
If you forbid things to be said out loud, they will just boil hiddenly, until they explode.
To dashundchen and others who feel nazism is the absolute threshold beyond which speech ceases to be free.
> How about literal neonazis waving swastikas, calling for violence to exterminate Jews and blacks? Ones literally identify with Nazi facists.
> Do you not accept a line where free speech threatening violence harms other free individuals? This isn't a thought excercise, the Daily Stormer is a group calling for the extermination of people based on race and religion.
So how about jihadists who mutilate genitals at music concerts and behead little children? And who are very clear about their intent to kill millions more?
There are few things I hate more than muslim extremists, yet I am strongly in favor of not obstructing these people's ability to put their stuff online. We can even learn a thing or two from it that helps us defeat them, same goes for nazis.
Isn't it obvious that everything besides radical freedom of speech is bound to descend into a quagmire of arbitrarily constructed and enforced rules?
It is really a little embarrassing to see that "the vaguely Marxist but comfortably bourgeoisie hacker community" as James Mickens beautifully put it is split on an issue around free speech.
I'm pretty OK with saying the marketplace of ideas has evaluated the ideals of Nazism and found no need remaining to preserve or protect them. We have, after all, tried the experiment of negotiating with Nazis, appeasing Nazis, and seeking peaceful coëxistence with Nazis, and we've learned what the resulting body count is.
People like to say "never again", but it's important to actually mean it.
The problem is not them beeing clearly nazis, its there opponents never stopping with the censor-ship and persecution once they get going.
Having a professor who finds intellectual differences by race in his social studys? Definatly a nazi.
Not even worth studying, to search for a remedy, better to ignore a problem forever.
And this goes on and and on and on.
So we concluded, that if your limitation tendencies of free speach are unlimited, they must be limited at the root.
Thus the speech is free. They are not free to act. They are not free to maim, free to violate others rights.
One is free to ignore them- (as large parts of the country have) until the sjw circus visited theire town and gave them attention and manpiulated a large neutral crowd into supporting them with the usual passiv-agressive discourse controll speach.
> How were they not fascists, for all practical purposes?
What does fascists even mean these days?
Real fascists wounded my grandfather and he pushed them back all the way to Berlin. My teacher wintessed German soldiers raping and dismembering their childhood friend.
It seems these days I see a lot of "everyone I don't like is a fascist". Trump is a fascist, the barista this morning who made me a late instead of a cappuccino is a fascist, etc. Pol Pot committed terrible attrocities that doesn't make him a fascist, he was Communist.
How about literal neonazis waving swastikas, calling for violence to exterminate Jews and blacks? Ones literally identify with Nazi facists.
Do you not accept a line where free speech threatening violence harms other free individuals? This isn't a thought excercise, the Daily Stormer is a group calling for the extermination of people based on race and religion.
"Do you not accept a line where free speech threatening violence harms other free individuals? "
I don't.
I rather have people saying out loud, that they want to kill me, than saying it it in private and then just doing it ... so I - and others (like police) know whats going on, and can prepare for them.
If you forbid things to be said out loud, they will just boil hiddenly, until they explode.
To dashundchen and others who feel nazism is the absolute threshold beyond which speech ceases to be free.
> How about literal neonazis waving swastikas, calling for violence to exterminate Jews and blacks? Ones literally identify with Nazi facists.
> Do you not accept a line where free speech threatening violence harms other free individuals? This isn't a thought excercise, the Daily Stormer is a group calling for the extermination of people based on race and religion.
So how about jihadists who mutilate genitals at music concerts and behead little children? And who are very clear about their intent to kill millions more?
There are few things I hate more than muslim extremists, yet I am strongly in favor of not obstructing these people's ability to put their stuff online. We can even learn a thing or two from it that helps us defeat them, same goes for nazis.
Isn't it obvious that everything besides radical freedom of speech is bound to descend into a quagmire of arbitrarily constructed and enforced rules?
It is really a little embarrassing to see that "the vaguely Marxist but comfortably bourgeoisie hacker community" as James Mickens beautifully put it is split on an issue around free speech.
I'm pretty OK with saying the marketplace of ideas has evaluated the ideals of Nazism and found no need remaining to preserve or protect them. We have, after all, tried the experiment of negotiating with Nazis, appeasing Nazis, and seeking peaceful coëxistence with Nazis, and we've learned what the resulting body count is.
People like to say "never again", but it's important to actually mean it.
3 replies →
The problem is not them beeing clearly nazis, its there opponents never stopping with the censor-ship and persecution once they get going.
Having a professor who finds intellectual differences by race in his social studys? Definatly a nazi. Not even worth studying, to search for a remedy, better to ignore a problem forever.
And this goes on and and on and on. So we concluded, that if your limitation tendencies of free speach are unlimited, they must be limited at the root. Thus the speech is free. They are not free to act. They are not free to maim, free to violate others rights. One is free to ignore them- (as large parts of the country have) until the sjw circus visited theire town and gave them attention and manpiulated a large neutral crowd into supporting them with the usual passiv-agressive discourse controll speach.
1 reply →
I guess not all murderers and murderous philosophies are created equal, huh?
how about the purpose of self-identification rather than convenient relabeling that i'm sure has nothing to do with your political allegiances?
Convenient relabeling? I beg your pardon? Aren't you just conveniently making up shit right now?