You may be surprised to hear that the situation is a bit more nuanced than that because freedom of speech is not, in fact, an unlimited freedom. Wherever different rights and freedoms overlap and endanger each other, every society must weigh them against each other and sometimes give preference to one freedom by limiting another. That means that certain ways of using free speech are not protected. One layman’s example that one keeps hearing would be shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Certain calls for violence can be criminally prosecuted because they would endanger other people’s right to live, for example.
The reason behind these limitations to freedom of speech is the so-called “paradox of tolerance”. In essence, it says that a democratic society that tolerates even attempts to overthrow its core tenets will be upended by destructive ideologies unless active steps are taken to prevent that. While the absolutely tolerant society is basically a buffet to slaughter and usurp for authoritarian ideologies, a democratic society that wants to survive needs to be a defensive democracy that limits attacks on its core values. And there’s an excellent case to be made that the nazi ideology is in its very core not compatible with a democratic society, so much so that in multiple countries like for example germany, it is illegal to shout “heil hitler” or use one’s freedom of expression to further the nazi ideology. And they are speaking from experience.
Yeah I completely agree. But there’s a difference between silencing your opposition by banning their opinion and banning certain harmful words. I believe we shouldn’t silence them because we do not agree, we just need to fight their idiology and propaganda, and them whenever they endanger anyone else.
We shouldn’t ban anyone from speaking out their opinion, we should disapprove their opinion and argue they are wrong.
That’s a cute sentiment. I applaud your enthusiasm and confidence. However, you’re not the first one to try to engage people who’ve gone full nazi on a discourse-level. At the stage where they can be encountered in a legal environment by discussing their worldview with them, appeasement and discussion have historically not been effective means to dissuade nazis themselves, even though attempts were not lacking.
The reason for that is that, in order to logic someone out of their worldview, they must have adopted that worldview due to logic. However, being a nazi is not the result of weighing the scientific pros and cons and then deciding, that yes, the particular race you were born as is objectively speaking indeed superior to all others and thus your race is perfectly legitimised to send other races to their deaths because the nazis happen to have the right hair and eye colour and their victims don’t; no, that opinion is exactly that: an opinion that is used to justify atrocities commited by people who just really want to commit atrocities and will use any fig leaf of an excuse to actually do that with impunity. Their goal is traditionally not convincing anybody, but rather biding their time and growing their influence until they no longer need to talk to reach their goals.
Historically speaking, the gist of attempts at discussion has been running along the following lines:
“I believe nazis should have the right to murder whomever they please because we are better than everyone else.”
“I disagree, you should NOT have the right to unilaterally murder people at a whim because you’re not, in fact, better than everybody else.”
“Yes we are.”
“No, you aren’t.”
“Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Let’s continue this discussion at a point in time where we’ve amassed enough support and power that we could -hypothetically- round up any and all dissenters and murder them wholesale, if -again, purely hypothetically- we chose to do so.”
Allowing this cancer to fester until it’s good and ready to seize power violently or at least without further resistence - as is the very goal of the ideology - just means giving them more time. If they confess to being nazis, their playbook will most likely not suddenly switch to wholesome and legal aspirations. The nazi endgame is well defined and well-known. The nazi ideology is firmly defined in terms of content, it has no leg to stand on from a scientific point of view and at this point in time, believing that it is in any way, shape or form “correct” or in need of discussing its merits, is simply inexcusable.
Allowing such well-known notorious destructive groups to plot unhindered would be just as irresponsible as throwing guns at people who are obviously not responsible enough to be trusted with them and then just sitting back to see what happens. And then, when it happens, repeatedly, being surprised, every single time. Nobody would do that, right?
You may be surprised to hear that the situation is a bit more nuanced than that because freedom of speech is not, in fact, an unlimited freedom. Wherever different rights and freedoms overlap and endanger each other, every society must weigh them against each other and sometimes give preference to one freedom by limiting another. That means that certain ways of using free speech are not protected. One layman’s example that one keeps hearing would be shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Certain calls for violence can be criminally prosecuted because they would endanger other people’s right to live, for example.
The reason behind these limitations to freedom of speech is the so-called “paradox of tolerance”. In essence, it says that a democratic society that tolerates even attempts to overthrow its core tenets will be upended by destructive ideologies unless active steps are taken to prevent that. While the absolutely tolerant society is basically a buffet to slaughter and usurp for authoritarian ideologies, a democratic society that wants to survive needs to be a defensive democracy that limits attacks on its core values. And there’s an excellent case to be made that the nazi ideology is in its very core not compatible with a democratic society, so much so that in multiple countries like for example germany, it is illegal to shout “heil hitler” or use one’s freedom of expression to further the nazi ideology. And they are speaking from experience.
Yeah I completely agree. But there’s a difference between silencing your opposition by banning their opinion and banning certain harmful words. I believe we shouldn’t silence them because we do not agree, we just need to fight their idiology and propaganda, and them whenever they endanger anyone else.
We shouldn’t ban anyone from speaking out their opinion, we should disapprove their opinion and argue they are wrong.
That’s a cute sentiment. I applaud your enthusiasm and confidence. However, you’re not the first one to try to engage people who’ve gone full nazi on a discourse-level. At the stage where they can be encountered in a legal environment by discussing their worldview with them, appeasement and discussion have historically not been effective means to dissuade nazis themselves, even though attempts were not lacking.
The reason for that is that, in order to logic someone out of their worldview, they must have adopted that worldview due to logic. However, being a nazi is not the result of weighing the scientific pros and cons and then deciding, that yes, the particular race you were born as is objectively speaking indeed superior to all others and thus your race is perfectly legitimised to send other races to their deaths because the nazis happen to have the right hair and eye colour and their victims don’t; no, that opinion is exactly that: an opinion that is used to justify atrocities commited by people who just really want to commit atrocities and will use any fig leaf of an excuse to actually do that with impunity. Their goal is traditionally not convincing anybody, but rather biding their time and growing their influence until they no longer need to talk to reach their goals.
Historically speaking, the gist of attempts at discussion has been running along the following lines:
“I believe nazis should have the right to murder whomever they please because we are better than everyone else.”
“I disagree, you should NOT have the right to unilaterally murder people at a whim because you’re not, in fact, better than everybody else.”
“Yes we are.”
“No, you aren’t.”
“Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Let’s continue this discussion at a point in time where we’ve amassed enough support and power that we could -hypothetically- round up any and all dissenters and murder them wholesale, if -again, purely hypothetically- we chose to do so.”
Allowing this cancer to fester until it’s good and ready to seize power violently or at least without further resistence - as is the very goal of the ideology - just means giving them more time. If they confess to being nazis, their playbook will most likely not suddenly switch to wholesome and legal aspirations. The nazi endgame is well defined and well-known. The nazi ideology is firmly defined in terms of content, it has no leg to stand on from a scientific point of view and at this point in time, believing that it is in any way, shape or form “correct” or in need of discussing its merits, is simply inexcusable.
Allowing such well-known notorious destructive groups to plot unhindered would be just as irresponsible as throwing guns at people who are obviously not responsible enough to be trusted with them and then just sitting back to see what happens. And then, when it happens, repeatedly, being surprised, every single time. Nobody would do that, right?
Right?