Both ISIS and the Nazis have committed a huge amount of violence, yet you defend them - why?
You don’t see the issue with comparing two groups whose objective is genocide with two groups with fairly specific goals oriented around freedom, which have committed sporadic violence serving those ends?
For what it’s worth, I place Hamas in the Nazi/ISIS bucket for consistent reasons.
I don’t have to support a group’s actions to still believe they have the same human rights of freedom of speech and thought that others do. There’s a reason that human rights apply to everyone, even prisoners. Even monsters. Stripping away fundamental rights from the “right” people is not a moral stance.
I defend their human rights for the same reason I defend yours.
You drew the line at violence, but defend the Nazis and ISIS - What’s the bar for unacceptable violence? More than the 17 million people the Nazis killed, obviously, but where is that line?
I don’t think there’s any doubt the Nazis are bad - which is why they’re a good example. When they’ve had power, they killed millions - the violence has already happened at an incredible scale, but you continue to defend their existence.
Surely you don’t propose atomising response to the individual level - that we only react to individual members of openly genocidal groups after they harm/kill someone, otherwise allowing the unhindered operation and growth of those groups?
Protecting openly genocidal groups’ speech is akin to protecting individuals’ rights to make death threats (even after they’ve killed a bunch of people) - the speech itself is harmful, intimidating minorities, and it’s a strong indicator of upcoming violence that you can prevent instead of waiting for innocent people to get harassed, attacked, and killed. Conversely, there’s zero social utility to the hate speech other than identifying genocidal cunts that are probably deserving of some violence, for the betterment of society - the ol’ paradox of tolerance.
Death threats too? Shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Again, this speech reduces freedom, has no meaningful utility, and very directly leads to, encourages, and spreads the violence - with all this in mind, it’s unfathomable to me that anyone would defend it.
Outside the disagreement, I’ll also say I’m pretty wary of free speech absolutists - I can’t speak for you, but they tend to drop their principles the moment someone says something they don’t like - see Musk for an example of this.
A famously incorrect example of unprotected speech. It actually is protected speech, it’s just a catchy phrase that people never seem to look into beyond a surface level.
it’s unfathomable to me that anyone would defend it
Because at least half of the country I live in would love nothing more to apply these same ideas of restricting the flow of ideas and speech to me. To their mind, my liberal lefty atheistic ideals are diametrically opposed to their world view. To their understanding of the world, I’m actively making the world a worse place just by being in it. I have actively benefited from the freedom of thought and speech that I support while growing up in a deep red and deeply religious small town.
What you should be asking yourself is why these abhorrent ideas get any traction at all. The public square should be filled with good ideas. Put your ideas out for how to make society better. Put out your critique and world view. The speech you hate so much should be drowned out by all the good speech. The fact that it’s not, and has garnered any sort of appeal points to a failure on society’s part, writ large. We have an obligation to push society forward and be proactive in guiding society where we want it to go. Like I said in another comment, the hearts of men can’t be legislated away; they have to be won.
We clearly have different philosophies on the value of freedom of thought. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with this.
It’s super-weird that you’d defer to what’s legal when you’re asked if something is moral - particularly when you imply there’s a risk legislation will turn against you at some point.
There’s a bunch of reasons bad ideas circulate, but they’re generally a product of the interests of those with economic/political power. That’s a far broader, more difficult issue to solve than the proliferation of genocidal ideologies.
You want this problem solved?
Here’s the definition of genocide (the UN one works fine).
Genocidal groups are now outlawed.
As far as organised crime goes, there’s not really a higher bar, is there? The likes of BLM that you cited earlier don’t meet this bar - not by a long shot.
Both ISIS and the Nazis have committed a huge amount of violence, yet you defend them - why?
You don’t see the issue with comparing two groups whose objective is genocide with two groups with fairly specific goals oriented around freedom, which have committed sporadic violence serving those ends?
For what it’s worth, I place Hamas in the Nazi/ISIS bucket for consistent reasons.
I don’t have to support a group’s actions to still believe they have the same human rights of freedom of speech and thought that others do. There’s a reason that human rights apply to everyone, even prisoners. Even monsters. Stripping away fundamental rights from the “right” people is not a moral stance.
I defend their human rights for the same reason I defend yours.
You drew the line at violence, but defend the Nazis and ISIS - What’s the bar for unacceptable violence? More than the 17 million people the Nazis killed, obviously, but where is that line?
I don’t know what you want from me man. To say nazis are bad? No shit, that’s obvious.
You ask where I draw the line. Between actions and ideas. I can’t make this any more clear.
Nazi held a sign at a protest? Shitty, but not illegal.
Nazi hurts someone? Illegal.
I don’t think there’s any doubt the Nazis are bad - which is why they’re a good example. When they’ve had power, they killed millions - the violence has already happened at an incredible scale, but you continue to defend their existence.
Surely you don’t propose atomising response to the individual level - that we only react to individual members of openly genocidal groups after they harm/kill someone, otherwise allowing the unhindered operation and growth of those groups?
Protecting openly genocidal groups’ speech is akin to protecting individuals’ rights to make death threats (even after they’ve killed a bunch of people) - the speech itself is harmful, intimidating minorities, and it’s a strong indicator of upcoming violence that you can prevent instead of waiting for innocent people to get harassed, attacked, and killed. Conversely, there’s zero social utility to the hate speech other than identifying genocidal cunts that are probably deserving of some violence, for the betterment of society - the ol’ paradox of tolerance.
I do.
Death threats too? Shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Again, this speech reduces freedom, has no meaningful utility, and very directly leads to, encourages, and spreads the violence - with all this in mind, it’s unfathomable to me that anyone would defend it.
Outside the disagreement, I’ll also say I’m pretty wary of free speech absolutists - I can’t speak for you, but they tend to drop their principles the moment someone says something they don’t like - see Musk for an example of this.
Criminal threats are typically actionable. They indicate a concrete act is intended.
A famously incorrect example of unprotected speech. It actually is protected speech, it’s just a catchy phrase that people never seem to look into beyond a surface level.
Because at least half of the country I live in would love nothing more to apply these same ideas of restricting the flow of ideas and speech to me. To their mind, my liberal lefty atheistic ideals are diametrically opposed to their world view. To their understanding of the world, I’m actively making the world a worse place just by being in it. I have actively benefited from the freedom of thought and speech that I support while growing up in a deep red and deeply religious small town.
What you should be asking yourself is why these abhorrent ideas get any traction at all. The public square should be filled with good ideas. Put your ideas out for how to make society better. Put out your critique and world view. The speech you hate so much should be drowned out by all the good speech. The fact that it’s not, and has garnered any sort of appeal points to a failure on society’s part, writ large. We have an obligation to push society forward and be proactive in guiding society where we want it to go. Like I said in another comment, the hearts of men can’t be legislated away; they have to be won.
We clearly have different philosophies on the value of freedom of thought. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with this.
It’s super-weird that you’d defer to what’s legal when you’re asked if something is moral - particularly when you imply there’s a risk legislation will turn against you at some point.
There’s a bunch of reasons bad ideas circulate, but they’re generally a product of the interests of those with economic/political power. That’s a far broader, more difficult issue to solve than the proliferation of genocidal ideologies.
You want this problem solved?
Here’s the definition of genocide (the UN one works fine).
Genocidal groups are now outlawed.
As far as organised crime goes, there’s not really a higher bar, is there? The likes of BLM that you cited earlier don’t meet this bar - not by a long shot.