[lifeformed]

Why is it so important to accommodate trolls and nazis? If a stranger in my house at a party drew a swastika on my wall, I'm kicking him out. If someone on my website did the same, I would also remove him. It's not me getting offended, it's just curation of the community.

If someone doesn't want to follow the social norms of the community they're in, fine, but they'll pay the consequences. They can form their own community if they want.

[sooheon]

I don't want to accommodate trolls and nazis, I don't really care about their agenda and would probably delete such a comment if it was posted in my blog.

The only thing I take offense to is the victimizing language of "bullying" being used here. Putting up free speech online, if it's not targeted to specific people, chronic, and abusive, is not "bullying". It's just in poor taste or offensive. If you own a space online and want to remove distasteful or offensive material, that's completely your right. But don't frame it as bullying, or any sort of persecution.

[lifeformed]

It's provocative - it taunts free society and those who suffered for its sake, for a cause that our society has nearly unanimously condemned. It's overtly disrespectful and intended to cause distress or annoyance. Some would define that as bullying and some wouldn't; either way, I wouldn't care to accommodate those people on my sites.

If someone wants to defend a controversial view, they need to learn how to effectively communicate it, rather than expect others to graciously welcome it. Let the idea's merits be its own defense. If it's only defense is, "well at least it's not technically illegal to say", then maybe it wasn't worth saying in the first place.

[pbhjpbhj]

>If a stranger in my house at a party drew a swastika on my wall, I'm kicking him out. //

So you say "draw what you like on the walls" and then punish a follow of Vishnu because you associate the symbol differently to them. Don't invite strangers to draw stuff on your walls then?

>If someone doesn't want to follow the social norms of the community they're in //

Such as free speech. Don't give people freedom of speech and then chastise them for speaking freely. If they act immorally, or unethically, or illegally, sure ... but don't punish people for art alone.

[lifeformed]

Context is important. Communication is as much about interpretation as intent. If you draw a swastika in an environment where a swastika represents nazis, without taking the care to establish the context in which you would not be misrepresented, then sorry, I'm erasing it. 99.999% of the time an unadorned swastika is drawn anonymously in public in a Western environment, it's not the religious kind. So save it for a situation where the meaning is clear.

I didn't give anyone freedom of speech. If someone calls me racial slurs in my house, I'm kicking them out. Freedom of speech is for the courts, not for curating the communities I want to be in.

[pbhjpbhj]

>99.999% of the time an unadorned swastika is drawn anonymously in public in a Western environment, it's not the religious kind.

Ok, so drawing it is an act of rebellion that tells us something about people, in a piece of public, open, collaborative art that's a good thing.

I want to hear opposing views to my own, if someone sincerely rallies behind a swastika/flag/emblem i want to see, learn why, not usher them away. Reddit has much more abhorrent content than a simple emblem.

You're of course right, you don't have to give free speech. But it helps to do so occasionally especially when the medium prevents any actual harm coming from it.

[lifeformed]

Nazis had their moment; we as a civilization already "rebutted" their arguments and decided their worldview is incompatible with ours. If they think they have a better case now, they better present it more eloquently than with provocative symbols.

If someone is wrong a 100 times, why listen to them the 101st time? Also, if their first 50 arguments involved massacring millions, why should we entertain _any_ future argument of theirs? In fact, perhaps entertaining the first 50 ones is what lead to such violence. If we give unlimited room to violent ideas, how can we be surprised when violence takes form?

Why give speech to those whose goal is to deny speech and life itself? I would argue that giving free speech to ideas that goes against the principles of a free society is not only a huge waste of time, but a big danger.