[mc32]

Can't agree more. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it's not showing enough support for the chosen candidate. This is the one slippery slope. It's evident in PC-speech. Today's PC speech is not the PC speech from the 90s.

And it's not that I don't like Pc speech. I prefer it. But I also don't want it to be the only kind of speech one can use for discussion. Try and have any good philosophical argument without breaking PC boundaries.

It's a scary thing when one group controls the narrative of what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.

[anigbrowl]

I don't see one group controlling that narrative. I see a wide variety of groups uniting to reject one particular narrative/ideology that is widely agreed to be toxic on its own terms; its loudest proponents explicitly call for genocide and war, and that is literally an incitement to violence against the many and various targets of their dislike.

I'd encourage you to check out material from groups like Life after Hate that specialize in deradicalization of former white nationalists to get their first-hand perspective on the psychology of fascism.

[anigbrowl]

I can't reply to dead comments and can't link to the original page (because it's no longer accessible by DNS) but this article reports on examples of explicit calls for violence by far right commentators: https://itsgoingdown.org/unite-right-organizers-encourage-gu...

I understand the argument that such determinations should be 'left up to the law' but the corollary of that is asserting that regular people should not have any political agency to express their own opposition to movements they find threatening or inimical to their values.

I'm sticking to a very narrow interpretation of what counts as threats/incitement here.

[dandersh]

No, there is no slippery slope. This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind.

In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope. You know, Godwin's Law and all that?

[BearGoesChirp]

>This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind.

And what about other ideologies which have had similar results? How many has died under communist? What about religious extremist whose beliefs have led to mass murder?

Are we being consistent with the reasoning? If not, then the reasoning given isn't the actual reasoning, so what is the actual reasoning?

[namlem]

Ideologies that inadvertently caused many deaths are different from one where mass murder is the stated goal.

[BearGoesChirp]

What happens if the deaths are a direct result, but not openly stated in the 10 minute summary?

Take for example, a group that wants to remove undesirables from the US (I'll leave which group open for imagination, it doesn't really matter). They advocate non-violent removal through legal means. This sounds nice in practice, but many, especially libertarians, will quickly realize that any police enforcement of such laws would result in threats of violence. Namely, either the group leave willingly or police will begin to physically attack them to arrest them, and any resistance would be met with tasers on a good day or bullets on a bad day.

Even though they advocate non-violent methods, I think it is reasonable to say they are actually advocating violence (unless they can purpose some truly non-violent method that I'm unaware of).

[mc32]

So, what next, the communists or Marxists because the ideology they espouse caused even more deaths?

I agree they are a hateful group. An odious group of people possibly only superseded in their vileness by extremist religious fanatics who won't hesitate to kill, but we're not shutting their speech down, are we?

In my view, this is one of those things that is binary. Either you have free speech, or you don't. There is no in between, finessing it. You end up with lese majeste and other nonsense bullshit.

[dandersh]

This post is wrong on so many levels.

Those ideologies did not have the hatred and violence at their core that Nazism did. That's why there is no "Godwins Law" when it comes to Marxism. That's my point: This is the most reviled philosophy that currently exists, and people are complaining about "free speech" when previously they would shriek "Godwins Law" whenever comparisons are made. That's how far we've fallen.

Saying that free speech is binary is incredibly misguided and a root cause of the problem. It's overly simplistic and absolutist and quite frankly, is complete and total nonsense. At some point something will be uttered that you or some other "free speech absolutist" will object to.

[mc32]

Are you kidding? Have you not read up on what they did during the Great Leap Forward? Innocent people, their own people, were pulled out of their dwellings charges made up on the spot and killed in the squares. What Stalin did in Ukraine was pretty much pure hate for them.

Yes, I object because your cause will be coopted to further a specific ideology at the expense of all others.

[dandersh]

I did. I also read up on the use of racial slavery and genocide of native Americans as the basis of Americas rise to power.

Unlike you though I am able to understand that one of them(Nazism) has racial superiority and oppression as a core feature of their ideology while the others do not.

Again, there is no "Godwins Law" for Marxism/American Capitalism. I wonder why that is???

[xupybd]

I think you are putting far too much into this "Godwins Law" thing. Just because Hitler is viewed as one of the worst people in history, doesn't mean he was the worst. Attila the Hun or Nero would have a good chance at the title if they were more recent.

But at the core of this argument is who has the right to decide what beliefs are allowed and what ones are not? For example I'm against ISIS, but think I have no right to suppress their speech. But I'll happily try to convince someone that the ISIS ideology is evil.

[RaleyField]

> as a core feature of their ideology while the others do not.

They seem to be exceptional, but if we curtail their speech that means it leaves other, undoubtedly less offensive, speech to be up for negotiation. For instance I'd be pleased to see some of your authoritarianism curtailed if it wasn't for ideals of freedom of speech.

[vitorfblima]

Actually, racial and moral superiority were a big factor in the ideology for enslaving and killing native americans.

[mc32]

They probably do in places which suffered from it (Ukraine).

America was not the first or last European colony. Mexico was a colony, Brazil was a colony with even worse racism -bad things happened and continue to happen everywhere. Slave trade continues in the middle east. Today. Read up on what Latin American colonies did to the native populations. It's not different. They didn't have confederates.

I don't see how any of that should subjugate free speech.

Murderers have free speech --I'll wager more than a few victim's families wish they did not. I believe they should still have that right.

Should we go to Japan and also try to shut down the speech of those still in support of the imperial campaign in China, one of the most atrocious incidents of all of WWii?