[kenjackson]

But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"?

And it seems that the "Freedom of speech" position is the one that has expanded more in context than "Nazis are very bad". Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally), but we do seem to be expanding Freedom of speech slowly beyond government censorship to asking private entities to propagate speech.

[julianmarq]

> But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"?

Because it's the best (probably only) way to prevent every actual Reasonable Position from overriding every other factor and consideration. If freedom of speech is the default, there's no way an extremist group will stop conversation about any particular issue.

> Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally)

This is Godwin's Law, which is in itself a testament to how common this is.

[kenjackson]

>Because it's the best (probably only) way to prevent every actual Reasonable Position from overriding every other factor and consideration.

That seems like an unsubstantiated assertion. As we've discussed here, the extremist view of freedom of speech forces your ideas on me. At the extreme I now have to hire people who believe that I should be tortured because I'm a minority.

Any reasonable position taken to an extreme can result in a bad situation. The fact that it's reasonable in moderation is, as you note, what makes it dangerous. Nothing about freedom of speech seems to make it much different than something like "killing innocent people is bad".

And Goodwin's Law is about non-serious internet rhetoric. Not about actually treating people as Nazi war criminals. And oddly we treat Nazi's really well in the US, despite the Reasonable Position most people have about them.