[wallace_f]

It is worth noting that voat didnt start out as particularly alt right, it's just that's now probably the majority of what is left.

The site is totally committed to free speech, and even the Dark Web will allow paedophiles, hit men, and every type of criminal, but collaborated to push off an alt right page. In other words, it doesn't appear to be any agenda of Voat, it's just a fact that any site which allows free speech is where those people will end up.

[stevenwoo]

Isn't that kind of what this is about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[mejin]

How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.

[BooglyWoo]

Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such. Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate by arguing that they're not in fact intolerant, and appealing to "free speech". This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce.

[observation]

If you want to ban reactionaries then you are pushing out an entire political category of thought that historically and arguably presently includes a huge portion of the West's intelligentsia. Might as well throw in Socialism or Liberalism while you're at it.

> Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such.

> This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce.

These are fairly creepy statements. Very difficult to apply a charitable explanation to what you're saying.

> Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate

Sounds familiar.

[BooglyWoo]

I don't want to ban anything; I was just explaining how the potential effects of Popper's intolerance paradox cannot easily be solved with legislation.

[observation]

I see, well I appear to have misinterpreted then. I'd edit my post to mention that but of course we can't.

[mejin]

My English is not so good so I hope that I understood you.

What I am trying to say is that there is no need to identify intolerant people. All that is needed is to make sure that intolerant and tolerant people do not limit free speech. Protecting free speech can be done without worrying that people will misinterpret laws. For example, a law saying that anyone wishing to publish something to their site can do so regardless if they are anarchists, Nazis, conspiracy theorist, or anyone else. No mater how much hate the intolerant write they will not be able to stop other people from writing about how much they hate the intolerant people.

[stevenwoo]

OK, there are multiple counter examples from just the last couple of months of this year in the USA, a woman laughed at Jeff Sessions during his confirmation hearing and she's on trial for this, (twice) http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/348857-woma... , and the US Justice Department subpoenaed the users of an anti-Trump website. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57033/ju...

So we have the intolerant people in the government trying to suppress dissent from the tolerant. This is described in the first paragraph from the wiki link.

[mejin]

So wouldn't the best thing be to make sure that no one can restrict others speech? If the law is as simple and broad as possible then we don't have to worry about the "wrong" people gaining control of the government. For example, the right to bear arms is a very simple constitutional right. There are many people who oppose it but since it is simple, so deeply embedded into the laws and a large group of people support it, it has been really hard to restrict.

If there was a law to be created today making a list of speeches that should be suppressed, what topics do you think would be on there? With the current government, probably things like making it illegal to claim that climate change is happening.

If the left really wants to protect themselves during the upcoming 3 years, I would expect them to try to make free speech as protected as possible before it is too late.

[likeslogic]

Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies).

Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part of the their group. Effectively, all tolerance will be eliminated.

The only way you could prevent this from happening is if you are prepared to contain such a group one way or the other. Or allow other people to not tolerate them by using force too. Either way you void your tolerance tenet.

Have to admit - it is indeed a paradox.

[wallace_f]

This would only work assuming such a group could gain enough power to overthrow local PD and eventually the US military, etc., which is kind of unrealistic for an group that is not supported by a majority of the population.

The wikipedia page on this notes people dispute this idea, sourcing John Rawls as a notable example.

[likeslogic]

Not really. A little further is this - "However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2][3]"

[wallace_f]

I looked and Rawls explicitly says he disagrees with it.

What you have quoted here is saying physical safety is sincerely in danger. To me this is like him saying it's ok to eliminate terrorist groups, if that is what they truly are.

[int_19h]

The problem with this paradox is that it's applied to situations that are actually different from what's describe here.

Suppose even we have this group that's intolerant of everyone else. But their intolerance is expressed in speech, not actions. In other words, they're saying, "you're all our enemies, and should be destroyed", but they aren't doing anything about it. Or maybe they are, but it consists of running a political party on that platform, encouraging people to vote them in.

As a society, you can absolutely tolerate them without the use of force, at least until the point where they actually get the majority of votes (but at that point, they are the society, and you're an outgroup in that society).

[likeslogic]

What about constant verbal abuse? Or - as in this particular case - the right to bombard (or drown) any useful discussion? Should that be tolerated? I don't know.

For some people this kind of online attacking and lack of freedom to communicate (through effective trolling) may be worse than physical abuse. In the end its the brain interpreting signals and outputting pain.

[pixelmonkey]

Your comment is precisely the paradox, though. "You can absolutely tolerant them until they get the majority of votes." First of all, it's not every society where a "majority of votes" grants political power. In Greece, the White Supremacist group (Golden Dawn) holds parliament seats even though they are a small (but vocal and politically active) minority. White supremacists now influence policy in Greece despite being a minority.

In the Middle East, this kind of outsize influence might be even worse. I am no expert on Middle East politics, but I think it's fair to say that the most intolerant factions have striven to gain the most political power, in spite of the political leanings of the mass populations over which they rule.

One issue with intolerant groups is that they tend toward violence and oppression of opposing speech. The tolerant and pacifist among us can allow them to gain enough minority power to effect a political coup, which can result in a societal coup, since having political control can grant you some degree of societal control.

In such a society, espousing tolerance might carry with it the risk of violent retribution (since tolerance is viewed by the "in" group as heresy/dissent). This will cause the intolerance to spread, even if seemingly against the will of more tolerant citizens. In this way, certain ideologies can have a "toxic" societal effect. You don't need to look far in modern history to find examples. And, that's the paradox.

[hsod]

> Or maybe they are, but it consists of running a political party on that platform, encouraging people to vote them in.

> As a society, you can absolutely tolerate them without the use of force, at least until the point where they actually get the majority of votes (but at that point, they are the society, and you're an outgroup in that society).

You just answered your own question

[int_19h]

Did I? You seem to be assuming a causal link between suppressing their speech, and them being able to get the majority of votes. I don't see any evidence to this effect - I mean, even just comparing the size of neo-Nazi rallies in Germany (strong hate speech laws) versus US (no hate speech laws), if anything, one would come to the conclusion that the best way to not allow Nazis to come to power through democratic means is to let them freely express their opinions. When you don't, you get the same people running on "anti-immigration" platform and use other dog whistles, which only broadens their base of support.

My opinion is that if there's a real threat of extreme political forces coming to power through democratic means in your society, then that society is already broken, and restricting hate speech is basically just sweeping the shards under the rug and pretending that nothing's wrong.

[mszcz]

I have a feeling that that kind of speech, given enough time and tolerance, eventually might escalate to action.

[int_19h]

Hate speech is a symptom of a problem, not a cause. Trying to treat a disease by suppressing symptoms is a waste of time at best, and actively harmful at first (because it conceals the progression of that disease, until one day you're violently sick).

[otakucode]

It's not a paradox at all. You made a completely unjustified leap. You presumed that the 'enemies must be destroyed' portion would somehow be carried out without resistance. That's nonsensical.

[stevenwoo]

The wiki summary is if one lets intolerant people rise to power, they use their power to implement intolerant policies, eliminating the ability of the tolerant to change things back.

One always has to worry even in a democracy, for instance here one party manipulated the voting system so even though they only got 49 percent of the votes in the election, they got 60% of the representation in the state legislature. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-rep...

You can take the absolutist free speech argument that some in the US make from the first amendment (you write later down that English is not your native language) but Germany seems to be going OK banning Nazi speech/symbols.

[specialist]

Huh. I hadn't considered that 4chan, voat, others were petri dish incubators for the alt-right.

I'd really like someone (sociologists) to update Paradox of Tolerance with what we've learned about the Overton Window, the normalization of hate speech (violent rhetoric).

David Neiwert (Orcinus) has deeply influenced (completely changed) my positions on tolerance, free speech. As I've stated else where, I used to be a Chomsky style ultimatist for free speech. Alas, people aren't nice.

Now I know that how we talk changes how we think, that propaganda works, that most people aren't even aware of when they've changed their mind.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&tex...

[austenallred]

While that may be true, it truly gained popularity when Reddit started banning "hate" and other "inappropriate" subreddits, so it became the refugee for those folks

[nthcolumn]

I was on digg but stopped using the site as it was overrun by pedos and not wanting to be associated with child-rapists I was part of the reddit-exodus. Reddit was even worse than digg, still is. I complained about violentacres and his ilk to no avail. I gave up using the site 1009 days ago. I cannot understand how anyone would use a site that does not harshly punish anyone like that or want to be associated with such a site in any way.

[Semaphor]

> or want to be associated with such a site in any way.

Because I see it the same way as if you replaced Reddit with Usenet or Internet in your comment. Reddit is a platform where I care and am active only in a very small part of it.

[nthcolumn]

Reddit is a business. I don't support businesses that facilitate child rape forums. You do. That's how we are different. Other businesses should not suffer for what Reddit does so I use the internet, on usenet other providers likewise, on reddit you all share the blame because you support the same business. I can't tell myself I'm only using this tiny part and those nasty people aren't anything to do with me because it's bullshit, or to provide an extreme example - I don't think you'd use 'just the comments section' of 'Playpen' and be guilt free (or free outside jail). I think you conveniently ignore the fact that there are inappropriate images of children on the site not because you believe in free speech for pedos, you simply don't care enough. And no I don't think pedo sites are a free speech issue - there are things we will not tolerate nazis, pedos, being two of them. I can't believe I even have to have this conversation. I said HN had not succumbed, I should have said '...yet'.

[mwerd]

Absolutely absurd argument.

Do you use toll roads? They're a business. Criminals and even "child rapists" use them too. Can't believe you would further their ability to move about our society and evade law enforcement by willfully funding the infrastructure they use.

Get over yourself with your absolutist nonsense.

[SimbaOnSteroids]

Would you tolerate the NYT or other large pre internet print medium publishing opinion pieces in favor of pedophilia? I don't think I would. The argument then becomes why should we tolerate such behavior post internet.

[alehul]

Note: I disagree with the previous poster's 'guilt by association' ideology for reasons you posted.

To be fair, I bet that Reddit would have an easier time than toll roads in identifying those criminals and banning them. With that said, however, I think that the issue is very foggy in who is guilty, and that Reddit is actually relatively accessible for law enforcement compared to other sites the criminals may be on.

For people who are truly guilty of it, their presence on Reddit may offer law enforcement a greater chance at apprehending them.

[imaginenore]

Your argument is more absurd. Toll roads don't have a mechanism to identify and stop the rapists.

[std_throwaway]

Voat used to be a "best of Reddit" reposting page with some spicy free speech here and there. Now it seems to be an echo cabinet for the so-called alt-right with the same sermon reposted all day every day.

[kakarot]

I don't mean to nitpick, but if you don't think the "alt-right" should be labeled as such then maybe you shouldn't use it in your vocabulary, as it only strengthens the presence of the word in our society regardless of if you say "so-called" before it.

[skrowl]

4Chan and 8Chan are similar. Most online communities that lack the kind of heavy-handed censorship you find on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit will naturally end up being right-leaning.

[nthcolumn]

My free speech/opinion:

>and even the Dark Web will allow paedophiles, hit men, and every type of criminal

alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. They are lowest of all these. There is probably strong overlap. Fascists think nobody should have any rights but themselves.

The vigilantism/collaboration was made necessary by the alarming fact that the people who should have been doing something - authorities all the way up and including POTUS were tacitly sanctioning them, facilitating them, normalizing their behavior.

They present a clear and present danger to the country and free speech. They still have their free speech, they can still cry on youtube. Daily Stormer was just one head of that hydra.

If you know of any pedo, hit men or criminals then reach out to law enforcement and failing that publicly shame them so that the same can happen. None of the above should or will be tolerated.

[kanwisher]

How are they effecting free speech? It seems you are trying to take it away from people, by trying to call them nazis and getting rid of them. This group is probably way more free speech, their main enemy Antifa is specifically against free speech

[Can_Not]

> Antifa is specifically against free speech

Antifa is specifically against fascism. Some sects may also be against free hate speech.

[skrowl]

A central tenent of facism is forcible suppression of opposing views through censorship or violence. What would you say Antifa is doing when they attack people with bike locks, throw bottles of urine on them, etc?

'Antifa is specifically against free speech' is provably correct. They are intolerant of any views they disagree with to the point of inciting violence to suppress those views.

Look beyond their name standing for "anti-facism" and instead look at their actions.

[Can_Not]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Would you not use bike locks, bottles of urine, etc. if a known hostile enemy was advocating for the ethnic cleansing of your fellow Americans?

[skrowl]

That was just one example. The Berkley professor in that example was arrested for for felony assault of his "hostile enemy" that he picked out of a crowd because the guy had a Trump sign / shirt / hat.

If you feel that everyone who supports the president is a hostile enemy advocating for the ethnic cleansing of your fellow Americans, you should probably start getting your news from some place other than Google News / John Oliver / etc. Attacking people with opposing views is LITERALLY the definition of facism, which they claim to be against.

[nthcolumn]

The views they disagree with are fascist views so yes duh. they are literally anti-fascists. Have you any examples of them opposing any views which aren't fascist, violently or otherwise? We should oppose that.

[gort]

This article makes a good case:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-beating-in-berkeley/article/...

[skrowl]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not at this point. Nothing antifa has protested is actually fascist. Just calling everyone you oppose a facist or nazi to justify your actions doesn't make it true. Look up a definition of facism other than google / wikipedias and you'll see what I mean.

Attacking free speech rallies is terrorism, not "fighting fascism". In fact, the US Dept of Homeland Security already categorized them as a domestic terrorist group in 2016.

Even the extreme left LA times admits they're bad in the wake of their terror attacks at Berkley - http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-far-left-violence-2...

The fact that they wear masks to everything should clue you in on their evil, lawless intent. Law abiding people who oppose facism don't need masks.

[enraged_camel]

>>by trying to call them nazis and getting rid of them.

Uh, they are quite literally Nazis. They do the Nazi salute, carry/wear swastikas and yell "blood and soil".

You may disagree with antifa but don't make the mistake of equating them with these losers.

[nextlevelwizard]

The thing is, at the moment if you do not agree with Antifa/SJW crowd you are automatically labeled a Nazi even if you do not wear their symbols or chant any of their slogans. It is strange that on some groups people always say "not all", but with alt-right it is always "they are all Nazis".

[zimpenfish]

> at the moment if you do not agree with Antifa/SJW crowd you are automatically labeled a Nazi

This just isn't true no matter how many times people say it.

[nextlevelwizard]

I only speak from experience. I've been called a Nazi scum for advocating civil behavior, refraining from violence and doxxing, and siding with free speech for everyone. People have even straight up assumed I was a (poorly hidden) KKK member because my user name has the word "wizard" in it.

[nthcolumn]

How much free speech you think you'll have when they have their fascist state?

[arkh]

"alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. "

Maybe when the media stop putting a lot of people in the alt-right category who are not Nazis nor fascists.

I'd also like to take the time to link to an old classic which I guess a lot of young Internet users don't know about: Godwin's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law which feel more relevant every day.

[nthcolumn]

Yeah I remember it doesn't apply. This isn't Godwin as we are talking about actual Nazis. The right, the vast majority of decent Republicans want nothing to do with these scum. If you call yourself alt-right then you probably are a fascist. I don't think it is a spectrum.

[nextlevelwizard]

>alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists.

Oh boy, here we go...