[Pharylon]

First, we're not talking about any random group of white supremacists. We're talking about literal Nazis.

Second, the slippery slope is a fallacy. Literally. The "slippery slope fallacy" is a textbook fallacy. In this instance, many countries make it illegal to espouse Nazi ideology today, yet Germany and France haven't become dystopian dictatorships.

"If we outlaw gun ownership for the mentally ill, that's a slippery slope to outlawing all firearms."

"If we outlaw same sex marriage, that's a slippery slope to outlawing all marriage."

"If we outlaw cocaine, that's a slippery slope to outlawing beer."

All of those make just as much sense as a slippery slope of outlawing Nazis.

[marnett]

We live on the "thought censorship slippery slope". The U.S., successfully and without much dissent, outlawed (socially and economically, at least) Social Democratic, Socialist, and Communist thought throughout the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Those ideological thoughts are very much so dead in America.

Now we have factions of the public literally asking for censorship. What a field day and marketed success for Government Relations. Is it really 'thought censorship' if the public is asking for the Government's mighty purifying hand of social ideology? Is the government banning Mein Kampf? Is it banning Hitler's transcripts? Is it just flexing its muscles to see if censoring the living, breathing electorate can be made acceptable by the public?

[colordrops]

Calling out "logical fallacies" is a knee-jerk reaction when you don't have a realistic response. It is not a fallacy to think that if we ban a previously allowed form of speech, it would set precedent to make it easier to ban other forms of speech. I said nothing of leading to dictatorship. The slippery slope I'm talking about leads to the lack of free speech, which is realistic.

Furthermore, there is nothing in our legal system that bans Nazis. Fuck Nazis, and fuck their ideology, but free speech is more important. The US legal system bans crimes, not thought systems. If you don't like that, then push for constitutional amendments, but as it stands now, they are exercising free speech.

[Pharylon]

It is not a fallacy to think that if we ban a previously allowed form of speech, it would set precedent to make it easier to ban other forms of speech.

Yes it is. There are lots of things it's already illegal to say.

In fact, banning some forms of speech can increase the freedom of speech on the whole, such as when you suppress the speech of groups threatening violence on minorities, thus keeping them silent and cowed.

[colordrops]

It's only against the law to say things that are direct or immediate danger to a particular person, such as slander/libel and ordering for a particular murder.

[chc]

So if you order one death, it's a crime — but if you issue a blanket order for thousands of deaths, that deserves the protection of society? Surely the problem with plotting someone's death is not that it's thinking too small.

[colordrops]

You are playing word games. Which specific persons have been directed to murder which specific people? Just having abstract desires about abstract groups is not enough in our current legal system.

And don't forget we are talking about censorship here. We don't have a two-step legal system, i.e. let's censor people who have abstract ideas of murder, then arrest them once they start to carry them out. Either they are planning to murder someone specific or they are not. And until we have evidence that they have murder targets and execution plans, then no action should be taken.

There are a lot of groups that espouse murderous beliefs that are not Nazis. What should we do about them? Plenty of non-Nazis have said online that all muslims should be killed. Should they be censored and/or arrested? If you think that there is something special about Nazism, then you should amend your argument to include the historical significance of Nazism as a reason you think they should be censored, rather than any reductive argument, because there will always be counterexamples in the latter.

[akoncius]

what is "specific"? is "we should exile all black people from our town" specific enough?

where is the line between freedom of speech and let's say, emotional abuse? Should my statement "all jews are pieces of shit and deserve to die" protected by society? If it should be protected by first amendment, when it should stop protecting? When I would yell same statement to jewish kids in on a daily basis? Would it change when I would say "all jews should be exiled to desert" (now it becomes call to action) ? Would it change when same thing would be repeated by 10000 people community?

right now I keep an eye on one local nacionalist community page in facebook, and they are racists and even don't hide it. I find it troubling because the more vocal they will be, the braver members will become and they will normalize that "opinion" and soon it can become actions. I think it's naive to think that extremist groups will only talk about it without any action towards their goals.

[metroidfan832]

Slippery slope is a valid argument. However, it can be used fallaciously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[angersock]

> We're talking about literal Nazis.

Wait, we're talking about Germans from the 30s and 40s? People that conducted the Holocaust, that invaded most of Europe and some of Russia and many other places?

Maybe we aren't actually talking about literal Nazis. Words matter.

[colordrops]

By the way, what about various individuals and groups that are not Nazis, but also promote death and destruction. You can see it in various heavy metal and rap subcultures. Should they be silenced?