[charlesism]

    > people who disagree with you about foreign policy

That's what you call them? Well then, who needs police? There's no criminals, just "people who disagree with you over domestic policy" /s

More seriously, the friction here is over which behaviors are beyond the pale. Personally, I would feel uncomfortable describing Nazi sympathizers as holding "different views." It's in the same bucket, for me, as people who torture small animals. That's not just a "different view" to me, it's "beyond the pale."

I would not like to meet someone for whom nothing at all is beyond the pale. Even libertarians will do some hand-waving to support state restrictions on rape, murder, etc. Their hand-waving is not so different from mine regarding free speech.

[someguydave]

1. Isn’t viewing someone as “beyond the pale” such that they deserve summary punishment and/or execution dehumanizing? How is that different than the guy who tortured small animals because he views them as objects and not living things?

2. Even those libertarians would give murderers and rapists benefit of a court of law where they can explain themselves. Consider this video: https://youtu.be/NUqytjlHNIM

[uniqueid]

  > Even those libertarians would give murderers and rapists benefit of a court of law where they can explain themselves.

Somehow I have found myself arguing for violence, which wasn't so much my original intent. I mainly wanted to remind the OP it's an American value to oppose demagogues and authoritarians. The clip I linked is from a film which is one of the best-selling and most critically successful pieces of Americana. My main point isn't that one should go around attacking people, as much as it is that Americans had strong feelings about Nazi sympathizers.

  > Isn’t viewing someone as “beyond the pale” such that they deserve summary punishment and/or execution dehumanizing?

Yes. It's a matter of recursion. The Weimar court that imprisoned Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch gave him five years. The maximum sentence he was eligible for: life. From what I understand of the history, he charmed the court. If the court had been less tolerant, they would have spared 6 millions Jews, 20 million Russians, and many others.

Everyone on the left quotes Karl Popper these days, but it's worth noting that he only condoned intolerance against the intolerant in cases where it was the last resort. So if there's a movement gaining real popularity that threatens to replace your government with a dictatorship, it's a problem. If it's a few harmless cranks, society can ignore them.

  > How is that different than the guy who tortured small animals because he views them as objects and not living things?

Well, a guy who tortures a bear in the process of preventing it from attacking a campsite... not a big problem. However, I actually was thinking with that example... how much obligation do we have to give a talking stick to a movement that condones torture for fun.

[someguydave]

Thank you very much for your candor and honest engagement. You made me feel better about America's future.

>The clip I linked is from a film which is one of the best-selling and most critically successful pieces of Americana.

This is true, but I would like to take issue with this scene in particular. The guy might not have been a Nazi sympathizer - he might have thought that the Soviet Union was far worse, and it was better not to have intervened.

>If the court had been less tolerant, they would have spared 6 millions Jews, 20 million Russians, and many others.

Yes, and the Soviet Union had already murdered 3-8 million people in the Ukraine famines before the war started. It's not easy to make moral calculations in foreign policy.

>how much obligation do we have to give a talking stick to a movement that condones torture for fun

There's no doubt that's disgusting, but I would put it to you in a different way: wouldn't you rather the "movement" be given the right to speak so that they can expose themselves as lunatics to the public? Violent (or peaceful) suppression magnifies the amount of potential sympathy they could gather in the public eye.

Who can precisely define the line between "beyond the pale" and "normal speech"? If you can't put it in words that can be written down and made law, then it's merely a matter of subjective opinion. Human history has taught us that suppression is used against all kinds of minorities, virtuous and otherwise. It's best to avoid it altogether, for fear of endangering human liberty.

[charlesism]

  > so that they can expose themselves as lunatics to the public?

How worldly and erudite is the public? How are they supposed to know?

Besides, it's not necessarily the case that there is any "correct answer." There have been societies that were extremely brutal. I read somewhere that ancient Mayans may have played soccer with human heads. I presume Mayans were generally content with that sort of society.

I happen to like the living in a liberal democracy, and I'll advocate for liberal democracy as long as there's breath in my lungs. That doesn't mean it's objectively better. It's just better to those who share my values. There are probably plenty of sound arguments for other systems under which I personally could not bear (or perhaps be allowed!) to live.

  > suppression magnifies the amount of potential sympathy they could gather in the public eye.

Hrm, it's not that simple. There is no one outcome when you suppress people. Sometimes they go away, never to be heard from again. Sometimes they redouble, and prevail. Often, they mutate and come back again in a more palatable form (how much more palatable, varies). I could list about half a dozen examples of this last case, if you want them.

It's tempting to think of humanity in terms of a narrative. The truth is, an asteroid could smash into the earth a year from now, and none of the human events we may feel are so inevitable today would come to pass.