[brigandish]

> The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone

The problem with fascist terrorists is not their rhetoric, it's their violence. Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action and everyone else gets to show that their ideas are horribly flawed.

It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans?

[marcinzm]

>It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans?

Given that exactly this happened 90 years ago and caused the deaths of tens of millions, people are needless to say cautious.

[cbozeman]

You can't have Hitler without the Treaty of Versailles. He was just a catalyst to an incredibly punitive and emasculating treaty that scarred the psychology of the German people.

If it hadn't been Hitler, it would have eventually been someone else.

[macintux]

War, maybe. Genocide of the Jews? Seems less likely as an inevitability.

[brigandish]

I'm going to side with the interpretations of history that are a tad more complex than "he gave a rousing speech, hence, genocide", and there are plenty of them.

[l9k]

Yet you seem to side with the less complex interpretation of current event being "he gave a rousing speech"

[brigandish]

That's my opponent's position, not mine. When creating an opposing argument it's almost certain you will have to state their argument (in whole or in part) to produce a refutation.

[amanaplanacanal]

> Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action

That may be true, or that may not be true. Has there been any research on this?

[loveistheanswer]

History is replete with examples

[mrzimmerman]

You're purposefully being reductionist about this. People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that. They human brain adapts to it's environment, expecting certain inputs and if it's receiving /pol light on Twitter then it starts to expect it.

On top of that, it's only a matter of time before they're linked to one of the many .win site that sprang up after Twitter purged the_donald and the Qanon people.

And again, people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find.

[brigandish]

> You're purposefully being reductionist about this.

I'm really not, and I'd prefer if you started off responding to me by not (mis)characterising my intentions. I'm 100% sincere in my support of free speech and stand 100% behind my comment.

> People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that

Yes, they will, which is why it's good to allow every voice and every kind of viewpoint a chance to be expressed and hence challenged. Unless you think that echo chambers are a good thing?

> people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find

Did they occur in places with high amounts of censorship or free speech? The Holocaust wasn't caused simply by one of Hitler's speeches, for example, it was also (among other things) primed by the rampant anti-semitic prejudice that came from the pulpit every Sunday for hundreds of years - which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws.

Another "win" for the repression of speech someone in power doesn't like, eh?

[joshuamorton]

Parler was an echo chamber.

> which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws

There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian?

[brigandish]

Parler was not an echo chamber by design.

> There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian?

Tell me the literature you looked in first, because I want to know which books can miss such basic facts, and hence what I should avoid. The history of Europe is soaked in blood provoked by differences over what can be said by religious people, to religious people, and of them and their views. Entire wars have been fought over it - are you going to tell me there are historians that are credible who'll claim Europe was a land of toleration? Locke wrote his letter of toleration specifically because of the widespread intolerance and bloodshed.

If you use the word heresy instead of blasphemy and your search may prove more fruitful. It was effect in Europe from the Edict of Thessalonica, which brought the first execution, and in some countries hasn't been repealed from law. If you look up the last people executed under these laws you may even find what they said to deserve execution.

[joshuamorton]

You appear to no longer be claiming that blasphemy laws were a direct contributor to the holocaust.

Yes, widespread antisemitism was a contributor to the holocaust, but that wasn't primarily or even really particularly due to blasphemy laws. Taking anti-Semitism in pre WWII Europe and blaming it, in any significant part, on a lack of free speech, is not something that has any mainstream historic support. It's weird historical revisionism that's honestly a bit uncomfortable. (for example, Germany blasphemy laws pre-WWII, as written, actually protected Judaism)

[brigandish]

> You appear to no longer be claiming that blasphemy laws were a direct contributor to the holocaust.

I'm claiming that they were a necessary condition. Am I changing my position? No. I've no idea how you came to that.

> Yes, widespread antisemitism was a contributor to the holocaust

We agree.

> but that wasn't primarily or even really particularly due to blasphemy laws

In which free speech zone did a similar situation occur? Your statement is pure speculation. At least try attribute things to conditions that are present or have something to compare with to show the contrast.

> blaming it, in any significant part, on a lack of free speech, is not something that has any mainstream historic support.

I'd like to know what these mysterious "mainstream" historians think was behind the anti-semitism that was so rife in Christian Europe for so long. Where did Nazis get the idea of blood libel from? What ever could be the reason…?

On a less sarcastic note, I hope they don't blame the Jews for their predicament, as the only other explanation would be that the hatred arose from nothing but some rousing speeches by Hitler. That to me would seem incredibly childish a notion and not in the slightest supported by the accounts of prominent Nazi party members of the time but at least it's better than victim blaming.

Of course, we could rely again on looking at the conditions present and what effects correlate - what happens when blasphemy laws are present, and what happens when freedom of conscience (free speech + freedom of religion) is present - does support for Christianity go down? Does anti-semitism rise or fall? Is this consistent across the world? Is the same true for Europe?

> for example, Germany blasphemy laws pre-WWII, as written, actually protected Judaism

On the one hand there are the hate speech laws that were in place for a few years, and on the other is the rampant anti-semitism for at least hundreds of years prior (supported by blasphemy laws), and to top it all off the hate speech laws didn't even work! On the contrary, they contributed to the rise of the National Socialists.

In both cases a lack of free speech resulted in a negative outcome. Yet, you seem to be against free speech. Maybe it's your comfort levels, and I agree, that really is a problem with free speech.

I'll take it over the alternatives though.

[cbozeman]

There's a huge degree of just outright horseshit here.

I've been browsing /pol/ for years, hell almost decades. Its a great place to go to get an idea of just how fringe certain elements of society are becoming. I was actually actively browsing when QAnon was making his posts there.

I thought they were just as ridiculous and far-fetched then as I do now. People become radicalized largely because some condition in their life is lacking. For every single successful mechanical engineer that joins ISIS, there's 99 out-of-work coal miners and factory workers who storm the American capital.

Most people who have everything in their life going great don't end up extremists.

[amanaplanacanal]

I doubt most of the people who stormed the Capitol were out of work coal miners and factory workers. Which is not to say they didn’t have things going badly in their lives, that describes a lot of people.

[heavyset_go]

To quote a violent rioter screaming at the police on January 6th, "We're the business owners of America, and we don't have your back anymore!"

I watched lawyers, doctors and owners of IT companies attack the Capitol.

There are very few struggling coal miners who can afford to fly into DC during the week along with hundreds of dollars in riot gear in order to spend a few days rioting.

[ipsocannibal]

I think this is relevent a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[brigandish]

This is often brought up, mistakenly, as support for restricting speech based on speech alone when it says no such thing.

Popper draws a clear distinction between those who will have intolerant views but do not engage in violence, and those who do engage in violence. It is only the latter, in Popper's view, that must be restricted.