[tacitusarc]

I think there are two fundamental approaches to the highly objectionable views questions. Either: ensure the space is free of nazis by removing the Nazis from the space, or: ensure the space is free of Nazis by convincing people not to be Nazis. The first requires no engagement, the second requires engagement. The first has guaranteed results, the second is uncertain.

[igravious]

> The first requires no engagement, the second requires engagement

(1) people are innocent until proven guilty

(2) if one group is judge, jury, and executioner that's a problem

(3) authoritarians seek to quell dissent by censoring

(4) removal/ejection/ostracism from group is censorship

(5) contrary to your assertion removal/ejection/ostracism is a form of engagement

(6) in fact within the realm of free speech r/e/o is the most extreme form of engagement

(7) this is because it is the quashing of that ejected person's ability to freely express themselves

> The first has guaranteed results, the second is uncertain.

(8) hard disagree, the first is guaranteed to generate all sorts of backlash (perhaps not the results wished for)

(9) the second is guaranteed to generate debate, exactly what authoritarians and the censorious dislike

(10) ps: (quibble) the “Nazis” were terminated with extreme prejudice in 1945, any variants thereof nowadays are neo-Nazis

===

All the above is transparently obvious to me. It concerns me that in a so-called liberal society many clearly are either unwilling or are unable to see that everything I have outline is true in all cases. The fruits of this ignorance are all around us.

[blackqueeriroh]

This comment is exactly an example of why “free speech at all costs” is unlikely to work.

[igravious]

show me the point in my chain of reasoning where i defended "free speech at all costs"

to my mind i made a very reasonable defense of "free speech even for speech i find objectionable and disagree with but ultimately must tolerate in the interests of the inviolable principle of freedom of expression for all not just for my bubble" – that's the position i'm arguing for and nothing more.

"at all costs" != "free speech even for speech i find objectionable […]"

"at all costs" goes far further and is not something i am arguing for

> is unlikely to work.

i'll go one stronger – “free speech at all costs” cannot work. but that's fine because that's not what i'm arguing for. what i'm arguing for ("free speech even for speech i find objectionable […]") must work because that's the foundation a free society is built on. otherwise, all bets are off and the spoils go to those most willing to use covert and/or draconian measures to achieve their ends

[jacquesm]

If there are enough of them the Nazis may end up removing you. The idea is to reduce the spread of Nazism not only by convincing those that have already been corrupted but also to limit their ability to do the same to others. Without that second component it's a losing battle, new converts will be made faster than you can convince existing ones to drop their mental garbage.

[ironmagma]

There's no law that says Nazism will spread until it is stopped any more than there is a law that says Anti-nazism will spread until it is stopped. There is probably a maximum mass that can sustain such a dumb ideology.

[jacquesm]

> There is probably a maximum mass that can sustain such a dumb ideology.

I've read my grandmothers' diary, she had quite a bit to say about the previous time people underestimated the size of that maximum mass. There are very large numbers of people that will be happy to sustain such a dumb ideology if it is presented to them in such a way that it presses the right buttons. Fear is a very powerful motivator, as are frustration and jealousy and clever people will be more than happy to take advantage of these facts to push their revolting ideologies.

[ironmagma]

There’s no evidence anything can stop Nazism. Trying to stop it through enforced speech could very well accelerate it.

More effective than fear of government punishment is shame. Few care about pissing off the government in this country so that seems like a non-starter.

[int_19h]

It certainly didn't work in Europe, where most countries have anti-extremist speech laws, and many specifically persecute open manifestations of Nazi ideology and symbolism.

But, well, there's still a neo-Nazi march in Berlin pretty much every year. And it's larger than Charlottesville one was.

[jacquesm]

> There’s no evidence anything can stop Nazism.

Oh, we have plenty of evidence that some things can stop Nazism. The question is if you want to dedicate another couple of 10's of thousands of acres to war graves.

[ironmagma]

War can stop anything. That much is trivial.

[ggm]

Yes, probably a continental landmass the size of Russia, or the USA represents its physical limit. Philip Dick presented a couple of dystopia visions of it, not all of which have been filmed yet. Yevgeny Zamyatin another. Although more correctly a totalitarian police state, than Lindbergh's or Henry Ford's vision of judenrein.

[epicureanideal]

I wonder, why is the focus always on Nazis and not on say, Communists who also have a history of creating violence, death, and destruction? Why do we not equally focus on shutting down voices calling for enforcing absolute economic equality, or dividing people up into classes? Why is free speech less important in only one of these cases?

[learnhistoryyo]

Because there are no modern Nazis, so they're a perfect straw man / boogeyman.

But most Western countries still have actual, real communist parties so you can't paint completely crazy pictures of them, because their members will simply raise their hand and say "no we're not like that at all".

[int_19h]

There are people who literally call themselves Nazis, and parties that literally have "national socialist" in the name.

[jacquesm]

Usually because the participants in these debates are not from countries where communism is right now a major issue. Though if that were the case I'm pretty sure they'd be worried about that too. And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive either.

[epicureanideal]

There seem to be more people calling themselves communists and supporting communist ideas in the USA, than there are who promote violence toward minorities. And I do mean actual or very-near communists, not people who want a social safety net and health care.

Although of course, attempts are made to associate broader and broader statements with extremism, such that even having an immigration policy at all is interpreted as racism, so the number of supposed racists is dramatically inflated.

If the right similarly broadened it’s interpretation of statements, 80-90% of the country could be claimed to be communists, for supporting the most minimal state assistance of the poor, which almost everyone does support at some level.

[jacquesm]

> There seem to be more people calling themselves communists and supporting communist ideas in the USA, than there are who promote violence toward minorities.

Citation badly needed. Really.