[jacquesm]

In case you failed to notice: the last 8 years have been a very serious departure from the last 200 years as a baseline.

Note that the parties that are arguing hardest for free speech are exactly the ones that are the subject of discussion. You might wonder if they have a stake in the outcome of that debate. Personally, I'm not at all concerned that 'the state' will meaningfully abridge my speech (in part because there is no history of them doing that without a very good reason and in part because NL never had absolute free speech to begin with though we do have the concept of 'freedom of opinion'). But I am concerned with the speed with which wannabe Nazi groups and actual Nazi groups are able to convert people en masse to their cause, including voting them into public office where they are already doing damage. If you haven't noticed that then you're forgiven but realize that in many countries this is not just a theoretical debate but harsh reality.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

And this is why history keeps repeating itself, everyone thinks it's different this time.

Stalin-ism should not be a case study so you can do it right the next time, it should be a warning that you can't, even with the best of intentions.

[polygamous_bat]

I think one large part of history that you are forgetting is Stalin isn't the only one that fought Nazis, it was a great American endeavor as well.

I hope we can take some lesson from Neville Chamberlain; that some ideologies are not worth arguing or negotiating over.

[jacquesm]

> it was a great American endeavor as well.

And British, Canadian and many other countries besides.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

There's a difference between refusing to engage and actively trying to suppress.

[polygamous_bat]

Yes, Neville Chamberlain did the first, Churchill and FDR did the second.