[wegfawefgawefg]

no it doesnt. you could blast "kill your own baby" on radio but 99% of people wouldnt do it. and if they did its their own fault.

you either respect the sovereignty of an individual and they are responsible for their actions, or not and if you dont then follow that to its logical conclusion. which would be that all people are not responsible for anything ever, because even the broadcaster was told to by his own life and culture, and so on and so forth until your litigating the first living goo on the planet.

[exceptione]

  > "kill your own baby"

We are talking about instigating intolerance, with material consequences. Think genocides, like in the OP and Germany in the 30's.

  > you either respect the sovereignty of an individual and 
  > they are responsible for their actions,

Paradox of Tolerance. [0]

An individual lives in a society. Waiting for some other country to sacrifice their 18 years old to clean up your mess because you insisted that you couldn't possibly know what happens when you normalize intolerance is not so nice. And maybe there is no country who could possibly help your compatriots to get rid of their autocrats, so be careful if you try.

____

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[briangriffinfan]

It seems there's always a line able to be drawn from a view one disagrees with to the harm that is caused by not contradicting them, and in my experience this does not correlate with how harmful contradiction of the initial view actually is.

So with regard to the paradox of tolerance, I would say one needs to establish that their opponent's views are actually sufficiently intolerant to intrinsically be harmful - and this is not something one can always trust to be done without exaggeration.

[wegfawefgawefg]

my personal view is people have a right to be intolerant and hateful and advocate for said intolerance and hate as much as they like.

but property crime and assault are not their right. and those are illegal. so we are already covered there.

[int_19h]

"Paradox of tolerance" is only a paradox if one is incapable of separating speech from action.

[exceptione]

The pointe is that that you the moment you want to prevent the action, you have found the public siding with the action. The war is on the mind, you need to get regular people to hand their keys to the autocrats. Infowars, indeed.

Try stopping Hitler from rounding up Jews. Or try to stop Trump's unlawfulness. You are invariably too late by then.

[wegfawefgawefg]

we werent too late tho. hitler lost.

[hn_acker]

"too late" is relative. Hitler lost after rounding up the Jews and killing 6 million of them. Or rather, Hitler and his many collaborators, both government employees and civilians, did.

[peterashford]

False dilemma. The two extremes are not the only options

[wegfawefgawefg]

not false dilema. i only argued against his position by showing that his assertion, even in the extreme worst case such as somebody broadcasting "kill ur bb" would not result in everybody killing ther bb. therefore somebody broadcasting "get rid of browns" does not therefore mean that listeners are brainless zombies who do what they are told will go get rid of browns.

the broadcaster doesnt control my body. i can listen to a broadcast, respect the persons right to assert that we should "get rid of browns", and then simply disagree and think that person is at best ignorant and at worst evil. my capacity to do so is a fundamental requirement for humans to be sentient and participate in a democracy.

if listeners really are the brainless zombies some of the people here advocate for 'protecting' weve got a bigger problem.

if someone broadcasts "kill ur bb" then we should punish those went and killed a bb. the broadcaster has not damaged property or person.

my freedom of speech, whether serious or satire, should not be limited just because there are evil people in the world.

[exceptione]

The information operations do not focus on silly messages the sponsors will not profit from.

It is about intolerants demanding that their intolerance and inhumane views will be normalized. By the time enough regular people have shifted towards normalizing it, you are too late to come in action. Because you don't have the minds for stopping that.

That is how you burn Jews in concentration camps. That is how you deport Untermensche without due process. Regular people consent to it, and with that they block the anti-dote.

Autocracy is war for the mind. Because to few stand to benefit from it, you have to be lured in via moral degradation.