Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
#1

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 
[Image: centrist-history-1-e98.png?auto=compress...90193http:]

Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 3 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Alan V, RobbyPants, epronovost
Reply
#2

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I think people have the right to be honest and to disagree about what that means.

I do not think people have the right to be deliberately dishonest and to prey on the weaknesses of others.

But this is more of a moral than a legal matter, since people are so often dishonest about their intentions.
Reply
#3

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
It's really very simple.  You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.  As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 6 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Chas, Aegon, EvieTheAvocado, c172, jerry mcmasters
Reply
#4

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 04:27 PM)Minimalist Wrote: It's really very simple.

It sure is. Nazis, fascists and communists have right to shut up and people defending their "rights" need a history lesson.

Quote:You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.

Or perhaps real world is kinda more complicated. Like, you know, being aware that letting nazis spread hate isn't brightest idea, or realizing that people calling for genocide aren't worthy of supporting in the name of some lofty principles.

Quote:As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

As I note - some speech does not warrant protecting.

Quote:Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?

Would you really allow yourself to be put into position of believing that if you're not supporting fascist "right" to spread hatred then you're enemy of the free speech?
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 2 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Alan V, Deesse23
Reply
#5

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I have the right not to listen to fascist speech or to speak out against it. 

Allowing fascist speech is not supporting fascist speech.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#6

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 04:40 PM)brewerb Wrote: I have the right not to listen to fascist speech or to speak out against it.

You do. Till the fascist gain power at least.

Quote:Allowing fascist speech is not supporting fascist speech.

To paraphrase DaVinci - He who does not prevent evil condones it.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 2 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Deesse23, The Kerbinator
Reply
#7

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 04:42 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 04:40 PM)brewerb Wrote: I have the right not to listen to fascist speech or to speak out against it.

You do. Till the fascist gain power at least.

Quote:Allowing fascist speech is not supporting fascist speech.

To paraphrase DaVinci - He who does not prevent evil condones it.

If the fascists gain power then I, and people like me, have not spoken enough. If the fascist power is gained through brute force then were was little I could do about it to begin with. Unless I become a brute also, but then what have I become?

You'll need to provide an objective definition of evil.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#8

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 04:53 PM)brewerb Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 04:42 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 04:40 PM)brewerb Wrote: I have the right not to listen to fascist speech or to speak out against it.

You do. Till the fascist gain power at least.

Quote:Allowing fascist speech is not supporting fascist speech.

To paraphrase DaVinci - He who does not prevent evil condones it.

If the fascists gain power then I, and people like me, have not spoken enough. If the fascist power is gained through brute force then were was little I could do about it to begin with. Unless I become a brute also, but then what have I become?

You'll need to provide an objective definition of evil.

Beating fascist with a stick cause he beats you with it now and promises to beat you more severely if he gain power does not make you brute. It is kind of logic that demand rolling over when one side start to using violence; it allows for inaction and moral high ground at the same time as virtuous victim who did not retaliated in fear of abyss staring back. 

You don't get to tell me what I need to do especially in regard to some paraphrased quote.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#9

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
So you do not believe in the principle of free speech, Szu.  See?  Simple.

But it is a dangerous path you have chosen.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • jerry mcmasters
Reply
#10

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Once you allow the government the power to determine what speech is acceptable and what is unacceptable, you may rest assured that this power will be abused eventually.

Also, allowing speech you find "evil" or whatever does not imply doing nothing about it. That is a non sequitur. The best counter to extremist speech is not censorship. The best counter is more speech.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Minimalist, c172, brewerb
Reply
#11

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote: So you do not believe in the principle of free speech, Szu.  See?  Simple.

But it is a dangerous path you have chosen.

So you're a nazi enabler, Min?

You're right, it does seem simple and the path you have chosen is no less fraught with danger than mine. Far more mired in naivety and faith in lofty principles though.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#12

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:03 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Once you allow the government the power to determine what speech is acceptable and what is unacceptable, you may rest assured that this power will be abused eventually.


Gov - in Poland - already determines what speech is acceptable and result is nazis being let go of the hook and attack (straight from the Hitler playbook) on homosexuals (and atheists, and non nationalists, and those who get that Poles weren't just blameless victims during WWII). I need not to fear abuse as it is already happening. I would gladly stomach it further were nazis treated the same.


Quote:Also, allowing speech you find "evil" or whatever does not imply doing nothing about it. That is a non sequitur. The best counter to extremist speech is not censorship. The best counter is more speech.

I beg to differ. Nazi ideology is already as discredited as it can be. Now it is time for law to take action - rhetoric had it chance and it resulted in fascists playing victims when their absurdities are countered.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#13

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:08 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Gov - in Poland - already determines what speech is acceptable and result is nazis being let go of the hook and attack (straight from the Hitler playbook) on homosexuals (and atheists, and non nationalists, and those who get that Poles weren't just blameless victims during WWII). I need not to fear abuse as it is already happening. I would gladly stomach it further were nazis treated the same.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but can you name one government in history which hasn't abused the power to censor? That was my objection -- and you offering up this example yourself rather supports my point.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • jerry mcmasters
Reply
#14

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:15 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:08 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Gov - in Poland - already determines what speech is acceptable and result is nazis being let go of the hook and attack (straight from the Hitler playbook) on homosexuals (and atheists, and non nationalists, and those who get that Poles weren't just blameless victims during WWII). I need not to fear abuse as it is already happening. I would gladly stomach it further were nazis treated the same.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but can you name one government in history which hasn't abused the power to censor? That was my objection -- and you offering up this example yourself rather supports my point.

There isn't one probably but that does not mean that gov should not be allowed to censor nazis. I prefer state of things where nazis are censored and there is some (perhaps inevitable abuse) rather than state of things where there is abuse and nazis sometimes are "punished" with frowny faces from big brother.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#15

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I may not agree with your sentiments, comrade but I do understand your point of view. That is an unbelievable shitshow that you are experiencing Sad
The intolerant speech that goes on in your country is despicable.
The following 5 users Like skyking's post:
  • Szuchow, Thumpalumpacus, brewerb, GenesisNemesis, Dom
Reply
#16

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote: So you do not believe in the principle of free speech, Szu.  See?  Simple.

But it is a dangerous path you have chosen.

So you're a nazi enabler, Min?

You're right, it does seem simple and the path you have chosen is no less fraught with danger than mine. Far more mired in naivety and faith in lofty principles though.

We had a bunch of nazis and white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia a couple of years ago.  They were roundly ridiculed,  some who were identified were fired from their jobs, but only one who drove his car into a crowd and killed someone was arrested and that was for what he did not what he said.

Do you think that if you shove these groups into the shadows that they will go away, Szu?  If so, you are deluding yourself.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, brewerb, grympy
Reply
#17

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:23 PM)skyking Wrote: I may not agree with your sentiments, comrade but I do understand your point of view. That is an unbelievable shitshow that you are experiencing Sad
The intolerant speech that goes on in your country is despicable.

When prosecutor says that nationalists assaulting women who peacefully blocked their march weren't meaning to use violence but rather to show their disagreement I have to agree*.

Without being able to speak polish one isn't able to really see insanity in this country.



*Relevant part of article translated: [...]The prosecution continues to investigate the physical attack on protesting women. The case has already been discontinued once, but this decision has been overturned by the court. The investigating prosecutor Magdalena Kołodziej wrote in her justification for the discontinuance that the intention of the attackers was not to beat the victims, but "to show dissatisfaction with the fact that they were on the route of their march". https://strajk.eu/niewinne-jest-wyrok-w-...dleglosci/
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • skyking
Reply
#18

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:23 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote: So you do not believe in the principle of free speech, Szu.  See?  Simple.

But it is a dangerous path you have chosen.

So you're a nazi enabler, Min?

You're right, it does seem simple and the path you have chosen is no less fraught with danger than mine. Far more mired in naivety and faith in lofty principles though.

We had a bunch of nazis and white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia a couple of years ago.  They were roundly ridiculed,  some who were identified were fired from their jobs, but only one who drove his car into a crowd and killed someone was arrested and that was for what he did not what he said.

We have such marches more often, even during most important state holidays. They are met with protests and guess what? They do not disappear. It wasn't words that defeated nazis back then and it will not be words that will do the same now.

Quote:Do you think that if you shove these groups into the shadows that they will go away, Szu?  If so, you are deluding yourself.

Prosecute them for breaking law (there is law against such things in Poland but ruling fascist for some strange reason do not apply it), cut from venues to speak and they will wither or stew in their own hateful juice. They may not disappear but they won't be able to infect others.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#19

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I do not have to like what you say, in order to respect your right to say it. No matter what hate-filled, moronic,  vulgar drivel it may be.

People can say what they want, regardless of how it makes me feel.

When this mindless twaddle turns to action, that's where I take offense.
The following 2 users Like no one's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, jerry mcmasters
Reply
#20

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:19 PM)Szuchow Wrote: There isn't one probably but that does not mean that gov should not be allowed to censor nazis. I prefer state of things where nazis are censored and there is some (perhaps inevitable abuse) rather than state of things where there is abuse and nazis sometimes are "punished" with frowny faces from big brother.

I wouldn't give any government that power, myself. The ability to speak freely is the first defense against an authoritarian or corrupt government. When they can define speech as "dangerous", they can define your speech as dangerous, too.

I personally don't think speech should be punished unless it inflicts actual harm upon, or violates the rights of, another. I don't include being offended as a qualification for actual harm.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • jerry mcmasters
Reply
#21

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
I used to shoot people that said things I didn't agree with.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#22

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 07:29 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:19 PM)Szuchow Wrote: There isn't one probably but that does not mean that gov should not be allowed to censor nazis. I prefer state of things where nazis are censored and there is some (perhaps inevitable abuse) rather than state of things where there is abuse and nazis sometimes are "punished" with frowny faces from big brother.

I wouldn't give any government that power, myself. The ability to speak freely is the first defense against an authoritarian or corrupt government.

Only if said gov isn't smart enough to have it's own media. People speak against what happen here but authoritarian overtones of discourse, never properly punished took roots in society and speaking critically of gov is just derided.

Also courts (on which gov has undue influence) already are able to punish "nazi speech" or to use bill language "propagating of fascist or other totalitarian regime". It's just that there never was a political will to do it. 

To be clear - not everything that nazis say are punishable by law but there certainly is a law that could be used to silence them. To my regret it wasn't used when it could do some good and it isn't for obvious reasons used now. "Censoring" nazi fucks wouldn't necessitate giving new power to courts.

Quote:When they can define speech as "dangerous", the can define your speech as dangerous, too.

Why should I care? My speech is already defined as dangerous - quite a few years ago trashy if popular singer called Doda stand accused for saying that Bible must have been written under influence of drugs. As you can imagine knowing my views on religion I say much harsher things and what protect me is that I am no one known and thus no one worthy of being prosecuted. But the danger is very real if distant. Same was with the so called Holocaust bill - were I something else than random dude with opinion not liked by gov prosecution could had been my fate. So as things stand I would like to be a possibility of nazis being prosecuted for their speech.

Quote:I personally don't think speech should be punished unless it inflicts actual harm upon, or violates the rights of, another. I don't include being offended as a qualification for actual harm.

I think that calling for genocide, emptying the Poland of non whites, praising Hitler or other such things are far worse than merely offensive. To be clear - we aren't talking about people who say that nazi state had some upsides (KDF as one example). By allowing nazis to speak freely Poland ended in situation when PM praise nazi collaborators while visiting Germany (and offend Jews during the same visit), where symbol of anti fascism is decried as something that may offend catholics, where actions done by polish partisans that could be deemed genocidal aren't called such by using argumentation that there could be always more victims.

This is reality to which tolerating nationalists under the guise of free speech leads.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply
#23

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Quote:Prosecute them for breaking law

But they are not breaking our law.  The current standard for speech is that it cannot rise to the level of inciting a riot.  [ "Let's get 'em, boys!" ]  Even in that instance, the speaker must be in a position to actually incite such a riot.

It does sound from your description here, and elsewhere, that Poland is not ready for real liberal democracy.  I suspect the church is a prime villain in that.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, grympy
Reply
#24

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
If you look at hate speech as an opportunity for a teaching moment it's easier to sort things out.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
The following 4 users Like Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • Alan V, Thumpalumpacus, Chas, grympy
Reply
#25

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 08:07 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Prosecute them for breaking law

But they are not breaking our law.  The current standard for speech is that it cannot rise to the level of inciting a riot.  [ "Let's get 'em, boys!" ]  Even in that instance, the speaker must be in a position to actually incite such a riot.

It does sound from your description here, and elsewhere, that Poland is not ready for real liberal democracy.  I suspect the church is a prime villain in that.

They do break Poland law or they would probably be judged as guilty of breaking it were someone actually interested in prosecuting them.

Poland isn't ready for liberal democracy. I suppose I may agree but I think I have different reason for this conclusion, namely inability to rein in nationalists, nazis and fascists despite having laws that allows it to be done.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • skyking
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)