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?
#76

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Do you have something akin to argument Danu or you're content with speaking about supporting people of Hitler and likening me to fascist?

Also a hint - repeating crap that you wrote earlier does not count as argument.
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
#77

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:07 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:01 PM)Aegon Wrote: I refuse to believe any one among us, particularly the federal government which has almost absolute power over me even in the most democratic of countries, is capable of wielding the power to censor citizens by any criteria. It's just a dangerous fucking thing for the government to do. I absolutely agree with the right to free speech, including what whatever the society at the time dictates to be "hate speech," as long as it doesn't contain a direct call to violence; there are laws for threats like that already, though. And laws against causing a panic, like the Supreme Court decided a long while ago.

So, now, fuck you, I say what I want because I am in charge of my own goddamn voice box. Thank you for your time.

Fuck me? Better go fuck yourself, fascist enabler.

I also believe in every American's right to fuck themselves.
"If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet, you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled — have you no shame in that?" 

Reply
#78

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:10 PM)Szuchow Wrote: ETA: Learning that as atheist I'm already muzzled by Poland blasphemy laws was too apparently too hard for you. But likening myself to fascist (for opposing fascist which is height of idiocy) allows for throwing more pretty sounding words around I guess.

Why on earth would you bring this up when you're advocating people being allowed to muzzle other people for specific opinions or whatever? You're advocating censorship on the one hand, and then complaining about it on the other. You should be happy that Poland is not allowing you to speak freely! People being denied the opportunity to speak freely is exactly what you're promoting, so why aren't you happy?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#79

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:36 PM)Aegon Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:07 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:01 PM)Aegon Wrote: I refuse to believe any one among us, particularly the federal government which has almost absolute power over me even in the most democratic of countries, is capable of wielding the power to censor citizens by any criteria. It's just a dangerous fucking thing for the government to do. I absolutely agree with the right to free speech, including what whatever the society at the time dictates to be "hate speech," as long as it doesn't contain a direct call to violence; there are laws for threats like that already, though. And laws against causing a panic, like the Supreme Court decided a long while ago.

So, now, fuck you, I say what I want because I am in charge of my own goddamn voice box. Thank you for your time.

Fuck me? Better go fuck yourself, fascist enabler.

I also believe in every American's right to fuck themselves.

Then go and do what you believe in.
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
#80

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:34 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Do you have something akin to argument Danu or you're content with speaking about supporting people of Hitler and likening me to fascist?

Also a hint - repeating crap that you wrote earlier does not count as argument.

I repeated it because I wasn't sure whether you'd read it or not. And you still haven't responded to it. I did give an argument. Namely that the fruits of free speech outweigh the dangers of free speech, that ultimately, the greatest good results from the greatest freedom of speech within limits. You're just throwing around dishonest accusations and propaganda now. If you have an argument to make then I'm all ears. If you just want to spew hatred and dishonest rhetoric, well, you've got that right, until somebody decides to take it away.

Oh, and yes I am content to support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely, and calling out fascist behavior whatever the person's colors.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • grympy
Reply
#81

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:37 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:10 PM)Szuchow Wrote: ETA: Learning that as atheist I'm already muzzled by Poland blasphemy laws was too apparently too hard for you. But likening myself to fascist (for opposing fascist which is height of idiocy) allows for throwing more pretty sounding words around I guess.

Why on earth would you bring this up when you're advocating people being allowed to muzzle other people for specific opinions or whatever?  You're advocating censorship on the one hand, and then complaining about it on the other.  You should be happy that Poland is not allowing you to speak freely!  People being denied the opportunity to speak freely is exactly what you're promoting, so why aren't you happy?

Maybe because they spread hatred? It may be hard to grasp to those less intelligent  but wanting to censor people who thinks that genocide isn't a big deal does not make one fascist, just like wanting fascist to face legal punishment for spreading poison does not make one pro censure in general.
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
#82

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:42 PM)Dānu Wrote: I repeated it because I wasn't sure whether you'd read it or not.   And you still haven't responded to it.  I did give an argument.  Namely that the fruits of free speech outweigh the dangers of free speech, that ultimately, the greatest good results from the greatest freedom of speech within limits.  You're just throwing around dishonest accusations and propaganda now.  If you have an argument to make then I'm all ears.  If you just want to spew hatred and dishonest rhetoric, well, you got that right.

Argument? You just speak some crap that may sounds good to you (supporting people like Hitler for fuck sake) and liken me to fascist for opposing fascism. Beyond laughing at your idiocy it does not warrant any else kind of response.

Quote:Oh, and yes I am content to support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely, and calling out fascist behavior whatever the person's colors

Then I am content in calling you a fascist sympathizer and disgrace of human being. I did not thought much of you from the start of this exchange but with this confirmation you managed to sink even lower.
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
#83

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 07:42 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:37 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:10 PM)Szuchow Wrote: ETA: Learning that as atheist I'm already muzzled by Poland blasphemy laws was too apparently too hard for you. But likening myself to fascist (for opposing fascist which is height of idiocy) allows for throwing more pretty sounding words around I guess.

Why on earth would you bring this up when you're advocating people being allowed to muzzle other people for specific opinions or whatever?  You're advocating censorship on the one hand, and then complaining about it on the other.  You should be happy that Poland is not allowing you to speak freely!  People being denied the opportunity to speak freely is exactly what you're promoting, so why aren't you happy?

Maybe because they spread hatred? It may be hard to grasp to those less intelligent  but wanting to censor people who thinks that genocide isn't a big deal does not make one fascist, just like wanting fascist to face legal punishment for spreading poison does not make one pro censure in general.

Do you have a general principle that can be objectively applied to fascists, or people who oppose the fascists, or whomever, that can objectively distinguish whose speech should be prohibited and whose speech not prohibited? You still don't appear to have absorbed the point I made in that latter paragraph that you appear to object not to speech in general, but only to specific speech content. Let's make this simple. Provide me with a rule which would be embraced by both the fascists and yourself, or whomever it is who wants your speech censored, which would give us a guide as to whose speech and what opinions should be censored. If you can't provide that, it appears that all you want to do is censor people who aren't like you because you disagree with them; them bad, me good. I'm trying to understand your point here, but the hateful rhetoric isn't helping any. John Rawls in his classic book "A Theory Of Justice" suggested that a law or rule is only moral if it can be agreed to by people subject to "a veil of ignorance," being a condition under which the person doesn't know what specific traits, opinions, advantages, or disadvantages they might be born into. So let's suppose that you're going to be reborn, but you don't know which body you're going to inhabit. You might end up being a person who finds fascism sensible and appealing. Tell us what proscription you would advocate regardless of who you are or end up being?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#84

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 08:04 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:42 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:37 PM)Dānu Wrote: Why on earth would you bring this up when you're advocating people being allowed to muzzle other people for specific opinions or whatever?  You're advocating censorship on the one hand, and then complaining about it on the other.  You should be happy that Poland is not allowing you to speak freely!  People being denied the opportunity to speak freely is exactly what you're promoting, so why aren't you happy?

Maybe because they spread hatred? It may be hard to grasp to those less intelligent  but wanting to censor people who thinks that genocide isn't a big deal does not make one fascist, just like wanting fascist to face legal punishment for spreading poison does not make one pro censure in general.

Do you have a general principle that can be objectively applied to fascists, or people who oppose the fascists, or whomever, that can objectively distinguish whose speech should be prohibited and whose speech not prohibited?  You still don't appear to have absorbed the point I made in that latter paragraph that you appear to object not to speech in general, but only to specific speech content.  Let's make this simple.  Provide me with a rule which would be embraced by both the fascists and yourself, or whomever it is who wants your speech censored, which would give us a guide as to whose speech and what opinions should be censored.  If you can't provide that, it appears that all you want to do is censor people who aren't like you because you disagree with them; them bad, me good.  I'm trying to understand your point here, but the hateful rhetoric isn't helping any.  John Rawls in his classic book "On Justice" suggested that a law or rule is only moral if it can be agreed to by people subject to "a veil of ignorance," being a condition under which the person doesn't know what specific traits, opinions, advantages, or disadvantages they might be born into.  So let's suppose that you're going to be reborn, but you don't know which body you're going to inhabit.  You might end up being a person who finds fascism sensible and appealing.  Tell us what proscription you would advocate regardless of who you are or end up being?

Whatever point you could have had was lost with you informing everyone that reads it that you're kind of person that is content with supporting people like Hitler "right" to speak.

Also why I would be interested in thinking up rules (regarding the censoring of fascists) that would be supported by fascists? I mean you made your sympathies clear with this Hitler crap and I expect nothing else from you than clapping to fascist drums but some of us have this thing called decency.

Lastly if I were a person that finds fascism sympathetic then I don't think that my opinion should matter much in regard to censoring fascists. Probably as said person I would think differently but look at the sentence preceding this one.
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
#85

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
What exactly are we talking about as fascist? Can you define it? What meaning does it have to you?
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#86

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 08:23 PM)Dom Wrote: What exactly are we talking about as fascist? Can you define it? What meaning does it have to you?

Praising nazi collaborators (and simultaneously offending Jews), denying that genocide was a genocide because perpetrator could have killed more people, calling for "Islamic holocaust", celebrating Hitler birthday and singing his praise, using nazi imagery to attack LGBT, calling for ethnic cleansing... All that things were said by Poland right wingers and first one even by PM.

I think above will suffice but I will also include things that I do not deem fascist but some people would certainly find controversial as a sign that I do not oppose things that are merely unpleasant truth - saying that III Reich did some good to it's citizens, noting that Lenin (politics aside) wasn't bad guy, mentioning that Poles did kill Jews during WWII*.


*Poland fascist gov even tried to make last one illegal.
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
#87

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 08:33 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 08:23 PM)Dom Wrote: What exactly are we talking about as fascist? Can you define it? What meaning does it have to you?

Praising nazi collaborators (and simultaneously offending Jews), denying that genocide was a genocide because perpetrator could have killed more people, calling for "Islamic holocaust", celebrating Hitler birthday and singing his praise, using nazi imagery to attack LGBT, calling for ethnic cleansing... All that things were said by Poland right wingers and first one even by PM.

Can you be fascist without doing any of these things? This seems like little more than a laundry list of offenses. I will freely admit that I don't have a solid demarcation criteria when it comes to fascism, but a list such as this doesn't get me any closer to having one. Do you have a general statement about how fascists differ from non-fascists that is sufficiently general that we can apply it to behavior or acts not on your list?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#88

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 09:11 PM)Dānu Wrote: Can you be fascist without doing any of these things?

Obviously. But without voicing one thoughts no one will know.

Quote:This seems like little more than a laundry list of offenses.

It's list of what I deem to be fascist speech (though genocide denial one may not look so without context). To be fair other could deem this hate speech or tie it to totalitarianism in general. For me however fascist is tied to nationalism and all of the mentioned have nationalist subtext to them from allying with one enemy to fight with other who was more insidious in the name of saving the nation (first one) to attacking LGBT as those who "won't do their part to strengthen the Volk" (by reproduction).

Quote:I will freely admit that I don't have a solid demarcation criteria when it comes to fascism, but a list such as this doesn't get me any closer to having one.  Do you have a general statement about how fascists differ from non-fascists that is sufficiently general that we can apply it to behavior or acts not on your list?

Fascism is ill-defined phenomenon with many varying definitions so how fascist differs from non-fascists depend on used definition. I found one made by Roger Griffin to be sensible one* so fascist can be differentiated from normal people by their belief in necessity of national rebirth.

But it does not really matters as I think that above speech should be censored regardless of it being called fascist. I care not if sentiments that I deem to be fascist would be illegal to voice under the name of totalitarian speech, hate speech or even smurf speech as long as they will.


*[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#cite_note-Griffin1991-3][/url]
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
#89

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
That's all well and good, but it doesn't really help us determine what should and should not be proscribed if something is new to us. Say a new strong man, who might eventually go on to implement pogroms against, say liberals, or gingers, or any specific group were to appear. How do we identify speech which shouldn't be allowed because it might lead to such things? In other words, how do we prevent the next Hitler, without inadvertently chilling the possibility for those who can work within moral limits, like the Ghandi's and Disraeli's?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#90

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 09:33 PM)Dānu Wrote: That's all well and good, but it doesn't really help us determine what should and should not be proscribed if something is new to us.  Say a new strong man, who might eventually go on to implement pogroms against, say liberals, or gingers, or any specific group were to appear.  How do we identify speech which shouldn't be allowed because it might lead to such things?  In other words, how do we prevent the next Hitler, without inadvertently chilling the possibility for those who can work within moral limits, like the Ghandi's and Disraeli's?

Why assuming that this new strongman will be using some new rhetoric when there are old tools that work wonderfully?

Also this basically looks like objection on the ground that law may not be able to cover all possible bases. I don't think that laws would ever be ideal so I don't care for argument like this - as long as people calling for ethnic cleansing or doing whatever else I mentioned in previous post will face consequences for their speech I care not for hypothetical dictators who might be clever enough to find a way for circumventing the laws.

Also attacks on liberalism wouldn't be new, fascism did it already.
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
#91

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 09:41 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 09:33 PM)Dānu Wrote: That's all well and good, but it doesn't really help us determine what should and should not be proscribed if something is new to us.  Say a new strong man, who might eventually go on to implement pogroms against, say liberals, or gingers, or any specific group were to appear.  How do we identify speech which shouldn't be allowed because it might lead to such things?  In other words, how do we prevent the next Hitler, without inadvertently chilling the possibility for those who can work within moral limits, like the Ghandi's and Disraeli's?

Why assuming that this new strongman will be using some new rhetoric when there are old tools that work wonderfully?

Also this basically looks like objection on the ground that law may not be able to cover all possible bases. I don't think that laws would ever be ideal so I don't care for argument like this - as long as people calling for ethnic cleansing or doing whatever else I mentioned in previous post will face consequences for their speech I care not for hypothetical dictators who might be clever enough to find a way for circumventing the laws.

Also attacks on liberalism wouldn't be new, fascism did it already.

Well, no, it isn't any such argument as you suggest. Let me put the same question to you in a different way. Let's suppose that someone does invent a new approach, such as the Russians developed in order to manipulate the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. In the face of such behavior, how do we determine whether some new behavior should be forbidden or not? It ultimately gets to the question of what justifies putting the items on your list of forbidden items to begin with? Without some justification in terms of general principles for forbidding the speech you enumerate, one isn't justified in forbidding it as your justification then is purely ipse dixit, "because I said so," which is no justification at all. I forget the exact quote, but there's a saying to the effect that words steal no bread ("Hard words break no bones"). We generally make a line between speech and acts, yet you seem to want us to equate speech to acts. I'm not sure I can applaud that.

I intend to get back to your earlier missive about me not having a point because I support the right of the world's Hitlers to speak freely, within reason, but I'll address part of it now. The reason why you would want to develop a general rule or prescription is, that if Rawls is correct -- and many agree that he is -- establishing that one would agree to something under the veil of ignorance is strong evidence that the thing or policy is moral. I don't know that Rawls' approach is the only way to demonstrate that a policy is moral, but at minimum you need to provide some assurance that your policy is moral, else why would we listen to or agree with you? So far all that you seem to have offered is an ipse dixit justification, slippery slope arguments, and ad hominems which seem to beg the very question you are arguing (i.e. if "I disagree with what you have to say, but defend your right to say it" is a valid stance, then you should defend my right to speak in support of the right of people such as Hitler to speak even if you disagree with it).
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#92

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 10:08 PM)Dānu Wrote: Well, no, it isn't any such argument as you suggest.  Let me put the same question to you in a different way.  Let's suppose that someone does invent a new approach, such as the Russians developed in order to manipulate the 2016 presidential election in the U.S.  In the face of such behavior, how do we determine whether some new behavior should be forbidden or not?  It ultimately gets to the question of what justifies putting the items on your list on a list of forbidden items to begin with?  Without some justification in terms of general principles for forbidding the speech you enumerate, one isn't justified in forbidding it as your justification then is purely ipse dixit, "because I said so," which is no justification at all.

Why should I care? Laws against foreign influence in elections aren't something that I am interested in talking about. Just like some hypothetical new approaches.

As for justification - allowing Hitler to spew his hatred did not end good. Not caring about observing the law in regard to glorifying nazi regime ended with polish pm praising nazi collaborators and polish politicians calling for ethnic cleansing*. For me those are reasons enough to have appropriate laws and for using them respectively. If you think that it is too little then I can't say that I overly care as I find no merit at all in your "arguments".

Quote:I intend to get back to your earlier missive about me not having a point because I support the right of the world's Hitlers to speak freely, within reason, but I'll address part of it now.  The reason why you would want to develop a general rule or prescription is, that if Rawls is correct -- and many agree that he is -- establishing that one would agree to something under the veil of ignorance is strong evidence that the thing or policy is moral.  I don't know that Rawls' approach is the only way to demonstrate that a policy is moral, but at minimum you need to provide some assurance that your policy is moral, else why would we listen to or agree with you?   So far all that you seem to have offered is an ipse dixit account, slippery slope arguments, and ad hominems which seem to beg the very question you are arguing (i.e. if "I disagree with what you have to say, but defend your right to say it" is a valid stance, then you should defend my right to speak in support of the right of people such as Hitler to speak even if you disagree with it).

So far all that you provided is saying that you would support right of people like Hitler to speak freely, likened me to a fascist for opposing fascism (interestingly enough this is tactics at least sometimes used by real fascists, those smart enough to realize that admitting to be one isn't good move) and proposed me making example of law that would be palatable to fascists which would defeat the entire point of it. But by all means feel free to spout more idiocy, I always could use more laugh.

Concerning Rawls I don't give a shit if fascists would find proposals of mine to be moral. If you think that I should be concerned with their opinions then it is your trouble not mine.

Lastly I'm not interested in supporting rights of people who (perhaps unwittingly to allow for charitable interpretation) stand in support of fascist and you by saying that you would be content to support "right" of people like Hitler to speak freely fall within this category. For me "I disagree with what you have to say, but defend your right to say it" is limited in application and straight up idiotic in version I used in OP**.

*http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=3067
**I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say 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.
Reply
#93

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 08:15 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(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.

2 cents .

I may have misunderstood. Obviously  an issue  beyond reason for some.  

I tried to break  it down into a couple of ideas. This what I came up with:   Using Godwin's  law to justify  fascistic  laws against  free  speech. . 

Before anyone gets their  knickers  all out of focus. I'll repeat my own position on free speech ; It MUST include the right to offend .(this includes hate speech) If it does not, then speech is being censored.  

That I disagree  with Szuchow does not make me  a Fascist  enabler any more than criticising the Israeli state makes me  antisemitic. 

In the video clip below, the argument is that banning hate speech is a  slippery slope. I agree . 

"-------The clear problem with the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism is usually construed as insult by certain parties. Ridicule can be construed as insult.  Sarcasm, unfavourable comparison. Merely stating an alternative point of view------"
 
The whole clip is worth  watching; it explains my alternative point of view.  


Reply
#94

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 10:49 PM)grympy Wrote: 2 cents .

I may have misunderstood. Obviously  an issue  beyond reason for some.  

I tried to break  it down into a couple of ideas. This what I came up with:   Using Godwin's  law to justify  fascistic  laws against  free  speech. .

Trying to label something a fascist is a tactics that isn't exactly left unused by fascists smart enough to realize that this label does not look god.

Quote:Before anyone gets their  knickers  all out of focus. I'll repeat my own position on free speech ; It MUST include the right to offend .(this includes hate speech) If it does not, then speech is being censored.

According to you and to be frank you are not an authority on the subject. Me saying that free speech must allows for suppressing of fascist ideas to be considered free would carry as much weight.

Quote:That I disagree  with Szuchow does not make me  a Fascist  enabler any more than criticising the Israeli state makes me  antisemitic.

Depends on the reasons.

[quote]In the video clip below, the argument is that banning hate speech is a  slippery slope. I agree .[quote]

I don't care. Not criminalizing hate speech allows fascists and other shitstains to spread their poison and for me it is reason enough to have laws preventing 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.
Reply
#95

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-27-2019, 10:57 PM)Szuchow Wrote: [quote="grympy" pid='157295' dateline='1572216579']
2 cents .

I may have misunderstood. Obviously  an issue  beyond reason for some.  

I tried to break  it down into a couple of ideas. This what I came up with:   Using Godwin's  law to justify  fascistic  laws against  free  speech. .

Trying to label something a fascist is a tactics that isn't exactly left unused by fascists smart enough to realize that this label does not look god.

Quote:Before anyone gets their  knickers  all out of focus. I'll repeat my own position on free speech ; It MUST include the right to offend .(this includes hate speech) If it does not, then speech is being censored.

According to you and to be frank you are not an authority on the subject. Me saying that free speech must allows for suppressing of fascist ideas to be considered free would carry as much weight.

Quote:That I disagree  with Szuchow does not make me  a Fascist  enabler any more than criticising the Israeli state makes me  antisemitic.

Depends on the reasons.

Quote:In the video clip below, the argument is that banning hate speech is a  slippery slope. I agree .[quote]

I don't care. Not criminalizing hate speech allows fascists and other shitstains to spread their poison and for me it is reason enough to have laws preventing it.

 OK. I agree to differ.
Reply
#96

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Freedom of speech works on the same principle as freedom to vote.

And it gives the bigots power if you try to use their weapons against them ...

... plus, there are some people who label anybody they disagree with as a Nazi .... even centrists or liberals!

I don't give a shit if it makes you angry, OP, when you're not going to defeat the Nazis by becoming one ... and all it does, at best, is make bigots go underground. And that's at best.

Better to have the bigots say what they believe out in the open. Bad ideas need to be defeated with reason and argument ... not censored.

Denying bigots the ability to speak or vote hatefully .... isn't going to work. If it has any effect it will just make things worse. Nobody should have the right to decide who can and can't express themselves non-violently. And you don't prevent violence by trying to censor its precursors ... it just pisses the bigots off even more and allows them to even paint themselves as teh victims.

I'm tired of so-called anti-nazis trying to fight nazism with the nazi's weapons. Fucking stupid.

My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 1 user Likes EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • grympy
Reply
#97

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
If you don't believe in freedom of speech for everybody, then you don't believe in freedom of speech at all because freedom of speech for some but not others isn't free speech—it's licensed speech.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 2 users Like EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • grympy, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#98

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 04:34 PM)Szuchow Wrote: It sure is. Nazis, fascists and communists have right to shut up and people defending their "rights" need a history lesson.

They're still humans and humans still have human rights.

And if you don't see them as humans then, ironically, you're as bad as they are. Dehumanizing people is exactly why they're so bad. You don't defeat the Nazis by becoming one of them.

You need a lesson in non-stupidity ... but I don't think you'll ever learn it.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 1 user Likes EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • grympy
Reply
#99

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-04-2019, 01:24 PM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 04:34 PM)Szuchow Wrote: It sure is. Nazis, fascists and communists have right to shut up and people defending their "rights" need a history lesson.

They're still humans and humans still have human rights.

And if you don't see them as humans then, ironically, you're as bad as they are. Dehumanizing people is exactly why they're so bad. You don't defeat the Nazis by becoming one of them.

You need a lesson in non-stupidity ... but I don't think you'll ever learn it.

Time did not make you any smarter it seems but even total moron like you should be able to rise beyond "both sides" pseudo argument. 


As I don't see the reason to argue with fools consider yourself ignored.
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

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
Oh dear;  so this thread has deteriorated into an immature ad hominem saga?  Fuck me.  

—Lift your game guys.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Deesse23
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)