"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In this case, if you take away free speech.

Nobody is advocating taking it away.

We are pointing out that we limit free speech already and suggesting that is absolutely the right thing to do because it can cause harm to individuals and society as a whole.

Let's say I fall out with my neighbour Bob over his trees growing into my garden. Absolute free speech would allow me to follow him around the streets shouting 'Bob is a rapist, he raped my sister' to publish these accusations in newspapers, on billboards, to put them on social media, to go to his place of work or write to his employers and tell them Bob is a rapist. To write to all his relatives with this accusation.

And your comeback would and could only be that all of those people should be wise enough to do the work to realise that the accusations are unfounded and that Bob should just put up with up because free speech is sacrosanct.

I don't think even you would support that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

you take away the voice of the people

And just to follow up, as I said before this part is also a myth. Because unfettered markets for anything don't preserve the voice of the little guy. They drown them out.

The ideas that win are those with the most resources to support them regardless of their merit. We are seeing this in action all over the globe.

 

[DragonLady]

You know, once I found a website about the "Apollo Hoax" and the owner said he had been researching the topic for years... and the first piece of 'evidence' he mentioned was the lack of stars in the moon pictures. Sometimes spending a lot of time thinking about it from the exact same angle doesn't help.

Cool story, Bro.

If you apply the exact same logic to everything, you're ignoring that humans value different things differently, and therefore that context changes the logic we should use.

No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.

Person A: "I think Nazi's are POS's who deserve to die!!!"

Person B: "I think Nazi's had it right all along, and here's my argument"

Person A: "Ack, how can you say that? You deserve to tied up with a ball gag, and we should immediately make laws to silence you forever".

Just as someone said upstream, it's "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee". Every time.

...those are the ONLY sources of legislation.

Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.

We have two different kinds of laws -priority, and moral. The first establishes priorities: do we need better roads, or another hospital? The moral laws try to define what is "right" according to the cultural values of the time and place -which change constantly.

When I said "you can't legislate morality" I didn't mean you couldn't actually write a law -people do that all the time. But you can't write one that won't be "wrong" for a huge number of people; and if you take away their freedom to speak, you've screwed them for eternity.

Just consider the sodomy laws that have been overturned in our lifetime. If the LGBT community had not been allowed to speak about their lives, their needs, their desires, etc. because they were silenced as "queers" (which a HUGE number of people wanted to see happen) would we have changed those laws to reflect the values of a new generation?

 

[Belz...]

Cool story, Bro.

It's also a real story. Hopefully you got the point, rather than just hand-wave it.

No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.

That's great, and I agree. However that's not the statement I took exception to, remember? A certain logic or approach may work for one thing (e.g. freedom of speech) and not for another (e.g. speed limits).

Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.

You're moving the goalposts. Laws are based on morality, which is based on values, which are based on emotion. There isn't a law that isn't based on supporting those values. That doesn't mean that the values are the ones of the majority.

 

[uke2se]

Cool story, Bro.



No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.

Person A: "I think Nazi's are POS's who deserve to die!!!"

Person B: "I think Nazi's had it right all along, and here's my argument"

Person A: "Ack, how can you say that? You deserve to tied up with a ball gag, and we should immediately make laws to silence you forever".

Just as someone said upstream, it's "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee". Every time.



Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.

We have two different kinds of laws -priority, and moral. The first establishes priorities: do we need better roads, or another hospital? The moral laws try to define what is "right" according to the cultural values of the time and place -which change constantly.

When I said "you can't legislate morality" I didn't mean you couldn't actually write a law -people do that all the time. But you can't write one that won't be "wrong" for a huge number of people; and if you take away their freedom to speak, you've screwed them for eternity.

Just consider the sodomy laws that have been overturned in our lifetime. If the LGBT community had not been allowed to speak about their lives, their needs, their desires, etc. because they were silenced as "queers" (which a HUGE number of people wanted to see happen) would we have changed those laws to reflect the values of a new generation?

So what you're saying is that we can and do write such laws but that you don't like it.

 

[Darat]

Cool story, Bro.



No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.

Person A: "I think Nazi's are POS's who deserve to die!!!"

Person B: "I think Nazi's had it right all along, and here's my argument"

Person A: "Ack, how can you say that? You deserve to tied up with a ball gag, and we should immediately make laws to silence you forever".

Just as someone said upstream, it's "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee". Every time.



Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.

We have two different kinds of laws -priority, and moral. The first establishes priorities: do we need better roads, or another hospital? The moral laws try to define what is "right" according to the cultural values of the time and place -which change constantly.

When I said "you can't legislate morality" I didn't mean you couldn't actually write a law -people do that all the time. But you can't write one that won't be "wrong" for a huge number of people; and if you take away their freedom to speak, you've screwed them for eternity.

Just consider the sodomy laws that have been overturned in our lifetime. If the LGBT community had not been allowed to speak about their lives, their needs, their desires, etc. because they were silenced as "queers" (which a HUGE number of people wanted to see happen) would we have changed those laws to reflect the values of a new generation?

I've mentioned it before but for me there is quite a clear line to use but first of all let me say this is not that you can't discuss say historical events, that you can't discuss controversial subjects and all that.

The line for me is when someone is advocating for direct harm to their fellow citizens. So for example someone claiming to be a Nazi, I am quite happy that they would not be able to talk publically about following that ideology because that ideology we know is about murdering millions of our fellow citizens. Anyone who claims to be a Nazi wants to kill me, that's part and parcel of Nazism we know that beyond any doubt, I have no problem at all with society stopping people who are trying to have me killed from inciting for me to be killed.

 

[Belz...]

I've mentioned it before but for me there is quite a clear line to use but first of all let me say this is not that you can't discuss say historical events, that you can't discuss controversial subjects and all that.

The line for me is when someone is advocating for direct harm to their fellow citizens. So for example someone claiming to be a Nazi, I am quite happy that they would not be able to talk publically about following that ideology because that ideology we know is about murdering millions of our fellow citizens. Anyone who claims to be a Nazi wants to kill me, that's part and parcel of Nazism we know that beyond any doubt, I have no problem at all with society stopping people who are trying to have me killed from inciting for me to be killed.

Serious question: is intolerance towards gay people, for example, a core tenet of Nazi ideology? Or could someone be part Nazi? It might sound silly, but it's like asking of veneration of the Virgin Mary is a core tenet of Christianity just because the Catholics do it. Am I making sense?

 

[Darat]

Serious question: is intolerance towards gay people, for example, a core tenet of Nazi ideology? Or could someone be part Nazi? It might sound silly, but it's like asking of veneration of the Virgin Mary is a core tenet of Christianity just because the Catholics do it. Am I making sense?

With Nazism we have one instance in which it was implemented and that is what people today are saying they follow therefore anyone advocating for it is without doubt advocating for the mass murder of their fellow citizens (as well as removing human rights) . I can't see there being any doubt as to what Nazism actually is.

 

[Belz...]

With Nazism we have one instance in which it was implemented and that is what people today are saying they follow therefore anyone advocating for it is without doubt advocating for the mass murder of their fellow citizens (as well as removing human rights) . I can't see there being any doubt as to what Nazism actually is.

Me neither, I was just considering a hypothetical. Like, could someone say "sure, I consider myself a member of the Nazi party but my chapter has ditched the whole 'gas the Jews' part of the curriculum."

 

[luchog]

Serious question: is intolerance towards gay people, for example, a core tenet of Nazi ideology? Or could someone be part Nazi? It might sound silly, but it's like asking of veneration of the Virgin Mary is a core tenet of Christianity just because the Catholics do it. Am I making sense?

With Nazism we have one instance in which it was implemented and that is what people today are saying they follow therefore anyone advocating for it is without doubt advocating for the mass murder of their fellow citizens (as well as removing human rights) . I can't see there being any doubt as to what Nazism actually is.

To determine what the core tenets are, it's simply a matter of looking to their foundational principles. In the case of Christianity, the foundational principles are documented in the Bible. Veneration of Mary isn't in there, that's a much latter addition from pagan sources. Likewise, other foundational principles like the Athanasian Creed and Apostles' Creed do not mention it.

Likewise with Naziism, we have Mein Kampf, and the various other writings of the Nazi leadership, which were implemented and adhered to by both the leadership and the rank-and-file. Extermination of undesirables -- including but not limited to the Jews, although they are a primary focus of said extermination policy -- is well-documented in those writings as a foundational principle of their worldview and practice. Anyone claiming to be a Nazi can be expected to advocate for the extermination of those undesirables at the very least. And that is, in fact, what we see in neo-Nazi groups and propaganda outlets like Stormfront, Aryan Nation, The Daily Stormer, and so on.

And to forestall the overused, tired, worn-out objection from certain other parties to this thread... to say that "they're not real Nazis" because they weren't part of the Third Reich regime during the period in German from 1933 to 1945 is the same as saying someone can't be a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist because they were not alive at the time and place of Christ, Mohammad, or Siddhartha Gautama; or that they cannot be true libertarians because they did not learn at the feet of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and William Godwin.

 

[Belz...]

Fair point.

 

[Darat]

Me neither, I was just considering a hypothetical. Like, could someone say "sure, I consider myself a member of the Nazi party but my chapter has ditched the whole 'gas the Jews' part of the curriculum."

But why would such a person describe themselves as a Nazi?

 

[Cavemonster]

But why would such a person describe themselves as a Nazi?

They might for instance be holocaust deniers, which is actually not uncommon as I understand in some neo-Nazi circles.

"The original Nazi party didn't gas any Jews, neither would we".

Remember that the final solution was not the public face of the Nazi party even as it was being carried out.

They might, like some modern KKK acknowledge the history but say they've moved on to more non-violent ways of advocating for racial and cultural purity.

They might, like some alt right folks, be playing snarky insincere games of plausible deniability. "I was just joking when I did the Nazi salute lol".

 

[sadhatter]

Here's the problem, from my point of view.

The meta-debate about to what degree society should tolerate/encourage "bad" speech (shelving how we define it for the moment) gives a proxy bit of legitimacy to the bad speech.

We don't have to bend over backwards to have the "Where is the line, slippery slope, who watches the watchmen" hand wringing everytime Johnny Nazi stands up and does the whole "Hey I'm just exercising my right to talk about annihilating Jews like animals" routine.

Putting me effort into keeping the "What do we do with bad speech?" debate away from the actual bad speech so it doesn't turn into a bunch of try-hard edge-lords defending the worst of the worst would help.

To someone your point of view is as bad as theirs, letting the government decide who can talk is like saying kicking someone in the nuts should be allowed in MMA. It's a great idea if you feel you can use it, but you realize why it isn't done once it happens to you.

 

[sadhatter]

Wow. There is a great deal of history to demonstrate the untruth of that. Fascism, racism, conspiracy theories, anti-vax, totalitarianism, religion, all of these are Ideas. It's precisely these ideas that cause people to do harmful things. Want to take a guess how many people were inspired to commit violence by the idea that Jewish people eat Christian babies and control the world's economy? By the idea that black people are subhuman violent animals?

Or are you insisting that actions exist in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any mental processes?

People are responsible for their actions, which includes what they do with ideas. No one could magically convince me to kill Jews, if I wanted to though I'd likely jump on the bandwagon should the chance arise.

 

[sadhatter]

There's a huge grey area between "We have to accept and embrace all ideas" and "Government jackbooted thugs will drag you away in the middle of the night to be reprogrammed if you don't follow the government line."

It's called "Being wrong" and it used to be a thing I thought we all agreed was a thing that could happen.

2+2=5 is not outlawed. It's not hate speech. It's not illegal to think. But it's still not an open and accepted idea because it's wrong. We don't have a bunch of try-hards demanding we have the "What does 2+2 equal?" talk again so we don't "get too comfortable and it's important to challenge our ideas."

No one is trying to ban people from saying that though.

If we had people saying they want to ban people from saying that is fight just as hard. Why? Because once we allow this I know it can and will be used against me.

If you think somehow all the conservatives in government wouldn't use this to silence us, I envy your ignorance at politics.

 

[sadhatter]

Nobody is advocating taking it away.

We are pointing out that we limit free speech already and suggesting that is absolutely the right thing to do because it can cause harm to individuals and society as a whole.

Let's say I fall out with my neighbour Bob over his trees growing into my garden. Absolute free speech would allow me to follow him around the streets shouting 'Bob is a rapist, he raped my sister' to publish these accusations in newspapers, on billboards, to put them on social media, to go to his place of work or write to his employers and tell them Bob is a rapist. To write to all his relatives with this accusation.

And your comeback would and could only be that all of those people should be wise enough to do the work to realise that the accusations are unfounded and that Bob should just put up with up because free speech is sacrosanct.

I don't think even you would support that.

Actually he would just have to sue for libel (assuming the accusations were not true) , providing a very high penalty for your stunt.

Said penalty is also geared toward the impact your statement made so the more effort the worse it will be. Laws exist, realize this.

 

[Belz...]

But why would such a person describe themselves as a Nazi?

Hey, beats me. Maybe they think the core of Nazism doesn't include that.

 

[Darat]

They might for instance be holocaust deniers, which is actually not uncommon as I understand in some neo-Nazi circles.

"The original Nazi party didn't gas any Jews, neither would we".

Remember that the final solution was not the public face of the Nazi party even as it was being carried out.

They might, like some modern KKK acknowledge the history but say they've moved on to more non-violent ways of advocating for racial and cultural purity.

They might, like some alt right folks, be playing snarky insincere games of plausible deniability. "I was just joking when I did the Nazi salute lol".

I would suggest something like:

Don't be stupid and call yourself a Nazi then since Nazi means an idealogy that mass kills your fellow citizens.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Throughout history, plenty of people were right, but didn't take action because their views were wildly unpopular. They couldn't possibly shout over the pervasive ideology of the time, and if they tried they were shunned or worse.

So they said nothing, and terrible mistakes were made, and continued being made.

So... they should have spoken up, convinced others, and created a different social/political/scientific consensus. Methinks you prove my point; thanks. "Being right" is never enough, always requiring confirmation or refutation to be useful. That's how good science enters the body of science, how Popes are elected, how absolutists (ironically) decide who is "purest" to be leader:consensus. Not recognizing that critical step is what allows madmen to kill outright in the name of Truth.