YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech
Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their "free speech absolutist" postures the moment they think they are in power.
You're viewing a single thread.
Jewish attorneys actually advocated for Nazis to be able to have marches. The phone you use has technology aided by Nazis... Anyone hear of Operation Paperclip? Wernher von Braun?
People dressed in Swastikas, speaking or marching are not violent acts themselves, those people may never become violent & may have no intention of being violent.
Most of them don't even believe Hitler murdered a bunch of Jews and that history was written by powerful Jews. It doesn't exactly help when Republicans & Democrats are loyal to Israel over America.
All & all, free speech laws in America are not rights to commit crime. Threats & violence are still criminal, and that goes both ways. Don't punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so... You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I'd suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
If you don't like it then file a lawsuit to change the law & make your case like normal productive people do instead of whining on the Internet about how you don't like things. If you don't like it then share the docket number of the lawsuit you've already filed to show you've done the work like countless people before you did to get the free speech we have today.
I see posts like this all the time, especially now that Trump & Republicans are trying to claim protesting Israel or their actions is antisemitic & should result in deportation. Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel. Weird the people making a big deal about Nazis don't realize the irony.
Don’t punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so… You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
It's not legal, and I don't know which judges are more lenient about this kind of thing. But if one can do it without being caught or attacked, like the two people who punched Richard Spenser, then it is an effective way to counter the rise of Nazism. Legality only matters if it's enforceable.
But if one can do it without being caught or attacked, like the two people who punched Richard Spenser, then it is an effective way to counter the rise of Nazism.
All this does is bolster fascism. Punching people for being non-violent fuels their world views, not help them trust yours. Maybe engage in some peaceful discourse. You're actually the one instigating violence here. You have the same attitude of cops shooting unarmed people.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I’d suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
You are assuming ignorance from others while projecting ideas from other discussions you've had in the past onto my original post. I purposely avoided making any statements on how to approach or resolve the tolerance paradox because it's complicated. Nazis lying about their affinity for free speech isn't.
What else I find weird is that almost the comments like yours appear to be a script where the first thing you do is mention paradox of tolerance. I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response. I guess wrapping counterarguments up into sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.
I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response...sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less. I'm not here to relitigate the limits of free speech no matter how hard you want to steer the discussion in that direction.
On the other hand, if you come to discussions with this many preconceived notions and generalizations wrapped in a metric ton of condescension, then perhaps you might be the driver of your own "statistical bafflement".
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives.
So what? Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they're sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.
The problem isn't free speech. The problem is people who want to take it all away. If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.
Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.
If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.
Look, statements like this are very easy to make but nearly impossible to implement in the era of LLM-powered bots riding the Algorithm. Unless you simply give free rein to the bots, which is often the goal and ultimately eliminates actual humans' free speech. I don't pretend that I have a perfect solution, but there is sufficient historical evidence to point out the threads' original statement on absolutistic terms. For the rest, I've used the word "some" because not everybody has ulterior motives, but the most motivated ones in the present era tend to.
That's just technology & fearmongering. Socrates was critical of writing out of concerns it would deteriorate minds & make superficial thinkers. Critics were concerned the printing press would lead to widespread moral degradation with the abundance of low-quality literature. People criticized television & media for brain rot.
Guess what you're the next iteration of?
Technologies change, yet good principles hold regardless.
You know what you can do with free speech? More free speech. No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms. If people were inclined, they could launch these technologies to counter messages they oppose. People can choose to tune out & disregard expressions. Much more can be done with free speech.
Guess what you’re the next iteration of? Technologies change, yet good principles don’t change with them.
Technologies and ethics continuously change and adapt to new technologies, and I'm not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.
No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms.
The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.
Technologies
yes
and ethics continuously change
no
and adapt to new technologies
Yes. Technology may change, people's awareness & recognition of the application of ethical principles may change, however that doesn't mean the principles themselves change.
In terms of ethical reasoning, the essence of a matter may remain the same regardless of superficial guises (like technology). Adapting to a technology means applying the same general principles to novel, special cases. The principles concern rights & moral obligations people have to each other. Technology isn't essential or relevant: the use of technology to perform an action is irrelevant to whether that action is right or wrong. The principles themselves can be timeless, immutable, and concern only essentials necessary to evaluate actions. Thinking otherwise indicates confusion & someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
I’m not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.
Well, you're wrong. They're ultimately ways of disseminating expression. Just because you think some shiny, new, whizzy bang doodad fundamentally changes everything doesn't mean it does.
It probably indicates lack of historical perspective. These problems you think are new aren't. People have long been complaining about lies spreading faster than truth, the public being disinformed & easily manipulated. In the previous century, the US has been through worse with disfranchisement, Jim Crow, internment camps, violent white supremacy, the red scare, McCarthyism. Yet now contagious stupidity spread through automations is an unprecedented threat unlike the contagious stupidity of the past? Large scale stupidity isn't new. Freedom of speech was essential to anti-authoritarian, civil rights, and counterculture movements.
There's something contradictory about trying to defend liberal society by surrendering a critical part of it.
The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.
Not really. Decentralization is part of the solution.
Some people never liked Twitter.
This reads like arguing for sake of arguing because calling out nazis as liars about their interest in free speech has got to mean abandoning freedom of speech.
application of ethical principles may change
We could go on and on, but this is a nice summary statement here. Thank you.
because calling out nazis as liars about their interest in free speech has got to mean abandoning freedom of speech.
No duh insincere people claiming to advocate for free speech don't really mean it. This isn't exactly new or debatable: what is argued with it is debatable.
Earlier, you write about "statements nearly impossible to implement" & looking for "solutions" as if free speech needs solving. It doesn't. Free speech is its own solution: it means free for speech you dislike and for speech to answer it. There's nothing to solve but a lack of dedication to & endurance of free speech.
application of ethical principles may change
this is a nice summary statement here.
Not to be lifted out of context, "people’s awareness & recognition of" is an important part of that quote.
It doesn't mean their application to the same circumstances changes. What changes is people's awareness/recognition, not that it applies or how (it always applied the moment it was possible to apply). Like finally recognizing equal rights apply to women or minorities. Or that protesting topless is protected speech. Or that free speech applies to communication over new technologies.
If you got that, though, then it's a nice summary.
The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less.
You've provided no supporting evidence of this. The loudest, or most successful supporters, appear to have been Jewish attorneys that advocated & won cases on free speech allowing even Nazis to gather, march, speak, etc. Are you suggesting these Jews were actually crypto-Nazis in disguise? Your title indicates you're referring to Nazis in particular.
I know reading comprehension is harder when you've already made up your mind about what I think, but you're better than this. I hope.:)
Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel.
It sounds ironic, but that's only if you adhere to an almost caricature-like (or surface-level) view of what a Nazi is.
Of course, it's better to refer to them as Fascists -- that's the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups. It's just that "Nazi" is the more recognizable term to the layperson.
Of course, it’s better to refer to them as Fascists – that’s the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups
Yes, you're right, although on the other hand Nazism and classical fascism are also pretty different despite some surface level similarities. Even the fascist movements at the time struggled to figure out a unified position on racism/anti-semitism, corporatism and state structure.
If you want a few kicks, read what ᴉuᴉʅossnW thought of Hitler before he was pressured into saying nice things closer to WWII. My favorites are "silly little monkey" and "A mad little clown". He was surely regretting their alliance long before he was hanged.
Fascism is slightly more diverse and thus adds more opportunities for apologists to relativize. Hence the specific choice.