Starvos
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2018
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 17
- Location
- Alaska, USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!" Not going to happen.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, even in a fake democracy like we have today.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!" Not going to happen.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, even in a fake democracy like we have today.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
"But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Hateful ideas shouldn't be allowed to spread? I'm for freedom of speech, even the ideas that are reprehensible. But who decides "hateful thought". If we want to prevent the murder and genocide of people we should start with Socialism.
View attachment 67227441
The Great Leap Forward
A lower-end estimate is 18 million, while extensive research by Yu Xiguang suggests the death toll from the movement is closer to 55.6 million
Holodomor
was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed an officially estimated 7 million to 10 million people
The Khmer Rouge
regime led by Pol Pot between 1975 and 1979 in which an estimated 1.5 to 3 million Cambodians died or were killed by the regime
The Genocide Of Poland
It resulted in the sentencing of 139,835 people, and summary executions of 111,091 ethnic Poles
There are no ideas more hateful than socialism.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Things are not apt to get as weird as they were in the 1930's simply because of mass communications not being government controlled. The danger, IMHO, is in going the other way - back to government control of the media to try to stamp out "hateful" ideas.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Wow, you're right. Trusting the powers that be has never worked well for Socialists of any stripe. Liberals and Socdems do have a strong history of stabbing communists in the back and siding with the fascists to protect Capital.1.) They have freedom of speech, that's not really a question so much as a plain-faced statement of fact. The actual question is whether or not we should amend our Constitution to allow for the banning of hate speech.
2.) And to that question, I answer a resounding: "No." What you're listing as concerns are farcical and contrary to reality of countries that actually have hate speech laws. I was in England for a year, and there's plenty of hate speech and xenophobia that persists unchecked and unchallenged, likewise the reality of the situation is that hate speech laws are applied to Left-wing minority groups in Europe as much as they are against Right-wing racists. And even then, the National Front and it's spiritual successor the BNP have done just fine skirting those laws and promulgating fascist sentiment in the population. In Europe, where the hate speech laws are typically stronger, actual Fascists have a prominent presence and are winning national elections. The Intercept has written about all of these problems, which comports with my experiences. Unless you have a desperate desire to see Black Lives Matter and BDS/Free Palestine get listed as a hate groups, in which case please proceed to make your case.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
It's only the the leftists/socialists who seem to demand a silencing of "hate speech" as of late. What is their ultimate aim when it comes to thought crimes? Well we have past examples of that to show use where they always seem to wind up. Democracies already have the means by which to stop what you're describing."But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.
Like any other right its not unlimited but its really this simple:Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
It's only the the leftists/socialists who seem to demand a silencing of "hate speech" as of late. What is their ultimate aim when it comes to thought crimes? Well we have past examples of that to show use where they always seem to wind up. Democracies already have the means by which to stop what you're describing.
Extremists like the National Socialist German Workers' Party rose to power by enacting violence against those whom disagree and a large number of people accepting this violence. The kind of violence you see from Antifa that happens to get widely accepted and the attempted assassination of James Scalise which was also widely accepted.
Extremists rely on society widely accepting those hate doctrines. You know what is widely accepted doctrine of hate as of late? The campaign of "Silencing speech because you disagree". :roll:
While fair minded Americans believe in someone's right to speak even if they don't agree with the message. There was no widespread support for the message coming from Charlottesville, only widespread support for their right to speak...except among American leftists and socialists who think that speech itself should be silenced. Following in the footsteps of Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin.
It's not "but Socialism caused mass murder", it's that the elephant in the room is silencing of speech is always the prelude to the worst crimes against humanity of all time and right now its the leftists using this tactic yet again. The threat to society that you claim to be concerned about is actually from people who think like you.
"But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Hypothetical, If you are now the supreme leader and are able to implement your socialist/communist ideal utopia. What do you do to those who refuse to give up their private property? What do you to those that feel there is no personal incentive to work or better themselves? If enough people simply dont buy into this system causing food or medical supply shortages, how do you distribute the dwindling the resources?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?