• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lessons from the Holocaust, ban hatespeech, or support free speech?

The lesson from the Holocaust is that governments are immoral, murderous entities, hence we should do everything possible to reduce the power of the state.



The number one reason Hitler weaseled his way into power was because of his ability as a demagogue. It wouldn't matter one bit if so-called "hate speech" were illegal at the time.

Anyway, hate speech laws always benefit the state, because what is and what isn't "hate speech" is completely subjective.
Speech that promotes violence and hate is not free. It has serious and dangerous consequences.
 
So far I'm hearing a lot of white supremacists using the Holocaust as an argument to protect the kind of people who engineered the Holocaust.
 
There is much more authoritarian societal control in Germany, and Europe in general, than in the USA.

In the Netherlands someone is fined 500 euro's for calling the police flapdoodles, on facebook. Some cartoonist is arrested for making hatespeech against Islam. So you get a sense, of the really very present societal control over everything, in Europe.
Comparing the US with Europe as to rights doesn’t work. The Europeans are much more group minded than the people in the US.
Europeans give more thought to what benefits society than to individual rights. Most US citizens cannot identify the Bill of Rights, but the first thing out of their mouths is “I know my rights!”
 
The lesson from the Holocaust is that governments are immoral, murderous entities, hence we should do everything possible to reduce the power of the state.



The number one reason Hitler weaseled his way into power was because of his ability as a demagogue. It wouldn't matter one bit if so-called "hate speech" were illegal at the time.

Anyway, hate speech laws always benefit the state, because what is and what isn't "hate speech" is completely subjective.

We recently had a demagogic leader who weasled his way into power, with the help of an authoritarian adversary. He is gone, but his party's state leaders are working hard to limit freedom of speech by teachers in the classroom - something that German demagogue did.
 
So far I'm hearing a lot of white supremacists using the Holocaust as an argument to protect the kind of people who engineered the Holocaust.

The hatespeech idea is wrong. What should instead be banned is scientific racism. Or rather, the concept of a chosen personal opinion should be promoted. That personal character can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and not be established as a matter of fact of biology.

The scientific racism is also what defines the idea of white supremacy in my opinion. Because eventhough the liberals have dropped racism, they are still very inclined to regard personal character as a factual issue. Because the liberals are all about the facts. And that is really very disgusting in my opinion, because that factual attitude in regards to identifying personal character, it makes people to be coldhearted and calculating. And this kind of coldhearted calculating attitude, that strikes me as typical whiteness, in the sense that whiteness is loathed. What is very wrong about the West.
 
Technically, if you state as scientific fact that some people are selfish and greedy, then you make a statement without emotion, as it is just asserted as a statement of fact, so then without either love or hate. So could scientific racism actually be legally be said to be hatespeech?

Of course.

He is gone, but his party's state leaders are working hard to limit freedom of speech by teachers in the classroom - something that German demagogue did.

Politicians fighting over which kind of propaganda will be used in a government indoctrination center is not a free speech issue.
 
This is mind numbingly stupid.

Hitler rose to power because he gave the middle finger to the Treaty of Versailles and started developing Germany against the decrees of Europe. Nazism rose to power because Europe already had a lot of anti-semitism in all of its societies. (Hitler got his idea for the ghettos and armbands from the Catholic Pogroms of the past.) The "Jewish problem" didn't start with Germany, Hitler was just the one who psychopathically created a "final solution". His extremism was the far right example of what was already happening in Europe.

It would not have mattered if you banned hate speech or not. Hitler was elected because he brought economic prosperity back to Germany and ended hyper-inflation. He was an economist when he first joined the German government. That was how he gained massive support. Then his self-hating upbringing bled into his political agenda and he blamed it all on Jews. Hitler was actually semi-reasonable in the early years of his political career. He went nuts later for various reasons.

I don't like this short-sighted view of history where people cherry pick some factor and then use it as a platform for modern ailments. The past is complicated and so is modern times. Things can't be boiled down to single factors.

My personal belief is that most of our country's social ills right now are actually class related. All of the other ills trickle down from that. When people can't thrive, they start to blame differences more often than not. In a prosperous country where people aren't stressed and worked to the bone, they are less likely to look for threats and enemies because their lives are peachy. Systemic prejudices always exist, sure... but the polarization right now is a symptom of the class divide. People are using hate speech because they are feeling hateful, they are just directing it at the wrong audiences.

Hate speech is a direct result of social inequality which is an ultimate result of class warfare. It's predictable, really. In every era that this has happened, the government either divides people into two camps and has them fight one or another ("left vs. right" in the case of the USA), or they blame a foreign enemy to galvanize the population. Both are methods of mass distraction, and they work each time, almost unfailingly.

If only people would see through the fog and start blaming the minority who is driving all this suffering. It's the same group of artistocrats and industry owners who are causing most of the world's problems right now. But they have successfully convinced people the problems are anyone and anywhere else but them.
 
Of course.



Politicians fighting over which kind of propaganda will be used in a government indoctrination center is not a free speech issue.

Yet, mirrors the policy of the German demagogue you referenced.
 
Immediately very little. Most people have enough sense not to jump off tall buildings (or visit "bad neighborhoods"), even if the media and the government told them gravity wasn't real.

The problem is long-term. A society that denies reality will find it harder and harder to make things work . . . especially once everyone who grew up before the denial started is dead.
So hate speech is a public service, then, to warn us about bad neighborhoods? As if people can't figure out where's iffy in their town without a hundred new threads everyday on the internet about some black on black crimes in a city they've never stepped foot in, and a following statistical analysis, showing us just how dangerous and out of control "these people" are.

You know what? I'll be glad when they're gone.
 
Yes, he criminalized free speech, just like every progressive supports criminalizing free speech. They just disagree about which kind of speech should be criminalized.

He dictated what could and could not be taught in schools,, and encouraged students to turn in those teachers who broke the rules. That's today's GOP playbook.
 
This is mind numbingly stupid.

Hitler rose to power because he gave the middle finger to the Treaty of Versailles and started developing Germany against the decrees of Europe. Nazism rose to power because Europe already had a lot of anti-semitism in all of its societies. (Hitler got his idea for the ghettos and armbands from the Catholic Pogroms of the past.) The "Jewish problem" didn't start with Germany, Hitler was just the one who psychopathically created a "final solution". His extremism was the far right example of what was already happening in Europe.

It would not have mattered if you banned hate speech or not. Hitler was elected because he brought economic prosperity back to Germany and ended hyper-inflation. He was an economist when he first joined the German government. That was how he gained massive support. Then his self-hating upbringing bled into his political agenda and he blamed it all on Jews. Hitler was actually semi-reasonable in the early years of his political career. He went nuts later for various reasons.

I don't like this short-sighted view of history where people cherry pick some factor and then use it as a platform for modern ailments. The past is complicated and so is modern times. Things can't be boiled down to single factors.

My personal belief is that most of our country's social ills right now are actually class related. All of the other ills trickle down from that. When people can't thrive, they start to blame differences more often than not. In a prosperous country where people aren't stressed and worked to the bone, they are less likely to look for threats and enemies because their lives are peachy. Systemic prejudices always exist, sure... but the polarization right now is a symptom of the class divide. People are using hate speech because they are feeling hateful, they are just directing it at the wrong audiences.

Hate speech is a direct result of social inequality which is an ultimate result of class warfare. It's predictable, really. In every era that this has happened, the government either divides people into two camps and has them fight one or another ("left vs. right" in the case of the USA), or they blame a foreign enemy to galvanize the population. Both are methods of mass distraction, and they work each time, almost unfailingly.

If only people would see through the fog and start blaming the minority who is driving all this suffering. It's the same group of artistocrats and industry owners who are causing most of the world's problems right now. But they have successfully convinced people the problems are anyone and anywhere else but them.
So you comfortingly blame this on a nebulous "elite" instead of putting the responsibility for racism where it belongs--on the shoulders of each individual to give everyone the same benefit of the doubt and the same shot at the brass ring.
I agree with you that class differences are a big part of the problem these days in disadvantaged neighborhoods, regardless of race, but to me the answer isn't leveling out the population. The rich will always want to hang out with the rich. Great wealth does add value to society in its own way. The answer, if there is one, is for most of us who aren't stinkin' rich to respect everyone's contributions and to help their neighbors out if needed.
 
He dictated what could and could not be taught in schools,, and encouraged students to turn in those teachers who broke the rules. That's today's GOP playbook.

My guess is the majority of parents don't want crt to be taught in school. Eventhough now a teacher union mandated the teaching of it. I think the freedom of the parents and students is primary, over the freedom of the teacher, and the government.
 
He dictated what could and could not be taught in schools,, and encouraged students to turn in those teachers who broke the rules.

You also support a government-mandated curriculum in public schools, so you want the state to dictate to teachers what can and cannot be taught in public schools.

You don't disagree with the idea of the state indoctrinating kids. You just want progressive proganda instead of Nazi propaganda.
 
What dire consequences do you see if hate speech is curtailed in this country? That is what you are implying.

Including your messages hating on Trump, on conservatives, on Republicans and anyone else you are ordered to publicly hate?
 
So if a group advocates for segregated communities as the best way to achieve harmony for all, is that not infringing on the rights of others to live where they like? Constantly pointing out violence and criticizing life styles in a community can certainly sway others to have a negative attitude toward that group. So they might decide not to hire a person from that group. Doesn't that affect the person's right to happiness if it's hard to find a good job?

No one can stop anyone from having an opinion. We can stop them from having a soap box for it, and I think we should. Hate speech is the sludge of discourse, where ignorant stereotypes get spread to others like a bad rash. I agree with Checkerboard Strangler that tolerating intolerance, as our government seems determined to do, will eventually be our downfall. Our laws say we're equal. The words we spread in public shouldn't contradict that.

Having access to a "soap box" is exactly what free speech is about; being able to spout one's rhetoric in a public space, where anyone can choose to listen, respond, or ignore it via "voting with their feet."

IMO you should really think about what you are advocating, because as often as not such restrictions argued by some end up coming full circle and preventing them from speaking.

All it would take is enough people to assert YOUR ideas and views and speech are "hateful" for some reason, and viola! YOU no longer have access to a "soapbox."

My view is the same view I supported back when the ACLU sued on behalf of the American Nazi Party to allow them to march and speak in Skokie IL back in the 70's.

I wanted to SEE them, KNOW who they were, RECOGNIZE they still exist, all so I could counter them with my own free speech efforts.
 
Last edited:
I see NO constitutional based to outlaw "hate" speech. Anyone can openly hate anything or anyone they want to. If expressing "hate" - since that word itself isn't required - were a crime, the majority of us on this forum would be in prison just for our messages. I can hate anything and anyone I do - and can publicly say so and why - other than actionable liable and slander (civil) and death threats, screaming "fire!" when there isn't one etc.

I've never posted the word "hate' about any Democrat BUT Obama - and that is because of the Pulse Nightclub slaughter of LGBTs - that I 100% blame on Obama, specifically for the death of a young man we knew very well. But for Obama's rule of "never a Muslim or terrorist" rule in such situations - even if that meant having everyone wounded bleed to death - he would still be coming to our home.

I hate Obama. I can't say too much for forum rules beyond that. So, should this message be criminally illegal? It is "hate" speech.
 
So you comfortingly blame this on a nebulous "elite" instead of putting the responsibility for racism where it belongs--on the shoulders of each individual to give everyone the same benefit of the doubt and the same shot at the brass ring.
I agree with you that class differences are a big part of the problem these days in disadvantaged neighborhoods, regardless of race, but to me the answer isn't leveling out the population. The rich will always want to hang out with the rich. Great wealth does add value to society in its own way. The answer, if there is one, is for most of us who aren't stinkin' rich to respect everyone's contributions and to help their neighbors out if needed.

I don't agree, and it's not "comforting", mostly because the majority of people are unwilling to truly examine it. To do so would require the kind of social upheaval that this country hasn't seen since the last Civil War. I'm not talking about idle rich people, I'm talking about the ultra rich who are literally sucking the life blood out of this country with no fiduciary responsibility to its people. It really doesn't matter what the common people do among themselves. We could have 10 revolutions in social thinking among common folk, but it would have no impact on our social mobility so long as wealth sequestration is happening.

By the brass ring, I'm assuming you mean equal opportunity for self-improvement. Do you think improving race relations will really level out the playing field when animosities between people are largely class-driven, with racial subsets? Right now everyone does have equal opportunity: to become hundreds of thousands in debt to get an education, to pay through the roof for health care, to use crumbling infrastructure, to have their consumer choices monopolized by a few corporations, to have their sources of information dumbed down or manipulated by the same 6 conglomerates, to vote when their vote doesn't really matter anymore because big money controls all parties, etc. How do you plan to fix these HUGE problems by focusing on race relations alone?

I never said anything about leveling out the population. We don't have to do that to bring sanity back to this country. We just need to increase taxes on the ultra wealthy. I'm talking people who own $150 billion and control government, industry, all of it. If we can't reign these people in then we have no future because they will always be a security threat to democracy.

I'm not saying race shouldn't be addressed I'm saying it's not the biggest problem, not by far. People are responsible for being racist but resolving racism won't level the playing field. Hitler never rose to power because of racism, he got there because he gave Germans back their livelihood. The Treaty of Versailles created an artificial class struggle between Germany and the rest of western Europe which was just itching for an opportunist like Hitler to come in and rectify to gain power. And it worked. This is precisely how Donald Trump got elected (although he is not Hitler by any means), he observed an untapped demographic based on class struggle and he became President. If we don't address these economic disparities now, we will get increasingly radical leadership because a bewildered population will be begging for someone to come in and take radical control of the situation. They might even be good at their job, but maybe they will have a dark side like they hate a certain race. We are lucky that Trump was an idiot because if he was actually psycho the situation could have been really bad.

Part of the reason why we are taught to hate socialism is because it will prevent us from looking at something key that Marx said, which is that people's social condition is directly tied to their economic condition. It is true, 100%. It doesn't mean socialism is the answer, but it does mean that pretty much all the ails America is economic in origin, and right now our #1 economic problem is the ultra wealthy. The industry owners. When people can feed themselves and self-actualize, they fight less and talk more. Tighten the purse strings and you get a population that is easier to manipulate because then everyone sinks down to the level of fear. This is a divide and conquer strategy that has been decades in the making.
 
Last edited:
Including your messages hating on Trump, on conservatives, on Republicans and anyone else you are ordered to publicly hate?
You got the wrong poster.
 
Some people take as lesson from the Holocaust, to ban hatespeech. Their reasoning is that if hatespeech had been banned in Germany, then the nazi's would have been put in jail, and then the holocaust would not have occurred.

The counter to that would be, that the nazi's might have kept silent about hating Jews, rose to power all the same, and once in power perpetrate the Holocaust anyway.

There is another lesson that could be drawn from the history, which might have prevented the Holocaust. And that is the lesson that personal character of people can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and cannot be established as a fact of biology, as the nazi's believed.

So then instead of curtailing free speech, by banning hatespeech, the lesson would be to establish the whole concept of a chosen personal opinion, supporting the whole idea of free speech.

The idea is then that you need emotions to choose a personal opinion on what the personal character of someone is, and by inviting emotions in, people would not be as coldhearted and calculating as the nazi's were with their scientific racism. So then the Holocaust would not have occurred.

The counter to that would be, the nazi's would go into a turmoil of subjective hatespeech, instead of scientific hatespeech, and the Holocaust would have occurred anyway.
The nazis were jailed before they took over so unfortunately prison even for hate speech wouldnt have stopped them. Crushing them outright at the onset probably would have.
 
I wanted to SEE them, KNOW who they were, RECOGNIZE they still exist, all so I could counter them with my own free speech efforts.
I've considered the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" defense, but I'm not sure it's working. If it was, wouldn't all the 'sunlight' on white nationalist orgs and sundry bigots in the past 5 years have helped stamp it out? Instead, their numbers are growing exponentially. They are everywhere on social media discussions. Tolerating their bigotry is simply sanctioning and empowering more bigots.

Sure, if a politician makes racist comments, we need to know about it. But 99% of these people aren't someone asking for votes. They're asking for acceptance and to gain more like minded folks to join them. Misery loves company.
 
I don't agree, and it's not "comforting", mostly because the majority of people are unwilling to truly examine it. To do so would require the kind of social upheaval that this country hasn't seen since the last Civil War. I'm not talking about idle rich people, I'm talking about the ultra rich who are literally sucking the life blood out of this country with no fiduciary responsibility to its people. It really doesn't matter what the common people do among themselves. We could have 10 revolutions in social thinking among common folk, but it would have no impact on our social mobility so long as wealth sequestration is happening.

By the brass ring, I'm assuming you mean equal opportunity for self-improvement. Do you think improving race relations will really level out the playing field when animosities between people are largely class-driven, with racial subsets? Right now everyone does have equal opportunity: to become hundreds of thousands in debt to get an education, to pay through the roof for health care, to use crumbling infrastructure, to have their consumer choices monopolized by a few corporations, to have their sources of information dumbed down or manipulated by the same 6 conglomerates, to vote when their vote doesn't really matter anymore because big money controls all parties, etc. How do you plan to fix these HUGE problems by focusing on race relations alone?

I never said anything about leveling out the population. We don't have to do that to bring sanity back to this country. We just need to increase taxes on the ultra wealthy. I'm talking people who own $150 billion and control government, industry, all of it. If we can't reign these people in then we have no future because they will always be a security threat to democracy.

I'm not saying race shouldn't be addressed I'm saying it's not the biggest problem, not by far. People are responsible for being racist but resolving racism won't level the playing field. Hitler never rose to power because of racism, he got there because he gave Germans back their livelihood. The Treaty of Versailles created an artificial class struggle between Germany and the rest of western Europe which was just itching for an opportunist like Hitler to come in and rectify to gain power. And it worked. This is precisely how Donald Trump got elected (although he is not Hitler by any means), he observed an untapped demographic based on class struggle and he became President. If we don't address these economic disparities now, we will get increasingly radical leadership because a bewildered population will be begging for someone to come in and take radical control of the situation. They might even be good at their job, but maybe they will have a dark side like they hate a certain race. We are lucky that Trump was an idiot because if he was actually psycho the situation could have been really bad.

Part of the reason why we are taught to hate socialism is because it will prevent us from looking at something key that Marx said, which is that people's social condition is directly tied to their economic condition. It is true, 100%. It doesn't mean socialism is the answer, but it does mean that pretty much all the ails America is economic in origin, and right now our #1 economic problem is the ultra wealthy. The industry owners. When people can feed themselves and self-actualize, they fight less and talk more. Tighten the purse strings and you get a population that is easier to manipulate because then everyone sinks down to the level of fear. This is a divide and conquer strategy that has been decades in the making.
Thanks for that reply. The only thing I'm not buying is that it is a conscious scheme. Otherwise, what you say makes sense, as much as I can understand it.
 
Back
Top Bottom