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

[SarahSun]

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.

Whose hate speech should be banned? The Nazi's may have said anything a Jew said was hate speech. Less banning and more freedom.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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 disagree. IMO the MSM, Social Media, and other "sources of (dis)information are striving mightily to make people think so. Blowing the few and completely minor examples of such "activity" all out of proportion to reality. Meanwhile downplaying both the fact that such "groups" remain a tiny fraction of our society, as well as the REALITY of leftist violence, and the clear attempt to turn American into a "socialist paradise."

Yet all I see are demands for a more repressive society so that only one view-point is accepted and complete submission becomes the norm.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

That's what I'm getting at.
We already "saw that movie"...the Nazi movie.
OR: We already HAD that viral infection, the Nazi infection.
As a society, if we were healthy, we would already have effective "sociopolitical antibodies" to protect against a known danger such as Nazis, and the moment they showed themselves, we would have crushed them again.

Instead, the very people who preach day and night with foam, spittle and blood pouring from their mouths about how "radical far left demons" are a threat to their freedom are perfectly okay with Nazis.
This is a game, it's a psychological game, only a lot of know how this game is played and how it turns out if one doesn't take bold and decisive action.
No more talking, no more negotiating.
If you're a white supremacist, my recommendation is outside of forum rules and thus cannot be illuminated further.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Whose hate speech should be banned? The Nazi's may have said anything a Jew said was hate speech. Less banning and more freedom.

What you don't understand about Nazis is a lot.

 

[Serenity]

Free speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. No right comes wholly without restriction and nor should it.

Choudary springs to mind here. For years he skated along the boundary between freedom of speech and incitement to violence before he was eventually jailed.

He should still be there as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Again, repeating for all needing: Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.

"When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant, the tolerant ones end up being destroyed and tolerance along with them.
Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law."

"The Open Society and its Enemies"

Groups, regimes, organizations and societies which advocate eliminationist rhetoric actually do critical thinking people a favor by illuminating their hatred.
The notion that freedom of speech is bound to some kind of reductionist interpretation is absurd because the difference between free speech and eliminationist rhetoric defies any "automatic duck" labeling as mere free speech in the first place, and the loudest protests defending such drivel are counting on the listener to fall for a false dialectic and succumb to the charms of what boils down to weaponized buzz words and sloganeering as a suitable barter for actual logic. They depend upon the ability to both frighten and seduce the masses to the point where the masses can be turned loose on the critical thinkers.

 

[HK.227]

Whose hate speech should be banned? The Nazi's may have said anything a Jew said was hate speech. Less banning and more freedom.

Exactly.
Letting the state define hate speech however it wants, in order to protect people from committing genocide against each other, when it is only states that have the power to commit genocide?
Keeping in mind that said states always use hate speech to do so, which is by definition never defined as hate speech unless they lose?
I'm not sure exactly what a crock is, but I think we have one here that is full of ****.

The right to free speech is not there to protect ordinary people from each other, we have ordinary laws for that. The right to free speech is there to protect ordinary people from the state.

 

[SarahSun]

Exactly.
Letting the state define hate speech however it wants, in order to protect people from committing genocide against each other, when it is only states that have the power to commit genocide?
Keeping in mind that said states always use hate speech to do so, which is by definition never defined as hate speech unless they lose?
I'm not sure exactly what a crock is, but I think we have one here that is full of ****.

The right to free speech is not there to protect ordinary people from each other, we have ordinary laws for that. The right to free speech is there to protect ordinary people from the state.

The less govt the better.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

You're basically insisting that the Klan tolerated black people and the Nazi Party tolerated Jews.

Obviously, that's not what I'm insisting at all. The Klan ran people out of their homes, terrorized them, beat them, and engaged in political persecution. The Nazis herded people into trains and sent them to slaughter. All of that is way beyond speech.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

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?

Yes. Who is advocating for forced segregation?

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?

I agree with public accommodation laws. Discrimination is unethical and wrong. But free speech and free association are more vital to the well-being of all parties involved. You're trying to legislate people's hearts and control their behavior based on presumed intentions.

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.

Hate speech laws use the power of the state to restrict and/or sanction what otherwise would be legal utterances. There is a difference between taking away someone's megaphone and bolting their lips shut.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Obviously, that's not what I'm insisting at all. The Klan ran people out of their homes, terrorized them, beat them, and engaged in political persecution. The Nazis herded people into trains and sent them to slaughter. All of that is way beyond speech.

And you're blithely skipping over the fact that all of that was inspired and driven by the eliminationist rhetoric spouted by these groups.
I really don't give a damn if the term "hate speech" bothers you, pick a different term then, okay...because there's plenty.
Don't call it hate speech, call it "instructions for genocide", call it "war plans spoken out loud", call it "instructions for mass murder"...it's still the same and it invites hatred on a holiday where hatred can do as it pleases with impunity...

Except it is not "with impunity", thus the need to respond to such speech with swift consequences.
And if you object to the government's attempts to legislate it out of existence, that's also peachy keen with me.
Let the people take it up in their own hands, then.

To those who think it's perfectly okay to inveigh against diversity, against the rights of others, against democracy, and who think it is okay to spout their eliminationist screeds, you're only getting away with it for now.
And you have a lot more to fear from the majority of Americans than from our government no matter what.
Your love of persecuting others will be your greatest regret when the backlash finally hits.
You are zero for four in the modern era, 1865, 1945, 1965 and 2020.
You want to go for zero for five?
Bring it on.
That is as clear as I can spell it out to you without going beyond the boundaries of DP rules.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yes. Who is advocating for forced segregation?

Dude, you are sea-lioning.
And it is the weakest of weak sauces, so give it up.
Who is advocating for segregation my rosy red ass.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

And you're blithely skipping over the fact that all of that was inspired and driven by the eliminationist rhetoric spouted by these groups.
I really don't give a damn if the term "hate speech" bothers you, pick a different term then, okay...because there's plenty.
Don't call it hate speech, call it "instructions for genocide", call it "war plans spoken out loud", call it "instructions for mass murder"...it's still the same and it invites hatred on a holiday where hatred can do as it pleases with impunity...

Except it is not "with impunity", thus the need to respond to such speech with swift consequences.
And if you object to the government's attempts to legislate it out of existence, that's also peachy keen with me.
Let the people take it up in their own hands, then.

To those who think it's perfectly okay to inveigh against diversity, against the rights of others, against democracy, and who think it is okay to spout their eliminationist screeds, you're only getting away with it for now.
And you have a lot more to fear from the majority of Americans than from our government no matter what.
Your love of persecuting others will be your greatest regret when the backlash finally hits.
You are zero for four in the modern era, 1865, 1945, 1965 and 2020.
You want to go for zero for five?
Bring it on.
That is as clear as I can spell it out to you without going beyond the boundaries of DP rules.

Quite specifically, who are you talking about, and what speech do you want to restrict? Because "against democracy" and such sounds like pretty flimsy grounds for trampling rights. Specifically, who should not be allowed to speak?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Dude, you are sea-lioning.
And it is the weakest of weak sauces, so give it up.
Who is advocating for segregation my rosy red ass.

I have no particular interest in you. Who is advocating for segregation? I assume, by segregation, you mean separate spaces and policies for people of (or not of) a particular race. Who is calling for that?

On the same note, can you think of any mainstream political movements calling for others' rights to be removed?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I have no particular interest in you. Who is advocating for segregation? I assume, by segregation, you mean separate spaces and policies for people of (or not of) a particular race. Who is calling for that?

On the same note, can you think of any mainstream political movements calling for others' rights to be removed?

We're done, Ghostly Joe.
Go find a nine year-old to play games with.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

We're done, Ghostly Joe.
Go find a nine year-old to play games with.

Can you give an example of speech you would ban as hate speech? You're advocating for the banning of "hate speech," but can't seem to give an example of what would be criminalized.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Because "against democracy" and such sounds like pretty flimsy grounds for trampling rights.

We already know about your hatred of democracy.
Go try your mind games with someone else.

 

[j brown's body]

The less govt the better.

Something will always rush in to fill the power void left by less government. Usually, they are powers that are accountable to no one, save their shareholders.

Less government may work well in a homogenous, agrarian society. But living in a highly technical, multiculture society, I would suggest we need more government, not less. But it needs to be effective. As an older person, I have seen effective government make a positive difference. The rise of Ronald Reagan and the conservative mantra that the government is the problem, has led to an incompetent, corrupt state. Just look at what conservatives stand for today. Not much. The last Republican president did everything in his power to tear down the state. The result: half a million dead and the economy in tatters.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Can you give an example of speech you would ban as hate speech? You're advocating for the banning of "hate speech," but can't seem to give an example of what would be criminalized.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

To those who think it's perfectly okay to inveigh against diversity, against the rights of others, against democracy, and who think it is okay to spout their eliminationist screeds, you're only getting away with it for now.
And you have a lot more to fear from the majority of Americans than from our government no matter what.
Your love of persecuting others will be your greatest regret when the backlash finally hits.
You are zero for four in the modern era, 1865, 1945, 1965 and 2020.
You want to go for zero for five?
Bring it on.
That is as clear as I can spell it out to you without going beyond the boundaries of DP rules.

I admit not reading this far into your nonsensical, angry post the first time, but this? This is Grade A wacko, dude. Weird historical comparisons. Thinly veiled threats. The whole shebang.

There is simply no reason to get this upset over a rational debate about the extent of the law. This is all hypothetical at this point, anyway. Please calm down.

Anyway, I'll modify my question a bit. Would an example of "hate speech" include anything that's been said recently by an elected official?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I admit not reading this far into your nonsensical, angry

I admit to finally doing something drastic so I never have to read another one of your amateurish sea-lioning posts again, bye now.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I admit to finally doing something drastic so I never have to read another one of your amateurish sea-lioning posts again, bye now.

Tuck tail and run, son

 

[Syamsu]

Ofcourse the antifa was already present in nazi germany. They didn't seem to have done any good then, and they don't do any good now.

 

[bomberfox]

Ofcourse the antifa was already present in nazi germany. They didn't seem to have done any good then, and they don't do any good now.

Eh i dont defend enveeything they do but sometimes they do a good. Kinda anti-heroish in a way.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Should BLM be able to march through the streets of America chanting about murdering Police Officers and encouraging mayhem and violence?

Many so called "Liberals" see no problem with that.

I want to be crystal clear in a language that everyone here can clearly understand:

I am NOT one of "those" Liberals!!!

crowd * R O A R S *