|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 18, 2021 12:28:15 GMT -5
I think the lesson to take away from these last 5 years has been that the GOP has no shame and will back anything that consolidates their power or weakens others, and nothing is off the table anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 18, 2021 12:57:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jan 18, 2021 14:38:10 GMT -5
"Delete this toxic cancel culture BS." Self-reflection never was their strongest feature, huh? Plus the whole "the only cure for bad speech is better speech" nonsense that ignores the fact that World War Two was a thing. Chamberlain, not that I blame him, should in hindsight serve as a warning of what trying to debate someone arguing in bad faith is like. What do you think the preferable cure for bad speech is, if not (more) better speech?
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jan 18, 2021 15:52:39 GMT -5
"Delete this toxic cancel culture BS." Self-reflection never was their strongest feature, huh? Plus the whole "the only cure for bad speech is better speech" nonsense that ignores the fact that World War Two was a thing. Chamberlain, not that I blame him, should in hindsight serve as a warning of what trying to debate someone arguing in bad faith is like. What do you think the preferable cure for bad speech is, if not (more) better speech? If that bad speech is advocating for and attempting to establish fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet. You cannot placate these people with words or even with material things. If you compromise with them then they will just take what you offer and push further, and keep doing so every time you try. Because their end goal is fundamentally incompatible with compromise, or freedom, or democracy. Look at the lead up to WW2. Germany began re-militarising the Rhineland, and was allowed to do so. It annexed Austria, and was allowed to do so. It was allowed to annex part of Czechoslovakia on the promise that it wouldn't take any more. It then invaded Poland, then Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, France, Norway.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jan 18, 2021 16:29:08 GMT -5
What do you think the preferable cure for bad speech is, if not (more) better speech? If that bad speech is advocating for and attempting to establish fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet. You cannot placate these people with words or even with material things. If you compromise with them then they will just take what you offer and push further, and keep doing so every time you try. Because their end goal is fundamentally incompatible with compromise, or freedom, or democracy. Look at the lead up to WW2. Germany began re-militarising the Rhineland, and was allowed to do so. It annexed Austria, and was allowed to do so. It was allowed to annex part of Czechoslovakia on the promise that it wouldn't take any more. It then invaded Poland, then Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, France, Norway. All those examples are good examples of the danger of allowing a fascist country to break treaties and take aggressive actions to conquer neighboring countries. The issue with those examples is that they have nothing to do with speech (free speech or otherwise). Germany repeatedly took aggressive actions (starting with re-militarization and continuing through the other examples you mentioned) and the other European nations did basically nothing to stop them until it was too late. From your statement that "the tried and true method is a bullet," are you saying that violence is the best answer to bad speech (in this case, speech advocating fascism) itself, and that violence should be used to counter people who hold fascist opinions rather than trying to convince them otherwise, or that violence should be used to counter people taking fascist actions? It might seem like a fine line, but if we're talking about free speech I think it's necessary to draw a line between speech and action. There's a significant difference between using force to counter violent actions by fascists and using force to counter speech by fascists. I would also argue that examples like Daryl Davis show that it is possible to change the minds of people with extremist views. If you're not familiar with him, he's an African-American blues musician who has befriended members of the Ku Klux Klan and convinced dozens (and indirectly, potentially hundreds) of members to leave and denounce the Klan. I understand the KKK is not necessarily an exact analogue to European fascism, but there is definitely some significant overlap, especially in terms of extremist speech, extremist thought processes, and use of violence.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 18, 2021 16:51:35 GMT -5
If that bad speech is advocating for and attempting to establish fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet. You cannot placate these people with words or even with material things. If you compromise with them then they will just take what you offer and push further, and keep doing so every time you try. Because their end goal is fundamentally incompatible with compromise, or freedom, or democracy. Look at the lead up to WW2. Germany began re-militarising the Rhineland, and was allowed to do so. It annexed Austria, and was allowed to do so. It was allowed to annex part of Czechoslovakia on the promise that it wouldn't take any more. It then invaded Poland, then Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, France, Norway. All those examples are good examples of the danger of allowing a fascist country to break treaties and take aggressive actions to conquer neighboring countries. The issue with those examples is that they have nothing to do with speech (free speech or otherwise). Germany repeatedly took aggressive actions (starting with re-militarization and continuing through the other examples you mentioned) and the other European nations did basically nothing to stop them until it was too late. From your statement that "the tried and true method is a bullet," are you saying that violence is the best answer to bad speech (in this case, speech advocating fascism) itself, and that violence should be used to counter people who hold fascist opinions rather than trying to convince them otherwise, or that violence should be used to counter people taking fascist actions? It might seem like a fine line, but if we're talking about free speech I think it's necessary to draw a line between speech and action. There's a significant difference between using force to counter violent actions by fascists and using force to counter speech by fascists. I would also argue that examples like Daryl Davis show that it is possible to change the minds of people with extremist views. If you're not familiar with him, he's an African-American blues musician who has befriended members of the Ku Klux Klan and convinced dozens (and indirectly, potentially hundreds) of members to leave and denounce the Klan. I understand the KKK is not necessarily an exact analogue to European fascism, but there is definitely some significant overlap, especially in terms of extremist speech, extremist thought processes, and use of violence. I'll point out that what led to those violated treaties was free speech on the part of the fascists long before any military actions happened. And Daryl Davis is great, but over like, what, 30 years he's only changed the minds indirectly of roughly 200 people and directly maybe 60 people? That's great, but it isn't a lot of people, especially given how much white nationalism has effectively been embraced by the GOP and their base. I also think Malus is saying the most effective method is a bullet. Death has a 100% success rate when it comes to curing fascism, so they're not wrong. (Also, I think you need to re-read their first line in which they say "If that bad speech is advocating for and attempting to establish fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet," bold mine.) So, honestly, the best way to get rid of fascists (outside of violence) is to deny them a platform and to shame and humiliate them, but that only works when the top levels of government aren't infected too. I personally won't shed a tear for any fascist, proto-fascist, nationalist, or any other far-right nutjob that gets themselves killed. They're a plague on the U.S. and they've steadily been driving the country into the ground for the last several decades. It's only recently that they've removed their masks and openly embraced fascism.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jan 18, 2021 17:27:15 GMT -5
All those examples are good examples of the danger of allowing a fascist country to break treaties and take aggressive actions to conquer neighboring countries. The issue with those examples is that they have nothing to do with speech (free speech or otherwise). Germany repeatedly took aggressive actions (starting with re-militarization and continuing through the other examples you mentioned) and the other European nations did basically nothing to stop them until it was too late. From your statement that "the tried and true method is a bullet," are you saying that violence is the best answer to bad speech (in this case, speech advocating fascism) itself, and that violence should be used to counter people who hold fascist opinions rather than trying to convince them otherwise, or that violence should be used to counter people taking fascist actions? It might seem like a fine line, but if we're talking about free speech I think it's necessary to draw a line between speech and action. There's a significant difference between using force to counter violent actions by fascists and using force to counter speech by fascists. I would also argue that examples like Daryl Davis show that it is possible to change the minds of people with extremist views. If you're not familiar with him, he's an African-American blues musician who has befriended members of the Ku Klux Klan and convinced dozens (and indirectly, potentially hundreds) of members to leave and denounce the Klan. I understand the KKK is not necessarily an exact analogue to European fascism, but there is definitely some significant overlap, especially in terms of extremist speech, extremist thought processes, and use of violence. I'll point out that what led to those violated treaties was free speech on the part of the fascists long before any military actions happened. And Daryl Davis is great, but over like, what, 30 years he's only changed the minds indirectly of roughly 200 people and directly maybe 60 people? That's great, but it isn't a lot of people, especially given how much white nationalism has effectively been embraced by the GOP and their base. I also think Malus is saying the most effective method is a bullet. Death has a 100% success rate when it comes to curing fascism, so they're not wrong. (Also, I think you need to re-read their first line in which they say "If that bad speech is advocating for and attempting to establish fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet," bold mine.) So, honestly, the best way to get rid of fascists (outside of violence) is to deny them a platform and to shame and humiliate them, but that only works when the top levels of government aren't infected too. I personally won't shed a tear for any fascist, proto-fascist, nationalist, or any other far-right nutjob that gets themselves killed. They're a plague on the U.S. and they've steadily been driving the country into the ground for the last several decades. It's only recently that they've removed their masks and openly embraced fascism. I got the part about "attempting to establish fascism" on the first read through - I didn't call attention to it because I think once you get to the "attempting to establish" part, you're going beyond speech and moving into the action category. You're also correct that the things that happened in Germany started with speech, as many things do. But lots of things also end at speech too and there is a transition when things go from speech to action. My point is regardless of German fascists starting with speech (which should have been a warning to everyone else), the other European countries either didn't take it seriously or looked the other way until the Germans started taking actions and it was too late to stop them. The problem with denying extremists a platform and humiliating them is that you are likely not actually changing their mind - if anything that just confirms to them that they are being "oppressed" and strengthening the ability for them and their colleagues to buy into some kind of weird martyr complex. While it may be cathartic and they may deserve it, I'm not yet convinced that that is actually the most effective way to combat extremism. In regards to Daryl Davis - you're right, it's not a ton of people, but he's also only one person. My point is that if more people embraced his methods rather than focusing on trying humiliate and de-platform extremists, we might actually have a lot fewer extremists running around rather than the same number (or more) who are just stewing on the fringes of the public sphere. I'll not shed a tear for fascists either, but it does seem like changing someone's mind is much more powerful and a more desirable criterium for "winning" than silencing someone either via de-platforming, humiliation, or use of force. So much of extremism is based on ignorance, shutting down discussion and all but ensuring that extremists are never exposed to other ideas just seems like a recipe for maintaining a population of extremists.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 18, 2021 17:47:39 GMT -5
I got the part about "attempting to establish fascism" on the first read through - I didn't call attention to it because I think once you get to the "attempting to establish" part, you're going beyond speech and moving into the action category. You're also correct that the things that happened in Germany started with speech, as many things do. But lots of things also end at speech too and there is a transition when things go from speech to action. My point is regardless of German fascists starting with speech (which should have been a warning to everyone else), the other European countries either didn't take it seriously or looked the other way until the Germans started taking actions and it was too late to stop them. If you did get that part, then you should understand that omitting it changes the entire meaning of what they said, which is dishonest. "If that bad speech is advocating for and attempting to establish fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet," is different than "If that bad speech is advocating for fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet," Now, Malus can obviously correct me if they intend the latter to be true, but I don't think that's their intent. The problem with denying extremists a platform and humiliating them is that you are likely not actually changing their mind - if anything that just confirms to them that they are being "oppressed" and strengthening the ability for them and their colleagues to buy into some kind of weird martyr complex. While it may be cathartic and they may deserve it, I'm not yet convinced that that is actually the most effective way to combat extremism. They don't need to change their mind and it's incredibly difficult. In time, they'll die out both literally, and figuratively as they find they can't recruit members. If you deny them a platform to recruit, you cut off their lifeblood. Just like with religion, their focus is not passing it down through the generations, but getting new converts or members to sustain their numbers. And as the world (and people in it) become more interconnected, tolerance has been steadily growing and people are more accepting of other people, so it's only a matter of time for neo-nazis to go the way of the original Nazi if they can't recruit. In regards to Daryl Davis - you're right, it's not a ton of people, but he's also only one person. My point is that if more people embraced his methods rather than focusing on trying humiliate and de-platform extremists, we might actually have a lot fewer extremists running around rather than the same number (or more) who are just stewing on the fringes of the public sphere. I'll not shed a tear for fascists either, but it does seem like changing someone's mind is much more powerful and a more desirable criterium for "winning" than silencing someone either via de-platforming, humiliation, or use of force. So much of extremism is based on ignorance, shutting down discussion and all but ensuring that extremists are never exposed to other ideas just seems like a recipe for maintaining a population of extremists. Daryl was extremely lucky in so many ways, but first and foremost, by not being killed. Interacting with the far-right is dangerous, they're prone to violence and outrage at the drop of a hat, and a lot of the current far-right extremism is not based entirely in bigotry. A lot of it is based in nebulous concepts like "Democrats stole the election!" or "Drain the swamp!" That makes their situation quite a bit different than Daryl's when it comes to de-radicalizing them. On top of that, he only helped about 3 people directly a year, or about 65 indirectly a year, and he mostly got vulnerable people, i.e. those he could physically talk to or those who weren't committed. But using myself as an example: I, as a white person, would have a much harder time changing the same person he would. I'm not a group they can visibly identify at a glance as someone they "hate" like they can with him. He can easily subvert those expectations while I cannot. Me revealing myself as a progressive would not have the same effect if I paid for someone's bail than if he did because it feels more like a betrayal of their assumptions as if I was hiding something. So, my point is that while changing their minds may be the best outcome, the onus should not be on minorities to change neo-nazis' minds by putting themselves in potentially extremely dangerous situations. The onus should be on society to push back against their hatred by refusing to allow it or lend it any sort of legitimacy or platform they need to recruit new members.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 18, 2021 17:57:21 GMT -5
I got the part about "attempting to establish fascism" on the first read through - I didn't call attention to it because I think once you get to the "attempting to establish" part, you're going beyond speech and moving into the action category. You're also correct that the things that happened in Germany started with speech, as many things do. But lots of things also end at speech too and there is a transition when things go from speech to action. My point is regardless of German fascists starting with speech (which should have been a warning to everyone else), the other European countries either didn't take it seriously or looked the other way until the Germans started taking actions and it was too late to stop them. ... So what you're saying is that us Europeans should invade the US before its too late? The reasons for why the other Europeans countries looked the other way is well documented. Other countries shouldn't be responsible for preventing fascism to take root in countries. There were so many points in which the Weimar Republic could have done things differently. You know why it went the way it went? Because a lot of Germans thought: "Well it can't be that bad" or "Well the other side must be worse", which both sound eerily familiar. In the end the man committed a coup and only few years later influential Germans went "at least he's not a socialist". This is the kind of rationalization a significant group of Americans is still holding about Trump vs. Biden after the 6th. I'm not sure this really makes sense. Once you're a fascist/neo-nazi, you have already bought the bridge they're selling you. Being removed from social media doesn't make them Nazi harder, it just makes it more difficult for others to get into casual contact with these types of people. If you sympathize with fascist being deplatformed, you have already crossed a line somewhere. When the water breaks through a dyke, you don't start by mopping it up at the edges, first you plug the breach, then you start fixing what came through. This might be very optimistic. Yes you might sway 60 people over a lifetime, but so might the fascist. Just look at Trump, most of his voters aren't fascists, but look how many voters became comfortable with his authoritarian/fascist tendencies. He even got MORE votes the next time around after having it on full display. The deprogramming necessary is insane and putting the onus on those that aren't fascist/horribly racist is flipping it to the wrong side. Most of these people get radicalized online, deplatform the easiest forms of access to this radicalization and it will already get a lot harder for the disgruntled people to get drawn in. Pushing them to the fringes does work, of course it won't stop the real extremist elements but... After all, social media has allowed these people to find each other and whip each other into a frenzy on a medium so accessible even 90 year old grandma's are on it (and participating in).
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jan 18, 2021 18:50:09 GMT -5
I got the part about "attempting to establish fascism" on the first read through - I didn't call attention to it because I think once you get to the "attempting to establish" part, you're going beyond speech and moving into the action category. You're also correct that the things that happened in Germany started with speech, as many things do. But lots of things also end at speech too and there is a transition when things go from speech to action. My point is regardless of German fascists starting with speech (which should have been a warning to everyone else), the other European countries either didn't take it seriously or looked the other way until the Germans started taking actions and it was too late to stop them. If you did get that part, then you should understand that omitting it changes the entire meaning of what they said, which is dishonest. "If that bad speech is advocating for and attempting to establish fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet," is different than "If that bad speech is advocating for fascism then the tried and true method is a bullet," Now, Malus can obviously correct me if they intend the latter to be true, but I don't think that's their intent. The problem with denying extremists a platform and humiliating them is that you are likely not actually changing their mind - if anything that just confirms to them that they are being "oppressed" and strengthening the ability for them and their colleagues to buy into some kind of weird martyr complex. While it may be cathartic and they may deserve it, I'm not yet convinced that that is actually the most effective way to combat extremism. They don't need to change their mind and it's incredibly difficult. In time, they'll die out both literally, and figuratively as they find they can't recruit members. If you deny them a platform to recruit, you cut off their lifeblood. Just like with religion, their focus is not passing it down through the generations, but getting new converts or members to sustain their numbers. And as the world (and people in it) become more interconnected, tolerance has been steadily growing and people are more accepting of other people, so it's only a matter of time for neo-nazis to go the way of the original Nazi if they can't recruit. In regards to Daryl Davis - you're right, it's not a ton of people, but he's also only one person. My point is that if more people embraced his methods rather than focusing on trying humiliate and de-platform extremists, we might actually have a lot fewer extremists running around rather than the same number (or more) who are just stewing on the fringes of the public sphere. I'll not shed a tear for fascists either, but it does seem like changing someone's mind is much more powerful and a more desirable criterium for "winning" than silencing someone either via de-platforming, humiliation, or use of force. So much of extremism is based on ignorance, shutting down discussion and all but ensuring that extremists are never exposed to other ideas just seems like a recipe for maintaining a population of extremists. Daryl was extremely lucky in so many ways, but first and foremost, by not being killed. Interacting with the far-right is dangerous, they're prone to violence and outrage at the drop of a hat, and a lot of the current far-right extremism is not based entirely in bigotry. A lot of it is based in nebulous concepts like "Democrats stole the election!" or "Drain the swamp!" That makes their situation quite a bit different than Daryl's when it comes to de-radicalizing them. On top of that, he only helped about 3 people directly a year, or about 65 indirectly a year, and he mostly got vulnerable people, i.e. those he could physically talk to or those who weren't committed. But using myself as an example: I, as a white person, would have a much harder time changing the same person he would. I'm not a group they can visibly identify at a glance as someone they "hate" like they can with him. He can easily subvert those expectations while I cannot. Me revealing myself as a progressive would not have the same effect if I paid for someone's bail than if he did because it feels more like a betrayal of their assumptions as if I was hiding something. So, my point is that while changing their minds may be the best outcome, the onus should not be on minorities to change neo-nazis' minds by putting themselves in potentially extremely dangerous situations. The onus should be on society to push back against their hatred by refusing to allow it or lend it any sort of legitimacy or platform they need to recruit new members. Not my intent to change the meaning, so sorry if you saw it as dishonest. My original question was about speech. Malus' response seemed to intertwine speech and actions, and in my two posts I tried to separate the two and focus on the speech part as that is what I'm most interested in and I suspect our points of view on dealing with actions align more closely than our points of view on dealing with speech. I addressed why I thought the action portion wasn't really relevant to the speech portion in my first post. If that changes the meaning of Malus' response such that I'm not mischaracterizing their thought process, I hope they'll clarify because that's not my intent. I'm not trying to debate or score points - I have just got the impression that some of us here have differing views in regards to free speech, and I'm legitimately curious about your thought process. What I posted was me trying to articulate my understanding of the responses so far (with the addition of a few thoughts of my own on the subject), so please feel free to clarify or correct me if I've misinterpreted anything. In regards to extremists dying out - extreme speech has been illegal in places like Germany since after WWII and extremists still haven't died out. I'd also argue that extremism often does run in families, especially if we're talking about groups like the Klan. Those groups also prey on vulnerable communities and have done so successfully since before the advent of the internet. In regards to Daryl Davis and his methods - I would agree that I tend towards optimism. I agree that a white person may have less of an impact but a white person is also likely going to be taking less risk overall engaging with extremist groups. But I'm not claiming that the onus should be on minorities to change people's minds - I agree with you that the onus should be on society, but I think a better method is trying to demonstrate why their ideas are wrong. Engaging with vulnerable communities to prevent recruitment is probably another portion of that method that might help minimize successful recruitment - especially considering these groups survived pre-internet, while the de-platform and humiliate strategy will likely slow them down, I don't think it will cause them to die off completely until we as a society address the root issues that cause these kinds of groups to take hold and have influence on vulnerable communities (And I realize that's a big complex problem that doesn't have an easy solution).
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jan 18, 2021 19:02:30 GMT -5
I got the part about "attempting to establish fascism" on the first read through - I didn't call attention to it because I think once you get to the "attempting to establish" part, you're going beyond speech and moving into the action category. You're also correct that the things that happened in Germany started with speech, as many things do. But lots of things also end at speech too and there is a transition when things go from speech to action. My point is regardless of German fascists starting with speech (which should have been a warning to everyone else), the other European countries either didn't take it seriously or looked the other way until the Germans started taking actions and it was too late to stop them. ... So what you're saying is that us Europeans should invade the US before its too late? The reasons for why the other Europeans countries looked the other way is well documented. Other countries shouldn't be responsible for preventing fascism to take root in countries. There were so many points in which the Weimar Republic could have done things differently. You know why it went the way it went? Because a lot of Germans thought: "Well it can't be that bad" or "Well the other side must be worse", which both sound eerily familiar. In the end the man committed a coup and only few years later influential Germans went "at least he's not a socialist". This is the kind of rationalization a significant group of Americans is still holding about Trump vs. Biden after the 6th. I'm not sure this really makes sense. Once you're a fascist/neo-nazi, you have already bought the bridge they're selling you. Being removed from social media doesn't make them Nazi harder, it just makes it more difficult for others to get into casual contact with these types of people. If you sympathize with fascist being deplatformed, you have already crossed a line somewhere. When the water breaks through a dyke, you don't start by mopping it up at the edges, first you plug the breach, then you start fixing what came through. This might be very optimistic. Yes you might sway 60 people over a lifetime, but so might the fascist. Just look at Trump, most of his voters aren't fascists, but look how many voters became comfortable with his authoritarian/fascist tendencies. He even got MORE votes the next time around after having it on full display. The deprogramming necessary is insane and putting the onus on those that aren't fascist/horribly racist is flipping it to the wrong side. Most of these people get radicalized online, deplatform the easiest forms of access to this radicalization and it will already get a lot harder for the disgruntled people to get drawn in. Pushing them to the fringes does work, of course it won't stop the real extremist elements but... After all, social media has allowed these people to find each other and whip each other into a frenzy on a medium so accessible even 90 year old grandma's are on it (and participating in). No, that's not what I'm saying - just responding the initial examples that were used. What you're bringing up is also another reason why the WWII example might not align the best with what we're talking about. In regards to extremists having already bought the bridge, that can sometimes be true, but in many cases (especially in the case of people who have been radicalized at a young age) it may not be so much that they've "already bought the bridge," but that it's the only "bridge" they've ever been exposed to. Also, let's be clear that sympathizing with someone being de-platformed and believing that de-platforming might not be the best tactic for positive change isn't the same thing. In regards to where the onus should be to deprogram people: Saying that Daryl Davis' tactics were effective (they were) doesn't mean that what he did was his responsibility, or that the onus was on him to do so. Recognizing that those tactics could be effective or more effective than de-platforming also doesn't place the onus on individuals. In addition, if people are truly "programmed" as extremists, they likely can't be deprogrammed without help from someone else. That's not letting them off the hook, but it's a question of how badly do people who aren't extremists want to reduce the population of actual extremists via de-programming. Or, are they satisfied with maintaining the population as it, but be able to ignore the, by pushing them to the fringes (which could be argued is partially how we ended up where we are today)? There are many cases in which people have taken actions in which the onus wasn't on them to do so, or it wasn't their responsibility to do so, but it was still a positive thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by squidhills on Jan 18, 2021 19:13:50 GMT -5
The best response to bad speech, specifically speech calling for and advocating fascism and white supremacy, is censorship. End of.
Don't debate them; you won't change their minds. Don't give them an audience; you'll just make their ideas seem legitimate to the uneducated and ignorant. Prevent their message, their hatred, their disease from spreading to new brains, and eventually they will become too weak to threaten anyone.
They will never really go away entirely, because they will still be able to teach their kids to be fascists. But they won't be able to teach your kids or my kids to be fascists. That will reduce their numbers, that will reduce their influence, and that will reduce their threat.
Understand that I say the above as an American, who is fully aware of the existence of the 1st Amendment. The problem is that the fascists are all too prepared to exploit the law to their benefit. They want free speech NOW, so that they can grab enough power to deny it to everyone else LATER. They use the tools of democracy to undermine and attack democracy. Democracy can't win in that scenario.
They go low, we go high. And we lose every single time.
They exploit the vulnerabilities in the law and freely violate the spirit of the rules, while we fret about following both the letter and spirit. You can't win a game when you're the only party playing by the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Jan 18, 2021 19:23:39 GMT -5
The best response to bad speech, specifically speech calling for and advocating fascism and white supremacy, is censorship. End of. Don't debate them; you won't change their minds. Don't give them an audience; you'll just make their ideas seem legitimate to the uneducated and ignorant. Prevent their message, their hatred, their disease from spreading to new brains, and eventually they will become too weak to threaten anyone. They will never really go away entirely, because they will still be able to teach their kids to be fascists. But they won't be able to teach your kids or my kids to be fascists. That will reduce their numbers, that will reduce their influence, and that will reduce their threat. Understand that I say the above as an American, who is fully aware of the existence of the 1st Amendment. The problem is that the fascists are all too prepared to exploit the law to their benefit. They want free speech NOW, so that they can grab enough power to deny it to everyone else LATER. They use the tools of democracy to undermine and attack democracy. Democracy can't win in that scenario. They go low, we go high. And we lose every single time. They exploit the vulnerabilities in the law and freely violate the spirit of the rules, while we fret about following both the letter and spirit. You can't win a game when you're the only party playing by the rules. I get what you're saying. But if they go low and we go high, are we really losing every single time? It seems like throughout history, in the long term, we (non-fascists, non-white supremacists) have won and continue to win. Are you concerned that if they go low, and then we go low for a short term win, are we risking a bigger loss in the long term by giving them an example they can use of us violating our own democratic principles (the right to free speech, etc.)? That seems like a pretty big risk to me. Not to mention the problem of who gets to decide what gets censored and the potential for some sort of censorship creep over time.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 18, 2021 20:41:14 GMT -5
What do you think the preferable cure for bad speech is, if not (more) better speech? It's “denying a platform and then better speech” imo. More specifically, for those that have already been convinced, this better speech would better be one on one conversation, preferably IRL.
|
|
|
Post by squidhills on Jan 18, 2021 21:11:10 GMT -5
I get what you're saying. But if they go low and we go high, are we really losing every single time? It seems like throughout history, in the long term, we (non-fascists, non-white supremacists) have won and continue to win. Are you concerned that if they go low, and then we go low for a short term win, are we risking a bigger loss in the long term by giving them an example they can use of us violating our own democratic principles (the right to free speech, etc.)? That seems like a pretty big risk to me. Not to mention the problem of who gets to decide what gets censored and the potential for some sort of censorship creep over time. We win in the long term only after the situation turns to violence. The last time the US was this polarized politically, with one entire political party comprised of white supremacists and bad-faith actors, we had to put on blue uniforms and shoot half a million people in the face, in order for the good guys to win. When fascism took the wheel in Europe, a whole lot more people ended up getting shot in the face before the good guys won. I can't help but wonder what might've happened if the Weimar government had denied the Nazis a platform to run for office (of course, no-one at the time knew what the end result would be, but pretend that they did). If you know a party is running for office only so that they can destroy the system of government that they used to seize power, why let them run in the first place?
Who cares if Nazis can point a finger at me and say "you violated your principles!"... They're Nazis. They are going to do that, even if I don't violate my principles (see every segment ever run on Fox News). I don't care about their opinion, and if we silence them, nobody else will hear their opinion, and so it double won't matter.
As for arguments about who gets censored, and potential expansion of censorship and abuse of the power, it's simple.
Do you adhere to or support a political philosophy/religious dogma that is dedicated to the violent destruction of this government or any group of its citizens? If yes, shut the hell up and go away. If no, then the First Amendment still applies to you. Conservatives who hold different views than Liberals on how to fix poverty or end crime won't be silenced, because they aren't advocating genocide or mass deportations. People who do advocate those things get hit with the stick, and deservedly so.
We have the benefit of hindsight. We know what happens when the fascists take over your government. Even with that knowledge, Americans, Poles, Hungarians, and Indians are lining up to vote the fascists into power.
Better to never let them run in the first place.
|
|