[vpilcx]

I think that's really easy to believe in - when you're not at risk in any kind of way.

I mean, if you're a white guy, what do you give a fuck about someone turning America into a white ethnostate? Sure, theoretically, it's morally bad, but you're not really going to be directly affected.

If you're not trans, being characterized as a groomer pedophile has no effect at all to you.

I think it's easy to take a stand in favor of free speech when speech is only speech, but that's a remarkably naive and gullible viewpoint to have. Do you think white supremacists that lynch black people don't use hate speech beforehand and talk about exterminating non-whites beforehand?

"But that's violence. That's diferent.", you might say. How do you think these people meet each other and collaborate with each other and normalize this kind of behavior? Through 'free speech'.

[tekla]

Man, I hate doing this, but im going to use identity politics because its fun to use it against the people pushing this shenanigans.

So as someone who is Asian, who thought that claiming the lab leak theory to be racist against Asians to be incredibly stupid, and as someone who has been on the receiving end of multiple insults related to COVID and possibly one violent interaction, I am still a Free Speech Absolutist.

My family knows what its like to live in a world where speech is censored, not by the government, but by everyone you know for saying something out of line with the official narrative. I despise the fact that the current left seems to be all ok with living in a authoritative world where everyone is expected to socially push the current narrative and suppress dissent. The worst part is that since its not directly coming from the Govt, its used as an excuse to continue to push these anti-liberal agendas.

I don't care if I'm on the receiving end of threats or actual violence because of free speech. Giving up your rights due to being scared is cowardice and allows actual authoritarians to take over your mind.

[vpilcx]

> I don't care if I'm on the receiving end of threats or actual violence because of free speech. Giving up your rights due to being scared is cowardice and allows actual authoritarians to take over your mind.

And assuming that people of color should be the victims of violence because you, personally, aren't concerned with violence is selfish and narcissistic.

[balderdash]

The other side of that coin (which is far more prevalent historically) is that speech restrictions are used to stifle dissent and repress minority groups. I.e. illegalizing anti-war or minority rights speech.

You make the mistake of assuming that those in power will only be preventing speech you agree with rather than muzzling you.

[vpilcx]

Honestly, I would prefer that over the ambiguity. I'd much rather live in a state in America where being a Nazi is illegal with the side effect of knowing, unequivocally, that I need to leave another state because my existence is in peril.

[blindriver]

So are you saying we should outlaw letting people gather and say disagreeable/racist things privately among each other? Boy that escalated pretty quickly. What's next? Should we outlaw people thinking racist and hateful things as well?

[dustymcp]

Ofcourse, that's what the chip in the vaccine is for!

[BxGyw2]

Actually there are a lot of black supremacists etc, people who absolutely hate me and want my whole race to die and I'll still listen to their podcasts and stuff just because it's something interesting. People who aren't scared to be labelled extreme are usually saying the interesting stuff that needs to be said. You should stop taking everything so serious and just go with the flow

[vpilcx]

Name three podcasts since there are 'a lot of black supremacists'.

[twblalock]

> I think it's easy to take a stand in favor of free speech when speech is only speech, but that's a remarkably naive and gullible viewpoint to have. Do you think white supremacists that lynch black people don't use hate speech beforehand and talk about exterminating non-whites beforehand?

What's naïve is thinking that they would stop the lynching if someone told them they weren't allowed to talk about it. It would make zero difference.

> "But that's violence. That's diferent.", you might say. How do you think these people meet each other and collaborate with each other and normalize this kind of behavior? Through 'free speech'.

Conspiracy to commit crimes is illegal for a number of reasons and covers this problem adequately without needing to infringe on speech per se. But you should also remember that it is not words that kill people, it is the actual violence that follows that kills people, and that kind of violence is already illegal.

Plus, racist speech is how we find out who the racists are. David Duke basically outed himself as a Klan member by making racist political speeches in public, for example.

[colordrops]

The problem is that these hate movements aren't necessarily linearly correlated to the level of free speech. If there is less free speech, then indirect speech, euphemisms, and dog whistles are used. It doesn't stop it. Once any rule is made, it can be worked around. Even worse, the additional rules often anger and energize these people due to a perceived feeling of persecution. And lastly, the rules always get misinterpreted and abused to shut down significant amounts of speech that should not have been censored.

Unless you can prove with certainty that free speech causes an increase in violence and death, then it's better to default to openness.

The KKK and white supremacists marched in their clown parades regularly for decades and we laughed at them. Is it a coincidence that their movements grew significantly with the amplification of messages against them and social media censorship against them. Various right wing figures used this as leverage to increase their virulence.

[blindriver]

Back in the 80s and 90s, we laughed at the KKK. Anyone remember Bustin' Loose with Richard Pryor? Or when Michael Moore got gay black cheerleaders to cheer on a KKK march in some town?

At some point, people decided that we should fear the KKK and white supremacists, and that gave the racists an enormous amount of power even though their numbers are dwindling. I think the world was better when we mocked them and belittled them.

But now the strategy is to call anyone a racist, which is self-defeating and something I vehemently disagree with.

[vpilcx]

> Is it a coincidence that their movements grew significantly with the amplification of messages against them and social media censorship against them. Various right wing figures used this as leverage to increase their virulence.

Or did we just have a black president and a political party that leaned into white supremacy dog whistles?

[negidius]

I think it's the opposite. It's the people who are at the greatest risk of violence who have the most to fear from censorship. If you are anywhere near powerful enough to commit genocide, you are also powerful enough to ensure that it's your opponents and not you who are censored.

Consider what kind of books are being banned from American libraries. It's books portraying trans and gender-nonconforming people in a positive or neutral light, not books calling them "groomer pedophiles". It's books telling American history from the perspective of America's exploited minorities, not books calling for ethnic genocide or pretending the US actually upheld the principles of freedom and equality it was allegedly founded on.

To support censorship, especially state censorship, is to support the powerful in imposing their version of the truth on everyone else.

[vpilcx]

I mean, if banning Nazi'ism is considered 'state censorship' then yes, I wholeheartedly support state censorship. If that's 'imposing someone's truth on everyone else', so be it.

[vlunkr]

I don’t think this is considering the full picture. It would be great if we could magically eliminate nazi ideology, but is the best way to do that really to hand the government extra censorship powers? Do you think the government is going to use that power to benefit the minority groups that need defending, or to advance their own agenda? Even if you have the right elected officials in place to censor things the way you want, what if the next round of elections gives that power to the other team?

Dan Carlin had a great example of this when there was lots of strife between MAGA and antifa groups. Lots of antifa people were calling for censorship of nazi speech while carrying communist flags. Carlin pointed out that if you give the government the power to eliminate that far-right speech, your far-left speech is next to the chopping block.

[vpilcx]

> It would be great if we could magically eliminate nazi ideology

You mean like criminalizing it like the way it is in Germany? That magic?

[mr_toad]

> Do you think the government is going to use that power to benefit the minority groups that need defending, or to advance their own agenda?

Governments that want to abuse laws can use nearly any law. Don’t like what a media outlet is saying about you? Investigate them for tax evasion.

If you’re worried about government abuses you can argue against having any laws at all.

[redeeman]

now I might be naive, but I would tend to think that if I hated someone, for whatever reason, and he lobbied the biggest organized crime syndicate(government) to restrict my ability to talk about my hatred with anyone else, it might just be that I choose to talk with my fists instead of lips.

Surely you cannot think restricting speech helps you in any way? Do you think it helps turn those that dislike you on your side?

[vpilcx]

> Surely you cannot think restricting speech helps you in any way? Do you think it helps turn those that dislike you on your side?

I think it removes the ambiguity. If you find laws that prohibit someone from being a literal Nazi disagreeable and would choose not to live in a state because of it because of 'free speech', that's fine. Just as I'd be fine for not living in Florida or Mississippi for the inverse of that reason.