[Discussion] On the right wing, free speech, and free opinion

Since my very slightly conservative opinions aren't apparently welcome in other threads, I thought I'd put them here.

I was a prominent neo-Nazi. Ignoring white extremists is a mistake.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Allowing hate speech to go unchallenged leads to escalations like seen today, that Freja spoke about. And further.

Allowing hate speech to go unchallenged leads to violence. Challenging hate speech also leads to violence. Those people desire violence, they will cause it either way.
But it sure should be challenged. Still think ignoring it is much more dangerous than allowing it.
Making hate speech illegal can certainly serve as a symbol, a worthy symbol. But it isn't like it will suddenly make the nazis go away.

Also, hate speech kinda requires speech. Like the ex-google employee.
But if a neo-nazi rally walks around like yesterday, with their weapons, torches and what not, they are intimidating people, but not really committing hate speech directly. Unless you want to punish their thoughts as well.

One thing I find crazy though, but it is nothing new, is how anyone can think it is okay for a weaponized militia/rally to be legal. How is this even remotely okay, regardless of what one might think of free speech in general
IMAGE(https://asset.dr.dk/imagescaler/?file=/images/other/2017/08/12/scanpix-20170812-200715-l.jpg)
Sure, lets help the neo-nazis to intimidate... Guess you need more armed BLM groups, or armed Planned Parenthood groups walking the streets as a counterpoint.

Nothing more telling than the difference today from White Amerikkka's reaction to Colin Kapernick and the KKK rally in VA.

I wonder what the police reaction would have been to armed black people walking. Well I know what the reaction would have been.

How about police reaction to a black person murderously ramming his car into protesters? Any takers on that bet?

Billboard advertisement in a metro is hardly a free speech right.

Of course it is. The reason for the freedom of speech and opinion is so that people can have ideas, share those ideas, gather supporters, and then invoke changes in the overall social fabric. If any part of that process is abrogated, they're shut out of broader society. Everyone is supposed to have room to participate, even people you hate and would rather see dead.

It's like those horrific "free speech zones" that the, um, I think it was the first Bush administration came up with, possibly the second... the idea that you can just corral speech you don't like away from the broader public. This is utterly wrong, destroying free speech while claiming to uphold it.

I got a PM about this thread from a former conservative poster here, saying that I'm probably next off the island because I'm insufficiently left wing. This is what I replied:

In a private message, I wrote:

They don't even understand that they're destroying liberalism itself. The ethos needs the free exchange of ideas, or it doesn't work. If you start suppressing ideas you don't like, just because you don't like them, then you will, by definition, sometimes be wrong and suppress correct ideas. The older you get, the more often you will get it wrong.

Eventually, we're all going to look like this:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/E7r43.png)

(this is already happening to me, and I'm not even 50 yet.)

The weird and scary things will be new liberal ideas, which we're savagely suppressing because we don't like them.

It's this fundamental arrogance that I will never be wrong and society has peaked with me.

If you force people into silence, you haven't convinced them of anything, and you haven't won. You've just kicked the can down the road, and made the problem worse. They'll meet in secret, and will share their ideas on their own, without any contradiction at all. And they will perceive the government and the opposing side as threats (which is perfectly correct, because they are), and will plot to destroy them.

This is what has been happening for the last fifty years or so. Liberals stopped winning broader social arguments, and started using force to get their way instead. What you are seeing now is the blowback from this, from failing to actually change the way people think.

We didn't convince them, we forced them to comply, and then when they kept daring to keep their old opinions, we tried (and continue to try) to silence them.

They're done being forced.

Allowing hate speech to go unchallenged leads to violence. Challenging hate speech also leads to violence. Those people desire violence, they will cause it either way.

Challenged, absolutely! But not suppressed. Not silenced. Not punished. Everyone has the right to speak, even people you hate. And they have the right to be free from consequence for doing so. We have this artificial distinction about government versus the public, and that the government can't do certain things, but remember that this is a government of us. We, The People. If we, individually, don't support the same rights that the government is supposed to support, then they don't exist.

You punish actions, not words, and not opinions.

There's lots to punish in Charlottesville, and I'm not real sanguine that, with the Feds in such racist and conservative hands, justice will actually be done. But being racist and conservative, by itself, is not something to be punished for. We're supposed to be about liberty.

Malor wrote:

This is what has been happening for the last fifty years or so. Liberals stopped winning broader social arguments, and started using force to get their way instead. What you are seeing now is the blowback from this, from failing to actually change the way people think.

What examples of the right being forced are you referring to?

The entire country of India would disagree with you utterly, RoughneckGeek. cf: Mahatma Gandhi.

PaladinTom wrote:
Malor wrote:

This is what has been happening for the last fifty years or so. Liberals stopped winning broader social arguments, and started using force to get their way instead. What you are seeing now is the blowback from this, from failing to actually change the way people think.

What examples of the right being forced are you referring to?

Well, most recently, gay marriage. Now conservatives are forced to comply with the idea of gay marriage, whatever their opinions are about it, because seven people in robes decreed that they shall. They didn't get a voice in this decision. They didn't get to make their arguments, they didn't get to influence the outcome in any way. But, nonetheless, now they're required to do it, to the point that people will show up with guns and take them to jail if they refuse to comply long enough and strenuously enough. (cf: that awful clerk in Texas that refused to issue marriage licenses, and went to jail because of it.)

That's the wrong way to do it. Process matters. Civil rights in the broader sense have mostly taken hold in this country, though imperfectly, because it went through an actual legislative process. We are, in essence, still having that argument, but for the most part, even conservatives now agree in principle that people aren't unequal based on their skin color. They have, very slowly, been convinced that the liberals were right.

But, at least recently, things like gay marriage and trans rights are being rammed through the courts and Obama's Executive Branch. Few people on the other side are being convinced that these things are right or noble or correct, they're just being told to shut up and f*cking do it. We're not winning, not really. We're temporarily getting our way, but every time we do this, the pressure against these changes builds up.

We're trying to destroy conservatives. We're trying to make them go away, to stop being conservative. This doesn't work; it appears to be a genetic thing. From what I understand of recent biological science, people are conservative in exactly the same way that people are gay; they don't get a choice. Their values are just different.

If you make a society that conservatives can't live in, then they will refuse to live in it. And they are better at violence than we are, a lot better.

(for more information on the link between political orientation and biology: Biology and political orientation. This is somewhat disputed, but it's real thinking from real scientists, not just from-thin-air bullsh*t.)

I'm glad this was quickly changed from a "Debate" thread to "another thread Malor started because he lost the 'you liberals don't know what damage you're doing' or 'losing your job is violence' in a previous one."

This isn't even a discussion. It's just a lot of proclaiming oneself to be a martyr with no real exchange going on. It's just a lot of trying to prop up bad actions, thin opinions, faulty logic, and other such things under the guise of "but you're targeting conservatives" -

But being racist and conservative, by itself, is not something to be punished for. We're supposed to be about liberty.

Being racist should be punished. That's one of the (stated, anyway) ideals of this country. The problem comes when people seem to think that because they spackle some vaguely conservative-sounding politics on top of it, it's now a "difference of opinion".

Look, I don't care who is or isn't conservative. By self-identity or by their actions. I care if someone is racist. The fact that you and others keep trying to tie the two together as some sort of rhetorical shield says way more about you and them than it does about all of these supposedly rabid liberals who have lost their way and have become "just as bad" or whatever.

I honestly wish people would stop acting like opposition to their thoughts was itself validation - "Oh you're just silencing me because I'm not liberal enough". No, we're arguing you (you in the general sense, but I guess you specifically here, now) because of the bad concern trolling and faulty associations you're making. And if the best you can do in response is just sigh about how you're such a martyred messenger, you don't actually have anything to discuss.

edit: To my point, here are some things my family and friends back home - the mid-Missouri very redneck family and friends that I often get so angry at for dismissing the notion of white privilege or tying things back to 'all government is bad' - managed to say about this weekend in Charlotte.

"This is horrifying. I thought I'd seen the last of this when I was in high school." - my dad

"What the f*ck is wrong with these people did they forget they could protest in a way not straight out of the KKK handbook" - high school buddy

"Oh god those idiots are going to set something on fire by pure accident because they are racist idiots and shouldn't have access to fire." - my hugely "all lives matter" uncle.

Note how none of them seemed to think this was an issue of "conservative opinion".

Malor wrote:

Everyone has the right to speak, even people you hate. And they have the right to be free from consequence for doing so.

Nope. You're absolutely 100% wrong. Your position is not supported by anything. Not in the text of the constitution, not in the law, not in legal precedent. Society would literally be unable to function with such a ridiculous edict.

You keep saying this over and over when it is objectively false by every single standard of measurement. Maybe you believe that's how the world should be, but it is in no way a "right".

Malor wrote:
Allowing hate speech to go unchallenged leads to violence. Challenging hate speech also leads to violence. Those people desire violence, they will cause it either way.

Challenged, absolutely! But not suppressed. Not silenced. Not punished. Everyone has the right to speak, even people you hate. And they have the right to be free from consequence for doing so. We have this artificial distinction about government versus the public, and that the government can't do certain things, but remember that this is a government of us. We, The People. If we, individually, don't support the same rights that the government is supposed to support, then they don't exist.

You punish actions, not words, and not opinions.

There's lots to punish in Charlottesville, and I'm not real sanguine that, with the Feds in such racist and conservative hands, justice will actually be done. But being racist and conservative, by itself, is not something to be punished for. We're supposed to be about liberty.

I really want agree on principle.
As said earlier I think silencing people is dangerous . Only makes them more extreme.
On the other hand, there are different ways to express "opinions". There might be some room between letting everyone spew whatever lies and threats they want against each other, and silencing them.

Just like silencing one group might make them more extreme, allowing hate speech toward another group, also appears to make that group more extreme. Since they fighting as much (well, much more) to protect their lives, as the nazis are.

So sure, would be lovely if we could solve all problems through debate. But when people debate whether others should be allowed to exist, and to varying degrees encourages violence against them, its not like any debate can be had regardless. If a nazi want to express their "opinions" in a way that does not consists of lies, threats and intimidation, it might be a little easier to accept them.
Freedom to express your "opinion" and ideas, but not necessarily in all forms.

Being racist should be punished.

No, it should not. Specific actions may be punishable. Having an opinion, about anyone or anything, should never be.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Malor wrote:

Everyone has the right to speak, even people you hate. And they have the right to be free from consequence for doing so.

Nope. You're absolutely 100% wrong. Your position is not supported by anything. Not in the text of the constitution, not in the law, not in legal precedent. Society would literally be unable to function with such a ridiculous edict.

You keep saying this over and over when it is objectively false by every single standard of measurement. Maybe you believe that's how the world should be, but it is in no way a "right".

Of course it is! Everything is a right, but that's one that they took time to actively document:

The First Amendment wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Also remember the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Malor wrote:
Being racist should be punished.

No, it should not. Specific actions may be punishable. Having an opinion, about anyone or anything, should never be.

Stop being so purposefully obtuse. If you want to pretend I'm saying "let's build windows in the minds of others and punish them" then fine. Have fun with whatever whackjob imaginary conversation you think you're winning.

Shadout wrote:

As said earlier I think silencing people is the most dangerous thing you can do. Only makes them more extreme.

People say this all the time and I think it's absolute bunk. Silencing antisocial speech does not make people more extreme. It means only the most extreme keep talking so it just looks that way.

Malor wrote:
PaladinTom wrote:
Malor wrote:

This is what has been happening for the last fifty years or so. Liberals stopped winning broader social arguments, and started using force to get their way instead. What you are seeing now is the blowback from this, from failing to actually change the way people think.

What examples of the right being forced are you referring to?

Well, most recently, gay marriage. Now conservatives are forced to comply with the idea of gay marriage, whatever their opinions are about it, because seven people in robes decreed that they shall. They didn't get a voice in this decision. They didn't get to make their arguments, they didn't get to influence the outcome in any way. But, nonetheless, now they're required to do it, to the point that people will show up with guns and take them to jail if they refuse to comply long enough and strenuously enough. (cf: that awful clerk in Texas that refused to issue marriage licenses, and went to jail because of it.)

That's the wrong way to do it. Process matters. Civil rights in the broader sense have mostly taken hold in this country, though imperfectly, because it went through an actual legislative process. We are, in essence, still having that argument, but for the most part, even conservatives now agree in principle that people aren't unequal based on their skin color. They have, very slowly, been convinced that the liberals were right.

But, at least recently, things like gay marriage and trans rights are being rammed through the courts and Obama's Executive Branch. Few people on the other side are being convinced that these things are right or noble or correct, they're just being told to shut up and f*cking do it. We're not winning, not really. We're temporarily getting our way, but every time we do this, the pressure against these changes builds up.

We're trying to destroy conservatives. We're trying to make them go away, to stop being conservative. This doesn't work; it appears to be a genetic thing. From what I understand of recent biological science, people are conservative in exactly the same way that people are gay; they don't get a choice. Their values are just different.

If you make a society that conservatives can't live in, then they will refuse to live in it. And they are better at violence than we are, a lot better.

(for more information on the link between political orientation and biology: Biology and political orientation. This is somewhat disputed, but it's real thinking from real scientists, not just from-thin-air bullsh*t.)

Ah! I thought you may have meant "The Law" but wanted confirmation first.

So by your logic, freeing the slaves, desegregation, and civil rights were forced on society? C'mon Malor. Everything you say about not "forcing" them sounds incredibly optimistic in theory, but in practice, these are peoples lives your casually dismissing. It's a huge difference to look back on history than to actually experience it. Don't forget that most of the country supported gay marriage when it was forced on us.

I'm afraid to say, that everything that's happening is part of the process. Some of our founders would even argue we need something even more extreme. Hopefully it never comes to that.

Maq wrote:
Shadout wrote:

As said earlier I think silencing people is the most dangerous thing you can do. Only makes them more extreme.

People say this all the time and I think it's absolute bunk. Silencing antisocial speech does not make people more extreme. It means only the most extreme keep talking so it just looks that way.

Maybe. Just stating what I think is the case.
I think a lot of the rise of nationalist parties in Europe in the last 10-20 years came from a sense that their nationalist views were not something you could talk about. It let them build the whole "establishment is against us" narrative. Which then let them merge with all the other crazy conspiracies out there that have a similar concept.
But there is so much space between silencing people entirely, and not at all limiting how they can express their views (well, at least punishing them for it, obviously cant prevent people from breaking a hate speech law).

Fair enough. I'd argue silencing isn't the most dangerous thing you can do; I'd say giving them the mic and normalizing their speech as if it's just as reasonable as any other opinion is the most dangerous thing you can do.

Maq wrote:
Shadout wrote:

As said earlier I think silencing people is the most dangerous thing you can do. Only makes them more extreme.

People say this all the time and I think it's absolute bunk. Silencing antisocial speech does not make people more extreme. It means only the most extreme keep talking so it just looks that way.

So, silencing people you don't like is okay?

Where does it stop? What rights remain?

In other words: something that can be taken away isn't a right, it's a privilege. Is everything a revocable privilege that you can remove from those who disagree with you?

Malor wrote:

Everything is a right

Including the right to discriminate against someone for what they say?

Malor wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Malor wrote:

Everyone has the right to speak, even people you hate. And they have the right to be free from consequence for doing so.

Nope. You're absolutely 100% wrong. Your position is not supported by anything. Not in the text of the constitution, not in the law, not in legal precedent. Society would literally be unable to function with such a ridiculous edict.

You keep saying this over and over when it is objectively false by every single standard of measurement. Maybe you believe that's how the world should be, but it is in no way a "right".

Of course it is! Everything is a right, but that's one that they took time to actively document:

The First Amendment wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Also remember the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You actually think this supports your statement?

Have you ever actually been around people? In the real world?

So by your logic, freeing the slaves, desegregation, and civil rights were forced on society?

Well, of course they were forced on society. We had rather a little dustup where the forcing took place, if you'll remember. We didn't convince them we were right, we killed them until they surrendered.

Don't ever pretend it was anything else.

The second try on civil rights, in the 1960s, mostly "took". Imperfectly, but it finally actually started to happen.

Notably, the original violence didn't really work, it just drove the racism underground, and it would be another hundred years before real progress would start to happen. And that happened through Congress and the legislative process, with a lot of messy arguing.

I can't even with this thread right now. I'm f*cking out of here.

EDIT: And if saying that gets me suspended from D&D or I'm told to take a break I should probably take one right now. I can't "debate" racism right now. I'm over it. Especially after yesterday.

DSGamer wrote:

I can't even with this thread right now. I'm f*cking out of here.

We did kill them until they surrendered. 483,000 Confederate soldiers died... and even after that, it still didn't fix racism in the South. It ended slavery, but only on paper. You can argue, in fact, that it's still going on right now. There are more black people in involuntary servitude in 2017 than there were in the 1860s.

I hate that all of this is true. I wish that everything I'm saying in this post was false. But, no matter what my opinion might be, all these things remain facts. We killed a half-million soldiers to end slavery, and didn't really end it. In my opinion, it's still happening right now.

Is this a 'if we cant do things perfectly we should do nothing at all' argument?

I'm not always a fan of US, but I'm happy you picked killing nazis in WW2 over debating with them Don't even care that the entire problem of racism wasn't magically solved in one big swoop.

Malor wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I can't even with this thread right now. I'm f*cking out of here.

We did kill them until they surrendered. 483,000 Confederate soldiers died...

Well, we assisted the slaves in exercising their right to self-defense. The soldiers we killed were in violation of the principle of non-aggression.

Don't ever pretend it was anything else.

Malor wrote:

The entire country of India would disagree with you utterly, RoughneckGeek. cf: Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi and the Gandhian movement did not occur in a vacuum. You should probably read up on the Indian revolutionary movement on Wikipedia. There was a heck of a lot of violent resistance and civic disruption that fed into things, both before and after the partition.

There is no debate. This thread is just an opportunity for Malor to hold court with ideas that shouldn't be banned, but mocked for being as out of touch with reality as they are. It's not like Malor is going to see the light. His entire premise hangs on amending the constitution to remove the Supreme Court.

At least he has support of others that are unable to have their beliefs questioned without storming off.

Weird how queer people were roundly persecuted and killed for decades but it's *us* forcing the conservatives.

American society is doomed because the queermos can't be openly beaten down by the staaa-oh wait that's still happening.

There is literally no indignity, no beating, no assault on us you won't jerk yourself off while defending. You expect every single marginalized person in this country to throw ourselves into the gears so Nazi McDipsh*t can goose step around the streets actively recruiting for his death squad.

Man, from the bottom of my shriveled heart: Get f*cked.