[Discussion] Free speech. I think its ok to shut down fascists.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Maq wrote:
Robear wrote:

Credit checks don't ding your score.

I read that as "Credit chicks don't dig your score."

This is also probably true. For myself at least.

Kinda surprised that credit score isn't in the list of "Looking For" features of dating sites along with income, education and height.

Have you dated online recently?

Lucky for me, they usually bail out at "5'7"" and never get as far as "credit score"

Moral of the story: Online dating sucks and is full of lots of shallow arbitrary checkpoints

thrawn82 wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Maq wrote:
Robear wrote:

Credit checks don't ding your score.

I read that as "Credit chicks don't dig your score."

This is also probably true. For myself at least.

Kinda surprised that credit score isn't in the list of "Looking For" features of dating sites along with income, education and height.

Have you dated online recently?

Lucky for me, they usually bail out at "5'7"" and never get as far as "credit score"

Moral of the story: Online dating sucks and is full of lots of shallow arbitrary checkpoints

Small of stature, and large of debt!

Was this linked in here?
https://extranewsfeed.com/nazism-wha...
"Nazism: what it is, why we fight it, and how"

These arguments are fundamentally illegitimate, and unlike most other political arguments, they do not have a counterspeech remedy: trying to speak up against them helps them.

There's some really fundamental problems with that article, not the least of which is the risk he recognizes with responding via violence.

1. The people targeted by the argument can’t, by nature, offer a meaningful rebuttal.

No, they can't, but everyone else can. People in positions where this argument might make a difference can counter it by ignoring it, and showing that they don't question the fundamental right of a person to exist or someone's ability to do their job. Further, people who attempt to make this argument can be mocked and ridiculed. By operating as if these arguments are meaningless (which, of course, they are), the Nazi is made to look foolish, petty, and self-serving by definition. In short, this angle of attack only works if other people accept that the conversation is valid.

2. This creates an asymmetric burden on the people affected.

Again, this applies only if the rest of society accepts it - in fact, that is required in order for it to be effective. If the majority refuses to do so, the attempt rebounds onto the Nazis, again making them look petty and self-serving.

The real target of this conversation is the 80%. By having the conversation, over and over again, this creates an appearance that this is part of the normal discourse

And while this is true, the remedy is implicit in the quote - refuse to have the conversation, then reject and ridicule those who try.

When you punch a Nazi, you're giving what they want - legitimacy. If you try to ban them, you're doing the same thing.

There is a reason why every totalitarian regime that has ever existed cracks down on free speech and satire.

Aetius wrote:

And while this is true, the remedy is implicit in the quote - refuse to have the conversation, then reject and ridicule those who try.

When you punch a Nazi, you're giving what they want - legitimacy. If you try to ban them, you're doing the same thing.

"Ignore them and it goes away" is largely how we got here today. While it's true that opposing these folks in any form legitimizes them in the eyes of some, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be opposed. We're past the point where we can wonder about legitimizing them - we have an administration actively courting and protecting them. That's legitimacy enough already.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Aetius wrote:

And while this is true, the remedy is implicit in the quote - refuse to have the conversation, then reject and ridicule those who try.

When you punch a Nazi, you're giving what they want - legitimacy. If you try to ban them, you're doing the same thing.

"Ignore them and it goes away" is largely how we got here today. While it's true that opposing these folks in any form legitimizes them in the eyes of some, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be opposed. We're past the point where we can wonder about legitimizing them - we have an administration actively courting and protecting them. That's legitimacy enough already.

Indeed. And this idea and course of action is predicated on the belief that those who “go away” do so out of a rational sense of shame or defeat instead of the irrational response we have seen of vindication and victory.

We ignored them so much they helped 45 get elected.

Ridicule and rejection only strengthened the Nazis... That's what Populism reflects. Why would it work better here?

When people use the threat or promise of violence to quell opposition, that tells you that the only thing that will stop them in turn is, ultimately, violence as well. The 50's and 60's were not peaceful times, but they did result in social change (even though the troglodytes still exist, and still threaten violence). There's a reason for that, and it's not that African Americans used the wrong techniques when violent resistance to White Supremacy and White Nationalism occurred.

Saw this the other day--figured it might fit in here:

The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.

(LINK)

History shows us there is no peaceful solution to the Nazi problem.

You cannot come to a peaceful solution with people who only desire the peace of the grave.

thrawn82 wrote:

You cannot come to a peaceful solution with people who only desire the peace of the grave.

Even the real Thrawn couldn't have said it better.

This article is a decent stake in the ground for me.

Jason Blakely wrote:

With the assumption that absolute, unlimited speech is a natural freedom it becomes very difficult to cogently justify any limits over speech whatsoever (a parallel problem occurs with all such notions of rights, notably of late those around guns). Suddenly, even reasonable attempts to protect some public good become full-blown assaults on individual rights.

Such problems have something to do with the appeal utilitarian defenses of liberal rights have. John Stuart Mill famously argued that, while individuals had no natural or absolute right to freedom, in the context of modern society’s tendency toward a tyranny of the majority, rights ought to be treated as if they were absolute. For Mill, individuals have a right to a freedom as long as it does not harm anyone else. This is Mill’s venerable “harm principle.” And in his classic work “On Liberty,” he is often read as having argued that absolute freedom of expression is almost never a source of harm. But we know that not to be true.

In fact, American law places limits on all rights, even speech. The courts have interpreted freedom of speech in particular as limited in a whole host of situations. For example, so-called time, place and manner restrictions take into account if a speech act is dangerous to the public (e.g. the cliche cry of “fire” in a movie theater) or even just a disturbance, like shouting about the dangers of state socialism after midnight on a residential street. There is also a whole battery of limitations having to do with mendacity and reputational harm — for example, defamation laws.

So American law has always recognized that there are limits on free speech and that those limits are determined by the primacy of some public goods. This is why, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a freedom of speech absolutist. Of course, there are many people whose stated views approximate something close to such absolutism. For example, Oxford political theorist Teresa Bejan criticized campus calls for limitations on speech in the name of “free-speech fundamentalists like myself” and “the fundamentals of liberal democracy” in a recent article in the Atlantic.

But even this close approximation of free-speech absolutism comes with real risks, even to liberal democracy itself. One of liberalism’s cleverest and most sinister critics — the Nazi jurist, Carl Schmitt — argued that liberal democracies were always bound for a crisis because they could not put up any real defense against enemies. Liberals, according to Schmitt, made the mistake of thinking every enemy of democracy was basically just another, slightly crankier liberal friend. For this reason, Schmitt thought liberal democracies would be too weak to defend themselves when compared to authoritarian societies.

One important way of interpreting campus anxiety over hate speech is trying to wrestle with the problem of how to deal with those seeking to undermine democracy by taking advantage of its very freedoms. In the age of resurgent white nationalism, few need a primer on the ways in which, stated enemies of a free society make use of its public forums to subvert society itself.

Fortunately, there is a rival view of democracy in the United States — one that does not look to absolutist individual rights, but rather bases itself on an ancient tradition of community self-rule known as civic republicanism. The most important articulator of this point of view in the United States is Alexis de Tocqueville. In the 20th century, civic republicanism has been defended in deeply innovative ways by philosophers like Charles Taylor as well.

Civic republicans believe that unlimited individual freedom is not a good in and of itself. Rather, individual freedom is good only insofar as it helps promote the continued practices of democratic self-rule. Civic republicans view certain rights as mandatory for self-rule (e.g. habeas corpus) but they also see individual freedom as something that is only accomplished together by a community. Within civic republicanism, therefore, there is a basis for publicly deliberating over when speech should be protected and when some other public good requires balancing.

My bolding. When your opponents are willing to use the freedoms given by society as tools to tear it down, then simple speech is no longer sufficient to stop them. You may have listened to advice about bullies ("ignore them and they'll leave you alone") but that won't help you in a home invasion situation.

Jason Blakely wrote:

Liberals, according to Schmitt, made the mistake of thinking every enemy of democracy was basically just another, slightly crankier liberal friend.

That's beautiful.

I feel like if we ever had the political power to push back on individual free speech in America, that we'd have the power to push back on things like corporate/money free speech, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. If we could push back on those things, I wonder how much of a problem individual fascist free speech would actually be.

In other words, this pretty much just one big abstract thought experiment isn't it?

To the extent there are any specifics (e.g. kicking Nazis off of college campuses) what we're really talking about is (edit) an emergency strategy where we have to cobble together whatever resources we have to deal with an existing identified threat, as opposed to dreaming up some generalized conception of (edit) rights and their philosophical underpinnings for a society in normal order where we have the power to do so.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

an emergency strategy where we have to cobble together whatever resources we have to deal with an existing identified threat, as opposed to dreaming up some generalized conception of (edit) rights and their philosophical underpinnings for a society in normal order where we have the power to do so.

This describes my work life for the past two weeks.

Also, the current update is that we've been given an ultimatum to provide an acceptable date by January 15 - MLK Jr Day - otherwise they sue. The university offered them options over the Thanksgiving and Winter holiday breaks in 2018 which they said were not "convenient for the event organizers," and they came back requested space over our spring break (Feb. 24 and March 4). Full update in the Michigan Daily.

So at the very least, the university is only considering dates in which faculty and students are not required to be on campus. That unfortunately leaves staff, essential employees (the hospital, etc), and others who live and work in the city vulnerable, but is at least reassuring that no student will be asked to choose between attending class or staying safe.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I feel like if we ever had the political power to push back on individual free speech in America, that we'd have the power to push back on things like corporate/money free speech, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. If we could push back on those things, I wonder how much of a problem individual fascist free speech would actually be.

In other words, this pretty much just one big abstract thought experiment isn't it?

Agreed. Arguments about "preserving our liberal democracy" ring hollow considering we've never really had one. Our Constitutional Republic skipped liberal democracy and has been on a steady decline toward Oligarchical Corporate pseudo-Republic for decades. The Electoral College over corrected for Tyranny of the Majority and gave us Tyranny of the Minority coupled with Oligarchy.

I would love to actually become a liberal democracy, but given the entrenched state of the current parties and lack of critical thinking among the electorate...is Norway hiring?

Mixolyde wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I feel like if we ever had the political power to push back on individual free speech in America, that we'd have the power to push back on things like corporate/money free speech, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. If we could push back on those things, I wonder how much of a problem individual fascist free speech would actually be.

In other words, this pretty much just one big abstract thought experiment isn't it?

Agreed. Arguments about "preserving our liberal democracy" ring hollow considering we've never really had one. Our Constitutional Republic skipped liberal democracy and has been on a steady decline toward Oligarchical Corporate pseudo-Republic for decades. The Electoral College over corrected for Tyranny of the Majority and gave us Tyranny of the Minority coupled with Oligarchy.

I would love to actually become a liberal democracy, but given the entrenched state of the current parties and lack of critical thinking among the electorate...is Norway hiring?

Maybe it's time to consider that "liberal democracy" really just means "North America/European winners in the Industrial Revolution/the New Imperialism."

I would generally refrain from curtailing the rights of people solely because I disagree with them. The moment they start actually committing acts of violence (imminent) is the moment I am free to act violently toward them for defense of myself or others. This must be actual physical violence and not just words, because words are not going to end my life or seriously harm me. If they deny people basic rights (we don't serve your kind here) they get to be sued, boycotted, etc and run out of business. They are free to think and say what they want, though.

It is shocking to me that people can no longer come face to face with either opposing viewpoints or horrible ideas and feel the need to force others to be quiet. That is totalitarian.

silentsod wrote:

I would generally refrain from curtailing the rights of people solely because I disagree with them. The moment they start actually committing acts of violence (imminent) is the moment I am free to act violently toward them for defense of myself or others. This must be actual physical violence and not just words, because words are not going to end my life or seriously harm me.

They seriously can. Emotional pain is just as real as physical pain.
Edit - We're also not talking about words like "poophead" or "smelly face." It's sustained and deliberate verbal abuse. Categorizing it a mere disagreement is disingenuous and wildly inaccurate.

I'd argue that a viewpoint and/or rhetoric that espouses the reduction of a person's very humanity goes far beyond an opposing viewpoint or a horrible idea.

One of the primary goals of Nazi-ism and white nationalism is to reframe ethnic cleansing into something reasonable people can politely disagree about. as if "I want to murder all the people who don't look like me" is something we can agree to disagree on and you do you and me to me.

silentsod wrote:

I would generally refrain from curtailing the rights of people solely because I disagree with them. The moment they start actually committing acts of violence (imminent) is the moment I am free to act violently toward them for defense of myself or others. This must be actual physical violence and not just words, because words are not going to end my life or seriously harm me. If they deny people basic rights (we don't serve your kind here) they get to be sued, boycotted, etc and run out of business. They are free to think and say what they want, though.

It is shocking to me that people can no longer come face to face with either opposing viewpoints or horrible ideas and feel the need to force others to be quiet. That is totalitarian.

Every other Western nation with hate speech laws is totalitarian. Is that what you're saying?

silentsod wrote:

It is shocking to me that people can no longer come face to face with either opposing viewpoints or horrible ideas and feel the need to force others to be quiet.

It's a myth that we ever could.

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/13495...

What is it that enables one group of human beings to treat another group as though they were subhuman creatures?
.
A rough answer isn't hard to come by. Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity. The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together.
DiscoDriveby wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

an emergency strategy where we have to cobble together whatever resources we have to deal with an existing identified threat, as opposed to dreaming up some generalized conception of (edit) rights and their philosophical underpinnings for a society in normal order where we have the power to do so.

This describes my work life for the past two weeks.

Also, the current update is that we've been given an ultimatum to provide an acceptable date by January 15 - MLK Jr Day - otherwise they sue. The university offered them options over the Thanksgiving and Winter holiday breaks in 2018 which they said were not "convenient for the event organizers," and they came back requested space over our spring break (Feb. 24 and March 4). Full update in the Michigan Daily.

So at the very least, the university is only considering dates in which faculty and students are not required to be on campus. That unfortunately leaves staff, essential employees (the hospital, etc), and others who live and work in the city vulnerable, but is at least reassuring that no student will be asked to choose between attending class or staying safe.

Turn it into a Free Speech event. Schedule Spencer's speech between NAMBLA and ISIS.

Gravey wrote:
silentsod wrote:

I would generally refrain from curtailing the rights of people solely because I disagree with them. The moment they start actually committing acts of violence (imminent) is the moment I am free to act violently toward them for defense of myself or others. This must be actual physical violence and not just words, because words are not going to end my life or seriously harm me. If they deny people basic rights (we don't serve your kind here) they get to be sued, boycotted, etc and run out of business. They are free to think and say what they want, though.

It is shocking to me that people can no longer come face to face with either opposing viewpoints or horrible ideas and feel the need to force others to be quiet. That is totalitarian.

Every other Western nation with hate speech laws is totalitarian. Is that what you're saying?

The lack of shooting deaths and hate speech is how you know those countries aren't really free.

It’s true. Today, as a Canadian, I had to reapply for my permit to be allowed to not espouse genocide, not to mention numerous other hate crimes.

silentsod wrote:

I would generally refrain from curtailing the rights of people solely because I disagree with them. The moment they start actually committing acts of violence (imminent) is the moment I am free to act violently toward them for defense of myself or others. This must be actual physical violence and not just words, because words are not going to end my life or seriously harm me. If they deny people basic rights (we don't serve your kind here) they get to be sued, boycotted, etc and run out of business. They are free to think and say what they want, though.

It is shocking to me that people can no longer come face to face with either opposing viewpoints or horrible ideas and feel the need to force others to be quiet. That is totalitarian.

You approach this from a viewpoint of privilege. If you are a black American and see white people screaming about how you by just being black are a lesser being it very much seriously hurts. Knowing that the people who hold all the power in the country. Control just about every facet of your life from your jobs to your healthcare to your banking and education you best believe it seriously harms.

silentsod wrote:

If they deny people basic rights (we don't serve your kind here) they get to be sued, boycotted, etc and run out of business. They are free to think and say what they want, though.

No they don't. The entire residential and commercial real estate business is legally structured to still allow serious discrimination. The same for finances (official and non-bank varieties, loans, etc.), labor laws (right to work, anyone?), education both private and public, the welfare system and especially the rules governing the behavior of the police. All of these things retain features that have specifically disadvantaged people of color, and work not only to make it harder to advance socially and financially, but through their presence encourage Whites to think of PoC as dangerous, inferior and incompetent. (Just think of the White use of the code word "Urban" to describe their fears - I hear this every day in the South and even elsewhere.) Right now, Republicans are actually putting in place *new* abilities to discriminate against minorities.

I don't know if you got this idea from libertarian ideology, but in a wider perspective, think of all the companies that abuse their customers (chemical giants, large retail corporations, fast food companies, tobacco companies for God's sake) that have not gone down in flames, and it's obvious that this supposed truism is bunk in our current system. You *can* poison, kill, bankrupt and maim customers (and for the police, innocent civilians) and get away with it, at corporate scale. And that goes double if your victims are Black or have an accent.