rEvolutionist wrote:
This might be a case of miscommunication. When I originally raised the Hitler analogy, I meant it as "would you give Hitler his free speech [knowing now what type of maniac he was]". In any case, it was pretty clear after a certain time that he was a genocidal fascist. Would you still argue for him to have free speech (whether from the state, or from individual choice)?
I'll be happy to answer that question if you'll specify what that certain time is.
The reason I didn't further respond to this argument, rEv, is because you keep repeating yourself. Just like the inherent goodness thing. You're huge on strawmanning. Then I tell you that isn't what I am arguing, and you just insist that it is what I'm arguing.
Hitler has his right of free speech as long as he is a private citizen, and hasn't committed or taken steps toward committing an actual crime. It's like you, who think people who you believe are genocidal maniacs deserve bullets in the head. You have the right to that opinion until you've taken a predicate act toward committing the crime of murdering another person. As long as you just advocate the killing of maniacs, then that's your right. Everyone else has the right to react to it and oppose it as they see fit.
If you're government official, though, the analysis changes. The government doesn't have rights.
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Hitler is dead. He killed millions of people and he was the government. When you say Hitler, I read "someone espousing Hitler's views" -- like neonazis and stormfags and the like.
It makes no difference. Anyone espousing Hitler's views is a dangerous person and debating politely with them is simply naive.
Which views? All of them? Some of them? Does publishing Mein Kampf constitute "espousing Hitler's views?" I read Mein Kampf in my public library. So, Hitler espouses his views in Mein Kampf -- and so publishing those views is "dangerous." LOL. That'd be great -- verboten views! Mein Kampf? Get it out of the library. Communist Manifesto? Dangerous ideas, there. Satanic Bible? Oh, my.... can't have that. Satanic Verses? Can't insult an entire religion! Dangerous! The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The views espoused there between the lines, and the heavy use of the word "nigger" -- dangerous. Protocols of the Elders of Zion? No! Too dangerous! Anyone espousing these views is not entitled to espouse them.... lol.
Which views? Oh, I don't know, maybe like EXTERMINATING JEWS.
Oh, well, at least your specific. But, sure, Louis Farrakhan says worse things publicly than Hitler ever said, and I wouldn't put a bullet in Farrakhan's head for it. He's entitled to his opinion. And, when the Nazi Party went to Skokie, IL and wanted to march down the street in a town full of holocaust survivors, and the ACLU defended their right to do so against the State trying to stop them from doing it -- well, that's the correct thing.
Obviously, the devil is in the details, but if what you're saying is that people don't have the right to express the view that white people or Jews should die, well, you'd be wrong about that. The New Black Panther party called for the killing of all white people.
Kalid Muhammed - President of the New Black Panther Party said --
I say if we’re gonna be merciful, I’d give them 24 hours in South Africa to get out of town by sundown. I say, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy, we kill the faggots, we kill the lesbians, I say goddammit we kill them all! If they are white, kill ‘em all!”
The audience cheered.
That's free speech, muh brutha. It's repugnant, and people, IMO, should not tolerate him in their presence, and when he comes around they should protest him. That'd be appropriate. But, a bullet in his head? The State telling us we don't have the right to hear this scumbag's views? No fucking way. The State does not have the expertise to know what we as citizens ought to hear. We ought to be telling the State what to do in this regard, not vice versa.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Nobody says you have to "debate with them politely." You have a right to be impolite. The issue of whether Hitler's views can be published or spoken has nothing to do with how you or anyone else argues against them.
The point is that debating Hitler is naive. When someone is essentially a dictator, debate is useless. I would have thought that was a fairly obvious fact.
Well, his views can be published -- like publishing his Mein Kampf and other writings. Nobody has to debate him. You can just call him a monster. But, the State ought not be permitted to take away my right to listen to or read his words, or anyone else's words.
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
You believe that the allowance of free speech is inherently good (within the constraints you mentioned above). So people saying bad things is actually good in the bigger picture. I simply disagree with this and I think that is a very naive position to take. Now don't go telling me you don't think the allowance of free speech is inherently good. You've argued that Hitler is "of course" entitled to his free speech, ffs.
No, I never said fuck-all about "inherently good." Good and bad have nothing to do with it, as they are just fucking figments of the imagination. They are value judgments. One person thinks it's "good" to allow Social Justice Warriors to speak their bullshit, but others think it's "bad." One person thinks it's "good" to allow Trump to speak his bullshit, and others think it's "bad." The goodness of speech, or the goodness of allowing speech, is all a matter of opinion, and it may or may not be good or bad.
The reason equal "allowance" of speech (without interference from the State, and without physical or threatened interference from private actors) should exist is that each individual person ought to be treated equally under the law.
This is a non-sequitur. I never said people shouldn't be treated equally under the law.
You said Hitler shouldn't be treated under the law.[/quote]
Unmittigated bullshit.[/quote]
You said Hitler doesn't get free speech. Right? That's not treating him equal under the law, since everyone else gets free speech.
Why don't you stop being evasive.
rEvolutionist wrote:
You said he wouldn't have free speech. Everyone else does.
That says absolutely nothing about the law. I've made it abundantly clear I am not talking about the State. I am talking about individual responsibility.
Then you're not talking about free speech. How ignorant of this topic are you? It's kind of scary.
rEvolutionist wrote:
I don't know how many more times I can say it. You've got one particular idea stuck in your head, but it's the wrong idea and you need to drop it and actually start following what I am saying.
"Free speech" has nothing to do with how other people react to free speech. When you say "Hitler should not be allowed free speech," if you mean that other people should argue against him, protest him, ridicule him, whatever -- then of course. But, Hitler still HAS free speech, even if the good people of the world don''t tolerate his bullshit.[/quote]
I've explained what I mean enough times. I'm not going to explain it again.[/quote]
LOL -- evasive bullshit.
Do you mean that people can oppose his speech with more speech? With protest? Yes or no?
Do you mean that people should put bullets in his head?
What did you say about "gutless?" Such a little creep...
...oh, not you. I was talking about Hitler, LOL.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
