rEvolutionist wrote:Forty Two wrote: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.
The problem is that you can't logically argue why you hold the view you allegedly hold. Your past statements infer something totally different. Until you can explain why your past statements don't infer the opposite view to what you emptily claim to hold I will continue to call you out on them. It's not my fault you can't logically defend your position. You wouldn't be the first person to dig in and defend a position that they don't actually hold, because they don't want to be seen to be backing down.
No my past statements do not "infer" anything like your strawman.
You're not "calling me out" on anything except what you're making up in your own thick skull.
Your position has no logic or rationale, rEv. You don't even appear to know what freedom of speech means.
I have explained exactly why free speech is something each citizen has equally, regardless of whether you think they are a maniac. I've cited you to classic works on the topic -- JS MIll, John Locke, Thomas Paine. I summarized the arguments and cited the works so you could go and read them more fully. I do not now and never have claimed that the reason why each person has an equal right to freedom of speech is that speech or free speech is "inherently good" or even "good." I don't believe in inherent goodness, and I've told you that before. Whether something is good or bad is in your and every other individual's head. It's made up.
Your position on free speech is nonsensical. You keep banging on about some individuals or others getting up and shooting a speaker or breaking the law to stop him from speaking.
That has nothing to do with free speech - I'll say it again -- everyone in the world is their own moral actor, and each person may have some limit that, if reached, will make them act illegally to stop someone from speaking. That has, of course, fuck all with weather someone has free speech. Some MGTOW douche may think it's a moral imperative to stop a feminist rally from happening, because evil. Does that mean feminists don't have a right of free speech? Of course not.
The reason I keep talking about free speech in terms of a right to be free from government or state interference is because that's what it is. If you're too stupid to know that, and if you think that counterspeech, protest, or even breaking the law to stop evil speakers has something to do with the existence or justification for the right of free speech, then you need to open a book one day.
rEvolutionist wrote:
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.
I never said he doesn't have a legal right to free speech in these circumstances. Why the fuck do you continually erect this strawman?!?
It's not a strawman. It's my position on the issue, and always has been. That's why I said we agreed -- and you went ape shit claiming that we don't agree. He would have the legal right to free speech. Of course. We agree on that.
Yet, you keep banging on about how genocidal maniacs or totalitarian fascists shouldn't have free speech. Well, fuckstick, for the same reason "he has the legal right to free speech in these circumstances" so does every other swinging dick and tit. Don't you fucking get it?
The fact that asshats might stand up and shoot them out of some "moral imperative" to stop their "evil speech" doesn't mean shit. It doesn't mean the people don't have a right to free speech. It means there are asshats out there who claim to be arbiters of good and evil and will shoot people for saying evil things.
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.[/quote]
Of course he is legally entitled to his opinion (while ever he isn't breaking any laws). But why is he morally entitled to his opinion?[/quote]
We're talking about freedom of speech, not whether a given speech is moral or good. This is where you're all muddled, as usual. "Morally entitled?" Whose morality? Yours? Ted Cruz's? David Duke's? Are you of some opinion that there is an objective morality out there from which we can judge right and wrong speech?
Immoral speech is just as free as moral speech. Anita Sarkeesian may think it's immoral for there to be sexist and misogynistic speech and expressions in the gaming industry. That's her morality and her opinion. I think she's way off base, and her morality is skewed. Oh,well, some people agree with her, and some people don't. Some people think it's immoral for some xenophobe to talk about limiting immigration. Other people think it's immoral for some gringophobe to talk about eliminating the borders of the country and allowing unfettered immigration.
Moral entitlement? Your question is nonsensical, because there is no governing morality.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Further, the analogy of Farrakhan to Hitler is inane, as Farrakhan wasn't the leader of his country and in charge of an awesome military force.
We're talking about speech here, not actions. When Hitler took power, he had already participated in a violent Beer Hall Putsch, burned down the Reichstag, and when Hitler was dictator of Germany and held an awesome military force he was the government.
rEvolutionist wrote:
And further further, whether you'd shoot Farrakhan is irrelevant to the point being made. A point you seem to have zero chance of understanding any time before the heat death of the universe.
You're the one who brings up private individuals rising up to shoot a person. I wouldn't shoot anyone for what they said. IMO only real scumbags would do that. Murderers. People with no self control. To shoot someone for what they say? The very notion has never occurred to me.
Further, private individuals taking criminal actions to stop people they think are evil from speaking has FUCK ALL -- i.e. nothing -- to do with freedom of speech. Yet, that's the thing you keep on about.
rEvolutionist wrote:
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.
I still can't believe that after me stating it probably 10-15 times you STILL don't get what the point is!
For nth time, I'm not talking about the State removing the right of free speech (outside of the usual constraints). If I was able to tattoo this on your forehead, I would. Seriously, I'll pay if you go to the shops and get this done. It would be worth it to stop having to repeatedly make this point.
You must be doing this on purpose. How the fuck do I have some wrongful ideological attachment to freedom of speech, when you and I both apparently agree that people have the "right of free speech" vis-a-vis the State or the government? That's what freedom of fucking speech is, numbnuts!
God damn, man! Whatever this "morality of free speech" is that you're on about -- this "people have to answer to their own morality" when they decide to shoot people or break laws to stop people from speaking. That's not "the point" -- that's never been "the point." It can't be "the point." It's not "the point" or anything to do with the point, because the point was your allegation that I have some odd ideological adherence to the concept of free speech, when I fucking don't.
I agree with you that Hitler or Farrakhan or whomever has the right of free speech vis-a-vis the government. That's the right that "Hitler", you, and every other dickhead deserves, no matter how "evil." And, I also agree that such right does NOT exempt people from criticism or counter-protest or ridicule, etc. And, I also agree that every person is their own moral actor who may choose to act illegally to stop someone from speaking if that person has concluded that there is moral imperative to do so.
rEvolutionist wrote:
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.
Oh look, you are still talking about the state,
Because that's what free speech means. Freedom from interference by the State or the government, and the government protecting speakers from the violence of protesters.
rEvolutionist wrote:
despite me making the point about 10-15 times already that I'm not talking about the state.
That's right - you're talking about something that has nothing to do with the right of free speech, and declaring that I have some ideological marriage to free speech even though I agree with you that people might find a speaker so evil that they may choose to break the law to stop that person from speaking.
rEvolutionist wrote:You should keep talking about the state limiting free speech. This is so fun.
I was talking about freedom of speech from the beginning of this thread. What did you think it was about? Are you under the impression that freedom of speech and the equal right of each person to freedom of speech has something to do with whether an individual finds a speaker so morally evil that they'll shoot him or otherwise break the law to stop him from speaking? Because if you do, you're dumber than I thought you were.
rEvolutionist wrote:
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.
Oh look, you are still talking about the state. Awesome. This is the best debate I've ever been involved in.
What do you think the right of free speech is?
rEvolutionist wrote:
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.
[/quote]
WTF?!? I introduced the fucking point under discussion between you and me for the last 50 million waste of pages. YOU are the one that is utterly incapable of understanding what is under discussion. FFS, get some glasses or something.
[/quote]
You argued that Hitler should not have free speech, and said I am ideologically married to the idea of freedom of speech because of some inherent goodness argument I never made.
1. you have admitted that in our Hitler example, he would have free speech. Free speech is the right to be free from government interference in one's speech/expression. That's what free speech is.
2. you have said that what you're talking about is individuals deciding that a person is so evil or their ideas so evil that they should break the law to stop him -- that, of course, has nothing at all to do with free speech, and is just a recognition of what everyone knows. Sometimes circumstances can justify lawbreaking on the part of an individual. I agree that people can do that; however, it says nothing about whether individuals have a right of free speech.
3. I explained quite clearly the basis of the right of free speech and how it has no connection to a claim of inherent goodness. You refuse to accept it.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Answered fucking 10 times already you retard.
Well, the answers you gave above prove without doubt that you don't know what freedom of speech is, and that would explain why you would have this weird idea about my basis for it. It's your own lunatic imaginings.
rEvolutionist wrote:
What did you say about "gutless?"
I suggested you might be gutless for repeatedly ignoring the points put to you. If you think there is another reason why you repeatedly ignore points and reply with strawmen, then I'm happy to entertain the idea. But it's not good for you. I've stated my point 10-15 times already in direct replies to you, yet you keep replying with strawmen about the State. You need to fix whatever malfunction is going on at your end.
I haven't ignored your points. And your entire argument is a strawman. Jesus Christ you fucking.... look -- your strawman of my argument is that I base the right of free speech and the equal rights of citizens to that right of free speech on a notion of inherent goodness. I've explained it to you many times. You keep insisting I am saying something I'm not. That's the very definition of a strawman.
Also, you keep on saying that what you're talking about has to do with individual responsibility and morality relative to allowing someone to speak or breaking the law to stop them, etc. That has nothing to do with the right of free speech. There is no objective morality on which to test the evil or goodness of speech, and that is why each person has an equal right of free speech. You, individually, don't have the legal right to silence people because you think what they say is evil. And, if you take extra-legal or illegal actions to stop them, the you're committing a crime. Sometimes committing crimes can be justified by a moral argument, but there still is no objective morality, so it's just an argument which may or may not be accepted by some people.
“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
This is like your "it just makes sense" non-answer. It's empty and only moves the explanation a further step away from the question. Seriously, try and answer why being a member of a society and an individual makes someone deserving of free speech. Try and answer why something making sense is any more right than something not making sense. You simply won't be able to without either shifting the explanation even further away from the question, or introducing the concept of a value system.
