Enlil said:

akira_akuma said:

yeh, i think if on cannot call someone "a liar" without catching a ban, you shouldn't be able to just go "you're a racist" with impunity.

---

Agreed, but I haven't seen anyone do that.  Nor have I see anyone report someone doing that.

---

Quote:

Who was banned for saying 'liar'?

---

Tipote said:

Wait so we can't use those words? We can't say if someone meets the definition of the word 'racist'? Who was banned for saying 'liar'?

---

Enlil said:

Yes to both questions.

---

Enlil said:

The problem I have with your approach is that it leaves those in power with the discretion of what speech is dangerous and should be silenced.  That is a recipe for tyranny.

---

Enlil said:

And that is the other side of it.  Driving a belief underground gives it the sense that it's something interesting solely because it's so fringe and secret.

---

yep. that's why censoring people on Youtube, for example, is just adding fuel to the fire. trying to run Stormer of the net...ect.

people don't realize this drives them to the streets. people on the left....

also: "i hate nazis, punch em in their faces!! HATE HATE HATE, punch punch punch!....but AFTER THE HATE, there's a love-inn at the LAH meeting, where we'll accept you as people, and we can all share in love, you know, after the hate." we're such loving people.

Enlil said:

You can call someone a racist, but if that someone is a member of this site, you're gonna get banned for it.  It doesn't belong in this forum.  Personal attacks don't strengthen your argument, and they turn the forum into a name-calling fest.

---

Quote:

Ok well.. news to me. I'm pretty sure I've called qman a racist tons of times in front of you and you haven't said anything. Alright well now I know.

---

Enlil said:

Maybe not by the citizenry, but they'd enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection.

And it isn't about democracy, dude.  Freedom of speech is the sin qua non of all freedoms.  Once a person or group controls speech, none of the other freedoms matter at all.

---

Enlil said:

Call his argument racist if you want.  They usually are.  Don't call him one.

Attack the person's argument and not the person.  That's the rule here.

---

Tipote said:

What evidence do you have that people of colour have lower intelligence to white people?

---

Tipote said:

Enlil said:

Tipote said:

Does that apply to groups like da'esh?
What if we just said that all Da'esh want to do is express their free speech in advocating for their own caliphate which extends across the world? With their version of Sharia as the law.
I do understand your position and I used to agree with it, but now I just see it as protecting the rise of these groups.

---

They have the right to advocate for that position.  Why shouldn't they?

---

So you would defend an ISIS march in the US? Realistically, would they receive the same amount of state protection as Nazi and white supremacist groups?

Frankly, these fascist ideologies that legitimise genocide and slavery as a political position are just not ok. I don't think its a sign of an enlightened society that sits down and opens these topics again in the name of free speech. I understand the principle, but how far does the principle defend the rejection of that principle? Surely, these fascist ideologies directly contradict the principles the US was founded on? Or doesn't that matter when it comes to free speech? 

Quote:

qman said:If groups are breaking the laws then those individuals will be arrested, correct?  So why would law enforcement need to break up groups that have NOT broken any laws?

---

Not always. The groups in CHarlottesville committed a bunch of crimes and some of them were only arrested because of the efforts of antifascist organisers to identify them.. whereas the black guy they beat the fuck out of was facing felony charges. I'm pretty sure it was outside a police station too.

---

Tipote said:

I meant democracy in terms of the court of public opinion. I don't have faith that these ideas will be fairly analysed in public discourse and revealed to be pure idiocy.

---

Tipote said:

Enlil said:

If you believe that Nazi beliefs are so incorrect, why would you be afraid to have them discussed in public?  Isn't that the best way to illuminate the idiocy of those beliefs?

---

No, I don't think thats the best way to illuminate their idiocy, I think the ideology and the history of that ideology has already proven the point.

Protecting Nazis by saying its just about free speech normalises their positions. As we have already seen repeatedly, far too much people think either racism doesn't exist or if it does its just natural and no problem.

I think its just not realistic to think that the best ideas rise up to the surface by way of freedom of speech and so called free analysis in public discourse.

Are you so confident that Nazi narratives would be so easily dismissed if just discussed widely in society?

---

qman said:

If those views are not dismissed by the majority of society, there's nothing you can do to stop it.

---