YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech
YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech
Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their "free speech absolutist" postures the moment they think they are in power.
Here is what free speech is:
Fuck the USA, Fuck Russia, Fuck China, Fuck France, Fuck the UK.
Here is what free speech is NOT: [Racial Slurs]
Honestly, the latter is absolutely free speech. They are 100% free to say that shit if they want. They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth, fired from their job, etc.
I guess the primary difference is between legally free speech versus socially free speech. The argument being that the government shouldn't stop you from slinging slurs, while you have absolutely no right to not be ostracized/shunned/shamed by your fellow man.
100% this. The freedom to say anything also does not entail the right to be listened to. Nobody is required to platform "undesirable" speech. Getting banned from a platform is a perfectly acceptable consequence.
They abandon their “free speech absolutist” postures the moment
they think they are in power.you ask them why they support malicious advertising, impersonation and pedophiliaFix'd. Because those things would be protected under "absolute" freeze peach.
The only free speech they like is their own -- unopposed and the only thing heard.
Fascism is incompatible with any kind of freedom. Free speech is co-opted by conservatives and fascists so that they can promote bigotry without consequence. There is no reason that members of the KKK should be legally allowed to recruit people. That should be against the law. It should be against the law to promote xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and queerphobia. The only people who benefit from a system where you can espouse those beliefs without legal consequence are bigots and fascists.
laws will never protect the people who need it. every community should be on the lookout for this shit. everything should turn against you when you do a fascism. if you want to spread fear of everything as an excuse to murder the weak to make you feel good, there should be no inch of the world where you are safe.
like, a lot of the nazi shit here in the united states WAS against the law. that didn't help. just a bunch of wrist slaps.
Communal action > government "protections"
Every time.
It's insane to me that somehow free speech has been successfully twisted into a dog whistle to basically just spread disinformation, actively call for extermination of minority groups and openly attack and threaten other people. That shit is not free speech those are malicious actions - and they should absolutely not be tolerated under some vague guise of free speech.
Which is intensely frustrating for people who actually care about free speech. Can't talk about it without setting off everyone's "that guy is probably a nazi" alarms.
It's absolutely an intentional trap to attempt to get people to support moves against free speech by tainting the concept through negative association.
We shouldn't tolerate hate speech. But I'm concerned about where we end up in a few decades if the concept of free speech keeps the current connotations.
And people might consider even this comment as sealioning or something.
Meanwhile we have people unironically using phrases like unalive and censoring swear words in screenshots so they don't trip the automated content filters on mainstream social media. That should be more concerning than people seem to take it. People joke about "literally 1984", but unalive is blatant newspeak.
This is what the fascists do: hijacking legitimate terms of discourse and abusing them so they become meaningless. It's a deliberate strategy to subvert their opponents' ability to talk about the issue by poisoning the terminology. See also what they've done with "fake news", "critical race theory" and "DEI".
yeah, I can't say 'libertarian communist' or people will be like 'do you mean ephebophile communist? how does that even work?'.
they have to steal our names for shit, because they always do horrible shit under their own.
Precisely. That's why the most important mantra we can recite is "this is not normal". No matter how normalized it gets, fascism is not normal.
the conflation of 'normal' with 'okay' is sickening to me. unfortunately, this is normal now.
and that should set off fucking air raid sirens in every single person's head.
If you pay attention to the reactionaries, they always steal ideas from the left. Fake news, media bias? That's Noam Chomsky. Incels stole the idea of critical examination of gender from feminists. Racists are banning books on the theory that they target people based on their race.
That's why they're called reactionaries. They cannot organize and ideology or a movement except as an opposition to the left dragging society forward. And like anyone motivated by spite and envy, they study us closely.
It’s insane to me
How?
This isn't the first time, won't be the last time.
It's not even a Nazi thing, it's a human thing.
Reddit said you can't say "Luigi had a good idea" so idiots try to find the furtherest they can take it without repurcussions, and when they face repurcossions they screech that their free speech was violated because they were dog whistling to advocate for murder
So people get banned from reddit for it, and come here and they're *still stuck on trying to find the line in every situation so they can put their toes on and screech "freeze speech" like teenagers playing the penis game.
Obviously the people saying "Luigi was right" and the Nazis are different.
But it's the exact same human instinct to push boundaries and see what they can get away with, then claim innocence when faced with consequences. Little kids do it constantly, and with our education system lacking on critical thinking since No Child Left Behind, people aren't learning the critical thinking to internally make the call on what's ok, they just try shit and see if there's negative consequences. That's all that matters: can I get away with saying this.
We just saw it on a national stage where trump kept talking about tarrifs on Canada, he wanted them to engage in a bad faith conversation about fentanyl while his tarrifs were active and free of consequences. Instead Trudeau finally ovaried up and hit back with retaliatory tariffs.
trump got consequences and he'll stop. But if there wasn't he'd have kept pushing it.
When our opponents say: "Yes, we used to grant you freedom of opinion", yes. You did, that is no reason why we should do the same to you! Your stupidity need not be contagious to us! [Laughter.] That you have given this to us - that is proof of how stupid you are! [Laughter.]
- Joseph Goebbels
That's why we have to treath them the same way they would treath us.
Remember that smile gave Moscow Mitch gave when they confirmed Trump’s lame duck Supreme Court nominee, despite rejecting Obama’s?
Does anyone?
The closest I can think of to “real free speech absolutists” is the old-school doctrinal libertarians. Even they have limits on what they believe should be allowed and specifically state that contracts should be legally enforceable.
You don't need to be an "absolutist" to believe in free speech. Open exchange of ideas is valuable. Not needing to be suspicious of everyone hiding what they really think out of fear is valuable. Censorship powers are very tempting to abuse and the consequences of their abuse are terrible, therefore they should be strictly limited. Believing in free speech can just be understanding this stuff and having a bias against shutting people up as a go-to solution.
Does anyone?
Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.
It's bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.
yeah it's a philosophical question the answer to which changes with the times (like, does free speech/expression even mean the same thing in the 1700s as in the present era where "speech" is delivered and amplified by machines without even the necessity of direct human involvement).
The far right are well-practiced at co-opting and twisting concepts. It's classic doublespeak.
It's why you have "Christians" who are staunchly opposed to feeding the hungry, or treating the sick. (See: school lunches.)
It's why "capitalism" now represents the complete lack of meaningful competition, when that competition is the only thing that ever made capitalism worthwhile in the first place. (See: Microsoft getting away scot-free after being found guilty of illegal, anticompetitive business practices all throughout the 90s.)
It's why "free speech" proponents are laser-focused on creating new and terrifying mechanisms for censorship. (See: *gestures widely*)
I could go on.
It's sad how little resistance has been made against this corruption. How easily our natural allies have been turned into our greatest enemies.
christianity, since the roman empire adopted it at the very least, has been mostly a tool of appropriating warm fuzzy feelings and directing them towards a king.
capitalism was always been into lack of competition. it's not about markets, that's a more modern bullshit invention. it's about valuing ownership over labor. caring about the nobility rather than the peasants' labor, but with more contrivance.
mood on the free speech.
They only like free speech because it lets them claim to be censored.
Which is why liberalism in a not so democratic country can do little to stop this type of decline. Too non violent, too careful, too scared
Ideally one would vote out authoritarian candidates, but what to do when it’s a taboo to criticize electronic vote counting? Vote counting on electronic platforms run by the very people the liberals oppose? Vote counting supported by a steadfast belief of state governments not being corrupted, and not being in cahoots with the wealthy families running said platforms?
“There are safeguards”, ”I trust in the process”
Then when voting fails what to do but use free speech to oppose what is happening?
“Surely they will allow my voice to rise and be heard and I can use reason”
Yes people will hear you but it won’t do much.
Jean Paul Sarte articulates my feelings on this better than I ever could.
Interesting read.
They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The antisemites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
This is what we see these days. Trump and his followers lying is normalized, i.e., they are not "obliged to use words responsibly", whereas anybody argues against trumpists is.
They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
This is what changed since then. They no longer fear being seen as ridiculous or stupid. They embrace it.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They like free speech that doesn't get them immediately banned, not free speech for everyone else's ideas
Free speech for me, but not for thee!
Is this a "we need to censor them because they don't believe in free speech" kind of a thing?
no. it's a "don't believe them because they are lying" thing.
I see, so we need to stop them from imposing censorship. How are they going to do it though?
Jewish attorneys actually advocated for Nazis to be able to have marches. The phone you use has technology aided by Nazis... Anyone hear of Operation Paperclip? Wernher von Braun?
People dressed in Swastikas, speaking or marching are not violent acts themselves, those people may never become violent & may have no intention of being violent.
Most of them don't even believe Hitler murdered a bunch of Jews and that history was written by powerful Jews. It doesn't exactly help when Republicans & Democrats are loyal to Israel over America.
All & all, free speech laws in America are not rights to commit crime. Threats & violence are still criminal, and that goes both ways. Don't punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so... You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I'd suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
If you don't like it then file a lawsuit to change the law & make your case like normal productive people do instead of whining on the Internet about how you don't like things. If you don't like it then share the docket number of the lawsuit you've already filed to show you've done the work like countless people before you did to get the free speech we have today.
I see posts like this all the time, especially now that Trump & Republicans are trying to claim protesting Israel or their actions is antisemitic & should result in deportation. Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel. Weird the people making a big deal about Nazis don't realize the irony.
America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I’d suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.
You are assuming ignorance from others while projecting ideas from other discussions you've had in the past onto my original post. I purposely avoided making any statements on how to approach or resolve the tolerance paradox because it's complicated. Nazis lying about their affinity for free speech isn't.
What else I find weird is that almost the comments like yours appear to be a script where the first thing you do is mention paradox of tolerance. I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response. I guess wrapping counterarguments up into sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.
Nazism has went from being about being against Jews to being a Republican who loves Israel.
It sounds ironic, but that's only if you adhere to an almost caricature-like (or surface-level) view of what a Nazi is.
Of course, it's better to refer to them as Fascists -- that's the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups. It's just that "Nazi" is the more recognizable term to the layperson.
Fascism is slightly more diverse and thus adds more opportunities for apologists to relativize. Hence the specific choice.
