Antifa rocks!

[Cloud_Strife]

At this point it's a utopian principle and i would go as far as to say it is something which fascists and nazis openly want, before they grab power of course, if only so they can more easily propogate and recruit.

If you advocate for free speech you must be willing to accept the downsides and consequences of it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And if their opinions end up ultimately endangering minorities what then? That is an acceptable price to pay, a price that coincidently you would not pay? If that is what functionally happens how can you continue to hold that belief without at least acknowledging the price paid by others?

Not really interested in going over this again and again and again and again (at least not today), I'm simply pointing out that Estonroberreerer is incorrect in his diagnosis of hypocrisy due to apparently rather fundamentally misunderstanding what my position is. I've quite clearly stated several times that I'm not interested in silencing or "deplatforming" anyone, so it's simply incorrect to state that I have ever advocating denying anyone the right to "hold public forum", unless he's defining that phrase to mean something weird that involves violence and oppression.

 

[Narz]

When i came out as trans, nobody wanted to know or defend me. My friends abandoned me, my church decried me, my parents were thoroughly ashamed of my existence even if they've learnt to tolerate it since.

What crime or sin did i commit to deserve such a reaction and why should i not take the positions i hold when i have personally experienced the brunt of it? Understand i did nothing other than be true to myself and yet that marked me as being socially worth less in society.

I am not saying you deserved any of that. It sucks your family and so called friends were basically evil. But you're not doing any favors alienating me. I don't treat people that way. I am throughly anti-bigot and anti-religion for that matter.

All I did was ask you a question and you unloaded all your drama on me. Narzy don't play that.

You do yourself no favors but mistrusting everyone except small groups.

I don't know where you grew up but you wouldn't have to deal w that crap where I live.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Not really interested in going over this again and again and again and again (at least not today), I'm simply pointing out that Estonroberreerer is incorrect in his diagnosis of hypocrisy due to apparently rather fundamentally misunderstanding what my position is. I've quite clearly stated several times that I'm not interested in silencing or "deplatforming" anyone, so it's simply incorrect to state that I have ever advocating denying anyone the right to "hold public forum", unless he's defining that phrase to mean something weird that involves violence and oppression.

So let me be polite, in what way is this not functionally a full-throated attempt to defend fascists and their rights at the expense of their victims? This is me being genuinely serious because the consequence of fascists and bigots being platformed is that their views spread and become more prevalent, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence at their hands and a refusal to deplatform them plays into their hands and is what they ultimately want, they want people to defend them until they realise the true nature of their groups...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Do you think it was wrong when New Zealand moved to shut down the sharing of the mass shooter's manifesto and attack video?

Probably not for the video, because footage of people being murdered can't really be reasonably considered as "voicing an opinion". Having said that, showing video footage of criminal or even violent activity isn't generally considered to be a crime (most news broadcasts or crime programmes would be in trouble if it were) so I don't really agree with it, but I don't feel strongly about it. Maybe because I don't live in New Zealand though.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I am not saying you deserved any of that. It sucks your family and so called friends were basically evil. But you're not doing any favors alienating me. I don't treat people that way. I am throughly anti-bigot and anti-religion for that matter.

All I did was ask you a question and you unloaded all your drama on me. Narzy don't play that.

You do yourself no favors but mistrusting everyone except small groups.

I don't know where you grew up but you wouldn't have to deal w that crap where I live.

Look i apologise, genuinely.

This is a very personal topic for me Narz, i would never willingly tolerate or allow anyone to go through the same **** i have. Not for one second, because ultimately there is no "neutral" side in this, you either support what currently is or you try to change it. I opt to try to change it and if people dislike that... so be it, i'm not that interested in compromising because to me it is a matter of life and death and when you take into account the level of suicide and self harm in the transcommunity, then that might help explain why i take this so seriously, because it impacts me and my friends, perhaps alot more than some would first assume.

I don't mistrust people out of paranoia Narz, i do so because my safety is intrinsically tied with me being skeptical, at best, of others intentions. For decades people have been willing to sell my rights down the road for political gain and bar allies and fellow transpeople, the majority simply didn't care enough until it became acceptable to opt in. That isn't okay and i wouldn't expect you to accept it either.

Maybe, it is possible you live in a more tolerant area but i sincerely ask yourself how privy you are to these problems, not because i think you have malicious intent or otherwise, but because it is only human to defer to neutrality and perhaps even willful blindness as a coping mechanism to the nastier sides of society. How many LGBT, PoC, Immigrants etc people have been abused or attacked in your home village/town/city? I suspect there may be more then you realise, nevermind the unreported cases.

 

[brennan]

the consequence of fascists and bigots being platformed is that their views spread and become more prevalent

Actually it's the opposite way around. If you try to silence an opinion it gets driven underground, into echo-chambers that can only amplify it. Free discourse has a much better record in promoting healthy democracy than censorship.

Anyone speaking up for the rights of those people you call fascists to speak their opinions out loud is also standing up for your right to speak your opinion out loud.

defend fascists and their rights at the expense of their victims

Because their victims have those rights too, and this is not a zero-sum game. Do you honestly believe that anyone you are arguing with thinks that these 'fascists' have the right to commit violence because they grant them the right to free speech? Clearly not.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If you try to silence an opinion it gets driven underground, into echo-chambers that can only amplify it.

Um, echo chambers describes most of our contemporary media, social or otherwise.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Actually it's the opposite way around. If you try to silence an opinion it gets driven underground, into echo-chambers that can only amplify it.

Anyone speaking up for the rights of those people you call fascists to speak their opinions out loud is also standing up for your right to speak your opinion out loud.

I can only tell you that you are wrong. It is better to have these opinions not spread in the first place, be it given a palatable face by others or through online hate posts.

Because their victims have those rights too, and this is not a zero-sum game. Do you honestly believe that anyone you are arguing with thinks that these 'fascists' have the right to commit violence because they grant them the right to free speech? Clearly not.

So how do you account for the fact that tolerating these groups and people comes at the expense of their victims? Where is your redress for that consequence? And with all seriousness, why do you expect me to accept such an argument? What do you think happens when these ideas are spread throughout society? People act upon them, history and reality shows us this, if you reject that i cannot help you. The status quo is not working Brennan and you functionally advocate for that, regardless of your personal beliefs or intentions to do so otherwise, that is what it happens.

 

[Naskra]

fello transpeople

ooops

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So let me be polite, in what way is this not functionally a full-throated attempt to defend fascists and their rights at the expense of their victims? This is me being genuinely serious because the consequence of fascists and bigots being platformed is that their views spread and become more prevalent, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence at their hands and a refusal to deplatform them plays into their hands and is what they ultimately want, they want people to defend them until they realise the true nature of their groups...

Pretty sure I said I'm not interested in going over this again and again and again today. I must have already answered this since I'm almost sure you've said basically the same thing several times in this thread. I suggest you just look up "free speech" to try and get a grip of the underlying principles, why people defend it, what can happen if it is restricted etc etc. Included in that you will no doubt discover that there are indeed grey areas, and dangers inherent in allowing certain ideas to propagate, and that there does of course need to a be a line set somewhere that cannot be crossed. And that pinning down where this line should be is very difficult for even a single person to decide, never mind groups and societies. And it's not even clear if there even is a "right" or "wrong" answer to the question. But hopefully you may one day appreciate why so many people think freedom of speech is very important, and that if you boil it down and pretend that it is just "defending fascists*" then you're simply not engaging with the issue honestly. And I tire of it frankly.

(* I'm just saying "fascists" here instead of your "fascists and bigots" because they're not the same thing at all, and I also tire of you seemingly not understanding what the word "bigot" means and that you can most definitely be bigoted about "good" opinions just as much as you can "bad" ones. Rules prevent me from providing examples of course.)

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If i repeat myself it is only because your response does not actually satisfy me.

And i do not sincerely believe that there isn't a right or wrong answer to censoring and keeping down bigots, history has shown what happens when you fail to do so and you can try to sidestep that Manfred and try to avoid history and demonstrable examples that both of us know to be true and real, but there are people dead as a result of inaction and i believe, genuinely, that your positions help foster that even if it isn't your actual intent to do so and even if you are repulsed by the possibility of violence and discrimination.

Free speech has consequences and the consequences are that people can be harmed by it. People can end up being killed or persecuted as a result of unfettered free speech, you cannot have the positives without acknowledging the negatives and i refuse to let you have your cake and eat it, to do so would be lying by omission and a tacit acceptance of it, which is harming society.

 

[Narz]

Look i apologise, genuinely.

This is a very personal topic for me Narz, i would never willingly tolerate or allow anyone to go through the same **** i have. Not for one second, because ultimately there is no "neutral" side in this, you either support what currently is or you try to change it. I opt to try to change it and if people dislike that... so be it, i'm not that interested in compromising because to me it is a matter of life and death and when you take into account the level of suicide and self harm in the transcommunity, then that might help explain why i take this so seriously, because it impacts me and my friends, perhaps alot more than some would first assume.

I don't mistrust people out of paranoia Narz, i do so because my safety is intrinsically tied with me being skeptical, at best, of others intentions. For decades people have been willing to sell my rights down the road for political gain and bar allies and fellow transpeople, the majority simple didn't care enough until it became acceptable to opt in. That isn't okay and i wouldn't expect you to accept it either.

Maybe, it is possible you live in a more tolerant area but i sincerely ask yourself how privy you are to these problems, not because i think you have malicious intent or otherwise, but because it is only human to defer to neutrality and perhaps even willful blindness as a coping mechanism to the nastier sides of society. How many LGBT, PoC, Immigrants etc people have been abused or attacked in your home village/town/city? I suspect there may be more then you realise, nevermind the unreported cases.

Appreciate that CS.

I'm sure stuff goes down in my town although on the surface it seems pretty tolerant (big pride parade just happened). There was someone trans at my last job who everyone treated w respect although growing up they went thru alot of ****.

I went to a boarding school where they was a lot of abuse going on. I like to think I will stick up for the little guy. I've witnessed abuse right in front of me and more than once I've done nothing about it which I'm pretty ashamed about but I was just a kid myself and when you're in that situation in a scary place you're just glad it's not you.

I'm a fairly defensive person, often thinking people are attacking me when they're not and have a mistrust of people, so I'm not trying to act better than you, I certainly can't relate to being abandoned by an entire community overnight. Just saying even people who might rub you the wrong way aren't necessarily your enemies (not talking about obvious bigots) and might even stick up for you.

I hope your parents see the light someday, not that it will erase past damage but for your sake and theirs.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

the consequence of fascists and bigots being platformed is that their views spread and become more prevalent

Actually it's the opposite way around. If you try to silence an opinion it gets driven underground, into echo-chambers that can only amplify it.

The real truth of these of course is that they are both correct, or can be. Either can happen, or both, or neither, depending on the specific topic in question and myriad other factors. Any predictions about what definitely will, or definitely will not happen as a consequence of silencing, or not silencing certain speech about certain ideas therefore hold no real weight to them. That's one reason why it only really makes sense to legislate against actual actions.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Free speech is not worth the lives nor suffering of minorities and i cannot react in any other manner than with hostility if you think those are prices worth paying, even less so if you continue to affirm that positon.

I would not expect you to pay that price for me, but that is the burden you put on others by holding such a position, that a degree of abuse and suffering is necessary and even acceptable so that a nebulous right that does not even exist in legality nor reality, should be held above ones own safety and dignity.

When people defend an indivdual fascists or a bigots rights that comes at the expense of minorities and no amount of trying to explain it away or defending it will change that immutable fact.

I cannot explain my position any clearer then that and if you still disagree with me, then you should accept it is because i genuinely believe it to be materially harmful to me and others.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If i repeat myself it is only because your response does not actually satisfy me.

Well I'm sorry for that, but ultimately the intent behind my responses is to express what I think, not to satisfy you. If it didn't satisfy you the first time then this is unlikely to change since that isn't the goal from my perspective.

And i do not sincerely believe that there isn't a right or wrong answer to censoring and keeping down bigots

I'm sorry, but I just can't not respond when you keep using this word. With the best will and non-trollworthy intentions in the world, I cannot see how you don't fall squarely into the dictionary definition of this word and how you can't see it. It makes it very difficult because you're basically talking about censoring yourself here, and I'm arguing against that, which just makes it a confusing mess. Just say "fascist" or "homophobe" or something as at least then we can at least be on the same page.

Free speech has consequences and the consequences are that people can be harmed by it.

Well at least you're saying can be now. Yes, any form of freedom has potential consequences. The only way to remove the possibility of any harmful consequences ever befalling anyone is to basically remove all rights and keep people locked in solitary confinement. As long as people are free to speak, associate, buy things, drive cars, eat what they want to eat, etc then people are always going to get hurt (and hurt themselves) because people are stupid and negligent and vindictive and flawed. But that's what freedom is. The only way to stop that is through totalitarianism. And that's worse, by far.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Free speech is not worth the lives nor suffering of minorities and i cannot react in any other manner than with hostility if you think those are prices worth paying, even less so if you continue to affirm that positon.

Well that's fine*, but there would seem to be no point discussing it further then.

(*I say "fine", but that kind of depends what you mean by "with hostility". If you're saying that at this point you'd basically be happy to see me Ngo'd (or worse) in order to silence me, then that's less fine of course, and would basically sum this whole exchange up into a nice little nutshell.)

 

[brennan]

how do you account for the fact that tolerating these groups and people comes at the expense of their victims?

That a minority of bad people are free does not negate the value of the rest of us being free as well. Societies that are not free, historically, are much, much worse places to live.

Any movement that thinks it has the right to silence its opponents with violence and censorship is ground zero for the worst kinds of villainy, as history shows us over and over again.

The status quo is not working Brennan and you functionally advocate for that

Good grief, about the last thing you can accuse anyone of around here is being in favour of the status quo. Especially a European Socialist. Your country frankly is a basketcase that needs dismantling and rebuilding from the ground up.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Edit: Removed the personal stuff, it's not appropiate, apologies.

I'm sorry, but I just can't not respond when you keep using this word. With the best will and non-trollworthy intentions in the world, I cannot see how you don't fall squarely into the dictionary definition of this word and how you can't see it. It makes it very difficult because you're basically talking about censoring yourself here, and I'm arguing against that, which just makes it a confusing mess. Just say "fascist" or "homophobe" or something as at least then we can at least be on the same page.

It is simply more expediant for me to use "bigots" than having to go through the gamut of listing every potential minority group impacted by racism. Does that help explain my usage? If not, please genuinely suggest a word that has the same utility and i will switch to that.

Well at least you're saying can be now. Yes, any form of freedom has potential consequences. The only way to remove the possibility of any harmful consequences ever befalling anyone is to basically remove all rights and keep people locked in solitary confinement. As long as people are free to speak, associate, buy things, drive cars, eat what they want to eat, etc then people are always going to get hurt, because people are stupid and negligent and vindictive and flawed. But that's what freedom is. The only way to stop that is through totalitarianism. And that's worse, by far.

We already curb peoples freedoms with the intent on protecting them. Why is this any different Manfred? What makes speech something so sancrosanct, that it cannot be touched lest we deprive it of some essential quality? It is not a right everyone enjoys and it is not a right that can exist without coming at the expense of a swaythe of society.

Well that's fine*, but there would seem to be no point discussing it further then.

(*I say "fine", but that kind of depends what you mean by "with hostility". If you're saying that at this point you'd basically be happy to see me Ngo'd (or worse) in order to silence me, then that's less fine of course, and would basically sum this whole exchange up into a nice little nutshell.)

...I meant personal animus, not violence. I just want to break decorum for a second and remind you that minorities are already being silenced by the same people you have defended and in that case, it usually that happens to involve death or violence at the very least Manfred. I realise i repeat myself, but it is a very salient and important point that must be made, we must not reduce this to mere words, when there are very real consequences.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That a minority of bad people are free does not negate the value of the rest of us being free as well. Societies that are not free, historically, are much, much worse places to live.

Any movement that thinks it has the right to silence its opponents with violence and censorship is ground zero for the worst kinds of villainy, as history shows us over and over again.

I'm begging you to at least accept the possibility, that in the past and as of right now and possibly even in the immediate future, society is not currently free for EVERYONE. Certain groups are simply not granteed the same rights, be they socially or legally and their experiences are totally different from yours and are usually more negative, you cannot ignore or discount them without incurring their wrath and indignation, nor without seeming distant from their issues.

Like i genuinely don't know what else to say but to emphatically stress that freedom cannot be enjoyed when existential threats exist, you cannot live a happy life if you are under threat, that just isn't possible, chemically, mentally or otherwise. There is a reason why minorities have a higher suicide and self-harm rate, as well as mental illness rate and it is because of the above. This isn't a coincidence, but a result of what happens when it continues unabated. Transpeople's suicide rates are alot lower if others affirm them and accept them and rise when people misgender and abuse them, for example.