Other Freedom of Speech and So Called “Hate Speech”

[Elizabeth Cooper]

The thing with neo-nazis is that there are almost none, while maps of hate groups might make it look scary, all those people at Charelstovile (maybe 500?) are probably all the neo-nazis actually willing to do anything. The idea that neo-nazis will overthrow the government is ludicrous, of course the media makes it look scary but the fact is is that the the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans do not approve of white supremacy or a Nazi Regime and would never vote for one. Now am I saying that it's impossible that a neo-nazi could be elected, no. But the odds are extremely low and I think we have better things to worry about.

This is a shitty attempt at equivocation.

People who actually identify with the Nazis specifically are a small number, though certainly much more than a measly 500. (seriously, just google. There are open US Nazi organizations with membership in the thousands that you can find with like 15 seconds and a web browser.)

Concern about hate crimes extends far beyond the very few who openly call themselves Nazis. There are a great many hate groups out there, with many ideologies. Pretending it's just the Nazis is a very dishonest framing.



Also, the majority of Americans have been just fine with white supremacy for three centuries, as even now white people still possess a massively disproportionate amount of the wealth in this country, as well as being proportionately overrepresented in our organs of government and law enforcement.

What the majority of Americans oppose is blatant and deliberate racism that causes significant and obvious harm. Minor use of racial slurs and the holding of racist attitudes grounded in negative stereotypes are pretty much normal for much of America- but is still racism.

My lord, I've heard the fire in the theater argument so much I'm almost sick of it.In 1969 that law was actually overturned by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". So no, this argument is not valid.

Hmn, perhaps I chose a poor example. Though I don't think you've actually engaged my argument at all, merely pointed out issues with one example I used.

Also since when is there a right to not be harassed? As much as I'm sure you'd love for it to exist, it doesn't.

I suppose that depends on how you define "rights," but functionally, most jurisprudence does include a principle that harassment is problematic and methods for people to seek relief from it. So it's not a de jure constitutional right, but is generally regarded as a de facto civic right within modern western society.

One of my favorite quotes: "Words only have the power that you give them.".

Pithy quotes are nice, but that's a quote meant to express a sentiment that is meant for a different context. If the hateful ideologies of a radical speaker inspire someone to open fire with a assault weapon on a crowded street, the fact that most of the people on that street give no power to that radical speaker's word is moot. They don't have their fingers on the trigger. The gunman does.

Also, for someone who lambasted me for using a tired old example, did you seriously just roll out "Words can't hurt me"?

Hypocrisy much?

Everyone else shouldn't have to conform their speech just to not step on the toes of minorities, the idea is absolutely moronic.

Ever been to school? Because that is a setting where the majority (Students) absolutely need to constrain their speech to not step on the toes of the minority (teachers). We have historically always enforced standards of civility in public spaces (thus why most places do not allow public nudity), if not necessarily by law.
You seem to be attempting to claim a broad principle that simply is not in keeping with actual human societies.

The question is not whether people need to limit their speech for the safety and comfort of others (no society outside of actual anarchy fails to make such limits, explicitly or implicitly), but what sorts of limits are appropriate.

Any claim that the principle of "free speech" means are such limits should not exist at all is farcial on the face. Human society doesn't work that way.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Also, the majority of Americans have been just fine with white supremacy for three centuries, as even now white people still possess a massively disproportionate amount of the wealth in this country, as well as being proportionately overrepresented in our organs of government and law enforcement.

America is a majority white country. What do you expect? And why does it matter if there are a lot of white people in government and law enforcement? Doesn’t it matter we have the right people for the job? I could care less if they were majority white or majority black. I want the best people for the job, for America, and the citizens of this great country. And I don’t give a damn who or what they are.

And no, the majority of Americans aren’t for white supremacy. That’s a baseless claim.

 

[SandraDeelightful]

Milo being banned from twitter isn't infringing his freedom of speech, twitter is a private company and is allowed to have anyone it wants on its platform.

I'm curious. Do you think that it's okay for a Christian bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because it's against their religion? Because most of the time I hear this argument, banning Milo from twitter is okay, but a Christian refusing to bake a cake is discrimination, despite that both are private businesses banning who they want.

 

[Funkybub]

I'm curious. Do you think that it's okay for a Christian bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because it's against their religion? Because most of the time I hear this argument, banning Milo from twitter is okay, but a Christian refusing to bake a cake is discrimination, despite that both are private businesses banning who they want.

Yes and the free market will provide an alternative for the gay couple and the Christians who refuse to sell will lose money.

 

[Elizabeth Cooper]

I'm curious. Do you think that it's okay for a Christian bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because it's against their religion? Because most of the time I hear this argument, banning Milo from twitter is okay, but a Christian refusing to bake a cake is discrimination, despite that both are private businesses banning who they want.

These are not comparable cases.

The bakery in question (may have - as I understand it the lawyers are still arguing the specifics of this one before court) chose to discriminate against people who wanted a service that other people got, simply because of who those people were. Denial of a commercial service based solely on the race/sex/religion of someone is illegal.

The University decided not to invite someone they don't want to be associated with. They didn't refuse Milo a service they offer to everyone else. They simply decided not to invite him to their event. This is not illegal.

It is illegal for me to refuse to sell you a sandwich at my restaurant because you are black. If is not illegal for me to not invite you to my birthday party because I don't like you - even if you really really want to go.

America is a majority white country. What do you expect? And why does it matter if there are a lot of white people in government and law enforcement? Doesn’t it matter we have the right people for the job? I could care less if they were majority white or majority black. I want the best people for the job, for America, and the citizens of this great country. And I don’t give a damn who or what they are.

I don't expect anything in particular. I want fair and equitable treatment for people. A situation where 80% of the population of a county is black and yet 70% of the cops and government officials are white does not seem like it is likely to produce fair and equitable results. Not because the white people are deliberately racist (most probably aren't), but because the black people are being shut out of power.

And no, the majority of Americans aren’t for white supremacy. That’s a baseless claim.

The majority of the wealth and power in america is in white hands. Blacks and Latinos in the US have a median wealth that is two whole orders of magnitude smaller than white people's median wealth. I could call that "White Supremacy."

What do *you* mean by "white supremacy"?

 

[Oneirois]

i seriously doubt that dude. you're saying that the only neo-nazis willing to take action are people who were either geographically close to charlottesville or have the wealth/resources to travel there. 500 is way too big of a number for me. (not to mention that i think we're both just looking at the us right now, but this is also a huge problem in europe from what i can tell.) no, i don't foresee the government being overthrown, but what i DO think is worth considering is violence on the ground against minority groups. at best, these radical ideologies are going to be so shocking that it normalizes other forms of less obvious systematic discrimination. id suggest looking up the overton window. also there is...... no reason a neo-nazi should EVER earn an elected position. that goes against so much of whats good about western democracy.

There has been just as much, if not more, violence from groups like antifa than there has been from the Neo-Nazi's themselves. And isn't the point of democracy to let the people choose who they want to elect?

 

[Elephantom]

I'm curious. Do you think that it's okay for a Christian bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because it's against their religion? Because most of the time I hear this argument, banning Milo from twitter is okay, but a Christian refusing to bake a cake is discrimination, despite that both are private businesses banning who they want.

So, what you mean to say is that Milo Yiannopoulos classifies as a minority these days?

 

[Peacemaker .45]

These are not comparable cases.

The bakery in question (may have - as I understand it the lawyers are still arguing the specifics of this one before court) chose to discriminate against people who wanted a service that other people got, simply because of who those people were. Denial of a commercial service based solely on the race/sex/religion of someone is illegal.

The University decided not to invite someone they don't want to be associated with. They didn't refuse Milo a service they offer to everyone else. They simply decided not to invite him to their event. This is not illegal.

It is illegal for me to refuse to sell you a sandwich at my restaurant because you are black. If is not illegal for me to not invite you to my birthday party because I don't like you - even if you really really want to go.





I don't expect anything in particular. I want fair and equitable treatment for people. A situation where 80% of the population of a county is black and yet 70% of the cops and government officials are white does not seem like it is likely to produce fair and equitable results. Not because the white people are deliberately racist (most probably aren't), but because the black people are being shut out of power.




The majority of the wealth and power in america is in white hands. Blacks and Latinos in the US have a median wealth that is two whole orders of magnitude smaller than white people's median wealth. I could call that "White Supremacy."

What do *you* mean by "white supremacy"?

By white supremacy, I mean the belief that the white race is superior to the other races because they’re white. If you’re going to call it that, I’d suggest using a different word because that’s what most people, in my experience, seem to imply that meaning. Unless you also mean that?

 

[Peacemaker .45]

There has been just as much, if not more, violence from groups like antifa than there has been from the Neo-Nazi's themselves. And isn't the point of democracy to let the people choose who they want to elect?

AntiFa has been a particular threat that I feel is being shoved under the rug. In the last year, there are more documented instances of them committing violence against anyone who disagrees with them. And they’re getting more militant, with groups like Redneck Revolt. They’re just a bunch of AnCom’s that want to start a new “revolution” here. While violent groups on each side need to be looked at, AntiFa I feel, while a loose connection of groups, is a particularly dangerous one. So much so that the NJ Office of Homeland Security listed them as a domestic terrorist group. While quiet lately, they still must be treated as threats. They attack anyone, and it’s well documented.

 

[Oneirois]

People who actually identify with the Nazis specifically are a small number, though certainly much more than a measly 500. (seriously, just google. There are open US Nazi organizations with membership in the thousands that you can find with like 15 seconds and a web browser.)

Estimates have shown that there are 5-8,000 active KKK members in the US down from 4 million during the time of the confederacy, racism is clearly a diminishing problem because approval of racism is down over the past few decades.

Also, for someone who lambasted me for using a tired old example, did you seriously just roll out "Words can't hurt me"?

A debate point and misquoting someone from a supreme court case are not the same thing.

The University decided not to invite someone they don't want to be associated with. They didn't refuse Milo a service they offer to everyone else. They simply decided not to invite him to their event. This is not illegal.

I don't know where you got the idea of a university from, we were talking about twitter.

The majority of the wealth and power in america is in white hands. Blacks and Latinos in the US have a median wealth that is two whole orders of magnitude smaller than white people's median wealth. I could call that "White Supremacy."

Considering the majority of people in America are white it does make sense the majority of the money would rest with the majority.

 

[Oneirois]

So, what you mean to say is that Milo Yiannopoulos classifies as a minority these days?

What he means (at least what I think he means) is that there should not be a denial of service to anyone.

 

[Pine]

There has been just as much, if not more, violence from groups like antifa than there has been from the Neo-Nazi's themselves.

im not at all disillusioned about the violence that has come from antifa. at its core, the intention of antifa is to COMBAT fascism, so they have the moral high ground. however, i do know that there are groups with good intentions that have historically gone astray. (i really dont know how i feel about the houthi rebels i mentioned before.) so i'm not a huge proponent of antifa because it seems a little ambiguous about whether or not they're thorough in only targeting white supremacists/neo-nazis (im not afraid to admit i havent done as much research on their actions as i should), but within the ideal they hold, i support it. there's something very basically different between a group that is trying to push out minorities (white supremacists) and a group that is trying to put an end to that fasc-y behavior (antifa).

And isn't the point of democracy to let the people choose who they want to elect?

a government should be striving to protect its peoples best friends. "majority rules but minority rights," if you will. a neo-nazi, by virtue of being a neo-nazi, does not care about the well-being/fairness of people outside of their group.

 

[Elizabeth Cooper]

By white supremacy, I mean the belief that the white race is superior to the other races because they’re white. If you’re going to call it that, I’d suggest using a different word because that’s what most people, in my experience, seem to imply that meaning. Unless you also mean that?

We already have a word for that. The word is racism.

It'd be pretty redundant for white supremacy to simply mean that. If you want to go into the actual historically origins of the term, I'll think you'll find that "white Supremacy" as a concept goes a bit beyond racist belief, and into enforcement of white control politically and culturally.

There has been just as much, if not more, violence from groups like antifa than there has been from the Neo-Nazi's themselves.

[CITATION NEEDED]

That sounds like an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence.

And isn't the point of democracy to let the people choose who they want to elect?

Except we were talking about "speech", not "elections."

The discourse a society chooses to allow or disallow will naturally affect the rest of society, including voting. You are not required to agree with the contention that "Nazis should not be enabled in any way and should be pushed out of acceptable society", but then again, if you actually believe in free speech, you should accept that it is a valid sociopolitical position to hold.

Estimates have shown that there are 5-8,000 active KKK members in the US down from 4 million during the time of the confederacy, racism is clearly a diminishing problem because approval of racism is down over the past few decades.

This is also incredibly dishonest. KKK membership has not been on a steady linear decline, It has fluctuated both up and down for a number of reasons over many years.

Also, the KKK is not even a representative sample of even openly avowed racists in the US. let alone some sort of barometer for racism in general.

I don't know where you got the idea of a university from, we were talking about twitter.

Milo was in the news a lot for being disinvited from university speeches. But twitter is also an institution that can use it's property as it chooses.

Spoiler: As XKCD says

Considering the majority of people in America are white it does make sense the majority of the money would rest with the majority.

The median wealth of white persons in the US was, last i checked, over 100 times greater than the median wealth of black persons. This isn't 10% of the people having 10% of the wealth, and 70% of the people having 70%. This is more akin to 10% of the people having 0.1% of the wealth.

What he means (at least what I think he means) is that there should not be a denial of service to anyone.

And here you go with the over-generalizations that don't work because human societies don't work that way again.....

 

[Oneirois]

We seen to be like-minded if in disagreement,

im not at all disillusioned about the violence that has come from antifa. at its core, the intention of antifa is to COMBAT fascism, so they have the moral high ground. however, i do know that there are groups with good intentions that have historically gone astray. (i really dont know how i feel about the houthi rebels i mentioned before.) so i'm not a huge proponent of antifa because it seems a little ambiguous about whether or not they're thorough in only targeting white supremacists/neo-nazis (im not afraid to admit i havent done as much research on their actions as i should), but within the ideal they hold, i support it. there's something very basically different between a group that is trying to push out minorities (white supremacists) and a group that is trying to put an end to that fasc-y behavior (antifa).

I agree that at it's heart Antifa is a good idea, however it has become a breeding ground for violence and radical communists and is not at all doing what I believe it was conceived to do.

a government should be striving to protect its peoples best friends. "majority rules but minority rights," if you will. a neo-nazi, by virtue of being a neo-nazi, does not care about the well-being/fairness of people outside of their group.

Again I agree, as I talked about Tyranny of the Majority and that is why we need to have checks and balances in government like we have in the USA.

 

[Elephantom]

What he means (at least what I think he means) is that there should not be a denial of service to anyone.

That's one helluva logic there. There's a difference between oppressor and oppressed — not to mention, Milo certainly does not represent the whole of whatever clan he inhabits. So that's making it one real long draw. The gay community vs some dude everybody naturally hates for being spiteful? You get the picture — it's a fucking joke straight from the bosoms of purgatory or wherever the hell Milo-Yiannopolits go over to.

 

[Shotgunpenguin]

im not at all disillusioned about the violence that has come from antifa. at its core, the intention of antifa is to COMBAT fascism, so they have the moral high ground. however, i do know that there are groups with good intentions that have historically gone astray. (i really dont know how i feel about the houthi rebels i mentioned before.) so i'm not a huge proponent of antifa because it seems a little ambiguous about whether or not they're thorough in only targeting white supremacists/neo-nazis (im not afraid to admit i havent done as much research on their actions as i should), but within the ideal they hold, i support it. there's something very basically different between a group that is trying to push out minorities (white supremacists) and a group that is trying to put an end to that fasc-y behavior (antifa).

Except Antifa really isn't about fighting fascism, just like North Korea isn't actually a democracy (Democratic Republic of Korea.) They can call themselves anti-fascists but if they use threats and violence to prevent people they deem harmful from speaking then they are the real fascists.

 

[Oneirois]

That sounds like an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence.

Antifa activists say violence is necessary
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-far-left-violence-20170829-story.html
Are 'Antifa' and the 'Alt-Right' Equally Violent?
Legitimizing Left-Wing Violence

Here's your "extraordinary" evidence.

For someone who's criticized me for not using google, you seem to be unable to use it yourself.

This is also incredibly dishonest. KKK membership has not been on a steady linear decline, It has fluctuated both up and down for a number of reasons over many years.

Also, the KKK is not even a representative sample of even openly avowed racists in the US. let alone some sort of barometer for racism in general.

"[CITATION NEEDED]"

Again, a lot of hypocrisy.

The median wealth of white persons in the US was, last i checked, over 100 times greater than the median wealth of black persons. This isn't 10% of the people having 10% of the wealth, and 70% of the people having 70%. This is 10% of the people having 0.1% of the wealth.

Same as above.

 

[Oneirois]

That's one helluva logic there. There's a difference between oppressor and oppressed — not to mention, Milo certainly does not represent the whole of whatever clan he inhabits. So that's making it one real long draw. The gay community vs some dude everybody naturally hates for being spiteful? You get the picture — it's a fucking joke straight from the bosoms of purgatory or wherever the hell Milo-Yiannopolits go over to.

Milo is gay.

 

[Elephantom]

MILO IS GAY

Doesn't matter. Ultra-ultra-ultra-alternative-conservatives slather butter all over the infamy and freedom-of-speech-abuse stuck to his sur-fucking-name while he spouts bullshit straight from hell's annals. So much that even those conservator-1888s hate him.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Doesn't matter. Ultra-ultra-ultra-alternative-conservatives slather butter all over the infamy and freedom-of-speech-abuse stuck to his sur-fucking-name while he spouts bullshit straight from hell's annals. So much that even those conservator-1888s hate him.

I’m a conservative, and I will admit he isn’t my favorite. He is a provocateur. While sometimes I find some of his stuff funny, I wouldn’t necessarily hold him up as a person I would say is a good leader, or example, of the conservative movement. Probably, while he isn’t a conservative necessarily, I think Jordan B Peterson is one of the best people we have on our side.

 

[Oneirois]

Doesn't matter. Ultra-ultra-ultra-alternative-conservatives slather butter all over the infamy and freedom-of-speech-abuse stuck to his sur-fucking-name while he spouts bullshit straight from hell's annals. So much that even those conservator-1888s hate him.

That was probably the worst two sentences I've ever had the displease of reading. I like people like you. 15 minutes ago someone else point was dumb because Milo isn't like the gays 'He's not oppressed," and then when someone brings up well he is gay suddenly it "Doesn't matter." A phenomenon I like to call a "Stupid Liberal Logic Shift." And obviously people don't hate him as much as you think, his book has 4.9/5 stars on Amazon from over 2,000 reviews.

 

[Elizabeth Cooper]

Antifa activists say violence is necessary
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-far-left-violence-20170829-story.html
Are 'Antifa' and the 'Alt-Right' Equally Violent?
Legitimizing Left-Wing Violence

Here's your "extraordinary" evidence.

For someone who's criticized me for not using google, you seem to be unable to use it yourself.

I didn't criticize you for "not using google." I pointed out that the existence of far more than "500" nazis in America was easily check-able.

Also, none of these links actually provide numbers (or anything else) to back your claim that "Antifa is more violent than the Nazis" The snopes article actually says the opposite, that the Alt-Right are the instigators of most of the violence, and the Antifa are merely reactive.

If you claim was merely "Antifa are sometimes violent," I wouldn't ask for cites, since that's also common knowledge.

Again, a lot of hypocrisy.

To quote Inego Montoya:

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

 

[Oneirois]

I didn't criticize you for "not using google." I pointed out that the existence of far more than "500" nazis in America was easily check-able.

Also, none of these links actually provide numbers (or anything else) to back your claim that "Antifa is more violent than the Nazis" The snopes article actually says the opposite, that the Alt-Right are the instigators of most of the violence, and the Antifa are merely reactive.

If you claim was merely "Antifa are sometimes violent," I wouldn't ask for cites, since that's also common knowledge.





To quote Inego Montoya:

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

I'm going to define it off the top of my head: The act of one contradicting oneself through an action or statement.

Actual Defintion: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Pretty good if I do say so myself.

 

[Oneirois]

Also you most definitely did criticize me for not using google:

People who actually identify with the Nazis specifically are a small number, though certainly much more than a measly 500. (seriously, just google. There are open US Nazi organizations with membership in the thousands that you can find with like 15 seconds and a web browser.)

 

[Elizabeth Cooper]

15 minutes ago someone else point was dumb because Milo isn't like the gays 'He's not oppressed," and then when someone brings up well he is gay suddenly it "Doesn't matter."

Milo wasn't disinvited from venues and removed from platforms for being gay. He was kicked out for being an asshole.
Kicking someone out because they are an unapologetic asshole who makes life miserable for other people is not illegal.

Also you most definitely did criticize me for not using google:

That isn't criticism.

Let me demonstrate: This is actual criticism:

You have skipped over several fairly substantive points I have made, instead only choosing to quibble over minutiae and semantics. This is not honest argumentation.