Other Freedom of Speech and So Called “Hate Speech”

[Gravitational Force]

archur
What? Hate crimes rose after Trump was elected. Because his open bigotry emboldened bigots and fascists.

 

[archur]

archur
What? Hate crimes rose after Trump was elected. Because his open bigotry emboldened bigots and fascists.

This was the point of me asking that question. No doubt he is a really bad guy, in fact, I was really hoping you would post that, sincerely.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

*Munching on popcorn*

Might be because I’m a Brit, but I’m getting a kick out of all this.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Anyone else remember the old trump thread that crashed and burned like the bombers in TLJ?
This was the guy who did it. Just gonna point that out.
Mandatory meme break

Spoiler

 

[Imaginarium]

*Munching on popcorn*

Might be because I’m a Brit, but I’m getting a kick out of all this.

How's that Brexit coming along, then? - EU

 

[Gravitational Force]

Hall Kervean
1. Ad hominem attack.
2. No, that was you and your 'friends' being unable to supply a shred of evidence and then lying about it.
The fact that none of you can address my evidence or provide any credible evidence of your own really says a lot about you.

 

[Oneirois]

m doesn't want his Nazi ass there and

'Jewish gay guy with a black boyfriend'

I'm a bit late but Milo says he has Jewish heritage not that he is Jewish and he recently married his black boyfriend. If you're going to insult someone at least know what you're talking about.

 

[Gravitational Force]

I'm a bit late but Milo says he has Jewish heritage not that he is Jewish and he recently married his black boyfriend. If you're going to insult someone at least know what you're talking about.

He's not Jewish, he's Catholic. He has a reputation for work-related dishonesty. Like how he robbed a college fund he set up, , not paying employees etc. And again: who he has sex with doesn't matter. I've already provided overwhelming evidence, but you people keep refusing to address it.
He sang karaoke while giving a Nazi salute to a bar full of Nazis. You're so in denial it's absurd.

 

[Fable]

If the discussion cannot be conducted civilly, this thread will be locked. Keep to the subject. If you cannot calmly debate, you should cease your involvement in this thread.

 

[Gravitational Force]

If the discussion cannot be conducted civilly, this thread will be locked. Keep to the subject. If you cannot calmly debate, you should cease your involvement in this thread.

I'm attempting to debate. They refuse to address my evidence and can't provide any credible evidence for their claims.

 

[Fable]

I'm attempting to debate. They refuse to address my evidence and can't provide any credible evidence for their claims.

Gravitational Force I am not here to assist you in your discussion. I am here as a moderator telling you and others that if you cannot be civil, to step away and calm down or completely leave the thread before I am forced to close it down.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Hall Kervean
1. Ad hominem attack.
2. No, that was you and your 'friends' being unable to supply a shred of evidence and then lying about it.
The fact that none of you can address my evidence or provide any credible evidence of your own really says a lot about you.

I won't say anything here except that I politely disagree with everything you just said and would request that you do not attack my character from hereon out. Thank you.

 

[Suum]

I'm attempting to debate. They refuse to address my evidence and can't provide any credible evidence for their claims.

In a debate it is essential to set aside the sly little jabs at character which you yourself have nodded at in the conduct of others towards you. A civil debate does not involve snippy or witty comments, no matter how justified you may think you are, as to someone character, intelligence, state of "denial", or what their opinion says about them. I'm really not going to get into whether I do or do not agree with your frustration because, as I said, I see oppression on both sides, but if you want people to engage with you or listen to you then you need to take a step back and remove the character jabs from your argument. This doesn't convince people, win the debate, or make any friends unfortunately.

Back on point, however. I had a quick look over some of the sources you've linked to, but I think your argument seems to be falling short based on the nature of the sources you're incorporating. Citing a link, even to a publication which might traditionally be reliable, doesn't necessarily back up anything you're saying. It's vitally important to look at the type of content being cited, and from what I can see, the vast majority (if not all, though I have yet to check every link) are columns, opinion pieces, and one which incorporates humour to the extent that it's clearly not formal reporting on anything at all. Columns and opinion pieces are great to highlight others agree with your views, but they are columns and opinion pieces... not factual reporting, which would constitute evidence.

Even looking at some of the pieces more closely, I'm seeing polls debunking polls because polls are inherently biased so lets debunk one with a poll. The simple fact is that nobody is going to respond to what you consider to be evidence, because these simply aren't evidence of anything other than someone else agreeing with you. A number of the pieces themselves are entirely swamped in personal opinion and a niche view of the world, so you're really not going to get anyone commenting there. This perspective comes from me actually working within the media, and knowing full well that being reputable title does not inherently make every piece published equally as reputable, or remotely worth citing unless you can break down what the content actually constitutes - factual reporting, or columns and opinions which may very well have references to real events, but are also entirely plagued by opinion. That doesn't mean they're inherently wrong or incorrect, but it also means you can't cite it as evidence when it's clearly a perspective derived from a portion of research (some being evidence, and some being dubious in nature). It's akin to me citing someone else in this thread and calling that evidence.

Also, while I've outright stated that Twitter is well within its rights to ban Milo, I also need to state that whether you think he's a "Nazi" or not is again, simply taking a jab at character. You can argue that he has extreme views, that maybe he's sexist, racist... you can argue all of these things, but if you're using that basis to discredit his ability to say anything remotely intelligent or logical then we go back to the fact you're taking character jabs. I've listened to a number of Milo's rants or arguments and as a whole I don't see the world from his perspective (to put it politely), however that doesn't mean that absolutely everything he says is wrong or that his controversial (and potentially disagreeable) views on topic A means nobody should be listening to him on topic B. The very foundation of the success with people such as Milo even comes from the fact that he has justifiable arguments and points which then legitimise the wider argument in the eyes of the viewer/listener, and while I don't agree with this notion, it doesn't change the fact that he speaks sense on some topics.

Finally, to clarify given you commented on a correlation between biased and fake news, I'd just like to highlight that these terms are not synonymous with one another. Fake news is specifically content which can be proven as factually incorrect, thus it is a lie. Biased news doesn't base itself on falsehoods or lies, but has a niche perspective, often due to a biased author. Biased content is still based on the truth and perhaps its a harsh reality to accept, but you will find a degree of bias in just about every form of media. That's not to say all content should be shunned, because some forms, such as factual news reporting, do a far better job of mitigating bias. As I said though, from what I can see, sources you've linked to are not that form of content and so people are within their rights to refer to that as biased.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Imaginarium



We’ll get there. Eventually...

 

[Hall Kervean]

Axel The Englishman

Spoiler

At least we're not as bad yet as the guy who insisted for an hour and a half that standard Imperial TIE Fighters had shields.

 

[Platypus]

I don't like Nazis any more than you do, but preventing them from publicly expressing their beliefs is absolutely a violation of free speech.

I honestly don't see the problem with Nazis not being allowed to publicly express their beliefs. I mean, those beliefs are responsible for millions of deaths.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I honestly don't see the problem with Nazis not being allowed to publicly express their beliefs. I mean, those beliefs are responsible for millions of deaths.

It is entirely possible for someone to be mistakenly (or intentionally falsely) identified as a Nazi and barred from speaking.
It is my personal belief that the best way to sabotage Nazi ideas is to spread the truth and convince people Nazi ideas are wrong (which shouldn't be too hard), not to prevent them from speaking in the first place.

 

[Gravitational Force]

I honestly don't see the problem with Nazis not being allowed to publicly express their beliefs. I mean, those beliefs are responsible for millions of deaths.

You've brought up the paradox of tolerance, glad somebody did. Quote by Karl Raimund Popper: “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argumen...”

 

[Suum]

I honestly don't see the problem with Nazis not being allowed to publicly express their beliefs. I mean, those beliefs are responsible for millions of deaths.

The term Nazi no longer refers just to members or followers of the Nazi party. The common usage of the word, including in this thread, is the modernised use of the word which means someone with extreme, potentially racist or authoritarian views. Consequently someone now described as a Nazi may have very different beliefs to the beliefs of those to which you are attributing those views. A good example of how the word has changed can be seen in the term feminazi, which refers to a radical feminist. I'm quite sure modern, radical feminism has not been the cause of millions of deaths.

With this in mind, Milo is not actually a member of the Nazi Party so far as I am aware, so it is this definition of extreme views which the term Nazi is refering to. But again, these view aren't automatically those views which caused millions of deaths.

Again, this is just a buzzword being used to incite hatred due to the link between the word and the actual Nazi Party which has been condemned around the globe. The word does also have a more common meaning now. I just needed to clarify this so there isn't confusion, as much of the debate in this thread has been about the descriptive form of the word rather than a specific party or even specific set of views.

 

[Gravitational Force]

Suum
Again: read theevidence I've provided.
These are Nazis. That is the word used to describe them.
"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore. They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?"
-Julius Goate

And this just happened. So much for 'freeze peach.'

 

[Suum]

Suum
Again: read theevidence I've provided.
These are Nazis. That is the word used to describe them.
"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore. They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?"
-Julius Goate

As much as I'm usually up for a debate, I have already responded to your "evidence" and that response has clearly been ignored, as you persist in pursuing the same method of discussion whilst not responding to the point. My other post outlines that the word Nazi has new meaning beyond affiliations, or even support of the Nazi Party to step away from the prolific benefits of using buzz and trigger words to form a misleading grounds for agreement.

Whilst I understand you don't like what Milo says or does, your own argument debunks itself, so I actually don't need to form a full response to what you're trying to say. You have chosen to follow the definition of Nazi based on the support and moral approval, yet your own source quotes his disavowing of the entire thing - this is the polar opposite of lending approval. You are choosing to draw conclusions of approval from events, but that is entirely your choice as to your decision of what his motivates are or aren't in controversial activities. But as I said, this is your choice, and those are your conclusions, but they are not inherently factual, and you need to step away from that notion to have any grounding in a debate when there is actually factual representation of him doing the opposite.

You've then linked the piece, again, on Godwin's Law, which has the specific quote of "compare these shitheads to the Nazis" in reference to comparisons made between those activities and those of the Nazis. Nowhere in the quoted content does it actually say that these people are Nazis aside from the author's interpretation of what Godwin's words are implying - he is approving of drawing a similarity. Beyond this, there's no grounding to even state that Godwin is in any position of authority over the definition of a Nazi. Again, you need to step away from deriving conclusions and deciding your conclusions are in any way inherently factual or constitute anything beyond an opinion.

Also thank you for linking the feminism post. It accurately portrays exactly what I said. Did you read it? The content specifically highlights the difference between an avowed Nazi and a feminazi, which is exactly the distinction I was making. Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated.

I would love to hear of any evidence you have that may or may not change my opinion. That said, I think this thread has had enough controversial columns and opinion pieces which may or may not even be being read before being cited as a foundation for someone's argument.

If you want to have a hope in hell of convincing anyone in this thread of your opinion then you need to step away from the creative use of buzz or trigger language to try and make your points irrefutable. That's intended solely as a piece of polite advice as it'd be great to have a discussion on this topic without intentionally misleading or manipulative wording and conclusions. Ultimately I think this is straying away from the original topic a little too much though, which isn't about defining who is or isn't a Nazi, so if you wish to continue this then it might be best to PM instead. If, however, you'd like to debate the various definitions of the term Nazi and what it means, then that argument should be taken up with the dictionary.

 

[Gravitational Force]

your own argument debunks itself

You're being dishonest. The extent to which you assign honesty or meaning is the extent to which they agree with you, which is how you go from an article showing Milo is a Nazi to you trying to claim he's not despite overwhelming evidence...because he said so.
So this seems more like you concern trolling than you honestly trying to claim that performing a Nazi salute to a group of Nazis, spreading Nazi propaganda doesn't make one a Nazi.

So no, my evidence does not 'debunk itself,' you're unable to address it honestly.

 

[Hall Kervean]

The number one rule of argument is not to prove the other side wrong at all costs, it's to win over the audience.

 

[ApfelSeine]

Whether someone is or is not a Nazi isn't relevant to this topic. The point is to address whether one should give people with views which are discriminating or violent a platform to speak in places such as college campuses, television, etc. One philosophy is that you shouldn't because this legitimizes the view as equally valid and acceptable, which isn't good when the view demeans one or more groups of people and invites violence against them. Another philosophy is that free speech should be upheld at all times, and that one should let people with bad opinions shoot themselves in the foot because a bad opinion will reveal itself to be bad when fully expressed.

The right to free speech is a constitutional thing, which primarily means that one can't be arrested or prosecuted for holding or expressing a certain opinion. Rightfully so I'd say. It doesn't cover private organizations, including schools (though one might argue that schools are largely backed by the state, so they should conform to more open policies). This is because private organizations are allowed to dictate what kind of speech is allowed, and they may decide that certain points of view are likely to invite violent action or will make certain groups feel threatened. I personally feel that they are not wrong to take that into consideration.

Speech which leads to violence or chaos is also not technically protected by the government either. Now one might believe that it should be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to call for violence and incite a mob. I personally think that these are logical limitations to speech in order to preserve there safety of people in public spaces, but some others might differ for their own reasons. The discussion is one worth having I think.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Speech which leads to violence or chaos is also not technically protected by the government either. Now one might believe that it should be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to call for violence and incite a mob. I personally think that these are logical limitations to speech in order to preserve there safety of people in public spaces, but some others might differ for their own reasons. The discussion is one worth having I think.

I think the first shouldn't fall under a free speech debate; what should be debated is whether any legislation is required. In the back of their minds, most people probably know it doesn't fall under that, so I think that it is something that can largely be settled in a civil suit unless someone is killed.

As for inciting violence, that is unfortunately something that I find to be too open to interpretation.
Say, if someone said that they personally did not believe Charlottesville was a terror attack, that could be interpreted as a call for violence because they want others to think that sort of thing is ok.
If someone said they personally do not agree with the Black Lives Matter movement, that could be interpreted as a call to violence against black people.
If someone said they personally do not agree with the entirety of the #metoo campaign, that could be interpreted as a call to violence against women.
It's not any of those; it's just an opinion that can be discussed or debated. But if someone interprets it that way, then the dissenting opinion can be silenced by saying they were inciting violence.

Again, these are just my opinions.