4755
4756

German problems (i.imgur.com)

linesreadlines が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]guer_j 13ポイント14ポイント  (112子コメント)

Yeah but it is illegal to do that salute in Germany. For very good reasons.

[–]gloryday23 3ポイント4ポイント  (50子コメント)

For very good reasons.

Why, is it like Facebook likes, if so many people do the salute it will resurrect Hitler? Are Germans really so afraid that if they see a swastika too many times they will all become Nazis again?

Restricting speech is wrong, period, you can't be pro freedom of speech, but support banning some speech because it makes you uncomfortable.

You might remember this:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

[–]elos_ 27ポイント28ポイント  (41子コメント)

"Hey you don't like nazis? Guess who else didn't like people..."

Is the vibe I'm getting from this thread. Fringe hate groups operate on "just asking questions" and that kind of immunity. They operate on abusing free speech and taking advantage of those who don't know better like children and troubled teens. No allowing the nazi salute won't resurrect Hitler but denying hate groups a voice denies them the ability to spread lies to fill the ranks of organizations inherently designed to incite violence.

I'm sorry but I have zero issue removing the ability for people to recruit to groups whose end goal is genocide and for said groups to spill their bile without recourse publicly. The end. You can say I don't believe in free speech all you want. I do. Thats like saying you can't support a trade market unless you're for anarcho capitalism.

[–]gloryday23 5ポイント6ポイント  (29子コメント)

Thats like saying you can't support a trade market unless you're for anarcho capitalism.

It's not at all, you don't support free speech, you support speech you approve of, and if that's your view it's fine, but please don't tell me I can say what I want, but not that, or that, or that other thing as well.

By the way, I understand what you are saying, freedom is dangerous, the more free you allow people to be the more danger you allow them to live in. This extends past speech, drugs, guns, alcohol, fireworks etc. I get why it can be attractive, but the danger in restricting essential freedoms is too high in my opinion.

[–]LvS 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

So what's your opinion on bullying laws (the parts about speech obviously, not the physical ones)? What about libel and slander?

Note that hate speech laws - just like the ones I mentioned above - do not restrict the freedom of opinion. They just restrict the way these opinions may be expressed.

[–]lookingforapartments [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Hate speech laws are bad fucking laws. Free speech only exists as a concept to protect what someone might call "hate speech".

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If inciting violence is the only use for free speech you can think of that's all I need to know about you.

[–]elos_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (20子コメント)

Well that's easy to say in a country which never had to deal with the threats of allowing fringe groups to grow. They however have decided that they are willing to sacrifice the rights of literal genocide advocates to publicly recruit.

But tell me more about how allowing hate groups who want to literally murder millions to lie to troubled children to recruit them to violent lifestyles is an "essential freedom". As you can see these things have been banned for decades there and they have more functional and free democracies than the US ever has had. Funny how the doom and gloom is yet to hit!

[–]gloryday23 5ポイント6ポイント  (18子コメント)

As you can see these things have been banned for decades there and they have more functional and free democracies than the US ever has had.

You are making a common mistake, I'm not arguing the US is better, I'd agree that it is worse. Also, I'm not arguing things are terrible in Germany, I am simply saying restricting any speech, just because you don't like it is fundamentally not freedom of speech, it is restricted speech.

Well that's easy to say in a country which never had to deal with the threats of allowing fringe groups to grow.

Really? The KKK, domestic terrorists, cults, scientology (though that one might fall under cults) etc

[–]batchick93 [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Except the KKK and Scientology didn't start a second world war under an absolute dictatorship and take over 90% of Europe. When you do that, like the Nazis did, you would expect to be outlawed.

[–]lookingforapartments [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

No. I'd expect the society to grow the fuck up instead of hiding behind imbecilic laws.

[–]batchick93 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I really don't think working to prevent a second Nazi uprising is imbecilic. The reason they rose to power in the first place is because no one stood in their way.

[–]hunterbelmont [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

There were multiple factors far more important than that, leading up to the rise of the Nazi party. But you're right, they should have been countered: not through laws banning speech, but by people presenting an alternate viewpoint with as much fervor as the Nazis presented theirs.

The idea that you can prevent bad things from happening by banning speech is childish, ignorant, and frankly kind of evil.

[–]hunterbelmont [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Freedom of Speech did not start WWII, and thinking that restricting speech would have stopped the Nazis is ignorant and offensive.

[–]batchick93 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Freedom of Speech did not start WWII

No, a radical political group did. And now that radical political group is outlawed and barred from gathering in public, lest they do the same thing all other again. Restricting freedom of speech wouldn't have stopped the Nazis, but restricting political parties that sought racial purity would have.

[–]elos_ -5ポイント-4ポイント  (9子コメント)

Okay? Yeah they don't have utterly open freedom to say anything at any time. No one anywhere on Earth does legally. What's your point?

The fact is they aren't being restricted because "we don't like it", stop repeating that because it's fucking tiring. It's restricted because they're literally trying to incite racial violence. It's not some arbitrary ban it's a selective ban on speech which specifically is designed to incite violence.

I'm sorry but I don't give two flying fucks about laissez faire free speech idealism. Get out of your fantasy world. No one who isn't a violent bigot or a hopelessly inexperienced edgy teen would honestly say allowing hate groups a pedestal to preach lies and incite violence from leads to a healthy society.

[–]Denny_Craine [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Yeah and you don't like them trying to incite racial violence. You only support banning what you disagree with

Come to me when one day you say "hey I agree and support idea X but we should make it illegal to talk about it anyway" and I'll take this doublespeak horseshit seriously

The majority opinion doesn't need protection. Freedom of speech exists to protect the minority views

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Yeah and you don't like them trying to incite racial violence. You only support banning what you disagree with

Come to me when one day you say "hey I agree and support idea X but we should make it illegal to talk about it anyway" and I'll take this doublespeak horseshit seriously

The majority opinion doesn't need protection. Freedom of speech exists to protect the minority views

I'm just quoting this for posterity. Holy hell this is a gemstone of a post. Yea I'm "only" for banning speech I "disagree with"....like trying to incite literal fucking genocide. Not supporting a groups ability to incite and recruit people for hate crimes is "doublespeak horseshit"? Are you just saying words and hope they stick?

The absolute irony of that last line is you think racists who want to murder millions of minorities need protection but not those minorities who are being targeted by the speech which has the goal of inciting violence against them. For someone preaching about hypocrisy you seem to be eating your foot right now.

[–]solinent [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You're on /r/pics. The average age here is probably 15.

[–]hunterbelmont [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Holy fucking shit, stop with your 12-year-old tantrum. Minorities are protected under the law in any civilized society. And a direct incitement to violence is generally not covered under free speech. You want to ban any viewpoint that you think could potentially lead to violence down the line, like someone saying,

Jewish people are the cause of our problems.

It doesn't matter how ignorant, hateful, or untrue statements like that are. A person has a fundamental right to say that, and if you think that restricting that kind of speech protects society, then you don't actually have a society; you have a house of cards ready to tumble the moment the wind blows.

[–]hunterbelmont [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You're the child living in a fantasy world. Your viewpoint is based on immaturity and ignorance. You cannot counter viewpoints by making them illegal. The rise of fascism in Europe wasn't based around people saying what they wanted unchecked. That's an idiotic and offensive assertion.

[–]hunterbelmont [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Speech did not cause the rise of the Nazis. Speech did not plunge Europe into WWII. That's an ignorant copout, trying to patch a complex problem with a blunt solution.

The Nazis gained power through circumstance, sheer luck, and the a lack of action by the good men of Germany at the time.

[–]Aganomnom -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

You want to say things about a group of people? That's fine. You don't need to choose to use that salute, with all its absolutely horrific connotations.

It's actively supporting the murder of countless people, in a small but noticeable way.

Freedom of speech had limits, and that is one of them.

[–]Dogpool [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I just can't agree with that line of thinking. It's silly to think laws against free speech are going to prevent racially motivated fascism from happening.

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

No one is saying it will.

It stops racially motivated groups from spreading lies targeting those who don't know any better. It stops the ignorant from being tricked by those who want to incite violence.

It doesn't stop racism or violence, it mitigates its spread by limiting it's exposure to children and young adults.

Edit: the irony of being pmd and told I'm a "n*gger lover who needs to die with them" isn't lost on me.

[–]Dogpool [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That has more to do with shitty education, parents, and friends than some a stranger doing a hand gesture. Insulating people against unpleasant things doesn't do them any favors.

[–]Aganomnom [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Fascism... No. It's not going to stop it at all. But generally promoting criminal acts ain't right.

[–]bw13187 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

The trouble isnt quashing neo nazis.

The trouble is when/if the government declares some new group a hate group, and censors their speech. You don't have 70 years of history backing up that claim, but they get censored because them's the rules.

Solution: don't have those rules in the first place.

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

It isn't targeting nazis. It's targeting groups who are trying to incite violence. Nazis happen to fall into that category.

[–]bw13187 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

...I know it's not targeting nazis.

That's the entire point of my post. Since it's just open ended laws against hate groups, anything can be classified as a hate group, even if it's not, and get silenced. This is dangerous.

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'd love to know how citing racial violence will be termed toward abusing overweight gamers.

[–]bw13187 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The inherent logic (or lack thereof) behind the claims is irrelevant. that's the point. It only matters how the politicians vote

[–]lookingforapartments [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Abusing free speech? I don't think you understand why free speech is considered a good in the first place:

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Yeah and apparently those minorities who would be put to death and must endure endless death threats don't deserve anything. But the racists right to recruit violence against them? Shit now that's a fundamental right.

[–]lookingforapartments [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You realize that free speech IS what gives the minority the right to speak up, right?

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Yes but apparently the right for another minority to incite violence and recruit for genocide is a fundamental right that must be protected because edgy redditors must hold every contrarian position in existence.

Allowing groups to incite violence does zero good for society. The end.

[–]hunterbelmont [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's a horrifically nightmarish way of thinking, and I can't understand how any modern, enlightened person can buy into it. If a person can't say what they want, then you don't have a civilization. It's already broken and ruined. Those fringe groups have won. If your peace and well-being is precipitated on the fragile balance of idiots not being allowed to speak their mind, then you're living in a house that can crumble at any moment.

[–]SilasTheVirous [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Free speech laws are not to protect what we want to say, but to protect what offends us.

[–]unproperNoun [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

For very good reasons.

One reason is PR. Germans already have a bad rap for worst human being in history, they don't need more idiots making them look bad. Bad for business. And Germans love them some business.

[–]mrbooze -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You also can't burn millions of people alive because you don't like them, but we don't always get what we want.

How about we allow that Germany is a sovereign nation and therefore has the inalienable right to make up its own fucking mind about what its own laws are, just like we expect Germany to respect our sovereign right to make our own laws?

[–]gloryday23 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

You also can't burn millions of people alive because you don't like them, but we don't always get what we want.

Speech, and burning people a live, totally the same...

How about we allow that Germany is a sovereign nation and therefore has the inalienable right to make up its own fucking mind about what its own laws are

I do, and that's fine, but they don't get to make up the definition of something, you can't say you have freedom of speech when you restrict speech you find uncomfortable.

Allow me to give you an example in the US, we in theory have both freedom of speech, and the right to assemble (protest), but in this country we have cities with "free speech zones," designated places to protest, and any major protest is almost immediately met with a violent reaction from the police. That's not freedom of speech, or the right to assemble either, it's restricted.

[–]mrbooze [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Speech, and burning people a live, totally the same...

It's surprisingly similar when the speech is about why you should burn people alive.

And then when you actually do it, maybe you find yourself on probation for a long time. Rights can be taken away, when you do things to warrant such punishment.

[–]Brawldud -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Restricting speech is wrong, period

Death threats should be legal because speech can't be inherently dangerous.

you can't be pro freedom of speech, but support banning some speech

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Really, there's a middle ground here. That "middle" is pretty far toward "unfettered speech", but it's not there.

makes you uncomfortable.

that's not what's at stake here? Germany learned first hand that all it takes is an economic crisis leading to nationalism for one of the worst genocides in human history to take place.

When the government came for the Nazis, I remained silent; I was not a Nazi.

When the government came for the Holocaust deniers, I remained silent; I was not a Holocaust denier.

Then the government didn't come for anyone else because it doesn't care about speech that doesn't promote the genocide of millions of innocent people.

[–]Denny_Craine 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

When have governments, once given a power, ever willingly renounced it?

[–]Brawldud [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When have Nazis ever admitted they were wrong and shut their mouths?

I can't think any of examples now, but it's not important anyway.

The German government legitimately does not care about innocuous speech. They have had that rule for decades and everything is holding together pretty well. Unless you're going to tell me that Germany is a censor-happy society, your question is pointless. Have you ever been there?

[–]MrKequc -1ポイント0ポイント  (55子コメント)

I really prefer it that way. It's the same thing with scientology, the westborough baptists, and so on. What possible benefit to society is allowing hate speech, or the overt fleecing of old people out of all of their money?

Nothing.

[–]Nibib123 19ポイント20ポイント  (21子コメント)

The benefit to society is that people's rights are being protected, I wouldn't call that nothing. I think it's far healthier for a society to fight hate speech with more speech, criminalising words or hand gestures just seems draconian.

[–]Vik1ng 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

The benefit to society is that people's rights are being protected

That completely depends on what rights you define. You value the right of free speech other my value a right that people are not being harassed. Americans value the right to defend themselves very high, Germans value a human life higher.

[–]daimposter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He's clearly speaking with American bias. A significant number of Germans are perfectly fine with the existing laws to prevent such hate speech.

[–]daimposter 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

I think it's far healthier for a society to fight hate speech with more speech, criminalising words or hand gestures just seems draconian

Says somebody that doesn't live in a country where that speech spread like crazy, formed the nazi party, and started a world war.

[–]Nibib123 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

Germans must not think very much of their fellow countrymen if they think that government has to silence certain viewpoints. It's the age of information, fight bad ideas with good ideas.

[–]daimposter [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

It's the age of information, fight bad ideas with good ideas.

I'm guessing your white? And most likely male as well? And Christian or non-religious? And conservative or libertarian opinions? How did I do?

Edit: my point is that people in the majority group tend to believe the open hate speech is productive and that bigots will change their views when confronted with facts. People that dislike other groups seek out information that reaffirms their negative views on other groups. And when they are young, they are very impressionable. Notice how most terrorist are teens and early 20 something year olds? They are easily manipulated

[–]Denny_Craine [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I'm a socialist and I agree with him. Where's your god now?

Why do I agree with him? Do you know what the very first belief or political system the nazis banned was? Mine. Social and communist parties were immediately outlawed and many if not most were ok with it because they were like you. They believed socialism as a belief offered nothing good or useful to society and was harmful. So they outlawed us.

That's how that shit starts. It comes wrapped in a guise of caring for the public good. Believe me Goebbels agreed with you a whole lot more than he did with me

[–]IareStupid [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Are you white, male, Christian or not religious?

I don't believe daimposter was arguing against freedom of speech but he was just pointing that we should stop pretending that all freedom of speech is productive. Freedom of speech comes with a price and its that it allows hatred to spread more easily.

[–]lookingforapartments [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Define hatred. Because the last I checked, there are places in the world where me saying that religion is a crock of shit would have my lynched due to "hate speech".

[–]IareStupid [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So what's? We aren't talking about those countries. This is about Germany and their concerns with Nazi and the hate speech from that group that nearly destroyed the country and Europe. The German people don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past....they have very liberal free speech except on this one issue/topic.

[–]lookingforapartments [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Korean, atheist, and a liberal. A real fucking liberal; not a filthy fucking populist like that of yourself.

[–]Nibib123 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Wow almost one hundred percent. You found the white male atheist on reddit, what insight you have... Does my race and gender disqualify me from engaging in certain arguments?

edit: I can respond better now that I can see your edit. I don't believe that hate speech is productive, I just think it's totally immoral to legislate against ideas. Germany's a very wealthy and well-educated nation and unless you think that liberal free-speech laws caused the rise of the Third Reich, you should probably have more faith in the German people to not go down the same path again.

[–]daimposter [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Does my race and gender disqualify me from engaging in certain arguments?

Nope but it clearly shows that you may have problem understanding the issues of minorities and women. Minorities and women, through life experiences, have a good understanding that bigots don't really change their views and spouting bigotry isn't beneficial to anyone....it's just the cost of free speech. There is a lot we are allowed to do but it doesn't mean there are no consequences

[–]Nibib123 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I don't think that's fair at all. I can certainly feel sympathy for people who have been through discrimination and believe me I'll be right there to condemn anybody who spreads bigoted ideas, but I'll never advocate using violence to silence somebody. That's always morally wrong. Those consequences to speech you're talking about, they should come from us and our condemnation of bad ideas, not from men with guns.

[–]IareStupid [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You do know that Germany has relatively liberal free speech laws except on this one issue that nearly destroyed their country and most of Europe

[–]daimposter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Those consequences to speech you're talking about, they should come from us and our condemnation of bad ideas, not from men with guns.

In the U.S., I agree but suggesting bigots can actually be persuaded to change with words is just wrong.

You have a very non-German view on this subject. It's like you are imposing your likely American views on a country with a whole different set of issues. Germany had a terrible period in their history where nationalism and racism swept the nation through because of free speech and great speakers. It lead to the Nazi party, massacre of 6 million Jews and 6 million other people and a world war. They have every reason to have been concerned about this again for a long time after world war 2.

Each country is unique and it seems like the overwhelming American audience in this thread is not realizing that. We here in the U.S. Have our own history. As a result of out history, we have federal hate crimes that were passed in the 60's as part of the civil rights movement in order to combat racism. Foreigners might think 'what's the point of a hate crime if a crime is a crime' but that thinking would be ignoring the reason it still exists and how it began.

[–]STUFF2o [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well spoken, comrade daimposter. The commissar will allow you to keep 10% of your potato yield this year.

[–]Brawldud 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not true. Even the US already makes certain kinds of speech, e.g. death threats and libel, illegal. It's kind of narrow-minded to suggest that you either protect people's rights or don't, as if there is no middle ground. Germany is very liberal about free speech and press freedom, and its citizens enjoy widespread liberties including easy access to healthcare and education.

There's no reason to believe it's draconian unless you're trying to start shit, really. The Germans learned first-hand that some speech is too dangerous to be allowed to propagate, and that it's a far better idea to stamp that shit out before it catches on and suddenly Nazism sees a wide-spread revival. This is especially important during times of crisis or economic depression when people are looking for someone to blame.

Defending Nazi symbolism and Holocaust denialism is not the hill you or any free speech advocate wants to die on. Germany is very conscious about never losing sight of how Hitler's demagogy caused so much needless suffering. Unfettered speech allowed Nazism to propagate rather than arresting it; it's dangerous, and some level of restriction is needed.

[–]daimposter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There's no reason to believe it's draconian unless you're trying to start shit, really. The Germans learned first-hand that some speech is too dangerous to be allowed to propagate, and that it's a far better idea to stamp that shit out before it catches on and suddenly Nazism sees a wide-spread revival.

Nibib123 clearly is speaking with an American basis ignorant of German culture and the people's concern about repeating history.

[–]AL_DENTE_OR_NOTHING 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It prevents the spread of thinking that infringed on people's rights farrr more than this

[–]Denny_Craine [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And condones the use of the state to silence consent. Fucking fascist sympathizers...

[–]MostlyUselessFacts 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

I really prefer it that way. It's the same thing with scientology, the westborough baptists, and so on. What possible benefit to society is allowing hate speech, or the overt fleecing of old people out of all of their money?

Ok, let's institute your plan: now who gets to decide what is illegal and what isn't? Not a good road to go down.

[–]MrKequc [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Not really since not everything is a slippery slope, you are a terrified alarmist.

[–]MostlyUselessFacts [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

You're right, not everything is a slippery slope - but deciding what is and isn't protected, what is and isn't "free speech", is far too complicated, nuanced, and abstract a concept for any legislation to accurately handle without massive and long lasting repercussions set by those precedents.

A slippery slope fallacy goes as follows: a kid chokes on a small toy and I go "if they ban small toys, what's next, banning ALL toys?" It doesn't take a genius to see I'm not saying that banning all speech is next - I'm saying that it's not a road I'm willing to let politicians even begin to go down.

you are a terrified alarmist.

You're an advocate of thought crime, and, since I love that I have the freedom to say this - a raging idiot.

[–]MrKequc [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Hate speech laws aren't thought crime laws. The word speech is right there. Think of it as a hint as to what the laws are for.

[–]lookingforapartments [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hitchens would slap the living dogshit out of you if he were still kicking it.

[–]MostlyUselessFacts [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If you think freedom of speech only protects speech "because it's right there in the name hurr durr", I cannot tell you how amusing it is to find someone this dense.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 2ポイント3ポイント  (18子コメント)

What kind of weak society can't stomach discussion on topics they disagree with? I'd prefer that someone with ideas disagreeable to me speak out so I can identify them. Otherwise you still have just as many people with disagreeable opinions only now they work in the shadows. Better to speak out and have an open dialogue than squelch things we don't like.

[–]MrKequc [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It doesn't ever really turn out that way does it. People with loud mouths just keep spouting off until the end of time and meanwhile other people get the idea that what they're saying is ok and now you've got more of them.

By contrast, when a society finally stands up and says "right well that is pretty much disgusting and we've been hearing it for long enough. look at all the damage it is causing."

What happens isn't that people lurk around in the shadows with their terrible ideas. They are forced to consider the society they live in. People live in societies, and the society wants to benefit as much of the society that it can. A couple of loose cannons, unchecked, can ruin that for a lot of people.

It isn't like countries start out with hate speech laws, those are added eventually.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It doesn't ever really turn out that way does it. People with loud mouths just keep spouting off until the end of time and meanwhile other people get the idea that what they're saying is ok and now you've got more of them.

I disagree and think that things go the other way. By far everyone I know isn't racist or bigoted beyond perhaps minor stereotyping. And that's in a society that protects the rights of people to say horrendous things. There's not some groundswell of racist and bigots overrunning my country. Things are getting better and better imo.

What happens isn't that people lurk around in the shadows with their terrible ideas. They are forced to consider the society they live in. People live in societies, and the society wants to benefit as much of the society that it can. A couple of loose cannons, unchecked, can ruin that for a lot of people.

You're posting this comment underneath a picture of a fellow throwing out a nazi salute in a country where that's illegal. If people are openly doing that, you'd have to imagine there's many with similar ideas that just don't speak or act out.

It isn't like countries start out with hate speech laws, those are added eventually.

I think its unfortunate. We're all adults. We can handle mature discussion of uncomfortable topics, and we can teach our children that some people are misguided or backwards-thinking.

[–]elos_ -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Oh come off it. It's not about "being weak" it's about not giving hate groups whose goal is violence a platform to recruit. They siphon from the ignorant like children and troubled teens and young adults. By denying them the ability to spew their lies and bile we may not stop it but we mitigate it heavily compared to letting the flood gates open.

They deserve to be kept in the shadows. You act like their bullshit deserves discussion. It doesn't. It gives it credence it doesn't deserve.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

You somewhat understood what I was saying. Their bullshit deserves discussion. Your bullshit deserves discussion. That's an important way that individuals and societies progress. They take in outside ideas and ideally learn and progressively swap in superior ideas and thinking where their own inferior ones used to reside. Creating insular bubbles does no one any favors. I know you in your condescending way want to protect the troubled teens and young adults and children, while you were somehow above it and figured things out despite living in a word of mostly open communication.

[–]elos_ -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yeah "we need to kill all the dirty kikes and ragheads because they own the bankers" is 'progressive thinking' facilitating swapping 'inferior ideas for superior ones' lmfao.

But hey tell me more how we need to break out of our 'insular bubble', that is, the ability to rant and rave false history to justify racial theories and genocide. That will lead to such a healthy society! What would I have ever been in my teen years if I didn't have that whole "murder tens of millions" phase :)

These counties have had these laws for decades and the doom and gloom is yet to come. In fact they are more free and have more functional, open democracies than we do. Maybe we should start to look at them for some example rather than with scorn because clearly giving hate groups a platform to preach from isn't helping reduce hate crime.

I'm sorry but I don't give two flying fucks about laissez faire free speech idealism. Get out of your fantasy world. No one who isn't a violent bigot or a hopelessly inexperienced edgy teen would honestly say allowing hate groups a pedestal to preach lies and incite violence from leads to a healthy society.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yeah "we need to kill all the dirty kikes and ragheads because they own the bankers" is 'progressive thinking' facilitating swapping 'inferior ideas for superior ones' lmfao.

Sorry I wasn't able to communicate in a way you could understand. Best of luck to you. I think your thoughts here are shallow and would have a net-negative impact on society if they were enforced, but I respect your right to have and speak them.

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

I love the faux professonal tone everytime these discussions happen lol. And I love how every time it ultimately comes down to yall having to defend conversations like "gas the kikes and murder all the Arab goat fuckers" as, in your very words, "an important way that individuals and societies progress." by "tak[ing] in outside ideas and ideally learn and progressively swap in superior ideas and thinking where their own inferior ones used to reside."

It's the same shit every time. All free speech need to be defended but as soon as it's brought up this speech isn't banned for fee fees but that it's banned because it's actively trying to incite violence yall just plug your ears. Like this post. Apparently allowing people to lie to the ignorant to incite LITERAL GENOCIDE is "advancing society" with "progressive ideas" but stopping it is a net negative. Once again affirming you are either a horrible bigot or a stupid teenager.

Do yourself a favor and drop the smug condescending "professional" tone, it makes you sound like a loser.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

It is strange how emotional your side of the debate often gets. Good thoughts though I'm sure. Have a good one. It's also kind of cool how in the united states you're allowed to say all sorts of offensive things and yet society marches along and progresses and now gays can get married and there's a strange lack of LITERAL GENOCIDE. Huh...maybe all that will come later.

[–]elos_ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

It is strange how emotional your side of the debate often gets. Good thoughts though I'm sure. Have a good one. It's also kind of cool how in the united states you're allowed to say all sorts of offensive things and yet society marches along and progresses and now gays can get married and there's a strange lack of LITERAL GENOCIDE. Huh...maybe all that will come later.

I see you're going down the "bleep bloop Le logical redditor has no emotions" route lmao. Also this is like the 3rd post you've said goodbye and have a good one etc. You may think you sound cool and dismissive but you just sound like a tool bro.

And no in the US you are not allowed to actively recruit for hate groups either. You may be allowed to Nazi salute but you can in Germany too. In fact nazis have marches there frequently too. There's nothing stopping them. The only line is when they tell to incite or recruit for inciting violence. The end.

I love how gay rights being accepted is your proof that racial violence is decreasing here by the way...wut.

[–]daimposter -5ポイント-4ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yeah, it's so much better when people with Bigot opinions talk openly about why other groups are terrible. I mean, who cares if that's how hatred spread, people hearing from other bigots

Better to speak out and have an open dialogue than squelch things we don't like.

this is what white people say, at least in the U.S. People don't want to admit that free speech comes with a lot negatives so they fool thrmselves into thinking that free speech is 100% and won't admit it's fault.

I'm supportive of free speech because how do you decide what you shouldn't be able to say but I certainly don't feel myself into thinking bigots spouting hatred is more productive than if they kept their mouths shut. Probably because I'm not white so I experience it impact of bigotry

[–]fuzzydunloblaw -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm white and have been on the receiving end of bigotry and racism and still think that everyone should feel and be free to express what they truly think and believe. If bigotry and racism spreads via open dialogue it is also in the same way diminished and mocked and exposed as being a foolish sort of way to go through life, so it cuts both ways.

[–]daimposter -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm white and have been on the receiving end of bigotry and racism and still think that everyone should feel and be free to express what they truly think and believe.

I think the problem is that you have no idea how much harder it is on a person of color that is in the minority than a white person from the majority. This right here explains why you have your opinion that free speech is actually productive on the subject of bigotry...you really don't know what it's like for minorities. A balck person (I am not black) being called racial names I significantly worse than a white person being called racial names. Black people feel powerless like their voice isn't heard and that white America ignores their concerns about police brutality, discrimination, laws that benefit white people, etc. it's a far different experience.

If bigotry and racism spreads via open dialogue it also is diminished and mocked and exposed as being a foolish sort of way to go through life, so it cuts both ways.

More flaws. You believe that bigots can easily be changed. They mostly seek out opinions that reaffirm their Negative opinions about other groups. The more they find out there, the stronger their prejudices get.

You actually think the existence of coontown is actually productive? You won't change their minds but they certainly can influence impressionable youths.

Edit: ever notice how most terrorist are teens and early 20's? They are easy to manipulate.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I think the problem is that you have no idea how much harder it is on a person of color that is in the minority than a white person from the majority.

I mostly agree with you there. My anecdotal experience with that sort of discrimination have been few and far between so far so you're probably right that I can't see from the perspective of someone who faces that constantly. But to be fair those minorities can also have their own kind of bigotry and racism against outside groups. It's not like being a minority magically washes away everyone's human tendencies.

More flaws. You believe that bigots can easily be changed. They mostly seek out opinions that reaffirm their Negative opinions about other groups. The more they find out there, the stronger their prejudices get.

No, those that want to change or are open or intellectually capable of changing will change. Those that won't will dig their heels in and be mocked by the society that has open and honest conversations about how backwards their views are. Win-win.

You actually think the existence of coontown is actually productive? You won't change their minds but they certainly can influence impressionable youths.

I think the ideal of free speech is such a beautiful thing that we cannot allow it to be chipped away and distorted even when we think its for some greater good.

ever notice how most terrorist are teens and early 20's? They are easy to manipulate.

You want to live in a society that caters only to the easily impressionable and stupid or do you want to live in an adult society where everyone has the freedom to have open and honest discussions about anything they choose?

[–]daimposter [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

But to be fair those minorities can also have their own kind of bigotry and racism against outside groups. It's not like being a minority magically washes away everyone's human tendencies

No one is arguing differently....I'm arguing that it's much worse when you are in the minority group being attacked.

Those that won't will dig their heels in and be mocked by the society that has open and honest conversations about how backwards their views are.

Completely ignoring that they became racist because they heard it from it others.

I think the ideal of free speech is such a beautiful thing that we cannot allow it to be chipped away and distorted even when we think its for some greater good.....You want to live in a society that caters only to the easily impressionable and stupid or do you want to live in an adult society where everyone has the freedom to have open and honest discussions about anything they choose?

I'm not arguing against most free speech, I'm pointing out how silly it is to argue against the idea that all speech is productive and that we can have meaningful conversation with bigots.

[–]fuzzydunloblaw [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Completely ignoring that they became racist because they heard it from it others.

Usually family right? In a society where tough racial type discussions are squelched those children will spend their formative years in their families insular bubble stagnating in bigotry and come out that factory the exact thing you don't want.

I'm not arguing against most free speech, I'm pointing out how silly it is to argue against the idea that all speech is productive and that we can have meaningful conversation with bigots.

Maybe they can have meaningful conversations with us. Maybe not. Maybe it'll be a like a formal debate where neither side convinces the other but the audience viewing the debate is persuaded in a positive direction.

[–]daimposter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Usually family right? In a society where tough racial type discussions are squelched those children will spend their formative years in their families insular bubble stagnating in bigotry and come out that factory the exact thing you don't want.

Wait...are you arguing that since you can't say pro Nazi stuff in Germany, that you therefore can't say negative stuff about Nazis? Your whole argument is flawed. In fact, they talk a lot about how bad Nazis are so if you are that kid with Nazi opinions, everywhere else you are hearing how teribble Nazis are.

Why would you assume banning pro Nazi rhetoric means they ban anti-nazi rhetoric?

[–]mindbodyproblem 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

First, who says that my speech has to benefit society? Maybe it just benefits me. Maybe it doesn't benefit anyone. Maybe it's just an idea or opinion I have that I want to express for my own pleasure. Maybe I just want to "sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world" to proclaim my individual existence.

Or maybe my speech is intended to be destructive to the society that I live in because I think that society is fucked up. Conversely, some bad governments restrict all kinds of speech on the basis that it is detrimental to their society. Gay "propaganda" in Russia, religion in China, atheism in Saudi Arabia -- all penalized for not benefiting society.

Second (or maybe third, I've lost track), if you ask Westboro Baptist whether they think their speech benefits society, they're gonna say yes. Who's to say that they're wrong?

Edit: a the

[–]MrKequc [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Second (or maybe third, I've lost track), if you ask Westboro Baptist whether they think their speech benefits society, they're gonna say yes. Who's to say that they're wrong?

This isn't all that hard. The people who say they're wrong is everyone else in a developed society, backed up with demonstrable evidence. Such as the severe amount of grief caused to the families of people who recently died.

This isn't even difficult. Canada blocked the westborough baptists on those grounds, from crossing the border. Scientology is illegal in a number of different countries. Are those societies falling apart at the seams because they were able to think?

Hate speech is illegal in a lot of places, and what it means is that the things you are saying are inciting violence. That isn't really all that large of a grey area.

Are you suggesting that just because you might want to incite violence, that is more important than other people's right not to have violence incited upon them? I mean how much of a pussy does a person need to be in order not to take a stand there.

"Oooh, but my precious talking about shit nobody wants to hear."

[–]mindbodyproblem [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that because people get mad and want to punch members of Westboro Baptist, that Westboro Baptist is inciting violence?

[–]MrKequc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They are delivering the message that god wants gay people to die and that the death of gay people should be celebrated. In fact that's just about all they ever talk about. Loudly all the time. How do you not know their message? Saying that gay people should die is incitement of violence.

Cross post to explain it like I'm 5

[–]LvS [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Disallowing hate speech does not disallow opinions. It just disallows forms of expression for these opinions.

[–]Denny_Craine [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Because what's considered "hate speech" is subjective

[–]Realik [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No it's anti-free speach. it's wrong

[–]SanityInAnarchy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What reasons? Americans used to do the exact same salute during the Pledge of Allegiance.

[–]hunterbelmont [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There is no good reason to violate human rights.

[–]angrydwarf 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really.

[–]urbn -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

For very good reasons.

Because instead of having everyone in that town/city that person lives in shunning them and the person ruining their own social life is less important then ignoring history and pretending some awful events ever happened.

The worlds always going to be filled with shitty people. Everyone is better off letting these people expose themselves so we know who to stay away from and let them ruin their own lives.