Large Scale Free Speech Rally in Boston

[lewdest]

I hate Mondays.

Oh fuck, I just gave a hate speech using MMO-C misc forums as my platform, time to shut down the website.

[primalmatter]

But that's now what I said.



Objectively false.



Right. Because trying to "crush Nazis to the ground" worked very well before.

As far as I remember, that actually gave them notoriety and brought more people in, as they quickly felt like martyrs. We all know that the best way to kill a movement is to be violent and force them in submission, right?

Actually they gained power by fighting communists in the streets... eventually people saw them as protectors from the violent communist groups...

[Vyxn]

Private companies not employing or servicing Nazis is not censorship.



Good that that didn't happen then.



So it is in our best interest to crush the Nazis into the ground so they don't get into power. Because if they do get into power it does not matter how you treated them before. Because they are Nazis.

the problem with your assertion you will label anyone and everyone you disagree with a Nazi then use that baseless accusation to justify what ever afterwards because who would discourage or condemn what I do they are Nazis

[Garnier Fructis]

Yes that should be its definition.Its why we don't consider countries that shoot everyone who votes against the main party democratic with free elections...

It's pretty telling that you have to go to the extreme to argue against what I said. Shooting people is illegal. Violence is illegal.

Telling people to go fuck themselves for what they said? Not illegal. And this whole thing is just a salty reaction to society telling them to go fuck themselves.

[Elba]

Yes that should be its definition.Its why we don't consider countries that shoot everyone who votes against the main party democratic with free elections...

If you want freedom from social consequences you are advocating against free speech.

You are saying people should not be freely allowed who to associate with. You are saying there should be no free market. You are saying people can't fire those who harm their business.

If I have a friend who turns out to be a Nazi, will you force me at gun point to remain friends with that person?

[Sky High]

Violence is wrong, especially unprovoked violence.

Sure, but good luck trying to get most people to care when it's an ACTUAL fascist, not using Tumblr definitions.

[primalmatter]

You know what Nazis are, right? Their goal is genocide of everyone that is not white or straight and to destroy democracy.

You just compared Nazis to gay people. ... Dude.

Actually no that isn't what a nazi has been at any point of history...

You don't actually know anything about WW2 history besides the smaller of the two genocides do ya lad?

[Vyxn]

Again, look at who they invited to speak at it.

ok who did they invite and what have they said that makes them a Nazi ?
I know who the speaker are want to make sure your do and can quote what they spoke of that makes them Nazis to prove your not making baseless accusations

[Garnier Fructis]

But in a way, it should. Consequences should not come at the cost of enabling martyrdom.

We went over this in the other thread, and I still find it unconvincing because they're only going to be 'martyred' in the eyes of people who are also getting told by society to fuck off.

And, as others have mentioned, free speech is a double edged sword: your critics also have the freedom to criticize you harshly. Hence the Winston Churchill quote.

[primalmatter]

If you want freedom from social consequences you are advocating against free speech.

You are saying people should not be freely allowed who to associate with. You are saying there should be no free market. You are saying people can't fire those who harm their business.

If I have a friend who turns out to be a Nazi, will you force me at gun point to remain friends with that person?

I have no idea the point you are trying to make.

The idea of shutting down ideas and debate is what has lead us to our darkest of moments in history though.

- - - Updated - - -

It's pretty telling that you have to go to the extreme to argue against what I said. Shooting people is illegal. Violence is illegal.

Telling people to go fuck themselves for what they said? Not illegal. And this whole thing is just a salty reaction to society telling them to go fuck themselves.

It isn't its a reaction to people trying to inspire or approve of violence towards them.

[Elba]

But that's now what I said.

That is what you said. If censorship is requested they will oblige. So you a re saying what they do is censorship.

Objectively false.

Nope.

Right. Because trying to "crush Nazis to the ground" worked very well before.

As far as I remember, that actually gave them notoriety and brought more people in, as they quickly felt like martyrs. We all know that the best way to kill a movement is to be violent and force them in submission, right?

Good thing we know more now. With enough force, yes. Make it socially and legally too costly to be a Nazi. Don't be a coward.

[karumayu]

Did people watch the livestream linked in OP? Take a look at the live comment section and you see how much "free speech" is supported by the so called totally not racists alt right members.

[Garnier Fructis]

The idea of shutting down ideas and debate is what has lead us to our darkest of moments in history though.

There's some real hoops being jumped through here, given that the ideas recently being shut down are exactly the ideas that lead to two of the darkest moments in history.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Actually they gained power by fighting communists in the streets... eventually people saw them as protectors from the violent communist groups...

One of the few reasons why Hitler gathered so much attention was because of his arrest for high treason. A lot of people started looking at him as some kind of hero afterward. Noncoïncidentally, he started to write Mein Kampf right after.

We went over this in the other thread, and I still find it unconvincing because they're only going to be 'martyred' in the eyes of people who are also getting told by society to fuck off.

And, as others have mentioned, free speech is a double edged sword: your critics also have the freedom to criticize you harshly. Hence the Winston Churchill quote.

Free speech should absolutely allow disagreement, lively debates, and exchange of ideas. But when you attack someone's living, when you attack someone physically, you make them feel empowered and rightful. This, in turn, leads to more violence.

[Elba]

I have no idea the point you are trying to make.

The idea of shutting down ideas and debate is what has lead us to our darkest of moments in history though.

You said there should be no social consequences. I showed you social consequences. If you tried to prevent such social consequences you would ironically be against free speech.

The world is a darker place without Nazism in it?

[Garnier Fructis]

Free speech should absolutely allow disagreement, lively debates, and exchange of ideas. But when you attack someone's living, when you attack someone physically, you make them feel empowered and rightful. This, in turn, leads to more violence.

Nowhere did I imply that 'societal consequences' meant violence.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

That is what you said. If censorship is requested they will oblige. So you a re saying what they do is censorship.

I'm saying that we shouldn't ask for censorship. That's the problem.

Nope.

I don't know what world you live in, or if you simply take something you disagree with as "non-factual", but there's a trove of real, genuine scientific research made on a lot of controversial topics every year that just gets shoved under the carpet because it doesn't fit the current cultural climate. They are true, they exist and they are empirical.

Good thing we know more now. With enough force, yes. Make it socially and legally too costly to be a Nazi. Don't be a coward.

With enough force, which is the downfall of your idea. I won't go and punch a Nazi outside. I hate nazis. I hate what they stand for, but I won't lower myself to their level. I'm not a trash and I won't start acting like one.

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere did I imply that 'societal consequences' meant violence.

Then we agree.

[primalmatter]

There's some real hoops being jumped through here, given that the ideas recently being shut down are exactly the ideas that lead to two of the darkest moments in history.

History moves in circles. Unless we see police really step up in shutting down antifa and for a lack of better term alt right riots we will see horrific violence. All it takes is for one of them to shot the other for it to become a warzone.

[Zecora]

I have no idea the point you are trying to make.

The idea of shutting down ideas and debate is what has lead us to our darkest of moments in history though.

You can have whatever idea and start whatever debate you want, that's YOUR right. If your private employer decides that your views will harm the company, he can fire you, because that's HIS right. If people decides that they want nothing to do with you based on your views, and call you a Nazi or fascist because of them, that is THEIR right.

THAT is freedom of speech. What so many people today want is freedom of speech AND freedom from consequences of their speech.

Posting this, because quite frankly, people on this site NEED to see it often:

[Acidbaron]

Actually no that isn't what a nazi has been at any point of history...

You don't actually know anything about WW2 history besides the smaller of the two genocides do ya lad?

Yes, they were not aggressive against people who were different before the death camps, they did not have a military wing in their party that beat up others, other minded and eventually those became a police force and people who dared to even question the party were removed from public eye never to be seen again.

You might want to apply the advise to yourself, the Nazi party wanted to get rid of everyone not aryan, everyone not "normal" that means not straight or even born with a disability.

They tolerated a few in other nations if it suited their military goals. If you wish to underplay the nazi doctrine that is your choice, but they defined the principle of uber und unter mensch and to say or even claim they didn't merely displays your ignorance on yet another subject.