PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.

[Bacon Is Proof]

Rovinghawk said:

I know what it is.

Wahey! Step one.

said:

I don't know why I 'should' have the same belief as yourself

You should because fascism is universally regarded as a bad thing, and I think fascism is a bad thing. Everyone thinks fascism is a bad thing.

said:

rather than the freedom to choose for myself.

I thought you already knew what fascism is? There is only a choice to be made if you either don't know or haven't made up your mind yet.

said:

I presume you only advocate freedom of choice for those who agree with you? Oh- isn't that similar to fascism?

The great thing about strawman arguments is that they expose the creators as the ignorant trolls that they are.

[Einion Yrth]

Bacon Is Proof said:

fascism is universally regarded as a bad thing,

If this were true there would be no fascists.

[rscott]

Boydie88 said:

Colonial said:

Rovinghawk said:

I'm not debating the rights/wrongs of fascism- I'm debating the rights/wrongs of you telling me what I should believe.

Please explain how it's common sense, ideally without your previous argument "because".

If you need cliffnotes on why fascism is bad then I'm sorry. I've completely over estimated you.

The modern day Antifa are fascists themselves by every definition of the word. There are scum on both sides.

Awaiting your right wing terrorist numbers.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-the-hate-is/

Attacks in the US between 2008 and 2016, total of acts and foiled plans:-
Right wing - 115
Islamist - 63
Left wing - 19 .

Far higher percentage of right wing plans were carried out, compared to Islamist. Most of the Islamist ones foiled were foiled using sting operations.

[Order66]

Bacon Is Proof said:

There is only a choice to be made

Are you fully aware that you are using one of the tenets of facism to attack facism?

[Mothersruin]

The far left are Facists in all but name.

Moderate left and Moderate right are often poles apart with general good meaning.

Far left and Far right are often incredibly close with evil in their hearts.

[Mr2Mike]

Colonial said:

We literally had a world war over this.

It was pretty much decided that fascism was not a good thing. It was one of the fundamental moments in recent world history.

What do you think the benefits of fascism are?

What do you think the benefits of having your views decided for you by other people are?

Bacon Is Proof said:

You should because fascism is universally regarded as a bad thing, and I think fascism is a bad thing. Everyone thinks fascism is a bad thing.

A very obviously, and demonstrably false statement.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 21st August 15:55

[Goaty Bill 2]

I am quite bemused by all of this.

I just checked the topic again. I was quite sure I'd read it correctly the first time, but I just wanted to be sure.

"PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends."

Of course drawing from scenarios to make a point is normal discussion, but to keep getting stuck on who, if anyone is more 'correct'/'less bad' between the Nazis and the Soviets is a bit like arguing over which would be better for blowing your head off; a Colt 45 or an anti-aircraft gun.

You really won't feel the difference long enough for it to matter.

Whether you or anyone else wants to hear what a Nazi/Communist has to say, or would anyone be likely to learn anything new, is hardly the point in a discussion about the right of that Nazi/Communist to speak freely.

Imagine if we stopped Corbyn and McDonnell from speaking their Marxist ideology. Corbyn might have won the election. The results of that occurring would come as a shock to a lot of people.
Teresa May opened her big mouth too, and look where her speech about removing unspecified human rights got her. Without that she might have won the election. Now she scares me almost as much as Corbyn.

The most revealing thing I got from Charlottesville was a clear definition of the 'alt-right' from one of the organisers speaking (in another video - sorry no link), and that cleared up a lot for me immediately. It also means actual racism and segregation as one of the principals.

I will bet that a lot of young men, if they see that, will stop calling themselves alt-right immediately.
Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.

Up to the point of inciting violence or harm against a group or individual or urging people to commit a crime or making libellous or slanderous statements, I believe completely free speech is an essential liberty.

[Boydie88]

rscott said:

https://www.revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-t...

Attacks in the US between 2008 and 2016, total of acts and foiled plans:-
Right wing - 115
Islamist - 63
Left wing - 19 .

Far higher percentage of right wing plans were carried out, compared to Islamist. Most of the Islamist ones foiled were foiled using sting operations.

Interesting stuff. Reading into it further, Wikipedia lists only one other right wing terror incident post 2001, a bank robbery.

Seems fitting that article chose to focus on 2008 and beyond - almost like they had an agenda to prove?

[ATG]

Rovinghawk said:

Colonial said:

We literally had a world war over this.

It was pretty much decided that fascism was not a good thing. It was one of the fundamental moments in recent world history.

What do you think the benefits of fascism are?

I never said fascism was a great idea- I asked why I should by default believe what you think I should believe rather than having the freedom to hear both sides & decide for myself.

He is assuming that you already know what fascism is without having to have it explained to you by every person who is advertising their fascism. Opposition to fascism should be the default position of anyone who understands what facsism is . And also note that he didn't say fascists shouldn't be allowed to express their views. You shouldn't stoop to trying to misrepresent what others have said.

[Bacon Is Proof]

Einion Yrth said:

If this were true there would be no fascists.

I thought someone might pick up on this.
I should have added the word "literally", and used the new modern definition to further antagonize.
It does however detract from the important parts of the discussion.

[anonymous-user]

TurboHatchback said:

Greg66 said:

TurboHatchback said:

IMHO pretty much everyone on both sides of those protests are morons but even morons have the right to express their opinions without fear of violence for doing so.

It was asked earlier should we allow a Nazi headquarters, the confederate flag etc and my opinion is absolutely yes. The price of freedom of belief and expression is that we will hear views and see symbols we find repugnant and yes we will be offended, this is a price that must be paid for the right to speak our minds and use what symbols we choose.

How do you feel about the laws in Germany, which prohibit the use of Nazis symbols (except in confined circumstances, none of which would permit demonstrations)? And which outlaw Holocaust deniers?

I can see why those laws originated, the most catastrophic war and genocide in human history but today I would not support them. I believe the german public as a whole despise nazism more than any other country on earth, them regaining power and going for round 2 against the world just isn't on the cards and the right to freedom of expression is more important. As for holocaust denial, it should be illegal to teach kids that but otherwise if someone blindly chooses to ignore history then outlawing their opinion won't change it, the ire that allowing them to express it would expose them to would be more likely to change their view IMO.

In the pursuit of the ideal that freedom of speech is important, where (if anywhere) do you draw the line?

E.g., should people be free to propound the following views:

- a subset of humans are genetically inferior to white Anglo saxons;
- a subset of humans should be exterminated for the greater good of the race;
- a subset of humans should be exterminated because of what they believe in;
- cannibalism is should be encouraged;
- age limits on sexual relations should be ignored;

and so it goes on. Human nature being what it is, the majority response to all of those positions will be abhorrence, but that is the majority: a small minority will accept them and hereby help the ideas flourish.

It is unfortunate that exposing these ideas and their proponents to publicity and ire doesn't change them: see, for example, David Irving, the Holocaust denying historian who has been unfazed by losing one of the biggest libel cases in history, and any one of the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.

[Bacon Is Proof]

Order66 said:

Bacon Is Proof said:

There is only a choice to be made

Are you fully aware that you are using one of the tenets of facism to attack facism?

Are you fully aware that you have cropped my quote to change it's meaning?

[Mothersruin]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I will bet that a lot of young men, if they see that, will stop calling themselves alt-right immediately.
Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.

How do they call out the SJWs then, because letting them (SJWs) speak freely while seemingly being promoted in much of the media seems to recruit a whole bunch of other morons, as shown in that vid, to their cause.

[TurboHatchback]

The merits of fascism, communism, left, right, black, white, religeon, atheism etc are beside the point. The issue is the State, 'establishment' or vocal/violent/abusive minorities being allowed to define what opinion is right or wrong, allowed or disallowed.

Bacon Is Proof said:

Rovinghawk said:

I presume you only advocate freedom of choice for those who agree with you? Oh- isn't that similar to fascism?

The great thing about strawman arguments is that they expose the creators as the ignorant trolls that they are.

He's right though, what you're saying is that because you believe a viewpoint is bad it shouldn't be allowed. Now the vast majority of the populace including everybody who has contributed to this thread agree that fascism is bad but you can't seem to see that we can think that yet still support the right to have and express fascist opinions. What if the majority or the state disagreed with you and made one of your opinions illegal or unacceptable?

An example: I believe in taxpayer funded healthcare for all, if I went to a deeply conservative republican US backwater that opinion would be anathema. It would be considered tantamount to communism which recent history suggests is bad, Stalin was a communist and killed lots of people so I must be evil. Now over there I would be 'in the wrong' but would you agree that I should be allowed to express my opinion safely? Can you not see the parallel?

[rscott]

Boydie88 said:

rscott said:

https://www.revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-t...

Attacks in the US between 2008 and 2016, total of acts and foiled plans:-
Right wing - 115
Islamist - 63
Left wing - 19 .

Far higher percentage of right wing plans were carried out, compared to Islamist. Most of the Islamist ones foiled were foiled using sting operations.

Interesting stuff. Reading into it further, Wikipedia lists only one other right wing terror incident post 2001, a bank robbery.

Seems fitting that article chose to focus on 2008 and beyond - almost like they had an agenda to prove?

Or that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect reference.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-a...
gives right wing incidents in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007.

That also shows that the death by right wing attacks since 2001 was higher until that that of Islamist attacks until 2016. It was the very large number of deaths in San Bernadino & the Orlando night club which swung the totals over.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Mothersruin said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I will bet that a lot of young men, if they see that, will stop calling themselves alt-right immediately.
Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.

How do they call out the SJWs then, because letting them (SJWs) speak freely while seemingly being promoted in much of the media seems to recruit a whole bunch of other morons, as shown in that vid, to their cause.

I'm not sure of your question.

Are you saying young men need some organisation or loose group to be a part of to do that (I don't dispute that they might)?

Or are you asking how they justify speaking against the SJWs now?

I initially read it as the latter, but then decided you meant the former. So I better ask

[Mothersruin]

Greg66 said:

In the pursuit of the ideal that freedom of speech is important, where (if anywhere) do you draw the line?

E.g., should people be free to propound the following views:

- a subset of humans are inferior due to their lack of faith;
- a subset of humans should be exterminated for the greater good of the faith;
- a subset of humans should be exterminated because they stopped believing;
- marrying cousins should be encouraged;
- age limits on sexual relations should be ignored;

Agreed.

Yup - totally twisted your words to prove the point.

[Mothersruin]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Mothersruin said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I will bet that a lot of young men, if they see that, will stop calling themselves alt-right immediately.
Most of them seem to think it's just a loud organised way of protesting against SJWs. They were wrong, and now it's obvious.

How do they call out the SJWs then, because letting them (SJWs) speak freely while seemingly being promoted in much of the media seems to recruit a whole bunch of other morons, as shown in that vid, to their cause.

I'm not sure of your question.

Are you saying young men need some organisation or loose group to be a part of to do that (I don't dispute that they might)?

Or are you asking how they justify speaking against the SJWs now?

I initially read it as the latter, but then decided you meant the former. So I better ask

The latter - sorry for my lack of clarity.

But they may need the former for confidence and organisation.

[Bacon Is Proof]

Mr2Mike said:

A very obviously, and demonstrably false statement.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 21st August 15:55

Again, I thought the ability to spot hyperbole was greater than the need for absolute pedantry.

[Boydie88]

rscott said:

Or that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect reference.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-a...
gives right wing incidents in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007.

That also shows that the death by right wing attacks since 2001 was higher until that that of Islamist attacks until 2016. It was the very large number of deaths in San Bernadino & the Orlando night club which swung the totals over.

Thanks, interesting to see no mention of the rising anti democracy extreme left in there when talking about current threats. The right spike correlates with Obama in power - that graph will be interesting the further into Trump's reign we get.