369
Members of Texas Republican party free to associate with Nazi sympathizers
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
369 points (97.2% liked)
News
23369 readers
5757 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You drew the line at violence, but defend the Nazis and ISIS - What's the bar for unacceptable violence? More than the 17 million people the Nazis killed, obviously, but where is that line?
I don't know what you want from me man. To say nazis are bad? No shit, that's obvious.
You ask where I draw the line. Between actions and ideas. I can't make this any more clear.
Nazi held a sign at a protest? Shitty, but not illegal.
Nazi hurts someone? Illegal.
I don't think there's any doubt the Nazis are bad - which is why they're a good example. When they've had power, they killed millions - the violence has already happened at an incredible scale, but you continue to defend their existence.
Surely you don't propose atomising response to the individual level - that we only react to individual members of openly genocidal groups after they harm/kill someone, otherwise allowing the unhindered operation and growth of those groups?
Protecting openly genocidal groups' speech is akin to protecting individuals' rights to make death threats (even after they've killed a bunch of people) - the speech itself is harmful, intimidating minorities, and it's a strong indicator of upcoming violence that you can prevent instead of waiting for innocent people to get harassed, attacked, and killed. Conversely, there's zero social utility to the hate speech other than identifying genocidal cunts that are probably deserving of some violence, for the betterment of society - the ol' paradox of tolerance.
I do.
Death threats too? Shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Again, this speech reduces freedom, has no meaningful utility, and very directly leads to, encourages, and spreads the violence - with all this in mind, it's unfathomable to me that anyone would defend it.
Outside the disagreement, I'll also say I'm pretty wary of free speech absolutists - I can't speak for you, but they tend to drop their principles the moment someone says something they don't like - see Musk for an example of this.
Criminal threats are typically actionable. They indicate a concrete act is intended.
A famously incorrect example of unprotected speech. It actually is protected speech, it's just a catchy phrase that people never seem to look into beyond a surface level.
Because at least half of the country I live in would love nothing more to apply these same ideas of restricting the flow of ideas and speech to me. To their mind, my liberal lefty atheistic ideals are diametrically opposed to their world view. To their understanding of the world, I'm actively making the world a worse place just by being in it. I have actively benefited from the freedom of thought and speech that I support while growing up in a deep red and deeply religious small town.
What you should be asking yourself is why these abhorrent ideas get any traction at all. The public square should be filled with good ideas. Put your ideas out for how to make society better. Put out your critique and world view. The speech you hate so much should be drowned out by all the good speech. The fact that it's not, and has garnered any sort of appeal points to a failure on society's part, writ large. We have an obligation to push society forward and be proactive in guiding society where we want it to go. Like I said in another comment, the hearts of men can't be legislated away; they have to be won.
We clearly have different philosophies on the value of freedom of thought. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.
It's super-weird that you'd defer to what's legal when you're asked if something is moral - particularly when you imply there's a risk legislation will turn against you at some point.
There's a bunch of reasons bad ideas circulate, but they're generally a product of the interests of those with economic/political power. That's a far broader, more difficult issue to solve than the proliferation of genocidal ideologies.
You want this problem solved?
Here's the definition of genocide (the UN one works fine).
Genocidal groups are now outlawed.
As far as organised crime goes, there's not really a higher bar, is there? The likes of BLM that you cited earlier don't meet this bar - not by a long shot.