https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It is totally fine to be politically moderate. I’d go as far as to go full mathematics professor and claim without proof™ that centrists being tolerant of intolerance and extremism is a thing mostly made up by extremists to discredit them.
I can only speak for Europe, but pretty much every center party you will find here actively opposes such things. They don’t go around and beat up nazis on the streets, yes, but that’s not the kind of opposition I’d expect from a political party to begin with. If you wanna do that, that’s fine by me. The thing is, I have a strong feeling that particularly far-left splinter groups tend to conclude that “centrists bad” or even “centrists basically nazis” because they don’t agree with them or their methods.
That said, if you ever want to have any say, your only choices are compromise and violence. It is a huge problem that broad alliances are very hard to achieve among far-left, moderate-left and center parties. At least for people who wish to have a left or left-leaning government. Why do we hardly ever get one? Well, I’d say usually the moderate parties are there, ready to pick up the crown, while the left is fighting over which one to safe first and the most once they claim it. And all that is preventing the far-right from claiming power (if anything at all these days) are the center parties some people want to hate so desperately
I would sort myself into the social-liberal drawer. Moderate left. I think reasoning with nazis, tankies, religious fanatics etc. is a waste of time. I also think you’re best off creating an environment where as few people as possible become either. And I think the main ways to achieve this are welfare, education and psychological support. The thing is, I want to make this happen at almost any cost and not just demand it for the next 50 years.
Imagine if Hitler’s crimes stopped at speaking
Well, he didn’t personally kill people, so all his crimes were actually speaking. Well, sometimes writing.
He did technically kill at least one person personally, though most people wouldn’t call that one much of a crime, as such.
Within reason.
The line is very clear: You have those rights … so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.
If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc… Sure: they’re free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.
Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it’s important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It’s important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.
Moderates fuck this up frequently… and I’m saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.
Nice comment that ignores the fact that hate speech actively harms people.
It also ignores that there are recognized limits to free speech everywhere - try to discuss the best way to murder someone in public and see what happens.
Human rights are supposed to protect human dignity, so free speech, like any other right, needs to be interpreted in that light.
A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”
You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.
You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.
You reference people being killed for scientific beliefs. But you’re comparing the persecution of evidence-based scientific inquiry to the restriction of propaganda designed to harm others. These aren’t remotely equivalent - you’re actually trivializing historical persecution.
You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”
Also your whole “But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong” - completely disregards the physical reality of the burden of proof - it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything” - and now it’s on you to prove me wrong - but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.
I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.
People used to defend to the death others’ right to say things (that they may even disagree with): National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
[…] The injunction was granted, prohibiting marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. On behalf of the NSPA, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the injunction. The ACLU assigned civil rights attorneys David Goldberger and Burton Joseph to Collin’s cases. The ACLU argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves. The ACLU challenge was unsuccessful at the lower court level.
The ACLU appealed on behalf of NSPA, but both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to expedite the case or to stay the injunction. The ACLU then appealed that refusal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here is the interesting bit:
- Burton Joseph’s parents “ran a business caretaking Jewish cemeteries.” [Wikipedia]
- David Goldberger is “a Jew”. [Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis — The New York Times]
You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.
…until you decide it’s your right to publicly espouse a terrorist ideology like Nazism.
Then fuck you. Letting you Nazi motherfuckers hide behind the First Amendment was one of the worst mistakes America ever made, and I hope the Italian plumbers of the world make it very clear how welcome you are in decent society.
