• IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dead wrong. The nazis will not be nice to you and respect your free speech because you respect theirs. Ever. They will lock you up regardless. This is not an even playing field.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being locked up is a pretty charitable assumption about what will happen given the Nazis’ history and current rhetoric.

    • Flumsy@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you say you are right to censor your worst enemys then the Nazis were logically also right to censor the opinions of the people THEY hated the most…

      Supporting only certain peoples freedom of speech is the definition of censorship…

        • Flumsy@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everyone’s OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem “the intolerant” then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as “the intolerant” that doesnt tolerate them).

          As long as they dont take away from anybody else’s freedom (and by just stating one’s opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So if you don’t tolerate the intolerant, then they will be intolerant? I don’t follow this logic.

            • Flumsy@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not tolerating someone (“the intolerant”) makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn’t “tolerate the intolerant”).

              Essentially, who is “intolerant” depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.

              • howrar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.

            • Flumsy@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have to assume that you are a Nazi yourself

              (Wrong). Its interesting that you think that just because I argued everyones opinion should be allowed.

              • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.

                • Flumsy@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant

                  I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want

                  yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi

                  Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.

                  • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The problem with your “private company” defense is that they used government power to ensure their voice was heard loudest above all others. They literally censored in the most literal sense of the word.

          • 520@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why must person A tolerate person B’s belief that person A should not have the right to life and liberty?

            You can call it an opinion all you like, but the truth is that opinions inevitably become actions.

              • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let’s see if it’s something we haven’t already heard a million times and rejected.

                • Flumsy@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored?

                  Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it isn’t. One is a violent group who want to kill and enslave. The other respects life. They are not the same. They do not have the same rights. You are dead wrong, period. No amount of rationalization will make you not dead wrong.

        • Flumsy@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Killing and enslaving are both means to do something, not the actual reason itself. If any person with a different political view wanted to do the same, it would be just as bad. Everyones opinion should be allowed.

          • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What would you consider to be a good reason for killing and enslaving that everyone needs to hear about regularly?

            • Flumsy@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Killing and enslaving should not be allowed and should be avoided at all cost.

              The point is, however, if (lets say) a communist killed and enslaved people, should that mean that communist views should be censored in the future? (No! IMO)

              Killing and enslaving people are terrible and unacceptable ways of pushing one’s own ideals. It does not make the actual opinion itself invalid though.

              • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But communist views ARE censored, and it is specifically because it is claimed that they killed and enslaved. Meanwhile, Nazi views are celebrated as they announce to all that killing and enslavement is their goal.

                • Flumsy@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But communist views ARE censored

                  And I dont think they should be censored (even though I disagree with their views). See what I mean?

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples’ freedoms, it harms peoples’ freedom to tolerate that behaviour.

        Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that’s currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it’s moronic.