It begins with free speech, then you skip a few years and suddenly trans kids are scared for their lives. Speech affects people and has consequence, it is not something to take lightly.
random65837 -111 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775, hotness: undefined, score: -111, children: 92
givesomefucks 77 points 3 years ago
That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened
Let's get some examples there chief.
Link what you think is "fine" and has been labeled hate speech
Drewelite 36 points 3 years ago
As a Floridian, the issue is pretty apparent. Conservatives are outlawing the current teachings about race in our schools all under the guise of STOPPING racism.
givesomefucks 29 points 3 years ago
But that's fascists calling reality fake...
We can't take any of them seriously. I didn't think I had to keep pointing that out in 2023.
I meant a rational person declaring something they don't like as hate speech.
Do you understand how crazy it is to say:
We can't call anything hate speech, because the people using hate speech all the time call everything they don't like hate speech
Fascists have been trying to do that forever, dont start falling for it now all of a sudden.
random65837 -53 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3601317 3603470 3604921, hotness: undefined, score: -53, children: 16
underisk 15 points 3 years ago
There have been some laws passed by several states to label criticisms of Israel’s apartheid state as hate speech and outlaw BDS boycotts based on that.
Do not assume the right wing won’t try to turn whatever tactic you find effective against them back at you. That doesn’t mean you should stop using it though; they certainly aren’t going to drop it now that they’ve found a way to wield it.
givesomefucks 18 points 3 years ago
That's the same as the other example someone gave...
Fascists calling something hate speech so we stop talking about their fascism.
Why does this work on so many people?
What logic are you using that this means we can't use the term "hate speech" anymore?
IHaveTwoCows 9 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3601317 3603922 3610846, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
random65837 -45 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3601317 3604842, hotness: undefined, score: -45, children: 48
TotallynotJessica 35 points 3 years ago
Ah, there it is. At least you're willing to say it and not tiptoe around it like a coward.
The reason the scientific community does not endorse the conservative gender ideology, is because it causes much more direct harm than good to human happiness. If we don't let trans people transition, their lives are so much worse that they are seriously likely to kill themselves. Most of the negative consequences of transition come from bigotry, something that is unequivocally on the bigot, not the trans person. Most people who "detransition" after taking hormones do so because of hate rather than because they realize it wasn't for them.
There is no direct harm caused to people who aren't trans so long as they treat other adults as equals, and let children access the help they need. Trans people are not more likely to be the perpetrators of violence, they're more likely to be the victims of it. Male predators don't need to pretend to be a woman to get into women's bathrooms or intrude on their spaces. The anti trans rhetoric is based on lies.
The biggest thing you need to recognize about your position is that it helps the insanely corrupt and selfish far right political groups like the American GOP. It is a wedge issue used to promote incompetent rulers who hate anyone that isn't a rich male member of the largest cultural group. Even if you don't believe you hate trans people, your support allows trans people to be legally persecuted for trying to live. I am not exaggerating, trans people are losing lifesaving treatment and being forced from public life, thanks to the refusal of people like you to stand up against the bigots.
IHaveTwoCows 10 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3601317 3604842 3610858, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 6
PsychedSy 5 points 3 years ago
This is a definition dispute, not biological. Mostly anyway. I could have this conversation with a lot of people and it wouldn't be any sort of hate speech, but it's pretty obvious what you're about here.
dangblingus 37 points 3 years ago
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you've been had. No one is coming to take your precious heteronormativity and matching pronouns away from you.
pinkdrunkenelephants 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3603338 3608607 3622392, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3
random65837 -24 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3603338 3604778, hotness: undefined, score: -24, children: 0
KaiReeve 24 points 3 years ago
So what you're saying is that it's important to instill strong morals and encourage critical thinking in the general populous so that we can recognize the difference between actual hate speech and what is being spun as hate speech in order to further the agendas of those who would oppress us and therefore any action made to suppress public education must be the precursor to a larger scheme to gain control by manipulating the ignorant?
dangblingus 4 points 3 years ago
Hate speech is hate speech. Doesn't matter if it was being used ironically or to trick people.
IHaveTwoCows -7 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3601254 3610888, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 0
Bytemeister 23 points 3 years ago
Which has already happened.
Citation needed
Iceblade02 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 3598618 3600775 3610775 3623526, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
pixxelkick 9 points 3 years ago
Thats not how Hate Speech works, its explicitly about intent and not the actual words used, at least in Canada.
Canada doesn't specify any specific words that are "banned" or whatever, and the law is explicitly setup to handle that no matter what you do or dont say, all it cares is about the intent behind your words and whether they intended to incite violence/hate.
Chenzo 141 points 3 years ago
the tolerance paradox
If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people.
cynar 87 points 3 years ago
The solution is that it's a social contract. I agree to tolerate your weirdness and quirks. You agree to do the same to myself and others.
By being intolerant (without a good reason), they break the social contract. Therefore they are no longer protected by it either.
IHaveTwoCows 15 points 3 years ago path: 0 3600911 3604666 3610745, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 19
NeuralDissimilarity 6 points 3 years ago
Mmmm, milk toast.
assassin_aragorn 5 points 3 years ago
This doesn't seem so much of a liberal thing but a social centrist thing. There's plenty of people on the left that are socialist/communist but don't care as much about social issues. I recall someone arguing that the people who wanted to kidnap Gov Whitmer were experiencing "economic anxiety". You see it too with leftists who float the idea of working with MAGA hats for economic populism.
It's like when people say there's basically only one party or there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. From a purely economic perspective, sure, the differences are rather small. Pretty much just comes down to taxes. But the two parties are polar opposites when it comes to social issues. To say there's no difference is basically ignoring the social aspect.
Enlightened centrist or liberal or apologist, it's just cringe.
A_Random_Idiot -2 points 3 years ago
anyone telling you to defend nazi's isnt a lib.
You'd think that'd be obvious and you wouldnt have to be told that, yet here we are, having to tell you the blatant fuckin obvious.
IHaveTwoCows 4 points 3 years ago path: 0 3600911 3604666 3610745 3623472 3628153, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 6
cynar 0 points 3 years ago
The problem is it's not a simplistic line. I strongly disagree with the nazi viewpoint. They also break the social contract so often they've voided all rights to be covered by it. At the same time, some people want to take it too far. There are still later lines we shouldn't cross. (E.g. A mob beating Nazis with baseball bats is never acceptable).
Unfortunately, Nazis like playing games, and trying to mess with the scale of problems. Some people try and step in and "help" without realising that they are dealing with untrustworthy information. This can tie people's minds into an impressive knot, just as they intended.
PsychedSy -8 points 3 years ago
Someone else being a twat won't make me violate my principles. I'm not good to others because they're good to me. I'm good to others because they're an end themselves, not a means to my ends.
A_Random_Idiot 3 points 3 years ago
If you are good to nazi's because they are good to you, regardless of what they do to others, Then your principles, and you as a person, are shit, and you should be treated as nothing but an infiltrator for their cause, because that is what you are.
cynar 3 points 3 years ago
And that's completely your right to do. However, that is not what the tolerance contract covers. It goes beyond what most people would tolerate normally. Also, people cannot both break the social contract, and then insist you hold up the other end.
By example, I've previously had long debates over nazi Germany and Hitler's economic recovery. I would even tolerate Nazis, if they followed the social contract from their side. Unfortunately, the various Nazis groups regularly break that contract. They then try and hide behind it, when others take offence.
Conversely, I also disagree with the "tankies". They tend not to break the social contract however. This gives them the right to reasonable tolerance of them, and their views. They respect others, despite disagreeing with them. They, in turn, gain a level of respect in discussions.
Don't get me wrong, I am tolerant of a lot, from purely moralistic reasoning. The social contract is a larger entity however. It formalises what many of us feel. It also shows us where the lines are, beyond which people are abusing our tolerance. It's the larger social version of our internal morals.
PsychedSy 2 points 3 years ago
I don't find social contract arguments all that convincing, but we can just pretend my social contract is "no violence or you get fucked" and ignore that. Tankies are way easier to talk to than Nazis, though I don't really find myself talking to nazis often - just run of the mill bigots. Anyone with consistent standards or ethics is fairly easy to talk to, even if we disagree.
In my personal life I tend to take on more than half of the social costs in some friendships and I probably do the same when arguing with certain types of people. I'm more tolerant than I strictly need to be, but I feel like treating people like that is necessary for me.
cynar 14 points 3 years ago
There are levels of tolerance in there. E.g. I'm not gay. I have no interest in men. The idea of being sexual with a man is mildly repulsive to me.
With this, the bare minimum of tolerance is not actively working against the existence and legality of being gay.
Next is the "none of my business" level of tolerance. What happens between 2 consenting adults is down to them.
Above that is acceptance. Gay people have developed their own culture and community. While it's not for me, I recognise that its existence and celebration makes our overall culture more dynamic and interesting. It also provides a lot of happiness to others. Accepting and rolling with that provides a lot of positivity to others, without significant cost to me.
However, if I was approached by a gay guy and propositioned, there is no issue with me turning them down. I try and be polite about it, but being firm isn't being intolerant. (Luckily, most gay guys take being rejected a LOT better than some straight guys do).
Going back to your example. Going up to a black guy and expressing that, while you tolerate them not being a slave, you don't agree with it. This is intolerant, it is an incredibly strong dog whistle of your tolerance is forced.
Conversely, if, during a debate on religion and it's effects, you express your view that you accept people are religious, but don't agree with it, that is better. The context is a debate, and you can explain your reasoning better. It also lacks the dog whistle element that makes it bigoted.
Basically, context matters, A LOT.
orphiebaby 12 points 3 years ago
semantic satiation incoming
TheZoltan 93 points 3 years ago
This comic is a good example of the Paradox of Tolerance. You can't tolerate intolerance.... it does not end well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
NielsBohron 37 points 3 years ago
It's not a paradox at all if you view society and government as a social contract entered by all parties. The conditions for being protected by the tolerance provided for in the Constitution is that you extend that tolerance to everyone else. The intolerant have breached that contract and are therefore no longer protected by it.
samus12345 18 points 3 years ago
Yes, tolerance itself is valued, and if you're not tolerant, you need not be tolerated by others.
A_Random_Idiot 70 points 3 years ago
Tolerance is a social contract.
Those who dont abide by it, try to use it as a weapon against those who do, to enable their intolerance to grow and spread.
Those who don't abide by the social contract are a threat to society as a whole, and should not receive its protection.
Because you end up empowering them, and weakening society against them.
Intolerance must be put down, with force. It is not hypocritical. It is not paradoxical. For the garden of tolerance to thrive, the intolerant weeds must be ripped out of the soil and disposed of in such a way that they can not spread their seeds further, because if you don't.. nothing will thrive but the weeds.
Maggoty 6 points 3 years ago
That's a very heavy responsibility though. And the abuse of it is the exact reason our founders gave us such an extreme right. Alas we were also supposed to maintain a healthy public dialogue and rewrite the Constitution every 20 years. Doing half the job doesn't end well.
creditCrazy 7 points 3 years ago
That's kinda the reason why I believe the solution to defeat intolerance is by talking directly to the intolerant and showing how they are wrong otherwise you're just showing them you are the intolerant fascist. By attacking their freedom of speech your proving that you attack free speech. In history it seems that fascism arizes when there is injustice like how when the Germans were oppressed after WW1 it was the fascists that had a solution to the injustice. Mind you a not very good solution but when you are dirt poor humiliated forced to live in a land desimated by war the Nazi party was a pretty effective way to get back at the world that destroyed your home. Had we caught onto the injustice the Germans were facing we could have prevented the rise of Nazi Germany. Granted at the time the Germans would have told anyone who listened that it was the Jews that made everything bad happen but if your smart enough one could see past the hate and see exactly why these people are hurt to the point of blaming a religion and feeling the need to puff themselves as superior any nation could have caught onto that and become the hero the Germans made the Nazis out to be. Just look at any other regime like Soviet Russia or North Korea they rose because they had a issue and only evil people were around to wear the cape of a hero.
assassin_aragorn 12 points 3 years ago
In an ideal world this would be enough, but you can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into. For your strategy to work, the intolerant have to be acting in good faith and listening to reason. And often, that's the antithesis of bigotry.
seitanic 8 points 3 years ago
Yes, the left has to counter hateful rhetoric with their own rhetoric and propose viable alternatives. Making the issue about freedom of speech, like this comic does, plays right into the hands of the right wing. They know they can win that battle, because most people are in favor of free speech.
A_Random_Idiot 9 points 3 years ago
I guess I should have made it more explicit then, since you think its merely a colorful euphemism and not a direct statement.
Words and feelings don't defeat authoritarians/nazis/fascism/tyrants.
Violence does.
You'd be sitting there with a swastika on your arm in a world without jews, roma, and gays, trans people, and far more.. if good men and women didnt take up violence against the ideology of hate that these people push.
They don't care about yours words. Your tolerance. They use them as toys for amusement, laughing as you exhaust yourself trying to argue against their ever increasingly absurd statements, and as tools to spread their intolerance and hatred.
You cant debate or compromise with them, because debating gives them false legitimacy and compromise does nothing but sacrifice society to advance their position and gains.
You should be uncomfortable that these people are emboldened to come out and make their speeches. to fly their flags. to hang their banners and to assault government buildings at the direct command of their masters.
They have no problem using violence to eradicate you and everything you hold dear.
and you being uncomfortable about it will do nothing but make them laugh. Because its not a matter of if they come for you, its when.
And if you insist on inaction and being the last one standing because you did not fight.. well, you'll be the final verse of a poem and no one will be left to speak for you.
Trying to paint this as hypocritical, as paradoxical, as cognitive dissonance, or anything else, is nothing but tools of soft handed approach for the intellectuals of the ideology of hate to try and carve a space of false legitimacy for themselves via compromise and exploitation of societies tolerance.
These people are a direct threat to everything we hold dear as a people, as a society, and as a species, and need to be treated as such.
MrCharles 0 points 3 years ago
You do realize that these "authoritarians/nazis/fascism/tyrants" use the exact same language when talking about you, right?
Thought is not a crime; ideas are not crimes; political leanings are not a crime; being a racist, nazi, facist, communist, socialist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe or whatever else is not a crime. The moment it becomes one, we start punishing people for what they believe which is IMO and the opinions of many others objectively wrong. You don't do that. Even if you lose, you don't become a barbarian. You fight the ones that act. You fight the ones that actually hurt people. Actions, not thoughts, are what is punishable in a civilized society, so take it easy, Big Brother.
You use "these people" and "they" a lot. You do know that the people you are talking about are individuals, right? Human beings like you? Hurt in maybe a thousand more ways than you. Embracing some terrible hatred to cover whatever brokenness they have. If someone is actually convinced that fascism is the way forward, you're actually ok with enacting violence on them? If you really would be ok with hurting them for their beliefs, then you, my friend, are the one who will bring tyranny; just a tyranny of a different sort. A tyranny of your ideas, your definitions, and your "tolerance." No better than "them."
joel_feila 1 point 3 years ago
Well said
Bytemeister 62 points 3 years ago
Lotta talk in here about free speech that seems to be missing the point.
The right for someone to spew hateful rhetoric freely does not supercede my right not to tolerate it. The first amendment does not give the hate monger, nor the englightened centrist immunity from the social consequences of their public opinions.
pinkdrunkenelephants 7 points 3 years ago path: 0 3610732 3614992 3621975, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 9
migo -1 points 3 years ago
You're taking an authoritarian perspective. Fair, but I disagree. Tolerance is important because we as a society grow and evolve due to the discussion of ideas, simple or complex as they may be.
The paradox is that to achieve a tolerant society we must be absolutely intolerant to intolerant ideas otherwise intolerance "wins" and becomes the norm.
pinkdrunkenelephants 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 3610732 3614992 3621975 3626799 3626856, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 5
thonofpy -5 points 3 years ago
I don't quite understand what you mean, could you perhaps rephrase in another couple of sentences? Edit: I'd still be genuinely interested in an explanation of your initial comment. It might help clear things up.
dx1 5 points 3 years ago
Nor does it magically make their ideas into law. For a democracy to do this it has to actually accept the totalitarian ideas. Widespread ignorance is therefore a precondition for the "paradox" to hold true.
Ironically, ignoring that is a classic appeal to totalitarian principles - claiming that, without totalitarian controls on some aspect of human behavior, people must necessary produce some bad outcome, therefore, banning bad behavior is necessary. It ignores really the entire moral evolution and capability for reasoning of individuals in favor of a simplistic mechanical explanation of people. The simplistic language of "tolerance" in the paradox obfuscates key details - what we advocate with "free speech" is that the government may not criminally punish forms of speech, not that we must respect every idea equally on conceptual grounds, or especially not put every idea, flawed or not, into practice, or law. The entire idea behind a free democracy is that we diligently compare and evaluate concepts and put only the best ideas into practice.
orrk 2 points 3 years ago
The entire idea behind a free democracy is that we diligently compare and evaluate concepts and put only the best ideas into practice.
No, the idea of Democracy is surprisingly not to put the best idea into practice, but instead to create a societal framework that the majority of members can live under. It's not about creating good results but the legitimization of the government.
I highly suggest you look into the philosophical background of the democratic movement and liberalism before you continue to repeat the fruits of American Slavers arguing that "states rights".
dx1 -1 points 3 years ago
No, the idea of Democracy is surprisingly not to put the best idea into practice, but instead to create a societal framework that the majority of members can live under. It’s not about creating good results but the legitimization of the government.
That IS the best idea, the societal framework that gives the best outcome for the population. Come on, with this reply, seriously.
orrk 2 points 3 years ago
No, Democracy brings about not the best idea, but the most commonly accepted one, and there is often stark difference. There is a reason the democratic philosophers never actually mentioned "the ability for democracy to find the best idea" and many instead outright warned of the potential for bad ideas, going all the way back to Plato's accounting of Socrates, in the works of enlightenment and revolutionary philosophers such as John Lock, or the governmental structure of the United States its self.
The governmental philosophy that does promise the best results on the other hand is a technocracy.
But do, please keep going about the platitude you heard.
MrCharles 2 points 3 years ago
There should never be legal consequences for it. I am absolutely for everyone and anyone to be able to say as much racist, sexist, homophobic or what-have-you crap as they want. BUT I agree that the social consequences should be allowed to thrive. Act like a jerk; people are jerks right back. Act like an absolute piece of shit; guess how people treat you? I think that all this sabre rattling about censoring hate speech is just driving the attention-whores into the public forum, not because they actually hate the people they say they do, but because they're attention whores.
Maggoty 59 points 3 years ago
When I was growing up it was never about tolerating intolerance. It was about dragging it out into the sunlight so you could kill it. They have a right to say anything they want so we can make an example of them and they don't go into hiding and do dumb shit.
Of course that depended on the mainstream leadership believing in democracy and not leaning into extremism. Because the GOP has switched sides on democracy it's a liability now instead of a strength. A swing too far from the laws of England our founders meant to forestall.
ininewcrow 39 points 3 years ago
No one ever gets the point until people start getting beaten, threatened, wounded, maimed or killed. They'll keep arguing the details until there is an authoritarian government telling you what you can or can't do or say.
Then everyone stands around wondering how it all happened.
Most regular people I know just want to live life and not really bother with anyone else in a negative way .. in fact most people I've ever known would do something good for the other person if it meant it would help. Most people are just good and have a very good nature.
It's the psychotic few billionaires and millionaires out there that want a world with authoritarian fascist government in power because it means those wealthy few get to keep all their money and if they do get their way, they can exponentially grow the wealth they already have. It's all about money and power.
It's all about a handful of morons who aren't aware of their finite life that believe they can become temporary rulers of the world.
orrk 19 points 3 years ago
I like to explain it as such:
The Mediterranean is full of dead bodies from asylum seekers, but people still bath there. People will not bathe in a pool, if that pool has a single cadaver in it. Some might say that it doesn't count because you can't see the bodies in the Mediterranean, but you can in the pool. but even if the pool has an angle and the corpse obscured behind said angle, people won't swim in it if they are told this in advance. so clearly there must be some ratio of dead people to water that society sees as acceptable.
so to answer your question, yes, and we haven't reached that point yet, and the right is doing it's best to keep that bar as high as possible.
SnipingNinja 6 points 3 years ago
Never expected to see this joke used in such a way
ininewcrow 9 points 3 years ago
Usually hunger .... if you look through history, change doesn't happen in societies because people are poor, abused, imprisoned, impoverished or have a lack of luxuries .... change often happens when people go hungry because at that point they all realize that if they have no food, they will die ... and when they can see death, especially their own death, they no longer have anything to lose and will fight for some kind of change ....
And even that want for change is dangerous because it can come in many forms ... good change, bad change, fascist change, socialist change, democratic change, authoritarian change.
rodolfo 14 points 3 years ago
in your post the thing I liked the most, the most significant in my opinion, it's
They'll keep arguing the details
this is the sum of all the thread. there's so much on this few words. in my understanding,vsums up perfectly what I'd describe as the paranoia feeding the knitpicking and the extenuating effort to manage the malice. thank you
Spzi 36 points 3 years ago
Nice, dark touch: The last panel has two people being deported. They seem to form an SS rune.
It also loosely reminds of Niemöller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
thonofpy 2 points 3 years ago
Hadn't spotted the people in the background, thanks for pointing them out.
What is being done to you might as well happen to me feels like the core idea of solidarity. It is different from sympathy.
Tranus 16 points 3 years ago
That's not entirely accurate. The first amendment mentions both freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of speech is for individuals sharing ideas, not just reporters. That applies both conceptually and legally. Hate speech is seen as a necessary exemption by many, because of the potential ramifications (see comic). That isn't the same thing as saying free speech wouldn't apply even without said exemption; even though it may lead you to the same conclusion.
RedditRefugee69 7 points 3 years ago
It’s also worth noting that the government can’t limit free speech. We as citizens can boycott, bully, and harass hateful speech and should
Syndic 2 points 3 years ago
It’s also worth noting that the government can’t limit free speech.
But it can and does! Go on Facebook and detail how you will storm and overthrow your state government next Monday at noon and see how long it takes for your speech to land you in jail. Or incite a stampede in a cinema by yelling "Fire!". And that's just two examples. Libel and slander are other examples where "just words" can get you in trouble with the government.
The idea of complete unlimited speech in the US is a fantasy. They clearly can and do draw lines at what you can and can't say in public. The only question is where this lines are.
RedditRefugee69 1 point 3 years ago
Yeah, fair. That’s a whole nother can of worms to this discussion where physical harm results from words rather than simply expressing abhorrent beliefs
Syndic 2 points 3 years ago
Well, WW2 in Europe and it's resulting horrors was basically the result of Hitler and Mussolini "simply expressing abhorrent beliefs". That's how they got into power in the first place and also how they got the better part of their population behind their insane dreams.
nybble41 1 point 3 years ago
Citizens have their own limitations when their response strays outside the realm of speech. Boycotts are fine—you have no obligation to buy what they're selling. However, harassment is not okay, and bullying is not okay. These things are wrong (and coincidentally illegal) on their own merits, and not a justified response to someone else's speech.
RedditRefugee69 1 point 3 years ago
I wouldn’t go so far as saying bullying hateful and racist actors is illegal, but I think it’s a fair point that you have to use judgment and empathy when dealing with differing opinions
MrCharles -5 points 3 years ago
And what is hate speech? When we start telling people what is and is not allowable to say, we set a highly dangerous precedent and move the game from black and white lines into shades of gray. Another shade darker is far easier to slip into than black from white.
Transcriptionist 25 points 3 years ago
Image Transcription:
A comic by Jennie Breeden and Obby from site TheDevilsPanties.com.
The first panel shows a mustached person with short hair wearing a t-shirt and sitting at a laptop. A speech bubble rising from the laptop reads "I just don't think you people belong in our society!"
The second panel shows a different short-haired person wearing a t-shirt, long pants, and sneakers, sitting on a park bench and looking at a mobile phone. A speech bubble from the mobile phone reads "Well, I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it."
The third panel shows both people standing on the side of a street. The first person is holding a Bible and pointing across the road at a group of shadowed people carrying signs with hearts and pride flags. He is speaking to a crowd of people and saying "Your kind is a betrayal to God! You're a drag on the whole country!" To which the second person is shrugging and responding "That's appalling, but we can't have free speech without the free marketplace of ideas!"
The fourth panel shows the first person standing at a lectern and wearing a suit with an American flag behind them and a shadowed crowd in front of them. They are saying "We will stop the woke ideology that's destroying America!". The second person is standing close to the foreground and shrugging, saying "Democracy needs this discourse, so let's agree to disagree."
The fifth panel shows the second person being dragged away by people in uniform while saying "Wait! Where are you taking me? You can't just get rid of me!". The first person is standing between the first person and an open paddy wagon, wearing a black uniform and looking smug as they reply "Let's just agree to disagree."
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
Transcriptionist 2 points 3 years ago
Thank you, fellow human!
InternetTubes 25 points 3 years ago path: 0 3619677, hotness: undefined, score: 25, children: 13
DarthBueller 10 points 3 years ago
Yes. And “accepting” doesn’t mean love bombing for purposes of conversion, like evangelism/da’wah (only to reveal the nasty tenets after initiation into the group). And acceptance with the fundamental belief that women are subservient to men in some fucked up sense of divine order is not acceptance. If someone wants to call this an Islamophobic dog whistle, they need to get their hearing fixed.
givesomefucks 9 points 3 years ago
The thing is, every culture has rightwing extremists that want to exploit that.
I'm not aware of a single one that's all rightwing extremists, and any large enough is going to have some.
InternetTubes 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 3619677 3623219 3805589, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 2
givesomefucks -1 points 3 years ago
Nah, it's because you're replying to a week old comment thread and then made multiple edits bitching about it I'm just going to block and forget you exist
InternetTubes 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 3619677 3623219 3805589 3805997 3806495, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
trashgirlfriend 6 points 3 years ago
I think this is a very bad idea and leads to bad places.
The culture in China is extremely insular and the Chinese state is very focused on homogenising the country into a single culture.
Should Chinese people be not allowed to move out of China?
I think discriminating on immigration based on ethnicity is an appalling idea, even if it means that sometimes a person from a bad country immigrates to where I live.
InternetTubes 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 3619677 3625836 3783335, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
orangebussycat -19 points 3 years ago
Is this an Islamophobic dog whistle?
pillars_in_the_trees 7 points 3 years ago
If you hear the whistle, you're the dog.
nybble41 7 points 3 years ago
A person can see a dog whistle and know it for what it is without being able to hear it. Also it's not only dogs who can hear dog whistles; some people just have exceptionally good hearing.
DarthBueller 1 point 3 years ago
Or a former dog. I can remember the days of Bush Jr. regularly dog whistling to Evangelicals in his addresses, and unless you were a fundie or a former fundie, you would have no idea that his speeches had built-in supersonic Jesus whistles that only the evangelicals and evangelical survivors could hear.
InternetTubes 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 3619677 3619986 3783557, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
mo_lave 18 points 3 years ago
Consider... what went wrong is that no one pushed back on Panel Two using the very same free marketplace of ideas.
Panel One: Fighting for everyone's right to express themselves is fine. Good as it is.
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot's arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
zaph 36 points 3 years ago
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot's arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
I can't believe no one thought of this. And here planned parenthood and the grieving families at funerals of vets have just been sitting by listening to the noise.
kwking13 5 points 3 years ago
Calling people out on their BS is the right line to draw for me personally, but I still want that person to have the right to express their opinion. We just need to teach people that it's ok to be wrong as long as you can admit it and learn from it. No idea gets processed until pushed from an opposing party.
Sitting back and doing nothing teaches nothing. Calling it appalling and informing the person why they're wrong is the right step toward change. But if you can't say it in a way that makes them hear you, then you're doomed to have the argument all over again.
pinkdrunkenelephants 3 points 3 years ago path: 0 3604210 3605191 3622513, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
electrogamerman 2 points 3 years ago
But then you are called anti islamist or isla mophobic. Yes, i went there.
UdeRecife 17 points 3 years ago
In the Republic, book VIII, Socrates identifies as democracy's leading cause of corruption precisely that thing makes it seemingly so beautiful. In a democracy, citizens become inebriated with freedom (Euleteria). By making it the highest goal, people in a democracy end up leading democracy to its downfall.
True ca. 2400 years ago; still true today.
magnetosphere 4 points 3 years ago
Huh. Good catch! I’ve had this pic for years, but never noticed that, and you’re the first person to point it out!
lvxferre 2 points 3 years ago
I wish that people made a better version of that picture, since it heavily distorts what Popper said (PDF page 232), that is far more nuanced and situational. I'll quote it inside spoilers as it's long-ish:
the paradox
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, exactly as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping; or as we should consider incitement to the revival of the slave trade.
A TL;DR of that would be "an open society needs to claim the right to suppress intolerant discourses and, under certain conditions, suppress them". In no moment the picture makes reference to those conditions.
That's important here because mechanisms used to curb down intolerant discourses can be also misused to curb down legitimate but otherwise inconvenient ones, so they need to be used with extreme caution, only as much as necessary; Popper was likely aware of that.
magnetosphere 2 points 3 years ago
I agree with your criticism of the pic. Thank you for the quote!
samus12345 1 point 3 years ago
He got tired of trying to do things the right way.
Enkrod 6 points 3 years ago
Hey, it's @JennieBreeden@lemmy.sdf.org! Nice to see some totally not satanic porn on lemmy!
balls_expert 12 points 3 years ago
There's nothing to disagree with
The problem tolerating intolerance is it only works if the intolerants, in turn, also let you express yourself after they gain power, which they won't, because they are intolerant. You need to be lucky every time and they only need to be lucky once. And the only thing preventing the disaster is that there isn't an infinite amount of time ahead of you
balls_expert 1 point 3 years ago
The slippery slope fallacy is when you don't detail what would make the slope even slippery in the first place
janus2 -11 points 3 years ago
honest to fuck why can't we have the future where the last panel isn't someone being dragged away by nazi fascists OR some kinda tankie government
and im a fuckin commie saying this...
silence a bigot and he'll take to the streets. give a bigot an echo chamber and with any luck he'll do more online circlejerking than IRL marching, at least
assassin_aragorn 7 points 3 years ago
Actually studies have found that deplatforming works really well at combating hate speech. Online it can radicalize people. IRL at least they learn very quickly that there is no silent majority at their back.
MrCharles 3 points 3 years ago
If people vote for their own chains in a free and democratic society, they deserve to get what they want. Now whether we still have such a society is debatable. But I still fundamentally believe that any and all forms of censorship are the wrong way to go and will only accelerate the decline into totalitarianism.
So, how about we agree to disagree, mate? ; )
CharlesDarwin 1 point 3 years ago
Shout out to Popper.
Nalivai 1 point 3 years ago
Oh, I have just escaped Russia, not going back there any time soon, thank you. Still, you are getting jailed and killed there for openly expressing very particular sort of ideas, which is very different from jailing and killing everyone from different ethnicity indiscriminately
darthfabulous42069 9 points 3 years ago
That's what Nazis do and why everyone else is trying to ban them.
Franzia 6 points 3 years ago
Walking the fine line is hard. But here's a real life example: demomstrators armed with rifles and guarding outside Drag events have reduced the level of vitriol nearby and led fascists to whine about it on Twitter and question their pro 2A belief system.
pinkdrunkenelephants 8 points 3 years ago path: 0 3615279 3616727 3621801, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 29
pinkdrunkenelephants 7 points 3 years ago path: 0 3615279 3616727 3621801 3623155 3623747, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 27
funkless_eck 8 points 3 years ago
reality has a left-wing bias.
HexesofVexes -12 points 3 years ago
Where should the line be drawn?
Where between "I wouldn't date a trans person because it is against my ideals" (personal preference in partners) and "I wouldn't socialise with a trans person because it is against my ideals" (personal preference in friends) would we draw our boundary? Would it be between these two forms of discomfort,, or would both these ideals be unacceptable, or would both be acceptable?
The issue isn't that such speech should be removed, there is broad agreement there, but where do we start trimming?
Next comes the question, in policing such discourse, what would the cost to privacy be? "Protect the children from the predators" (something everyone can agree with) is already a rallying cry leafing to the erosion of encryption and privacy, shall "stamp out the TERFs" become the next one? Who here remembers what "stopping terrorists" did to privacy?
Overall, I doubt there are many who don't feel open distaste at certain forms of speech, and would rather it not be tolerated. However, the difficulty in where to draw the line, and the fear of the cost such a line would have, is why there is likely more opposition.
constnt 23 points 3 years ago
This seems disingenuous. You don't have to date anyone you don't want, and you don't have to be friends with anyone you don't want. Why did you decide that was the place to draw the line? You do not have to date Bob from accounting for any reason. But you also don't deserve a job along side Bob if you go on talking about how he doesn't deserve a place in our society.
Ones rights doesn't supercede anothers. You can be a Nazi in your own home, but once you start sprewing hate publicly you are infrining the freedoms of others. This is already the law. But people want to change this law, and are using transphobia to do so, in much the same way they use fear of pedophiles to errode your rights.(trans people harm kids, we must ban trans people to protect kids, is the essential arguement.)In essence You claim that if we stop trans-hate speech, we are losing our rights, but in reality those who are sprewing trans-hate are actively trying to remove your rights and just using transphobia as a means to an end.
Hate speech is always about removing freedoms and rights. Either through violence or legislation. If you want to talk about lines drawn: should we stop Bob from screaming "gas the Jews" in his own home? What about outside a synagogue? What about on the Senate floor? Which of these seems more of an infringement of a Jewish person's rights?
HexesofVexes 2 points 3 years ago
Your own answer offers a far better example of disingenuity, at least so I feel.
It is socially acceptable not to date someone due to a biological trait (of which being trans is a prime example) you are not attracted to (i.e. personal preference), however (I certainly believe) it isn't really socially acceptable to say "I don't want to spend time with X because of " (your action is motivated by a personal preference). One is a clear matter where personal preference trumps, but the other is one where polite society forms an interesting grey area - where between those two is your line?
I'd disagree with the statement that you can be a nazi in your own home (a good strawman there), since that just means you'll be training a nice younger crop of nazis (which is the real root of the issue), but that isn't the question at stake here. It's "why isn't everyone up in arms against transphobia", and the answer is that no-one can agree on where the line should be drawn, and most people are worries that it'll turn out like every other attempt to stamp out particular ideals. However, in the spirit of charity, my line is drawn well before the person begins to shout "gas the Jews" in their own home, because prior to that the harm was already done.
Hate speech definitely removes freedoms and rights, but it is the ears that listen that determine whose rights and freedoms are removed. Will the crowd turn upon the person spewing hate (giving in to a morally acceptable hatered, thence rises the paradox), or will it follow the voice guiding them towards hatered.
Viking_Hippie 11 points 3 years ago
You're starting out with intolerance as the baseline. It's one thing to not want to date a trans person because you're not sexually ATTRACTED to trans people. That's perfectly fine. To not want to because it's "against your ideals" implies that you disapprove of ANYONE dating a trans person, which can only be a result of bigotry.
Nobody's talking about legislating against TERFS existing or that anyone who has bigoted views on trans people being predatory, so that's not a valid comparison either.
You can ABSOLUTELY be intolerant towards intolerance without trying to legislate it away or otherwise unfairly persecuting the bigots like they persecute others. In fact, that's the default and correct reaction of tolerant people encountering bigotry.
HexesofVexes 0 points 3 years ago
I'm likely starting from a position of not being clear first thing in the morning, though the accusation was not welcome. As a side note, attraction is based on our ideals: I can see the most beautiful person in the world and have no attraction towards them because of the views the hold, or the actions they've undertaken - though here the ideals one holds for one's own partner and the partners of others are different matters entirely (I very much doubt a straight man would approve of his gay friend's choice of lover for his own!).
I am not arguing against such intolerance against intolerance, I am presenting the point that it's a tricky subject. Legislation often follows public outcry, and over in the UK being trans is a protected characteristic (i.e. such legislation already exists). My personal view is that we SHOULD be working against trans-phobic people existing, both via well considered legislation and education. Though, that will involve deciding where a line should be drawn, why it should be drawn there, and won't be accomplished via trying to stamp out the symptom rather than the disease.
Viking_Hippie 6 points 3 years ago
You're either wrong about their intention or about their (lack of) clarity.
"Ideals" and "preferences" are NOT synonyms and since I can't read their mind, I'm gonna assume that what they say is what they mean. Silly in these post-truth times, I know, but I'm old-fashioned like that.
HexesofVexes 1 point 3 years ago
Surely it should be drawn well before that - even prior to legislation the simple iniquity that trans folk experience every day merits action.
ilikekeyboards -6 points 3 years ago
I feel like we should just eradicate the whole planet and give consciousness a second chance to evolve. We don't deserve the planet we inherit.
BonfireOvDreams -13 points 3 years ago
Someday the meat eaters will realize this applies to animal oppressors as well, but not this day.
pinkdrunkenelephants 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 3613878 3614997 3622577, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
BonfireOvDreams -2 points 3 years ago
I'm sure you feel that way, but no. It's more like ya'll are anti-animal cultists. Possible longterm anti-lifeists where ecological effects of animal agriculture are considered.
BonfireOvDreams -3 points 3 years ago
Facilitating animal deaths for eating pleasure is intolerant toward animals and their lives. Yet meat eaters expect Vegans to be nice to meat eaters. In other words, meat eaters expect Vegans to be tolerant of intolerance. One day meat eaters will understand they should rightly be shamed and their behavior and discourse locked out of society, but not today - today they don't understand.
EndlessApollo 5 points 3 years ago
That's true eventually they'll start butchering people and selling their meat for consumption
escaped_cruzader -17 points 3 years ago
People love to forget that free speech was vital for their progressive paradise, it's a cicle
If you implement measures for repressing speech today, those same measures will repress you or what you believe in today
It just takes too long for any one person to notice or care
Drivebyhaiku 19 points 3 years ago
Honestly most people have no idea what actually constitutes freedom of speech. Having social reprocussions for that speech has always been a thing. Being shunned for being terrible or having people use their property rights to remove you from their platforms is still freedom of speech in action. Freedom of Speech primarily exists to protect thw press and just means you can't be jailed for what you say or have works of artistic or authorial merit censored by government.
Meanwhile we have people fighting to ban books from federal and state institutions. Teachers being fired for daring to use student nicknames and identifiers...
People crow "freedom of speech!" but too often they are spoiled, self important narcissistic children who just want to use some kind of schoolyard cootie shot nonsense to avoid anyone calling them on their shit. They don't give a damn otherwise as long as they get to be comfortable and unchallenged and they are too often more than happy to attack the freedom of speech itself because they can't handle seeing anyone else given access to it.
nybble41 0 points 3 years ago
Freedom of Speech primarily exists to protect thw press
Freedom of Press is a whole separate thing. Freedom of Speech is about public discourse in general, not just speech by members of the press.
Apart from that, however, you're on the right track.
escaped_cruzader -6 points 3 years ago
Being shunned
Is the comic talking about "shunning" intolerance? Seems more like asking for government force behind intolerating intolerance
Having social reprocussions
Your job in an insanely corporate America can hardly be considered "social". Corporate America is akin to a second government that just profits from both sides
Freedom of speech the law only had to protect against the government when written, not corporations as government-proxies. Freedom of speech the idea extends beyond government (companies aren't people)
Meanwhile we have people fighting to ban
My comment covers that as well
but too often they are spoiled
it’s a cicle
dragonflyteaparty 2 points 3 years ago
Corporations as government proxies have existed for hundreds of not thousands of years. Ever hear of the East India Trading Company? To claim that the law had nothing to do with companies holding that level of power is ridiculous.
SquishyPandaDev -23 points 3 years ago
I know this is going to be super unpopular, but here I go. Hate speech is free speech. I know that doesn't sound great; but once you start censoring speech for the words alone, it can easily grow out of control and become full censorship.
It is important to remember that free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of your words; nor should it. Also using speech in furtherance of a crime is illegal; as it should be.
So long as you can use your free speech to oppose hate speech, then I would say the system is working. I too wish it wasn't like this; I too wish for world to be free of hate speech; but sadly this is the best we can do to ensure the right people can be heard
SkyeStarfall 24 points 3 years ago
But what about the freedom to be free from prejudice and oppression?
So are minorities just doomed to be forever targets because of free speech? Because that is the inevitable conclusion of this form of free speech.
SquishyPandaDev -13 points 3 years ago
But what about the freedom to be free from prejudice and oppression?
This is why there are no easy answers. People do have a right to be free from prejudice and oppression. But the easy answer of ban hate speech will cause censorship to rear its ugly head.
pinkdrunkenelephants 9 points 3 years ago path: 0 3599270 3602189 3604160 3623255, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
electrogamerman 4 points 3 years ago
We are waiting for your answer
dangblingus 11 points 3 years ago
So what you're saying, is that a black person being shouted "N______" by a white supremacist should do what exactly? Shout back "poopy head!"?
orrk 18 points 3 years ago
you fight the Nazi, or you help the Nazi, the Nazi has no interest in concessions, or sharing "their" space. If the idea that you can't call for Holocaust 2 electricboogaloo LGBTQ edition scares you, maybe think why it does, and then stop watching Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, or any of the other alt-right media/talking heads.
chicken -15 points 3 years ago
Defending authoritarianism is not fighting authoritarianism. You can talk like this is about the most extreme possible examples, but it fundamentally is not; this is about people who are fixated on obtaining the power to tell others to shut up, and that doesn't have a line anyone is willing to respect and it isn't limited to one side or the other. You go to panel 4, you're at panel 4. The implication that I must be saying all speech must be permitted, or that I'm defending Nazis by saying this, is false rhetorical framing; valuing free expression and wanting to defend it from people who would see it done away with is not equivalent to that.
Edit: And just to add, it's a terrible assumption that the best/only solution to an environment of increasing violence and hate is to make people stop talking. This is again a product of a fixation on the desire to do that, social media makes you want it, but that doesn't mean it's the place to focus. There are underlying problems that are not words.
Kolanaki 12 points 3 years ago
If the people who are talking are saying hate-filled, disgusting things: They most certainly do need to shut the fuck up. It's not the only solution to the problem, but it's the first place to start. Don't let that hate take root to begin with, but shutting down the asswipe spewing hateful speech. There is nothing to gain from letting them speak, no validity to their words, and their rhetoric leads to violence so there is no reason not to censor them.
chicken -7 points 3 years ago
Don’t let that hate take root to begin with
Is that how it works? You hear someone saying something hateful, and then their thoughts and feelings become a part of you like a plant? So we must weed and maintain a sterile environment so only the chosen thoughts and feelings propagate? Which are weeds and which aren't, and who gets to decide? To me this is a deeply dehumanizing metaphor and a path towards controlling human beings by choosing a diet of information and expression for them.
It's fine sometimes to tell a disruptive asshole to go somewhere else because no one wants to to listen to them, or even to do something about groups of people plotting violent acts, but what I object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person's right to collect and curate their thoughts at their own discretion is spat on, and that's what I see in this sort of rhetoric.
TheTurducken -15 points 3 years ago
That is an inciting violence law.
people_are_cute -17 points 3 years ago
Name one.
Blamemeta -26 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3595661 3595739 3595911 3596056 3596485, hotness: undefined, score: -26, children: 7
Try again
joel_feila -14 points 3 years ago
And it is almost impossible to break that law.
dangblingus 6 points 3 years ago
Canada.
Blamemeta -22 points 3 years ago
I said ripe for abuse, not that they will be abused. In any case, I haven't heard of country with hate speech laws that hasn't been abused in some form. Even in America, we don't have those laws, but that hasn't stopped the government from trying.
dragonflyteaparty 0 points 3 years ago
By your logic we should get rid of traffic laws because we know they are abused.
pixxelkick 31 points 3 years ago
You realize such laws have existed in most countries for a very long time, right?
Hate speech is illegal in most of the modern world, and has been for quite some time.
BeautifulMind 8 points 3 years ago
The US had similar hate-speech rules to that of the rest of Europe, until the US civil rights era presented the court the opportunity to decide whether Martin Luther King's anti-racism speech was, as charged, "hate speech".
Long story short, the court decided that it couldn't define what 'hate speech' was and so decided that it shouldn't be against the law (or that the First should protect it). That's why Nazis are allowed to march and have their rallies protected by the First Amendment, all because southern US states wanted to charge the speakers of anti-white-supremacy with 'hate speech' and that was a quick-and-dirty way to disarm them.
pinkdrunkenelephants 5 points 3 years ago path: 0 3595661 3598643 3604464 3622745, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
pixxelkick 21 points 3 years ago
I have no idea what you are talking about, to be honest. Never heard of those.
But Blasphemy is extremely different from Hate. Canada, for example, goes into explicit legal detail on what counts as Hate and constitutes a Hate Crime.
And Blasphemy has nothing to do with that discussion, nor have I ever heard of this concept, so either you are talking about something else entirely, or perhaps you have to link to what you are talking about?
When I look the term "Blasphemy Laws" up, it brings up something that has nothing to do with Hate Crimes. Did you perhaps use the wrong term?
magnusrufus 18 points 3 years ago
Throwaway's thing seems to be making shallow bad rightwing takes and backing them up with nothing of substance. I don't think they are engaging genuinely.
hypna 0 points 3 years ago
Pakistan has a one of the more remarkably bad histories with blasphemy laws, if you're looking for examples. I think they're not uncommon in Muslim majority countries. Western nations had similar laws as well, but I think you have to go back a couple centuries to find them.
TheOneCurly 29 points 3 years ago
Punch Nazis is a good start.
And by that I mean be socially intolerant of intolerance. Personal morals and actions don't need to and shouldn't be held to the same standard as the US Federal government.
TheOneCurly 2 points 3 years ago
I'm not morally obligated to debate someone arguing in favor of genocide, for instance. Is it legally assault to punch them, sure. Would I want the government to come in and boot stomp them, probably not. Is punching them morally wrong, nope.
nybble41 1 point 3 years ago
The morals of your actions are for you to decide. It's your conscience. However, if you punched someone over what they said they would be perfectly justified both in defending themselves against your aggression and in punching you right back. At that point you would have no objective rational argument that their defense or retribution was wrong which would not similarly condemn your own actions. You're the one who chose to escalate to violence, not them.
dangblingus 13 points 3 years ago
You're right. There's nothing that can be done. Racial slurs and regressive language should be taught in schools because you can't fathom a world that has a slight amount of respect based regulation.
joel_feila 3 points 3 years ago
Not have those laws is also abusable
joel_feila 2 points 3 years ago
abuse by governemnt, neglect by government. The problems can happen either way but with a change in law at least there is attempt to make it better.
AllonzeeLV -26 points 3 years ago
The problem is, if you condemn them back to the shadows and basements, they fester and pass their hatreds down within their in-group. They'll just teach their children "the south with rise again" in private, with no pushback because others don't know it's happening.
At least letting them talk in the name of free speech lets you know who the Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are, instead of having them going back to using toxic, slowly indoctrinating dogwhistles and regrouping.
At the end of the day, secrecy just prolongs and exacerbates problems. We should rise or fall as a society on who we all are, not on the basis of who has the most appealing web of lies. Let the Nazis bury themselves by speaking their fucked up beliefs, because otherwise they'll temper their messaging, which will recruit more people than the horror of their actual endgame.
underisk 41 points 3 years ago
You wrote three paragraphs to demonstrate how thoroughly you missed the point of this extremely blunt comic. Don’t get mad at me for pointing this out, I’m just exposing my own opinion the to purifying effect of public discourse.
C4RP3_N0CT3M -23 points 3 years ago
I think you misinterpreted their post as anger.
AllonzeeLV -11 points 3 years ago
Why would I be angry about what you said? You're allowed to have a different opinion on how to react to bigots.
Sordid 29 points 3 years ago
At least letting them talk in the name of free speech lets you know who the Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are
That's great and all, but knowing who the Nazis are is just step one. Without taking additional steps, that knowledge is useless.
AllonzeeLV -6 points 3 years ago
That knowledge literally ended the employment of a lot of white supremacists that were filmed in Charlottesville overtly chanting against Jewish people. You see? They were given enough rope, and they hanged themselves, and now those images and reputation can keep others informed about who they are and never to give them an inch.
Free speech is the absence of consequences by the state, but once you know someone is a proud white supremacist, you don't have to keep them employed, or renew their lease, or hire them, or stay married to them, or invite them to your wedding, etc. A known Nazi can suffer social consequences all day and be socially ostracized, if they were emboldened enough to disclose that fact instead of spending their lives infecting people with shit like "I hate urban people in the inner cities." Shit like that can appeal to the weak minded.
z3rOR0ne 11 points 3 years ago
It'd obviously be better if the Nazi ideology never surfaced in the first place, but that would require a good level of education, empathy, and social support...or as the right puts it, "leftist woke indoctrination."
Instead you have disingenous discourse defended under the banner of free speech. Fascists have historically used this right as their anchor point to undermine Democratic institutions.
Usually they amplify their racist/hate speech, xenophobic messaging, and nationalistic fervor during times that Democratic institutions are under particularly extreme pressure by natural disasters or domestic/foreign wars. Democratic societies tend to propagate comfortable and idealistic upper/middle class citizens when they're doing well (not under said pressures), often fostering the sentiment for a live and let live philosophy, even for those with dangerous hateful ideologies and rhetoric.
Then, when the Democratic institution is inevitably put under stress by external or internal circumstances, Fascism accelerates and gains momentum in the public consciousness not because they debated better or have genuinely good ideas on how to solve the society's problems, but because they argue that is the only way everyone can survive, when in fact they are usually just narcissistic megalomaniacs who want to control everything and everyone around them, ultimately destroying personal freedoms and diverse communities in the name of moralist, nationalist hegemony.
Deestan 21 points 3 years ago
That is a myth that too much media falls for, and that fascist groups exploit mercilessly.
They can and do recruit a lot more people by spreading lies about minorities on live TV than whispering it to their buddies in the basement.
AllonzeeLV -12 points 3 years ago
Counterpoint to your counterpoint: because they have bigot dens to spew their bile among like minded white nationalists, intelligence agencies now have their names and identities and they're now on lists. They can and have stopped violent actors that were given enough rope to feel safe discussing their plans online instead of being driven to bars and basements to plan out of view.
If you don't give the Nazis the the freedom say "hi im a Nazi" you don't know where the Nazis are, let alone have the means to find out what they're planning.
gullible 6 points 3 years ago
Now I’m not sure how the partial defederation works… anyway, they move offsite to websites owned by the moderators, in the case of Reddit, so that’s not exactly true. It’s equal parts money-making and radicalization effort and it largely flies under the radar. 4chan, on the other hand, makes as many nutters as it stops. It’s not effective for your mosquito spray to kill 5 mosquitos and create 5 more from the ether.
dangblingus 14 points 3 years ago
They're already doing that. It's 2023 ffs. They've been doing this since slavery was abolished. Time to signal to the entire world that it's not fucking okay. Letting Nazis talk has only ever allowed them to plant their insidious misinformation campaigns and gather followers. We don't give Nazis a fucking inch and they are not welcome in the town square. Kill your local Nazi.
seitanic 2 points 3 years ago
I can't name a single Nazi. Even Richard Spencer, the guy whom most people think of as a Nazi, says that he doesn't identify as a Nazi. So, who identifies which people are Nazis and which aren't if they don't self-identify?
muthian 13 points 3 years ago
But that contained the problem for many, many years. And more times than not when members of the group experienced the real world, their indoctrination fell apart. Being in daylight emboldens them and lets them amplify their message and find like-minded people.
aesthelete 18 points 3 years ago
Funny how the "most disenfranchised" always ends up being Nazis and Nazi supporters.
Any time an actually disenfranchised person tries to use their legitimate free speech rights to advocate for their own liberty, it's not considered an action against free speech at all to lock them in a cage, set up free speech zones, or do any number of things to prevent them from voicing their concerns.
I say we give Nazis the same amount of free speech rights as say, communists had in the 50-60s, blacks had before the civil rights act, or Kaepernick had while simply not getting up during the national anthem.
dangblingus 11 points 3 years ago
So, let me get this straight. You think hate speech is okay, because the disenfranchised need to express themselves? Why would the disenfranchised need to utilize hate speech to address systemic problems in their society? Surely the recipient of the hate speech is more disenfranchised.
Honytawk 5 points 3 years ago
Being allowed to exist is a much bigger law that overrules freedom of speech.
Plenty of things do, if you commit a crime, you can also still be jailed and that doesn't infringe on freedom of speech.
vlad76 0 points 3 years ago
Being allowed to exists IS free speech. The whole LGBT movement exists and spreads via free speech rules.
Plenty of people still think that being gay is immoral. In many places they're still being jailed for "corrupting youth". The only places that see social change are those with strong free speech protections. It's so obvious, it hurts.
Honytawk 4 points 3 years ago
Free speech is a tool for Journalists to not get arrested for bringing light to subjects.
The people usually screaming about free speech are just afraid of the consequences of society for being an ass, not jail time.
vlad76 -1 points 3 years ago
Being an ass is not against the law. Not every social interaction needs to have a law associated with it. "Free speech is for journalists" is a useless statement. Who defines when you become a journalist? The government?
afraid_of_zombies -27 points 3 years ago
I had almost forgotten how much I hate political "comics".
dangblingus 14 points 3 years ago
You didn't have to click on it, you didn't have to comment.
afraid_of_zombies -17 points 3 years ago
Neither did you just now
Tb0n3 -27 points 3 years ago
It's literally up to you to use your words to fight their words. As soon as you try to ban words and speech it will immediately be turned around against you. If you cannot fight their words with your words that's your problem not theirs.
givesomefucks 53 points 3 years ago
That only works with people arguing in good faith...
Fascists never do that.
givesomefucks 12 points 3 years ago
A fascist is a fascist, and 99.9999% lie about if they are.
There's no need to differentiate
Ensign_Crab 2 points 3 years ago
In a thread about nazis, you can always count on nazi sympathizers to be like "buh whubbut commies?!?!?"
Redhotkurt 17 points 3 years ago
Skill?? What is this "get on my level" shit? They are trying to kill us.
givesomefucks 3 points 3 years ago
There's a big overlap between gamers and fascists, due to Roger Stone and his WOW gold farming days.
It's actually pretty interesting read, but I couldn't find a good article on it now
Tb0n3 -21 points 3 years ago
The skill is debate and debunking. It should be fairly simple to show a serial lack of honesty and bullshit. If you can show that then it should be fairly simple to get people to stop listening and disconnect. Calling their words mean will convince no one. Do the work if you care so much.
Ensign_Crab 11 points 3 years ago
Yup. Fascists don't have the skills to argue in good faith, and no one should listen to anything any of them have to say. I hope no one makes that mistake in this thread by listening to you.
muse 11 points 3 years ago
"Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
L + Ratio + get fucked fascist
Ensign_Crab 22 points 3 years ago
You first. Start speaking out against fascists instead of on their behalf.
pinkdrunkenelephants 3 points 3 years ago path: 0 3595631 3598779 3622668 3623349, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 5
PsychedSy 2 points 3 years ago
You can try to drop people in little boxes to suit your ideology, but it doesn't work well on me. I've made it a habit to argue with bigots - particularly at work. There's a surprising number of people that sound hateful but are just ignorant and curious.
Ensign_Crab 2 points 3 years ago
He's not advocating for arguing with fascists. He's advocating for validating fascists by hearing them out and treating them as though their shit ideas could ever have merit or that any of them have merit as people.
We've seen what happens when naive people tolerate fascists. You're just trying to make that happen again.
PsychedSy 2 points 3 years ago
I think you can argue with bigots without validating their ideas. I'm not arguing that you should, but I'm comfortable doing it. I've tried to cultivate a human first perspective of people and I don't think I can pull off violence against someone for their words without damaging the compassion and empathy I try to live by.
Hank 22 points 3 years ago
We Germans are doing just fine with laws against certain kind of statements since... y'know.
I don't like the overall trend of restricting certain kinds of language, especially on social media where some concepts are forced to be expressed through some kind of doublespeak to be seen but I think it's fair game to outlaw the denial of the holocaust.
dangblingus 3 points 3 years ago
I don’t like the overall trend of restricting certain kinds of language, especially on social media where some concepts are forced to be expressed through some kind of doublespeak
example?
Hank 6 points 3 years ago
Saying unalive instead of suicide or censoring words like rape to r*pe.
It's mostly on TikTok and YouTube but it spilled into other platforms as well since users are uncertain what they can say sometimes.
pinkdrunkenelephants 3 points 3 years ago path: 0 3595631 3595776 3603594 3612234 3623393, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
lvxferre 14 points 3 years ago
There are two important factors here:
- Most nationalists (including Nazi) give no flying fucks about a rational discourse. If 2+2=4 hurts their precious fee fees, they say that 2+2=5 and no matter what you say will change it.
- Plenty Nazi capitalise on Brandolini's Law. They know that it takes far less effort to utter bullshit than to refute it. In effect this means that people fighting against Nazi discourses through words will, as a group, get tired faster than the ones vomiting the Nazi discourse.
Because of those two factors, while I can certainly understand your point, I think that you're being short-sighted when you say "that's your problem not theirs".
I do agree that there's always a risk that mechanisms used to censor them might get misused against you. However I see this as a second risk that you need to balance out with the first one (the Nazi), and which risk is more relevant is heavily situational.
I'm not a big fan of Poo-per Popper but I think that his paradox of tolerance is spot on about those two things. At least in its original version (not its "Disney version" parroted in social media). I'll abridge it here:
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists.
Emphasis mine. For further context check page 226 of his book. (PDF page 232).
Tb0n3 -10 points 3 years ago
The fact that it takes a lot more energy to debunk a claim is why I said you can take a few and show that they are disingenuous. Spend a bit of energy to show that they always talk bullshit so that they can be proven liars and easily discounted by anybody with a brain. The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They're basically a lost cause. They are few and far between but if people listen to what they say and nobody is around to disprove it or argue against it they gain a bit of power. They haven't created more Nazis so you have the same enemies to fight against. Cut off the head of the snake by showing their claims to be disingenuous and lies.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
lvxferre 11 points 3 years ago
Taking a few and showing that they're disingenuous doesn't work well.
For a less rational audience, all that the Nazi need to do is to relabel their discourse; for example saying that they're "the alternative right" instead of "neonazi", or "anti-woke" instead of "alt right". And, for a more rational audience, the nazi can point out that you're generalising an attribute to the group based on properties of a few of them ("ackshyually, that guy is bad, but not all of us are like that!").
In both cases, if you decide to not keep engaging, they can simply claim "see? He was left with no arguments!". And they do this all the time.
The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They’re basically a lost cause.
Fully agree with that.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
I think that our major point of disagreement is if those things are enough to keep the Nazi at bay. I think that often they aren't.
snooggums 11 points 3 years ago
So when they call for the mass murder of a group of people the only appropriate response is words?
If someone with a lot of followers said that their followers should kill you then the only appropriate response is to tell them not to do that?
Tb0n3 -13 points 3 years ago
We already have a class of speech called true threats. If it is actionable then it is illegal. If they have concrete plans for it then we have laws that criminalize it. If they're just saying what they want to happen then you can call them monsters and show why what they are saying is wrong and terrible.
dangblingus 8 points 3 years ago
Ahh man! Where were you in 1933 Germany?
aesthelete 10 points 3 years ago
If you cannot fight their words with your words that’s your problem not theirs.
People pretend like some perfect argument can defeat Nazis. You cannot fight gut emotions like fear, dread, and hatred with "reasonable" words and "rational" thought.
People aren't rational, and they are easily pursuaded by things other than "the best possible idea selected by an objective evaluation of all available ideas from the marketplace of ideas".
People aren't robots, hatred and fear lean into their base emotions. It's partially why cults exist.
PsychedSy 2 points 3 years ago
There's never really a perfect argument because we're not beholden to rationality. Utilitarianism comes after treating people well for me, so even if an action would result in a better outcome I may find it unethical.
aesthelete 1 point 3 years ago
But inaction is still a choice that may be unethical or not depending upon the results.
dangblingus 8 points 3 years ago
Spoken like a true "both sides are bad" type of person.
Redhotkurt 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 3595631 3595994, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Stonewyvvern -29 points 3 years ago
Apparently you can't be a fence sitter in a politically charged climate...
Iceblade02 3 points 3 years ago path: 0 3598273 3599097 3624419, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1
dragonflyteaparty 0 points 3 years ago
When exactly does it become intent to harm? When trans care for children and adults was made illegal?
dangblingus 14 points 3 years ago
You can. It's just tacit announcement that you're a wishy washy enlightened centrist who couldn't even be bothered to keep up with current events. Caring about things is lame right?
comicstrips
@lemmy.world
25073
7767
9808
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
*� Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
*�️ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
*� Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
*�️ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
*� Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
*� Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
*�☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
*� Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
- GPrime85
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
Other Comic Communities of Interest
- !bloomcounty@sopuli.xyz
- !calvinandhobbes@lemmy.world
- !cyanideandhappiness@discuss.online
- !exo@discuss.online
- !foxtrot@slrpnk.net
- !garfield@lemmy.world
- !moomin@sopuli.xyz
- !oglaf@discuss.online (NSFW)
- !outland@slrpnk.net
- !pbf@discuss.online
- !peanuts@discuss.online
- !smbc@discuss.online
- !theboondocks@slrpnk.net
- !thefarside@sh.itjust.works
- !xkcd@lemmy.world
- !NoseEars@lemy.lol
go to feed...
comicstrips
@lemmy.world
25073
7767
9808
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
*� Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
*�️ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
*� Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
*�️ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
*� Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
*� Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
*�☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
*� Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
- GPrime85
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
Other Comic Communities of Interest
- !bloomcounty@sopuli.xyz
- !calvinandhobbes@lemmy.world
- !cyanideandhappiness@discuss.online
- !exo@discuss.online
- !foxtrot@slrpnk.net
- !garfield@lemmy.world
- !moomin@sopuli.xyz
- !oglaf@discuss.online (NSFW)
- !outland@slrpnk.net
- !pbf@discuss.online
- !peanuts@discuss.online
- !smbc@discuss.online
- !theboondocks@slrpnk.net
- !thefarside@sh.itjust.works
- !xkcd@lemmy.world
- !NoseEars@lemy.lol
go to feed...
Far too often people forget that Right to Free Speech is not your first right, and it is superseded by other human rights above it.
Your right to Free Speech only applies as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights to safety and freedom from prejudice, hate, harm, etc...
It's not that complicated and yet countless people always fuck something so straightforward up.
save