[Stormsmith]

1. No. It is not a good point. As I wrote earlier, crimes against fellow Canadians have been reduced. Speculating it will reoccur in an horrific fashion is just that: speculation. Anyone alluding to the future can invent any state of affairs and declare "it will happen", some might be true, some wont. The laws in place have worked. You should know that any story in the press is there because it is rare. We don't run amuck blowing up individuals, schools, churches, temples etc.

2. We are not a republic. The Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, but I was specifically speaking of the connection to supposed violence which has been a justification for hate-speech legislation.

In that regards, if fear of actual harm is a concern, Marxism is worse than Nazism.

And capitalism is even worse, but that is not what I am arguing.

I am not arguing that death camps are a reason to ban.

Marxism has ended in more death camps of greater lethality.

This is not an argument against having views of racial prejudice and traditional views regarding gender and the relation of such to democracy.

You seem to be confusing suffrage with democracy, which are not the same thing, but even if it they were the same, such does not address the point.

WHY should anti-democratic views not be permitted to be discussed if they are not directly inciting violence?

For instance, if Nazism should be opposed for being anti-democratic with censorship, should every variant of marxism and every writing in Marx that could be construed as a threat to the democratic order likewise be censored?

Meanwhile, should other racist ideologies in the New Right that do believe in representative government and universal suffrage within a nation, remain uncensored?

I doubt that is the outcome you would want, but thats the point of free-speech. Its not about what we want, its about what is right.

I may not want marxism to exist, but its not right for a state to prevent marxists from speaking about their views.

There are two basic arguments for free speech:

1. To hold the government accountable.
2. To bring about new ideas.

Racism and neo-Nazism do neither of these things. In fact, they do the opposite.

It also provided the world with the most intolerant and genocidal regimes in human history; whereas, people holding to racist and sexists views were arguably the creators of democracy itself in the first place.

This does not contradict my point, even if it is true, which is doubtful.

Besides being purely dependent on the perspective of the idealogue in question, this point would needlessly derail the conversation into philosophy, and I would argue that Marxism is a failed philosophy in a manner commensurate to nazism, but nazism atleast acknowledges the need for the natural order's social structures for the perpetuation of western civilization, or any meaningful civilization. Hence, we have more to learn from Nazism than Marxism in my opinion.

However, this is all irrelevant, why should speech be censored merely because it isn't intellectually contributive?

Can you imagine the implications of that highly subjective criteria?

Since Nazism and racism make governments less accountable (lynchings are a good example) and provide no new information (racists often actually muddy the waters with pseudo-science), the main two argumebts for free speech do not apply to racist and Nazi speech.

——————————-

Aside from the dangers of government censorship, it's better for social consciousness and the collective conscience to combat ignorance and bigotry through free discourse with reason and evidence than stifling discourse by suppressing public communication.

We have been doing that for centuries. How much longer do we wait for that to work?

The other thing is these people do actually have a right to communicate their ideas. You don't just get to decide who has rights and who doesn't, that's not how it works. You violate someone's rights without justification then they're perfectly justified in responding with physical force.

Okay. Why should people have that right?

And when I gave examples of people using physical force to protect their rights, you called me a gulagist. Now you seem to be saying these people were justified. I will now assume you no longer consider them gulagists.

It most certainly is censorship. Suppressing the publication, dissemination, or circulation of information is censorship. There is no question or debate, it's not controversial, if you dispute it then you're just plain wrong.

Since the publication is not suppressed in terms of publication, and still retains almost every way of disseminating and circulating it, how is this censorship?

[Drlee]

Since the publication is not suppressed in terms of publication, and still retains almost every way of disseminating and circulating it, how is this censorship?

It is censorship in the same way that it would be censorship if the government would not allow this Nazi to speak in a public park. The government is preventing these people from using a public facility for their speech.

It does not matter that they have other options. Obviously there were advantages to this means or they would not be using it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am not arguing that death camps are a reason to ban.

Niether was I, I was arguing only based on the perceived and potential risk of mass-violence as a result of allowing such groups to speak freely and disseminate their ideas.

There are two basic arguments for free speech:

Those are not two basic arguments for free speech. Under liberal constitutions, free speech and free expression are natural rights that ALSO happen to do those things.

However, even the claim you made does not support your conclusions, because that is not a universal opinion, obviously nazis would think they are contributing new ideas, or to the formation of new ideas and you are not the arbiters of whether they actually are or are not as your opinion is bias by your own perspective which is "anti-nazi," which is the point after all.

This does not contradict my point, even if it is true, which is doubtful.

Actually it did, if we are speaking of hate speech laws as a way of preventing violence.

Since Nazism and racism make governments less accountable (lynchings are a good example) and provide no new information (racists often actually muddy the waters with pseudo-science), the main two argumebts for free speech do not apply to racist and Nazi speech.

Marxism does not provide new information and often muddies the waters with psuedo-science; likewise, they do no not make governments more accountable as nations where marxism existed punished dissident speech. Thus, the two mains arguments for free speech, according to you, do not apply to marxist speech.

See, I can play that game too. Which is the fucking point Pants.

Likewise, you could make an argument, given that criteria of yours, that "libertarian" speech is not protected, or anything you want really, because the standard you provided is subjective.

[Pants-of-dog]

Niether was I, I was arguing only based on the perceived and potential risk of mass-violence as a result of allowing such groups to speak freely and disseminate their ideas.

Actually it did, if we are speaking of hate speech laws as a way of preventing violence.

See, I can play that game too. Which is the fucking point Pants.

Likewise, you could make an argument, given that criteria of yours, that "libertarian" speech is not protected, or anything you want really, because the standard you provided is subjective.

Moving on to my actual point:

Those are not two basic arguments for free speech. Under liberal constitutions, free speech and free expression are natural rights that ALSO happen to do those things.

However, even the claim you made does not support your conclusions, because that is not a universal opinion, obviously nazis would think they are contributing new ideas, or to the formation of new ideas and you are not the arbiters of whether they actually are or are not as your opinion is bias by your own perspective which is "anti-nazi," which is the point after all.

Yes, those two reasons are why we have free speech. At least, that is why we have it in the Anglosphere.

Nazis may think they are contributing original ideas, but they are incorrect. If you can name an actual, original, true idea that Nazis and raxists ahve come up with in the last, let’s say, fifty years, please share.

Marxism does not provide new information and often muddies the waters with psuedo-science; likewise, they do no not make governments more accountable as nations where marxism existed punished dissident speech. Thus, the two mains arguments for free speech, according to you, do not apply to marxist speech.

This is factually incorrect. Allende showed socialism was compatible with democracy and came up with new ideas about how to centralise and plan the economy in real time.

They also make government more accountable by removing the mechanisms that rich people use to unduly influence politics.

[Victoribus Spolia]

At least, that is why we have it in the Anglosphere.

That is not the reason given by the U.S. Constitution which denies such rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights as having originated in the government.

So you are wrong.

Nazis may think they are contributing original ideas, but they are incorrect. If you can name an actual, original, true idea that Nazis and raxists ahve come up with in the last, let’s say, fifty years, please share.

Who gets to decide what is considered a new idea? Likewise, why should new ideas be the only criteria for being able to speak; does that mean that Christians should be prohibited the right of free speech because they maintain orthodoxy (contra new ideas); and don't necessarily hold ideas that would be a check on government?

As to your question; Far-Right thinkers have propagated the concept of white genocide and hypergamy in recent years, which does not exist in this same sense in far-right literature during the time you specified; likewise, the bell-curve arguments are new advancements in new far-right thought as compared to old far-right thought.

Indeed, the Alt. Right has also been called the "New Right" by modern commentators and some in the new right are national socialists. Thus showing that the Far-Right has been propagating new ideas into public discourse, for better of worse, and therefore under your argument would be entitled to free speech.

Furthermore, new ideas pertaining to historic-ism, especially along the lines of Evola and Spengler, are constantly being presented.

What "New" ideas has Marxism brought to the table in the last 50 years? And why should this fucking matter and who gets to decide? Me? You?

This is factually incorrect. Allende showed socialism was compatible with democracy and came up with new ideas about how to centralise and plan the economy in real time.

Allende was not around long enough for us to know how it would have turned out, he may have devolved into becoming a dictator for life with concentration camps, as that was the empirically established pattern of how communists tended to do things in the 20th century.

There materialist worldview is fraught with error and their propaganda machine suppressed a free press.

They do NOT make the government more accountable, as they often oppress their fellow citizens purely on the basis of class, and sometimes even on the basis of religion.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is not the reason given by the U.S. Constitution which denies such rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights as having originated in the government.

So you are wrong.

I do not care what the constitution says.

I am pointing out what happened historically in order to inspire this particular right.

Who gets to decide what is considered a new idea? Likewise, why should new ideas be the only criteria for being able to speak; does that mean that Christians should be prohibited the right of free speech because they maintain orthodoxy (contra new ideas); and don't necessarily hold ideas that would be a check on government?

Whether or not an idea is new is objectively verifiable.

And I pointed out two criteria, so this claim that this is the only criteria is a strawman.

As to your question; Far-Right thinkers have propagated the concept of white genocide and hypergamy in recent years, which does not exist in this same sense in far-right literature during the time you specified; likewise, the bell-curve arguments are new advancements in new far-right thought as compared to old far-right thought.

The white genocide idea is a myth. So, thank you for an example of how this speech actually muddies the waters and hides the truth.

Hypergamy is an idea as old as Sanskrit, and so the Nazis and racists did not come up with that.

The bell curve arguments (by which I assume you mean the whole race/IQ thing) is also pseudoscience and is not even original.

Indeed, the Alt. Right has also been called the "New Right" by modern commentators and some in the new right are national socialists. Thus showing that the Far-Right has been propagating new ideas into public discourse, for better of worse, and therefore under your argument would be entitled to free speech.

Furthermore, new ideas pertaining to historic-ism, especially along the lines of Evola and Spengler, are constantly being presented.

Then it should be easy to mention an example and prove me wrong. So far, you have not.

What "New" idea has Marxism brought to the table in the last 50 years? And why should this fucking matter and who gets to decide? Me? You?

I already answered this question.

Allende was not around long enough for us to know how it would have turned out, he may have devolved into becoming a dictator for life with concentration camps, as that was the empirically established pattern of how communists tended to do things in the 20th century.

I already showed the new idea he had.

More info here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

There materialist worldview is fraught with error and their propaganda machine suppressed a free press.

They do NOT make the government more accountable, as they often oppress their fellow citizens purely on the basis of class, and sometimes even on the basis of religion.

Not necessarily. Some Marxist governments did. Some did not.

In contrast, all Nazi and racist governments oppressed whole groups of citizens.

[SolarCross]

"nazis" are not a threat to civilisation in the present day, there is maybe a handful of ineffectual and irrelevant larpers out there at most, there is no benefit in throwing away freedom of speech for that purpose, that's too high a price for no benefit.

The real contest now for the soul of the west is between the broad liberalism which emerged triumphant out of the ashes of WW2 and the Cold War and a last mutant strain of marxism, the SJW crazies. Freedom of Speech is a principle and value of our liberalism while being anathema for the SJW-marxists. Any defilement of our freedom of speech is a relative victory for the enemies of our civilisation and a loss for us liberals. We should never concede that ground to them.

[Pants-of-dog]

"nazis" are not a threat to civilisation in the present day, there is maybe a handful of ineffectual and irrelevant larpers out there at most, there is no benefit in throwing away freedom of speech for that purpose, that's too high a price for no benefit.

Maybe. I agree that Sears and his ilk can be described this way.

But racism and other ideas that are associated with Nazism are very popular today and have large impacts. Trump is a good example of this.

The real contest now for the soul of the west is between the broad liberalism which emerged triumphant out of the ashes of WW2 and the Cold War and a last mutant strain of marxism, the SJW crazies. Freedom of Speech is a principle and value of our liberalism while being anathema for the SJW-marxists. Any defilement of our freedom of speech is a relative victory for the enemies of our civilisation and a loss for us liberals. We should never concede that ground to them.

Man, you seem very threatened by SJWs.

And when did you become a liberal?

[SolarCross]

Maybe. I agree that Sears and his ilk can be described this way.

I suspect he isn't even a larper, just courting controversy for the attention and the fun of it. He is the newprint version of 4chan/pol. Did you know his boss and owner of the paper is an aboriginal?

But racism and other ideas that are associated with Nazism are very popular today and have large impacts. Trump is a good example of this.

No all the racists are on the SJW side. Trump isn't a racist. Your entire world view is a complete lie.

Man, you seem very threatened by SJWs.

Not myself personally, because I am "working class" and there are none in my particular corner of the world. But they are making a play for the soul of the west. They have succeeded in at least a partial subversion of academia and from there infected quite a number of institutions which are staffed by people who passed through academia as a right of passage; media, government and many commercial corporations. I don't want to oversell the danger but they are not completely irrelevant.

And when did you become a liberal?

I have been a broad liberal for a long time. Real liberals believe in and value personal liberty: private property, freedom of association and freedom of speech. I was an an-cap once remember, an-caps are just liberal extremists.

[Pants-of-dog]

I suspect he isn't even a larper, just courting controversy for the attention and the fun of it. He is the newprint version of 4chan/pol. Did you know his boss and owner of the paper is an aboriginal?

Yes, I am certain that the neo-Nazi group he runs is just part of the gag.

That was sarcasm.

And I doubt his boss is aboriginal.

No all the racists are on the SJW side. Trump isn't a racist. Your entire world view is a complete lie.

Trump may or may not be racist. That is irrelevant.

What is true and relevant is how he used racism and other forms of bigotry to galvanise his power base of supporters.

Not myself personally, because I am "working class" and there are none in my particular corner of the world. But they are making a play for the soul of the west. They have succeeded in at least a partial subversion of academia and from there infected quite a number of institutions which are staffed by people who passed through academia as a right of passage; media, government and many commercial corporations. I don't want to oversell the danger but they are not completely irrelevant.

I do not share your fear of these people.

I have been a broad liberal for a long time. Real liberals believe in and value personal liberty: private property, freedom of association and freedom of speech. I was an an-cap once remember, an-caps are just liberal extremists.

They also believe in egalitarianism.

Do you?

[SolarCross]

Yes, I am certain that the neo-Nazi group he runs is just part of the gag.

That was sarcasm.

And I doubt his boss is aboriginal.

He says he is.

Trump may or may not be racist. That is irrelevant.

What is true and relevant is how he used racism and other forms of bigotry to galvanise his power base of supporters.

No the SJWs just call everyone who isn't playing along with their agenda a racist. It's just playground name calling.

I do not share your fear of these people.

Of course because you are one of them.

They also believe in egalitarianism.

Do you?

In practice no one believes in it, even commies like you don't believe in it. The idea of "equality" was picked up by French liberals during the French Revolution as a reaction against the status of the nobility. It has sort of stuck around as a slogan but it is both impossible and nonsensical as a matter of practice. I don't consider it a good or necessary component of liberalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

He says he is.

This is actually a common claim among white supremacists in Canada.

No the SJWs just call everyone who isn't playing along with their agenda a racist. It's just playground name calling.

Since Sears openly calls himself a supporter of National Socialism, this is a moot point for him.

As for Trump and his supporters, please note that I did not call anyone racist.

This tactic, where you ignore the point and accuse others of calling people racist, seems like an attempt to shut down debate.

Of course because you are one of them.

It seems odd that you would feel threatened by me.

In practice no one believes in it, even commies like you don't believe in it. The idea of "equality" was picked up by French liberals during the French Revolution as a reaction against the status of the nobility. It has sort of stuck around as a slogan but it is both impossible and nonsensical as a matter of practice. I don't consider it a good or necessary component of liberalism.

Okay. You are a cherry picking liberal.

[One Degree]

@Pants-of-dog
You never did respond when I asked you if Nazis are equal human beings. Are you truly egalitarian?

[Pants-of-dog]

Nazis are obviously human beings.

I probably ignored you because you have no argument.

[One Degree]

Nazis are obviously human beings.

I probably ignored you because you have no argument.

You left out ‘equal’. How come?

[SolarCross]

This is actually a common claim among white supremacists in Canada.

Maybe, but from where I am sitting it is just as likely that aborginies who don't act like dutiful pets to the SJW thoughtpolice get slandered as "white supremacists". It would't be the first time that happened to someone.

Since Sears openly calls himself a supporter of National Socialism, this is a moot point for him.

Weirdly he also described himself as a Libertarian and a Christian. He says he doesn't want to kill the jews, instead he wants them to come to jesus. He also says he loves everyone. He denies being a racist. Assuming this all isn't attention seeking blather, I don't know what he can mean by describing his political program a as mix of Libertarianism, Christianity and National Socialism. Perhaps he thinks jews are behind the neo-marxist plots and this is a kind of warning to them? I don't know really but we are talking about him because of it... Would any of us have even of heard of him if he hadn't said that?

As for Trump and his supporters, please note that I did not call anyone racist.

This tactic, where you ignore the point and accuse others of calling people racist, seems like an attempt to shut down debate.

You are lying here. You know what I am talking about and are trying to deflect. Clearly I am not trying to shut down debate when I am engaging with you in good faith. You should try it some time.

It seems odd that you would feel threatened by me.

You are nothing by yourself. Fascism is nothing if there was only one fascist in the world, same for communism. If it were just you then there would be no problem.

Okay. You are a cherry picking liberal.

I think discerning liberal is more accurate.

[Pants-of-dog]

You left out ‘equal’. How come?

Sure. They are equal human beings. Much like criminals are equal human beings.

---------------

Maybe, but from where I am sitting it is just as likely that aborginies who don't act like dutiful pets to the SJW thoughtpolice get slandered as "white supremacists". It would't be the first time that happened to someone.

This is an irrelevant tangent.

If you think it is relevant, please explain how, and provide evidence that this guy is indigenous.

By the way, indigenous people in Canada do not use the term "aboriginal", and since this guy does, he is probably not indigenous.

Weirdly he also described himself as a Libertarian and a Christian. He says he doesn't want to kill the jews, instead he wants them to come to jesus. He also says he loves everyone. He denies being a racist. Assuming this all isn't attention seeking blather, I don't know what he can mean by describing his political program a as mix of Libertarianism, Christianity and National Socialism. Perhaps he thinks jews are behind the neo-marxist plots and this is a kind of warning to them? I don't know really but we are talking about him because of it... Would any of us have even of heard of him if he hadn't said that?

This seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid calling him a neo-Nazi even when he says he is one.

You are lying here. You know what I am talking about and are trying to deflect. Clearly I am not trying to shut down debate when I am engaging with you in good faith. You should try it some time.

Okay, so you have no rebuttals to my claim that racist ideas do have a significant impact on society, and that Trump's polemics is a good example of such.

You are nothing by yourself. Fascism is nothing if there was only one fascist in the world, same for communism. If it were just you then there would be no problem.

Well, it seems odd that you feel threatened by us.

I think discerning liberal is more accurate.

You may use whatever word you want to describe how you only practice those parts of your ideology that benefit you.

[One Degree]

@Pants-of-dog If you calling someone a Nazi is the same as calling them a criminal, then I don’t see how you think they are equal. Do you consider all humans criminals?

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you think Nazis and criminals are not equal human beings?