• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hate Speech and the slippery slope fallacy

Should Nazis and extreme hate groups be banned?


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Starvos

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2018
Messages
78
Reaction score
17
Location
Alaska, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!" Not going to happen.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, even in a fake democracy like we have today.

As reprehensible as racist, nazi garbage is, I still believe in freedom of speech/expression. I don't have to agree with the message, but I do believe in one's right to say it. And I'm not a fan of the government censoring ideas, even reprehensible ones. As long as the speech isn't inciting violence. I think we should always be in opposition to those kind of beliefs, though.
 
Last edited:
Sorry OP, but this is exactly the type of free speech that most needs protection - that which is highly unpopular.

If their speech crosses the line to criminality, go after them. Otherwise, I stand with the Founders.
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

No. As much as I despise Nazis and all other hate groups, if we try to ban them, all we do is make them seem more attractive to young, impressionable people (mostly guys). Besides, if we ban them, where does it stop? I don't like to deal with slippery-slope logical fallacy, but this is one path I don't think we should tread.
 
[h=1]I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It[/h]
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

Things are not apt to get as weird as they were in the 1930's simply because of mass communications not being government controlled. The danger, IMHO, is in going the other way - back to government control of the media to try to stamp out "hateful" ideas.
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

Would you also ban other groups that advocate hate? What about Wahhabist Muslims or ultra-Orthodox Jews that believe rights should be stripped from women? What about black radicalists that believe in creating their own nation free from white people? The KKK? Feminists that advocate for banning men from society?
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!" Not going to happen.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, even in a fake democracy like we have today.

Hateful ideas shouldn't be allowed to spread? I'm for freedom of speech, even the ideas that are reprehensible. But who decides "hateful thought". If we want to prevent the murder and genocide of people we should start with Socialism.

PREVENTING GENOCIDE.jpg

The Great Leap Forward
A lower-end estimate is 18 million, while extensive research by Yu Xiguang suggests the death toll from the movement is closer to 55.6 million

Holodomor
was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed an officially estimated 7 million to 10 million people

The Khmer Rouge
regime led by Pol Pot between 1975 and 1979 in which an estimated 1.5 to 3 million Cambodians died or were killed by the regime

The Genocide Of Poland
It resulted in the sentencing of 139,835 people, and summary executions of 111,091 ethnic Poles

There are no ideas more hateful than socialism.
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

People have compared the last 4 presidents and their respective parties to Hitler and the Nazis, often, so don’t act like that idea is so far fetched
 
"But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.
 
"But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.

Oh, and just a heads up, to quote someone properly, press "Reply with Quote". :peace
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

The problem is denying them speech is a core tenant of fascism, it is like saying the only way to stop fascism is to become fascist.

We live in a free society, where every dumbass can speak their mind without being arrested by secret police, and I want it to stay that way.
 
Hateful ideas shouldn't be allowed to spread? I'm for freedom of speech, even the ideas that are reprehensible. But who decides "hateful thought". If we want to prevent the murder and genocide of people we should start with Socialism.

View attachment 67227441

The Great Leap Forward
A lower-end estimate is 18 million, while extensive research by Yu Xiguang suggests the death toll from the movement is closer to 55.6 million

Holodomor
was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed an officially estimated 7 million to 10 million people

The Khmer Rouge
regime led by Pol Pot between 1975 and 1979 in which an estimated 1.5 to 3 million Cambodians died or were killed by the regime

The Genocide Of Poland
It resulted in the sentencing of 139,835 people, and summary executions of 111,091 ethnic Poles

There are no ideas more hateful than socialism.

"But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

I think the problem is that there is so much fake news out there and much of it is dished by Fox etc. The right selectively edits the news. It's happening here in Seattle on KOMO - comments are all right leaning in a very liberal city. Go over to King5 and it's very different - they are not owned by the right.
We are being fed what they want us to hear. They are spreading hate and fear but not by hate speech itself - that would be too obvious.
They have gotten it so that we are fighting each other instead of paying attention to what they're trying to do.
I'm still all for the 1st amendment. I do believe that news should be news and not science fiction. Oh wait - Trump doesn't believe in science.
 
Things are not apt to get as weird as they were in the 1930's simply because of mass communications not being government controlled. The danger, IMHO, is in going the other way - back to government control of the media to try to stamp out "hateful" ideas.

I think "government control" is just where Trump would like to take us. I do not have complete faith that we won't go back to the 30's.
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

1.) They have freedom of speech, that's not really a question so much as a plain-faced statement of fact. The actual question is whether or not we should amend our Constitution to allow for the banning of hate speech.

2.) And to that question, I answer a resounding: "No." What you're listing as concerns are farcical and contrary to reality of countries that actually have hate speech laws. I was in England for a year, and there's plenty of hate speech and xenophobia that persists unchecked and unchallenged, likewise the reality of the situation is that hate speech laws are applied to Left-wing minority groups in Europe as much as they are against Right-wing racists. And even then, the National Front and it's spiritual successor the BNP have done just fine skirting those laws and promulgating fascist sentiment in the population. In Europe, where the hate speech laws are typically stronger, actual Fascists have a prominent presence and are winning national elections. The Intercept has written about all of these problems, which comports with my experiences.

If you have a desperate desire to see Black Lives Matter and BDS/Free Palestine get listed as a hate groups, please proceed to make your case; otherwise, it may be worth your time to ask yourself if using this authoritarian measure is actually justifiable and actually stands up to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
1.) They have freedom of speech, that's not really a question so much as a plain-faced statement of fact. The actual question is whether or not we should amend our Constitution to allow for the banning of hate speech.

2.) And to that question, I answer a resounding: "No." What you're listing as concerns are farcical and contrary to reality of countries that actually have hate speech laws. I was in England for a year, and there's plenty of hate speech and xenophobia that persists unchecked and unchallenged, likewise the reality of the situation is that hate speech laws are applied to Left-wing minority groups in Europe as much as they are against Right-wing racists. And even then, the National Front and it's spiritual successor the BNP have done just fine skirting those laws and promulgating fascist sentiment in the population. In Europe, where the hate speech laws are typically stronger, actual Fascists have a prominent presence and are winning national elections. The Intercept has written about all of these problems, which comports with my experiences. Unless you have a desperate desire to see Black Lives Matter and BDS/Free Palestine get listed as a hate groups, in which case please proceed to make your case.
Wow, you're right. Trusting the powers that be has never worked well for Socialists of any stripe. Liberals and Socdems do have a strong history of stabbing communists in the back and siding with the fascists to protect Capital.
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.



There was a time when a bunch of men got together and decided they were being dealt a ****ty deal by their government. They started printing editorials and making speeches and the government responded by arresting orators and editors and sending in troops.

The men responded by dumping some tea in Boston Harbor and the next thing you know the men who were "inciting" others went to war against the greatest empire to have ever been on the face of the earth.....and won.

As a result the kernel of an idea from a thousand years before and nursed through the ages by people who sometimes were tortured and/or killed for their ideas, and created a new form of government "...of the people, by the people, for the people." Then one of the men, one who was never arrested or actually did much in the war wrote this long list of a thing called "rights".

And a new idea took hold and now a lot of countries have governments like that.

So, no, it takes more than "inciting" for me to want it banned. "Hate" has to be defined in a context of seeking to create harm or hardship or inciting others to bring hardship, harm ruin, etc., to any group, religion, sect yada, yada, yada. And even then, it must be applied sparingly and with regard to the circumstances.

[Above: A man I have known a long time was charged with a hate crime and convicted because of an interview where he was obviously semi-delirious where he heaped blame on "whites" and "especially Jews" for the plight of the Canadian native. The interview was never aired. Only one other person heard it. Secondly, he says during the interview that he is tired, needs to eat [later discovered he is diabetic] and laughs about not knowing what he was talking about.
What he said was very ugly. I have only been told "about" what is said, but told it makes even racists cringe.

The Supreme court of Canada ruled in his favor and dismissed the charge on several points, including that it was never aired, and that Ahenakew showed NO intent to incite or to seek retribution against Jews.

I agreed entirely with the ruling.]
 
People don't really want "free speech." They want to be free to do the the things they think are right, but believe anything they don't think is right should be banned.
 
"But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.
It's only the the leftists/socialists who seem to demand a silencing of "hate speech" as of late. What is their ultimate aim when it comes to thought crimes? Well we have past examples of that to show use where they always seem to wind up. Democracies already have the means by which to stop what you're describing.

Extremists like the National Socialist German Workers' Party rose to power by enacting violence against those whom disagree and a large number of people accepting this violence. The kind of violence you see from Antifa that happens to get widely accepted and the attempted assassination of James Scalise which was also widely accepted.

Extremists rely on society widely accepting those hate doctrines. You know what is widely accepted doctrine of hate as of late? The campaign of "Silencing speech because you disagree". :roll:

While fair minded Americans believe in someone's right to speak even if they don't agree with the message. There was no widespread support for the message coming from Charlottesville, only widespread support for their right to speak...except among American leftists and socialists who think that speech itself should be silenced. Following in the footsteps of Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin.

It's not "but Socialism caused mass murder", it's that the elephant in the room is silencing of speech is always the prelude to the worst crimes against humanity of all time and right now its the leftists using this tactic yet again. The threat to society that you claim to be concerned about is actually from people who think like you.
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.
Like any other right its not unlimited but its really this simple:

Does the speech in question break any laws, incite violence, if there is no actual legal criminality associated with it to it then it should be allowed no matter how vile it may be. :shrug:

Yes nazis suck, doesn't mean they cant speak in the proper setting within their rights. Same for me and you. If america stopped working this way it would not longer be america.
 
It's only the the leftists/socialists who seem to demand a silencing of "hate speech" as of late. What is their ultimate aim when it comes to thought crimes? Well we have past examples of that to show use where they always seem to wind up. Democracies already have the means by which to stop what you're describing.

Extremists like the National Socialist German Workers' Party rose to power by enacting violence against those whom disagree and a large number of people accepting this violence. The kind of violence you see from Antifa that happens to get widely accepted and the attempted assassination of James Scalise which was also widely accepted.

Extremists rely on society widely accepting those hate doctrines. You know what is widely accepted doctrine of hate as of late? The campaign of "Silencing speech because you disagree". :roll:

While fair minded Americans believe in someone's right to speak even if they don't agree with the message. There was no widespread support for the message coming from Charlottesville, only widespread support for their right to speak...except among American leftists and socialists who think that speech itself should be silenced. Following in the footsteps of Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin.

It's not "but Socialism caused mass murder", it's that the elephant in the room is silencing of speech is always the prelude to the worst crimes against humanity of all time and right now its the leftists using this tactic yet again. The threat to society that you claim to be concerned about is actually from people who think like you.

Absolutely ridiculous. Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations and blatant lies. Stamping out the rise of Fascism through denying them platforms via is not the same as trampling on free speech. Clearly you don't have a grasp of the ideas enshrined in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and the Nazi ideology, which liberals sure love to be an enabler of. This is not a slippery slope. Preventing an ideology from gaining platforms which core tenets involve the slaughter of "inferior people" is NOT the same as cookie cutter censorship. Also, are you really suggesting the Nazis were "socialists"?
 
"But communism caused mass murder"
Guilt by association fallacy.
Usually people are against mass murder and to make this argument worse the core concept of communism isn't mass murder.
Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.

Hypothetical, If you are now the supreme leader and are able to implement your socialist/communist ideal utopia. What do you do to those who refuse to give up their private property? What do you to those that feel there is no personal incentive to work or better themselves? If enough people simply don't buy into this system causing food or medical supply shortages, how do you distribute the dwindling the resources?
 
Here's the problem with hate speech: If you allow influences like Fascists or real nazis to exist in a "democracy", you give them full room and even platforms to grow, propagandize, and recruit vulnerable, angry young men.
This is obviously a bad thing. But the idea that such virulent ideas should be able to be spread unchecked is ludicrous and idealistic.
I guess the counter argument would be "If you ban nazis, then they come for the conservatives!"
A Fair point, but the problem is that this is flawed reasoning. Hate speech is not differing points of views that you slap a label upon; It is defined hatred or contempt of people based on immutable aspects. In the process, it feeds an underlying narrative that promotes the discrimination of minority groups.
If you want a good idea of what hate speech actually is, crack open Mein Kampf and give it a read, and you'll see why these ideas under no circumstances should be allowed to spread, especially in an unstable, fake democracy like we have today.

There is no such thing as "hate speech". Only speech that people agree with, or disagree with. That is the American way.
 
Hypothetical, If you are now the supreme leader and are able to implement your socialist/communist ideal utopia. What do you do to those who refuse to give up their private property? What do you to those that feel there is no personal incentive to work or better themselves? If enough people simply dont buy into this system causing food or medical supply shortages, how do you distribute the dwindling the resources?

I wouldn't be "supreme leader" because that's not what Marxism-Leninism is about. Its about a collective leadership of a communist party answerable to the working class.
Those who refuse to give up their property will rightly be dealt with, because that's literally whats happened in every single revolution on the planet.
In Socialism, there's already incentives in place that involve hard work and innovation. Have you heard of the Marxist LTV?
The only way Marxism would arise in the first place would be from popular support. You can't launch a communist coup and excpect to implement policies when you dont have the support of the proletariat.

These are all rhetorical questions.

Did you copy this from that stupid capital research center video ad? Be honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom