• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Given the bolded, does that not contradict your statement about mass murder not being central to communism?

Never heard of the Marxist LTV

Just because you have enough support for the coup doesn't mean you will have enough to implement and sustain the necessary infrastructure to provide for those around after. Millions of people will likely sit back and go with whichever side wins.

As far as where I got the questions, they are just common issues that spring up when trying to implement that type of system. Never heard of the capital research center, why would a research center have ads in the first place? What are they selling?
 
Starvos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Scratch what I said about LTV, I didn't make the connection. His theory of value is crap, which is funny since his entire philosophy is built upon it.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hate speech is a word play scam, that is not baed on any one set of objective criteria. Hate does not even have to be involved, to be deemed as hate speech, by the left. If hate was a necessary condition, wasn't the Trump Russian Collusion narrative, hate speech? The left despises Trump, and therefore they were willing to they do and say anything to undermine him. Yet this was not deemed hate speech by those who set the criteria and stack the deck in their favor.

If you blame whites, males, straights and the Christians for the woes of the world, and feel self righteous resentment, this is not considered hate speech, even of it involves resentment. Yet, if you interchange these four nouns with the words blacks, females, gays and atheists, now it is hate speech. How is that an objective criteria?

Hate speech is a scam, invented by the left, to silence opposing arguments. We should be teaching the young people to be objective, so they are not vulnerable to the hate speech scam. One condition of hate speech could be, that it has to be totally interchangeable and not be designed to protect just groups that vote Democrat and think like Democrats. The Democrats would not want this because their entire strategy is to divide with fear or hate, then shake down the other side created. If the other sided created complains, blame them fro using hate speech based on the dividing line created.

For example, if you disagreed with former President Obama, that made you a racist. Your disagreement, even if reasonable and rational to helots care, made you a racist. That extrapolation to racism would then all them to interface your arguments to the hate speech scam, to silence the opposition. If we use Trump, as an example, the game is not applied.

These magic tricks are old and the hidden wires should be understood. The way you neutralize the scam is allow all forms of speech, while teaching the people to act like adults when they listen to them. Back on the day, children learned the saying, that sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me. This allowed small children to have higher levels emotional maturity than most modern adults. They were not as vulnerable to the scam. They remained objective and learned how to pick apart faulty logic designed to incite division.
 
Last edited:
Starvos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with you. First only in a place where you habe free speech can you point out flaws with Nazism and extreme hatred. Oddly enough the Nazi party did not allow few speech nor do any other authoritarian movements because authority cannot be questioned.

By banning forms of speech the government in effect would become an athoritarian dictator. A much quicker path to spreading of ideas is allowing the government to decide which ideas are okay and which ones are bad.

Funny you reference an authoritarian dictator negatively when it seems you are advocating for authoritarian dictatorships.

The marketplace of ideas is never improved by fascism.
 
Starvos said:
"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.
Click to expand...
It's conformity by force. The core concept may be unicorns and butterflies but it will result in mass murder. Or execution.


Unlike the Nazis, who advocate it in their literature and in their propaganda.
Click to expand...
Nazi ideas are not poplar, at least not the genocidal ones. The only reason they aren't is because we can all hear read and see them. If you forbid it they become arcane and mystical.

Curtailing free speech is a direct route to what you seem to want to avoid.
 
Nap said:
Given the bolded, does that not contradict your statement about mass murder not being central to communism?

Never heard of the Marxist LTV

Just because you have enough support for the coup doesn't mean you will have enough to implement and sustain the necessary infrastructure to provide for those around after. Millions of people will likely sit back and go with whichever side wins.

As far as where I got the questions, they are just common issues that spring up when trying to implement that type of system. Never heard of the capital research center, why would a research center have ads in the first place? What are they selling?
Click to expand...

If that's the case, mass murder is central to capitalism because it involves the feudal lords giving up their property.
Look at the French Revolution for an example of revolutionary capitalism overthrowing feudalism and leading to the deaths of thousands. Not saying that's bad either. Capitalism is good when it's used to overthrow feudalism

Labor theory of value. Central to Marxist economics

There's a kernel of truth in that statement, but launching coups is for opportunists and Proto-fascists. The central idea of Leninism is that the vanguard party helps the working class to liberate themselves, and serves as a general staff of the revolution, rather than omnipotent leaders.

As for capital research center, its an anti communist propaganda machine. I saw an ad made by them that proposed very similar questions. As for what they're selling, it's propaganda nonsense.
 
Starvos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of vulnerable, angry young men in the BLM and Antifa movements. Should we curb the growth of those two groups as well, or only ones that you think suck?


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.
Click to expand...

Today you want books banned, tomorrow you'll want symbols banned, and the eventual outcome will be a country that no longer places individual freedoms above the unrealistic demands some of us have to never be offended.

Germany banned Mein Kampf for many years, and it is now legal for purchase again. Sales have been modest.
 
Starvos said:
"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.
Click to expand...

"But no one has done communism right yet!"

Rationalization fallacy.
 
Starvos said:
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"?
Click to expand...

How exactly does "Stamping out the rise of Fascism through denying them platforms" accomplished without implicating free speech rights?

Preventing an ideology from gaining platforms which core tenets involve the slaughter of "inferior people" is NOT the same as cookie cutter censorship.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but this largely misses the point. The concern is "Preventing an ideology from gaining platforms which core tenets involve the slaughter of 'inferior people" necessarily involves censorship, whether it is a specific, tailor made censorship, or "cookie cutter censorship" is irrelevant.

The point being made is, absent some extenuating circumstances, Mein Kempf and Nazi ideology generally should not be censored.
 
spud_meister said:
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?
Click to expand...

Coming from a place that has hate speech restrictions, the definition of hate speech is not specific to one particular group (unlike the OP), but rather to a specific behavior within speech in general. So, if any of the groups you are referencing violated those clearly defined restrictions, then yes, they face charges.

Basically it puts the white supremacist (since that's the example used in the OP) in a position where they can say "Yay white people!" but not "Kill / rob / maim / harm non white people!"

Standards can be a good thing.
 
Starvos said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's been this way from the founding. By your logic, Nazis (or some equivalently disgusting group) should be running the show by now.

What we miss whenever we try to prohibit behavior is that control in these things is an illusion. Regardless of policy, there will always be Nazis, etc in the country.

If you drive them underground, they will become attractive to those same angry young men specifically because they are outlawed. It will also drive them to expand their illegal acts, because they have no place in straight society.

It becomes a self-feeding cycle.

Better just to have it legal, watch them closely, and embarass them at every opportunity. They will largely destroy themselves if they are made to look ridiculous.

Just look what the Superman radio program did to the KKK back in the 40's.

With neo-Nazis, I recommend lots of photos. They generally look like jack@sses when they're all suited up.
 
OlNate said:
Coming from a place that has hate speech restrictions, the definition of hate speech is not specific to one particular group (unlike the OP), but rather to a specific behavior within speech in general. So, if any of the groups you are referencing violated those clearly defined restrictions, then yes, they face charges.

Basically it puts the white supremacist (since that's the example used in the OP) in a position where they can say "Yay white people!" but not "Kill / rob / maim / harm non white people!"

Standards can be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Standards are good. State violence against people voicing an opinion is not.
 
Starvos said:
Strawman fallacy.
Communism is a stateless, classless society that has never been demonstrated to exist.
Click to expand...

Q. Why has communism never been demonstrated to exist?
A. Because human nature will never allow it to exist - Animal Farm, while a fiction novel, is just so very accurate regarding what happens to those who gain power.

Another question for you. Why is it that people in Western nations like America, Australia etc., who claim to be communists/socialists, never, ever leave the hated democracies with their free speech, laws and general freedoms, and go and live in communist countries? I cannot, will not, take anyone seriously who professes to follow a particular doctrine but will not live under it. Reminds me of Western feminists who scream and rage about alleged patriarchal oppression, but never scream and rage about Islam and countries like Saudi Arabia.
 
Starvos said:
Strawman fallacy.
Communism is a stateless, classless society that has never been demonstrated to exist.
Click to expand...

Yet everywhere it's been tried, the state has been a component of it. The version of communism that you might subscribe to is theoretical, since it has never been shown to work according to its own tenets.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Do you though? You would defend the nazis in charlottesville's right to spew hatred?
Click to expand...

That's the ironic part; if no one had paid them any attention, as is the case in parts of Europe when similar groups assemble, the event in Charlottesville would have been a dud, and no one would have gotten hurt.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Q. Why has communism never been demonstrated to exist?
A. Because human nature will never allow it to exist - Animal Farm, while a fiction novel, is just so very accurate regarding what happens to those who gain power.

Another question for you. Why is it that people in Western nations like America, Australia etc., who claim to be communists/socialists, never, ever lewave the hated democracies with their free speech, laws and general freedoms, and go and live in communist countries? I cannot, will not, take anyone seriously who professes to follow a particular doctrine but will not live under it. Reminds me of Western feminists who scream and rage about alleged patriarchal oppression, but never scream and rage about Islam and countries like Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Animal farm was written by Orwell- A Trotskyist who obviously would never had have a nuanced opinion on the USSR. Perhaps you should check out "Homage to Catalonia" where he vigorously defends Communism in Spain.

The "hyooman nature" argument simply doesn't work because human nature is malliable, and become either collectivist or individualist based on material conditions.

Why do communists not leave capitalist countries to move to communist ones? I understand that's supposed to be a rhetorical question, but the answer is simple.
The only "true" Marxist-Leninist country left is Cuba, which is extremely poor because it has been under a US embargo for the past 50 years or so. North Korea isn't Marxist-Leninist because it has it's own spin-off of Marxism called Juche.
Not to mention, it would be very difficult to apply to live in Cuba, break all of my social ties, pack all of my **** , learn a new language and culture, and live in a ****ty apartment in Santa Clara because I "hate Capitalism". Besides, I'm more interested in spreading Communism in the USA. Oh and, the USA is the wealthiest country on earth.
 
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You can't yell fire in a movie theater if there isn't one; you can't yell hijacker on an airplane; you can't walk into a government building and shout "bomb". So in practicality, we already punish certain forms of speech.

Having lived in Canada for 15 years now, I support government suppression of hate speech. It does nothing but divide society and harm the most vulnerable people in it. Human beings are not mature and self-governed enough to handle the kind of freedom we all espouse when we talk politics. They've shown this over and over again. The kinds of freedoms that the Founding Fathers claimed were unalienable are more ideals to strive for. These were educated, wealthy men who did questionable things but still set a high standard for society, a standard which continues to not be met.

After the millions upon millions of people who died at the hands of the Nazis, I understand why Germany does not allow Nazis to have a public platform. So why do we do that here in the U.S.? The fact is, hardly anyone would die to support the freedom of another to speak. I don't think there's much Americans would die for today, aside from their luxuries being taken away. People have been jackbooted enough in the past 15-20 years because nobody stuck their neck out to save them. Good people, with solid ethics, people the Founding Fathers would've said were vital for the maintenance of a Democratic Republic.

With all the right wing and left wing violence happening in the U.S. these days, we are showing the Power that we don't know how to govern them, let alone ourselves. We have a gagged media controlled by conglomerates and a corporate elite running the government. Freedom of speech in the U.S. has already been compromised on every level, yet people fight over the rights of bigots to have hate marches. It's so paradoxical.

I think we would do well to stamp out the blatantly hateful aspects of our society. They are a cancer and they do nothing to further us culturally or ideologically. The tolerance of their existence under the holy grail of free speech is misguided. Our government limits speech all the time when they blackbag agitators or plant agents provocateurs at protests, yet idiots will still defend the right of nazis to call for the burning of Jews.

Canada has it right. Stop the speech and you curb the violence. Don't give them a platform. Don't give them permits or permission to reach mass audiences. There will always be idiots who listen and become copycats. You stop the idea from being spread in its tracks and you stop the violence. It's that simple.
 
Superfly said:
I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It
Click to expand...

I agree. The 'classical liberal position', if I recall.

However, there are some who would add to that quote: 'Except, of course, if it doesn't toe the liberal / progressive line' ?

Hmm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom