• 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.
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.

Predictable answer and pretty much what I expected you to write.
 
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.

Your avatar is a mass murderer so your opposition to such things has an especially hollow ring to it.
 
Your avatar is a mass murderer so your opposition to such things has an especially hollow ring to it.

Che Guevara was not a mass murderer. Do you even know anything about the man other than what right-wing losers in Miami have been saying about him?
 
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.

Well we expect Americans to be smarter in this country than fall for hate speech. Obviously it didn't work in 2016. But 3 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton--indicating that this country is still sane.

Ronald Reagan warned us about Donald Trump 40 years ago.



172952_600.jpg


Trump is a threat to American democracy as we know it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.071015e5a5dd

theo-moudakis-trump-and-lincoln.jpg


The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan. It is now the party of Trump. Stuffed full of bigotry, hate, misogyny & ignorance. This country elected a man with no honor, no respect, no dignity, no decency, no humility and the only loyalty he has ever shown to anyone was to himself & Vladimir Putin.
 
Last edited:
Che Guevara was not a mass murderer. Do you even know anything about the man other than what right-wing losers in Miami have been saying about him?

What does he say about himself? Let's see:

“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].” - Che Guevara
 
Nazi scum organisations and anyone with their extreme ideas should be banned. They are anti-democratic and anti-free speech and hence should not expect to be treated as everyone else. This is not a free speech issue, because as soon as these types get power.. free speech would be the first to go.
 
Well we expect Americans to be smarter in this country than fall for hate speech. Obviously it didn't work in 2016. But 3 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton--indicating that this country is still sane.

Ronald Reagan warned us about Donald Trump 40 years ago.

Trump is a threat to American democracy as we know it.

The Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan. It is now the party of Trump. Stuffed full of bigotry, hate, misogyny & ignorance. This country elected a man with no honor, no respect, no dignity, no decency, no humility and the only loyalty he has ever shown to anyone was to himself & Vladimir Putin.

The hate speech, that the left most refers is connected to comments Trump made about illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. If you look at the immigration policies, of all other nations of the earth, they all, according to this leftist definition, practice hate speech. All countries do not like uninvited guests who are not accounted for.

Even a citizen of the USA, cannot just walk into Canada, without being invited, even though both countries are very close. If an American decided to ignore the Canadian border and was caught inside Canada and deported, does that mean that all Canadians are hater? If you extrapolate the leftist definition, to all countries and citizens of countries, who practice secure border policies, the left is calling the world, haters. Trump spoke in terms of a global standard of international behavior practiced by all sovereign countries. This was twisted, by the left. They are pro-crime. If you do not like criminals, based on international standards, you are a hater.

The mistake the right makes is accepting any irrational premise from the left, and then argue as though the premise is sound. The better strategy is to attack the premise before it even takes root in the brains of the irrational.

In my experience, dealing with the left is like dealing with an irrational woman, who is playing mood games. She may in a mood and based on that mood, she will speak broad conclusions, without any support data. In her mind, the data crunching, done by her mood, is infallible, and does not have to be defended, You can't argue wth her conclusions, since it does no good, while she is in that mood. Instead you get drawn into her irrationality and will begin to argue, as though the original irrational premise has legs.

For example, she may say I don't think you love me as much, any more; I think Trump is a hater. No proof or line of reason is given as a precursor to this conclusion. All you get is a mood induced and data crunched, bottom line. You know this is not true, since you love the gal, but because she is in one of those moods, you learn that arguing in a rational way does not apply. She wants an emotional drama. Before long you are defending yourself against an accusation that is not true, all in an attempt to restore reason, to an irrational person. It gets to be too much work.

A better approach, which I learned from observing females, would be to do the same thing, as a response. You might say, "you don't love me either, or your would not accuse me of not loving you. I know, this is all about you thinking of cheating, right?" This is an irrational conclusion based on a pretend mood hunch. Women are just as vulnerable to the scam as men since it make no rational sense. This reverse scam will often force the female to provide data and examples, which is the path back to reason.

In an intimate relationships, female led mood games can be very useful to the health of the relationship. They provide a way for women to help their men exercise their emotional natures. A male, who is reasonable all the time, is like a one armed man. The emotional game helps the man exercise his other arm, so he can become more balanced; ambidextrous. It may be uncomfortable, but it is natural and useful to a complete person.

However, in the political sphere, these mood games are manipulative and destructive. Unlike the wife or girlfriend who instinctively induces such games fro the health of her mate, the left has no concern for the emotional well being of members of the right. The right should not, play along as though they think in term of interacting with a wife, even if uncomfortable. But rather think in terms of interacting with a hag, who is attempting to induce false emotions, to undermine your sense of balance and reason.

Trump immigration policy reflects that of the world. Don't be ashamed of the that due to an emotional, hag scam.
 
This is not a free speech issue, because as soon as these types get power.. free speech would be the first to go.

If we go down this path then let us start with the socialists. National Socialist German Workers' Party. The NAZI's didn't call themselves socialists for their love of capitalism and the free market.
 
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.




Given communism is as barbaric and genocidal as national socialism, careful what you wish for.



Freedom is a bitch, one has a right to speak like an asshole, we have a right to call them assholes.
 
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.

What you must understand is that even if you prevent someone from saying something out loud it doesn't mean they're not thinking it. It doesn't mean they aren't getting together in private and in seceret to advace their cause. While we have never technically made it illegal for nazis or klan members to organize publically the reality is their ilk has been heavily shunned into secrecy for decades now. Has it worked? Did they disappear? Go away?

No, in reality, those bigots never really went anywhere. They just knew they had to be careful about what they said in public so they largely tried to pretend they weren't in public and wore white hoods to hide their identities when they did appear in public. They still communicated their ideas, but because they weren't doing it publically there was no body to challenge them. Their bankfupt beliefs grew in a bubble unchecked. In fact one could argue that like many illicit drugs the fact that they were considered so bad actually gave them a bit of an allure to those who want to be rebelious. To conspicracy therorists who want to believe they're smarter than everyone else and see through the bull**** the very fact that these ideas were so shunned is what made many of them think they had to be true.

Freedom of speech exists in part because if we don't hear the bad ideas, and the bad arguments we can't effectively criticize them. If Nazi ideas and Klan ideas are as obviously stupid as you say they are then we should have no problem blowing them out of the water, but we need to know who is being poisoned by it in order to do that.
 
If we go down this path then let us start with the socialists. National Socialist German Workers' Party. The NAZI's didn't call themselves socialists for their love of capitalism and the free market.

God you are one of those...

Okay.. who was it the first people they arrested when they got in power? Socialists.

Nice try, but anyone not brainwashed by the American right and neo nazi movement would know that the German Nazi party had very little to do with socialism, and everything to do with modern far right thinking about race and social issues... and populism.
 
If we go down this path then let us start with the socialists. National Socialist German Workers' Party. The NAZI's didn't call themselves socialists for their love of capitalism and the free market.

In the same sense as north korea calls itself a democratic republic because of it's leaders love of equality and freedom.
 
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.

Your argument suffers many deficiencies, death by a thousand cuts, but there are a few which are immediately apparent.

First, your reasoning suffers from the fallacy of post hoc, ergo, propter hoc. You assume hate speech is the cause for violence and yet, you have, rather conspicuously, made no evidentiary showing hate speech causes violence.

Interestingly enough, however, some other culprits of violence are not mentioned for censorship, such as political speech, religious speech, speech regarding important societal issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and so forth. If attempting to reduce, minimize, or eradicate violence is the goal to be achieved by censorship, then you have left a lot of contentious speech unregulated that has violence associated with it at times.

Human beings are not mature and self-governed enough to handle the kind of freedom we all espouse when we talk politics.

Speak for yourself, with your unsubstantiated claim regarding the masses, and not for everyone else.

They've shown this over and over again.

Well, if you are examining prior historical examples and time periods, the evidence reflects the masses can properly digest contentious speech, including hate speech, but it is a few, a minority, which act out in violence. In addition, it is not at all clear the minority who do act out in violence did so because of speech.

Your post is replete with unsubstantiated claims, non-factual assertions, problematic causation, all failing to support your very poorly conceived theory.
 
In the same sense as north korea calls itself a democratic republic because of it's leaders love of equality and freedom.
Facts are facts. I'm sure you find it upsetting but that's the way it goes.
 
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 have to say, arguments against free speech by someone with a Che Guevara avatar and a quote by Lenin for a sig are more than a little creepy.
 
Facts are facts. I'm sure you find it upsetting but that's the way it goes.

And your propaganda is nothing more than lies. Something you will probably find an excuse to deny rather than face.
 
The hate speech, that the left most refers is connected to comments Trump made about illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. If you look at the immigration policies, of all other nations of the earth, they all, according to this leftist definition, practice hate speech. All countries do not like uninvited guests who are not accounted for.

Even a citizen of the USA, cannot just walk into Canada, without being invited, even though both countries are very close. If an American decided to ignore the Canadian border and was caught inside Canada and deported, does that mean that all Canadians are hater? If you extrapolate the leftist definition, to all countries and citizens of countries, who practice secure border policies, the left is calling the world, haters. Trump spoke in terms of a global standard of international behavior practiced by all sovereign countries. This was twisted, by the left. They are pro-crime. If you do not like criminals, based on international standards, you are a hater.

The mistake the right makes is accepting any irrational premise from the left, and then argue as though the premise is sound. The better strategy is to attack the premise before it even takes root in the brains of the irrational.

In my experience, dealing with the left is like dealing with an irrational woman, who is playing mood games. She may in a mood and based on that mood, she will speak broad conclusions, without any support data. In her mind, the data crunching, done by her mood, is infallible, and does not have to be defended, You can't argue wth her conclusions, since it does no good, while she is in that mood. Instead you get drawn into her irrationality and will begin to argue, as though the original irrational premise has legs.

For example, she may say I don't think you love me as much, any more; I think Trump is a hater. No proof or line of reason is given as a precursor to this conclusion. All you get is a mood induced and data crunched, bottom line. You know this is not true, since you love the gal, but because she is in one of those moods, you learn that arguing in a rational way does not apply. She wants an emotional drama. Before long you are defending yourself against an accusation that is not true, all in an attempt to restore reason, to an irrational person. It gets to be too much work.

A better approach, which I learned from observing females, would be to do the same thing, as a response. You might say, "you don't love me either, or your would not accuse me of not loving you. I know, this is all about you thinking of cheating, right?" This is an irrational conclusion based on a pretend mood hunch. Women are just as vulnerable to the scam as men since it make no rational sense. This reverse scam will often force the female to provide data and examples, which is the path back to reason.

In an intimate relationships, female led mood games can be very useful to the health of the relationship. They provide a way for women to help their men exercise their emotional natures. A male, who is reasonable all the time, is like a one armed man. The emotional game helps the man exercise his other arm, so he can become more balanced; ambidextrous. It may be uncomfortable, but it is natural and useful to a complete person.

However, in the political sphere, these mood games are manipulative and destructive. Unlike the wife or girlfriend who instinctively induces such games fro the health of her mate, the left has no concern for the emotional well being of members of the right. The right should not, play along as though they think in term of interacting with a wife, even if unctset




170121211838-28-womens-march-dc-exlarge-169.jpg

Woman's march 2017--the day after Trump was inaugurated. This was going on in every state--for more pictures go to this link and scroll through the pages.
Woman's march pictures | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


image

Woman's march January 20, 2018
4,000 Women Want to Run for Office Since Donald Trump'''s Election | Fortune

Pictures of the normal street protests of Trump.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=...D20160412&p=pictures+of+trump+street+protests

On January 19, 2019 the new congess will be seated.

Chuck-Schumer-Nancy-Pelosi-1.jpg

What do you think they'll do with Treason, Obstruction & Lies?--:lamo

You have awoken a sleeping giant by electing Trump. You bought into the Fear & Hate speech and now you own it.
 
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.

That kind of thing is a very tough nut. It depends on the hope that American by and large will be smarter than those in the hate groups and as such the groups and their nonsense will peter out. I believe that. Our problem is "blood sells" and our media, rather than marginalizing such idiocy, spatters it on headlines and keeps it going far longer than it deserves. THAT is how fascism rose in Europe to begin with: they pretty much created their own media and thus reality. When such groups get enough attention to generate enough money, that is when they "arm up" as it were and create an atmosphere of fear, then they own you.
 
Does religious hate speech get a pass?

Verse 9:29 of the Qur'an says to fight infidels until they either accept Islam or agree to live under its rule. This is no small thing, because the Arabic word translated as "fight" is qatl ( قتل ). Go ahead and paste that into the online translator of your choice and you'll see it means "kill". That is a direct command from God to Muslims telling them to kill and conquer us infidels. I ask again, does a religious call to commit violence get a pass?

??? - Translation into English - examples Arabic | Reverso Context
 
Has no one read 1984? Do people not realize what will happen with even the slightest beginnings of the banning of free speech of any kind? Hate speech is similar to flag burning protests, protected by the Constitution but still a heinous act. If you don't agree with the act, the answer is not to take it away, because removing someone's right to choose how to act violates their humanity. Instead, have a reasonable, rational conversation with them; detail the reasons you have for disagreeing for someone. Human interaction causes far more change than does adversity, and much more peaceful change at that
 
Even if you don’t like it, it’s still protected under the 1st amendment
 
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" -Noam Chomsky
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom