How to get all the free speech defenders as far away from me as possible


The only people who I see defend free speech online are those who defend white supremacists.

In Germany we don't have that "I'll die to defend your right to call for the extermination of minorities" attitude to free speech that I hear from Americans so often.

@wjmaggos @Gargron There's plenty of progressives who defend free speech! (≠ hate speech) Jimmy Dore et al. expressed their critic when Alex Jones was deplatformed. And Just this week he (with Abby Martin, hardly a white supremacist!) denounced Youtube censorship (even if Crowder is a dick). No need to get out, just watch this video:

@Gargron More important than free speach is free thought, and you can't have free thought if you are bombarded with lies.

@Gargron “Classic Liberalism”: co-opting liberal ideals to push the conservative status quo by blindingly applying it to every context

@Gargron first they came for the [group with controversial opinions], and I did not speak out because I was not a [holder of those controversial opinions]...

@Gargron Ah, I see. There is much more to the world than online, and free speech is much bigger than white supremacy, in my opinion.

White supremacists are not accepted by western society and are basically irrelevant where free speech is a right. They do exists, and should be condemned. But I support freedom of speech even if some people use it to say stupid or mean things. Suppressing or banning it is far worse for society as a whole.

@Gargron huh, so you'd be fine with conservative governments limiting free expression of LGBTQA++ people then?

@Gargron Yes, in general, it more ore less boils down to "drop dead already if we don't share the same point of view" here in Germany (regardless of the topic, but especially for everything related to race, politics, belief).

@Gargron A huge problem with this is that Americans have forgotten what the first amendment actually means.

It protects you from being arrested by the government for what you say. It really doesn't mean we have to tolerate everything anyone says as a society.

@Miredly @Gargron this is the most annoying part of it all because it isn’t rocket science. and yet there’s a neverending stream of people who need to be shown

@gekitsu @Miredly @Gargron I agree with Chomsky on this point. Too many Americans have forgotten *why* free speech is important and argue about the *how* much to tolerate. You tolerate bad ideas in the open until they're defeated. If you don't, they're going to retreat out of the public sphere and do pushups, comeback stronger and harder to defeat.

@whatcraic @gekitsu @Miredly This is a dumb idea that I see repeated again and again.

Bad ideas grow stronger when in public, not when they are confined to secret underground societies. Secret societies don't have the exposure for their idea to catch on and they have trouble getting recruits.

Things like white supremacy aren't based on facts, but on feelings, so "defeating" them through debate accomplishes nothing, but lets those who feel the same find each other and grow stronger.

@Gargron @whatcraic @gekitsu @Miredly Even though these hateful ideas are not based on fact, there are many who believe they are and could change their mind once they listen to someone expose their ideas.

Here is one example of an individual subscribing to these hateful ideas that was de-radicalized after a watching a debate between Destiny and Lauren Southern:

@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly the problem with this is where does denying people service based on their views (creed) stop? Social media? ISPs? Financing from banks? Police and fire department protection? Purchasing food and clothing? Health care? Housing? Gas stations? Public utilities (water, electricity, heat)? Public libraries? Roads? Voting?

@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly Slippery slopes aren't a logical fallacy when they're real. Consider cases where is happened before (e.g. the history of social security numbers. Initially it was only supposed to be used for social security and then slowly became a unique identifier universally for Americans). 1/2

@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly second - these platform are banning people, not just ideas. If Facebook said "you can discuss anything here other than X, and if you do we'll delete the posts where you discuss X" and they just did that, you would have a point. As it stands they often capriously deny service entirely after violating a vague and lengthy EULA (which change very often without notification).

@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly one more point - housing, gas, electricity (where I live), health care, food and clothing are all provided by private companies. Setting a precedent where they can say "if Facebook can deny service based on a stated opinion, why can't we?" is dangerous, and is not a "Slippery slope" it's not exactly how law, business and culture works.

@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly ... and last point (after watching your YouTube link) begging large corporate monopolies to police speech for you is fascist. It's worshiping at the alter of power and begging for scraps. It's the opposite of democracy. liberty and personal autonomy.

@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly in your initial reply it was generalized as "provide a soapbox" (I'll grant that you did mention the NYT and the fediverse specifically later) but the first claim was a general claim, and I was responding to that.

What I want is for the 2019 nightmare of left-wing authoritarians vs. right-wing authoritarians to end. It's like a glib two dimensional version of the war between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia but they don't see it.

@hhardy01 @geotechland @gekitsu @Miredly @Gargron
You seem like a nice guy, but you're all over the place here. Trying to focus one last time.

You said "Freedom of speech also means that you do not have to provide a soapbox for someone else, nor that you have to share your soapbox with them."

Two problems here: (1) How far down the "soapbox stack" do you go? App? ISP? Finance? etc. (2) do you ban people with the idea, or just the ideas?

Your responses have been caviling and equivocation.

@hhardy01 @geotechland @gekitsu @Miredly @Gargron Regarding the last cavils & equivocations a fair comparison would be 1933 fascists to 1933 anti-Fascists. You're comparing 2019 "anti-fascists" to 1933 fascists, which is irrelevant.

Where is the moral daylight between 2019 "fascists" & 2019 "anti-fascists?" Both use force, coercion & appeals to corporations to advance their goals then say "It's okay when we do it."

I like Gargon, but he's human just like us. All humans make mistakes.

@hhardy01 @geotechland @gekitsu @Miredly @Gargron Re: anti-fascists, a spokesperson in VICE "Fear is a part of our tactics." Later in the video they advocate doxxing.

I'm not a pacifist, but the use of these tactics here isn't just ineffective, it's escalating conflict & creating the 2019 nightmare world.

Look at what happened to most of the Weathermen. With hindsight, who did more good in the 60s and 70s? Bernstein & Woodward, or the entire Weather Underground?

@Miredly @Gargron

I live in a state where this is extremely violated and cannot agree more.

@Miredly @Gargron Their right to free speech does not infringe on my right not to listen to it.

I could also say that Germany was one of the primary countries to exterminate minorities, though.

Those of us that so strongly support that right recognize that blocking speech does not make humanity better. It does not stop someone from being a bigot or a supremacist. It only prevents people from having ideas that go against those that control the speech.

America is the least likely place on Earth to see any group of people exterminated, and part of its foundation is free speech.

@nukelhead @Gargron "least likely"...
it's not like the U.S. was founded in the genocide of indigenous people or anything 🙄

@polymerwitch @Gargron
What civilization of people can claim otherwise? America gets all the credit for genocide because of conflict between early American settlers and Native Americans. According to archaeologists all of us in this conversation are guilty of the same sin against the neanderthals. Native Americans killed each other over this land before Vikings, Pilgrims, etc ever arrived here. The Spanish wiped out the Mayan and Aztec civilizations. Was any of Europe built on peace?

@polymerwitch @Gargron
I agree that many things that happened to Native Americans were wrong. The same things would not be tolerated by American society today. What we have learned and are very aware of is that ANY government, including our own could do something like that again. We believe in giving everyone a voice and the freedom to use it. The first step to destroying a group, like a minority, is to silence it.

@nukelhead i mean, i want to destroy white supremacy. my politics aren't rooted in pacifism

love to silence bigots :guillotine:

"love to silence bigots :guillotine:​"

Says the bigot.

@nukelhead you caught me. i'm biased against white supremacists 😢

since you are showing us your true colors why don't you show us your dick?

I'm also biased against white supremacists. But that doesn't matter does it?

Interesting that your profile is based on an anarchism domain, which by definition, would allow for absolute free speech.

Tell me, in your perfect society, who decides who gets to say what? You? I doubt that would happen. You would be someone's subject. Who would you bow to?

@polymerwitch 😂
You want people you disagree with silenced, and beheaded. Someone disagrees with you and this is your response.

You've won me over to your side, you mental champion.

@nukelhead stop violating my free speech and show us your dick :scream_at_ass:
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!