Following the other poster I am really curious - are your against free speech? If so okay, no place to argue here.
This is a fantasy, and I think a level of control is needed to stop the rousing of genocidal ideology propagated through rhetoric and providing its proponents platforms to speak on.
Why am I not surprised to see this in your profile.
Communists killed many millions more than national socialists and is also a genocidal ideology, propagated by rhetoric. It's absurd to think you have any moral high ground over Nazis. Shouldn't your speech also be shut down according to your own logic?
> I'm against free speech in certain circumstances; free speech is idealistic, for it assumes Bad Ideas will be shot down in fair public debate, and people are rational.
So bottom line, you don't believe in free speech. You seem to believe a central authority must dictate which speech is free and which is not. Presumably this authority will be more rational than "the people" you mistrust to uphold a fair public debate.
Absolutely horrific.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The Nazi ideology hinges on the idea of forceful removal and killing "inferior" people. The Communist ideology does not; I'm not responsible for the actions of what other people do in the name of Communist ideology. I subscribe to the works of Marx, Engels and the social anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon); if you can find any intention of genocide in there, I'll agree with you.
>Shouldn't your speech also be shut down according to your own logic?
No, because I'm not advocating harm or killing, only the potentially forceful removal of private property from landowners and capitalists.
>You seem to believe a central authority must dictate which speech is free and which is not.
No, the community should be able to regulate itself if sufficiently advanced. There may be a transitionary period in which an authority which suppresses certain speech or actions may exist, though I don't support its permanent existence.
Unbelievable!
The Nazis you dislike would agree with you, and tell you we need to outlaw the speech of what they believe to be hateful open borders communists who, to their minds, promulgate the genocide of the white race.
The world has a long history of those who push for the restriction of speech ending up on the receiving end of restriction of speech. One good turn, history tells us, very often deserves another.
The fact that other people would also like to censor some speech in other circumstances is irrelevant to me.
>open borders communists who, to their minds, promulgate the genocide of the white race.
What's in their mind is irrelevant. I'm clearly not advocating genocide, it's not my business if they see it that way, they ought to educate themselves. There's a clear difference between advocating that the workers of the world unite and advocating killing Jews. As it also turns out, the Nazis would kill Jews whether or not the workers agreed with it, you can't say the same about any of my actions.
>The world has a long history of those who push for the restriction of speech ending up on the receiving end of restriction of speech.
I agree, so it must be done carefully; there's no causation, merely there might be correletaion between these two groups.
This is the difference.
> No, because I'm not advocating harm or killing, only the potentially forceful removal of private property from landowners and capitalists.