Freedom of Speech and the recent unpleasantness

Post Reply New Topic

Am I number 8?
I like that number.
If you lie it on its side, it is the infinity sign.

The communists, in the 1930s were a serious political force in German, also, and they too were violent bastards.
Had they won, rather than Hitler, who knows, they many have murdered more people that Stalin and Mao combined.

That's ok. As the poster hasn't replied they probably agree with you.

I think many people ignore the post-WWI situation in Germany that led to violent radicalisation.
People were poor, traumatized and humiliated. Overall situation was extremely unstable. The world people knew was falling apart.
Likely, if one crazy guy didn't surf that wave, another would. Communists probably wouldn't be any better - just more class-oriented than ethnicity-oriented in their genocide, similarily to Soviets.

But Hitler won. And you deflected with the "fine people on both sides" argument. The question still remains that we are seeing Nationalistic and populist movements taking over.

Not for much longer...

Actually, in this case, it's "awful people on both sides" argument.
Historically speaking, this is how it was.

No, it is simply deflection. And historically speaking, it is not valid. It is sloppy thinking--you can't prove an event that did not happen.

I don't know what had to be "deflected" here. Was there an attack?

Yes, it's true, communists were a very serious political force in 1930s Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist ... of_Germany
Many Germans feared them more than they feared the Nazi - Communism was already known where it leads, nazism wasn't yet.

^ That’s why there were organisations like the Iron Front which stood in opposition to the Communists and the Nazis.

And that’s the central issue with “both sides” thinking. There are not two sides - there are billions of sides.

The argument was a deflection to not answering League_Girl's point.

Many people rejected the KPD and chose the NAZIs instead. Are you arguing that was a better outcome? They did not have to chose either. Fearing is simply opinion. Americans feared socialism and we have had wars, blacklists, and political persecution simply because of fear, but fear is not reality.

But you are cherry picking your information (the NAZI party had them banded in 1933, KPD also resisted the NAZI party during the war, and a number of KPD members were murdered in Stalin's purges), but you still can't get from there to say that the KPD would be a more murderous regime greater than Hilter's and certainly not Stalin's and Mao's put together. Speculation is not fact. In history, these accusations are, at best, simply sloppy ideological rhetoric.

Why not an honest discussion? Is speech harmful? Does the use of Nationalistic, populist language deserve protection when it incites violence? What are the responsibilities of the speaker? At what point does the audience become complicit? When do we take responsibility? When the words are spoken? When the ovens are fired up? Or when an army invades to close the camps? Germany found one solution was to ban NAZI and neo-NAZI speech at that last phase.

Speech is a complex topic. It is not simply an individual concern, but also a collective one.

And here comes a very dangerous, society-damaging kind of populism:
"Vote for us because the other ones are evil!"

About 7,840,000,000 sides, at last count.

 Link to Data 

All mass political movements that galvanism the public on the basis of hatred seem to lead to one thing. murder. (and yes, it's hardwired.)

American sadly seems to be shifting more to that kind of mentality politically. Which is bad news for those who appreciate order (civil peace) not chaos (civil war).

You forget the "Two Jews equals three opinions" (in Polish the proverb is two Poles equals three opinions) rule.

No, you have to do your own thinking. It does not matter what another message is--it is not a comparison (white supremacy does not become valid in contrast to something else). You need to evaluate the message being given on its own merits. The "other side does it too" or "both sides are fine people" moral equivalence is a false argument.