525
Whats your such opinion (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
1195 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If you say you are right to censor your worst enemys then the Nazis were logically also right to censor the opinions of the people THEY hated the most...

Supporting only certain peoples freedom of speech is the definition of censorship...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    no. you cannot tolerate the intolerant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    Everyone's OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem "the intolerant" then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as "the intolerant" that doesnt tolerate them).

    As long as they dont take away from anybody else's freedom (and by just stating one's opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I have to assume that you are a Nazi yourself

    (Wrong). Its interesting that you think that just because I argued everyones opinion should be allowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant

    I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want

    yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi

    Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago

    The problem with your "private company" defense is that they used government power to ensure their voice was heard loudest above all others. They literally censored in the most literal sense of the word.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So if you don't tolerate the intolerant, then they will be intolerant? I don't follow this logic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not tolerating someone ("the intolerant") makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn't "tolerate the intolerant").

    Essentially, who is "intolerant" depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago

    It's similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    what's the value of me tolerating someone who's stated aims are to do me, my family and friends harm?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What's the value of tolerating any other opinion than yours?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let's see if it's something we haven't already heard a million times and rejected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 years ago

    What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored?

    Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago

    Why must person A tolerate person B's belief that person A should not have the right to life and liberty?

    You can call it an opinion all you like, but the truth is that opinions inevitably become actions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No it isn't. One is a violent group who want to kill and enslave. The other respects life. They are not the same. They do not have the same rights. You are dead wrong, period. No amount of rationalization will make you not dead wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Killing and enslaving are both means to do something, not the actual reason itself. If any person with a different political view wanted to do the same, it would be just as bad. Everyones opinion should be allowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What would you consider to be a good reason for killing and enslaving that everyone needs to hear about regularly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Killing and enslaving should not be allowed and should be avoided at all cost.

    The point is, however, if (lets say) a communist killed and enslaved people, should that mean that communist views should be censored in the future? (No! IMO)

    Killing and enslaving people are terrible and unacceptable ways of pushing one's own ideals. It does not make the actual opinion itself invalid though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    But communist views ARE censored, and it is specifically because it is claimed that they killed and enslaved. Meanwhile, Nazi views are celebrated as they announce to all that killing and enslavement is their goal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago

    This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples' freedoms, it harms peoples' freedom to tolerate that behaviour.

    Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that's currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it's moronic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent