Nazis are having a rally in Arkansas

[ZiprHead]

Well, that's a start. But not an answer to the question I posed: Where did someone say an idea can be forbidden? How does that work, exactly?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, that's a start. But not an answer to the question I posed: Where did someone say an idea can be forbidden? How does that work, exactly?

I did address that. If the government says "if you express this idea you will be punished" that is saying the idea is forbidden.

If it is Germany saying "you cannot express Fascist ideas" or Saudi Arabia saying "you cannot express Christian ideas" it is saying the idea is forbidden. Express it, you are punished.

 

[ZiprHead]

But the idea is still there.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But the idea is still there.

I think you are now deliberately missing the point. It is impossible to look inside peoples heads and read what ideas are there, so it is possible that you don't actually hold ANY of the ideas that you have expressed here, and that EVERYTHING you've posted is an elaborate Poe. Absent evidence that isn't a useful hypothesis. The only way to know what ideas are there is to see what ideas people express. The way ideas spread from person to person is someone has to express the idea. It is only through the expression of ideas that we can directly tell the idea is out there, and it is only the expression of ideas that people can react to in any way. Thusly it is only when someone actually expresses an idea that the government can punish that person for expressing the idea.

So, if you are going to be "intolerant of intolerance", you are reacting to what someone actually says or said (or wrote, or typed, or signed, or semaphored), not because you looked inside their head and read their thoughts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It isn't saying the idea is forbidden, but govts do promote and demote ideas. For example, this govt says nationalism is good and Mexico sends us its worst people.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That response comes from nowhere and relates to nothing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where did someone say an idea can be forbidden? How does that work, exactly?

How do you plan to be intolerant of the intolerant then?

The same way you are intolerant of those who are intolerant of the intolerant.

 

[bilby]

You answer my question first.

Right. As you wish.

Intolerance of fascists, national socialists, and other friends of the OP, can take three forms.

One form is "I will snub them". I don't give a damn about that, and I know that isn't what we are talking about if we are quoting Popper.

Another form is "I will pass a law saying that certain ideas are not to be expressed" or "I will reuse to grant a permit for a rally simply because I don't like their ideology." That is probably what we are talking about, although all of the sudden you forgot that. In many European countries it is actually completely forbidden to be a Nazi, even though it is still allowed in the United States. They think our dedication to free speech and free exchange of ideas as some sort of support for those ideas, because they don't know what they are talking about.

No, they just think you are fucking stupid for being so dedicated to an ideological principle that you allow people whose goal is to destroy your ideology, and even your life, the means to their end.

In short, they disagree with you, but that disagreement is not evidence that they don't know what they are talking about - quite the reverse. It's easy to be blind to the dangers of allowing people to be Nazis when you have never had Nazis take over your country. Every country in Europe* has had Nazis (or other fascists) take over; And they are very keen not to have it happen again.

Well, if we are going to say "no permits for Nazis to hold rallies because we don't like Nazis" as sometimes happens in the US or "it is against the law to express fascist ideas" as does happen in some European countries, then we are saying certain ideas are forbidden. That is exactly what we are doing.

Indeed. And in a handful of cases - Nazis being one of those - this is perfectly justified by actual history in which millions of people died. Not some ideological principle achieved by navel gazing on the part of a bunch of old geezers a couple of centuries ago; Actual experience of mounds of corpses.

So sure; They probably have no idea what they are talking about


*In the case of the UK, the takeover was limited to the Channel Islands; The Nazis wanted to take over the UK as well, but failed to achieve that goal. They did bomb the fuck out of UK cities though. Switzerland was nominally neutral, but didn't mind laundering stolen goods and money for the Nazis; Sweden stayed out of the war but only by acquiescing to Nazi demands for exports of timber, steel, and even trucks (Norway tried to do the same but had the misfortune to be strategically important).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, they just think you are fucking stupid for being so dedicated to an ideological principle that you allow people whose goal is to destroy your ideology, and even your life, the means to their end.

...

Indeed. And in a handful of cases - Nazis being one of those - this is perfectly justified by actual history in which millions of people died. Not some ideological principle achieved by navel gazing on the part of a bunch of old geezers a couple of centuries ago; Actual experience of mounds of corpses.

So you think the way to defeat them is to become them. That's why I don't support banning ideas. What Nietzsche wrote about fighting monsters and possibly becoming a monster wasn't "this is how to fight monsters", it was "be careful to not do this when fighting monsters."

 

[bilby]

No, they just think you are fucking stupid for being so dedicated to an ideological principle that you allow people whose goal is to destroy your ideology, and even your life, the means to their end.

...

Indeed. And in a handful of cases - Nazis being one of those - this is perfectly justified by actual history in which millions of people died. Not some ideological principle achieved by navel gazing on the part of a bunch of old geezers a couple of centuries ago; Actual experience of mounds of corpses.

So you think the way to defeat them is to become them. That's why I don't support banning ideas. What Nietzsche wrote about fighting monsters and possibly becoming a monster wasn't "this is how to fight monsters", it was "be careful to not do this when fighting monsters."

If you really cannot see the difference between saying 'You will be fined if you persist in promoting Nazism', and rounding up people for extermination on the basis of their ethnicity or ideology, then I feel very sorry for you.

Limiting the freedom of people to be actual Nazis is not 'becoming them'. Only someone blinded by staring too long at the brilliance of his own navel could make such a dimwitted claim.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, that's a start. But not an answer to the question I posed: Where did someone say an idea can be forbidden? How does that work, exactly?

I did address that. If the government says "if you express this idea you will be punished" that is saying the idea is forbidden.

If it is Germany saying "you cannot express Fascist ideas" or Saudi Arabia saying "you cannot express Christian ideas" it is saying the idea is forbidden. Express it, you are punished.

Since history is replete with examples of ideas that explicitly forbidden ideas but do not disappear (and, in fact, grow in acceptance, how exactly is your point relevant?

 

[laughing dog]

You're welcome. I can see you need all the help you can get.

Stick to pointing out the obvious, because when you move post something like
"If you don't tolerate those you deem intolerant, what is then to stop others from rightfully deeming you intolerant and not tolerating you? Popper's logic applies well to much of modern Feminists, Antifa, etc." when we are talking about Nazis - a group of people with a well-documented agenda of genocide - you've gone your ability to help anyone with such foolishness.

 

[PyramidHead]

If the USSR is capitalism, then "capitalism" is defined as "economic system". Therefore everything from the free market to real communism is capitalism.

Where was the private ownership of the means of production in the USSR? There was no private ownership of the means of production in the USSR for most of its existence, so by one of the few definitions of "capitalism" that most people on the board can agree on, the USSR was certainly not capitalism.

It comes down to whether you believe there is a meaningful difference between different owners of the means of production, when neither are the workers. I say there isn't, especially when the state organizes capital and appropriates surplus in exactly the same way as a board of directors in a large private firm. The key feature of capitalism is capital and its control by a minority that does not work, whether it be private investors or state officials. In both cases, there is an intimate relationship between private and state interests, which is antagonistic to the interests of workers. Privately owned companies that receive direct and indirect subsidies from the state, are rescued from failure by governments populated by ex-lobbyists and future CEOs, and depend enormously on federal policy for their livelihood are nationalized in everything but name. We can disagree about what words to use, but the fact that the organizers of production are literally different people from the producers, who sell their work for wages determined by the organizers and are subservient to their decisions about what to do with the value they create, for me is a lot closer to the current economy of the United States than anything Marx would have endorsed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If the USSR is capitalism, then "capitalism" is defined as "economic system". Therefore everything from the free market to real communism is capitalism.

Where was the private ownership of the means of production in the USSR? There was no private ownership of the means of production in the USSR for most of its existence, so by one of the few definitions of "capitalism" that most people on the board can agree on, the USSR was certainly not capitalism.

It comes down to whether you believe there is a meaningful difference between different owners of the means of production, when neither are the workers.

There is a meaningful difference between owned by private parties and owned by the government. A very meaningful difference. What you're doing is "definition by desired result" while I'm doing "definition by what it is." Try asking a fascist to define fascism by desired goals instead of what fascism actually does. They can actually put a positive spin on fascism the same way that communists can actually put a positive spin on communism.

Privately owned companies that receive direct and indirect subsidies from the state, are rescued from failure by governments populated by ex-lobbyists and future CEOs, and depend enormously on federal policy for their livelihood are nationalized in everything but name.

In many ways they are. That is called "corporatism". It is nice to see someone other than myself point out the nationalization of government embedded companies. If you collectivize the control of the means of production, how is it different from collectivizing of the means of production themselves?

We can disagree about what words to use, but the fact that the organizers of production are literally different people from the producers, who sell their work for wages determined by the organizers and are subservient to their decisions about what to do with the value they create, for me is a lot closer to the current economy of the United States than anything Marx would have endorsed.

Who is the government then? The USA is the odd man out in the grouping "USA, USSR, theoretical Marxism". Otherwise we deal with economies such as "Communist Capitalism, Socialist Capitalism, Free Market Capitalism, etc."

No, they just think you are fucking stupid for being so dedicated to an ideological principle that you allow people whose goal is to destroy your ideology, and even your life, the means to their end.

...

Indeed. And in a handful of cases - Nazis being one of those - this is perfectly justified by actual history in which millions of people died. Not some ideological principle achieved by navel gazing on the part of a bunch of old geezers a couple of centuries ago; Actual experience of mounds of corpses.

So you think the way to defeat them is to become them. That's why I don't support banning ideas. What Nietzsche wrote about fighting monsters and possibly becoming a monster wasn't "this is how to fight monsters", it was "be careful to not do this when fighting monsters."

If you really cannot see the difference between saying 'You will be fined if you persist in promoting Nazism', and rounding up people for extermination on the basis of their ethnicity or ideology, then I feel very sorry for you.

Limiting the freedom of people to be actual Nazis is not 'becoming them'. Only someone blinded by staring too long at the brilliance of his own navel could make such a dimwitted claim.

So you want to be the dictator. Understood.

I find your comments as offensive as those of any Nazi or Communist, therefore you are bound by your own stated code to shut up about banning speech you don't like.

 

[laughing dog]

So you want to be the dictator. Understood.

I find your comments as offensive as those of any Nazi or Communist, therefore you are bound by your own stated code to shut up about banning speech you don't like.

There is no evidence that bilby has a documented history of espousing or engaging in genocide or mass murder, so using blatantly stupid analogy is not an effective strategy for a convincing argument.

 

[Trausti]

So you want to be the dictator. Understood.

I find your comments as offensive as those of any Nazi or Communist, therefore you are bound by your own stated code to shut up about banning speech you don't like.

There is no evidence that bilby has a documented history of espousing or engaging in genocide or mass murder, so using blatantly stupid analogy is not an effective strategy for a convincing argument.

Hang on. Who made you the decider? The decider gets to decide what speech is government approved and which is not. Watch out, buddy.

 

[laughing dog]

So you want to be the dictator. Understood.

I find your comments as offensive as those of any Nazi or Communist, therefore you are bound by your own stated code to shut up about banning speech you don't like.

There is no evidence that bilby has a documented history of espousing or engaging in genocide or mass murder, so using blatantly stupid analogy is not an effective strategy for a convincing argument.

Hang on. Who made you the decider? The decider gets to decide what speech is government approved and which is not. Watch out, buddy.

I'd asked why you think that is at all relevant, but then you might repeat your babble.

 

[Trausti]

Hang on. Who made you the decider? The decider gets to decide what speech is government approved and which is not. Watch out, buddy.

I'd asked why you think that is at all relevant, but then you might repeat your babble.

Because ultimately, there must be a decider. That's Jason's point. I know you got his point, but kept on keeping on. And on.

 

[laughing dog]

Hang on. Who made you the decider? The decider gets to decide what speech is government approved and which is not. Watch out, buddy.

I'd asked why you think that is at all relevant, but then you might repeat your babble.

Because ultimately, there must be a decider. That's Jason's point. I know you got his point, but kept on keeping on. And on.

The discussion was specifically about Nazis not anyone with whom we may disagree. But feel free to continue to babble on.

 

[Trausti]

Because ultimately, there must be a decider. That's Jason's point. I know you got his point, but kept on keeping on. And on.

The discussion was specifically about Nazis not anyone with whom we may disagree. But feel free to continue to babble on.