Germany sees 'overwhelming' sales of Hitler's Mein Kampf - Polidicks

Germany sees 'overwhelming' sales of Hitler's Mein Kampf

90 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=uber.;51621779]You don't ban ideas, you ban their expression.[/QUOTE] Unless that expression harms someone [I](and being offended or upset doesn't count)[/I], then still no. The truth does not fear investigation.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51621817]Unless that expression harms someone [I](and being offended or upset doesn't count)[/I], then still no. The truth does not fear investigation.[/QUOTE] You investigate to make that decision. What if it leads to harm, by actively encouraging others to cause it? In the end you have to judge on a case-by-case basis. In discussions like this people people always like to bring up the "offended" example, which is of course to mock the actual danger which can come from exclusion, Incitement of hatred, calls for violence. If you talk about freedom of speech, sure, think about certain monarchs who limit that, to uphold their claim to power. But also think of those who spread leaflets which demand that "those niggers should go back to africa".

[QUOTE=uber.;51621848]But also think of those who spread leaflets which demand that "those niggers should go back to africa".[/QUOTE] The idea itself lacks merit so there is no need to be be afraid or to ban the thought or even the expression.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51621850]The idea itself lacks merit so there is no need to be be afraid or to ban the thought or even the expression.[/QUOTE] Considering your president won his election partially based on cheap vilification and fear mongering that is a very bold claim.

[QUOTE=uber.;51621848]You investigate to make that decision. What if it leads to harm, by actively encouraging others to cause it? In the end you have to judge on a case-by-case basis. In discussions like this people people always like to bring up the "offended" example, which is of course to mock the actual danger which can come from exclusion, Incitement of hatred, calls for violence. If you talk about freedom of speech, sure, think about certain monarchs who limit that, to uphold their claim to power. But also think of those who spread leaflets which demand that "those niggers should go back to africa".[/QUOTE] Such leaflets can be countered with proper information. Banning it validates it as an idea that has legitimate power. If you assume that people can be misled by wrong ideas in a manner that cannot be prevented or undone with exposure to proper ideas, you're really saying that humanity as a whole cannot be trusted to make decisions. If you disagree with something: speak up, don't silence the opposition - that's something those misled by harmful ideas would do. [editline]4th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=uber.;51621890]Considering your president won his election partially based on cheap vilification and fear mongering that is a very bold claim.[/QUOTE] He could have been countered with a proper candidate to oppose him. Imagine what would happen if Trump was banned from office right now, or if someone assassinated him. It would validate his most extreme supporters and set humanity back, whereas [I]proving[/I] that he is bad and offering a better solution would push humanity forward.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51617616]How extensive is Germanys ban on La-li-lu-lei-lo and other Friendship symbols, anyways? Are they allowed in museums? Is █ Unicode █ banned? :v:[/QUOTE] What do you mean? Why would a black block be banned? What the hell are you talking about?

[quote][...]but the term "best-seller" does not necessarily mean very much. A quarter of all books sold in Germany are bought in the run-up to Christmas. At other times of the year it is possible to top listings with relatively few sales. Mein Kampf (My Struggle) is an expensive academic text, and is being bought by libraries, schools and history academics. For a German non-fiction book sales of 85,000 are not bad. But the figures don't indicate a runaway hit.[/quote] The title definitely seems a bit alarmist to me. This isn't an "overwhelming" amount of sales by any stretch, especially when considering that a large chunk of the orders seem to be educational institutions. Just a paragraph or so down, to put these figures into context, the article mentions that the number one best seller in the same category is a book about trees, with 500k books sold.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51621817]The truth does not fear investigation.[/QUOTE] a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51622004]a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on[/QUOTE] sure but it doesnt mean were gonna ban lies

[QUOTE=SirJon;51618018]But then that means hitler is indirectly responsible for porsche[/QUOTE] Volkswagen, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Bayer, ThyssenKrupp Elevator... Even Henry Ford had a hand in the way Nazi concentration camps worked. A lot of today's major companies have extensive ties to Nazi Germany. In my own interests, I can't totally be a fan of architects like Mies van der Rohe or Le Corbusier because of the work they did for the Reich, and those two men are jointly responsible for all of modernism. I still appreciate them and their work, but it's tempered. It's kind of remarkable that all of those companies survived the implosion of Nazi Germany and have managed to continue on through today.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51622011]sure but it doesnt mean were gonna ban lies[/QUOTE] you can already go to jail for lying

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51622018]you can already go to jail for lying[/QUOTE] Yes, in certain circumstances.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51621932]Such leaflets can be countered with proper information. Banning it validates it as an idea that has legitimate power. If you assume that people can be misled by wrong ideas in a manner that cannot be prevented or undone with exposure to proper ideas, you're really saying that humanity as a whole cannot be trusted to make decisions. If you disagree with something: speak up, don't silence the opposition - that's something those misled by harmful ideas would do. [/QUOTE] Why not both? Also, you have it the wrong way around. The power does not come from banning it, it origins from its expression. Humanity as a whole is shaky. Which is why the concept of human rights is one of the if not the most important accomplishments of humanity. Legal steps and bans are always a last resort, but, in my opinion, no, you shouldn't have the right to get a free pass for every word that comes out of your mouth. That's what it boils down to, essentially. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51621932]He could have been countered with a proper candidate to oppose him. Imagine what would happen if Trump was banned from office right now, or if someone assassinated him. It would validate his most extreme supporters and set humanity back, whereas [I]proving[/I] that he is bad and offering a better solution would push humanity forward.[/QUOTE] Well you wouldn't ban him or, god forbid, assassinate him. But you would hold him accountable for hate speech.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51617654]Sometimes it gets quite strange to me though. Especially for video games, they don't get the "artistic" exemption movies get. Hearts of iron IV for example when bought in Germany upgrades Hitler to Dark Evil Shadow Hitler because of this. [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/JjKy2m3.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] shadow hitler is way cooler than hitler to be honest

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51622004]a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on[/QUOTE] And hell, there's that quote from that Jewish person saying that if fascism could be beaten at the debate table, it'd have never taken hold. One's just naive if they say "throw all the ideas out there and the best will win I promise!" And I say that as someone who still thinks the laws should be removed nowadays. On the side though, this might be a bit nitpicky and meaningless, but I find there to be a bit of a difference between what germany did and banning an ideology. You can still be a fascist, nazi, whatever, you just can't use the NASDAP's symbolism. Actually banning an ideology I would say is pretty risky, but it's not really the case.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51621932]If you assume that people can be misled by wrong ideas in a manner that cannot be prevented or undone with exposure to proper ideas, you're really saying that humanity as a whole cannot be trusted to make decisions.[/QUOTE] What evidence is there that it can be trusted? People can be misled by wrong ideas, and for that matter, they [i]are[/i] misled all the time. That's exactly how you get tens of millions of Americans to believe that Obama wasn't actually born in the United States and isn't an American citizen, that we only use 10% of our brains, that evolution doesn't exist and the Judeo-Christian deity created everything, that climate change is nothing but a conspiracy by scientists and governments around the world to con money out of people to fund the NWO (or whatever shit they're claiming nowadays), that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration or the Jews, that Donald Trump is going to be a decent president... and so on. Your average person is exactly that: average. And most people are (by definition) average. Having said that, no, they're not qualified to be making decisions about things that affect the fates of entire countries-- like what our national climate change or economic policies should be, what diplomatic strategies we should use to further our geopolitical goals (strengthening relationships with our allies, containing our rivals, etc.), how we should be countering ISIS and terrorism, how we should reform our healthcare and education systems, etc. Most of them have a hard enough time as it is keeping their marriages/personal relationships together, getting along with other people, practicing basic mathematical skills and literacy, listening and concentrating for more than a few seconds because their attention spans are so low, etc. I understand that this isn't something people want to talk about (for obvious reasons, mainly because it makes them feel stupid), and now we're also having to deal with the "we're tired of experts" trend, but this is just how the world works: you have a handful of qualified, competent individuals working separately or together making new breakthroughs and leading progress for humanity; meanwhile, the rest of us follow them and reap the benefits they've brought us. If we're lucky. As easy as it is to dupe your average human being, more often than not we get stuck with leaders who do nothing but fuck us over for their own personal gain. Here lately, that's how things have been. But that's how democracy works: you get out of it what you put into it. You put shit in, you get shit out-- a lesson which a lot of us seem to not have learned. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51621932]It would validate his most extreme supporters and set humanity back, whereas proving that he is bad and offering a better solution would push humanity forward.[/quote] Fact-based democracy in the United States has failed. We're too polarized for this to occur. To the people who already think Trump is bad, debating about him and continuing to "prove" that he is bad is going to change nothing except help entrench them in their views (which is good; he is objectively bad). This is an important aspect of propaganda-- it helps to energize your own side and convince them to keep believing in themselves-- but to the people who already support him and think that he is good, you're not going to get through to them. They will refuse to listen to you because you criticized their idol and their beliefs, they will keep on living in their own opinion bubbles and echo chambers, and that will be the end of the matter. You're not going to educate them, you're not going to convince them that he's bad, you're not going to "push humanity forward"... you're just going to piss them off, and they're going to ignore you. Meanwhile, the same problems will still exist, and nothing will have been achieved. Talking is nice and does serve a purpose, but in the end success is determined by action. If you don't take any physical action of any sort, then nothing is going to get done. You're not going to go anywhere. I do know for a fact though that if Hitler had been executed by the Weimar Republic or assassinated, then he would no longer have been a factor for Germany, and the Nazi Party's power and influence would've dwindled compared to what it was and probably faded away into irrelevance. Movements like theirs rely on a cult of personality (Hitler); remove the personality, you destroy the cult. So what if you make a martyr out of them? They're still dead, and in the case of somebody like Hitler, that's a major defeat for them. Without his oratory and ability to act as a charismatic leader, there wouldn't have been a cohesive party. It would've fallen apart. In truth, the Nazis were always an unstable movement with members continually vying for power over each other. This was by design by Hitler as a way to maximize his own power, and was also born out of his belief in Social Darwinism. If he'd died prematurely, there would've been a succession crisis from which they would not've recovered. They attempted to compensate for this instability however by portraying themselves in propaganda as being orderly, neat, and proper. You should study this topic sometime. You also don't seem to understand how people work. You can't just "show them" or "educate them" and expect everything to turn out alright naturally. This approach will work for some people, but not for the majority. There's a reason why the old slogan about "reserving logic for the few and emotion for the many" is still brought up today: it's true. Most people need structure. They need to feel like they're a part of something and like they're important. They need leadership to provide this to them. They can't think for themselves, and they don't want to either. Dealing with complex topics and large quantities of detailed information is difficult for them to do. It's much easier instead for them to siphon off the views of others and repeat them like they're their own to sound intelligent and get attention/personal gratification once in a while. The "show them"/"educate them" approach abandons all this and assumes that by just handing them the information they need they'll know what to do with it and will make rational decisions; as easy as it is for them to be misled however, this more often than not fails-- except in the case of (again) the minority of above average individuals. That's why you don't do that. Instead, you have to basically take them by the hand and actually lead them. "This is what needs to be done: step 1, step 2, step 3..." And so on. What's even more astounding than people's ability to be misled by others is their ability to mislead themselves. But that's another matter.

Good arguments, uber and Govna. Clearly there are exceptions to keep in mind. [QUOTE=Govna;51622298]Fact-based democracy in the United States has failed. We're too polarized for this to occur. To the people who already think Trump is bad, debating about him and continuing to "prove" that he is bad is going to change nothing except help entrench them in their views (which is good; he is objectively bad).[/QUOTE] Oh, of course trying to inform the misled can fail - otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion at all. My point was that forcibly removing an idea is more likely to make those who hold it feel oppressed and thus further entrenched and unreachable. Clearly, information and facts have failed in the case of Trump. But spreading proper ideas does not necessarily come down to listing facts and arguing. Maybe there's something the democratic candidate could have done to reach out to the Republicans. Maybe there's some change that could be made to the system (transferable vote, perhaps?) that could undo or mitigate the divided culture. If you agree that Trump, his ideas and his supporters are spreading harm, then it should be clear to you that forcibly removing these thoughts in any way is not helpful in this situation - America [I]has[/I] to ride this out unless a chance of impeachment shows itself. So there has to be a different solution or solutions that haven't yet been found; the one that the next candidates and lawmakers will have to look for. [QUOTE=Govna;51622298]I do know for a fact though that if Hitler had been executed by the Weimar Republic or assassinated, then he would no longer have been a factor for Germany, and the Nazi Party's power and influence would've dwindled compared to what it was and probably faded away into irrelevance. Movements like theirs rely on a cult of personality (Hitler); remove the personality, you destroy the cult.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure I agree with this. Admittedly, I don't know enough about WWII to speak with confidence, but if Hitler, the holocaust and WWII hadn't happened, there could easily have been something else that took its place, and something would have happened eventually down the line due to the lessons that weren't learned. [I](I do realize that humanity has a tendency to never learn, though)[/I] In any case, Hitler is quite an extreme example, and I do agree that freedom of speech shouldn't allow absolutely everything. I don't disagree that hate speech and obvious incitement to violence should be dealt with. [QUOTE=Govna;51622298]You also don't seem to understand how people work. You can't just "show them" or "educate them" and expect everything to turn out alright naturally.[/QUOTE] You seem to be under the impression that by "countering with proper information" I meant call them out on Reddit; I meant that in a much broader way, such as, in Trump's case: fixing the voting system, fixing the Democratic party, presenting a good candidate, finding out what legitimate issues have caused crazy people to be crazy and solving those issues, or short-term at least appealing to some of their concerns, and also the things you mentioned about leadership. It has become abundantly clear that linking to a fact-check website isn't going to cut it. Anyway, I think we more or less agree: when I first posted I was coming at this exclusively with idea of things like Nazi symbolism, Mein Kampf and holocaust denial being illegal. Those, I don't agree should be illegal, since that would validate them as something potentially convincing, which in turn I think would justify someone for going [I]"Wait, what are they trying to hide?"[/I] because of it. I agree that hate speech and inciting violence is different.

[QUOTE=Govna;51622298]Long post[/QUOTE] You pretend that you have an argument, yet it's all based on your personal opinion, and presented in such a high-horse, patronizing manner that it's hard to take seriously. I have a much easier time agreeing with Sherow.

[QUOTE=uber.;51621779]You mean like how the US quasi banned sociali-, sorry, I mean, communist ideals? You're basically stating that society could do no wrong and therefore there should be no restrictions on free speech, when in pretty much every freedom we have there are restrictions. [/QUOTE] Well firstly, it's equally wrong to do it there for the same reasons. And i'm not saying that society can do no wrong, simply that to ban presumed bad ideas is to assume that people don't know the difference between good and bad, and that they will find self serving or outright evil principals appealing at the expense of others without contention. And that is simply not true, and a very bleak view to have. [QUOTE]No, it doesn't imply that reality is an evil place, it implies that some folks are prone to doing evil things without them realising. You're basically arguing at this point that everyone is able to distinguish between good and evil and therefore we don't need any restrictions, when reality proves you wrong.[/QUOTE] No, not [I]all[/I] people, just [I]enough[/I] people. And that's why it's predicated on the assumption of a malevolent/chaotic/un-benign nature of reality, because it assumes that the better ideas and the better argument are under great threat of [I]losing[/I] to horrible ideas. Or that those horrible ideas may work [I]better[/I] than good, constructive and healthy ideas. That's why it implies an evil/tragic state of being. And funnily enough, horrible ideas like communism only ever "win" when banned and instated by force, because they could never take over by natural progression in a healthy society. It estranges those that have those ideas and isolates them from criticisms that would keep them in line. And it only ferments the groups and drives them to extremist behaviours. [QUOTE]Sorry, but that's a blatant lie. Nazism found traction from many things, however, it was never banned or "forcibly put undergrund". Hitler's party, the NSDAP, was treated just like any other party.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that after his little coup in 1924ish the party was banned countrywide. But it was only banned in bavaria, i just remembered it wrong. But it still had the same effect so i think my point stands. [QUOTE]You don't ban ideas, you ban their expression.[/QUOTE] Functionally identical. You can't ban thoughts at the abstract level, you can only ban their manifestation to suppress them. It's the same thing.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51622619]Oh, of course trying to inform the misled can fail - otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion at all. My point was that forcibly removing an idea is more likely to make those who hold it feel oppressed and thus further entrenched and unreachable. Clearly, information and facts have failed in the case of Trump. But spreading proper ideas does not necessarily come down to listing facts and arguing. Maybe there's something the democratic candidate could have done to reach out to the Republicans. Maybe there's some change that could be made to the system (transferable vote, perhaps?) that could undo or mitigate the divided culture. If you agree that Trump, his ideas and his supporters are spreading harm, then it should be clear to you that forcibly removing these thoughts in any way is not helpful in this situation - America [I]has[/I] to ride this out unless a chance of impeachment shows itself. So there has to be a different solution or solutions that haven't yet been found; the one that the next candidates and lawmakers will have to look for.[/quote] They already have a victim mentality and take it out against the left-wing, they use it to justify their bullshit about how SJWs and PC culture are ruining everything (a gross exaggeration they use to distract from their faults; "this is why Trump won" stopped being a legitimate argument a long time ago), and the ones who unironically support Trump are not going to be won over by reason. We're talking about people who make up excuses for a man who brags about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it-- "it's just locker room talk", "he's a guy and all guys talk this way", etc. These same people make up excuses for him when it's highlighted that he went back on virtually all of his promises and slogans for his supporters-- "drain the swamp" became "pack the swamp full of personal loyalists, Washington insiders, businessmen and oil tycoons who have nothing in common with the average American and don't have the country's best interests at heart", "build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it" became "it's actually just going to be a glorified fence", etc. What reason do you think they have exactly? They're detached from reality. When it isn't convenient for their beliefs, they either ignore it entirely or just invent rationalized excuses for it. Also, "reach out" how? Again, these people were entrenched in their views from the beginning. That's why they consistently make up the excuses that they do for Trump even now after he's gone back on so many of his promises to them (if they don't just ignore this altogether). How are you going to fix our political polarization with a transferable vote system? The issue is that we have to change the beliefs of entire groups of people in this country about topics such as economics, human rights/civil rights, climate change and science, religion, multiculturalism, etc. It's going to take more than changing how we vote to fix all of that (although we should abolish the Electoral College). Impeachment also isn't going to solve our problems here; if we get rid of Trump, then we're stuck with Pence-- and he's the wet dream of the American right-wing: super religious, wants to destroy the barriers between church and state to enforce Christian moralism on us (he's also a proponent of that "intelligent design" bullshit), hates the LGBT community and isn't ashamed about publicly stating that he wants to restrict their rights, opposes the EPA and thinks that climate change is a hoax, wants to defund Planned Parenthood, opposes the legalization of abortion, is a big supporter of Right-To-Work laws... in other words, he's an all-round piece of shit. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51622619]I'm not sure I agree with this. Admittedly, I don't know enough about WWII to speak with confidence, but if Hitler, the holocaust and WWII hadn't happened, there could easily have been something else that took its place, and something would have happened eventually down the line due to the lessons that weren't learned. [I](I do realize that humanity has a tendency to never learn, though)[/I] In any case, Hitler is quite an extreme example, and I do agree that freedom of speech shouldn't allow absolutely everything. I don't disagree that hate speech and obvious incitement to violence should be dealt with.[/quote] What would've taken its place then? Anton Drexler and the original National Socialist Party? Maybe Gregor Strasser in the aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch (assuming Hitler had been executed for treason, as he should've been) and his brand of National Socialism (heavy on the socialism part)? There's been plenty of alternate history speculation about these outcomes over the years by historians and fiction writers alike. Having said that, none of these people were as influential and successful as Adolf Hitler was. Hitler was the embodiment of Nazism; without him, the movement would've fallen apart. Maybe there would've been further issues with the Communists, but the more likely explanation is that nothing would've happened, the republic would've stabilized on its own at some point after the Great Depression (which is what allowed the Nazis to gain some measure of popularity later on), and that would've been the end of them. Maybe there would've been some kind of right-wing resurgence like what happened with the Kapp Putsch in 1920. Who knows? What's known for sure is that Hitler would not've been a factor, and the Nazis would've suffered severely from his loss and the end of his cult of personality. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51622619]You seem to be under the impression that by "countering with proper information" I meant call them out on Reddit; I meant that in a much broader way, such as, in Trump's case: fixing the voting system, fixing the Democratic party, presenting a good candidate, finding out what legitimate issues have caused crazy people to be crazy and solving those issues, or short-term at least appealing to some of their concerns, and also the things you mentioned about leadership. It has become abundantly clear that linking to a fact-check website isn't going to cut it.[/quote] Fixing our voting/election system, yes. Redesigning the Democratic Party, yes. Fielding good Democratic candidates and working on newer and harder leadership strategies, yes. But as far as asking these people what "legitimate issues" they have which have caused them to be crazy, you're going to be at a loss. I'm speaking here about the people who support Trump and the Republicans unironically. The problem is with the people themselves. The ones who think that everything is a conspiracy against them, who dislike people who are different from them, who don't understand scientific facts and economics, who don't want to listen to people who actually know better than they do and who are trying to teach them... they're their own worst enemy, like I said before. Their thinking is just wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion, they are objectively stupid. Climate change is not a hoax by scientists and national governments around the globe to further some clandestine NWO, creationism is not real and is not a valid thing to teach to kids in a science class (evolution is), Right-To-Work laws are not good for the United States and your average American (they destroy the ability of unions to act as a negotiation platform and to protect worker's rights), the Muslim-American community is not made up of terrorists who need to be added to some sort of national database/watchlist automatically, Hispanic immigrants are not bringing rampant criminal activity into this country, Obama is not a foreigner born outside of American soil, and Trump is not going to bring our country the prosperity, intelligence, and other benefits he and his supporters claim. I think one of the primary things we also need to focus on is our educational system. If we can start changing the mindset and the demographics of the youth in this country, then it's in the bag for us. The future will be secure, since they're the ones who will be inheriting it from us eventually. We have to teach them not to be such colossal fuckups. This is going to be hard, especially since our educational system is currently terrible (you should look up our performance statistics sometime), but it's one way to guarantee at least some degree of progress. The parents/older generations might be set in their views, but there's hope for the kids. They're malleable. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51622619]Anyway, I think we more or less agree: when I first posted I was coming at this exclusively with idea of things like Nazi symbolism, Mein Kampf and holocaust denial being illegal. Those, I don't agree should be illegal, since that would validate them as something potentially convincing, which in turn I think would justify someone for going [I]"Wait, what are they trying to hide?"[/I] because of it. I agree that hate speech and inciting violence is different.[/QUOTE] With regards to Mein Kampf and Nazi symbolism, I don't see any reason why they should be illegal either-- at least not to the extreme level that Germany takes matters (to where you can't even show swastikas or Hitler's face in video games, for example). Holocaust denial should be judged on an individual case-by-case level; there's a difference between jokes and genuine questioning versus full-blown denial from the likes of people like Ernst Zündel and Jürgen Graf, organizations masquerading as being legitimate like the Institute for Historical Review, and political parties. Neo-Nazism as a political ideology is entirely fair game to be banned/suppressed, especially here in Western democracies where it stands as an enemy to everything that democracy here is supposed to represent: common governance rather than dictatorship or oligarchy, multiculturalism instead of ethnic/racial supremacism, justice rather than this culture of violence that's promoted again and again, etc. Otherwise, yes, I think we're more in agreement than disagreement here. [editline]4 January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51622949]You pretend that you have an argument, yet it's all based on your personal opinion, and presented in such a high-horse, patronizing manner that it's hard to take seriously. I have a much easier time agreeing with Sherow.[/QUOTE] This is not a rebuttal. Like the claim that "all of it is based on personal opinion", that's not true either. I can cite statistics for the number of Americans who believe in the outlandish things I listed off (about Obama, climate change, creationism, Trump, etc.), facts about Trump's and Pence's stated platforms and beliefs about the topics I mentioned in relation to them, the phenomena in social psychology that explain why people behave in the unreasonable way that they tend to when it comes to politics, historical sources concerning my statements about Hitler and the Nazi Party...

[QUOTE=Govna;51623896]Also, "reach out" how?[/QUOTE] Yes, exactly. Answer that question and you can start solving these issues. A transferable vote could be one step on the way, as it would immediately make voting third party viable. [QUOTE=Govna;51623896]What would've taken its place then?[/QUOTE] I don't know. It's obvious to me that the world would be a far, far different place had it not happened. I feel that, even with humanity's tendency to repeat mistakes, some things (like 9/11, WWII, the Cold War) affect us on a psychological level that I don't think can be imagined since it's impossible to see how it would have turned out otherwise. I didn't mean someone would [I]immediately[/I] take his place. I mean without the 'lessons' learned, maybe something equally disastrous would have a higher chance of happening later; perhaps the alternate reality's version of Vasili Arkhipov in a similar situation wouldn't have had that small bit of sense that he did in ours to prevent a nuclear war. Like you said, who knows? [QUOTE=Govna;51623896]But as far as asking these people what "legitimate issues" they have which have caused them to be crazy, you're going to be at a loss. I'm speaking here about the people who support Trump and the Republicans unironically. The problem is with the people themselves.[/QUOTE] This makes me want to say, [I]"this is why Trump won the election"[/I]. The fact that they appear crazy to you does not mean they are absolutely crazy. People don't go crazy and evil on their own. Not being able to see the cause or the solution does not mean it doesn't exist. Yes, we are at a loss, but the way to solve issues like this is to [I]find the solution[/I], not to get rid of the problematic people. We [I]do know[/I] though, that many of Trump's supporters feel that they are being unjustly labeled as sexist and racist and crazy or stupid, which leads them to further animosity toward the left. If you want to say they're stupid, then maybe you're right. But that's an unhelpful response to something that could instead be used as a clue to look for a way to move forward. [QUOTE=Govna;51623896]I think one of the primary things we also need to focus on is our educational system. If we can start changing the mindset and the demographics of the youth in this country, then it's in the bag for us. The future will be secure, since they're the ones who will be inheriting it from us eventually. We have to teach them not to be such colossal fuckups. This is going to be hard, especially since our educational system is currently terrible (you should look up our performance statistics sometime), but it's one way to guarantee at least some degree of progress. The parents/older generations might be set in their views, but there's hope for the kids. They're malleable.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. [QUOTE=Govna;51623896]Holocaust denial should be judged on an individual case-by-case level; there's a difference between jokes and genuine questioning versus full-blown denial from the likes of people like Ernst Zündel and Jürgen Graf, organizations masquerading as being legitimate like the Institute for Historical Review, and political parties. Neo-Nazism as a political ideology is entirely fair game to be banned/suppressed, especially here in Western democracies where it stands as an enemy to everything that democracy here is supposed to represent: common governance rather than dictatorship or oligarchy, multiculturalism instead of ethnic/racial supremacism, justice rather than this culture of violence that's promoted again and again, etc.[/QUOTE] Banning an ideology is oppression, and a statement that you've given up. If they're hurting someone, or inciting violence, deal with it yes. But if they just have an offensive ideology, banning it will empower and inspire them and show everyone else that you apparently can't stop them legitimately so maybe they have some point that you don't want anyone to see. [QUOTE=Govna;51623896]I can cite statistics for the number of Americans who believe in the outlandish things I listed off (about Obama, climate change, creationism, Trump, etc.), facts about Trump's and Pence's stated platforms and beliefs about the topics I mentioned in relation to them,[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone has actually called any of that into question, I have to say it actually feels like you're arguing with me like I'm a Trump supporter with how you seemingly list every bad thing Trump and his supporters have done from off your head. Those are things I agree with, and I agree that you have reason to be angry about them, too. While [I]legitimate[/I], I just don't think anger is a [I]helpful[/I] response.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51623358]Well firstly, it's equally wrong to do it there for the same reasons. And i'm not saying that society can do no wrong, simply that to ban presumed bad ideas is to assume that people don't know the difference between good and bad, and that they will find self serving or outright evil principals appealing at the expense of others without contention. And that is simply not true, and a very bleak view to have. [/QUOTE] "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." [QUOTE]No, not all people, just enough people. And that's why it's predicated on the assumption of a malevolent/chaotic/un-benign nature of reality, because it assumes that the better ideas and the better argument are under great threat of losing to horrible ideas. Or that those horrible ideas may work better than good, constructive and healthy ideas. That's why it implies an evil/tragic state of being. And funnily enough, horrible ideas like communism only ever "win" when banned and instated by force, because they could never take over by natural progression in a healthy society. It estranges those that have those ideas and isolates them from criticisms that would keep them in line. And it only ferments the groups and drives them to extremist behaviours. [/QUOTE]So if I understand you correctly you're basically arguing that the good will alway shine through, which is a common argument brought up in the free speech debate but it's invalid nonetheless. Look at the US and its racism problem. I'm not saying that by banning racist slurs you'll completely eradicate racism, but it gives victims legal ways to defend their dignity. And dignity should never be up for debate. There's a good article which kinda sums up my ideals: [url]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/the-harm-in-free-speech/?_r=0[/url] [QUOTE]Waldron is especially concerned with the harm done by hate speech to the dignity of those who are its object. He is careful to distinguish “dignity harms” from the hurt feelings one might experience in the face of speech that offends. Offense can be given by almost any speech act — in particular circumstances one might offend by saying “hello” — and Waldron agrees with those who say that regulating offensive speech is a bad and unworkable idea. [B] But harms to dignity, he contends, involve more than the giving of offense. They involve undermining a public good, which he identifies as the “implicit assurance” extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed, even by his polemical opponents, as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society. It is the assurance — not given explicitly at the beginning of each day but built into the community’s mode of self-presentation — that he belongs, that he is the undoubted bearer of a dignity he doesn’t have to struggle for.[/B] Waldron’s thesis is that hate speech assaults that dignity by taking away that assurance. The very point of hate speech, he says, “is to negate the implicit assurance that a society offers to the members of vulnerable groups — that they are accepted … as a matter of course, along with everyone else.” Purveyors of hate “aim to undermine this assurance, call it in question, and taint it with visible expressions of hatred, exclusion and contempt.” “Visible” is the key word. It is the visibility of leaflets, signs and pamphlets asserting that the group you belong to is un-American, unworthy of respect, and should go back where it came from that does the damage, even if you, as an individual, are not a specific target. “In its published, posted or pasted-up form, hate speech can become a world-defining activity, and those who promulgate it know very well — this is part of their intention — that the visible world they create is a much harder world for the targets of their hatred to live in.”[/QUOTE]

Why are the feelings and subjective dignity of any given person sacrosanct above the ability to express, criticize, improve or discard ideas in a fair, honest and unbiased way? [QUOTE=uber.;51626471] So if I understand you correctly you're basically arguing that the good will alway shine through, which is a common argument brought up in the free speech debate but it's invalid nonetheless. Look at the US and its racism problem. I'm not saying that by banning racist slurs you'll completely eradicate racism, but it gives victims legal ways to defend their dignity.[/QUOTE] So firstly, why is the argument wrong? You've produced nothing to substantiate this. Secondly, people [I]should[/I] be able to express racist ideas so we can laugh at them and dissuade those ideas from taking hold in the dark. Also i must ask you to define what your idea of 'dignity' means. Because i do not consider one's self esteem to be the highest virtue/quality/state to be served above all else. A good society should ensure a high standard of life for all it's individuals, certainly, but not if a minority's (and i mean that in the sheer voulume sense, before anyone says anything) interests come at the expense of the majority. Because that's a form of Oligarchy. Moreover, i absolutely refuse the idea that self esteem and respect is a fundamental expectation/right for all people. Those are both things that must be [I]earned.[/I] And self esteem in abesnse of any redeeming values or self esteem based on assumptions that don't reflect reality is called narcissism. And that's a one way trip to pathology. And i appreciate the intent in saying that banning racist ideas will make the lives of those presumably harmed by them better, however this is a self contradicting goal by your own metric. Because i think what you mean by "dignity" is actually "fundamental level of respect for the individual", which is affirmed in that article you linked. [QUOTE]But harms to dignity, he contends, involve more than the giving of offense. They involve undermining a public good, which he identifies as the “implicit assurance” extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed, even by his polemical opponents, as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society[/QUOTE] And what greater respect for the individual is there than everyone playing by the exact same rules? No favors, no biases, no caste system bullshit, a flat and even application of well constructed rules is the best way to achieve a healthy society. Because crime, hatred and other unpleasnt things always manifest out of a sense of unjustness. As an example, high crime areas don't exist in areas of poverty. They exist only in areas of [I]relative[/I] poverty. Where the people look over at ivory towers from slums and see that the only way for them to get ahead in the world is to break the social contract through crime and unlawful/non-conscientious acts. So you ban any expression of racist ideas. Ok. Now everyone who holds those views feels estranged and unjustly silenced. Not through a reasonable silencing through public rejection of their ideas, but through an authority figure saying "no, you may not believe these things." No matter how well reasoned the explanation is, they will feel unjustly rejected. And they will come to resent anything or anyone that they feel represents the figures that did them wrong. And an even greater resentment for those they already were prejudiced against. Because from their perspective, the state has stepped in and given the groups they hate a special and peculiar protection not granted to anyone else, furthering the sense of unjust treatment. They will then recede from society, and those that hold those views with collect in secret to discuss them, as they can't talk about those ideas with anyone else in society. And what do you call someone you can't talk to? An enemy. So with the goal of improving relationships between peoples and uplifting those that are seen to be illbegotten, you've created a set of people who feel unjustly persecuted and instilled a sense of resentment for society and the state that justify their views. And where once they had a belief set in either ignorance, observatoin or subjective interpertation is now set in that resentment for the state/society. That's why these things turn into the Nazi state or the Soviet Union. You wanna talk about the road to hell? There it is. So let's explore the alternitive of letting those ideas fail on their values. Let's take the same original starting conditions of a minor racism problem, but not ban it. Those that hold those views will be criticized when they openly express them in "normal" company. They may fight, they may rattle sabers and become more hateful, sure. But it's more likely that they'll be deterred and either see reason and change their views, presuming that their ideas are genuinely wrong, or simply keep to themselves and stop spreading them. But there's a large difference beyond that. For they no longer feel [I]unjustly[/I] silenced. They had their chance to express their views and test their ideas against others and they failed. They weren't told no and forbade to try their case, they tried and failed on the merit of their views. Therefore the only resentment they could hold would be pathological and therefore unsustainable and unpopular. The problem is self correcting and ensures only the best ideas surface at the top. And even if that wasn't the case, free speech is more than the right to say whatever you want. It's the device which addresses issues in society and enables us to fix them effectively. And if you do anything to erode that, a people's ability to react to problems quickly, effectively and [I]honsetly[/I] is harmed. And there is no greater value to protect than that.

I was about to write a wall of text but since I can't be arsed here's the short version of it. Also my last words on this because this already has been discussed to death many times. a) The whole "If you ban it they just do it in the dark and only talk to like-minded people so they won't change their mind" schtick is wrong. Most people already tend to do that, they're called "bubbles". b) You should not have to "earn" the right not to be called a nigger. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed it to say it generally, but it shouldn't be allowed to be used in a way to seriously insult people based on their skin color. Before you go "Oh, but nobody can judge-"... Yes, Judges can. c) "So you ban any expression of racist ideas. Ok. Now everyone who holds those views feels estranged and unjustly silenced. Not through a reasonable silencing through public rejection of their ideas, but through an authority figure saying "no, you may not believe these things."" So basically like any other law works. And laws are not "authority figures". d) Stop talking about how Nazi Germany started, holy shit. They antagonised jews all the fucking time and they didn't get traction because people banned antisemitism, but because the party and later government encouraged it. [B]There was no significant backlash for them at the time.[/B] e) "And even if that wasn't the case, free speech is more than the right to say whatever you want. It's the device which addresses issues in society and enables us to fix them effectively. And if you do anything to erode that, a people's ability to react to problems quickly, effectively and honsetly is harmed. And there is no greater value to protect than that. " Name one time this was made impossible in Germany because we don't have absolute freedom of speech. You can't, because it didn't happen even once.

You've yet to give a single reason why any of that should be substantiated by law and not left for people to sort out naturally. Give me a model to back your ideas. If you can't, it's utterly unfounded. To say "this [I]should [/I]be how it is" without backing it up with a real world examples or any evidence whatosever to support your ideas is sophistry. Stop it.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51631257]You've yet to give a single reason why any of that should be substantiated by law and not left for people to sort out naturally. Give me a model to back your ideas. If you can't, it's utterly unfounded. To say "this [I]should [/I]be how it is" without backing it up with a real world examples or any evidence whatosever to support your ideas is sophistry. Stop it.[/QUOTE] Don't use big words if you don't know their meaning. Sophistry is the art of making fallacious arguments seems stronger than your adversary's, and presupposes eristic, the idea that the truth is secondary and the only important thing is winning the argument. He clearly thinks what he's saying is the truth, while you seem to more interested in making everyone think you're the level-headed political philosopher who continously goes on about [I]models[/I] and [I]foundness[/I]. You ignored his very cogent rebuttals and then said that he didn't offer any counterpoint or "models" to your internetian Mill/Habermas drivel of turbo [I]let's allow human sacrifices so that we can laugh it and see how stupid it is.[/I] If anyone's being a sophist, it's you. You're making gigantic pindaric flights in your arguments: do we need actual neo-nazi present in our society to see that nazism is bad? Crime stems from the idea of unjustness? You just need to laugh at racists and they'll either stop being racist or stop proselytizing racism? This is just a fantasy of the highest order mixed with some very bold claims about how society, the human psyche and political systems work that are completely unsubstantied and have no support whatsoever.

[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;51631561']You just need to laugh at racists and they'll either stop being racist or stop proselytizing racism?[/QUOTE] There's a very large grey area of things you can do between completely accepting something, and removing it by force. Ideally you want to [I]prevent[/I] bad things from happening, rather than reacting to it with destruction. Sometimes the latter becomes necessary, such as when [I]direct harm[/I] is involved; we have to intervene to remove the harm. But when [I]malicious ideas[/I] are being spread? I'd say that's when you sit down and figure out what's causing it, rather than just shoving them under a rug. If you use set the bar for when to use force lower than when direct harm gets involved, you set the stage for tyranny. Because at that point, you're making subjective decisions about which thoughts are okay, and which ones aren't.

Malicious ideas is a hilarious euphemism for hate speech, which can actually cause direct harm.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.