Milo Yiannopoulos and a group of democratic socialists walk into a bar - Sensationalist Headlines

You can easily use your free speech to drown out a terrible idea; its what has happened in the past. Also it was not 'created to protect what ideas that people hate', it was created so that you could speak out against the government. The entire consitution and its writers were first and foremost concerned with a government becoming tyrannical. Not protecting the idea of genocide. Which is what many free speech advocates(Not all; there are legitimate concerns with say the recent case in the UK), seem to forget about and others who are part of these movements will champion because its very easy to say "Well you're just trying to silence me while I talk about creating an ethnostate, gays should go back in the closet, trans people are mentally ill and we shouldn't feed their delusions". Protecting free speech, is a case by case basis as the Supreme Court itself has clearly stated with things such as fighting words and hate speech. In this case, who should I protect more, minorities and LGBT groups, or a man whose helped peddle long complicated conspiracy theories that if everything were to go their plan they would abolish free speech to begin with. That's the problem with far-right groups, they demand free speech but the moment you counter theirs with your own free speech they start bleating like sheep getting their balls cut off. Its a pathetically blatant moving goal post maneuver that shouldn't work but for some reason does because we're so scared of 'leftists' silencing speech that you end up siding with a group who would love to silence yours once they get power.

Except your free speech can criticize another's free speech. Just like they used their free speech to tell him to go fuck himself. Legit, stop bringing up the first amendment if you don't even understand what the hell it entails. again: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png If people want to voice their opinions that milo is a fucking dickhead and should get bent, that's well within their rights.

How is their right to say "we don't want you here" any different from Milo's right to say all the gross shit he says? You seem to be making the argument that they're "creating an unsafe space/situation" by chanting at him.. Which is exactly what people say about Milo's speeches, that they create an unsafe space and promote potential violence. So you need something to reconcile why Milo's speech is okay but these bar-goers' is not.

I guess if people act like nazis and talk like nazis but don't call themselves nazis, we can't compare them to nazis at all. that is my takeaway from some people in this thread.

I wanna start a career as a nazi and get huge dosh from the Kochs and Mercers while wearing an iron cross, where do I sign up for the "not a nazi" reality distortion serum? Credentials: I'm gay.

I don't think he was talking about Milo getting kicked out of the bar as the post he replied to didn't mention it at all. I mean: Not all ideas are worth hearing, ideas from conspriacy theories and nazi based propaganda are not so much ideas as they are infections that need to be removed. That's pretty anti-free speech. You're coming at him like he's posting in response to the OP.

I'm sorry if I treat neo-nazi propaganda as hate speech?

That's fine, but you also mentioned conspiracy theories, most of which are only crazy or weird and not harmful to anyone in particular. I don't really think anyone should get to decide what ideas should and should not be shared beyond those which advocate physical harm to innocent people (and I would say neo-nazi propaganda falls under that category if it attempts to incite genocide, ethnic cleansing, race wars etc). In any case all I'm really saying is that CodeMaster's post doesn't really seem to have anything to do with what Geel was saying, at least as far as I can tell. Geel didn't say anything about Milo getting kicked out of the bar.

Actually, a lot of the basis of Neo-Nazi propaganda is actually based on conspiracy theories or takes full advantage of them. The idea that conspiracy theories are harmless was maybe back in the 60s and 70s. Now? Its caused the Anti-Vaxxer Movement. The aforementioned zionist conspiracies. Alex Jones is definitely not a harmless source of theories. A book was just published tracing the history, this article will help explain. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/25/605661710/how-americas-white-power-movement-coalesced-after-the-vietnam-war

I dunno, I think people calling the parkland shooter survivors or sandy hook survivors crisis actors seem very harmful to me

So what’s the solution? No more free speech?

I don't mean to say they're all harmless, the ones you mention are most certainly harmful, but it's a stretch to consider every single one equal to those examples. Even still the worst thing you could possibly do to stop people believing conspiracy theories is to try to squash free discussion of them. That just plays into the entire narrative of it being a conspiracy which further entrenches the "theorists".

Or you could do what many social media platforms did, which is remove their ability to freely communicate. You don't stop them from talking to eachother, but you make it that much harder. THe only way to silence these ideas is to apply social pressure, that's why when people in this thread have said to just ignore, they don't realize that ignoring it gives these ideas the room to move and mingle into mainstream discussions. By making sure that these ideas stay taboo, that people who hold them are not welcome, most people will relent. Its not pretty, but its a hell of a lot safer than dragging the Government in with further restrictions or to beat the shit outta people.

Right. I don't think he is an apologist, but I sure as hell can't blame people for reading it that way. Eh, not entirely. The first may be the most important but the other two help address the first. If you make qualified, fair statements that are aimed at those you're talking to, it's not too difficult to convince a lot of people that your stance makes sense. Granted, this only works for stances that are actually defensible. At the end of the day, it's just really important to actually recognize that the people you're talking to have an entirely different viewpoint than you do, so using the exact same language and talking the exact same way as you would among people that already agree with you will never work. Doubly so if they dislike you.

Seems like this is just giving him the attention he desperately wants.

Call them out for the lies that they are I guess

Treating them like the idiots they are until they leave seems to work, as evidenced by the situation with Milo.