John Williams #fundie

John Williams #fundie patheos.com

I can attempt shut down any number of harmful ideas. It doesn't violate "free speech" as one commentor has repeatedly tried to explain. I am free to shut down the expression of ideas that I deem harmful. People who find my ideas harmful can attempt to shut me down as well. The government has to stay out of it. That is all that free speech means. This whimsical bullshit about free expression is what will lead to racist violence at the hands of a demagogue like Trump.
Lines must be drawn somewhere and I think as our country matures we will be free to admit it. Honestly lines have already been drawn, if an organization wanted to rent out a room to give a conference on how great it is to rape and molest infants we would shut it down. Free speech be dammed.

35 comments

old comment by Skidie

While we`re on the subject, fuck no you can never allow to shut up somebody up by force, whatever his ideas he has a right to them. Now the government authorising and giving the maniac a platform to affect masses is wrong, just like the rest of the farce about it supposed to be representing neutral viewpoint. I do not believe it should, since we`re already at the point where it will never represent or is even prepared to promote/give platform to just any view. In this case the local official should simply look at the speech beforehand and deny it as promoting hate and violence. Let me remind you, your right to free speech is yours alone but as a representant of a government or say information company you also should posses some universal duties and standards to consider.

old comment by niv

@Dyz
That's assuming the reactive violence will be worse and the response to that will be even worse etc. etc.

tell me how can you assume it won't, based on historical case.
you're resorting to violence. the only way they won't retaliate and keep the circle going, is if you prove you are more violent than them, and they will afraid from you. if you feed their fears they will only be more open to the messages of hatred by the demagogues that will promise to bring order back and keep them safe.
it happened time after time. those methods only empower the radicals who thrive at times of chaos and insecurity.

The other option is that the people that are hyped up to go on a pogrom are discouraged because they are confronted with a possibly equally violent resistance and thus the pogrom is prevented.

you aren't suggesting resistance, you suggesting pre-emptive strike.
pogroms prevented when the local put defense or when the government come after the offenders. not when the victims vandalize the villages of their attackers.

Name something explicit that really works against racists and religiots. I think we all want to know how you convert them with words.
first, your methods aren't going to bring converts. they just draw them furthers to their shells and echo chambers where they see themselves as the true victims. they will claim that you proved their worst fears and become convinced that the only thing that can save them is Trump and his magic solutions.
not only that, many people even if sympathetic to your goal aren't convinced that "the end justify the means". thus, you will lose the ones you could've convinced peacefully and logically to join your side.
now, for your question my answer include 2 parts:
1)most of the religious or those who hold racist believes can be reasoned with. civilized discussion can do wonders.
many people who are hateful never meet somebody that belong to the group they hate (that they know about). sometimes their first positive experiences with such person can lead to reevaluating their position.
sometimes their hate is only a crutch for their personal failing or hardship in life. working toward improvement of the society and the economy can reduce the appeal of the demagogues.
2) the other group is the fundies we see on this site. I don't think we could convert them.
however, we could fight them legally and politically to limit their influence. we could reach to the moderates and educate the younger generation.
the fundies are losing. their numbers are dwindling and they need to rely on voter suppression or gerrymandering to stay in the game. violence will only fuel them and let them fight longer.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Section 5 of the Public Order Act. It's why there is no UK equivalent of the WBC or Dean Saxton. And considering what happened to the latter of late, even if we had the British equivalents, that legislation is clearly for their own protection; to save the former poor dears from having their tyres slashed. Or the latter having some sense beaten into him with a Cricket bat. 'Owzat!

That anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has been quietly dealt with. Baron Winston of Hammersmith - who takes the Labour whip in the House of Lords - clearly has no need to voice any disapproval; even as an Orthodox Jew himself. Clearly the intelligent sort of chap who considered that bigotry to be beneath him, and rose above it. The furore over that ensured that any who considered such intolerance to have any crediblity were seen to be bigots they are, were whipped into conformity, and they now know their place.

Unjustifiable thinking be damned.

old comment by Dyz

@Nemo
Goebbels did not explicitly call for ethnic cleansing in his speech before the kristallnacht. He said some mean and incorrect things knowing what the result would be.

@Azereaux
"Please put in some effort."
You first. Did he make the statement because he did not LIKE what was said or is there more to it?

@niv
"tell me how can you assume it won't, based on historical case."

When people think of fighting, they tend to think about throwing punches, not about getting punched. If you remind them that they might have to take some punches, they will be less inclined to fight.

If the germans thought there might be a direct push back during the kristallnacht, maybe it would not have happened, or it may have been less severe.

"you aren't suggesting resistance, you suggesting pre-emptive strike."

"first, your methods aren't going to bring converts."

They are not supposed to; they are supposed to prevent people from harming other people. I prefer some pushing and shoving over more severe hate crimes.

"most of the religious or those who hold racist believes can be reasoned with. civilized discussion can do wonders."

old comment by Azereaux

@Dyz

Sure. Whether there is more to it than the OP's likes and dislikes is irrelevant to the argument at hand. The OP dislikes the position for whatever reason (whether personal distaste, moral outrage, or being bored and contrarian that day), and therefore believes the position to be harmful and therefore in need of being shut down. And the view you've expressed adds "by force" to the equation.

How he decided anything was harmful is irrelevant. Going all the way back to my original question that you ignored, who gets to decide what ideas are harmful? Me? You? The OP? The mob? Donald Trump? Bernie Sanders?

Everyone will have a different idea of what ideas are harmful. Should everyone meet every idea they deem harmful with violence or force?

old comment by niv

"When people think of fighting, they tend to think about throwing punches, not about getting punched. If you remind them that they might have to take some punches, they will be less inclined to fight.
when you resort to violence, you put them in the corner and they have no other choice. will you be less inclined to fight if they will strike back?

If the germans thought there might be a direct push back during the kristallnacht, maybe it would not have happened, or it may have been less severe.
funny that you bring the Germans. the communists did use violent tactics which increase the support in the Nazis. are you really believe that the Jewish people could fought the demonization and propaganda by violence? or that a tiny minority could intimidate the violent thugs of the Nazi party that outnumbered and outgunned them, by violent pre-emptive strike?
the international community could've stop the Nazis when they were little, by credible threats of force. the Jewish in Germany? not so much.

If someone shouts 'Fire' in a crowded public space for no reason, and keeps shouting do you start a discussion (or shout 'Water'/'No fire') or do you shut the person up by force and drag them out of the building?
there should be lawful ways to deal with such situations, such as exist in other countries.
vigilantism isn't the answer.
beside, this scenario has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
they are supposed to prevent people from harming other people. I prefer some pushing and shoving over more severe hate crimes.
you stopped nothing. they will just do it later with vengeance for your behavior and newly found self-justifications.
if someone is willing to commit severe hate crimes "pushing and shoving" aren't going to stop him.

Any evidence that this has ever happened? Does anyone know a case where a racist was talked out of beeing a racist? (or a religiot talked out of beeing a religiot?) Do you think the people in the audience are mostly reasonable? Are they planning to meet the people they dispise to see if their bias is correct?
I heard many personal stories of that sort but this is anecdotal evidence.
however, better example will be found in the opinion polls on social issues such as segregation, interracial marriage or same sex marriage. the racist and the homophobes lost power over the years, and in much higher level than explained by natural changes in the population. thus, people can change their mind.

society is progressing and the bigots become more vocal when they lose influence. violence is the weapon of the weak - we can and must do better.

old comment by NoXion

@Nemo

And your alternative is what, exactly?

In the short term, recognition that "free speech" is a chimera, a mirage, so long as wealth and power in society are concentrated in the hands of a few. In the long term, smashing capitalism and class society and replacing them with something more equitable.

Free speech is exactly why any person with access to a computer can have a voice and be heard by millions of people.

Really? How many independent bloggers are there with millions of readers in actuality, rather than just potentially?

Those on the top will always have a disproportionate influence, but that influence isn't always equally disproportionate. If you limit free speech in the name of letting the alleged oppressed masses be heard, it's not their voices you'll get.

I don't want an equality of masters. I want all masters to be cast down and never replaced.

old comment by TimeToTurn

At least you're honest. I wouldn't have half as much of an issue as I do with "SJW" if they openly said "fuck free speech, fuck the US Constitution, this is what we stand for."

Free speech is part of the overall lie of freedom. Since all ideas are not equal in value, it is a fallacy to believe that free speech should apply to all of them, especially when ideas promote violence and oppression.

The pedophile example is right on the mark. Did you know that NAMBLA is allowed to operate a website where they post their views about how awesome child molestation is and whine about how no one likes them? In any sane world, NAMBLA would have no right to free speech, not even in the confines of the internet. Although with NAMBLA, it's a bit more of a case of freedom of association (another "freedom" that we need to rethink), where being a member of NAMBLA would be enough to have your ass thrown in jail.

@NoXion

Exactly. The media is ran by multi-millionaires and billionaires, even the "liberal blogs".

old comment by Lauge

"The government has to stay out of it. That is all that free speech means".

Freedom of speech, like all other freedoms, are limited by our laws. All civilized nations have laws telling you that there are things you are not allowed to say, such as incitements to terrorism or other acts of violence.

"Lines must be drawn somewhere...."

They are drawn. In the laws I mentioned above.

"....if an organization wanted to rent out a room to give a conference on how great it is to rape and molest infants we would shut it down".

Exactly! Because raping and molesting an infant is not only one of the most morally abhorrent acts anyone can commit, it's ILLEGAL!

Is all this perfect? No, it's not. Does it always work as it's supposed to? No, it doesn't. But it's the best thing we have, because the alternative is vigilantism at best, and anarchy at worst.

[deep breath] Thus endeth the rant.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

John Williams #fundie patheos.com

35 comments

Confused?