If we limit their freedom of speech, one day it might mean we limit our own freedom to respond
This is a good point, and honestly, I think it's way too idealistic to think we can just outright ban people from saying things that are perceived as "offensive". Aside from that, even in the case of someone who wants to verbalize potentially "harmful" thoughts, how can that person ever be exposed for what they are, or even possibly learn to accept a different perspective if they aren't even allowed to speak their own mind? It's just not realistic to think we can reasonably control the speech of others. People obviously don't need to be tolerant of people with harmful viewpoints, but that doesn't mean areas of our ability to interact with one another should be completely censored.
The way I see it, when we begin to put a ban or limit peoples freedom of speech, true freedom has been lost. I say let people say what they … morefeel, and soon others around them will know that and either:
A: Kick the f-ing shit out of them, and they learn not to say hateful, ignorant, or stupid things in public. And who knows, they might learn a thing or 2.
B: Ask they to elaborate on their feelings. Watch them make a fool of themselves. Point out their flawed logic and point of view. Inform them of why they could be wrong. Wish them a polite day and hope they learn from their mistake, or leave them to live in their fantasy world of bull shit.
If we limit their freedom of speech, one day it might mean we limit our own freedom to respond. (Or share our view on things.)
it's worse to keep those sort of things illegal, as it doesn't really remove those theories, just hide them in their own echo chambers. seems to me like just a "shut them down, they'll go away eventually" tactic, which i don't think is particularly effective.
It sure seems like Germany, with its anti-Holocaust denial laws, has been far more effective at quashing Holocaust denial than Japan has been at quashing its own WW2 myths. Or even the American South's white-washing of the Civil War and the Confederacy.
no i do not think such speech should be banned
the ones saying it didn't happen would only make a fool out of themselves, if those who sa… morey it wasn't as bad as reported can actually prove it, then history books should be slightly changed.
it's worse to keep those sort of things illegal, as it doesn't really remove those theories, just hide them in their own echo chambers. seems to me like just a "shut them down, they'll go away eventually" tactic, which i don't think is particularly effective.
seriously, if there is a time to show negationism exactly how the holocaust happened it's now that there's still a bit of proof left, not in a decade when they pop back in, no survivor from ww2 is alive to tell them to fuck off and the war infrastructure has lost its testimony.
besides nowadays pretty much nobody believes in negationism, heck even most neo nazi think it happened, so the validity that law had in the past is pretty much gone.
the thing about neo nazi in japan is that i'm not sure wether they're really nazi simpathizers or if they just like the uniforms.
i don't know much about nanking (or the american civil war) but i kinda doubt it was as bad or famous as the holocaust
as a counter example, in italy there's a law against holocaust negationism (it was strengthened a bit ago iirc) but no law against denying the italian war crimes (foibe, libia, etc) yet i have yet to find anyone denying that things happened, most just don't know because everyone's too busy focusing on just the holocaust (which is kinda reasonable tbh)
then again, no self respecting neo-nazi would stay in italy.
it's worse to keep those sort of things illegal, as it doesn't really remove those theories, just hide them in their own echo chambers. seem… mores to me like just a "shut them down, they'll go away eventually" tactic, which i don't think is particularly effective.
It sure seems like Germany, with its anti-Holocaust denial laws, has been far more effective at quashing Holocaust denial than Japan has been at quashing its own WW2 myths. Or even the American South's white-washing of the Civil War and the Confederacy.
Yes it should be tolerated. I tolerated it for years now. If you dont like it leave. Thats what i do. Unless of course you are in a certain place that has rules against it, like a school or business or something.
How can that person ever be exposed for what they are, or even possibly learn to accept a different perspective if they aren't even allowed to speak their own mind? It's just not realistic to think we can reasonably control the speech of others.
Exactly. To all of this really. We can't control what people think, or say. But we can control ourselves and how we act or react toward them after they make a complete ass of themselves. lol
If we limit their freedom of speech, one day it might mean we limit our own freedom to respond
This is a good point, and honestly, I… more think it's way too idealistic to think we can just outright ban people from saying things that are perceived as "offensive". Aside from that, even in the case of someone who wants to verbalize potentially "harmful" thoughts, how can that person ever be exposed for what they are, or even possibly learn to accept a different perspective if they aren't even allowed to speak their own mind? It's just not realistic to think we can reasonably control the speech of others. People obviously don't need to be tolerant of people with harmful viewpoints, but that doesn't mean areas of our ability to interact with one another should be completely censored.
I'm on the fence about the whole thing, but I think the argument is less about convincing existing racists to change, and more about limiting its spread. The idea is that, in this day and age, if you're a racist, you're probably going to remain a racist no matter what other people say. But maybe if we limit the availability of racist "information", we can limit the amount of young, impressionable people who buy into it. I don't think either approach is inherently wrong. The question for me is whether the government can be trusted. If we let the government ban racist speech, would it lead to them banning stuff I do agree with later? My answer is, "probably not," but I can't deny that every time you allow one thing to be censored, it makes censoring the next thing easier.
If we limit their freedom of speech, one day it might mean we limit our own freedom to respond
This is a good point, and honestly, I… more think it's way too idealistic to think we can just outright ban people from saying things that are perceived as "offensive". Aside from that, even in the case of someone who wants to verbalize potentially "harmful" thoughts, how can that person ever be exposed for what they are, or even possibly learn to accept a different perspective if they aren't even allowed to speak their own mind? It's just not realistic to think we can reasonably control the speech of others. People obviously don't need to be tolerant of people with harmful viewpoints, but that doesn't mean areas of our ability to interact with one another should be completely censored.
I posted on here before, but I felt like saying something. Tolerating something and accepting something is very different. While I think this hateful speech should be tolerated, because of freedom of speech, I don't think it should be accepted.
Comments
This is a good point, and honestly, I think it's way too idealistic to think we can just outright ban people from saying things that are perceived as "offensive". Aside from that, even in the case of someone who wants to verbalize potentially "harmful" thoughts, how can that person ever be exposed for what they are, or even possibly learn to accept a different perspective if they aren't even allowed to speak their own mind? It's just not realistic to think we can reasonably control the speech of others. People obviously don't need to be tolerant of people with harmful viewpoints, but that doesn't mean areas of our ability to interact with one another should be completely censored.
It sure seems like Germany, with its anti-Holocaust denial laws, has been far more effective at quashing Holocaust denial than Japan has been at quashing its own WW2 myths. Or even the American South's white-washing of the Civil War and the Confederacy.
the thing about neo nazi in japan is that i'm not sure wether they're really nazi simpathizers or if they just like the uniforms.
i don't know much about nanking (or the american civil war) but i kinda doubt it was as bad or famous as the holocaust
as a counter example, in italy there's a law against holocaust negationism (it was strengthened a bit ago iirc) but no law against denying the italian war crimes (foibe, libia, etc) yet i have yet to find anyone denying that things happened, most just don't know because everyone's too busy focusing on just the holocaust (which is kinda reasonable tbh)
then again, no self respecting neo-nazi would stay in italy.
(that's german for "next time no italy")
Yes it should be tolerated. I tolerated it for years now. If you dont like it leave. Thats what i do. Unless of course you are in a certain place that has rules against it, like a school or business or something.
Exactly. To all of this really. We can't control what people think, or say. But we can control ourselves and how we act or react toward them after they make a complete ass of themselves. lol
I'm on the fence about the whole thing, but I think the argument is less about convincing existing racists to change, and more about limiting its spread. The idea is that, in this day and age, if you're a racist, you're probably going to remain a racist no matter what other people say. But maybe if we limit the availability of racist "information", we can limit the amount of young, impressionable people who buy into it. I don't think either approach is inherently wrong. The question for me is whether the government can be trusted. If we let the government ban racist speech, would it lead to them banning stuff I do agree with later? My answer is, "probably not," but I can't deny that every time you allow one thing to be censored, it makes censoring the next thing easier.
I posted on here before, but I felt like saying something. Tolerating something and accepting something is very different. While I think this hateful speech should be tolerated, because of freedom of speech, I don't think it should be accepted.