Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So the logical conclusion to that suggestion is that you would have no problem with a gang of fascist far right skinheads invading a Socialist Workers Network gathering and inflicting "crippling violence'.

Does your "logic" suggest that it's OK for criminals to imprison police, judges and prison officers?

Why does it suggest to you that I think it is OK for Nazis to attack decent people when I said the exact opposite?

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Does your "logic" suggest that it's OK for criminals to imprison police, judges and prison officers?

Why does it suggest to you that I think it is OK for Nazis to attack decent people when I said the exact opposite?

My understanding is that you think it is okay to inflict 'crippling violence' on people who are lawfully speaking. Hence my logical conclusion. Unless we must be bound by what you think is okay and not okay irrespective of law.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Unless we must be bound by what you think is okay and not okay irrespective of law.

I never said it was legal, just desirable. No-one is "bound" by what decent people think is OK, but they'd better be ready to fight or run if they advocate Nazism.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I never said it was legal, just desirable. No-one is "bound" by what decent people think is OK, but they'd better be ready to fight or run if they advocate Nazism.

Okay. That's crystal clear. No point us discussing this any further.

DickSwiveller

B0jangles wrote: »

If someone is using a public platform to spread the idea that some human beings are inferior to others because of their gender, their skin colour, their religion, their sexuality, (or any of the other justifications they come up with), then they using that platform to spread hatred and intolerance.

If such people gain widespread support, then atrocities like the holocaust are their natural conclusion.

That you feel more comfortable defending the rights of such people to speak than the rights of those they hate to live safely tells me that you are pretty certain you'll never be their target of their hate.

That's a confidence that a lot of people don't get to experience.

I notice you didn't address both of my points.

B0jangles

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I notice you didn't address both of my points.

I'm sorry, I though my answer was fairly obvious?

You draw the line at speakers who use the platform to talk about the inferiority of other people based on the kind of characteristics I mentioned?

The arbiters would be the owners/administrators of the platform in question. Those arbiters are then themselves open and answerable to the criticism of the people who gave them that power.

20Cent

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

You are concerned about the audience so you turn you debate and reasoning to them fairly logical. I am never going to agree with an ideologue be he a nazi or a communist. I don't focus my debate and reasoning against them but on observers and others, saying no these ideologies killed tens of millions and over a hundred million people respectively, here are the reasons you should not support them then list x y z.

Also you keep bring up the Nazi example but if we were being consistent we would have to also ban radical socialist/communists plus others like radical republicans in the Irish context ect.

I agree with none of the above but a I still allow them to speak I trust myself and people that vast majority of whom are not only educated but also have a third level (not that its need) education to come to and reach a reasonable conclusion. To think otherwise is to think you should be making decision for people, if you believe that then you are in many ways more a Communist or Nazi to use your preferred group then you think or realise.

Bojangles reply above answers this better than I could.

DickSwiveller

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm sorry, I though my answer was fairly obvious?

You draw the line at speakers who use the platform to talk about the inferiority of other people based on the kind of characteristics I mentioned?

The arbiters would be the owners/administrators of the platform in question. Those arbiters are then themselves open and answerable to the criticism of the people who gave them that power.

You don't think your line is a tad broad?

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

That you feel more comfortable defending the rights of such people to speak than the rights of those they hate to live safely tells me that you are pretty certain you'll never be their target of their hate.

That's a confidence that a lot of people don't get to experience.

Pretty sure I would be a target of theirs mainly because I have been told so. Yet I still argue in favour of free speech.

Can I also ask the question you are using nazism thats fine. But being consistent should we also ban people from advocating communism or radical socialism given the fact 100 million people were murdered in 100 years and they believe in the liquidation of political enemies i.e anyone not totally in line with their beliefs. Just wondering because people seem to say very little about that extremism which makes it hard from me to take them seriously when they advocate banning other extremism, also given the fact your far more likely to find some one advocating communism then nazism yet you dont have posters getting into a frenzy over it online. If that is the case then who is in charge of banning political thought and opinions, where is the line drawn and how do you prevent concept creep (which is already a serious issue)?

For clarity purposes I believe all should be able to speak freely communist or Nazi just asking for the logical conclusion should you be acting constantly of your point of view.

Edit: Also again you are it seems from the way I'm reading the post to insulate some kind of relationship between freedom of speech a fundamentally liberal/libertarian value and Nazism/white supremacy, which if the case is a total perversion of historical fact.

B0jangles

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You don't think your line is a tad broad?

It's only an off-the-cuff statement on a mesageboard; if I was tasked with writing legislation on the subject I'd probably be a bit more careful in my wording :pac:

DickSwiveller

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Pretty sure I would be a target of theirs mainly because I have been told so. Yet I still argue in favour of free speech.

Can I also ask the question you are using nazism thats fine. But being consistent should we also ban people from advocating communism or radical socialism given the fact 100 million people were murdered in 100 years and they believe in the liquidation of political enemies i.e anyone not totally in line with their beliefs. Just wondering because people seem to say very little about that extremism which makes it hard from me to take them seriously when they advocate banning other extremism, also given the fact your far more likely to find some one advocating communism then nazism yet you dont have posters getting into a frenzy over it online. If that is the case then who is in charge of banning political thought and opinions, where is the line drawn and how do you prevent concept creep (which is already a serious issue)?

For clarity purposes I believe all should be able to speak freely communist or Nazi just asking for the logical conclusion should you be acting constantly of your point of view.

Oh no, that's different of course. With these people it has nothing to with principle; it's all ideological fanaticism dressed up as compassion.

DickSwiveller

B0jangles wrote: »

It's only an off-the-cuff statement on a mesageboard; if I was tasked with writing legislation on the subject I'd probably be a bit more careful in my wording :pac:

I'd hope so.

Jcarroll07

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You don't think your line is a tad broad?

I think that is the point.

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Pretty sure I would be a target of theirs mainly because I have been told so. Yet I still argue in favour of free speech.

Can I also ask the question you are using nazism thats fine. But being consistent should we also ban people from advocating communism or radical socialism given the fact 100 million people were murdered in 100 years and they believe in the liquidation of political enemies i.e anyone not totally in line with their beliefs. Just wondering because people seem to say very little about that extremism which makes it hard from me to take them seriously when they advocate banning other extremism, also given the fact your far more likely to find some one advocating communism then nazism yet you dont have posters getting into a frenzy over it online. If that is the case then who is in charge of banning political thought and opinions, where is the line drawn and how do you prevent concept creep (which is already a serious issue)?

For clarity purposes I believe all should be able to speak freely communist or Nazi just asking for the logical conclusion should you be acting constantly of your point of view.

If a person is there to talk about the benefits of socialism or communism as a political theory why would the discussion devolve into talking about the innate inferiority of other people?

A core belief in Nazism was the elimination of those perceived as inferior, you can't have one without the other. The same is not true of Socialism or Communism - I'm not saying that atrocities haven't been carried out in the name of Socialism or Communism, but it is actually possible to support Socialist or Communist political theory without wanting to eliminate the lesser races.

The same cannot be said of Nazism.

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

If a person is there to talk about the benefits of socialism or communism as a political theory why would the discussion devolve into talking about the innate inferiority of other people?

A core belief in Nazism was the elimination of those perceived as inferior, you can't have one without the other. The same is not true of Socialism or Communism - I'm not saying that atrocities haven't been carried out in the name of Socialism or Communism, but it is actually possible to support Socialist or Communist political theory without wanting to eliminate the lesser races.

The same cannot be said of Nazism.

Benefits of communism no need for theory 100 years 100 million dead three times that of Nazism if you were to attribute all deaths genocide and those resulting from aggressive war to them.

So this is why I can't take you seriously because you are essential saying, ya I dont like that ideology that kills people but this one that is every bit as bad is justifiable because at least they are not killing people based on ethnicity/race. Which slightly off topic is not true Marx referred to certain ethnic groups in a published paper around 1848 as racial trash called for their elimination not to mention Communist leadership in the USSR specifically targeting and killing certain ethnic groups that were seen as problematic to give but two examples.

A core belief of communism and radical socialism is the elimination of anyone who so much as thinks differently, proven historical fact. Now the question for you is are you going to be consistent, both advocate genocide and mass killing yet you seem fine with giving one a pass, totally inconstant with your previous line of argument.

But at least we see your true colours. Which is useful to know when arguing against you and explains at least in part your ideological opposition to free speech. Again both I would allow all to speak you seem to be motivated by ideology and willing to give one over the other a pass dispute similar approaches to the way in which they treat people.

20Cent

Communism:pay people the same and treat them equally.
Nazism: murder the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc.

Not the same thing.

Red_Wake

B0jangles wrote: »

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Pretty sure I would be a target of theirs mainly because I have been told so. Yet I still argue in favour of free speech.

Can I also ask the question you are using nazism thats fine. But being consistent should we also ban people from advocating communism or radical socialism given the fact 100 million people were murdered in 100 years and they believe in the liquidation of political enemies i.e anyone not totally in line with their beliefs. Just wondering because people seem to say very little about that extremism which makes it hard from me to take them seriously when they advocate banning other extremism, also given the fact your far more likely to find some one advocating communism then nazism yet you dont have posters getting into a frenzy over it online. If that is the case then who is in charge of banning political thought and opinions, where is the line drawn and how do you prevent concept creep (which is already a serious issue)?

For clarity purposes I believe all should be able to speak freely communist or Nazi just asking for the logical conclusion should you be acting constantly of your point of view.

If a person is there to talk about the benefits of socialism or communism as a political theory why would the discussion devolve into talking about the innate inferiority of other people?

A core belief in Nazism was the elimination of those perceived as inferior, you can't have one without the other. The same is not true of Socialism or Communism - I'm not saying that atrocities haven't been carried out in the name of Socialism or Communism, but it is actually possible to support Socialist or Communist political theory without wanting to eliminate the lesser races.

The same cannot be said of Nazism.

Are you divorcing the characteristics and actions of socialist governments from their aspirations a bit here?

Systems should only be judged by their consequences and methods, and with socialism[and fascism as well] there's a consistent methodology of authoritarianism involving suppression and elimination of opposition.

Writing off the flaws synonymous with a given system is dangerous as it invites repetition of past mistakes, which in this cases is state sponsored brutality.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

Communism:pay people the same and treat them equally.
Nazism: murder the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc.

Not the same thing.

Christ, read a history book.

Jcarroll07

20Cent wrote: »

Communism:pay people the same and treat them equally.
Nazism: murder the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc.

Not the same thing.

Not sure if your trolling now, if so not bad but could be better, but if not you seriously need to read a history book. Both engaged in mass murder and the liquidation of "enemies" (anyone and every one) on scale never seen before in human history. Yet you are ok with it provided they use the correct label. This is effetely discrediting your entire argument up until this point. But like I said sunlight is the best disinfectant good to see the true colours however abhorrent they may be. But we now know at least you believe in equality of the bullet guessing that is seen as progressive by some.

20Cent

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Not sure if your trolling now, if so not bad but could be better, but if not you seriously need to read a history book. Both engaged in mass murder and the liquidation of "enemies" (anyone and every one) on scale never seen before in human history. Yet you are ok with it provided they use the correct label. This is effetely discrediting your entire argument up until this point. But like I said sunlight is the best disinfectant good to see the true colours however abhorrent they may be. But we now know at least you believe in equality of the bullet guessing that is seen as progressive by some.

Which race do communists propose to liquidate?

The socialist Scandinavian countries don't have death camps. Who does Jeremy Corbin want killed?

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Benefits of communism no need for theory 100 years 100 million dead three times that of Nazism if you were to attribute all deaths genocide and those resulting from aggressive war to them.

So this is why I can't take you seriously because you are essential saying, ya I dont like that ideology that kills people but this one that is every bit as bad is justifiable because at least they are not killing people based on ethnicity/race. Which slightly off topic is not true Marx referred to certain ethnic groups in a published paper around 1848 as racial trash called for their elimination not to mention Communist leadership in the USSR specifically targeting and killing certain ethnic groups that were seen as problematic to give but two examples.

A core belief of communism and radical socialism is the elimination of anyone who so much as thinks differently, proven historical fact. Now the question for you is are you going to be consistent, both advocate genocide and mass killing yet you seem fine with giving one a pass, totally inconstant with your previous line of argument.

But at least we see your true colours. Which is useful to know when arguing against you and explains at least in part your ideological opposition to free speech. Again both I would allow all to speak you seem to be motivated by ideology and willing to give one over the other a pass dispute similar approaches to the way in which they treat people.

Look, I'm neither a Communist or a Socialist, much as you would like to paint me as one to make it easier to dismiss me.

The Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are on the rise. They are here and they are loud.

If someone starts making speeches in support of racial segregation or elimination based on Marx's racist comments from 1848, I'll happily call for them to be deprived of a platform to spread their hateful views. Until that happens, I'll be here calling for Neo-Nazi's and White Supremacists to be deprived of the oxygen of a public platform to spread their hate.

Jcarroll07

20Cent wrote: »

Which race do communists propose to liquidate?

The socialist Scandinavian countries don't have death camps. Who does Jeremy Corbin want killed?

Why dont you ask the ukrainians or the tartars or another ethnic group persecuted by the USSR. In addition your intellectually founder Marx specifically referred to certain ethnic groups as "racial trash" in a published 1848 article. Pretty explicit they will kill who every they want. Or do you actually think "equality of the bullet" is a good idea.

TBH this sort of deflection, trivialisation or outright denial of the crimes and mass murder, is no different to flat earther or holocaust denial arguments, its pathetic and a prime reason why we should not take argument from people like you that they are acting for the other peoples good when advocating censorship because your just pushing the same policy you have always wanted but trying to mask it with a moral panic of some sort or another. I mean Jesus you are standing over the murder of 100 million people and not even blinking and yet you have the sheer brazenness to criticise others because they are not killing them in the precise way that you would.

Like I said before both disgusting ideologies but I would still not advocate restrictions, like here sun light is the best disinfectant, and is utterly discrediting your entire argument for all to see.

Red_Wake

20Cent wrote: »

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Not sure if your trolling now, if so not bad but could be better, but if not you seriously need to read a history book. Both engaged in mass murder and the liquidation of "enemies" (anyone and every one) on scale never seen before in human history. Yet you are ok with it provided they use the correct label. This is effetely discrediting your entire argument up until this point. But like I said sunlight is the best disinfectant good to see the true colours however abhorrent they may be. But we now know at least you believe in equality of the bullet guessing that is seen as progressive by some.

Which race do communists propose to liquidate?

The socialist Scandinavian countries don't have death camps. Who does Jeremy Corbin want killed?

Scandinavian countries are social democracies, they are not socialist states.

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

Look, I'm neither a Communist or a Socialist, much as you would like to paint me as one to make it easier to dismiss me.

The Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are on the rise. They are here and they are loud.

If someone starts making speeches in support of racial segregation or elimination based on Marx's racist comments from 1848, I'll happily call for them to be deprived of a platform to spread their hateful views. Until that happens, I'll be here calling for Neo-Nazi's and White Supremacists to be deprived of the oxygen of a public platform to spread their hate.

Ok but do you also call for the "deprivation of oxygen" to communist given the crimes they have committed. My main point here is trying to establish the consistency of your argument and its logical conclusion. Are you only targeting one group if so why. Is it ok to advocate the liquidation of people on mass provided you believe in "equality of the bullet". If so your whole argument is discredited if not then you need to make that clear. Also its far easier to find someone arguing for communism then nazism pretty much every week in the debating chamber yet seems to go unnoticed they exist in far larger numbers and advocate a similarly destructive and to put plainly historically evil system. Yet we are fixating on one group.

I want to know do we target all? If so how? Who draws the line? How do you prevent concept creep? Again i say I believe all beliefs no matter how abhorrent should be able to be expressed because as is being seen here sun light and speech is the best disinfectants.

Edit: Plus I am not trying to paint you as anything I am trying to establish if there is intellectually consistency to your argument and i you are willing to admit and accept the logical conclusions of it.

B0jangles

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Ok but do you also call for the "deprivation of oxygen" to communist given the crimes they have committed. My main point here is trying to establish the consistency of your argument and its logical conclusion. Are you only targeting one group if so why. Is it ok to advocate the liquidation of people on mass provided you believe in "equality of the bullet". If so your whole argument is discredited if not then you need to make that clear. Also its far easier to find someone arguing for communism then nazism pretty much every week in the debating chamber yet seems to go unnoticed they exist in far larger numbers and advocate a similarly destructive and to put plainly historically evil system. Yet we are fixating on one group.

I want to know do we target all? If so how? Who draws the line? How do you prevent concept creep? Again i say I believe all beliefs no matter how abhorrent should be able to be expressed because as is being seen here sun light and speech is the best disinfectants.

My personal line would be 'Is this political ideology founded on the importance of eliminating entire races of people Y/N?'

Communism? N
Socialism? N
Nazism? Y

Simple.

20Cent

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Why dont you ask the ukrainians or the tartars or another ethnic group persecuted by the USSR. In addition your intellectually founder Marx specifically referred to certain ethnic groups as "racial trash" in a published 1848 article. Pretty explicit they will kill who every they want. Or do you actually think "equality of the bullet" is a good idea.

TBH this sort of deflection, trivialisation or outright denial of the crimes and mass murder, is no different to flat earther or holocaust denial arguments, its pathetic and a prime reason why we should not take argument from people like you that they are acting for the other peoples good when advocating censorship because your just pushing the same policy you have always wanted but trying to mask it with a moral panic of some sort or another. I mean Jesus you are standing over the murder of 100 million people and not even blinking and yet you have the sheer brazenness to criticise others because they are not killing them in the precise way that you would.

Like I said before both disgusting ideologies but I would still not advocate restrictions, like here sun light is the best disinfectant, and is utterly discrediting your entire argument for all to see.

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

B0jangles

20Cent wrote: »

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

That's a commonality between all of these horrific regimes - centralized power, usually controlled at the top by a single person. If the person at the top isn't already a monster, they'll probably become one.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

It isn't. They carry the hammer and sickle flag of the Soviet Union.

Jcarroll07

B0jangles wrote: »

My personal line would be 'Is this political ideology founded on the importance of eliminating entire races of people Y/N?'

Communism? N
Socialism? N
Nazism? Y

Simple.

So you actually believe in equality of the bullet. If that "progressive" standard is met you can kill anyone you want and or advocate it provided you make it clear it is equal opportunity when it comes to being sent to the gas chamber? Also Communism is a historically proven yes on that account.

So there we have it you can advocate mass killing and genocide provided you have the right label pretexting your actions. Think this whole trend has proved the benefit o free speech, exposes hypocrisy and shines a light on those who claim to be about protecting people yet don't mind or see the need to confront an ideology that has murdered 100 million people.

The main issue which is ultimately problematic when it comes to free speech is that you are totally inconstant, and advocate or give a pass to one system that believe its ok to murder people on mass, yet argue that free speech is dangerous because some might argue in favour of another systems that murder people on mass. Just totally inconstant would only be advocated by some who thinks murder in the form of one is fine but not the other. That why you or people/governments like you should not be trusted when it comes to regulating free speech you would total abuse it.

Jcarroll07

20Cent wrote: »

I'm not a communist or a socialist and not denying any of those things happened. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just saying that it's a false equivalence to say communists protesting outside a Tory conference are the same as Nazi's.

How one murdered 30+ million the other murdered 100+ million. People who advocate either are equally repulsive and despicable human beings.