You are saying that people have the right to promote an ideology that promotes genocide.
Yes.
Why don’t you see that defending an ideology based on hate is defending that viewpoint?
Defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as defending their ideology or their viewpoint. This is a big part of the foundational principle of the United States. I realize Substack isn’t the government, and the principles of informed self-government are a lot more complex than “just let everyone say whatever,” but to me it’s an important principle. It’s the same reason the ACLU used to defend Nazis and the KKK and their right to have rallies.
It’s a huge conversation honestly, and the Nazis are such an extreme example that people of good faith can disagree. In real-world space, I agree with you and I agree with the Nazi bar analogy. But in actually strictly-speech environment… Honestly? To cut to the chase, I think being exposed to viewpoints that are wrong is good for people. If every time you see speech that’s evil, you freak the fuck out and demand that someone come and take it away because it can’t be allowed, (a) you’ll deprive others of the opportunity to see the wrong stuff and learn unpleasant truths about the evil that exists around them, and exercise their powers of judgement to determine it’s evil for themselves (b) you’ll get in that habit and start demanding that someone e.g. take Dave Chappelle away because you misunderstood a joke of his. That causes a lot more harm than the Nazis on Substack did.
That’s my opinion. I’m actually trying not to get in an argument with you about it, because you clearly don’t agree with me, and honestly you don’t have to. I’m just laying out what I think.
The ACLU is wrong to defend nazi rallies because tolerating intolerance in the pursuit of tolerance is misguided and just leads to more intolerance. We don’t need nazi rallies for people to be exposed to nazi ideology, we have the holocaust museum and other educational settings where people can learn about that without a bunch of hatemongers publicly displaying threats against other people.
Would you support someone’s right to promote child sexual abuse, as long as it is words? What about direct threats to individuals? Are you cool with someone threatening your life as long as they just used words?
We don’t need nazi rallies for people to be exposed to nazi ideology, we have the holocaust museum and other educational settings where people can learn about that without a bunch of hatemongers publicly displaying threats against other people.
My kids aren’t going to be doing any sex or drugs and alcohol, I kept them in a very strict environment and gave them all the information and kept them away from anything threatening. I’m sure once they go to college they’ll be set on a perfectly good road because I was sure to keep them that way and give them all the education they needed.
Oh wait what is happening
Would you support someone’s right to promote child sexual abuse, as long as it is words? What about direct threats to individuals? Are you cool with someone threatening your life as long as they just used words?
Probably not, in all three cases. The Nazi example is already an extreme borderline case, since they are basically advocating for crimes, but there’s a little bit of a political speech aspect to it and sometimes some vagueness to the overtly violent aspects. To me it pushes it just over the line to where I think yes it should be allowed. To me your examples are well over the line into just being crimes. In some cases Nazi speech is explicitly criminal, in which case, sure, prosecute them for threats of violence or seditious conspiracy or whatever criminal speech, but not just for using the wrong symbology.
Let me ask you this: It sounds like your goal in this is to “win.” Like we have to talk, and you have to educate me on how your viewpoint is right, or prove to me or an audience that your way is the right way and mine is wrong. Do I have that right?
Kids already learn about nazis, drugs, and sex in school. Maybe you don’t see that as a middle ground between nazi rallies and the holocaust museum, but it really is.
So you wouldn’t support someone promoting the things that nazis did, but you do support nazis being able to share their ideology that lead to those things.
You know nazi rallies are threats against groups of people, right?
Let me ask this: Someone might believe that Israel’s right to defend itself extends to bombing hospitals and blocking food aid so people starve to death. Someone else might say hey what you’re describing fits the literal definition of genocide. Both of those ideologies, in my opinion, should be allowed on Substack, even though one of them is openly advocating for the murder of the innocent. Would you disagree with allowing both of them?
I disagree with allowing someone to promote murder. They can discuss whether or not something is murder all day. But when they cross into saying the murder is a good thing and they want it to happen they have crossed a line.
And if they’re not? If they’re simply saying that they support Israel’s actions, without trying to deny the objective reality of what that means but instead just deflecting into excuses about how what they’re doing is justified without going into specifics?
What about someone who starts a Nazi blog but doesn’t use the words “murder” or “genocide,” but deflects into excuses about how what they’re proposing is justified, without going into specifics?
I mean, you can answer or not. I think the point that I was making was already pretty clear; like I say I’m not really trying to argue back and forth with you. I think what I think was already articulated in plenty of detail, and I think I understand where you’re coming from. I’m only responding with this back and forth because you seem like you want to continue the interaction.
Edit: Actually, maybe my point isn’t completely clear. What I’m saying is not anything in particular about Gaza; it is that the rules you’re proposing for who should be allowed to say their viewpoint are not anywhere near as cut-and-dried as they seem. To plenty of people in the world, the current Israel government is more evil than the literal Nazis. Why do you get to say Nazis aren’t allowed, because they’re evil (which, they are), but they’re not allowed to say pro-Israel viewpoints aren’t allowed, because the current Israeli government is evil (which, it is)? In most cases, with some exceptions, it’s better to just let people talk and if they’re wrong or evil then their listeners can decide that for themselves without you needing to be the gatekeeper to decide it for them. In my opinion. IDK why I’m repeating myself; you clearly don’t agree with me on it, which, again, that is fine.
Yes.
Defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as defending their ideology or their viewpoint. This is a big part of the foundational principle of the United States. I realize Substack isn’t the government, and the principles of informed self-government are a lot more complex than “just let everyone say whatever,” but to me it’s an important principle. It’s the same reason the ACLU used to defend Nazis and the KKK and their right to have rallies.
It’s a huge conversation honestly, and the Nazis are such an extreme example that people of good faith can disagree. In real-world space, I agree with you and I agree with the Nazi bar analogy. But in actually strictly-speech environment… Honestly? To cut to the chase, I think being exposed to viewpoints that are wrong is good for people. If every time you see speech that’s evil, you freak the fuck out and demand that someone come and take it away because it can’t be allowed, (a) you’ll deprive others of the opportunity to see the wrong stuff and learn unpleasant truths about the evil that exists around them, and exercise their powers of judgement to determine it’s evil for themselves (b) you’ll get in that habit and start demanding that someone e.g. take Dave Chappelle away because you misunderstood a joke of his. That causes a lot more harm than the Nazis on Substack did.
That’s my opinion. I’m actually trying not to get in an argument with you about it, because you clearly don’t agree with me, and honestly you don’t have to. I’m just laying out what I think.
The ACLU is wrong to defend nazi rallies because tolerating intolerance in the pursuit of tolerance is misguided and just leads to more intolerance. We don’t need nazi rallies for people to be exposed to nazi ideology, we have the holocaust museum and other educational settings where people can learn about that without a bunch of hatemongers publicly displaying threats against other people.
Would you support someone’s right to promote child sexual abuse, as long as it is words? What about direct threats to individuals? Are you cool with someone threatening your life as long as they just used words?
My kids aren’t going to be doing any sex or drugs and alcohol, I kept them in a very strict environment and gave them all the information and kept them away from anything threatening. I’m sure once they go to college they’ll be set on a perfectly good road because I was sure to keep them that way and give them all the education they needed.
Oh wait what is happening
Probably not, in all three cases. The Nazi example is already an extreme borderline case, since they are basically advocating for crimes, but there’s a little bit of a political speech aspect to it and sometimes some vagueness to the overtly violent aspects. To me it pushes it just over the line to where I think yes it should be allowed. To me your examples are well over the line into just being crimes. In some cases Nazi speech is explicitly criminal, in which case, sure, prosecute them for threats of violence or seditious conspiracy or whatever criminal speech, but not just for using the wrong symbology.
Let me ask you this: It sounds like your goal in this is to “win.” Like we have to talk, and you have to educate me on how your viewpoint is right, or prove to me or an audience that your way is the right way and mine is wrong. Do I have that right?
Kids already learn about nazis, drugs, and sex in school. Maybe you don’t see that as a middle ground between nazi rallies and the holocaust museum, but it really is.
So you wouldn’t support someone promoting the things that nazis did, but you do support nazis being able to share their ideology that lead to those things.
You know nazi rallies are threats against groups of people, right?
Let me ask this: Someone might believe that Israel’s right to defend itself extends to bombing hospitals and blocking food aid so people starve to death. Someone else might say hey what you’re describing fits the literal definition of genocide. Both of those ideologies, in my opinion, should be allowed on Substack, even though one of them is openly advocating for the murder of the innocent. Would you disagree with allowing both of them?
I disagree with allowing someone to promote murder. They can discuss whether or not something is murder all day. But when they cross into saying the murder is a good thing and they want it to happen they have crossed a line.
Noted. You didn’t answer my specific question though. Should someone who supports Israel’s current actions in Gaza be allowed on Substack?
If they are advocating for the murder and genocide of Palestinians, they should not be allowed.
And if they’re not? If they’re simply saying that they support Israel’s actions, without trying to deny the objective reality of what that means but instead just deflecting into excuses about how what they’re doing is justified without going into specifics?
What about someone who starts a Nazi blog but doesn’t use the words “murder” or “genocide,” but deflects into excuses about how what they’re proposing is justified, without going into specifics?
I mean, you can answer or not. I think the point that I was making was already pretty clear; like I say I’m not really trying to argue back and forth with you. I think what I think was already articulated in plenty of detail, and I think I understand where you’re coming from. I’m only responding with this back and forth because you seem like you want to continue the interaction.
Edit: Actually, maybe my point isn’t completely clear. What I’m saying is not anything in particular about Gaza; it is that the rules you’re proposing for who should be allowed to say their viewpoint are not anywhere near as cut-and-dried as they seem. To plenty of people in the world, the current Israel government is more evil than the literal Nazis. Why do you get to say Nazis aren’t allowed, because they’re evil (which, they are), but they’re not allowed to say pro-Israel viewpoints aren’t allowed, because the current Israeli government is evil (which, it is)? In most cases, with some exceptions, it’s better to just let people talk and if they’re wrong or evil then their listeners can decide that for themselves without you needing to be the gatekeeper to decide it for them. In my opinion. IDK why I’m repeating myself; you clearly don’t agree with me on it, which, again, that is fine.