Comment on Boy, 15, given official warning after saluting as neo-Nazis marched through Ballarat

• muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.” - Karl Popper

  Banning certain kinds of speech doesn’t prevent the thought behind it. The speech will continue, it just won’t be where you can police it.

  source

  • Marsupial@quokk.au ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    And those things are very much not happening. Neo Nazis incidents are increasing in this country, so they’re not being kept in check and rational argument is irrelevant when racism is irrational.

    Also let’s add the rest of your quote in

    But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    source

    • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

      Which is nolonger words and as im sure u would agree with that.

      We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

      That doesnt sound like use it to me that sounds like well let em have their speach but retain the right to supress them via bigger stick deplomacy. What does he mean by supress them? supress the ideology? people are gonna go speach regardless of if the speach is illegal. Or does he mean arrest anyone explicitly calling for violence (thats where i draw the line)? Or does he mean put em all in a train to poland?

      source
  • rainynight65@feddit.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Countering fascism by rational argument and keeping it in check by public opinion has been tried. It hasn’t worked.

    source
  • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Wait a minute, do you mean to tell me that the guy everyone is always smugly quoting in support of broad censorship might have had more nuanced views? Thanks a lot, you just made the world more complicated and pretty much ruined my entire week.

    source