"Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots"

Because the only way I can guarantee that "my side" can say whatever it wants, is to guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want.

We have, over many millennia reached a point where tolerance is considered a pretty high virtue - we believe that even if we don't agree with someone, we can live and work side-by-side with them. This is one of the reasons we have stopped trying to kill each other for believing in the wrong religion. This is a good thing.

Note: my first sentence is taken from this clip of the West Wing: https://youtu.be/jmhC9e39aP0?t=181 .

> guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want

The thing is - the Nazis can say whatever they want. No-one is obliged to give them a platform to do that. Which means you actually want to modify it to

> guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want [and be heard]

Which is an entirely different kettle of fish and something we don't have currently (and never will, really, whilst there is an imbalance in money and power.)

I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. I'm saying that maybe we, as a society, shouldn't be so quick to call for bans of certain views, or for using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things. It starts with Nazis, and ends with e.g. people on HN saying that Twitter should censor the president. Which at the very least, shows that there is some kind of slippery slope here.

That said, I'm completely sympathetic to companies who choose to kick people off - I'd probably do the same in their shoes! I'm not saying I have a solution for any of these problems - I'm just saying why I find it difficult to so easily throw out the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

> slippery slope

Oh come ON.

> I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. > using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things

Those two are contradictory.

Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms and those aren't taken away without due process in a just society.

I don't expect to change your mind. It's okay. I'm just really, really pro human rights. I've seen places with massive deprivations of rights. That's not okay.

This is what I wrote about content I allow on my Mastodon server: https://blog.freeradical.zone/welcome-to-my-living-room/

In summary, I totally defend your right to say anything you want, however abhorrent. But if I'm hosting your content - especially when you're not paying me to do so - then I have a right to decide what I'll allow you to say from the platform I own. Your words reflect both on you and me.

I would never support a law like "Nazis can't post stuff on the Internet". I absolutely, 100% support a private organization's right to say "say what you want, but we're not going to help you".

Please explain what human rights have to do with anything in this thread.

As another commenter pointed out, there is no human right to post racist bullshit on a privately run online forum.

I don't think you actually read what I said. Please do so. You will note that I point out that no rights are violated and even provide an alternative. You asked a question, I gave you the answer.

Please, really, read all the words and what I write, not what you think I write. Start from the top post, as all my replies are contextual.

I read what you wrote, and I read the whole thread, and the context.

You brought up human rights in the context of this discussion more than once, what else are we supposed to take from that, than that you think 'human rights' are remotely relevant to the topic of banning nazis from reddit, which they aren't.

What happens when there is no place left for the deplorable? The 'net was meant to work around censorship. Look at what it has become.

Reddit is just another brick in the wall. They can do this. Indeed, perhaps they should. But should we cheer it on? What happens when there are no reasonable means left for the deplorable to speak? What happens when censorship isn't fraught, when empathy is eschewed, when due process is forgotten?

Those are not Reddit's responsibilities. They are our responsibilities, as a society. It is very much a human rights issue, but not Reddit's sole responsibility. Right now, registrars refuse to even host domain names.

I'm not saying these are good people. Quite the opposite, really. Cheer the censorship on, it is your right. I'll stand up for your rights too.

> Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms and those aren't taken away without due process in a just society.

Basically, we're pandering to the mediocre. I don't think we should be doing this.

You are conflating the “least” among us with the “worst” among us. We actually only have sympathy for the former.

I'd argue your use of 'we.'

Have you ever seen what happens when we dehumanize our enemies? Have you seen what happens when we lose empathy?

These people you hate are, without a doubt, able to exhibit some pretty poor behavior. Most of them are children looking to belong, mentally ill, and those who prey on them - also probably mentally ill. Those that are adults were usually reached as children and come from abusive childhoods.

And you have no sympathy. It's okay, you're not required to. It isn't easy to empathize with Nazis. I can understand the unwillingness to try.

How do you empathise with a actual Nazi?

Would you empathise with Reinhardt Heydrich? How?

Well, I empathize with Hitler because he wasn't treated terribly well by those around him who should have been supportive. His dietician reportedly added bone marrow to his soups without his knowledge because she "despised" his vegetarian diet, and his Austrian cook would sometimes add animal broth or fat to his meals, which would then be noticed by Hitler who insisted on clear soups from then on. Despite Hitler disapproving of cosmetics since they contained animal by-products, Eva Braun had a habit of wearing makeup which Hitler would frequently tease her about.

I think that Eva should have made some sacrifices to make Hitler happier, and it's not like she didn't know the reasons behind it because he was very vocal about his reasons as he would give vivid and gruesome descriptions of animal suffering and slaughter at the dinner table to try to dissuade his colleagues from eating meat.

I have gone through similar experiences so I can empathize with Hitler. This doesn't mean I agree with him overall, but that I understand and share his feelings on a specific subject.

If you strip the humanity from individuals, then you are refusing to try to understand them, which means you don't actually learn anything from the atrocities. When there's a shooting, you try to learn the motives and see where the system failed them. If they were exhibiting symptoms of an untreated mental illness, that lets us know that we need to work on providing better care and diagnosis. If we don't learn from history, then we are doomed to repeat it.

How does any of that about Hitler relate to his policy of exterminating Jews? It's not as if his dietician and Eva Braun were nicer to him he would have decided not to implement the final solution. That's ridiculous.

Once people start actively calling for the deaths of others based on race or religion or creed, that's where the fundamentally opposing ideologies are found that are only resolved through violence.

The lesson we should be learning from history is that appeasing racist fascists doesn't improve things, it only emboldens them by validating their beliefs as acceptable.

I'm not advocating stripping humanity from anyone, because I am fully aware that it is humans who create and commit these abhorrent acts. White nationalists, neo-nazis, whatever you want to call them are absolutely human. They are also all total shithouses that pose a threat to stability and harmony in the same way ISIS do.

They either stop what they are doing, or the blood of both sides runs in the streets. They are the only two options when it comes to beliefs like this. The problem is, the blood running in the streets is often what they want, and what we get.

There's a huge difference between appeasement and allowance of basic human rights, dignity, due process, empathy, and even sympathy.

I have had to lay down suppressive fire. I was willing to do so, but I hoped anyone I hit was killed quickly. I hoped they were killed quickly because, well, I didn't want them to suffer. I hoped they were killed because they were trying to kill the other scared young Marines beside me. Killing them was the only logical thing to do.

I'm not some hopeless naive child. I've personally witnessed human depravities that scar people for life, a fate worse than death.

You're scared of the people on Voat? Go there and read for a week. Go there and talk to them. Go there and belittle them, if you want. Have fun with it. Amuse yourself at their expense. Toy with them and make them dance for your amusement.

When you're done with that, maybe try to change some hearts and minds. You'll have gotten that out of your system and realized how powerless and ineffective they really are. They are powerless keyboard warriors spouting memes and racist slogans in an echo chamber full of logical errors and bad science and bastardized religious quotes.

Also, they hate fat people. Reddit kicked out FPH. No, really, those folks seriously hate fat people, but they tend to stick in their sub.

One sub really likes trees. Like, real trees, not pot.

They are humans. Deplorable humans, I agree. They even have a Linux section. As a Linux user, that makes me pretty deplorable too!

Seriously, go visit them. They are horrible people. However, they are mostly scared children. There's no need to be afraid. They are pretty universally powerless and reviled, even at the national political level - really. No need for hyperbole.

If you want, I will even introduce you on voat.co and you can go harass them until you realize they are just a bunch of really, really stupid, inept, confused, probably insane, brainwashed, morons with a poor grasp of reality and basic literacy.

You're more likely to die on your toilet.

> Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms

And people who advocate against that (like Nazis, racists, homophobes, misogynists, transphobic, etc.) don't deserve a voice.

Because it easily becomes "let's prohibit any small minority group the people in power find distasteful or unpopular." The net hates/hated Scientologists, for example, but I'm sure you could find others. Jehovah's Witnesses generally are disliked or have only negative public perception.

1. Don't slippery slope this, we're talking about hate speech. 2. Private company, Reddit can do what they want. 3. Scientologists and Jehovah's witnesses both earned their reputations.

What's the point of liberalism if everyone does not get to express themselves?

> Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into crowds).

Because otherwise you would be shocked to wake up and realize that it is your views that are in a bubble and not theirs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzJfMsbe7Ks

Edit: It must be fun downvoting reality. Here: blast from the past - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/hillary-clinton-s...

Those who did not pay attention to the unpalatable media had conniptions on TV when Podesta came out.

Yeah I'm quite happy in my bubble of civilised, grown-up, non-idiot racists thanks.