There's a definition problem here. We could use "no one is talking about removing the content" as a rubric to determine whether content is truly outside of mainstream thought for example.
Pointing out that there's diversity among mainstream thought is not at all the same as tolerating dissent.
What's prohibited is targeting people with speech who do not wish to participate (or who cannot, statutorily). Plenty of adults freely choose to engage in abusive relationships with one another and of course they are free to do so provided the other party is a willing participant.
The same is true of non-abusive language. Consider a simple romantic overture.
The lines are drawn around consent. Not content.
In the past if there was one person more capable of organizing hatred they'd have a smaller impact. Before newspapers it was just in a town. Then you had newspapers (like those in the south accusing blacks of rape and pushing lynching). Then later it was radio and Father Coughlin. Then TV and now the internet.
Still the challenge remains how does anyone decide what's beyond the acceptable. I'm terrified that after Trump there will be a series of more successful destructive manipulators. I don't see why that wouldn't happen.
The reason why this matters even more is the us system where a single vote in a state pushes all those electoral votes together, making it much much more powerful to focus energy on the small misleading stuff. The US has a structural electoral system that makes it matter so much more. Otherwise it would be for a smaller election. I think with time the majority of people will build up 'intellectual armor' against accepting lies. But it's impactful enough now that it's the potential end of america.
NO U.
That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do you. People can believe horrible things and think themselves good people, just wait 30 years and you will be one of them. That your views happen to be ascendant doesn't mean we should ban everyone who isn't.
How many people have you ever met, or even heard of directly, that claim the Holocaust never happened? I can honestly say I couldn't name a single one, not even in places like the USA where they'd be able to make such speech under the First Amendment (not on Facebook). I've only ever heard about such people indirectly, via what censors claim about them.
Now how many people do you see who throw around the term "Nazi" like it's a schoolyard insult? That happens every day. I see people being compared to Nazis all the time, right here on HN which claims to have strong moderation.
The likelihood of this sort of censorship being applied to people who literally deny the Holocaust is tiny. Facebook have spent 2020 routinely censoring scientists who don't agree with the WHO, even though the WHO changes its mind every five minutes. Many of the people in high places in these companies seem to believe any disagreement with authority is worthy of censorship. They are not free speech absolutists who make an exception for truly dire cases.
So when are we banning everyone who says only 6 million people died in the holocaust?
<<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>>
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literat...
Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.
> <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>>
> Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.
That may depend on whether you are asking whether it is okay to say, literally, "$GROUP is described as $X", or if you are actually asking if it is permitted to say "$GROUP is $X".
It singles out an individual to the group as being full or hate and bile, censoring would not disappear the person, it would only force them to be more convincing and manipulative.
It would trigger a backlash in which would be a convincing and Thorough retort of the viewpoint, giving good immunity to lurkers in their lives after that should they come across this viewpoint again.
It would ensure that a constant evaluation of what is true within society. Without this we really don't know what is true.
open discourse has its problems, but its literally our only vehicle from bad ideas to good ideas.
Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?
Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.
Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.
I think that "disagree" isn't exactly the correct description of someone's stance vis-a-vis hate speech, particularly that which is targeted at them.
It has been noted that "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact". For what it's worth, tolerance isn't a suicide pact either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.
This is deeply dishonest by you. We are not talking about removing peoples right to use a platform because they are out of the mainstream and we disagree with them. That is NOT the reason. There is plenty of non-mainstream opinion around. There is plenty of things that a vast majority find disagreeable that no one is talking about removing.