Vincent has been a very bad source of information for the COVID pandemic. He has famously been against vaccine boosters, and even declared he didn't think he needed one. Even now as the need for second boosters is clear (and the need for first boosters completely justified and verified) he still says they aren't necessary. This is on top of him downplaying every variant like Omicron and saying they wouldn't be a problem (and then they went on to be huge problems). He should not be platformed IMHO.

Kind of stinks when it's used against you, doesn't it?

The solution to bad ideas is more ideas, not "deplatforming" or whatever mealy-mouthed word is currently being used to make censorship marketable these days.

My question is simple: is there any speech that should not be tolerated here? Yes, or no?

Basically the same rules can be applied, for example a counter attack in defense is a lighter offense than an unprovoked attack.

I think that this does not particularly limit someone's ability to express their opinions, ideas and beliefs.

But here it gets interesting: hate speech wrapped up as "opinions, ideas, and beliefs". At the risk of downvotes (what ev er), I posit that Fox News engages in high level hate speech (not every minute but enough for it to count).

Case in point: Tucker Carlson's "The Great Replacement" agenda. It's thinly veiled white nationalism -- basically arguing that white people are under attack from non-whites. Yes, it gets discussed by him as "what if" and "how come" but it has an agenda that is prepared to be enforced by violence by those who are spooked by it.

I don't have an answer for how to deal with this, but it is in the end hate speech and is not healthy for society as a whole.

There’s speech that doesn’t fit the community’s guidelines in terms of the manner it is expressed, but I don’t believe there are any ideas that should not be tolerated here.

Do you still stand by your statement? Should that idea be tolerated on this forum?

I’ll disagree, of course, but in the exceedingly unlikely event that you present a strong argument, it’s still an opportunity to hone my own counter-argument.

The answer is yes, absolutely.

And I'd happily engage you to try to convince and educate you, in a respectful way, why I believe that's incorrect.

Because that's how we raise ourselves up.

Censoring, reviling, shutting down and abandoning people who hold these sorts of beliefs only serves to reinforce them and drive them into echo chambers of radicalization.

So yes, by all means. Express any thoughts, ideas, opinions or dreams you have.

By actively participating in the marketplace of ideas, we can let the best ones rise, and the worst ones defeat themselves.

Through discussion and debate, not force or cooersion, of which censorship is an insidious form.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"We need to kill all the ** to keep our race pure"

Is that speech that should be tolerated? Karl Popper would say no, and I agree with his reasoning.

I don't even think this has anything to do with free speech, as in freedom to express your thoughts. The key with free speech is that everyone is entitled to that. Verbal attacks are often an attempt to stop others from expressing their thoughts, so I think they are fundamentally an action against free speech.

That being said, as a German, I don't agree with the German blanket bans of certain expressions. Context and intentions always matter, I think.

Most, if not all, meaningful speech risks offending someone.

Framing uncomfortable beliefs as attacks grants a form of "victim power" by which anyone can claim to be a victim of your "attack" as a means of shutting down speech.

This isn't a hypothetical, I see the technique used frequently.

I really have a hard time understanding what the drama is about.

Yes, it is true, it does not prevent spread, as we thought it might. But it prevents the worse outcome of it, which is a big win.

In what population? With what comorbiditities?

What are the other associated risks?

Based on that I've seen, in certain populations the risks of vaccination are close to, or outweigh the risks posed by covid infection.

This is why medical decisions are personal and should be made in consultation with a doctor.

From a public health perspective mass vaccination was definitely the right approach.

Whether they were following proper reasoning or not, if they were right it’d be good to take a step back and figure out if anything in the “proper reasoning” system needs adjusted.

- If the market and the government disagree on the value of human lives, the market wins. (Basically the government should just consign more people to die, especially vulnerable populations to avoid drama)

- A nontrivial portion of the population reacts to government intervention with spiteful noncompliance (we need to be using a softer and more coercive hand than 'authority says X is the best plan')

- If we have to fall back on socialized medicine whenever there is a crisis, maybe we should just do it all the time.

- There will be more pandemics, more often, until the forces permitting them change.

As somebody who immunocompromised, this pandemic taught me exactly how little my life is valued by my civilization and government.