oh it's more than the org. IIRC, it's also the founder.

What about for going out of their way to find and pay despicable people for their words?

Sure, tolerate Nazis, give them a place to share their words, let them be part of the mainstream, let them take part in elections, play their dirty tricks and form paramilitaries and win control of government. It's a shame that that leads to certain groups, like Jews, LGBTQ, non-whites, or immigrants getting exterminated, but that's just the price you have to pay for free speech.

That’s backwards. Society does not move forward despite free speech, rather because of it. The only way to truly move past harmful ideas and ideologies is to show those who would otherwise subscribe how dumb they are. You can try to quell them, but that just lends to their appeal, and results in those that do subscribe being more extreme and doing more extreme things. For a real world example, take someone who thinks that Nick Fuentes is a reasonable, respectable guy, and then show them the recent discussion between him and Hunter Biden, and see if they don’t at least get uncomfortable, unsure.

If this were true, far right mainstream media (eg Newsmax, NY Post) would not have the viewership and readership they enjoy.

In any case, few people here (and in general, IME) are suggesting that Nazis should have no platform whatsoever, only that we shouldn't choose to associate ourselves with those platforms -- especially when there are so many perfectly viable alternatives that don't occasionally promote Nazis to your readers.

The problem is not really Nazis saying despicable things, their so-called "free speech". The problem is that they are Nazis and will really do all these things if they get a chance. Why would you want to collaborate with Nazis, especially by giving them space on your platform where they can organize and publicize? Sure, collaborating with them in any other way is also bad, selling them food, giving them jobs, or whatever. It's not surprising that some people don't like collaborators any more than they like Nazis.

Let's see what the man who coined the term paradox of tolerance had to say about this:

>In this formulation, 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. 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.

Oh no, Karl Popper is a Nazi. Quick punch him.

>non-whites

This meme needs to die. Nazis wanted to kill half of all whites, viz. everyone who lived East of the Oder and wasn't a German.

Alright, and killed or enslaved. I also missed the communists, the same treatment for them. We can accept that there may be differences in targets between one group of fascists and the next, it's really up to their Führer to decide.

> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

this is a load-bearing condition, also nobody thinks that punching a nazi makes someone a nazi

Scratch liberal and a fascist bleeds.

I feel like you're probably interpreting that saying in the opposite of its intended meaning but there's not enough context to know for sure.

You could have just said the intended meaning.

You can't get that deep into politics on HN - you'll get flagged.

>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

Blame HN moderation

Substack has gone out of its way to platform the right and has been very proud to work with folks like Andrew Tate, Graham Linehan, and anti-vaxxers whose disinfo helped kill tens of thousands of Americans.

https://counterhate.com/blog/substack-generates-at-least-2-5...

Eh, I think you have a classification problem. Andrew Tate is far, far right and Linehan...this is the man who created "Father Ted"... is "right" just because he thinks men shouldn't use women's bathrooms and spaces? I'll leave out the issue of the massive numbers of people who were injured by the jab.

All I'll maintain here is that Substack is not in the business of censoring or deciding who gets to publish on their platform according to one group's political preferences.

>"just because he thinks men shouldn't use women's bathrooms and spaces"

You're telling on yourself with this one, transphobe.

Lineham is an anti-trans activist. There's quite literally a whole section on his Wikipedia page dedicated to it, in fact it's the longest section on there. He's practically dedicated his life to the cause.

Sorry not sorry, but Substack isn't going to run off Lineham because he thinks that people with a dick shouldn't be in a female locker room.

There's a difference between thinking those thoughts, and posting about them publicly to your following while simultaneously advocating for violence against trans individuals.