all 20 comments

[–]Alduin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nah it's pretty much a first resort nowadays.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Do not censor the boobs.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

While I agree with this quote in its entirety, there's always a little voice in the back of my head that speaks up in regards to certain ideologies and their tendencies to call for violence or oppression.

Is inciting violence ok? Is calling for other's rights to be oppressed ok?

If the answer to either of these questions is "no", then what is the next course of action? I don't want to live in a world where I am censored, but I also don't want to live in a world where dangerous and oppressive ideologies can easily propagate. If a certain message is proven to rile people up and be objectively dangerous to society, how do we deal with those issues without becoming hypocrites? You may say reason will triumph, but humanity has shown many times throughout history that the most extreme and dangerous mentalities have no regard for reason.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

See iceland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Icelandic_financial_crisis_protests

People banded together, banging pots and pans, and clogged up the capitol for months, making the government shut down. They then crowd-sourced a brand new constitution over the next year.

The US could do exactly the same if people were level-headed and organized enough. No violence required.

[–]Zombi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

While I'm all for that, I'm more asking what happens when a group of unreasonable, violent people start to gain traction.

I'm not referring to rational people in my original post. I'm referring to Islamic extremists, I'm referring to the Nazis, I'm referring to aum shinrikyo and Jim Jones. Do we wait until they hurt and take advantage of innocent people? Is that really the right thing to do?

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

unreasonable, violent people start to gain traction.

Lack of reason goes against the pyramid of debate, as does advocating violence. So it will be removed

[–]Zombi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Doesn't that directly contradict the "censorship of anything" part of the quote posted, though?

Just trying to make the point that you literally cannot live by this quote without coming off as hypocritical at some point because there's always some irrational and crazy person who will call for violence and oppression of others.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes there will always exist edge cases that are exceptions. Find me a single quote where that's not the case.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well if the quote itself is going to go to extremes, then it should stand up to extreme scrutiny; don't you think?

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nothing can stand up to extreme scrutiny if you're extreme enough, that's my point. Literally nothing.

[–]Zombi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see your point, I just feel with how people are and how irrational they can be there always going to be censorship that is necessary. I would love to live in a completely free world, but reality just doesn't work like that I suppose...

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Complete freedom" doesn't exist. We are always confined by something. It's a prerequisite to existing.

[–]DegenerateFurfag69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You mean if the US were an ethnically Scandinavian homogeneous society like Iceland?

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We are a homogeneous block of humans like Iceland. It's not impossible. Unless we assume it's impossible, then it becomes impossible.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

never censor. if it is wrong to incite violence argue againdst it with facts. sometimes it is needed tho.

[–]Zombi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What happens when facts don't work? What happens if a group isn't able to listen to reason? Should we, in this hypothetical, just let them commit an atrocity?

Like I said, censorship isn't a solution I like, but the alternative which is to be reactive and wait until some innocent people are harmed/oppressed/killed seems almost worse. I don't want to live in a censored world, but I also don't want to live in a world where discourse can be spread easily and rapidly without anything to reign it in before a tragedy happens.

You might say it's unlikely, but again, history has shown that it is very likely.

[–]DegenerateFurfag69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What happens when facts don't work? What happens if a group isn't able to listen to reason?

You'd like Peter Boghossian's discussion of Street Epistemology in A Manual For Creating Atheists.

The point of debating a snake-oil salesman isn't to change his mind, it's to change the minds of the audience. Punching the snake-oil salesman doesn't do that. It makes the salesman look good--just look at all the videos where a protester freaks out at a street preacher.

[–]Zombi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh I totally agree that calls to violence only legitimize the victims of that violence. I'm merely asking what do you do against groups that completely disregard critical thinking and logic?

Take a look at flat earther's for example. We have MANY reasons and ways to prove the earth is a sphere, yet there they are. These people will never be convinced otherwise, neither will religious extremists. I'm merely putting forward that no, censorship in any way, in any time, in any place isn't exactly a bad thing because there are real world examples of censorship being necessary in some way.

This pertains strictly to groups that incite violence or oppression. If you want to believe the earth is flat, go right ahead. So long as you don't call for my beheading over it.

[–]DegenerateFurfag69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is inciting violence ok? Is calling for other's rights to be oppressed ok?

The fact that antifa does this shows that they're a threat to freedom. When /r/ForwardsFromHitler thinks it's okay to punch "Nazis" but vice versa isn't okay, they've proven they aren't low-RWAs. In Altemeyer's data, low RWAs punished the crime equally regardless of the victim and the offender--it was authoritarians who were okay with crimes against people they didn't like.

[–]DegenerateFurfag69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exhibit A: all the calls for censorship of "degeneracy" on CringeAnarchy. Nate NatSoc isn't such a freedom fighter when it's freedom of gay people ("they're pedos!") or trans kids like Leelah Alcorn ("they're delusional").

Meanwhile, Tom of Finland shot down more Soviet aircraft and killed more Bolsheviks than any alt-right keyboard warriors will in their entire lifetimes, drew porn that gave gay men a positive non-effete self-image (and got people to hit the gym), and founded an organization dedicated to protecting freedom of speech.

That's what the good guys look like, not the pearl-clutching Anita Bryant and Julius Streicher wannabes on CringeAnarchy and Kiwi Farms.

inb4 George Quaintance's paintings glorifying physical fitness and European heritage are somehow Jewish subversion