The other class war: technocrats vs plutocrats

[skr1]

I would also suggest that the notion of engaging in violent action against speech is an extreme form of corporal punishment. Research on corporal punishment shows that it just leads to more antisocial and aggressive behavior. Successfully shutting up a Nazi by punching them just teaches them that you can successfully shut up your ideological opponents by punching them. It would be interesting to think about what the free speech analog to a ‘barrier time out’ would be that doesn’t involve jail.
PDF corporal punishment study.
https://tinyurl.com/ycqnw4jf

[gracchus]

@skr1

So what is next then for Nazi idea, violence?

That’s where Nazi ideology inevitably ends up, yes. Which is even more reason that such objectively bad speech should not be given a platform by liberal-democratic institutions (universities, the mainstream media, etc.). Per Karl Popper, liberals and progressives are under no obligation to tolerate intolerance.

@skr1

Liberals tend to argue liberal Counter-enlightenment arguments

Such as…?

[hint: Enlightenment thinkers, while very supportive of free speech, did not think that every crank and charlatan out there deserves a reputable platform]

@skr1

German Communists vs. German Nazis in the lead up to WW2.

The Red Front thugs were supported by an authoritarian foreign state and their political parent the KPD was trying to take control of Germany. Meanwhile, the SA thugs were supported by authoritarian local sugar daddies and their political parent the NSDAP was trying to take control of Germany.

The violent conflict between the two groups occurred in the context of a massive and traumatic societal and economic breakdown in which Germany’s ruling conservative business and political establishment abdicated any responsibility for keeping the peace. That – as opposed to denying fascists platforms to speak* – is how you get running street battles and their consequences.

[* something said conservative establishment did the opposite of, by the way]

@skr1

I would also suggest that the notion of engaging in violent action against speech is an extreme form of corporal punishment.

That’s a bit of a stretch. Engaging in violent action in response to speech is what it is: unacceptable, but sometimes understandable. Fascists aren’t innocent children who’ll be turned into abusers themselves because they’ve been abused; they’re already abusers.

@skr1

Successfully shutting up a Nazi by punching them just teaches them that you can successfully shut up your ideological opponents by punching them.

Has Spencer been successfully shut up since that punch? If anything it opened up a whole new line of garbage for him to sell based on his martyr status (not that he had the guts to press charges). Since the American right thrives on narratives of false victimhood that’s the bigger danger in meeting their speech with violence.

Fascists don’t need to be taught that you can successfully shut up your ideological opponents by punching them because that concept is already inherent in their ideology.

@skr1

It would be interesting to think about what the free speech analog to a ‘barrier time out’ would be that doesn’t involve jail.

Again, it’s not difficult: the adults in the room shouldn’t give entitled crybabies whose ideas are demonstrably destructive and violent a platform to throw their tantrums.

[LeprechnGangstr]

I don’t see a reason to escalate to violence and if I implied that it was in error. I simply mean that is perfectly appropriate to deny speaking venues to Nazis without damaging the principles of free speech. The metaphor of the marketplace of ideas is popular, but we still bar goods from the market that are found to be harmful with no redeeming value. I see no reason we can’t regulate out demonstrably bad ideas. And to arrest the slippery slope, here’s an easy line to follow: if your philosophy advocates the elimination of a group of people from society, it doesn’t belong on the market. Anything else is fair game.

[Wanderfound]

We’re doing the Freeze Peach for Nazis thing again? Okay.

Freeze Peach (USA)

I routinely hear free speech absolutists argue in favour of protecting the “right” of Nazis, white nationalists and Klansmen to organise and advertise their ideas. Why do I never hear these people standing up for the rights of al-Qaeda or ISIS supporters? For nearly twenty years now, any vaguely supportive mention of those groups will rapidly attract the full and hostile attention of the US state. Speech and assembly are criminalised and actively persecuted. So, which is it? Are free speec…

[anon50609448]

@skr1

Now is it possible that if they had only protested that they would have been killed anyway, intellectuals tend to get ground up by authoritarian regimes in the end. But if we look at the ME, it sure seems that when you engage in violence, you had better win or you are going to die.

I think that’s an entirely different point. Of course once things come to violence you’d better hope you are on the winning side. That is true whether you started the violence or not.

If we look at that example the question is whether speech was an effective counter to Nazi speech (it wasn’t) and whether violence was an effective counter to nazi speech (it wasn’t). So all that tells us is what we ought to already know: that there are no guarantees, people tried lots of things but the Nazis won (and then eventually lost to international violence, not international speech).

@skr1

I would also suggest that the notion of engaging in violent action against speech is an extreme form of corporal punishment.

Children learn how to be a person and how to negotiate social relationships from their parent’s actions. Corporal punishment against children teaches the children that violence is what adults do.

The analogy to adults getting into fights with other adults just doesn’t work. If you ever find yourself the teacher of a bunch of Nazi kindergarteners then studying child psychology might be a useful way to reach them.