Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

restricted free speech > incitement to murder

Don't spread conspiracy theories about Sharia Law, no-go zones and a Muslim take over of Europe.

Incitement to murder is something else. Restricting the speech of ridiculous beliefs, ridiculous conspiracy theories and ridiculous fantasies about the future, assumes that the only way to "defeat hate/bigotry/any values you don't want in your society" is by banning it. That works about as well as concluding that crime is gone because you've closed your eyes to it. There are perfectly good ways to marginalize people who believe in ridiculous or improper things without having to resort to laws and bans. It's called having and being a society. If you can agree on what values you all hold, there should be no problem in simply verbally chastising someone who engages in socially rude/disruptive/disrespectful speech that doesn't fit into the cultural values you hold as a society.

The ability to argue, to debate, to reason, to have an open and honest discussion doesn't neccesitate the abolition of speech and writing by those incapable of arguing, debating, reasoning or those unable to have an open and honest discussion. In fact an open, democratic society benefits from that contrast.

People don't just wake up and decide to be Nazi thug or Islamic terrorists. They become radicalised by reading hate filled lies about no go zones and Sharia law or ISIS propaganda.
This German killer was an easily influenced loner with a history of mental illness. Not the sort of person who is going to be swayed by reasonable debate. People like him aren't really a part of society.

[StCapps]

restricted free speech > incitement to murder

Don't spread conspiracy theories about Sharia Law, no-go zones and a Muslim take over of Europe.

Incitement to murder is something else. Restricting the speech of ridiculous beliefs, ridiculous conspiracy theories and ridiculous fantasies about the future, assumes that the only way to "defeat hate/bigotry/any values you don't want in your society" is by banning it. That works about as well as concluding that crime is gone because you've closed your eyes to it. There are perfectly good ways to marginalize people who believe in ridiculous or improper things without having to resort to laws and bans. It's called having and being a society. If you can agree on what values you all hold, there should be no problem in simply verbally chastising someone who engages in socially rude/disruptive/disrespectful speech that doesn't fit into the cultural values you hold as a society.

The ability to argue, to debate, to reason, to have an open and honest discussion doesn't neccesitate the abolition of speech and writing by those incapable of arguing, debating, reasoning or those unable to have an open and honest discussion. In fact an open, democratic society benefits from that contrast.

People don't just wake up and decide to be Nazi thug or Islamic terrorists. They become radicalised by reading hate filled lies about no go zones and Sharia law or ISIS propaganda.
This German killer was an easily influenced loner with a history of mental illness. Not the sort of person who is going to be swayed by reasonable debate. People like him aren't really a part of society.

People can become radicalized listening to music dude, or movies, or video games etc.

The solution is not to ban music, movies and video games. Neither is the solution to ban "hate filled lies". People will radicalize no matter how much speech you ban, in fact they are more likely to radicalize because of the speech banning than the speech itself.

Some crazy people might take certain speech the wrong way for no logical reason, is the dumbest reason ever to ban that speech. Just because some racists believe in no go zones does not mean that the mere concept of no go zones being spoken of is inherently radicalizing, just because "hate filled lies" radicalize some people does not mean that "hate filled lies" inherently radicalize people. People thinking Sharia Law will take over the west, that does not inherently drive them to radicalize either. You are banning ideas because people could use them as a self justification of their crimes, with crazy pretzel logic, when that could literally apply to any subject or belief.

[Montegriffo]

No news. Dog bites man.
What the BBC won't cover.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/0 ... e-hopkins/

She really is toxic. Totally unable to mention the Mayor of London without the prefix Muslim.

[StCapps]

Name any subject or belief, and I can twist it into a retarded self justification of any form of evil you can imagine. That doesn't mean all ideas should be banned because crazy people might use them to jump to ridiculous conclusions and commit crimes based on those ridiculous conclusions. The problem isn't the idea, the problem isn't the conclusion, the problem is the crime, the crime is reduced by banning the crime, not by banning ideas and/or conclusions based on ideas that could be misinterpreted to attempt to justify a crime.

If you ban every idea, belief or conclusion, that can be misinterpreted to attempt to justify a crime, people will just come up with other justifications. You fixed nothing and will be playing legal whack-a-mole until the end of time, while reducing liberty with every whack. You saved no lives and prevented zero crimes with such freedom reducing measures. Not great, Bob.

[BjornP]

People don't just wake up and decide to be Nazi thug or Islamic terrorists. They become radicalised by reading hate filled lies about no go zones and Sharia law or ISIS propaganda.
This German killer was an easily influenced loner with a history of mental illness. Not the sort of person who is going to be swayed by reasonable debate. People like him aren't really a part of society.

So anything written or spoken that can radicalize someone needs to be outlawed? The Old Testament? The Quran? Historical documentation of the Nazi war crimes, Mein Kampf, The Worker’s Manifesto?

The German was an easily influenced loner with a history of mental illness... who didn't become a threat just by reading nazi litterature.

And no, they aren't. That’s my point. They're already marginalized. They don't pose a threat simply by reading or writing some Nazi/ISIS shit none of the rest of society will ever take seriously. So, monitor those who are so extremist they might credibly become a terrorist danger, and let the rest be.

[PartyOf5]

Monte needs to be banned from this forum. Seriously.

Just days ago in another thread he was spreading anti-gay conspiracy theories about my Asian gay cruise line business. I fear he may influence others on the forum with mental illness, like dairylon, into taking violent action against gay Asians who enjoy cruises. He needs to be silenced before his hateful words result in someone getting physically injured.

So for the sake of everyone's safety, I'm asking Martin to ban Monte's account. It's for the good of not just the forum, but humanity.

[SuburbanFarmer]

restricted free speech > incitement to murder

Don't spread conspiracy theories about Sharia Law, no-go zones and a Muslim take over of Europe.

Incitement to murder is something else. Restricting the speech of ridiculous beliefs, ridiculous conspiracy theories and ridiculous fantasies about the future, assumes that the only way to "defeat hate/bigotry/any values you don't want in your society" is by banning it. That works about as well as concluding that crime is gone because you've closed your eyes to it. There are perfectly good ways to marginalize people who believe in ridiculous or improper things without having to resort to laws and bans. It's called having and being a society. If you can agree on what values you all hold, there should be no problem in simply verbally chastising someone who engages in socially rude/disruptive/disrespectful speech that doesn't fit into the cultural values you hold as a society.

The ability to argue, to debate, to reason, to have an open and honest discussion doesn't neccesitate the abolition of speech and writing by those incapable of arguing, debating, reasoning or those unable to have an open and honest discussion. In fact an open, democratic society benefits from that contrast.

Key point here - ‘agree on what values you hold as a society’

[BjornP]

Incitement to murder is something else. Restricting the speech of ridiculous beliefs, ridiculous conspiracy theories and ridiculous fantasies about the future, assumes that the only way to "defeat hate/bigotry/any values you don't want in your society" is by banning it. That works about as well as concluding that crime is gone because you've closed your eyes to it. There are perfectly good ways to marginalize people who believe in ridiculous or improper things without having to resort to laws and bans. It's called having and being a society. If you can agree on what values you all hold, there should be no problem in simply verbally chastising someone who engages in socially rude/disruptive/disrespectful speech that doesn't fit into the cultural values you hold as a society.

The ability to argue, to debate, to reason, to have an open and honest discussion doesn't neccesitate the abolition of speech and writing by those incapable of arguing, debating, reasoning or those unable to have an open and honest discussion. In fact an open, democratic society benefits from that contrast.

Key point here - ‘agree on what values you hold as a society’

Well, taking my point to its logical conclusion, I suppose they could agree that the values they hold as a society are perfectly compatible with banning anything that might be viewed as bigoted, disrespectful, somewhat rude, or in poor taste. Sort of like how some countries's citizens are still perfectly fine with executing people for witchcraft. Cultural differences tends to dictate what values each society hold.

[Montegriffo]

So anything written or spoken that can radicalize someone needs to be outlawed? The Old Testament? The Quran? Historical documentation of the Nazi war crimes, Mein Kampf, The Worker’s Manifesto?

Difficult to argue that Mein Kampf didn't lead to the persecution of the Jews and ultimately the holocaust.

[Martin Hash]

So anything written or spoken that can radicalize someone needs to be outlawed? The Old Testament? The Quran? Historical documentation of the Nazi war crimes, Mein Kampf, The Worker’s Manifesto?

Difficult to argue that Mein Kampf didn't lead to the persecution of the Jews and ultimately the holocaust.

No it’s not! What’s the correlation? Hitler took a shit every day; perhaps that’s what led to the Holocaust?