Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

You can't incite hatred. That's a stupid meme where Hitler is magical and able to hypnotized the populace. Hatred is learned over periods of time. We don't come in to the world hating anyone. We can not be tricked into hating someone. It's a response.

Yeah, I think Monte forgets or is ignorant about what caused the "worst excesses of fascism, communism, imperialism, sectarianism and every other ism have happened right here on our doorstep". The "worst excesses" of fascism, communism, etc. weren't caused by lone individuals being subjected to "-ism" pamphlets of various ideologies in countries where their beliefs were marginalized. It was caused when the state participated, directed, and demanded of its subjects/citizens that they obey the state's beliefs or ideologies.

[StCapps]

You can't incite hatred. That's a stupid meme where Hitler is magical and able to hypnotized the populace. Hatred is learned over periods of time. We don't come in to the world hating anyone. We can not be tricked into hating someone. It's a response.

Yeah, I think Monte forgets or is ignorant about what caused the "worst excesses of fascism, communism, imperialism, sectarianism and every other ism have happened right here on our doorstep". The "worst excesses" of fascism, communism, etc. weren't caused by lone individuals being subjected to "-ism" pamphlets of various ideologies in countries where their beliefs were marginalized. It was caused when the state participated, directed, and demanded of its subjects/citizens that they obey the state's beliefs or ideologies.

That's because Monte innately trusts the state to participate, direct and demand it's subjects/citizens because he sides with the state's beliefs and ideologies, also thinks such powers will never be misused and those with different beliefs and ideologies from his will never be given that power and use it a way he disapproves of. He also innately distrusts individuals to behave in ways he would like and wants the state to force them to do so through various ineffective means because he's a desperate control freak.

[BjornP]

That's because Monte innately trusts the state to participate, direct and demand it's subjects/citizens because he sides with the state's beliefs and ideologies and he innately distrusts individuals to behave in way he would like and wants to force them to do so.

True. Ideally, the people should be able to trust the state, because the state is their rightful collective property as citizens. It's the state that needs to trust its people more, though, seeing as they hold the monopoly of violence and their lack of trust is that much more dangerous to the citizens... The direction the State takes must come from society and then get carried out by The State, not from The State and carried out by society.

Monte is a Conservative. Not in the American sense obviously, because what Americans "conserve" is a obviously different history, tradition, and set of values from what other Conservatives in other societies across the world want to conserve from their history, tradition and set of values. He is conservative in the sense that he implictly trusts people higher up than him in the hierachy to know what's best for him. Americans are a bit like this as well, their hierachy just looks to the super rich and celebrities to tell them what to do, think and be offended at. What's good about those American elites and those that obey them, though, is that they understand that they don't need to (lobby politicians to) ban Communist litterature to prevent all Americans from becoming Socialist. Because they understand the power of society's/the community's role and that you can marginalize a group of people to the point that their name becomes synonymous with lowlifes, dirtbags, and pathetic people simply through the use of satire, mockery and not inviting them to your parties. Or plain just invite them to a honest debate and let them do the job for you, since you know the audience will not recieve them well.

[StCapps]

Monte is trying to conserve an Iron Curtain Against American Freedom, in that sense he is very conservative. To Monte, freedom from being free is "real" freedom, in that sense he is very Orwellian.

[Montegriffo]

Monte, if you read a first hand historical account describing - and justifying - a past genocide, will you suddenly find genocide legitimate?

If you read Mein Kampf or just a bit of it, would you suddenly find the notion of gassing the Jews legitimised?

If you read an ancient Assyrian royal mural commemorating the defeat of enemies, would you suddenly think: "Hmm, impaling your political opponents seems to totally legitimate"?

We're not talking about whether I will be influenced by incitement to hatred.
We're talking about whether the shisha bar shooter was influenced by it.
His browsing history and his manifesto seem to indicate that he was.

If we are talking about your fellow citizens, which we are, we are also talking about you. If you believe "hate speech" litterature "incited" him to commit his murders, then any and all can be "incited" by the same litterature. If a Bader-Meinhof terrorist in the 70's could be incited to hate capitalists by reading the Worker's Manifesto, that's surely also a piece of litterature that ought to be banned, right?

You cannot justify laws that ban specific speech by only citing that 0.0001% of the population might be likely to commit violence based on that speech or litterature. There has to be a credible, reasonable, substantive and proportionate reasoning behind taking such a drastic step as limiting people's freedom of speech or products of speech (writing/art/etc.). If that shisha bar shooter carried out his murders after he read some nazi litterature online, but anyone else reading it don't suddenly feel compelled to kill Muslims over it, then the true, objective reason behind him choosing to kill was not really the litterature.

What you are engaging in, is faulty logic. Like inducing that "Aristotle was Greek. Aristotle was wise. Ergo, being Greek makes one wise" is faulty logic on several levels. You got some facts, but are incapable of determining which results in what outcome and why. Like a medieval king who observes that his fortunes started dwindling when he started using this fashionable, new, Southern European little utensil called a "fork" to eat his dinner. Whereupon he bans forks in his domain. Vague impressions of correlation is not causation.

How is banning the freedom to incite hate a "drastic measure"? What do we lose?
In UK law it is a clearly defined restriction so I'm not accepting thin edge of the wedge arguments.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We're not talking about whether I will be influenced by incitement to hatred.
We're talking about whether the shisha bar shooter was influenced by it.
His browsing history and his manifesto seem to indicate that he was.

If we are talking about your fellow citizens, which we are, we are also talking about you. If you believe "hate speech" litterature "incited" him to commit his murders, then any and all can be "incited" by the same litterature. If a Bader-Meinhof terrorist in the 70's could be incited to hate capitalists by reading the Worker's Manifesto, that's surely also a piece of litterature that ought to be banned, right?

You cannot justify laws that ban specific speech by only citing that 0.0001% of the population might be likely to commit violence based on that speech or litterature. There has to be a credible, reasonable, substantive and proportionate reasoning behind taking such a drastic step as limiting people's freedom of speech or products of speech (writing/art/etc.). If that shisha bar shooter carried out his murders after he read some nazi litterature online, but anyone else reading it don't suddenly feel compelled to kill Muslims over it, then the true, objective reason behind him choosing to kill was not really the litterature.

What you are engaging in, is faulty logic. Like inducing that "Aristotle was Greek. Aristotle was wise. Ergo, being Greek makes one wise" is faulty logic on several levels. You got some facts, but are incapable of determining which results in what outcome and why. Like a medieval king who observes that his fortunes started dwindling when he started using this fashionable, new, Southern European little utensil called a "fork" to eat his dinner. Whereupon he bans forks in his domain. Vague impressions of correlation is not causation.

How is banning the freedom to incite hate a "drastic measure"? What do we lose?
In UK law it is a clearly defined restriction so I'm not accepting thin edge of the wedge arguments.

You lose the ability to freely express new ideas. Most importantly, you criminalize the learning process for young people.

The way to stop a bad idea is not to ban it - that only makes it more attractive to anyone feeling disenchanted with the state of things - which is every adolescent ever.

You have to address the idea, and explain why it’s a bad one.

[BjornP]

How is banning the freedom to incite hate a "drastic measure"? What do we lose?
In UK law it is a clearly defined restriction so I'm not accepting thin edge of the wedge arguments.

Because books, websites, or other forms of litterature cannot "incite hate". That's not how human beings work, how human emotions work, how societies work. The distribution or creation of racist material online or in published form, for example, does not make racists out everyone reading their material, nor does the production in of itself lead everyone in a country to suddenly consider that material something they agree with. And even if it did make everyone a racist through some magic means, racism in of itself, while stupid and pointless, does not automatically lead to violence or harassment anymore than environmentalism, veganism or egalitarianism automatically does.

The "drastic" aspect, is that it is both an overreaction to a non-existing threat, because the threat isn't coming from the reading material. The threat is the willingness by certain people to commit violence in their beliefs' names. By mis-identifying what the true threat is, you're taking away the freedom of speech of people that - while I'm sure it feels nice to call the cops on people who say racist things - are not a threat to society because of their words or what they read. They are/become dangerous as individuals the second they start threatening, harassing, or plotting to kill other members of society...or when they win a majority of parliamentary seats.

[StCapps]

How is banning the freedom to incite hate a "drastic measure"? What do we lose?
In UK law it is a clearly defined restriction so I'm not accepting thin edge of the wedge arguments.

You lose by banning free speech and creating a precedent for restrictions you do not approve of, or restrictions that you only approved when applied to certain ideas. You are the one suggesting we restrict people's freedom, the onus is on you to come up with a good reason to restrict it, not on us to find a good reason not to, even though there is plenty of good reasons we can find to not ban it.

In UK law it is not clearly defined, it's vague as fuck and applied incorrectly all the time, and to people they never should have thought about applying it to in the first place, let alone actually legally punishing them for it. Hate speech laws are a complete and total disaster. The UK is a perfect example of how it isn't possible for the government to make a good decision on whether or not to ban certain speech based on the premise of "hate speech", which is why you shouldn't even give them that power in the first place.

[Speaker to Animals]

White men who are not poisoned with the cultural Marxist koolaide have to deal with open incitement of hatred towards white people and men, and white men in particular, on the regular. It's an everyday thing. The white male patriarchy is Jewish Cabal 2.0. The batshit left is not going to convince us that we need to protect the minorities from a tiny number of far right haters saying mean things when we face the same shit at far greater numbers coming from the very people who are demanding censorship.

If the left is worried about hate, then they probably should look in the mirror.

[StCapps]

It's like I said, Monte wants to take people's freedom away and the best argument he has is "How come I can't think of anything lost by banning it, if it's so bad? If I can't think of anything, that's good enough reason to ban it". Nah dude, your imagination just sucks when it comes to thinking of negatives that come with banning hate speech, and you want to ban it without any real benefit being gained by doing so.

You can be a jackass and say "oh yeah, well you're doing the same thing, your imagination just sucks when it comes to seeing the benefits of banning hate speech", to which I'll reply: "I'm not the one trying to take people's freedoms away based on my shitty imagination, that's all you". Restricting or banning any fundamental human freedom puts the onus on the people who want to ban or restrict that freedom to make a good case for doing so, not on the people who don't want it banned or restricted to make an airtight case against doing so, otherwise banned. In order to clear the high bar of restricting or banning fundamental rights, you need an airtight case that it's a good idea, and Monte is so far from clearing that bar, it's laughable.