Jordan Peterson

Not sure if I understand the question, wider society makes a greater daily impact but both need to be addressed. Certain minorities are under constant attack from the press and institutions, and that spills over into daily life in the form of verbal or physical abuse from strangers.

Also in fairness to Festerban it's the idea that hate speech laws decrease hate that needs evidence, not the other way around.

The phrasing of that statement is kinda vague, but surely there's evidence of this sort of measure being effective: Germany's hard stance on Nazi speech online and offline, Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones getting deplatformed, prosecutions in the UK for inciting violence against muslims, etc.

Usually the people crying out against their free speech being infringed upon are really just upset because they can no longer express their hatred for minorities loudly and with impunity.

Usually the people crying out against their free speech being infringed upon are really just upset because they can no longer express their hatred for minorities loudly and with impunity.

Care to make that statement a bit more sweeping?

Certain minorities are under constant attack from the press and institutions, and that spills over into daily life in the form of verbal or physical abuse from strangers.

But the press and institutions aren't likely to be affected by hate laws.

surely there's evidence of this sort of measure being effective:

I'm just pulling you up on who needed to provide a citation. I'd be really interested to know.

Usually the people crying out against their free speech being infringed upon are really just upset because they can no longer express their hatred for minorities loudly and with impunity.

That is an awful generalisation that I'll put down to poor phrasing. But I agree that people who often complain "that you can't say x anymore", when you can, and often they literally are, but they're just being called out on it, fit your example.

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of our society, so anyone proposing to curtail it will justifiably experience kickback from many different areas.

To imply that everyone defending that is just upset that they can't spew bile without getting in trouble is a serious problem. It doesn't advance the debate and makes it them versus us.

I think I'm just going to let @hugo7 reply to these posts as he's much better at it than me.

With regards to a 'citation' my statement was very literal, I'm really not sure either way and would be happy to see evidence either way as I really don't have a strong standpoint on the matter.

With regards to the second point. That's kind of my point, you can change the laws and people carry on having abhorrent views but before they'd just come out and say their hateful shite so it was always clear who they were, now you have to really dig deep to work out who's who.

You're not going to change these people's minds by sitting down and engaging them in debate and 'tackling the hard subjects'.

And you're not going to change their minds by changing the law on what they can and can't say

He seems to have a real beef with postmodernism, which seems like a bit of an overreaction to a bit of art. Unless it means something else...

Hahahahahahaa

Lol. Don’t worry. I’m a blinkered product of a neo marxist art school education too. Fist bump.

If your objective is to stop neofascism from spreading what is going to be more effective

a. Remove them from major platforms and prosecute in extreme cases, severely limiting their ability to recruit, disseminate and organise

b. Just kinda let them do their thing in the open so we know who they are

We are currently at option b for the most part and it isn't working. YouTube is particularly bad for it, the comment sections are full of literal nazis and their algorithm constantly recommends alt-right propaganda no matter what your viewing history is. Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens have each been cited as inspirations in the manifestos of separate mass murderers. How much more white supremacist violence will it take before we accept that the current laissez-faire approach is not working?

You're right, of course, that criminalising the symptoms doesn't eliminate the hatred. But until we can address the more complicated underlying societal issues it seems obvious to me that quarantining it is preferable to doing fuck all.

I agree, for too long people have let others spout shit on the internet and not called them out. They need telling they're wrong or they'll never learn.

Drano please define what is neofascism..compared to fascism of the National Socialist kind .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

If your objective is to stop neofascism from spreading what is going to be more effective...

Is that your objective? How many minds have you changed?

No idea but it keeps me entertained. Plus the monthly cheques from Soros are pretty sweet

We are currently at option b for the most part and it isn't working

You're mixing up private companies' and the State's roles imo.

It would be worth your while looking at the current legislation here and in Scotland. We have laws that deal with this. Policing them is the challenge.

I also genuinely think that you seriously underestimate how much the dictatorial line on controlling speach line backfires and plays into right and small-c conservative naratives of the left.

I also genuinely think that you seriously underestimate how much the dictatorial line on controlling speach line backfires and plays into right and small-c conservative naratives of the left.

Not really following what you mean here, could you elaborate?

Plus the monthly cheques from Soros are pretty sweet

Send bitcoin for innertubes or be reported to HopeNotHate and SPLC for anti-semitism xoxo

Drano I don't know how old you are or how much history you have studied, but Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot etc, all started the same way denying free speech first and ending up with concentration camps, gulags, re education centre's and mass liquidation of millions upon millions of people.

Wow Mao hated landlords and free speech? Where do I sign up?

1. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
   
2. Slippery slope arguments are bullshit.
   
3. Allowing toxic ideologies exposure means those who are flirting with such concepts can find reinforcement and waltz right in to indoctrination.
   

@Emyr u wot m8?

Somewhat related ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003twc

Lara Whyte often reports for this organisation.

F**in A

Sure.

In a nutshell you prove their point and give them amo.

Rightwing and conservatives characterise the left as being coercive, anti-free speach, anti-civil liberties, and fundamentally authoritarian, and if you "give them a finger, they'll take your hand". They'd point to say the expansion of the racial hatred laws to include religious hatred as an eg of this scale.

You can counter this, but it becomes really hard when you simultaneously call for the state to create and enforce laws limiting individual and corporate free speach based on one group's opinions of what is right/wrong at this current point in time.

Take the eg of the sorts of people who say "you can't say anything anymore". You say that's bollocks, give me an eg. They say; being arrested for having a Nazi pug.

How do you respond?

Oh well that's Scotland? That wouldn't happen in England or Wales? The dude owned a pug which proves he's a cunt so fuck him and all the basic French Bulldog owners too?

That sort of thing polarises a lot of people, including people you can reason with. If Brexit etc. should have taught us anything it's that engaging / convincing the middle ground is key.

I think the problem is allowing toxic ideologies exposure without any challenge. The internet has just made this a much much bigger problem.