The most dangerous hate speech you never heard

[Little Raven]

If you can justify overreacting to a punch by "standing your ground" and shooting, then why wouldn't I be "within my rights" just punching a Nazi?

Because speech is not assault. This isn't exactly rocket science. If the Nazi is trying to punch you, by all means, punch back. But to punch him just because you don't like how he thinks?

The state has a monopoly on violence. You don't get to break that without a damn good reason. Thought crimes most definitely don't count.

[Rip]

The difference between us is that you think speech doesn't hurt but yet shooting someone is "within your rights." If you can justify overreacting to a punch by "standing your ground" and shooting, then why wouldn't I be "within my rights" just punching a Nazi?

That moral compass of yours is definitely wrong when shooting people is ok but punching a Nazi isn't.

Because what someone says, even if it is a threat fails to establish "imminent" danger. WHile punching someone in the face does put them in imminent danger, making it justifiable for them to defend themselves.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... appen.html

Come on now, this is basic stuff.

Have you ever been trained in the use of deadly force?

[RunningMn9]

The "paradox of tolerance" is a load of bullcrap.

Tolerance doesn't mean we roll over and die. It doesn't mean we don't resist. It just means that we're content to let you have your say, no matter how brain-dead it is.

What seems to be a load of bullcrap (to me), is the presumption that everyone is interpreting what it means to be "intolerant of intolerance" in the same way (and indeed in the same way that the cartoon intended).

When I say that I am (and should be) intolerant of Nazis, at no point in time have I suggested that Nazis shouldn't be allowed to say words to that effect. Say whatever pro-Nazi words you'd like. I only ask two things - if you are going to say whatever pro-Nazi words you'd like, don't bitch about the consequences of saying whatever pro-Nazi words you'd like (unless those consequences are at the hands of the government), and don't expect me to tolerate, care or respect any of the dumb shit falling out of your lips.

When I hear whiny bitches claim that I'm not being tolerant of their intolerant horseshit (generally it's when I am intolerant of their intolerance regarding marriage equality or that sort of thing, as I don't typically hang with Nazis), they aren't whining because my intolerance took the form of punching them in their dumb faces, or because they were jailed or prevented from saying intolerant horseshit. It's because I've countered their intolerance by properly labeling them as a bigot. And they really don't like to be labeled correctly.

[Little Raven]

What seems to be a load of bullcrap (to me), is the presumption that everyone is interpreting what it means to be "intolerant of intolerance" in the same way (and indeed in the same way that the cartoon intended).

Uh, that cartoon says, explicitly, that 'any movement which preaches intolerance must be outside the law.' How exactly do you square that with the interpretation that you're offering?

[El Guapo]

The "paradox of tolerance" is a load of bullcrap.

Tolerance doesn't mean we roll over and die. It doesn't mean we don't resist. It just means that we're content to let you have your say, no matter how brain-dead it is.

What seems to be a load of bullcrap (to me), is the presumption that everyone is interpreting what it means to be "intolerant of intolerance" in the same way (and indeed in the same way that the cartoon intended).

When I say that I am (and should be) intolerant of Nazis, at no point in time have I suggested that Nazis shouldn't be allowed to say words to that effect. Say whatever pro-Nazi words you'd like. I only ask two things - if you are going to say whatever pro-Nazi words you'd like, don't bitch about the consequences of saying whatever pro-Nazi words you'd like (unless those consequences are at the hands of the government), and don't expect me to tolerate, care or respect any of the dumb shit falling out of your lips.

When I hear whiny bitches claim that I'm not being tolerant of their intolerant horseshit (generally it's when I am intolerant of their intolerance regarding marriage equality or that sort of thing, as I don't typically hang with Nazis), they aren't whining because my intolerance took the form of punching them in their dumb faces, or because they were jailed or prevented from saying intolerant horseshit. It's because I've countered their intolerance by properly labeling them as a bigot. And they really don't like to be labeled correctly.

I agree with this.

I don't think (and I don't *think* anyone in this thread thinks) that we should be "tolerant of intolerance" in the sense that we need to respect the views of Neo-Nazis, treat them as one viewpoint equal in validity and respect to non-shitty viewpoints. However, Neo-Nazis like everyone else are entitled to the same constitutional rights to free speech, and so to be free from state and non-state violence alike as long as they are not committing actual crimes (which would include, incidentally, direct incitement to violence). That's both an established legal principle, and one whose compromising (i.e. if we made it the law that some people or some viewpoints do not have free speech rights) would have dramatic and harsh effects on the country and on vulnerable minority groups in this country).

That doesn't protect Neo-Nazis from being called assholes, from getting fired by private companies, from being ostracized by friends, and whatnot.

[Zarathud]

If you can justify overreacting to a punch by "standing your ground" and shooting, then why wouldn't I be "within my rights" just punching a Nazi?

Because speech is not assault.

Check the legal definition. Assault includes the threat of bodily harm, not the act. You are thinking of battery. My analogy goes to Rip's defense of those escalating to lethal levels when they feel threatened, not after they're actually harmed.

This isn't exactly rocket science. If the Nazi is trying to punch you, by all means, punch back. But to punch him just because you don't like how he thinks?

The Nazi is not marching because of what he's thinking. A Nazi march is meant to intimidate and harass. Especially when it's through a Jewish community.

Think whatever you want, but actions have consequences -- even when it's speech. Tell mean jokes and someone might take a swing. They might even accept the legal punishment because they believe there's a damn good reason. I haven't said they should avoid punishment (although there's a pretty good chance of jury nullification for punching a Nazi).

[El Guapo]

The moment you begin trying to select certain speech that is ok to punch someone in the mouth for and other speech that doesn't you have stepped in the mother of all slippery slopes.

That's a stupid argument. We draw lines over appropriate/inappropriate actions every day. If you start making "your mama jokes" in public then you can expect to be punched in the mouth before too long.

Drawing the line against Nazis should be pretty damn easy. We didn't keep attacking everyone after World War II. We knew when to stop after beating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

If your moral compass is so broken this is hard for you, then it's time for some soul searching.

The problem is that you are not (and won't be) in charge of the line-drawing. I'm not sure whether you agree with the cartoon's statement that intolerant groups should be "outside the law". That is hugely problematic as an idea, because the people who would be in charge of enforcing that would by definition be, well, law enforcement - prosecutors. Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions dream at night of having the power to label groups like Black Lives Matter 'intolerant' and illegal.

To the extent that you believe that private individuals ought to "punch Nazis". Well, first we still have a line-drawing problem. The number of outright Neo-Nazis are small in number, but as you go farther left politically you'll wind up encountering more and more people who would consider any Republican / conservative as a Nazi - hence you see stuff like a Republican parade in Portland being canceled under threat of 'antifascist' violence. I have plenty of dislike for the Republican Party, but they're obviously not fascists. But if "Nazi punching" gets more and more accepted, you can bet you will see more people expanding the definition of "Nazi". People who endorse and push violence tend not to be noted for their discernment and restraint.

Though I think really my main problem with the advocacy of private Nazi punching is - how do you see this ending? What is the number of Nazis who need to be punched before we win? Is it like the 537th Nazi gets punched and the Neo-Nazis are like "ok boys, time to pack it in."

[RunningMn9]

'any movement which preaches intolerance must be outside the law.' How exactly do you square that with the interpretation that you're offering?

Given what the cartoon is referring to when it says "intolerance", my interpretation was that any movement which preaches intolerance must be outside the law.

I don't interpret that as having anything to do with the speech side of the equation. Let me phrase it a different way. "Any movement which preaches that white people are superior to minority communities and should be afforded additional rights and privileges is outside the law".

It seems like some are interpreting that statement as speech in support of "white people are superior to minority communities and should be afforded additional rights and privileges" should be illegal.

I don't interpret it that way at all. I interpreted the cartoonist as saying that "white people are superior to minority communities and should be afforded additional rights and privileges" must always be illegal. It should *never* be legal. Ever. Therefore, we should never be tolerant of that viewpoint.

What form that intolerance takes is ambiguous. I just think the cartoonist is saying that since this thing should always be illegal, we don't have to be tolerant of people advocating for it.

If someone sits down and starts talking to me about how members of the LGBT community are an affront to his god and should be burned at the stake, you had better believe that I am going to be intolerant as a mother-fucker in the face of that horseshit.

[Smoove_B]

The cartoon is a Cliff Notes version of the quote that inspired it. Here's what Karl Popper wrote in 1945:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

[El Guapo]

It seems like some are interpreting that statement as speech in support of "white people are superior to minority communities and should be afforded additional rights and privileges" should be illegal.

I don't interpret it that way at all. I interpreted the cartoonist as saying that "white people are superior to minority communities and should be afforded additional rights and privileges" must always be illegal. It should *never* be legal. Ever. Therefore, we should never be tolerant of that viewpoint.

What form that intolerance takes is ambiguous. I just think the cartoonist is saying that since this thing should always be illegal, we don't have to be tolerant of people advocating for it.

What the "outside the law" part means, as further explained by the longer version that Smoove posted, is that the state should have the power to throw people in jail for "preaching intolerance", or more specifically for the crime of "incitement to intolerance".

If someone doesn't appreciate the likely practical consequences of that in an age of Trump and Sessions...I mean, I don't know what to tell you.

[Zarathud]

The problem is that you are not (and won't be) in charge of the line-drawing. I'm not sure whether you agree with the cartoon's statement that intolerant groups should be "outside the law".

The cartoon's use of the phrase is highly imprecise. I expect it was intended to mean "not protected speech" because it is based on denying rights to others.

To the extent that you believe that private individuals ought to "punch Nazis".

Not ought, but could be justified. With consequences.

more and more people who would consider any Republican / conservative as a Nazi - hence you see stuff like a Republican parade in Portland being canceled under threat of 'antifascist' violence.

Due to fears of "being pushed?" Portland Republicans probably can't handle internet comments or Chicago/New York sidewalks either. If you base your platform on disenfranchising other citizens, and you shouldn't be surprised they're going to get upset and in your face over it.

I have plenty of dislike for the Republican Party, but they're obviously not fascists.

Some of them, I assume, are good people.

The actual Nazis are pretty easy to spot with their flags, salutes and torches. Possibly their hats.

Though I think really my main problem with the advocacy of private Nazi punching is - how do you see this ending? What is the number of Nazis who need to be punched before we win? Is it like the 537th Nazi gets punched and the Neo-Nazis are like "ok boys, time to pack it in."

You don't need to quantify how many Nazis are going to get punched in the face. You need to understand that Nazis are so offensive that people want to punch them in the face--and will when provoked.

The course is set for violent protests. It's going to happen with Trump's support of white nationalists and insensitivity (at best) to minorities. I have no doubt more leftists will be arrested than white nationalists. I have no doubt they will be punished disproportionately when violence occurs. But I'm not going to condemn them for reacting to the incitement of Nazis. They're still morally better than the Nazis. There is no "both sides."

[El Guapo]

The problem is that you are not (and won't be) in charge of the line-drawing. I'm not sure whether you agree with the cartoon's statement that intolerant groups should be "outside the law".

The cartoon's use of the phrase is highly imprecise. I expect it was intended to mean "not protected speech" because it is based on denying rights to others.

To the extent that you believe that private individuals ought to "punch Nazis".

Not ought, but could be justified. With consequences.

more and more people who would consider any Republican / conservative as a Nazi - hence you see stuff like a Republican parade in Portland being canceled under threat of 'antifascist' violence.

Due to fears of "being pushed?" Portland Republicans probably can't handle internet comments or Chicago/New York sidewalks either. If you base your platform on disenfranchising other citizens, and you shouldn't be surprised they're going to get upset and in your face over it.

I have plenty of dislike for the Republican Party, but they're obviously not fascists.

Some of them, I assume, are good people.

The actual Nazis are pretty easy to spot with their flags, salutes and torches. Possibly their hats.

Though I think really my main problem with the advocacy of private Nazi punching is - how do you see this ending? What is the number of Nazis who need to be punched before we win? Is it like the 537th Nazi gets punched and the Neo-Nazis are like "ok boys, time to pack it in."

You don't need to quantify how many Nazis are going to get punched in the face. You need to understand that Nazis are so offensive that people want to punch them in the face--and will when provoked.

The course is set for violent protests. It's going to happen with Trump's support of white nationalists and insensitivity (at best) to minorities. I have no doubt more leftists will be arrested than white nationalists. I have no doubt they will be punished disproportionately when violence occurs. But I'm not going to condemn them for reacting to the incitement of Nazis. They're still morally better than the Nazis. There is no "both sides."

I guess I'm not sure there's that much disagreement really. There's no moral equivalency between Nazis and their enemies (except I guess for like Stalinists and the like). Nazis deserve to be punched. Some people seem to like to think that Nazi punching is a strategy for defeating Nazis, rather than an expression of righteous fury - it's not, and on the contrary an atmosphere of crisis and violence plays into the hands of them and Trumpist authoritarians.

My main concern is really just to push back on the notion in the cartoon - and which I have seen elsewhere - that advocacy of certain (intolerant) viewpoints ought to be criminal / illegal, which is just a fantastically terrible and shortsighted idea.

[RunningMn9]

My main concern is really just to push back on the notion in the cartoon - and which I have seen elsewhere - that advocacy of certain (intolerant) viewpoints ought to be criminal / illegal, which is just a fantastically terrible and shortsighted idea.

Maybe my internal auto-correct is fixing the cartoon and the more detailed source material, as I don't see either advocating that certain intolerant viewpoints ought to be criminal - unless they reach the level of inciting the underlying criminal behavior.

At that point, when those shitheads are ignoring reason, I am free to use the State to smite them. Keep in mind that this is a philosophical point, and not a legal one.

[El Guapo]

My main concern is really just to push back on the notion in the cartoon - and which I have seen elsewhere - that advocacy of certain (intolerant) viewpoints ought to be criminal / illegal, which is just a fantastically terrible and shortsighted idea.

Maybe my internal auto-correct is fixing the cartoon and the more detailed source material, as I don't see either advocating that certain intolerant viewpoints ought to be criminal - unless they reach the level of inciting the underlying criminal behavior.

At that point, when those shitheads are ignoring reason, I am free to use the State to smite them. Keep in mind that this is a philosophical point, and not a legal one.

I mean, I'm not sure what "outside the law" would mean other than "illegal / criminal", but here's the additional detail, from Smoove's link:

The cartoon is a Cliff Notes version of the quote that inspired it. Here's what Karl Popper wrote in 1945:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

So he's saying that "incitement to intolerance" (among other things) should be a crime. So technically having an intolerant viewpoint wouldn't be illegal, but sharing it or trying to persuade others to share that intolerant viewpoint would be criminal (and potentially subject to jail time). And again - and I really can't stress this enough - it is the state / law enforcement who would necessarily be in the position of deciding whom to prosecute for "incitement to intolerance".

To the extent that you are concerned with your ability to still call Nazis assholes - I don't think anyone is disputing that. Except that I suspect that Donald Trump might regard your doing so as "incitement to intolerance".

[RunningMn9]

So he's saying that "incitement to intolerance" (among other things) should be a crime.

Yes. "Incitement to intolerance" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Or at least I don't think that you and the author would agree on what that means.

In other words, I can talk to Smoove about murdering you. That's not a crime. Inciting Smoove to murder you, that's a crime.

In even other words, there is a difference between someone saying that they believe that all non-whites should be put to death (protected), and in someone getting up in front of a crowd with a microphone and saying "let's go put all non-whites to death!!" (perhaps not protected).

Regardless - putting all non-whites to death must always be illegal, so I will be intolerant of anyone saying or urging such things, 100% of the time.

[El Guapo]

So he's saying that "incitement to intolerance" (among other things) should be a crime.

Yes. "Incitement to intolerance" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Or at least I don't think that you and the author would agree on what that means.

In other words, I can talk to Smoove about murdering you. That's not a crime. Inciting Smoove to murder you, that's a crime.

In even other words, there is a difference between someone saying that they believe that all non-whites should be put to death (protected), and in someone getting up in front of a crowd with a microphone and saying "let's go put all non-whites to death!!" (perhaps not protected).

Regardless - putting all non-whites to death must always be illegal, so I will be intolerant of anyone saying or urging such things, 100% of the time.

I'm not sure how you can read the Smoove-linked passage and conclude that the author thinks anything other than advocating for the oppression / murder of non-whites should be a criminal offense even if it's not inciting specific violence (that your first example should also be illegal, not just the second). He says first that we should try to win via public opinion, but should reserve the right to suppress intolerant movements by force. He goes on to say that we should place any movement "preaching intolerance" (not inciting a particular criminal offense) as "outside the law". He then says that just as we (currently) regard incitement to murder as a criminal offense, so too should we regard "incitement to intolerance" (not currently illegal) as criminal.

In other words, inciting / urging people to be intolerant should be criminal.

Anyway, other than in interpreting what Karl Popper wrote (in which I am right and you are wrong ), I don't think we disagree on the merits. Neo-Nazis do and should have free speech rights to preach intolerance / assholery, and you and I (and everyone else) should have the right to be intolerant of their intolerance (short of physical assault and other crimes).

[ImLawBoy]

Hypothetical: The Nazi Party of the USA (NaPUSA) (yes, I just made that up) wants to have a public rally for their candidate, Adolph Smith, for President. The NaPUSA platform includes planks to enact laws that would forcibly remove non-white people from the US and make sodomy punishable by death, among other super fun ideas. They do not advocate breaking any laws, but rather going through the electoral process to gain power and then to modify the Constitution to permit the laws they propose.

Putting aside security concerns for the moment, should the NaPUSA be permitted to hold their rally?

[El Guapo]

Hypothetical: The Nazi Party of the USA (NaPUSA) (yes, I just made that up) wants to have a public rally for their candidate, Adolph Smith, for President. The NaPUSA platform includes planks to enact laws that would forcibly remove non-white people from the US and make sodomy punishable by death, among other super fun ideas. They do not advocate breaking any laws, but rather going through the electoral process to gain power and then to modify the Constitution to permit the laws they propose.

Putting aside security concerns for the moment, should the NaPUSA be permitted to hold their rally?

Yes.

In fact, the American Nazi party of the day had a mass rally in 1939 in Madison Square Garden. That rally shocked the public, and helped contribute to the collapse in support for the party.

[ImLawBoy]

Well, I knew you were going to say yes. ;P

[Isgrimnur]

I will say yes as well.

[Kurth]

Hypothetical: The Nazi Party of the USA (NaPUSA) (yes, I just made that up) wants to have a public rally for their candidate, Adolph Smith, for President. The NaPUSA platform includes planks to enact laws that would forcibly remove non-white people from the US and make sodomy punishable by death, among other super fun ideas. They do not advocate breaking any laws, but rather going through the electoral process to gain power and then to modify the Constitution to permit the laws they propose.

Putting aside security concerns for the moment, should the NaPUSA be permitted to hold their rally?

This shouldn't even be a question. Of course they should.

Edited to add: And if a bunch of "bash the Fash" a-holes show up and try to disrupt the rally, the government better step in and protect the NaPUSA scum.

[ImLawBoy]

I knew you'd say yes too.

[RunningMn9]

If it matters, I would say yes too.

But the instant they tried to do any of that, my verbal intolerance would translate immediately into burning them to the ground.

[ImLawBoy]

Sure, I think almost everyone on this forum would vocally oppose them. I was trying to suss out whether those who seemed to be supporting the paradox cartoon were suggesting that it should actually be illegal for these hate groups to organize and peacefully rally. I think we were losing our clarity on the point in our eagerness to show how much we hate their ideas.

[RunningMn9]

those who seemed to be supporting the paradox cartoon were suggesting that it should actually be illegal for these hate groups to organize and peacefully rally.

I personally don't think that it should be illegal. But my brain doesn't short circuit when forced to contemplate the notion that a hate group organizing a rally (we may disagree whether there is any circumstance where such a rally could be considered "peaceful") for the sole purpose of rallying people to the cause of something that *must* always remain illegal.

I'm fairly pro free speech, but if someone passed a law saying that you can't organize a rally to promote skinning toddlers alive on the third Wednesday of every month, because skinning toddlers alive must always remain illegal, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the slippery slope.

I don't need to make/consider the leap that just because people can't gather to organize the brutal deaths of toddlers, they won't be able to organize to discuss tax reform.

[ImLawBoy]

Except that your example is absurd (intentionally so), while my hypothetical is not (it's extreme, but there are clearly more than a handful of people in the US who would sign up for it).

The NaPUSA is clearly arguing for something that I think we agree must always remain illegal (forcible deportation of non-whites and death penalty for sodomy). Why, then, would that be protected speech, while the baby skinners do not get such protection? Or are you saying that the BSers probably should get protection, but you're just not going to get worked up about it if they don't?

[RunningMn9]

Or are you saying that the BSers probably should get protection, but you're just not going to get worked up about it if they don't?

This.

[ImLawBoy]

Would you get worked up over the NaPUSA not getting free speech protection?

[GreenGoo]

A more interesting scenario imo is what do you do if ilb's made up faction gains traction and makes political headway? Setting aside the unconstitutional aspect (if, say, the judicial branches fails to support the Constitution either through incompetence, bias or being undermined), what would you consider appropriate behaviour from the tolerant?

TL;Dr what do you do if hypothetical Nazi party begins to gain legal, political power?

[GreenGoo]

Mr fed convinced me of the benefits and necessity of true freedom of speech. Popular speech has no need of protection.

Where Fed stops his lectures is right before the marketplace of ideas fails (from an individual's perspective).

When the intolerant gain power specifically through the use of the tolerant's system, then begin dismantling it from within, what do the tolerant do?

Democracy (which could be described as a tolerant system) has been undermined in this way many times. History should be a great teacher, but is it? What have we learned?

[Anonymous Bosch]

The point has largely been missed here.

Forget the hypotheticals: the speech-writer in the OP is not, and was not, in any way, shape, or form, a Nazi. But he -- and the event in which he was to deliver his speech -- was groundlessly mischaracterized as such. The peaceful group behind that event were then violently oppressed by totalitarian thugs in masks in Berkeley.

The point being, condoning the violent oppression of supposed-"Nazi" speech means condoning the violent oppression of black, non-Trump-supporting liberals, such as the writer of the speech. Because the primary difference between violently oppressive anti-free speech groups like the KKK and Antifa is just the shape of the masks they hide behind. Just as the proverbial hammer sees every problem as a nail, anti-free speech totalitarians see every dissenting opinion as justification for their violence.

[El Guapo]

A more interesting scenario imo is what do you do if ilb's made up faction gains traction and makes political headway? Setting aside the unconstitutional aspect (if, say, the judicial branches fails to support the Constitution either through incompetence, bias or being undermined), what would you consider appropriate behaviour from the tolerant?

TL;Dr what do you do if hypothetical Nazi party begins to gain legal, political power?

The choices get worse as authoritarian / fascists gain legal power and authority. Mainly, you do mass protests (and legal challenges), with the demand that the dictator step down. Once an authoritarian has military / police institutions that are loyal to him (not the country / state), and are willing to shoot / arbitrarily arrest civilians, at that point you're probably screwed at least for awhile. Extralegal methods (riots, assassinations, revolution, etc.) are increasingly morally justified, but they generally don't work as a practical matter - disorder and chaos tends to strengthen the authoritarian's hands, giving some apparent justification to their claims that 'extraordinary measures' (martial law and the like) are necessary to maintain order, which motivates fewer people to protest and motivates those who are in a position to slow / stop the authoritarian from doing so. And even if assassination / revolution and the like succeed, they almost always only result in a different dictator, not democracy.

For the most part all you can do is mass movements when you can. Eventually (though it can take decades) the authoritarian structure collapses.

[El Guapo]

The point being, condoning the violent oppression of supposed-"Nazi" speech means condoning the violent oppression of black, non-Trump-supporting liberals, such as the writer of the speech. Because the primary difference between violently oppressive anti-free speech groups like the KKK and Antifa is just the shape of the masks they hide behind. Just as the proverbial hammer sees every problem as a nail, anti-free speech totalitarians see every dissenting opinion as justification for their violence.

I dunno, I think that's pretty much exactly what we're discussing. Whether literal "Nazis" do and should have full free speech rights, the proprietary of violence (punching) against those you regard as having noxious views, and the implications of those notions (bad) for other dissenting opinions.

[GreenGoo]

The point has largely been missed here.

Forget the hypotheticals.

That might be, but not by me. Freedom of speech is a pretty clear thing in the USA. There aren't any fuzzy lines like there are in my country where hurting peoples' feelings could be a crime based on a tribunal's opinion on any given day.

Speech is legal. Counter speech is legal. Threats are illegal only if they are true threats. Violence that is not self defense (which means defense of imminent bodily harm) is almost always illegal.

Did I miss anything?

Protestors cannot legally become violent just because they feel angry.

That's it. It's pretty straightforward.

My hypothetical are mostly because your system to prevent tyranny is facing it's first real test in my life time, and while the results are still out, it doesn't look promising.

What's a tolerant, legal abiding citizen to do in that case? Not now, but in a hypothetical future?

[Anonymous Bosch]

The point being, condoning the violent oppression of supposed-"Nazi" speech means condoning the violent oppression of black, non-Trump-supporting liberals, such as the writer of the speech. Because the primary difference between violently oppressive anti-free speech groups like the KKK and Antifa is just the shape of the masks they hide behind. Just as the proverbial hammer sees every problem as a nail, anti-free speech totalitarians see every dissenting opinion as justification for their violence.

I dunno, I think that's pretty much exactly what we're discussing. Whether literal "Nazis" do and should have full free speech rights, the proprietary of violence (punching) against those you regard as having noxious views, and the implications of those notions (bad) for other dissenting opinions.

Perhaps, but I think it needlessly obfuscates the reality of what transpired here. Sure, one can frame it hypothetically, but this was not a matter of punching genuine Nazis; it's about the mischaracterization and subsequent violent oppression of those like the speech-writer in the OP, because that's what's actually happening. In other words, it's easy for one to say they condone the punching of a hypothetical Nazi; one would hope it's a lot more difficult to condone the violent oppression of clearly non-hateful speech, as in the OP.

[GreenGoo]

As reports continue to surface over the years of new generations intolerance of intolerance, I'm struck by the apparent lack of understanding of the fundamentals of tolerance, the benefits to society and correcting the past injustices of intolerance​.

It feels like new generations have simply been supplied with new socially acceptable targets for their intolerance. And those targets are the intolerant.

It's a strange thing to watch. Instead of lynching minorities in the fifties, it's lynching bigots.

I mean, if they had to choose, they picked correctly, but no where does it say it's one or the other.

60's social justice was about peace and love, often centralised around institutes of higher learning. 2010's social justice seems to be about hating the right groups and burning down those institutes of higher learning if they try to teach them the value of the marketplace of ideas.

And God help you if you're a professor who supports free speech at an institute who's administrators don't understand it.

For the record this is NOT what your older generations were trying to teach you.

[Zarathud]

They were trying to give a speech to Berkeley that its liberal students didn't want to hear. I saw the same thing from the other side happen to liberal groups at Loyola University that the Jesuits weren't too happy about.

The University doesn't have the speeches beforehand, and the students get restless. Threats are made because both sides would rather get angry than do coursework. The speaker knows they can get more mileage out of not speaking. The University keeps the peace, and the speaker makes the news.

After 20 years, the shock value is gone. I'm not even going to play the tiniest violin over it. Sad!

[GreenGoo]

I can't even figure out who you think you can't be bothered to play the tiniest violin for. The building staff that have to lock up afterward?

This is an honest question because I really am not following you: Who are you not showing sympathy for in this case?

[Unagi]

the speaker who got more mileage out of it for not speaking?

[GreenGoo]

Ah.

He/she is the least interesting part of this equation imo.

I want these kids to be better tolerators. My concern for run of the mill hate mongers is...low.