Anonymous #1 13h

How is it a fallacy?

1

Anonymous #1 13h

Except it already exists. ‘Drag is dangerous to children. Therefore, we can ban all public drag shows.’ ‘Children shouldn’t know about sex. Therefore, we can ban all books that mention sex.’ These aren’t freedom of speech violations because the speech in question is seen as dangerous or offensive. Look into the laws and how quickly they slid from ‘protecting children’ to ‘removing rights from trans people’.

0

Anonymous #2 13h

If you allow the government to police hate speech, then *leaps to escalation without justification*

1

Anonymous #1 13h

I already gave an example but I guess I can give more. Multiple state governments and even the federal government have started restricting trans rights under the guise that trans people are extremists. Why? Because of the propaganda and fabrication surrounding trans people groomers or mass shooters. Same pipeline. ‘Trans people are dangerous. We need to ban trans activism. Now, let’s remove trans rights.’ All of this stems from trans people allegedly being extremists.

-1

Anonymous OP 13h

saying something is dangerous doesnt make it true. a death ideology that very explicitly and openly believes in racial supremacy and oppression is dangerous and deadly.

4

Anonymous OP 13h

Yes, but what does this have to do with the criminalization of hate speech? Do you know what hate speech even is?

5

Anonymous #1 12h

My point is about speech the government doesn’t like, not hate speech specifically. The government labeled pro-trans speech as dangerous, so they can now unconstitutionally arrest pro-trans activists. But this can be applied to hate speech. Imagine if the government banned hate speech, including Nazism. Do you see how easily our current administration could skew that to arrest Pro-Palestine activists under the guise of hate speech?

0

Anonymous #3 12h

That’s entirely my point. The government gets to decide what is or isn’t dangerous speech. They’ve decided pro-trans activism is dangerous, so they’ve criminalized it. They never decided that the KKK was dangerous, so they’ve criminalized it. A government that’s allowed to dictate what is and isn’t dangerous speech can easily slide into fascism by labeling speech they dislike as ‘dangerous’.

1

Anonymous OP 12h

Yes, I do see this, but that’s why this shouldn’t be enforced by someone like DHS or something and should be determined through juries and judges

1

Anonymous #1 12h

If put in front of SCOTUS today I fully believe they would vote in favor of making marxist ideas banned because they ‘promote famine and misery’ and is therefore ‘hateful and dangerous’ under the context that we were already just banning things like the swastika This same issue is happening with gerrymandering to a degree. Slippery slope but not fallacy

3

Anonymous OP 12h

except your example and point doesnt apply to ideologies and groups that self describe that way. "is this group dangerous? well they openly desire racial subjugation and explicitly, in writing, call for the extermination of entire groups and other ideologies." "is this group dangerous? they do XYZ." youre adding nuance to something that is quite literally a binary.

3

Anonymous #3 12h

if you could click a button and kill every nazi, would you do it? i.e. exterminating an entire group based on their ideology. many would, as they believe nazi’s are a dangerous blight on society. I ask a nazi the same thing but about Jews and they answer similarly. 2 groups, both think they are in the right, both, under your idea, should be jailed. I disagree with this and it is nuanced

-1

Anonymous #4 12h

paradox of tolerance and the difference between ideology and immutable characteristics are both lost on you

5

Anonymous #4 12h

The difference is Nazis are inherently dangerous, violence is integral to their world view, this is not true for Jewish people Thus, the Nazi’s arguments aren’t actually based in reality

1

Anonymous #1 11h

The problem is that we keep coming back to the idea of who gets to decide what is dangerous or offensive. The current SCOTUS is extremely right wing and has made it clear that they are not unbiased. Can we trust them?

0

Anonymous OP 11h

Moreover, what would we even do about it? How do you criminalize someone for their thoughts and beliefs? Imagine someone hacked into your social media and claimed you were a Nazi. Would you get arrested? Imagine an actual Nazi gets arrested then at trial claims it was one big inside joke and they’re not really a Nazi. Can you prove them otherwise?

0

Anonymous OP 11h

tbh if we can’t trust SCOTUS / the judiciary branch then the purpose of our government becomes near obsolete to the citizen

1

Anonymous OP 11h

Also never said we should criminalize beliefs, I would want to target public instances of hate speech to incite violence or hate against like a race, or religious group, or something.

1

Anonymous #1 11h

I mean, yeah. All three branches of the government are currently owned by the same man/political party. But the Supreme Court has been on the wrong side of history before (Dred Scott v. Stanford comes to mind immediately). There are quite a few flaws with our government, and this is one of them.

1

Anonymous #1 11h

As for the criminalization of beliefs, I was referring back to the original post which seemed to be in favor of making Nazism illegal. Stochastic terrorism? Yeah, that should be illegal. But I don’t personally believe that self-identifying as a Nazi and wearing Nazi identifiers around should be illegal, because it’s protected by the 1st Amendment. Many people in the commenters seem to disagree.

1

Anonymous OP 11h

Yeah enforcing beliefs or even statements made in private just seems impossible, laws that aren’t enforceable are purposeless

1