Being anti-nazi shouldn't be political or controversial

[DarthMetalliCube]

StarOcean said:

DarthMetalliCube said:

???

Forgive me but I'm completely baffled by this. Might I ask why?

IMO free speech is the biggest cornerstone of a free and prosperous society. Short of threatening words, ALL speech needs to be allowed. If they are truly horrible ideas (as are the ideas of Nazism, and hell Fascism/Communism in general for that matter), then they will be naturally marginalized and defeated in the free marketplace of ideas as the majority of well meaning people will reject them. Without free speech we are at the whim of oppressive people/governments who feel they can oppress and silence you through force simply because you have the wrong beliefs/ideas. To me that leads to a spiral of self-destruction, and in many ways represents the very characteristics of Nazism ironically..

This is why I despite Antifa fascists because they are starting to implement these tactics.

No. I do not believe in free speech. It allows for hate groups to exist. Any hate ideologies such as Nazism, racism, sexism, etc in their purest form (not the bastardized versions) should be punished. We send terrorists to Guantonomo Bay, solitary confinement indefinitely for many of them. That's what would be done to those sorts of people. There aren't many people like it thankfully, but they deserve no platform to spread their idealogies and must be stopped at the source. 

Fair enough.. Though I'd counter with a few key points -

For one, why focus on the negative? Free speech will inevitably bring out some horrible speech, but it will also bring out some great speech that might have otherwise been suppressed. Hell, I believe we probably wouldn't have many of the technologies, religions, and theories, and philosophical concepts we have today if not for the free exchange of ideas.

Second, this "supression of hate groups" sounds nice in theory, though I'd aruge that attempting them to silence them through force or threats would only serve to boost their cause and give them more power, as they'd be able to claim victimhood by pointing to these attempts of silencing them.

Additionally, how do you decide who makes these decisions of who can say what? Who decides what speech is tolerable and what isn't? And what makes them qualified? Do they have some sort of agenda of their own that might make them want to suppress certain speech? What makes these people in power so special, and the keepers of information/morality?

And again, the suppresion of free speech IS ironically a sort of Nazism/Fascism, so those attempting to silence it would ironcally sort of BECOME what they're trying to silence in some ways.. Authority figures and governments are just as capable of hate - who's to say they can't abuse this power to merely silence OTHER forms of hate (or worse, ideas they falsely VIEW as hate) while enforcing their own? They're still only human after all..

The whole practice, of placing such empasis and importance on mere words and ideas, sets and extremely bad precedent and sets the stage for a chaotic, oppressive society from my view, full of an extrememly angry and repressed masses of people.