Defending HItler

[Jason the Rationalist]

I have hinted that you have a greater sympathy for the movement than may be typical, due to your continual repetition and defense of their talking points.

I have never defended the content of their speech. If you look at my posting history you will discover this. I defend their right to speak, and have done so consistently. It is sad that you can't tell the difference. I do not know if you can't tell the difference because you are unable to or unwilling to.

Is it necessary or 'right' to defend the right of someone to speak if you are aware that what they will say you will probably regard as indefensible? Or is it possible that what they will come out with will somehow be quite different to what they have been coming out with so far? With or without your defense of their right to speak they will speak for themselves regardless won't they? Do you know whether such people approve and regard you as a subtle ally? Interested, not having a pop or anything, just interested to know what you think.

ETA: everyone has the right to be heard, sometimes what is being said will offend others. I'm wondering if the right of person 'A' to say what they want is being confused with person 'B' supporting the right of person 'A' to offend others IF the only purpose of person 'A' is to offend and stir. In that situation, unless person 'A' is being physically silenced, why would person 'B' need to be supporting the right of person 'A' to say what they want? Telling someone to shut up is an expression of freedom, it doesn't follow that the recipient has to comply in any way whatsoever. Being told to shut up doesn't infringe on your right, or ability to, express yourself.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why yes, by all means check the posting history, and you will see him defending the right of people to deny the Holocaust, but attacking the right of Black Lives Matter to protest police brutality.

Make of that what you will. I certainly have.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Defending their right to protest is not the same as defending the content of their protest.

Is your refusal to tell this apart due to inability or unwillingness?

I will defend the right to say the indefensible.

ALICE: He's dangerous!

WILLIAM ROPER: For libel, he's a spy!

MARGARET MORE: Father, that man's bad.

SIR THOMAS MORE: There is no law against that.

ROPER: There is! God's law!

MORE: Then God can arrest him.

ALICE: While you talk, he's gone!

MORE: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER: So! Now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, but to selectively defend people protesting one thing while attacking others protesting another definitely implies a preference.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Defending the right is not the same as defending the content. Attacking the content is not the same as attacking the right. That is the "selectivity" you are harping on.

Is your refusal to tell this apart due to inability or unwillingness?

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Defending the right is not the same as defending the content. Attacking the content is not the same as attacking the right. That is the "selectivity" you are harping on.

Is your refusal to tell this apart due to inability or unwillingness?

Do you think there is any distinction to be made between (i) saying what you want to directly to someone else (that does not reference someone who is not being silenced) and (ii) saying what you want to directly to someone else (in support of someone who is not being silenced) - it all potentially falls under the same umbrella but is it not different?

 

[Sarpedon]

I understand it perfectly, I simply don't trust you when you say that is what you are doing, because you only do it selectively for certain causes.

When a person supports the right to free speech of one person, while attacking the right of free speech of another, as you have done, any reasonable person would conclude that person favors the content of one over the other.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No one is talking about banning or arresting humbleman. One must wonder how the left is becoming a target in a hitler thread.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Defending their right to protest is not the same as defending the content of their protest.

Is your refusal to tell this apart due to inability or unwillingness?

I will defend the right to say the indefensible.

Permit me to pose a hypothetical situation/question.

Through your support of person B to express opinion 'X' would you accept or absolve yourself of any of the responsibility for a specific outcome - let's call it action 'Z' - arising as a result of option 'X' reaching critical mass, having gathered significant overall support? Let's say that action 'Z' followed logically from opinion 'X' and opinion 'X' was completely at odds with your own values. You would have recognised that it was at odds with your own values as you were defending their right to express this view or press a certain agenda.

I'm not really thinking along the lines of incitement but what if the above happened, what if this person then was able to somehow turn it round to being about you and the influence you had?

I believe that pretty much everything we say has consequences.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I understand it perfectly, I simply don't trust you when you say that is what you are doing, because you only do it selectively for certain causes.

The evidence does not indicate that you understand the difference.

There are many people for whom "racist" is the go-to insult. Of those many people, I've only ever encountered ONE who did the time to do the research to back it up, and that person apologized to me for accusing me of being a racist.

You are not that person.

When a person supports the right to free speech of one person, while attacking the right of free speech of another, as you have done, any reasonable person would conclude that person favors the content of one over the other.

I've always defended the right of speech, and never attacked anyone's right of speech. I have attacked the content of speech, but never the right of speech.

Is your failure to understand the difference due to inability or unwillingness?

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Jason Harvestdancer, I would be interested to read your response(s) to what I have posted.

Jason the Rationalist

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Defending their right to protest is not the same as defending the content of their protest.

Is your refusal to tell this apart due to inability or unwillingness?

I will defend the right to say the indefensible.

Permit me to pose a hypothetical situation/question.

Through your support of person B to express opinion 'X' would you accept or absolve yourself of any of the responsibility for a specific outcome - let's call it action 'Z' - arising as a result of option 'X' reaching critical mass, having gathered significant overall support? Let's say that action 'Z' followed logically from opinion 'X' and opinion 'X' was completely at odds with your own values. You would have recognised that it was at odds with your own values as you were defending their right to express this view or press a certain agenda.

I'm not really thinking along the lines of incitement but what if the above happened, what if this person then was able to somehow turn it round to being about you and the influence you had?

I believe that pretty much everything we say has consequences.

Okay.

Sarpedon believes in using the power of government to censor "offensive" speech, presumably speech that is offensive by his standards. He forgets that other people have other standards and may find his own speech offensive and could use said power to censor him. Advocates of censorship never see the trap they are laying for themselves through what they advocate. Anyway.

So Person B is Sarpedon, and opinion X is advocacy of censorship. It is possible if he continues to advocate for censorship, laws can get passed that would enforce his desire, action Z.

Opinion X, censorship, is completely at odds with my own values. Action Z, a law that enforces censorship, is completely at odds with my own values.

I still defend his right to advocate censorship even though I oppose censorship and oppose laws that would enforce censorship.

I do not accept responsibility for any laws enforcing censorship as a result of defending Sarpedon's advocacy of censorship. I will argue against him but will not act to silence him.

I took your hypothetical and turned it into a real and concrete example. I do not accept responsibility for the action Z that may result Person B's expression of Opinion X, or from defending the right of Person B to express opinion X.

 

[Sarpedon]

Once again you respond to my reasoned arguments with false slander. I have not advocated censorship. I have met speech with speech. What a pathetic hypocrite you are!

All I have done is draw certain conclusions about you based on who you choose to associate with, as is my right.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All I have done is draw certain conclusions about you based on who you choose to associate with, as is my right.

You also used your imagination instead of facts to determine who I associate with, as is I guess your right.

It isn't called "censorship" when you do it, it is called "suppressing hate speech" and "protecting the public." I guess I didn't use the right euphemism to soften what is actually a very fascist policy you advocate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A lot of left ideologies are about removing hierarchies at all levels, institutional, cultural, societal. Big L Libertarianism, on the other hand, is an obtuse ideology that only supports equality at the government level and pretending that passive harm is an intractable problem, thus only dealing with active harm. This allows an indirect support of all unfair, undue hierarchies that are not ordered by government. so, for example, an indirect support of unfair economics. Libertarians would go so far as to support indentured servitude if there were a contract they could refer to. Libertarianism would not support an armed revolution against unfair economics, such as hoarding of wealth by a few elites and indentured servitude by the rabble thru contracts. thats why they do nit support a minimum wage or the civil rights act. this is also why so many right wing racists want to join--to keep the status quo power structure that is institutional and societal, not governmental.

Lets not pretend Hitler was a Libertarian, though. He was authoritarian. Libertarians would not support genocide, just the unfair aftermath of unequal economics as a result generations later and ghettos.

*crickets*

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A lot of left ideologies are about removing hierarchies at all levels, institutional, cultural, societal. Big L Libertarianism, on the other hand, is an obtuse ideology that only supports equality at the government level and pretending that passive harm is an intractable problem, thus only dealing with active harm. This allows an indirect support of all unfair, undue hierarchies that are not ordered by government. so, for example, an indirect support of unfair economics. Libertarians would go so far as to support indentured servitude if there were a contract they could refer to. Libertarianism would not support an armed revolution against unfair economics, such as hoarding of wealth by a few elites and indentured servitude by the rabble thru contracts. thats why they do nit support a minimum wage or the civil rights act. this is also why so many right wing racists want to join--to keep the status quo power structure that is institutional and societal, not governmental.

Lets not pretend Hitler was a Libertarian, though. He was authoritarian. Libertarians would not support genocide, just the unfair aftermath of unequal economics as a result generations later and ghettos.

*crickets*

Are you saying that had a point?

Let's see. The thread is called "Defending Hitler". Is that your attempted defense of Hitler, that he wasn't a Libertarian?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A lot of left ideologies are about removing hierarchies at all levels, institutional, cultural, societal. Big L Libertarianism, on the other hand, is an obtuse ideology that only supports equality at the government level and pretending that passive harm is an intractable problem, thus only dealing with active harm. This allows an indirect support of all unfair, undue hierarchies that are not ordered by government. so, for example, an indirect support of unfair economics. Libertarians would go so far as to support indentured servitude if there were a contract they could refer to. Libertarianism would not support an armed revolution against unfair economics, such as hoarding of wealth by a few elites and indentured servitude by the rabble thru contracts. thats why they do nit support a minimum wage or the civil rights act. this is also why so many right wing racists want to join--to keep the status quo power structure that is institutional and societal, not governmental.

Lets not pretend Hitler was a Libertarian, though. He was authoritarian. Libertarians would not support genocide, just the unfair aftermath of unequal economics as a result generations later and ghettos.

*crickets*

Are you saying that had a point?

Let's see. The thread is called "Defending Hitler". Is that your attempted defense of Hitler, that he wasn't a Libertarian?

No, it's my defense of big L Libertarianism since that became the topic. Nazis may want to join the party because right wing militias find a lot in common, but big L Libertarianism will only support them so much. Ethno-separatism, sure. Genocide, NO. Supporting unjust economic institutions--sure, so long as it's not the govt. ETA: for example, Big L Libertarianism would support a society of oligarchs who have indentured servants by contracts and not support an armed insurrection of those workers against the elites.

 

[laughing dog]

No one is talking about banning or arresting humbleman.

And yet, someone felt the need to babble on about defending the right to defend Hitler.

One must wonder how the left is becoming a target in a hitler thread.

Probably because the left was a target of Hitler.

Interestingly, Jason Harvestdancer presented a better defense of Hitler than anyone else - Hitler was less worse than Stalin when one looks at the number of killed.

 

[Sarpedon]

I think my "He was constantly on drugs" defense would be better in court.

To say that he killed fewer people than Stalin is no defense. Some people get hanged for killing just one person. Demonstrating that someone is not in control of their actions is the way to go.

For the record, I do not believe that Hitler was not in control of his actions. I am merely answering on topic to this thread, unlike the holocaust deniers and their defenders.

Also, it is a fact that Hitler was constantly on drugs. Just one of the many facts that I know that the people on the right don't want to draw attention to, for some reason.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think my "He was constantly on drugs" defense would be better in court.

To say that he killed fewer people than Stalin is no defense. Some people get hanged for killing just one person. Demonstrating that someone is not in control of their actions is the way to go.

For the record, I do not believe that Hitler was not in control of his actions. I am merely answering on topic to this thread, unlike the holocaust deniers and their defenders.

Also, it is a fact that Hitler was constantly on drugs. Just one of the many facts that I know that the people on the right don't want to draw attention to, for some reason.

if you have enough money, you can buy some experts who agree that the drugs and insanity played a role. this was analyzed independently by a psychiatrist who debunked those defenses, but money talks. both prosecution and defenses with money can hire experts to say anything.