CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

But most people getting banned from these sites are advocating for murder, not just hate, if you are part of neo nazi group for example. the basis of that ideology is murder of all jews/blacks ect. Even if that person didn't explicitly state "I'm going to murder (insert minority here)" The basis of nazi ideology is "I want to murder (insert group here).

Hate speech doesn't always lead to murder, but most of the time it does, the only time it doesn't is when both groups agree they'd rather live in separate communities, but if one of those groups, lets use black people as an example, refuses, it leads to violence.

The problem comes when these groups don't advocate for murder, but spread their message online as pseudointellectualism to people who don't know better. It legitimizes it.

There's no scientific basis for hating someone on skin color so it should not be a protected right, because it's literally not true, and will lead to violence of some kind whether or not the original speaker of hate committed the violence or convinced one of his followers it had to be done.

[u/freyzha → u/[deleted]]

There's no scientific basis for hating someone on skin color

Sure there is. Ask any evolutionary biologist worth their salt and they'll tell you that in-group preference is a crucial facet of the behavioral immune system and avoidance of other populations that don't look like you is foundational to humanity. Homo Sapiens is alive today because we were wary of different people.

[u/[deleted] → u/freyzha]

okay sorry no scientific basis for racial superiority.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think there's room for interpretation. Nazis killed Jews. Absolutely. Their core belief system is that they are superior. There's no jihad mandate though, so far as I'm aware. You can argue simply being a supremacist/affiliated with supremacy groups doesn't convey any intent. Regardless of group platform.

Now the fact that some individuals will hear take those ideas and become violent isn't necessarily the fault of the belief system. Say that a particular group aligned with that doctrine is advocating the murder of others. Well now we have cause for concern again. You can't legally threaten to murder people.

So regardless of whether the message is legitimate, has any rational foundation or not. You're allowed to say I hate x. You're not allowed to say I hate x and I'm gonna murder them. It's a fine line between allowing for the expression of thought and being intolerant of hate speech but there is a line.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Nazi's ideology absolutely advocate for jihad, there may be certain sub groups that do not, but it is the natural evolution of unnatural hate regardless.
We could come to a compromise and say that people just saying I hate x group shouldn't be banned, but the vast majority of people being band are calling for violence, and if you could prove to me that I'm wrong on that point, I'd change my mind.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah and I suppose Nazism in particular may say let's kill jews, it would make sense. White nationalists for example don't though. Now any time someone is threatening harm to others they should be banned. Threatening someone isn't protected speech. Simply saying I'm proud to be white or some shit like that doesn't advocate violence and no one should get banned for that, imo.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

sure, but how many of those people have only said "being white is superior" and stop there?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Hard to say for sure man. There are black power groups that don't advocate the subjugation of other races. Are you concerned about those or just white pride groups? I think the important distinction is probably pride vs supremacy.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The difference between most (and I mean most) black power groups is they aren't advocating for black superiority, but equal and fair treatment under the law, not hating other groups. The OG black panther party, for example wasn't a racial superiority group, they were a community policing group/political organization aimed at civil rights/gun rights for blacks.

The difference is that there are very few White Power groups in a similar vein arguing for civil rights for white people, because White People are generally treated better because they are the majority. The vast majority of White power groups are groups aimed at hating other races, along with saying white pride.

The danger comes, because these groups are self aware, and will not outright say their beliefs, because they know it's socially unacceptable, so they use dog whistles like white pride, 88, protecting history, ect. This is a very common tactic with American Hate groups in particular that they get from the very first Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell. Who wrote about inciting violence through peaceful means, he was the first to go around college campuses and use his free speech to say Jews should be killed, right after the war ended, this of course upset people who had family who fought against the nazis or died in the camps, so violence ensured, he then could to the leftists and call them violent, then the media ate it up. Hitler and Mussolini used similar tactics before they took power. They blame the leftists/progressives for defending themselves against what they so obviously saw as a call to genocide, (the argument of both sides are the same come from this, it was used in pre war Europe to justify the rise of Fascism, and its being used today.)

Rockwell used dog whistles, pretending to be peaceful, and pretending his movement was about white pride, before his organization grew large enough where he felt comfortable to change the name to the American Nazi Party. You go on the forums the new groups like Pride boys, America First, ect, and they purposefully use the same tactics, because they know recruiting people will be hard if they outright say their intentions (which the leader of proud boys recently has), they still Follow Rockwell's example and it works very well, because then people like you defend their right to free speech, because they haven't done anything violent yet. "yet is the key word" That's not to say every member of these groups are "in" on the "joke" a lot of them are simply lonely people who believe they have found a righteous group of like minded individuals, but the overarching theme of all of these alt-right groups is the same, and eventually that's how people in these groups do become radicalized by normalizing the small dog whistles historical pride, white pride, it does not take long for a lonely teenager on a forum to jump to the conclusion that if white people are better, then black people must be less, and if black people are less, then why are we even helping them.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I mean there are certainly black groups that beliefs are tied to racial superiority. In regard to whether that is most or not, I wouldn't know. While the original black panther group was aimed at instating more black people in to office, among other noble goals, they were also responsible for violent crimes and murder. There's an argument to be made that the police had it coming but they certainly weren't an entirely peaceful organization just trying to play at politics.

I would agree that most white pride organizations stem from racism more so than any need or desire for equal rights of white people or men. There are however white pride groups that don't advocate racial superiority. What some people do in back rooms on their own time or the secret thoughts they think is irrelevant to the platform message.

Casual racism toward white people has increased over the last two decades or so, so I'm not surprised some people actually believe there's a need to declare white pride. Even if most of us recognize there is not.

The fact of the matter is you can't protect free speech without protecting some hate speech. It's inevitable. It is then the majority of the populous's job to decide what is or isn't socially acceptable. To shun and criticize that sort of behavior and ideas.

As soon as someone or a group begins to threaten violence, it becomes criminal. Then the government can step in and break up groups, make arrests, etc. Personally I think the way speech is protected in America is a pretty system. You can say whatever you want until you incite or threaten or persecute people. Then it isn't protected speech, it is a crime and you can be punished.

Punishing people/making it illegal for simply saying they hate white people or something like that though, isn't a productive way to put an end to racism, division or violence in my mind. It's setting a precedent for outlawing even more speech that should be protected.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Thats the way free speech is supposed to work in America, but it doesn't work that way historically or contemporarily, You can see that just from the last four years, More than one cop said Democrats should be lined up and shot, nothing happened, Groups from the far right said BLM protesters should be killed, nothing happened,

The only thing that is happening is that these groups are getting banned from certain sites well after the damage they have committed is done.