@pbandkate Makes sense, when you think about it. Nazis want/need to end free speech. Their strategy seems to be convincing the left that "free speech is for Nazis."
@pbandkate @adambredenberg Absolutely. This has been figured out since at least the end of World War II and yet plenty of people (e.g. liberals, centrists) still don't get it or see how they're being played.
I mean, this is what the Nazis took advantage of to get into power in Germany in the first place. "Free speech means everyone has to give us platforms and listen to our propaganda."
@Lexi @pbandkate Yes. This relates to the issue of "Nazis using free speech to organize in public" and "us-vs-them mentality"... When a unified faction is determined to cynically abuse a right for strategic gain, they can make that right look undesirable. (Compare to the behavior of congressional republicans right now.)
simulated Nazi arguments Show more
@pbandkate @Lexi I think this argument can backfire too easily. Allow me to simulate some Nazi arguments: 1) white genocide is real, 2) muslims are going to genocide white people, 3) arguing against the muslim ban is "not protected speech" because it's "racist against white people".
This exact argument is already circulating online, and its proponents would love an opportunity to put it into practice.
@pbandkate @Lexi I feel like I disagree, but I'm open to being persuaded. It seems like a "freedom vs. security" argument. I usually personally take the side of freedom, but maybe it's better to strike a balance.
What's the practical upshot though? In the US system, the government cannot limit speech but private platforms can. I can only think of two alternatives, and both are worse: state limits on speech (dystopian) and direct action (vigilanteeism).