Racist rioting in the UK

[Jamiet99uk]

Y'know I find it really interesting how this is the exact excuse Putin used to "justify" invading Ukraine.

Russia is not a liberal society.

I don't see how that changes anything. They believe that to preserve their form of government, they must rid the world of Nazis and Fascists. So if their neighbors won't do it in their countries, then Russia must do it for them.

No, Jamie. Extermination (which is what "not tolerating the existence of" means) is not the proper way to go about political discussion. In fact, if I recall correctly, this was the very same approach Hitler used, and is a tool not of the free but of dictators.

So you would have allowed Hitler to take power, because that's the good "liberal" thing to do?

I see.

I disagree, so fuck you.

[Jamiet99uk]

What if there is a synagogue, right next door to the parliament building?

What if some of the Members of Parliament entering and leaving the building are Jewish?

How many metres away from a synagogue do I have to stand, for it to be okay in a liberal society for me to advocate that Jews should be killed?

In Canada this type of speech would probably be illegal no matter where it happened. In the States, it would fall to a court to determine whether the speech could reasonably be thought to incite violence. I prefer the US approach, since it doesn't make the state the arbiter of what speech is legitimate.

There was a recent debate in Canada about whether to punish Holocaust denial. I'm glad we didn't - people are going to deny the holocaust anyhow, much better that we air their views in the open and provide a robust public response to their false claims.

Hate speech is harmful. It causes upset.

You are in favour of allowing Nazis to spread their message. You think this is a liberal, neutral position. It isn't. The failure to shut down extremist, racist, fascist lies, has helped make those positions seem mainstream in many European countries.

You think you are a liberal but your position enables the rise of violent Nazisim.

[Jamiet99uk]

Hitler took power in Germany thanks to the attitudes of people like Esquire and Fritz.

[Jamiet99uk]

We spent the first half of the 1940s responding to Fascists correctly.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Hitler used the type of speech prohibitions you advocate for as part of his path to gain power. Nazism wasn't just a consequence of Germans being unwilling to police their neighbours' speech lol.

What's happening in the UK right now is exactly what protects a liberal society from authoritarianism. Dummies with bad ideas are allowed to say crazy shit in public. The ones who commit serious crimes get imprisoned. Then, nearly every major news publication, TV pundit, and politician will condemn the racist elements of this movement and there will be a national conversation about why racism is morally and epistemically bankrupt.

Then, just maybe, there will be a quieter conversation about some of the adverse consequences of immigration and what could be done to ameliorate them.

This approach strikes me as much better than, say, imprisoning anyone willing to express a bad idea about race in public.

[Jamiet99uk]

You are in favour of hate speech.

I see.

[Jamiet99uk]

I think Esquire Bert should be dragged into the town square and beaten to death.

His mother should be anally raped and this should be broadcast on TV across the country.

I think he might be a fucking homosexual Jew, so any man who has ever been seen associating with him should be castrated without anaesthetic.

He agrees with my right to hold this view because he is so liberal.

[Jamiet99uk]

^ You approve of this kind of free speech, don't you, you dirty cunt?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Hate speech is harmful. It causes upset.

You want to police upset?

You are in favour of allowing Nazis to spread their message. You think this is a liberal, neutral position. It isn't. The failure to shut down extremist, racist, fascist lies, has helped make those positions seem mainstream in many European countries.

We just disagree about how people come to their political ideas.

I don't think it's the job of some enlightened progressive elite to decide what ideas are palatable for the masses. And I don't think people are so easily swayed that they need to be protected from bad ideas.

Racist aren't popular because they're talked about lots - they're talked about lots because they are popular. You could try to drive the bad side of this conversation underground. I'd argue it's more sustainable to argue against it head on.

How can you know what "extremist" ideas need to be "shut down"? Who gets to decide and how exactly are you shutting them down?

[Jamiet99uk]

[Note: I don't actually hold these positions; I am stating them here because Esquire Bert strongly supports my right to speak in this sick fashion]

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I think Esquire Bert should be dragged into the town square and beaten to death.

His mother should be anally raped and this should be broadcast on TV across the country.

I think he might be a fucking homosexual Jew, so any man who has ever been seen associating with him should be castrated without anaesthetic.

He agrees with my right to hold this view because he is so liberal.

This is useful speech.

It lets everyone know about Jamie's mental illness, which will help shape their future interactions with him :)

I really wouldn't want someone to go to prison for speech like this.

[Jamiet99uk]

Your active support for open, unlimited hate speech is genuinely fucked up.

You wrongly assume that people targeted by hate speech can just defeat it by speaking up for themselves. Frequently the parties are unequal. Consider a racial minority being abused on a daily basis by Fox TV. The TV station has a budget of millions, the racial minority cannot counter that.

You think you are liberal but what you are is an enabler of racism and bigotry.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You haven't yet done anything but insult me Jamie.

Who decides what speech is prohibited? How is that enforced? What's the evidence that speech prohibitions outperform an open society in securing the type of progressive future you presumably want?

[Jamiet99uk]

You haven't yet done anything but insult me Jamie.

Who decides what speech is prohibited? How is that enforced? What's the evidence that speech prohibitions outperform an open society in securing the type of progressive future you presumably want?

A functioning democracy and an independent judiciary, ideally.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm insulting you on purpose because you are openly advocating for my right to do so.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If what you mean is just that you prefer a UK-style approach to hate speech rather than a US one then I really only slightly disagree, which makes it a shame my mother had to be anally raped on TV for us to get to that point lol.

I think you should have the right to insult me, I'm not sure what that tangent of yours was supposed to prove.

[Jamiet99uk]

If what you mean is just that you prefer a UK-style approach to hate speech rather than a US one then I really only slightly disagree, which makes it a shame my mother had to be anally raped on TV for us to get to that point lol.

I think you should have the right to insult me, I'm not sure what that tangent of yours was supposed to prove.

It's obvious that I meant that.

Your position makes no sense to me at all because it lets extreme hate reign supreme in the public realm with no limitations.

The ideal of "being liberal" is no defence of that stance in my opinion.

I was trying to bring the extreme nature of your own stance to life for you.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Is it possible that you hate the idea of debate because you're not very good at it? If your goal was to change my mind there was probably a better way of getting there than raping my mom lol.

This has been extraordinarily stupid. My view is basically the official policy in the US and it is not an extremist hellhole. The approach taken by Canada and the UK is evidently fine as well. And we all agree we don't want Iranian or Russian speech prohibitions.

[Jamiet99uk]

Is it possible that you hate the idea of debate because you're not very good at it? If your goal was to change my mind there was probably a better way of getting there than raping my mom lol.

This has been extraordinarily stupid. My view is basically the official policy in the US and it is not an extremist hellhole. The approach taken by Canada and the UK is evidently fine as well. And we all agree we don't want Iranian or Russian speech prohibitions.

I'm exploring what you think is legitimate speech.

You think hate speech is legitimate and should be protected.

I think that is actually quite an extreme view.

[Jamiet99uk]

The United States had Donald Trump as president for four years and appears likely to elect him again. If you think that's a well-functioning liberal democracy then God help you.