Agreed. Every free speech platform that allows nazis inevitably ends up getting dominated by them, see Gab. I'm of the opinion that free speech shouldn't be extended to those who would take yours. That's where I draw the line. It applies to many on the far left as well.
The worst one I remember was Ruqqus. I've considered writing an article about them but they weren't ever that big of a platform and anyway, it was a Reddit alternative, ick Reddit, which is also now known to probably have been infamously infested with pedos because of the Epstein and Maxwell circle anyway.
The Hamasniks would be so mad but it's true. As much as my inner Aldo the Apache wants to hunt Nazis it would mess up the algorithm and crap. Then we'd have to click on that crap after we found it. It'd ruin your personal account.
Then it becomes a censorship issue. It's mainly to point out there's more Hamas Nazis on Substack than actual Nazis and actual Hamas Nazis are making way more if one posits using their logic.
You should think more about your first word choices. You can’t ban free speech a little bit or demonetize some and not others based on the same principle. There is no half measure. Other than that you appear to have an evidenced based perspective. And I will play you in worms WMD if you dare.
Well, Substack already bans pornography and it bans incitements to violence despite the Brandenberg Test meaning it's legal to incite people to violence as long as your incitement isn't likely to lead to imminent violent action. We already don't have absolute free speech. If we did we'd be Ruqqus and look what happened to them. Hanania is protected and "TERFs" are protected and Zionists are protected and lots of people are protected because the rules are generally very clear.
Yes. I understand your point. Perhaps it is I who should rephrase my language. These points are often intentionally muddied by the Katz/Kabbas Kabul as previously mentioned and I have become reactive to the extreme when things look like their bad faith bullshit is working. Your lack of acknowledgment of my Worms WMD challenge makes me think your avoiding. 😜
The article linked below is a bit of a long read :P but I stand by one of the last sections in particular (the section spanning from Mel Brooks to Ol' Noamers) highlights the importance of broadly defending Nazis' and their ilk's right to speech. I don't feel like typing it again, so anyone interested can check it out and decide for themselves ha
True, but I was thinking if we reported them in groups and also reported actual Nazis from Katz's list (all eight of them!) they wouldn't be willing or able to ban us. I mean, in non-Bizarro world, Hamas supporters are Nazis because Hamas is Nazis and Nazi sympathizers are Nazis. Of course it should be done carefully. I'll keep up with Katz's Nazi lists and report the actual White supremacists (I capitalized Black this article so I'm capitalizing White too, even if White supremacists would do that they wouldn't capitalize Black because they are inconsistent in the opposite way of DEI politicians) and then I'll report the Kabas Katz Klan for being a bunch of Hamasniks. But not people like Margaret Atwood and many of the other signers, I think they're well-meaning but just clueless.
Margaret Atwood is one of them. You are confusing to me but I really think it is just naivety. I am not knocking you for it, I went through the very same process - I think, Im assuming a lot - but for real, abandon all prior notions of people that you look up too, it will be easier this way. And also if you start to make little exceptions or explain away this and that, it will compromise your credibility and people will notice. I lost Noam Chomsky, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and my sister and mother to COVIDIAN brain wash and it sucks. I argued with my mother what the definition of free speech was and I simplified it “it means you’re allowed to be a nazi”. My mom could not accept the definition of free speech as is. This is what you are dealing with. Good luck too you
Free speech also means you're allowed to write pornography, but that's not allowed on this site. Do you want porn here to go with your Nazis? What about Nazi porn?
I see no issue with free speech as is closely currently practiced. Im in Canada.
You ban pornography from children but pornography is available, to some extent, in the public library. Im unaware of the porn stipulations on Substack admittedly, and still trying to understand your position. If you are ‘down’ for demonetization of anyone, that is just sneaky censorship trying to come in the back door no? Why would you agree to this? Am i misunderstanding your points? I get there is no real such thing as pure free speech as you mentioned before, but it needs no other restrictions than the law is already set up to criminalize. It actually needs more protections from the deep state and their moronic SAN spokesmen.
You can't post porn on Substack and you can't incite violence even though some degree of inciting violence in real life is protected by the Brandenberg Test. We don't have pure free speech on Substack, so as long as just Nazis are banned and they don't start banning "TERFs" and whoever who isn't breaking the rules, what's the problem? Is everything automatically a slippery slope? I don't think banning literally Hitler leads to banning anyone who gets called literally Hitler. If things go in that direction there will be a lot of pushback anyway.
Yes. Here is where we disagree hard, and I think is the real essence of free speech. You can’t ban any one for any reason other then clear calls to violence, which can be sidestepped with dog whistles admittedly. humiliate and scorn them yes, win them in the debate of ideas. But the slippery slope should be redefined as accepted collateral damage. You have to be ok with the silly groups of racists that are everywhere on every platform and in every society, in terms of free speech. None of us will ever be perfect, which is why the principle needs to be practiced as such.
And in case there is any confusion, I do not condone prejudice. I just accept it and carry on, and trust the community will react accordingly if a silly group starts to get real power and tries to do exactly what the SAN people are doing. Other then the most die hard,kool aid drinkers out there, No one thinks they are a Nazi, even when they are doing Nazi things. They justify it irrationally or attempt to hoodwink the rest of us like SAN. And I am very happy to see SubStack and Rumble both pass this test recently.
No, Substack literally has rules against those. You are not allowed to post porn or incitements to violence (even ones that pass the Brandenberg Test for free speech in real life) on Substack.
Maybe. I heard the old-school ACLU never really fought for Nazi's rights after all though but I heard conflicting things. I keep thinking the line where bigotry becomes indefensible is when it leads to violence and Nazis are by definition violent, Richard Hanania is not, but I probably should read more myself. If you or other people have things to post, feel free to!
Yes, but "TERFs" (both actually TERFs and anyone else critical of any aspect of trans ideology) aren't actually out trying to kill trans people, Nazis are all out to kill Jews as far as I can tell. Even if on some off chance TERFs caused trans people to die (I highly doubt it) they would stand up to the reasonable person test and not even be killing trans people by manslaughter, much less murder, so it's basically what you said and what Apollo's Lyre said about it actually being legal to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater after all. Nazis on the other hand are literally like "gas the Jews!" which is at least against the site rules and maybe against the actual law, though Substack's site rules are already stricter than the actual law. So there seems to be a huge difference to me, though maybe some more people who are experts could weigh in.
Agreed. Every free speech platform that allows nazis inevitably ends up getting dominated by them, see Gab. I'm of the opinion that free speech shouldn't be extended to those who would take yours. That's where I draw the line. It applies to many on the far left as well.
The worst one I remember was Ruqqus. I've considered writing an article about them but they weren't ever that big of a platform and anyway, it was a Reddit alternative, ick Reddit, which is also now known to probably have been infamously infested with pedos because of the Epstein and Maxwell circle anyway.
The Hamasniks would be so mad but it's true. As much as my inner Aldo the Apache wants to hunt Nazis it would mess up the algorithm and crap. Then we'd have to click on that crap after we found it. It'd ruin your personal account.
Maybe alt accounts? It'd also take care of the fact that apparently Substack shows who reported posts.
Then it becomes a censorship issue. It's mainly to point out there's more Hamas Nazis on Substack than actual Nazis and actual Hamas Nazis are making way more if one posits using their logic.
Nazis are bad and pro-violence, as are Leninists, I see no campaign against the latter.
Right Nazism and Communism are very similar in ideology except commies have more "enemies". Two sides same hate coin.
You should think more about your first word choices. You can’t ban free speech a little bit or demonetize some and not others based on the same principle. There is no half measure. Other than that you appear to have an evidenced based perspective. And I will play you in worms WMD if you dare.
Well, Substack already bans pornography and it bans incitements to violence despite the Brandenberg Test meaning it's legal to incite people to violence as long as your incitement isn't likely to lead to imminent violent action. We already don't have absolute free speech. If we did we'd be Ruqqus and look what happened to them. Hanania is protected and "TERFs" are protected and Zionists are protected and lots of people are protected because the rules are generally very clear.
Yes. I understand your point. Perhaps it is I who should rephrase my language. These points are often intentionally muddied by the Katz/Kabbas Kabul as previously mentioned and I have become reactive to the extreme when things look like their bad faith bullshit is working. Your lack of acknowledgment of my Worms WMD challenge makes me think your avoiding. 😜
Not avoiding, I just don't have that game. Maybe I should get it though so someone will actually take me up on playing video games.
https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelamckuen/p/lets-play-video-games
The article linked below is a bit of a long read :P but I stand by one of the last sections in particular (the section spanning from Mel Brooks to Ol' Noamers) highlights the importance of broadly defending Nazis' and their ilk's right to speech. I don't feel like typing it again, so anyone interested can check it out and decide for themselves ha
https://honestlyre.substack.com/p/enlightened-gatekeeping-and-elon-756
True, but I was thinking if we reported them in groups and also reported actual Nazis from Katz's list (all eight of them!) they wouldn't be willing or able to ban us. I mean, in non-Bizarro world, Hamas supporters are Nazis because Hamas is Nazis and Nazi sympathizers are Nazis. Of course it should be done carefully. I'll keep up with Katz's Nazi lists and report the actual White supremacists (I capitalized Black this article so I'm capitalizing White too, even if White supremacists would do that they wouldn't capitalize Black because they are inconsistent in the opposite way of DEI politicians) and then I'll report the Kabas Katz Klan for being a bunch of Hamasniks. But not people like Margaret Atwood and many of the other signers, I think they're well-meaning but just clueless.
Margaret Atwood is one of them. You are confusing to me but I really think it is just naivety. I am not knocking you for it, I went through the very same process - I think, Im assuming a lot - but for real, abandon all prior notions of people that you look up too, it will be easier this way. And also if you start to make little exceptions or explain away this and that, it will compromise your credibility and people will notice. I lost Noam Chomsky, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and my sister and mother to COVIDIAN brain wash and it sucks. I argued with my mother what the definition of free speech was and I simplified it “it means you’re allowed to be a nazi”. My mom could not accept the definition of free speech as is. This is what you are dealing with. Good luck too you
Free speech also means you're allowed to write pornography, but that's not allowed on this site. Do you want porn here to go with your Nazis? What about Nazi porn?
I see no issue with free speech as is closely currently practiced. Im in Canada.
You ban pornography from children but pornography is available, to some extent, in the public library. Im unaware of the porn stipulations on Substack admittedly, and still trying to understand your position. If you are ‘down’ for demonetization of anyone, that is just sneaky censorship trying to come in the back door no? Why would you agree to this? Am i misunderstanding your points? I get there is no real such thing as pure free speech as you mentioned before, but it needs no other restrictions than the law is already set up to criminalize. It actually needs more protections from the deep state and their moronic SAN spokesmen.
You can't post porn on Substack and you can't incite violence even though some degree of inciting violence in real life is protected by the Brandenberg Test. We don't have pure free speech on Substack, so as long as just Nazis are banned and they don't start banning "TERFs" and whoever who isn't breaking the rules, what's the problem? Is everything automatically a slippery slope? I don't think banning literally Hitler leads to banning anyone who gets called literally Hitler. If things go in that direction there will be a lot of pushback anyway.
Yes. Here is where we disagree hard, and I think is the real essence of free speech. You can’t ban any one for any reason other then clear calls to violence, which can be sidestepped with dog whistles admittedly. humiliate and scorn them yes, win them in the debate of ideas. But the slippery slope should be redefined as accepted collateral damage. You have to be ok with the silly groups of racists that are everywhere on every platform and in every society, in terms of free speech. None of us will ever be perfect, which is why the principle needs to be practiced as such.
Yes. I am kidding a bit. But the more you look into free speech you will understand the sanctity of ‘slippery slopes’.
And in case there is any confusion, I do not condone prejudice. I just accept it and carry on, and trust the community will react accordingly if a silly group starts to get real power and tries to do exactly what the SAN people are doing. Other then the most die hard,kool aid drinkers out there, No one thinks they are a Nazi, even when they are doing Nazi things. They justify it irrationally or attempt to hoodwink the rest of us like SAN. And I am very happy to see SubStack and Rumble both pass this test recently.
Just like in real life, you must tolerate hitler and porn. I don’t like it either. Well, maybe porn. But I don’t need substack for this
No, Substack literally has rules against those. You are not allowed to post porn or incitements to violence (even ones that pass the Brandenberg Test for free speech in real life) on Substack.
Maybe. I heard the old-school ACLU never really fought for Nazi's rights after all though but I heard conflicting things. I keep thinking the line where bigotry becomes indefensible is when it leads to violence and Nazis are by definition violent, Richard Hanania is not, but I probably should read more myself. If you or other people have things to post, feel free to!
Yes, but "TERFs" (both actually TERFs and anyone else critical of any aspect of trans ideology) aren't actually out trying to kill trans people, Nazis are all out to kill Jews as far as I can tell. Even if on some off chance TERFs caused trans people to die (I highly doubt it) they would stand up to the reasonable person test and not even be killing trans people by manslaughter, much less murder, so it's basically what you said and what Apollo's Lyre said about it actually being legal to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater after all. Nazis on the other hand are literally like "gas the Jews!" which is at least against the site rules and maybe against the actual law, though Substack's site rules are already stricter than the actual law. So there seems to be a huge difference to me, though maybe some more people who are experts could weigh in.