Comic Strips

Within reason.

The line is very clear: You have those rights ... so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.

If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc... Sure: they're free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.

Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it's important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It's important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.

Moderates fuck this up frequently... and I'm saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.

Edit:

It's been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result.... genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed... but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff 🍻

Thank you boys. Thank you.

People that are in favor of legal censorship of political speech make the mistake of assuming that the laws will always be applied to censor the speech that they find objectionable or harmful.. As soon as you start allowing the gov't to determine what speech is and is not acceptable, that power will be used to oppress whatever the currently disfavored group is. The words themselves are not the harm; it's the actions that can arise from the words.

Hitler will be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.

You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.

not taking a side, is taking the side of inaction, which will inevitably result in oligarchy. You can say you don't care, withdraw, and refuse to participate, but don't pretend like it's not an active participation. You're actively in this life, you're just choosing to let the wrong team win.

Insistence on classic freedom of speech doesn't mean centrist, moderate, or apolitical. It means supporting civil liberties without being an ignorant hypocrite that takes those hard-fought liberties for granted. There was a whole movement that was pivotal to the civil liberties movement.

New York Times - Feb. 1, 1933 (Archive.org copy so you can zoom in and read it more clearly)

The moral purists are lashing out with hyperbole since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire has castrated their big issue. They have to pretend letting Trump win by refusing to vote for Harris cuz she "supported genocide" was still the right thing to do, and they weren't just being impatient toddlers demanding a cookie RIGHT NOW. Apparently they don't understand that diplomacy isn't something you can just click on.

Okay, so then do you really want the Trump administration deciding on what speech to ban? Freedom of speech isn't just about defending monsters. It also can save us from them.

Defending the right to unpopular and offensive speech is not the same as compromising with the speech. You can truly abhor what someone's saying and not try to some them.

I once saw a guy on Twitter who edited the second panels compromise sign to say "You're both fucking stupid". He used it as his profile banner.

People like this actually exist in real life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I also would like a reasonable amount of wars.

The reasonable amount of wars just happens to be 0.

The comic is actually self contradictory, because the top-left panel satirizes being tolerant with Hitler, while the bottom left satirizes accepting some wars. No wars would mean letting Hitler just go around annexing countries and creating concentration camps wherever he wants.

People used to defend to the death others’ right to say things (that they may even disagree with): National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

[…] The injunction was granted, prohibiting marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. On behalf of the NSPA, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the injunction. The ACLU assigned civil rights attorneys David Goldberger and Burton Joseph to Collin's cases. The ACLU argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves. The ACLU challenge was unsuccessful at the lower court level.

The ACLU appealed on behalf of NSPA, but both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to expedite the case or to stay the injunction. The ACLU then appealed that refusal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here is the interesting bit:

• Burton Joseph’s parents “ran a business caretaking Jewish cemeteries.” [Wikipedia]
• David Goldberger is “a Jew”. [Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis — The New York Times]

...until you decide it's your right to publicly espouse a terrorist ideology like Nazism.

Then fuck you. Letting you Nazi motherfuckers hide behind the First Amendment was one of the worst mistakes America ever made, and I hope the Italian plumbers of the world make it very clear how welcome you are in decent society.

It is totally fine to be politically moderate. I'd go as far as to go full mathematics professor and claim without proof™ that centrists being tolerant of intolerance and extremism is a thing mostly made up by extremists to discredit them.

I can only speak for Europe, but pretty much every center party you will find here actively opposes such things. They don't go around and beat up nazis on the streets, yes, but that's not the kind of opposition I'd expect from a political party to begin with. If you wanna do that, that's fine by me. The thing is, I have a strong feeling that particularly far-left splinter groups tend to conclude that "centrists bad" or even "centrists basically nazis" because they don't agree with them or their methods.

That said, if you ever want to have any say, your only choices are compromise and violence. It is a huge problem that broad alliances are very hard to achieve among far-left, moderate-left and center parties. At least for people who wish to have a left or left-leaning government. Why do we hardly ever get one? Well, I'd say usually the moderate parties are there, ready to pick up the crown, while the left is fighting over which one to safe first and the most once they claim it. And all that is preventing the far-right from claiming power (if anything at all these days) are the center parties some people want to hate so desperately

I would sort myself into the social-liberal drawer. Moderate left. I think reasoning with nazis, tankies, religious fanatics etc. is a waste of time. I also think you're best off creating an environment where as few people as possible become either. And I think the main ways to achieve this are welfare, education and psychological support. The thing is, I want to make this happen at almost any cost and not just demand it for the next 50 years.

I agree that pureexpression is a horrible idea in combination with the internet. You can't allow people to just rile up eachother with misinformation and become terrorists over issues that don't exist. Be it Jewish space lasers, Mexican rapist immigrants or dumb conspiracy theories like vaccines causing autism.

Especially if you have a following, or echo chambers, content just has to be stopped.

Humanity is not ready for full free flow of information, not as long as dumb idiots believe anything they reas