News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The civil rights movement overturned defacto ethno-fascism & advanced equality by using & promoting civil liberties, not opposing them. Freedom of expression & the free speech movement were instrumental.
Even when the threat is real, compromising civil rights to combat it spills beyond the threat & backfires. Read about the Red Scare & McCarthyism to see government restrict civil liberties in the name of security (the Soviets were spying in the Manhattan Project & Federal government), Congress seize the chance to wield a partisan weapon against anyone they flimsily accuse of "Un-American" activities, the lives ruined through rights abuses, the work it took to wind back those laws. Truman criticized those restrictions as a "mockery of the Bill of Rights" and a "long step toward totalitarianism". For his reckless witch hunt against communists, Joseph McCarthy was criticized as "the greatest asset the Kremlin has". Persecution ultimately harmed anti-communist efforts more than help them, and critics argued it distracted from the "real (but limited) extent of Soviet espionage in America".
Read about how basic freedoms like speech & assembly were indispensable for disenfranchised activists to advance universal suffrage as they fought to lift restrictions due to property ownership, race, poll taxes, tests, sex, age.
Read about the considerable work those activists performed using their civil liberties to organize, picket, resist, & act in civil disobedience to gain the expanded freedoms you take for granted today. Look at their work & struggles from the abolitionist movement to black lives matter, and look at the work the activists of today are not doing. Notice how they didn't organize to weaken basic protections whereas people who think like you argue we should.
Arguing to squander basic protections with some wishful thinking that elected authority will reliably fight your causes for you without as easily turning against you
Like you, I oppose fascists and (more generally) authoritarians, but I'm very clear about why. Authoritarians don't respect limits to authority: they would tear down those pesky rights & liberties that protect free society & stand in their way, and they would readily crush people & everything we hold dear for their unworthy cause.
"Resisting" authoritarians chipping away at free society by chipping away even more is exactly what authoritarians would want. How thinkers like you don't see that is beyond me.
Your prescription is wrong & serves authoritarians: I cannot abide it.
Your belief that I don't understand these ideas or haven't encountered them is incorrect. In fact I used to prioritize those ideas myself, and encouraged others to do the same.
I don't even really disagree with most of that, I'm not talking (at all) about clamping down on free expression in a general sense. I'm saying that a free society must not equally allow every possible expression, and that anything invoking and glorifying Nazism in specific is beyond the pale and must be stopped, including violently when necessary. My point of view is not extreme, nor is it authoritarian (by my measure). There are thriving democratic nations who do exactly this right now, Germany being the example I have in mind (though I do acknowledge their special history with regard to that precise topic).
I'm also saying you seem far more interested in splitting hairs and discussing theory than solving problems. And that works fantastically for the right-wing folks who only care about winning. They don't argue ideology in good faith, they instead exploit the willingness of others to do so (like you're insisting on here) because it drags them into unproductive conversations and creates feuds (like we're doing here).
I'm not advocating for anything I'd call authoritarian, but that word means something different to everyone. I am saying tolerance must have its limits, or the spread of intolerance over time is guaranteed. I'm really uninterested in going further with you. You are not bringing me anything new or that I find valuable. You are bringing me points I have considered, largely accepted, and in narrow cases, have chosen to reject. I didn't say I've never gone into a scholarly direction on this stuff. I said I am uninterested in doing so here. My original comment about paradox of intolerance is something that person needed to hear. I never had any intention to be rigorous with my telling, and I stand by everything I said regardless.
I can tell that you feel really strongly about this stuff and I think we're on the same side. I think I probably agree with you more than you realize. I want to say one more time - I'm not interested in discussing these details. It isn't that I don't find them valuable, can't understand them, or never have learned about them. There are other valid reasons for not wanting to, and I'd appreciate a little intellectual charity from you. But that's yours to give, not mine to demand. I do wish you well.
Edit: softened tone at the end